Criminal Procedure (Second Exam) - Atty. Europa

1
People v. Edgar Lagmay, April 21, 1999.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Second Exam)
“where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional
presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused.”
RULE 115 - RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED (People v. Benemerito, 264 SCRA 677) When the proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt has not been reached, then the presumption of innocence has
This is more Constitutional than Remedial. not been overcome. Then the accused will be entitled to an acquittal.
There are varying degrees of evidence required

Section 1. Rights of accused at the trial. —In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall be entitled to the following rights: 1) Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt (highest) - criminal case. Since
there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. When
(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable 2) Preponderance of evidence - civil case
doubt. 3) Substantial evidence - most administrative cases
4) Probable Cause
- The basis for other rights (Rule 114, right to bail, right to be informed
of the charge against him) On the right to be informed of the charges against him
(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Rationale:
“Inasmuch as `not only the liberty but even the life of the accused may be at stake,
(c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the
it is always wise and proper that the accused should be fully apprised of the true
proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The accused
charges against them, and thus avoid all and any possible surprises which may
may, however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set
be detrimental to their rights and interests.”
forth in his tail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for
purposes of identification. The absence of the accused without justifiable cause
The main purpose of this requirement is to enable the accused to suitably prepare
at the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be
his defense. He is presumed to be innocent and has, therefore, no
present thereat. When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed
independent knowledge of the acts that constitute the offense with which he
to have waived his right to be present on all subsequent trial dates until
is charged. (Matilde v. Jabson, 68 SCRA 456)
custody over him is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to
defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can
- He is presumed to be innocent and has no independent knowledge of
properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel.
the acts which constitute the offense which he is charged with.
- Atty. Europa: I have not seen a court allow the last one. A good Practical consequence:
example is Marcos when he was charged with murder.
- “A lawyer who handles his own case has a fool for a client.” It is very People of the Philippines v. Artemio Calayca Jan. 20, 1999.
difficult to have an objective point of view. Marcos won and got People of the Philippines v. Cesar Larena June 29, 1999.
himself acquitted.
- The Great Debates in the Senate book A person charged with simple rape cannot be convicted of qualified forms of rape if
- Basis of the Right to Counsel: No matter how well-educated a person the qualifying circumstances are not stated in the Information. Otherwise there will
is, he may not be sufficiently learned in the rules of court, in the be a violation of his right to be informed.
presentation of evidence such that he might not be able to sufficiently
establish his defenses. (decided case) On the right of the accused to be present and defended by counsel
(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on - Being in court for some accused is very stressful. Some clients do not
matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner want to go to court because they feel that they will be treated as guilty.
prejudice him. He MAY not go to court if his presence is not required by the Court. If his
presence is required by the Court but he fails to go to Court, then it will
(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself. be violative of the provisions of his bail.
- An accused should not be allowed to hold hostage the proceedings in a
(f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Either criminal case by repeatedly invoking his right to counsel.
party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is
deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be found in the Philippines, Take Note: This is different from Trial in Absentia (when the accused fails to appear
unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, and he is not represented).
judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, the
adverse party having the opportunity to cross-examine him. People of the Philippines v. Rufino Bermas, April 21, 1999.
- In practical application it takes the form of the right to cross-examine "In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given an
the witnesses presented. opportunity to be heard by counsel. The right to be heard would be of little avail if it
does not include the right to be heard by counsel. Even the most intelligent or
educated man may have no skill in the science of the law, particularly in the rules of
(g) To have a compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses
procedure, and, without counsel, he may be convicted not because he is guilty but
and production of other evidence on his behalf.
because he does not know how to establish his innocence. And this can happen
more easily to persons who are ignorant or uneducated. It is for this reason that the
(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial. right to be assisted by counsel is deemed so important that it has become a
constitutional right and it so implemented that under our rules of procedure it is not
(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law. (1a) enough for the Court to apprise an accused of his right to have an attorney, it is not
enough to ask him whether he desires the aid of an attorney, but it is essential that
the court should assign one de oficio for him if he so desires and he is poor org rant
him a reasonable time to procure an attorney of his own." (Citing People of the
On the Presumption of Innocence
Philippines v. Holgado 85 Phil. 752)
The Equipoise Rule
On the right to remain silent + Right against self-incrimination
_________________________________________________
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE · ATTY. CAESAR EUROPA · 2020
AMPATUAN · GANADE · MASAPOL
2
investigation "to be informed" implies a correlative obligation on the part of the
The right to remain silent is differently applied throughout the different phases of an police investigator to explain, and contemplates an effective communication that
arrest. results in understanding of what is conveyed. Short of this, there is a denial of the
right.
Upon his arrest: He has the right to remain silent as well as his other Constitutional
rights. People of the Philippines. v. Ayson July 7, 1989.
During trial: “His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.” The Court cannot In fine, a person suspected of having committed a crime and subsequently charged
make conclusions against the accused just because he refused to testify. He with its commission in court, has the following rights in that matter of his testifying or
cannot be compelled to testify against himself. Otherwise, that would render the producing evidence, to wit:
right not to testify nugatory.
1) BEFORE THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT (or with the public prosecutor,
What if he testifies? He opens himself to cross-examination. He still has the right for preliminary investigation), but after having been taken into custody or
to remain silent as to other cases. In the course of the cross-examination, if he is otherwise deprived of his liberty in some significant way, and on being
ever asked any question that tend to incriminate him for some other crime, then he interrogated by the police: the continuing right to remain silent and to
can REFUSE to answer such. If you are the lawyer, you should already object. This counsel, and to be informed thereof, not to be subjected to force,
includes an exposure to other criminal cases. violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiates the free
will; and to have evidence obtained in violation of these rights rejected;
Atty. Europa: My client was charged with murder. Our defense was self-defense. In and
the course of the cross-examination, the prosecutor was asking my client about
proficiency with guns. “It only took you two shots and two hits in the fatal parts of 2) AFTER THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT —
the body? HAVE YOU KILLED ANYBODY ELSE BEFORE?” I objected, that is a
question that will tend to expose the accused for another offense. a) to refuse to be a witness;
b) not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such
HOW BROAD CAN THE CROSS-EXAMINATION BE? refusal;
c) to testify to his own behalf, subject to cross-examination by
- English Rule on Cross-examination: For as long as you can show that the prosecution;
your questions are on matters that are relevant to the case. d) WHILE TESTIFYING, to refuse to answer a specific question
- American Rule: It is strictly limited to what was covered by the direct which tends to incriminate him for some crime other than that
examination. for which he is prosecuted.
- It is generally not applied in the Philippines, we follow the English Rule.
A pro-forma question and answer form prepared by the police is insufficient
When to apply the American Rule? When it is an accused in the criminal case to inform the accused of his rights prior to questioning him under custodial
who is testifying in his own behalf. investigation.
“The misplaced rule on evidence.” People v. Benjamin Sabayoc,

G.R. No. 147201, January 15, 2004
Atty. Europa: I was the counsel for defense. There were questions which were not citing People v. Jara, 144 SCRA 516.
included in the direct examination. “To elicit all important facts relating to the issue.”
The cross-examination is STRICTLY limited to those raised in the direct “The stereotyped "advice" appearing in practically all extrajudicial confessions
examination. which are later repudiated has assumed the nature of a "legal form" or model.
Police investigators either automatically type it together with the curt "Opo" as the
For example, a piece of cloth was found, can the accused be made to wear it? answer or ask the accused to sign it or even copy it in their handwriting. Its tired,
Is it violative of his right against self-incrimination? ALLOWED. punctilious, fixed, and artificially stately style does not create an impression of
voluntariness or even understanding on the part of the accused. The showing of a
If a footprint was taken, it can be matched against his footprint. spontaneous, free, and unconstrained giving up of a right is missing.
Taking of blood sample is also allowed.
The right to be informed requires "the transmission of meaningful information rather
WHERE IT IS PURELY MECHANICAL, it is allowed. than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional
IF IT INVOLVES UTILIZING YOUR IMAGINATION, it is not allowed. principle." It should allow the suspect to consider the effects and consequences of
any waiver he might make of these rights. More so when the suspect is one like
People of the Philippines v. Donato Continente Sayaboc, who has an educational attainment of Grade IV, was a stranger in Nueva
G.R. Nos. 100801-02 August 25, 2000 Vizcaya, and had already been under the control of the police officers for two days
previous to the investigation, albeit for another offense.”
The rights to remain silent and to counsel may be waived by the accused provided
that the constitutional requirements are complied with. It must appear clear that the A counsel assisting the accused who remains silent throughout the custodial
accused was initially accorded his right to be informed of his right to remain silent investigation indicates that the accused was not afforded his constitutional
and to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. In right to a competent counsel.
addition, the waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel. If the waiver
complies with the constitutional requirements, then the extrajudicial confession will People v. Benjamin Sabayoc, G.R. No. 147201, January 15, 2004 citing People
be tested for voluntariness, i.e., if it was given freely — without coercion, v. Deniega, 321 Phil. 1028, 1043 (1995). READ CASE
intimidation, inducement, or false promises; and credibility, i.e., if it was consistent
with the normal experience of mankind. “The desired role of counsel in the process of custodial investigation is rendered
meaningless if the lawyer merely gives perfunctory advice as opposed to a
We have consistently declared in a string of cases that the advice or "Paliwanag" meaningful advocacy of the rights of the person undergoing questioning. If the
found at the beginning of extrajudicial confessions that merely enumerate to the advice given is so cursory as to be useless, voluntariness is impaired.”
accused his custodial rights do not meet the standard provided by law. They are
terse and perfunctory statements that do not evince a clear and sufficient effort to “This is not to say that a counsel should try to prevent an accused from making a
inform and explain to the appellant his constitutional rights. We emphasized that confession. Indeed, as an officer of the court, it is an attorney's duty to, first and
when the constitution requires a person under investigation "to be informed" of his foremost, seek the truth. However, counsel should be able, throughout the
rights to remain silent and to have an independent and competent counsel investigation, to explain the nature of the questions by conferring with his client and
preferably of his own choice, it must be presumed to contemplate the transmission halting the investigation should the need arise. The duty of a lawyer includes
of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation ensuring that the suspect under custodial investigation is aware that the right of an
of an abstract constitutional principle. In other words, the right of a person under accused to remain silent may be invoked at any time.”
_________________________________________________
3
- It is not simply dependent on the passage of time alone. It is dependent
On the right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself on a lot of factors.
- Deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by unjustified
Beltran v. Samson, 53 Phil. 570 (1929). postponement or vexatious, capricious delays.
- Tatad Ruling
The prohibition against compelling a man to be a witness against himself extends to
any attempt to compel the accused to furnish a specimen of his handwriting for the v. Right to Speedy disposition of cases
purpose of comparing it with the handwriting in a document in a prosecution for
falsification. "Writing is something more than moving the body, or the hand, or the Basis: Justice delayed is justice denied
fingers; writing is not a purely mechanical act because it requires the application of
intelligence and attention." Roque v. Desierto IN RELATION TO RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF
CASES
People of the Philippines v. Radel Gallarde Feb. 17, 2000 G.R. No. 129978. May 12, 1999
“The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination proscribes the use Consistent with the rights of all persons to due process of law and to speedy trial,
of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from the accused and not the Constitution commands the Office of the Ombudsman to act promptly on
the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material. Purely mechanical complaints filed against public officials. Thus, the failure of said office to resolve a
acts are not included in the prohibition as the accused does not thereby speak his complaint that has been pending for six years is clearly violative of this mandate
guilt, hence the assistance and guiding hand of counsel is not required. The and the public officials’ rights. In such event, the aggrieved party is entitled to the
essence of the right against self-incrimination is testimonial compulsion, that is, the dismissal of the complaint.
giving of evidence against himself through a testimonial act. Hence, it has been
held that a woman charged with adultery may be compelled to submit to physical Canson v. Garchitorena,
examination to determine her pregnancy; and an accused may be compelled to SB-99-9-J. July 28, 199
submit to physical examination and to have a substance taken from his body for
medical determination as to whether he was suffering from gonorrhea which was Once again we reiterate that tired old legal maxim, justice delayed is justice denied.
contracted by his victim; to expel morphine from his mouth; to have the outline of It need not be over-emphasized that this oft-repeated adage requires the
his foot traced to determine its identity with bloody footprints; and to be expeditious resolution of disputes much more so in criminal cases where an
photographed or measured, or his garments or shoes removed or replaced, or to accused is constitutionally guaranteed the right to a speedy trial, which, as defined
move his body to enable the foregoing things to be done.” is one "[c]onducted according to the law of criminal procedure and the rules and
regulations, free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays." The primordial
On the Right to cross-examine the witnesses against him purpose of this constitutional right is to prevent the oppression of the accused by
delaying criminal prosecution for an indefinite period of time. It, likewise, is intended
“You can only do that through a good cross-examination. Otherwise, you may even to prevent delays in the administration of justice by requiring judicial tribunals to
destroy your own case through a bad cross-examination. It is a very important and proceed with reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminal prosecutions.
effective tool in litigation.”
Binay vs. Sandiganbayan
People of the Philippines v. Edgar Crispin, G.R. Nos. 120681-83, October 1, 1999.
G.R. No. 128360. March 2, 2000, March 2, 2000
However, the right to speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is
- In criminal cases, it is not enough that only an affidavit is presented. deemed violated only when the proceedings is attended by vexatious, capricious,
There must always be a cross-examination. and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are
asked for and secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of
Affidavits cannot be allowed because they cannot be cross-examined. time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. Equally applicable
is the balancing test used to determine whether a defendant has been denied his
An affidavit is hearsay and has weak probative value, unless the affiant is placed on right to a speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of a case for that matter, in which the
the witness stand to testify on it. Being hearsay evidence, it is inadmissible because conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant is weighed, and such factors as
the party against whom it is presented is deprived of his right and opportunity to the length of the delay, the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert
cross-examine the person to whom the statement or writing is attributed. The right such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay. The concept of
to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him is a fundamental right of speedy disposition is a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept.
every accused which may not be summarily done away with. Another reason why
the right to confrontation is so essential is because the trial judge's duty to observe The Balancing Test. Shall be discussed more in Rule 119. Weigh the rights of the
and test the credibility of the affiant can only be met by his being brought to the accused to have speedy trial and the right of the State to prosecute the case.
witness stand. That the affidavit formed part of the record of the preliminary
investigation does not justify its being treated as evidence because the record of Be familiar with the different cases by the Supreme Court on the right to speedy
the preliminary investigation does not form part of the record of the case in the disposition of cases
RTC. Such record must be introduced as evidence during trial, and the trial court is
not compelled to take judicial notice of the same. The prosecution having failed to RIGHT TO APPEAL. The only right under Rule 115 not found in the Constitution. It
present Cesar Delima as a witness, his sworn statement was patently inadmissible is purely statutory. There is a clear right to appeal only ONCE. It is a matter of right
and deserves no consideration at all. once.
On the Right to compulsory processes Remember: Where it is purely mechanical (fit clothes, footprint marks, blood
sample, semen), it is allowed.
- One may be compelled through a subpoena.
- Atty. Europa: I have only utilized subpoena for documentary evidence If it involves utilizing your imagination and intellect (such as writing a
and not to call witnesses since the witness might change his testimony handwriting sample). What is prohibited is to bring into existence an evidence
since you had him arrested. that does not exist.
If the defense believes that there are other witnesses who could have exculpated A man can be compelled to give a semen sample. He is not being asked to bring
the accused, it should have called for them even by compulsory process. (People v. something that does not exist yet.
Boholst, 152 SCRA 263 [1987])
On the Right to Speedy Trial RULE 116 - ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA

IMPORTANT RULE
_________________________________________________
4
Remember the very purpose of arraignment and plea is to comply with the when the cases were being retried after the appellant had been arraigned,
Constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him. appellant's counsel filed a joint manifestation with the prosecution, adopting all
proceedings had previous to the arraignment of the appellant. There was, therefore,
no violation of the appellant's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and
Section 1. Arraignment and plea; how made.— cause of the accusation against him.
(a) The accused must be arraigned before the court where the complaint or What is the effect of arraignment on the right of an accused to preliminary
information was filed or assigned for trial. The arraignment shall be made in investigation? If an accused fails to raise the defect prior to arraignment, then all
open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused with a copy of the those defects are waived. (Section 26 Rule 114: must be raised before entering the
complaint or information, reading the same in the language or dialect known plea)
to him, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. The prosecution
may call at the trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or The rule is that the right to preliminary investigation is waived when the accused
information. (last part is not really a part of arraignment) fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at arraignment. (Go v. Court
of Appeals, 206 SCRA 138)
(b) The accused must be present at the arraignment and must personally enter
his plea. Both arraignment and plea shall be made of record, but failure to do so Exceptional case:
shall not affect the validity of the proceedings. Francisco Larranaga v. Court of Appeals, March 13, 1998 GO OVER THE
RESOLUTION/DECISION
(c) When the accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea, a plea of not
guilty shall be entered for him. (1a) - There was no waiver because there were repeated instances from the
very beginning where the accused raised defects in the preliminary
(d) When the accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence, his plea investigation.
shall be deemed withdrawn and a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him. (n)
“The rule is that the right to preliminary investigation is waived when the accused
(e) When the accused is under preventive detention, his case shall be raffled fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at arraignment. Petitioner, in
and its records transmitted to the judge to whom the case was raffled within this case, has been actively and consistently demanding a regular preliminary
three (3) days from the filing of the information or complaint. The accused shall investigation even before he was charged in court. Also, petitioner refused to enter
be arraigned within ten (10) days from the date of the raffle. The pre-trial a plea during the arraignment because there was a pending case in this Court
conference of his case shall be held within ten (10) days after arraignment. (n) regarding his right to avail of a regular preliminary investigation. Clearly, the acts of
petitioner and his counsel are inconsistent with a waiver. Preliminary investigation is
part of procedural due process. It cannot be waived unless the waiver appears to be
(f) The private offended party shall be required to appear at the arraignment for
clear and informed.”
purposes of plea bargaining, determination of civil liability, and other matters
requiring his presence. In case of failure of the offended party to appear despite
“reading the same in the language or dialect known to him”
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
- The right of the accused, not his lawyer.
of the trial prosecutor alone. (cir. 1-89)
- Courts employ interpreters but you cannot expect the interpreter to know
our dialects (Ata-Manobo). The Court needs to hire an interpreter.
(g) Unless a shorter period is provided by special law or Supreme Court circular, - Whatever the language is, it must be done in a manner where it is clear
the arraignment shall be held within thirty (30) days from the date the court to the court that the accused understands.
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The time of the pendency of
a motion to quash or for a bill of particulars or other causes justifying suspension People of the Philippines vs. Arnel B. Alicando Dec. 12, 1995
of the arraignment shall be excluded in computing the period. (sec. 2, cir. 38-98) People of the Philippines vs. Melchor Estomaca , April 22, 1996
- rarely happens “The records of the court must clearly indicate full compliance with Section 1 of Rule
116, otherwise, the arraignment, and consequently all subsequent proceedings will
be declared null and void.
Paragraph A The requirement that the reading be made in a language or dialect that the accused
understands and knows is a mandatory requirement, just as the whole of said
Is arraignment mandatory or can it be waived? IT CANNOT BE WAIVED Section 1 should be strictly followed by trial courts. This the law affords the accused
by way of implementation of the all-important constitutional mandate regarding the
People of the Philippines v. Demetrio Cabale AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE right of an accused to be informed of the precise nature of the accusation leveled at
May 8, 1990 him and is, therefore, really an avenue for him to be able to hoist the necessary
defense in rebuttal thereof. It is an integral aspect of the due process clause under
- SC allowed that the accused was not arraigned. Normally, everything the Constitution.”
that was done will be rendered nugatory. The accused and defense
jointly manifested that they were going to adopt all the evidence that PARAGRAPH (b) The accused must be present at the arraignment and must
were already presented. personally enter his plea. Both arraignment and plea shall be made of record,
- SC: The joining manifestation cured the defect. but failure to do so shall not affect the validity of the proceedings. This is a
- Now: The minutes of an arraignment is assigned a different color so that very important amendment. Before, the lawyer may enter a plea for the accused.
they can easily see that the case has been arraigned.
- This can be very tedious. There shall be no duplicitous information. - The accused really has to appear in court. No SPA will be entertained.
One arraigned for violation of BP 22, the reading will be almost exactly
the same and the difference will only be on the check number and date. NO ARRAIGNMENT BY PROXY. This is one of the instances when the rules
- The rules allowed the waiving of information in multiple cases. It is now requires the presence of the accused (cf., Bail)
the duty of the counsel for the accused to attest that he has explained to
the accused the meaning and the details of the accused. The judge is PARAGRAPH (c) When the accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional
also required to ask the accused questions that he understands the plea, a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him. (1a)
charges against him.
- Atty. Europa: Sometimes I advise the client to refuse to enter a plea so
In the instant cases, counsel for the appellant entered into trial without objecting that there will be no implied waiver. We would not wish to make any
that his client, the appellant herein, had not yet been arraigned. Said counsel had implied waiver that might be taken against the accused.
also the full opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses for the prosecution. Then,
_________________________________________________
5
What is considered by law to be a proper plea of guilty is an absolute plea of guilt. Will the absence of the private complainant render the arraignment null and
void? NO. The presence of the private respondent is not a mandatory requirement
If the accused will make a conditional plea, i.e., I am guilty but it was his fault or for the validity of arraignment. He appears for purposes of plea bargaining. But if
“Opo sinakal ko sya pero kasi inunahan nya ako” or if he refuses to plea at all, the there is notice to him, he must be there.
court will enter a plea of not guilty.
This is from Section B par. 1 of Supreme Court Circular No. 1-89. However, there is
What is deemed admitted when a plea of guilty is entered? an additional proviso that the failure of the private offended party to appear will be a
waiver of the requirement of his consent to a plea bargain.”
"While an unqualified plea of guilty is mitigating, it, at the same time, constitutes an
admission of all the material facts alleged in the information, including the Absence of the offended party will not render the arraignment null and void. It is
aggravating circumstances therein recited.” (People v. Egido, 90 Phil. 762; People required for the purpose of plea bargaining. If there was notice and he still fails to
v. Santos and Vicente, 105 Phil. 40) appear, there can be a plea bargain to a lesser offense with the consent of the
prosecutor.
What is then not deemed admitted?
Plea of guilty to a lesser offense
1. Facts and circumstances not alleged in the complaint or information;
2. Conclusions of fact;
3. Jurisdiction of the court (conferred by law not by admission); Section 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. —At arraignment, the accused,
4. Sufficiency of the Complaint or Information; with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by
the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in
“When the accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence, his plea the offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be
shall be deemed withdrawn and a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him. allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not
(n)” guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary. (sec. 4, cir.
38-98)
- Exculpatory means that it shows that there is no criminal liability.
- In cases punishable by death, this is mandatory. Even if the accused
pleads guilty, it is required by the rules that the prosecution must still At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the offended party and prosecutor,
present evidence. After the prosecution presents evidence, the accused may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is
will also be given the opportunity to present evidence. necessarily included in the offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the
- In cases that are not punishable by death, it is discretionary on the part accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing
of the court whether to require the prosecution, and then the accused, to his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary.
still present evidence or not. (Sec. 2, Rule 116)
People of the Philippines v. Padernal, Plea bargaining in criminal cases “is a process whereby the accused and the
21 SCRA 34 (1967). prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court
approval” (People of the Philippines v. Martin Villarama, June 23, 1992)
- What if the accused believes that his defense is incomplete self-
defense? Why? It also saves the State’s resources.
- The accused was able to establish all the elements of self-defense (this
should have been a justifying circumstance). The judge acquitted the REQUISITES
accused. However, he did not change the plea. Hindi ka ba naman
gago? On record nagplead ng guilty tapos inacquit mo. You should have 1. It must be before trial (cf., People of the Philippines v. Martin
recorded that a plea of guilty was withdrawn and then a plea of not guilty Villarama)
is entered. Then, acquit the accused. 2. The prosecutor and the offended party must consent except if the
offended party fails to appear during arraignment DESPITE NOTICE
Where the accused pleads guilty and proceeds, in a hearing to prove the mitigating in which case the consent of the prosecutor alone is sufficient;
circumstance of incomplete self-defense, to state facts constituting full and 3. The plea of guilt must be to
complete self-defense. The trial judge should declare his plea of guilty thereby
withdrawn, order that a plea of not guilty be entered and proceed to trial on the People of the Philippines vs. Martin Villarama June 23, 1992
merits.
- Until when are you allowed to?
“When the accused is under preventive detention, his case shall be raffled and its - Gauge: It is whether or not evidence establishing the guilt of the
records transmitted to the judge to whom the case was raffled within three (3) accused has already been presented.
days from the filing of the information or complaint. The accused shall be arraigned - Once the evidence presented is already enough to justify that the guilty
within ten (10) days from the date of the raffle. The pre-trial conference of his case beyond reasonable doubt has been established, then plea bargaining
shall be held within ten (10) days after arraignment.” can no longer be allowed.
Atty. Europa: This is not observed due to the voluminous cases. You will come to In the case at bar, the private respondent (accused) moved to plead guilty to a
realize that there is a disconnect between people who make the rules and the lesser offense after the prosecution had already rested its case. In such situation,
reality on the ground. jurisprudence has provided the trial court and the Office of the Prosecutor with a
yardstick within which their discretion may be properly exercised. Thus, in People v.
Some of these requirements are impractical. Kayanan (L-39355, May 31, 1978, 83 SCRA 437, 450), We held that the rules allow
such a Plea only when the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to
This provision is NEW and is meant to ensure compliance with the right of an establish the guilt of the crime charged. In his concurring opinion in People v.
accused to speedy trial. Parohinog (G.R. No. L-47462, February 28, 1980, 96 SCRA 373, 377), then Justice
Antonio Barredo explained clearly and tersely the rationale or the law:
“The private offended party shall be required to appear at the arraignment for
purposes of plea bargaining, determination of civil liability, and other matters ". . . (A)fter the prosecution had already rested, the only basis on which the fiscal
requiring his presence. In case of failure of the offended party to appear and the court could rightfully act in allowing the appellant to change his former plea
despite due notice, the court may allow the accused to enter a plea of guilty of not guilty to murder to guilty to the lesser crime of homicide could be nothing
to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged with more nothing less than the evidence already in the record. The reason for this being
the conformity of the trial prosecutor alone. (cir. 1-89) that Section 4 of Rule 118 (now Section 2, Rule 116) under which a plea for a
_________________________________________________
6
lesser offense is allowed was not and could not have been intended as a procedure People v. Joseph Lakindanum G.R. No. 127123. March 10, 1999. People v.
for compromise, much less bargaining." Dayot, 187 SCRA 637 reiterated in People v. Jonathan Besonia G.R. Nos.
151284-85, February 5, 2004 and People v. Joselito A. Lopit G.R. No. 177742,
“necessarily included” December 17, 2008.
Homicide and Murder. The only difference is the existence of a qualifying The rule is that where the accused desires to plead guilty to a capital offense, the
circumstance. court is enjoined to observe the following:
UNDER THE 1985 RULES It severely limits that the accused may plead guilty to a 1. It must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full
lesser offense. Subsequently, an accused was allowed to plead guilty to an offense comprehension of the consequences of his plea;
not necessarily included. But, this was abused so they reapplied the old rules 2. The court must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the
guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and
“regardless of whether or not it is necessarily included in the crime charged, or is 3. The court must ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his
cognizable by a court of lesser jurisdiction than the trial court” behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.
Theoretically, under the 1985 Rules, an accused charged with serious physical Guidelines on what is covered by the “searching inquiry” particularly in
injuries could plead guilty to jaywalking. This produced too much confusion and the relation to cases punishable by death.
Supreme Court apparently decided to go back to the language of the 1964.
People v. Jonathan Besonia,
Thus, the rule under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure now require that the G.R. Nos. 151284-85, February 5, 2004.
plea be made to an offense that is necessarily included in the offense charged.
“A searching inquiry must focus on the voluntariness of the plea and the full
Can a person charged with murder plead guilty to attempted homicide? Hindi comprehension by the accused of the consequences of the plea so that the plea of
mo na pwedeng buhayin ang patay. guilty can truly be said to be based on a free and informed judgment. While there
can be no hard and fast rule as to how a judge may conduct a searching inquiry, we
Panfilo Amatan vs. Vicente Aujero declared in People v. Aranzado (418 Phil. 125 [2001]) citing a plethora of cases,
Sept. 27, 1995 that it would be well for the court to do the following:
“Section 2, Rule 116 of the 1985 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as 1) Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was brought into the
amended, allows the accused in a criminal case to plead guilty "to a lesser offense custody of the law; (b) whether he had the assistance of a competent
regardless of whether or not it is necessarily included in the crime charged." The counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigations; and (c)
fact of death of the victim for which the accused Rodrigo Umpad was criminally under what conditions he was detained and interrogated during the
liable, cannot by simple logic and plain common sense be reconciled with the plea investigations. These the court shall do in order to rule out the possibility
of guilty to the lower offense of attempted homicide. The crime of homicide as that the accused has been coerced or placed under a state of duress by
defined in Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code necessarily produces death, actual threats of physical harm coming from malevolent or avenging
attempted homicide does not. Concededly, hiatus in the law exists in the case quarters.
before us, which could either lead to a misapprehension of Section 2 of Rule 116 or
to outright confusion. Such a result was itself recognized by the Deputy Court 2) Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether he has
Administrator when he recommended an amendment to the provision in his conferred with, and completely explained to, the accused the meaning
Memorandum”. and consequences of a plea of guilty.
What is the least possible crime that a person charged with murder can plead 3) Elicit information about the personality profile of the accused, such as his
guilty to? Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. A crime premised on culpa is age, socio-economic status, and educational background which may
deemed to be necessarily included in a crime of dolo (Do not forget Article 3, RPC) serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and informed
At least patay pa rin, hindi mo binuhay ang patay. plea of guilty.
Plea bargaining in Drug cases used to be prohibited. It became a problem once 4) Inform the accused the exact length of imprisonment or nature of the
it was allowed. penalty under the law and the certainty that he will serve such sentence.
Not infrequently indeed an accused pleads guilty in the hope of a lenient
PLEA OF GUILTY TO A CAPITAL OFFENSE treatment or upon bad advice or because of promises of the authorities
or parties of a lighter penalty should he admit guilt or express remorse. It
Section 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence.—When is the duty of the judge to see to it that the accused does not labor under
the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a these mistaken impressions.
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea and shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt and 5) Require the accused to fully narrate the incident that spawned the
the precise degree of culpability. The accused may present evidence in his charges against him or make him reenact the manner in which he
behalf. (3a) perpetrated the crime, or cause him to supply missing details of
significance.
Despite a plea of guilt to a capital offense, the Court MUST require the prosecution Moreover, in some cases, we ruled that the trial court should also explain to the
to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and to determine the precise accused the essential elements of the crime charged, as well as the penalty and
degree of culpability. civil liabilities.”
If capital offense will be revived, what will happen? The Court shall conduct a People of the Philippines vs. Paulino Sevilleno March 29, 1999.
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea. Facts: After the accused pleaded guilty to rape with homicide, the judge asked him
only two questions, First, “Do you understand your plea of guilt?” and second “Do
Searching Inquiry you know that your plea of guilt could bring death penalty?”
Judge: Do you understand that you can be sentenced to death because of your
plea? Okay lang ako Judge. This is not enough. The judge must ask questions to Held: “Only a clear, definite and unconditional plea of guilty by the accused must be
convince himself that it is the accused who did it and understands what he is doing. accepted by trial courts. There is no such rule which provides that simply because
the accused pleaded guilty to the charge that his conviction should automatically
follow. A judge should always be an embodiment of competence. As an
administrator of justice, it is imperative that the trial judge carry out his duties ably
_________________________________________________
7
and competently so as not to erode public confidence in the judiciary.” The judge
was found to have committed grave abuse of discretion. Counsel De Parte – engaged by the accused himself.
Counsel De Officio – appointed by the court to defend the accused.
Extra Notes:
Atty. Europa: There will be time wherein you will be asked to act as counsel de What are the steps that a court must take to properly inform the accused of
officio for purposes of arraignment. Take that duty VERY seriously. Remember that his right to counsel?
there are many rights that may be waived upon arraignment.
People of the Philippines v. Holgado, 85 Phil. 752
Normally, when a lawyer is called to act as counsel de officio, the lawyer does not
fully review the case. They just coach the client to plead not guilty. This is not right. 1) It must inform the defendant that it is his right to have attorney before
It is the lawyer's duty to examine the record. It is your job to protect the rights of the being arraigned;
accused. 2) After giving him such information the court must ask him if he desires the
aid of an attorney;
I am quite against mandatory legal aid. It should come from the heart so that you 3) If he desires and is unable to employ attorney, the court must assign
can expect zealous and enthusiastic service. attorney de oficio to defend him; and
4) if the accused desires to procure an attorney of his own the court must
If and when you become a judge, do not appoint a fresh lawyer if the case is grant him a reasonable time therefor.
complicated. You may appoint a fresh lawyer and an experienced lawyer for
mentoring. The right of an accused to a counsel de parte is not absolute
People of the Philippines v. Mario Serzo, Jr., June 20, 1997

Section 4. Plea of guilty to non-capital offense; reception of evidence,
discretionary.— When the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense, the “Accordingly, an accused may exercise his right to counsel by electing to be
court may receive evidence from the parties to determine the penalty to be represented either by a court-appointed lawyer or by one of his own choice. While
imposed. (4) his right to be represented by counsel is immutable, his option to secure the
services of counsel de parte, however, is not absolute. The court is obliged to
balance the privilege to retain a counsel of choice against the state's and the
offended party's equally important right to speedy and adequate justice. Thus, the
Reception of Evidence is DISCRETIONARY. Courts have a lot of cases.
court may restrict the accused's option to retain a counsel de parte if the accused
Remember that non-capital offenses include those punishable by Reclusion
insists on an attorney he cannot afford, or the chosen counsel is not a member of
Perpetua.
the bar, or the attorney declines to represent the accused for a valid reason, e.g.,
conflict of interest and the like.”
Please take note of the exceptional case of:
People v. Mendoza, 231 SCRA 264. Section 7. Appointment of counsel de oficio. —The court, considering the
gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the questions that may arise, shall
Facts: Accused pleaded guilty to robbery but the court required presentation of appoint as counsel de oficio such members of the bar in good standing who, by
evidence. When the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence, the court reason of their experience and ability, can competently defend the accused. But
acquitted the accused. Was the procedure proper? in localities where such members of the bar are not available, the court may
appoint any person, resident of the province and of good repute for probity and
Held: While the court was correct in acquitting the accused, the proper procedure ability, to defend the accused. (7a)
should have been to consider the plea of guilt withdrawn and a plea of not guilty
entered before acquitting the accused to avoid the absurd situation of an acquittal
when the plea was guilty.
Section 8. Time for counsel de oficio to prepare for arraignment.—
Section 5. Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty.—At any time before the Whenever a counsel de oficio is appointed by the court to defend the accused at
judgment of conviction becomes final, the court may permit an improvident plea the arraignment, he shall be given a reasonable time to consult with the accused
of guilty to be withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not guilty. (5) as to his plea before proceeding with the arraignment. (8)
Improvident plea of guilt - where the accused did not really understand what he This is usually granted by the judge.
was doing (nature of the case, defenses, possible liability).
There was a case of murder. The Notice of Arraignment was not sent to the Section 9. Bill of particular — The accused may, before arraignment, move for
accused’s house. The accused was arraigned and the PAO lawyer convinced him a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead and prepare for trial. The
to plead guilty to homicide. Filed a Motion to withdraw an Improvident Plea of Guilt. motion shall specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and the
The accused was acquitted on demurrer. details desired. (10a)
The physics engine. You have to have a good imagination when reading an
affidavit. You have to imagine what happened. You will be able to smell something Who will file the Bill of Particulars? The defense will file a MOTION for a Bill of
fishy in the long run. Particulars (detailing matters that are vague or not really stated in detail in the
information which are relevant in the case). If granted, it will be the prosecution
Duty of court to inform accused of his right to counsel. (Sec. 6, Rule 116) that will be required to file the Bill of Particulars.
Section 6. Duty of court to inform accused of his right to counsel.—Before
arraignment, the court shall inform the accused of his right to counsel and ask It is a mode of discovery that is allowed in criminal cases. Under Rule 112, you
him if he desires to have one. Unless the accused is allowed to defend himself in cannot file a Bill of Particulars during the preliminary investigation.
person or has employed counsel of his choice, the court must assign a counsel
de oficio to defend him. (6a) A Bill of Particulars is one of the Modes of Discovery.
The accused is basically asking the Court to Order the the prosecution to set forth
the details in vague portions of a Complaint or an Information.
Right to counsel
_________________________________________________
8
Cinco v. Sandiganbayan 202 SCRA 726.
Webb v. De Leon, et al., 247 SCRA 652. arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases:
The remedy of a Bill of Particulars is not available in a preliminary investigation. (a) 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. In such case, the court shall order his
Section 10. Production or inspection of material evidence in possession of mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for such purpose;
prosecution.— Upon motion of the accused showing good cause and with
notice to the parties, the court, in order to prevent surprise, suppression, or - This is the gage on the level of mental problem or degree of severity
alteration, may order the prosecution to produce and permit the inspection and of the mental condition that would make it a good basis for praying for
copying or photographing of any written statement given by the complainant and the suspension of the arraignment. The mental condition must be
other witnesses in any investigation of the offense conducted by the prosecution such that it would effectively render the accused unable to fully
or other investigating officers, as well as any designated documents, papers, understand the charge against him.
books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects, or tangible things not otherwise - Remember that there are varying degrees of mental conditions.
privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved - The court shall order the examination and confinement, when
in the case and which are in possession or under the control of the prosecution, necessary.
police, or other law investigating agencies. (11a) - Those who go to LS are insane. HAHAHA
(b) There exists a prejudicial question; and

An important mode of discovery. It is a remedy where the defense can require the
prosecution to bring to court material evidence in the court so that it can be - It will suspend the proceedings in the civil case until the criminal case
examined. You can also use this when you want a technical examination. is done.
If the client is charged with falsification, the genuineness of a signature will be the it- (c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either
all of the case. File a Motion for the Technical Examination of the signature. This is the Department of Justice, or the Office of the President; provided, that the
the Rule that allows it. An examination in greater detail period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of
the petition with the reviewing office. (12a)
Atty. Europa: I handled a case of suntukan sa school involving my cousins. A
frustrated murder was filed. Tama man yung ginawa nila, ng mga pinsan - Roberts Jr case (Crespo did not really deprive the SOJ or Prosecutor
(HAHAHA). City Fiscal found physical injuries, DOJ frustrated murder. There were of the authority to modify decisions of his subordinates) and Crespo
colored photos in the affidavit complaint. Determine if the photos coincide with their Case (once filed in Court, the Court has final disposition)
stories. Nidagan, nibangga sa gate. - To allow the suspension of arraignment
- It is not mandatory to defer the issuance of a warrant of arrest
Atty. Europa is a lazy lawyer. He should rely on his own evidence. “May I ask if the - It is not a perfect solution.
prosecutor has the same view.” He was not listening so he just agreed. Atty. Europa - Regional Prosecutor Office can decide on cases within 60 days.
withdrew his request and moved for the production and inspection of ALL evidence. - The 60-day period is counted from the date of the FILING of the
This has nothing to do with the Rule on Arraignment. The Bill of Particulars is on the petition with the reviewing office, not from the date when you file the
old Rules, as amended (it was on Rule 11). Atty. Europa was referring to the 2000 Motion to Suspend.
Rules.
The party who moves spends for the copying. Take Note that this is normally done
in writing. You shall file this ahead of time. This should be SOP for defense lawyers. It does not cause the dismissal of the case, only its suspension.
Important Part: it is not just evidence in the possession of the prosecution. It When may the arraignment be suspended?
even covers evidence in the possession of law enforcement.
EFFECTS OF INSANITY
You can use it to require the NBI to show evidence when they are conducting a
parallel investigation.
Time of Commission Exempting (Article 12, RPC)
Production or inspection of material evidence in possession of prosecution. Insanity where he is unable to distinguish right from
wrong. In crimes that are committed on the basis of
Procedure: dolo, or intent, it is the criminal intent that makes it
criminal. “The act is not criminal if the mind is not
There must be a motion of the accused showing good cause and with notice to the criminal” (actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit
parties, the court, in order to prevent surprise, suppression, or alteration. rea)
Coverage: Time of Arraignment Suspension of Arraignment (Section 11, Rule

116)
The court may order the prosecution to produce and permit the inspection and
copying or photographing of any written statement given by the complainant and Time of Trial Suspension of Trial
other witnesses in any investigation of the offense conducted by the prosecution or Why? Remember that the accused has
other investigating officers, as well as any designated documents, papers, books, constitutional right in relation to trial. Yu cannot
accounts, letters, photographs, object, or tangible things not otherwise privileged, afford the accused his constitutional rights if he is
which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the case and unable to understand what is going on.
which are in the possession or under the control of the prosecution, police, or other
law investigating agencies. Pagamot muna siya, and then if okay na, the trial
will continue.
Purpose: The purpose of this remedy is to prevent surprise, suppression, or
alteration of evidence. Serving Sentence Suspension of Execution of Sentence (Article 79,
RPC)
Section 11. Suspension of arraignment.–Upon motion by the proper party, the

Ground to extinguish: If it is in existence AT THE TIME OF COMMISSION of
the offense. All others will just result to suspension.
_________________________________________________
9
This is because jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case IS CONFERRED BY
RULE 117 - MOTION TO QUASH LAW and CANNOT BE WAIVED.
Motion to Quash Can the judge initiate the consideration of a ground for quashal? NO, because
that would amount to the Judge taking up the x x x for one side, for the defense.
Atty Europa: This is one of the most heavily affected rules when it comes to Except for lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged.
Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial in Criminal Cases on Motions to Quash.
Parang ayaw na ng Supreme Court ng Motion to Quash. One of the most abusive People of the Philippines v. David G. Nitafan, Feb. 1, 1999
remedies taken by defense counsel to delay the case.
“It is also clear from Section 1 that the right to file a motion to quash belongs only to
After exam read 117 codal and get Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial in the accused. There is nothing in the rules which authorizes the court or judge to
Criminal Cases read portions on motions to quash motu proprio initiate a motion to quash if no such motion was filed by the accused.
A motion contemplates an initial action originating from the accused. It is the latter
who is in the best position to know on what ground/s he will based his objection to
Section 1. Time to move to quash.– At any time before entering his plea, the the information. Otherwise, if the judge initiates the motion to quash, then he is not
accused may move to quash the complaint or information. (1) only pre-judging the case of the prosecution but also takes side with the accused.
This would violate the right to a hearing before an independent and impartial
tribunal. Such independence and impartiality cannot be expected from a magistrate,
such as herein respondent judge, who in his show cause orders, orders dismissing
General Rule: A motion to quash should be filed prior to arraignment. the charges and order denying the motions for reconsideration stated and even
expounded in a lengthy disquisition with citation of authorities, the grounds and
When must a motion to quash be filed: justifications to support his action. Certainly, in compliance with the orders, the
prosecution has no choice but to present arguments contradicting that of
BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT because generally, the arraignment of the accused will respondent judge. Obviously, however, it cannot be expected from respondent
operate as a waiver of the defects in the information or preliminary investigation. judge to overturn the reasons he relied upon in his different orders without
contradicting himself. To allow a judge to initiate such motion even under the guise
If you file a Motion to Quash, are you allowed to present evidence to support of a show cause order would result in a situation where a magistrate who is
your motion? Or are you limited to what is stated in the complaint or supposed to be neutral, in effect, acts as counsel for the accused and judge as well.
information? Can you prove your grounds with evidence or are you limited to what A combination of these two personalities in one person is violative of due process
is alleged. which is a fundamental right not only of the accused but also of the prosecution.”
GENERAL RULE: A MOTION TO QUASH IS LIMITED TO WHAT IS ALLEGED IN Exception: For lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged.
THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION.
Is the movant in a motion to quash limited to what is stated in the Section 2. Form and contents.–The motion to quash shall be in writing, signed
information? by the accused or his counsel and shall distinctly specify its factual and legal
grounds. The court shall consider no ground other than those stated in the
General Rule: In resolving the motion to quash a criminal Complaint or motion, except lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. (2a)
Information, the facts alleged in the complaint or information should be taken
as they are. Only the allegations in the complaint/information should be taken into
consideration.
There is no such thing as an oral motion to quash.
Exception: However, the following may be considered in a motion to quash:
Section 3. Grounds.–The accused may move to quash the complaint or
a) facts showing the extinction of criminal liability; information on any of following grounds:
b) facts leading to double jeopardy; and if you file a motion to quash
based on this, you will be allowed to present evidence of the prior (a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
acquittal/dismissal
c) facts that have been admitted or are not denied by the prosecution.
- The allegations will not fall into the definition of any felony or crime.
(Edgardo Lopez v. Sandiganbayan October, 13, 1995) This is a little
- On or about the evening of August 11, the accused went inside the
broad.
parlor of B x x x you might suspect that some criminal activity
happened but the information does not allege any crime. It is not
People v. Alagao 16 SCRA 879. Jose Garcia v. Court of Appeals January 27,
properly alleged.
1997
- This really happens.
“The petitioner's contention that a motion to quash cannot go beyond the
information in Criminal Case No. Q-92-27272 which states that the crime was (b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
discovered in 1989, is palpably unmeritorious. Even People v. Alagao, 24 which he
cites, mentions the exceptions to the rule as provided in paragraphs (f) and (h) of (c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the
Section 2, and Sections 4 and 5 of the old Rule 117 viz., (a) extinction of criminal accused;
liability, and (k) double jeopardy. His additional claim that the exception of extinction
can no longer be raised due to the implied repeal of the former Section 4, 25 Rule (d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;
117 of the Rules of Court occasioned by its non-reproduction after its revision, is
equally without merit. (e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;
“It is clear from this Section that a motion to quash may be based on factual and (f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for
legal grounds, and since extinction of criminal liability and double jeopardy are various offenses is prescribed by law;
retained as among the grounds for a motion to quash in Section 3 of the new Rule
117, it necessarily follows that facts outside the information itself may be introduced
(g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
to prove such grounds.”
“The court shall consider no ground other than those stated in the motion, (h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or
except lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged.”
_________________________________________________
10
justification; and An example of an Information that SEEMS TO but actually FAILS TO CHARGE
AN OFFENSE
(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 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BERNABE PANGILINAN G.R. No. 183090,
his express consent. (3a) November 14, 2011
- Does not charge an offense. What were the acts amounting to acts of
lasciviousness?
Grounds for a Motion to quash: (a) That the facts charged do not constitute an
offense; (b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense
On the charge for Sexual Abuse:
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; (e)
The Information charging the accused with Sexual Abuse stated thus:
That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; (f) That more than one
offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is
That on or about 1995 up to about June 2001, at Barangay Apsayan, Municipality of
prescribed by law; (g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; (h)
Gerona, Province of Tarlac, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or
Court, the above-named accused with lewd design, did then and there willfully,
justification; and (i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of
unlawfully and criminally commit acts of lasciviousness upon the person of AAA, a
the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise
minor subjected to sexual abuse. That accused is the stepfather of AAA, who was
terminated without his express consent. (3a)
born on January 29, 1988.
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
Issue: Does the said Information charge an offense?
This ground simply means that the facts as alleged in the complaint or information
HELD: Under Section 8, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, it provides:
do not charge an offense.
Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. — The complaint or information shall state the
In other words, there is no law penalizing the acts stated in the complaint or
designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions
information. NULLUM CRIMEN NULLE POENA SINE LEGE Example: “Than on or
constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If
about the evening of September 12, 2001, X went inside the premises of the
there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or
Hallelujah Massage Parlor and went out one hour later with a big smile on his face.
subsection of the statute punishing it. A reading of the allegations in the above-
quoted Information would show the insufficiency of the averments of the acts
Contrary to law”
alleged to have been committed by appellant. It does not contain the essential facts
constituting the offense, but a statement of a conclusion of law. Thus, appellant
These facts do not constitute an offense.
cannot be convicted of sexual abuse under such Information.
People vs. Pedro Flores December 27, 2002
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense
charged;
- Nowhere in the information does it state that the accused had carnal
knowledge. The term used was sexually abused since this term is too
This refers to lack of jurisdiction over the
broad. The main act that should be alleged is that the accused had
carnal knowledge without the latter’s will.
1) person of the accused;
- The information does not specifically allege the accusation that the
2) subject matter of the case; or
accused had carnal knowledge of the victim. It does not charge rape.
3) territory.
Why not use RA 7610? Sexual abuse is an offense against RA 7610 but
there are different modes of committing sexual abuse. The specific
Any of those three falls under this ground.
manner of committing the offense should be alleged. If not, the
Allegations measured against the statute and measure it against the law on
statement that there was sexual abuse amounts to a conclusion. What
jurisdiction.
were the acts amounting to the commission of acts of lasciviousness?
- It was neither rape nor sexual abuse under RA 7610 because it does not
(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;
allege any of the modes of committing sexual abuse under RA 7610.
- This information fails to charge an offense.
- Municipality : PI is with the office of the provincial prosecutor
- In places with the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office then it should be filed
The Information: “That on the 28th day of December 1996, in the evening at Sitio
with the Office of the Prosecutor. These are usually in the capital city of
Buenlag, Brgy. Nancamaliran West, Municipality of Urdaneta, Province of
the province. Mistake on where they file it (city or provincial - this is a
Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
waivable defect)
above-named accused, with deliberate intent and by means of force and
- This should be raised prior to arraignment.
intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, criminally and feloniously
sexually abuse the herein complaining witness FILIPINA FLORES, an 11 years old
Can the lack of authority on the part of the officer signing the Information be
and daughter of the herein accused with the use of sharp pointed bladed weapon
cured by silence, acquiescence or express consent?
and all against her will.”
Cudia v. CA G.R. No. 110315, January 16, 1998. Atty. Europa never agreed with
Held: The case at bar, however, is not one of variance between allegation and
this ruling.
proof. The recital of facts in the criminal complaints simply does not properly charge
rape, "sexual abuse" not being an essential element or ingredient thereof. Neither
City Prosecutor of Angeles City filed an Information for Illegal Possession of
can accused-appellant be convicted of acts of lasciviousness or of any offense for
Firearms committed in Mabalacat, Pampanga.
that matter under our penal laws. It is settled that what characterizes the charge is
the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information. For every crime is made up
Held: If the person who signed the Information is not authorized to do so, the entire
of certain acts and intent which must be set forth in the complaint or information
proceedings will be null and void even if the accused participated actively in the
with reasonable particularity of time, place, names (plaintiff and defendant), and
proceedings.
circumstances. In other words, the complaint must contain a specific allegation of
every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the crime charged, the
(e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;
accused being presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that
constitute the offense.
_________________________________________________
11
Refer to Rule 110 on the essential requisites of a sufficient complaint or information.
If there is no compliance with these requisites, this is the proper ground for a motion Section 4. Amendment of complaint or information. — If the motion to quash
to quash. is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or information which can be cured
by amendment, the court shall order that an amendment be made. (4a) If it is
- The prosecutor who filed it did not follow the instructions. based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the
- Section 5, Rule 110 on crimes that cannot be prosecuted de officio, if prosecution shall be given by the court an opportunity to correct the defect by
there is no signature what is your ground? You can raise Rule 117 (e) or amendment. The motion shall be granted if the prosecution fails to make the
that the officer does not have authority to file. amendment, or the complaint or information still suffers from the same defect
despite the amendment. (n)
(f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment
for various offenses is prescribed by law;
1. If the motion to quash is based on an alleged defect of the
This refers to DUPLICITOUS COMPLAINTS OR INFORMATIONS. Cf., Rule110,
Complaint or Information which can be cured by amendment, the
Section 13.
court shall order that an amendment be made. (4a)
(g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
- If it is curable by amendment, then the amendment shall be allowed.
There is no jeopardy because it has not reached arraignment. What will
Atty. Europa: A lawyer asked if we cannot prescription since it is not under Rule
happen is to refile with the amendment. Then it will just be a waste of
117? It is in Rule 117. This Rule actually covers many things. All modes under
time.
Article 89 are included.
2. If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute
- Prescription Is a mode of extinguishing criminal liability - there are many
an offense, the prosecution shall be given by the court an
modes of extinguishing it - therefore (g) covers manythings all of those
opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. The motion shall
under article 89.
be granted if the prosecution fails to make the amendment, or the
complaint or information still suffers from the same defect despite
How is criminal liability extinguished?
the amendment. (n)
ARTICLE 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability is
- The Court states that the ground raised is valid. Order to file the correct
totally extinguished: ALL CAN BE RAISED UNDER PARAGRAPH G
information that already charges the offense. The prosecutor does not
do anything, then it can be dismissed.
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary
- The complaint or information filed after the amendment still suffers from
penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender
the same defect.
occurs before final judgment.
2. By service of the sentence.
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects. Section 5. Effect of sustaining the motion to quash.—If the motion to quash
4. By absolute pardon. is sustained, the court may order that another complaint or information be filed
5. By prescription of the crime. except as provided in section 6 of this Rule. If the order is made, the accused,
6. By prescription of the penalty. if in custody, shall not be discharged unless admitted to bail.
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of this Code.
If no order is made or if having been made, no new information is filed within the
(h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse time specified in the order or within such further time as the court may allow for
or justification; and good cause, the accused, if in custody, shall be discharged unless he is also in
custody for another charge. (5a)
- One of the funniest grounds for quashal. Napaka-engot ng prosecutor na
nagfile. The defense of the accused is included in the information.
In relation to Libel If the motion to quash is sustained, the court may order that another complaint or
information be filed except if it was sustained on the grounds of double jeopardy or
Danguilan-Vitug v. CA, 232 SCRA 460. READ CASE extinction of criminal liability. In such case, the accused, if in custody, shall not be
discharged unless admitted to bail. If not, or if the prosecutor fails to comply with the
- A libel case where in the allegations, you would already be able to order of the court within the time allowed, the accused, if in custody, shall be
discern or conclude that the allegedly libelous assertions/statements discharged unless he is also in custody for another charge.
were in fact privileged communication.
- Except for those covered by Section 6, then the prosecutor can file the
Where the complaint or information itself alleged that the averred libelous material proper information but the accused will not be released. When the period
was privileged communication, then this would constitute a legal excuse or lapses, then the court will already dismiss the case and discharge the
justification. accused.
- In cases covered by Section 6, the treatment is different.
(i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense
charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated
Section 6. Order sustaining the motion to quash not a bar to another
without his express consent. (3a) double jeopardy
prosecution; exception.—An order sustaining the motion to quash is not a bar
to another prosecution for the same offense unless the motion was based on the
PROCEDURE IF GROUND IS CURABLE BY AMENDMENT (Sec. 4, Rule 117)
grounds specified in section 3 (g) and (i) of this Rule. (6a)
- Double jeopardy
- Extinction of criminal liability
Note: The quashal of an Information will not prevent the refilling of the same case
unless it was quashed due to double jeopardy or extinction of the criminal liability.
_________________________________________________
12
THE SPECIFIC PROVISION ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY justifying the filing of several charges against the accused.
Section 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy.—When an As aptly pointed out by the BSP in its memorandum, there are differences between
accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or the two offenses. A DOSRI violation consists in the failure to observe and comply
otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent with procedural, reportorial or ceiling requirements prescribed by law in the grant of
jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge a loan to a director, officer, stockholder and other related interests in the bank, i.e.,
sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused lack of written approval of the majority of the directors of the bank and failure to
had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the enter such approval into corporate records and to transmit a copy thereof to the
dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense BSP supervising department. The elements of abuse of confidence, deceit, fraud or
charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any false pretenses, and damage, which are essential to the prosecution for estafa, are
offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense not elements of a DOSRI violation. The filing of several charges against Soriano
charged in the former complaint or information. However, the conviction of the was, therefore, proper.
accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense which
necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint or information Elements of Double Jeopardy (Elements within elements)
under any of the following instances:
People v. Leviste, 255 SCRA 238,
(a) the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same People v. Tampal, 244 SCRA 202.
act or omission constituting the former charge;
(a) the first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (b) the first jeopardy
(b) the facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered must have been validly terminated; and (c) the second jeopardy must be for the
only after a plea was entered in the former complaint or information; or same offense as that in the first or the second offense includes or is necessarily
included in the offense charged in the first information, or is an attempt to commit
(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the the same or is a frustration thereof.
prosecutor and of the offended party except as provided in section 1(f) of Rule
116. When does the first jeopardy attach?
In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused satisfies or serves in whole or Cudia v. CA, G.R. No. 110315, January 16, 1998;
in part the judgment, he shall be credited with the same in the event of Guerrero v. CA, 257 SCRA 703
conviction for the graver offense. (7a)
(1) upon a valid indictment; (2) before a competent court; (3) after arraignment; (4)
when a valid plea has been entered; and (5) when the defendant was convicted or
acquitted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express
2 concepts of double jeopardy: If 2 national laws, there is no double jeopardy consent of the accused.
since it is not for the same offense.
Will the pendency of another criminal case for the same offense bar
1 ordinance, 1 national law: It must be for the same act. If you are already subsequent prosecution by reason of double jeopardy? NO. The first must be
charged under the local ordinance, you can no longer be charged under the terminated.
Tobacco Act.
This is already clear under the new rules because the phrase “previously convicted
BASIS: Section 21 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution or in jeopardy of being convicted” under the old Section 3 has been amended to
read “previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged.”
“Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal The change was based on the ruling in People of the Philippines vs. Pineda ( G.R.
under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.” No. 44205, 16 February 1993) which overturned the ruling in cases like People of
the Philippines v. City Court of Manila 121 SCRA 627 where a contrary rule was
1st Sentence SAME OFFENSE espoused.
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. Later reiterations:
2nd Sentence SAME ACT People of the Philippines v. David G. Nitafan, G.R. Nos. 107964-66. February 1,
1999
If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either
shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. Other pending cases will not amount to double jeopardy.
RULE: Double jeopardy will bar a second prosecution for the SAME ACT only if it is Binay vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. Nos. 120681-83, October 1, 1999.
punished by a national law AND a local ordinance.
The filing of the Information in the Sandiganbayan did not put petitioners in double
Example: B.P. Blg. 22 and ESTAFA can co-exist because both are punished by jeopardy even though they had already pleaded "not guilty" to the information
national laws. Nierra v. Dacuycuy ,181 S 1 earlier filed in the RTC. The first jeopardy never attached in the first place, the RTC
not being a court of competent jurisdiction. There can be no double jeopardy where
Where a bank officer borrows money from the bank where there is a failure to the accused entered as plea in a court that had no jurisdiction. The remedy of
observe and comply with procedural, reportorial or ceiling requirements petitioners, therefore, was not to move for the quashal of the information pending in
prescribed by law in the grant of a loan to a director, officer, stockholder and the Sandiganbayan on the ground of double jeopardy. Their remedy was to move
other related interests in the bank and is also charged with estafa through for the quashal of the information pending in the RTC on the ground of lack of
falsification of commercial documents can he still be charged with a criminal jurisdiction.
violation of the General Banking Act for violation of DOSRI rules?
Will a previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Slight
Hilario Soriano, et al. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 159517-18, June Physical Injuries BAR a subsequent prosecution for Reckless Imprudence
30, 2009. Resulting to Homicide and Damage to Property arising from the same
vehicular mishap? YES, double jeopardy will set in because it is the Reckless
Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that a single act or incident Imprudence that is the crime not the consequences thereof.
might offend two or more entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law, thus
_________________________________________________
13
Jason A. Ivler vs. Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, Et Al G.R. No. 172716
November 17, 2010 (c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of
the prosecutor and of the offended party except as provided in section 1(f) of
The two charges against petitioner, arising from the same facts, were prosecuted Rule 116. (prosecutor lang if the offended party failed to appear despite due notice)
under the same provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, namely, Article
365 defining and penalizing quasi-offenses. Section 1(f) of Rule 116- If the offended party fails to show up during the
arraignment, there can be a plea to a lesser offense even if only the prosecutor
Indeed, the notion that quasi-offenses, whether reckless or simple, are distinct agrees.
species of crime, separately defined and penalized under the framework of our
penal laws, is nothing new. As early as the middle of the last century, we already DISMISSAL WAS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED
sought to bring clarity to this field by rejecting in Quizon v. Justice of the Peace of
Pampanga the proposition that "reckless imprudence is not a crime in itself but Remember that if there is an express consent, there is no double jeopardy.
simply a way of committing it . . ." on three points of analysis: (1) the object of
punishment in quasicrimes (as opposed to intentional crimes); (2) the legislative If the accused invokes his right to a speedy trial and the case is dismissed,
intent to treat quasi-crimes as distinct offenses (as opposed to subsuming them can the case be refiled? NO, it cannot because DOUBLE JEOPARDY WILL
under the mitigating circumstance of minimal intent) and; (3) the different penalty ATTACH.
structures for quasi-crimes and intentional crimes
If the accused moves for a reinvestigation and, thereafter, the prosecutor
Issue: Can an Information for Bigamy be quashed on the basis of the moves for the dismissal of the case, will double jeopardy lie to bar
subsequent declaration of nullity of a marriage AFTER the second marriage subsequent prosecution?
BUT BEFORE the filing of the filing of the Bigamy case?
People v. Vergara, 221 SCRA 960.
People vs. Edgardo V. Odtuhan G.R. No. 191566. July 17, 2013
- The accused filed a motion for reinvestigation and the granting of the
HELD: The Family Code has settled once and for all the conflicting jurisprudence motion, the court ordered to conduct a reinvestigation.
on the matter. A declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly - The finding of the prosecutor was that there was no finding of probable
required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense. It has been held in a cause. The judge dismissed the case.
number of cases that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid - Later on, the case was refiled. The prosecution argued that the dismissal
subsequent marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires is a bigamous was with the consent of the accused because he filed a motion for
marriage, reprehensible and immoral. reinvestigation. The proximate cause was the accused’s filing of the
motion.
XXX - SC: That is wrong. When you say express consent, it shall be direct and
unequivocal. The Court should ask if the accused is consenting to the
To conclude, the issue on the declaration of nullity of the marriage between dismissal of the case. The filing of the Motion for Reinvestigation does
petitioner and respondent only after the latter contracted the subsequent marriage not amount to express consent. There should be no more deductive
is, therefore, immaterial for the purpose of establishing that the facts alleged in the reasoning.
information for Bigamy does not constitute an offense. Following the same
rationale, neither may such defense be interposed by the respondent in his motion Filing a Motion for Reinvestigation does not amount to express consent to the
to quash by way of exception to the established rule that facts contrary to the dismissal of the case. Express consent means direct and unequivocal consent
allegations in the information are matters of defense which may be raised only requiring no inference or implication.
during the presentation of evidence.
If the acquittal in the first offense was void, double jeopardy will not lie
An examination of the information filed against respondent, however, shows the (People of the Philippines. v. Bagul 131 SCRA 296 Gorion v. RTC of Cebu) 213
sufficiency of the allegations therein to constitute the crime of bigamy as it SCRA 138
contained all the elements of the crime as provided for in Article 349 of the Revised
Penal Code, to wit: TEST TO DETERMINE IDENTITY OF OFFENSES (Take note on what is in the
codal on double jeopardy)
(1)That the offender has been legally married;
Andres S. Suero v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 156408, January 31,
(2)That the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her 2005.
spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to
the Civil Code; “The test for the third element is whether one offense is identical with the other or is
an attempt to commit it or a frustration thereof; or whether one offense necessarily
(3)That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and includes or is necessarily included in the other, as provided in Section 7 of Rule 117
of the Rules of Court.”
(4)That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for
validity. Can double jeopardy operate to bar a prosecution for falsification of public
documents when there is already a prior acquittal in a case for violation of
EXCEPTIONS UNDER SECTION 7 Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019? NO. These are separate offenses.
(a) the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the Andres S. Suero v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 156408, January 31,
same act or omission constituting the former charge; (e.g., Teehankee) 2005.
(b) the facts constituting the graver charge became known or were Indeed, the crime under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 shares two common elements with
discovered only after a plea was entered in the former complaint or the felony under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code — that the offender is a
information; or public officer and that the act is related to the officer's public position. However, the
latter offense is not necessarily inclusive of the former. The essential elements of
- You must show that it could not have been discovered even with the each are not included among or do not form part of those enumerated in the former.
exercise of due diligence. For there to be double jeopardy, the elements of one offense should — like the ribs
of an umbrella — ideally encompass those of the other. The elements of a violation
Note: Under the 1985 RULES “after filing of the information” NEW RULES “after a of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 fall outside the realm of those of falsification of a public
plea was entered.” why? before plea there can be, as yet, no double jeopardy document and vice versa. At most, the two offenses may be considered as two
_________________________________________________
14
conjoined umbrellas with one or two common ribs. Clearly, one offense does not of trial. As the dismissal is deemed final, Co contends that the MeTC lost its
include the other.” jurisdiction over the cases and cannot reacquire jurisdiction over the same based
on a mere motion because its revival would already put him in double jeopardy.
Section 8. Provisional dismissal.— A case shall not be provisionally dismissed Assuming that the criminal cases were only provisionally dismissed, Co further
except with the express consent of the accused and with notice to the offended posits that such dismissal became permanent one year after the issuance of the
party. June 9, 2003 Order, not after notice to the offended party. He also insists that both
the filing of the motion to revive and the trial court's issuance of the order granting
The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding the revival must be within the one-year period. Lastly, even assuming that the
six (6) years or a fine of any amount, or both, shall become permanent one (1) oneyear period to revive the criminal cases started on July 2, 2003 when Uy
year after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. With received the June 9, 2003 Order, Co asserts that the motion was filed one day late
respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years, their since year 2004 was a leap year.
provisional dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the
order without the case having been revived. (n) HELD:
First, Co's charge that his right to a speedy trial was violated is baseless. Obviously,
he failed to show any evidence that the alleged "vexatious, capricious and
- Before Section 8 was included, the Court has been doing it but it was
oppressive" delay in the trial was attended with malice or that the same was made
complicated. Can double jeopardy attach? What are the consequences?
without good cause or justifiable motive on the part of the prosecution. This Court
- If the provisional dismissal requires an express consent = It can never
has emphasized that "'speedy trial' is a relative term and necessarily a flexible
give rise to Double Jeopardy.
concept." In determining whether the accused's right to speedy trial was violated,
the delay should be considered in view of the entirety of the proceedings. The
ONE YEAR - The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not
factors to balance are the following: (a) duration of the delay; (b) reason therefor; (c)
exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any amount, or both, shall become permanent
assertion of the right or failure to assert it; and (d) prejudice caused by such delay.
one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case having been revived.
Surely, mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not suffice as the
realities of everyday life must be regarded in judicial proceedings which, after all, do
TWO YEARS - With respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than
not exist in a vacuum, and that particular regard must be given to the facts and
six (6) years, their provisional dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years after
circumstances peculiar to each case. 29 "While the Court recognizes the accused's
issuance of the order without the case having been revived.
right to speedy trial and adheres to a policy of speedy administration of justice, we
cannot deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity to fairly prosecute criminals.
If the dismissal becomes final, will double jeopardy set in? NO, because the
Unjustified postponements which prolong the trial for an unreasonable length of
dismissal was with the EXPRESS CONSENT of the accused.
time are what offend the right of the accused to speedy trial." AEIDTc Second, Co is
burdened to establish the essential requisites of the first paragraph of Section 8,
What’s the purpose? It has to do with prescription. When you file before the
Rule 117 of the Rules, which are conditions sine qua non to the application of the
prosecutor’s office, the prescriptive period is interrupted. It will continue to run again
time-bar in the second paragraph thereof, to wit: (1) the prosecution with the
when the case is dismissed.
express conformity of the accused or the accused moves for a provisional (sin
perjuicio) dismissal of the case; or both the prosecution and the accused move for a
Can it be refiled? It depends. If the refiling was done prior to the lapse of the
provisional dismissal of the case; (2) the offended party is notified of the motion for
prescriptive period of the offense, then it can be refiled because double jeopardy
a provisional dismissal of the case; (3) the court issues an order granting the motion
will not set in because the dismissal, according to the rules, was with the consent of
and dismissing the case provisionally; and (4) the public prosecutor is served with a
the accused.
copy of the order of provisional dismissal of the case. In this case, it is apparent
from the records that there is no notice of any motion for the provisional dismissal of
Cases with a settlement on the civil aspect. The parties agreed to a provisional
Criminal Cases Nos. 206655-59, 206661-77 and 209634 or of the hearing thereon
dismissal. The accused shall pay the installments during the period. If he misses
which was served on the private complainant at least three days before said
payment, the complainant will file a motion to revive.
hearing as mandated by Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules. The fact is that it was only
in open court that Co moved for provisional dismissal "considering that, as per
Refile: If final and hindi pa nagprescribe
records, complainant had not shown any interest to pursue her complaint." The
importance of a prior notice to the offended party of a motion for provisional
AN INTERESTING CASE ON PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL WILLIAM CO a.k.a. XU
dismissal is aptly explained in People v. Lacson:
QUING HE, petitioner, vs. NEW PROSPERITY PLASTIC PRODUCTS,
represented by ELIZABETH UY G.R. No. 183994, June 30, 2014 READ CASE
. . . It must be borne in mind that in crimes involving private interests, the new rule
requires that the offended party or parties or the heirs of the victims must be given
When does the period start to run? UPON THE RECEIPT OF THE PRIVATE OR
adequate a priori notice of any motion for the provisional dismissal of the criminal
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
case. Such notice may be served on the offended party or the heirs of the victim
through the private prosecutor, if there is one, or through the public prosecutor who
In a B.P. 22 case, upon motion of the accused, in the absence of the private
in turn must relay the notice to the offended party or the heirs of the victim to enable
complainant and private prosecutor, the cases were ordered provisionally
them to confer with him before the hearing or appear in court during the hearing.
dismissed in open court on June 9, 2003 pursuant to Sec. 8, Rule 117.
The proof of such service must be shown during the hearing on the motion,
otherwise, the requirement of the new rule will become illusory. Such notice will
The order was received by the private complainant on July 2, 2003 and by the
enable the offended party or the heirs of the victim the opportunity to seasonably
private prosecutor on July 3, 2003.
and effectively comment on or object to the motion on valid grounds, including: (a)
the collusion between the prosecution and the accused for the provisional dismissal
A motion to revive the case was filed on July 2, 2004 and was granted by the
of a criminal case thereby depriving the State of its right to due process; (b)
MTC on October 14, 2004
attempts to make witnesses unavailable; or (c) the provisional dismissal of the case
with the consequent release of the accused from detention would enable him to
ISSUES: Co argues that the June 9, 2003 Order provisionally dismissing Criminal
threaten and kill the offended party or the other prosecution witnesses or flee from
Case Nos. 206655-59, 206661-77 and 209634 should be considered as a final
Philippine jurisdiction, provide opportunity for the destruction or loss of the
dismissal on the ground that his right to speedy trial was denied. He reasons out
prosecution's physical and other evidence and prejudice the rights of the offended
that from his arraignment on March 4, 2002 until the initial trial on June 9, 2003,
party to recover on the civil liability of the accused by his concealment or furtive
there was already a "vexatious, capricious and oppressive" delay, which is in
disposition of his property or the consequent lifting of the writ of preliminary
violation of Section 6 of Republic Act 8493 (Speedy Trial Act of 1998) 24 and
attachment against his property.
Section 2, Paragraph 2, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure 25
mandating that the entire trial period should not exceed 180 days from the first day
_________________________________________________
15
Third, there is evident want of jurisprudential support on Co's supposition that the
dismissal of the cases became permanent one year after the issuance of the June Applying Section 31, Chapter VIII, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987 to this
9, 2003 Order and not after notice to the offended party. When the Rules states that case, the one-year period reckoned from the time Uy received the order of
the provisional dismissal shall become permanent one year after the issuance of dismissal on July 2, 2003 consisted of 12 calendar months, computed as follows:
the order temporarily dismissing the case, it should not be literally interpreted as
such. Of course, there is a vital need to satisfy the basic requirements of due
process; thus, said in one case:
Although the second paragraph of the new rule states that the order of dismissal
shall become permanent one year after the issuance thereof without the case
having been revived, the provision should be construed to mean that the order of
dismissal shall become permanent one year AFTER SERVICE OF THE ORDER
OF DISMISSAL ON THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR WHO HAS CONTROL OF THE
PROSECUTION WITHOUT THE CRIMINAL CASE HAVING BEEN REVIVED. The
public prosecutor cannot be expected to comply with the timeline unless he is
served with a copy of the order of dismissal.
We hasten to add though that if the offended party is represented by a private

counsel the better rule is that the reckoning period should commence to run from Section 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor. — The
the time such private counsel was actually notified of the order of provisional failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he
dismissal. When a party is represented by a counsel, notices of all kinds emanating pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to
from the court should be sent to the latter at his/her given address. Section 2, Rule quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of
13 of the Rules analogously provides that if any party has appeared by counsel, any objections except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs
service upon the former shall be made upon the latter. (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of this Rule. (8a)
Fourth, the contention that both the filing of the motion to revive the case and the
court order reviving it must be made prior to the expiration of the one-year period is
unsustainable. Such interpretation is not found in the Rules. Moreover, to permit THE FAILURE TO RAISE A GROUND IN A MOTION TO QUASH OPERATES AS
otherwise would definitely put the offended party at the mercy of the trial court, A WAIVER OF THE GROUND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING:
which may wittingly or unwittingly not comply. Judicial notice must be taken of the
fact that most, if not all, of our trial court judges have to deal with clogged dockets in (a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
addition to their administrative duties and functions. Hence, they could not be (b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
expected to act at all times on all pending decisions, incidents, and related matters (c) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
within the prescribed period of time. It is likewise possible that some of them, (d) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense
motivated by ill-will or malice, may simply exercise their whims and caprices in not charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
issuing the order of revival on time. express consent. (Sec. 9, Rule 117)
Fifth, the fact that year 2004 was a leap year is inconsequential to determine the
timeliness of Uy's motion to revive the criminal cases. What is material instead is RULE 118 - PRE-TRIAL
Co's categorical admission that Uy is represented by a private counsel who only
received a copy of the June 9, 2003 Order on July 3, 2003. Therefore, the motion 2004 Guidelines issued by the SC
was not belatedly filed on July 2, 2004. Since the period for filing a motion to revive Pre-Trial has been affected by the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of
is reckoned from the private counsel's receipt of the order of provisional dismissal, it Criminal Cases
necessarily follows that the reckoning period for the permanent dismissal is likewise
the private counsel's date of receipt of the order of provisional dismissal. HEcTAI
Section 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases.— In all criminal cases
And Sixth, granting for the sake of argument that this Court should take into account cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court,
2004 as a leap year and that the one-year period to revive the case should be Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial
reckoned from the date of receipt of the order of provisional dismissal by Uy, We Court, the court shall, after arraignment and within thirty (30) days from the date
still hold that the motion to revive the criminal cases against Co was timely filed. A the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a shorter
year is equivalent to 365 days regardless of whether it is a regular year or a leap period is provided for in special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court, order a
year. Equally so, under the Administrative Code of 1987, a year is composed of 12 pre-trial conference to consider the following:
calendar months. The number of days is irrelevant. This was our ruling in
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Primetown Property Group, Inc., which was (a) plea bargaining; Plea to a lesser offense
subsequently reiterated in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging
Company of Asia, Inc., thus: (b) stipulation of facts; Parties can stipulate
. . . [In] 1987, EO 292 or the Administrative Code of 1987 was enacted. Section 31, (c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties;
Chapter VIII, Book I thereof provides:
(d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
Sec. 31. Legal Periods. — "Year" shall be understood to be twelve calendar
months; "month" of thirty days, unless it refers to a specific calendar month in which
(e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but
case it shall be computed according to the number of days the specific month
interposes a lawful defense; and
contains; "day", to a day of twenty-four hours and; "night" from sunrise to sunset.
(emphasis supplied) A calendar month is "a month designated in the calendar
without regard to the number of days it may contain." It is the "period of time (f) such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal
running from the beginning of a certain numbered day up to, but not including, the and civil aspects of the case. (secs. 2 and 3, cir. 38-98)
corresponding numbered day of the next month, and if there is not a sufficient
number of days in the next month, then up to and including the last day of that
month." To illustrate, one calendar month from December 31, 2007 will be from PURPOSE OF PRE-TRIAL : To try to find ways to shorten the necessary trial.
January 1, 2008 to January 31, 2008; one calendar month from January 31, 2008
will be from February 1, 2008 until February 29, 2008. Like things that the parties can already agree on such as:
_________________________________________________
16
- Not mandatory.
● Stipulations (blotters in criminal cases). Technically, you need to present the - The approval is necessary merely to emphasize the supervision of the
desk officer who issued the excerpt in the police record. But parties can already court over the case. Even if there was no order from the Court approving
agree = no more need to present the desk officer. the pretrial order, it can still be utilized against the accused.
● All the exhibits and evidence will be presented shall be premarked (Exhibit A- - If you appear before the SB, they are strict when it comes to pretrial
Z). This will shorten the trial. The parties already agree on which evidence is order.
Exhibit A etc.
- If for example there is no pre-marking (like in BP22) - the “[F]or a pretrial agreement to be binding on the accused, it must satisfy the following
check issued has to be in relation to the one used as conditions: (1) the agreement or admission must be in writing, and (2) it must be
evidence - the signature, the number will be examined - so signed by both the accused and their counsel. The court's approval, mentioned in
they can ask that it be marked. the last sentence of the above-quoted Section, is not needed to make the
stipulations binding on the parties. Such approval is necessary merely to emphasize
Identity of the accused the supervision by the court over the case and to enable it to control the flow of the
proceedings.”
- No admissions by a takot lawyer who does not know his case well.
- Judge Carpio: Will the defense stipulate the identity of the accused and Cristeta Chua-Burce v. CA, G.R. No. 109595, April 27, 2000.
the fact that he was present at the scene? Lawyer: No stipulations. But
the defense is self-defense. Why would you deny it in this case? Petitioner was arraigned and assisted by counsel de parte, entered a plea of not
- You don’t prejudice your clients by entering stipulations. guilty. While the trial of the criminal case was suspended, the trial of the civil case
continued. At the time of arraignment, the civil case was already submitted for
“Judges appreciate it when lawyers are reasonable.” decision. Hence, during the pre-trial conference of the criminal case, the parties
agreed to adopt their respective evidence in the civil case as their respective
Abubakar v. Abubakar, G.R. No. 134622. October 22, 1999. evidence in the criminal case. The trial court ordered the parties to submit their
written agreement pursuant to Section 4 of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court.
- Meant to limit the issues to be tackled and proved at the trial. Thereafter, petitioner, duly assisted by her counsel, with the conforme of the public
prosecutor, entered into a pre-trial agreement.
That a pre-trial is indispensable in any civil or criminal action in this jurisdiction is
clearly laid out in Rules 18 and 118 of the Rules of Court. It is a procedural device The accused now assails the validity of the proceedings in the criminal case.
meant to limit the issues to be tackled and proved at the trial. A less cluttered case
environment means that there will be fewer points of contention for the trial court to Held: It was during pre-trial conference when the parties agreed to adopt their
resolve. This would be in keeping with the mandate of the Constitution according respective evidence in the civil case to the criminal case. This is allowed under
every person the right to a speedy disposition of their cases. If the parties can Section 2(e) of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court 17 which provides that during pretrial
agree on certain facts prior to trial — hence, the prefix "pre" — the court can later conference, the parties shall consider "such other matters as will promote a fair and
concentrate on those which are seemingly irreconcilable. The purpose of pre-trials expeditious trial." The parties, in compliance with Section 4 of Rule 118 reduced to
is the simplification, abbreviation and expedition of the trial, if not indeed its writing such agreement. Petitioner, her counsel, and the public prosecutor signed
dispensation. The stipulations are perpetuated in a pre-trial order which legally the agreement. Petitioner is bound by the pre-trial agreement, and she cannot now
binds the parties to honor the same. belatedly disavow its contents.
2004 Guidelines on Pre-Trial on Criminal Cases introduced the concept of The express admission of the accused during pre-trial that he is the father of
Preliminary Conference conducted before the Clerk of Court the complainant is inadmissible if he and his counsel did not sign the
Stipulation of Facts.
- The judge has other time to do other cases.
- Parties will stipulate, mark exhibits, identify witnesses. People v. Dionisio, G.R. No. 142431, January 14, 2004.
- Almost all needed to be taken up in pre-trial are already taken up at the
pre-trial conference. - Rape qualified by relationship
- After arraignment, there is pretrial on the same day. So, you cannot have - He admitted during the pretrial that he was the father of the complainant.
a preliminary conference after arraignment. - Problem was, it was not reduced into writing and it wasn't signed by the
- Atty. Europa: I’ve told people that there is no prohibition for a preliminary accused and his lawyer.
conference being conducted before arraignment. If I were the judge, I - It cannot therefore be used in trial (inadmissible against the accused)
will schedule the preliminary conference before the arraignment. So I do
not lose the benefit of the preliminary conference as mandated in the “Moreover, the fact that appellant admitted that he is the father of Ginalyn during the
2004 guidelines. pre-trial, thus dispensing with the need to present evidence to prove the same, will
not justify the trial court's appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of relationship.
A perusal of the pre-trial order would readily show that the said stipulation was not
Section 2. Pre-trial agreement.—All agreements or admissions made or signed by the appellant and his counsel. Hence, it cannot be used as evidence
entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed against him. Rule 118, Sec. 2 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides
by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the that "all agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference
accused. The agreements covering the matters referred to in section 1 of this shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they
Rule shall be approved by the court. (sec. 4, cir. 38-98) cannot be used against the accused." This requirement is mandatory. Thus, the
omission of the signature of the accused and his counsel, as mandatorily required
by the Rules, renders the Stipulation of Facts inadmissible in evidence.”
Pre-trial Order: States everything that happens during the pre-trial. What is done is
for the parties to sign the pretrial order. That complies with the requirement under Section 3. Non-appearance at pre-trial conference. — If the counsel for the
Section 2. accused or the prosecutor does not appear at the pre-trial conference and does
not offer an acceptable excuse for his lack of cooperation, the court may impose
What if there was agreement but was not reduced into writing? proper sanctions or penalties. (sec. 5, cir. 38-98)
Is the approval by the court of the pre-trial agreement necessary for it to be

binding upon the parties?
The lawyers will be reprimanded.
Bayas, et al. v. Sandiganbayan G.R. Nos. 143689-91, November 12, 2002.
_________________________________________________
17
Section. 4. Pre-trial order. – After the pre-trial conference, the court shall issue 38-98)
an order reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated, and evidence marked.
Such 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 prevent manifest injustice. (3) 15 days - Is it too short?
Under the old rule (1985 Rules) the time to prepare for trial was only two days.
If there is any evidence presented during the trial that does not relate to any of the Revised Guidelines: Pretrial Order is supposed to be issued on the same day.
issues in the pretrial order, the opposing party can object that the evidence being
presented is irrelevant or immaterial. Why? Because it does not tend to prove or Is there a possibility to comply with this requirement? Yes, if the Judge has a
disprove any of the factual issues discussed during the pretrial and included in the template of the pretrial order.
pretrial order. That is how important the pretrial order is.
Section 2 is one of those heavily affected
In the 2004 Guidelines, reinforced in the Revised Guidelines on Continuous Trial for
Criminal Cases, it was specifically required that ALL the documentary and object Section 2. Continuous trial until terminated; postponements.—Trial once
evidence that will be presented during the trial has to be premarked. All the commenced shall continue from day to day as far as practicable until terminated.
witnesses have to be identified. This is very strictly applied. It may be postponed for a reasonable period of time for good cause. (2a) This
does not happen in reality
The judge has every right to refuse to allow the witness/evidence to be presented.
The only exception is if the judge can still allow the presentation of such a witness The court shall, after consultation with the prosecutor and defense counsel, set
or evidence if there are compelling reasons. You have to convince the court that the case for continuous trial on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at the
you were unable to mark it because it was impossible for you at that time. earliest possible time so 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,
Example: Forensic examination released AFTER the trial. Then you can request for except as otherwise authorized by the Supreme Court. (sec. 8, cir. 38-98). Entire
it to be marked and presented as evidence. trial must be finished within 6 months. There are cases, like drugs, are supposed
to be shorter. Trial is not really conducted daily. The rules are designed for an
SILVESTRE TIU, Petitioner, v. DANIEL MIDDLETON and REMEDIOS P. ideal situation wherein there are enough courts.
MIDDLETON, Respondents. Daniel Middleton (case) [G.R. No. 134998. July 19,
1999.] 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
SC: In the present case, the Notice of Pre-trial Conference warned the parties that shorter period of trial. (n)
"witnesses whose names and addresses are not submitted at the pre-trial may not
be allowed to testify at the trial."In his Pre-trial Brief, petitioner merely stated that he
intended to present four (6) witnesses "whose direct testimony will be finished in an
average of one (1) hour each." He further requested four hearing days to present Effect if they do not finish in 180 days? Section 9. Possibility of raising the
his evidence. Evidently, he did not comply with the above rules and the Notice of violation of the right of the accused to speedy trial.
Pre-trial Conference, because he failed to give the names of his witnesses and the
synopsis of their testimonies. The second and third paragraphs are new provisions that are taken from the
Speedy Trial Act and, more particularly, from Supreme Court Circular No. 38- 98
(1998). The provision were incorporated under Rule 119.
RULE 119 - TRIAL
What is important to remember here is to remember that the law now sets or
This is one of the portions of the Rules of Court heavily affected by the Revised provides for a time limit of (180) days from the first day of trial, except as otherwise
Guidelines. authorized by the Supreme Court for the trial to be terminated.
Know that while Rule 119 has several provisions on trying to speed up the trial and Nota Bene: Sections 3 to 10 ARE ALL NEW PROVISIONS LIFTED FROM THE
making sure that it goes on, that is even more reinforced in the Revised Guidelines. SPEEDY TRIAL ACT AND SC Circular No. 38-98 (REVIEW THEM!) 1998 Speedy
Trial Act
This is considered to be the glamorous part of lawyering. They give a wrong
impression on what day to day trial is. It can be enjoyable for as long as the lawyers Section 3. Exclusions.— The following periods of delay shall be excluded in
are very well prepared. There is this misconception that lawyers are supposed to be computing the time within which trial must commence:
very good speakers.
(a) Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the
Trial - Time allotted by law for the parties to present their evidence in accused, including but not limited to the following:
accordance with the rules of procedure.
Delay resulting from an examination of the physical and mental condition
In any case, a judgment must be premised upon allegation and proof “secundum
of the accused; Remember that under Section 11 of Rule 116 that one of the
allegata et probata”. The prosecution has to present evidence to prove the
grounds for suspending the arraignment is the mental condition of the accused.
allegations in the information. In such a manner as to convince the judge that there
If there is any question, the defense or the court motu proprio can order physical
is proof beyond reasonable doubt so there will be a basis for conviction. For the
and mental examination of the accused or the defense can file a motion for such
defense, the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. If the evidence
examination.
presented is insufficient to justify a conviction, they have a remedy to file a demurrer
of evidence.
Delay resulting from proceedings with respect to other criminal charges
Civil cases: Main pleadings are the complaints and answers. against the accused; If the accused is detained in some other place for very
Criminal Cases: When an Information is filed in Court, the answer is through serious offense, non-bailable offense, sometimes it is hard to transport him to
arraignment. other courts where he is also facing cases.
Delay resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders;

Section 1. Time to prepare for trial.—After a plea of not guilty is entered, the Refers to situations where petitions for Certiorari are filed like Motion to Quash.
accused shall have at least fifteen (15) days to prepare for trial. The trial shall Although now Petition for Certiorari are strictly prohibited.
commence within thirty (30) days from receipt of the pre-trial order. (sec. 6, cir.
_________________________________________________
18
Delay resulting from pre-trial proceedings; provided, that the delay does principal.
not exceed thirty (30) days; Sometimes in pre-trial, there are issues that need
to be resolved. (f) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any court motu
proprio, or on motion of either the accused or his counsel, or the prosecution, if
Delay resulting from orders of inhibition, or proceedings relating to change the court granted the continuance on the basis of its findings set forth in the
of venue of cases or transfer from other courts; Example: a case filed in a order that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best
place where only 1 RTC was vacant, 1 judge inhibited, it took a long time for the interest of the public and the accused in a speedy trial. (sec. 9, cir. 38-98) A very
SC to assign another judge to handle the case. This is a reasonable delay. broad provision. Discretionary on the part of the judge to allow continuance or
postponement. What are the valid grounds?
Delay resulting from a finding of the existence of a prejudicial question;
and Section 6-7, Rule 110 For example the opposing counsel has kidney problems and is undergoing
dialysis. The counsel filed a motion for postponement for dialysis. It is
Delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty (30) days, dangerous for him to go to court. Solution: teleconferencing.
during which any proceeding concerning the accused is actually under
advisement. A broad provision that is designed to cover any other matter Section 4. Factors for granting continuance. — The following factors, among
similar to those we talked about already. others, shall be considered by a court in determining whether to grant a
continuance under section 3(f) of this Rule.
(b) Any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of an
essential witness. For purposes of this subparagraph, an essential witness (a) Whether or not the failure to grant a continuance in the proceeding would
shall be considered absent when his whereabouts are unknown or his likely make a continuation of such proceeding impossible or result in a
whereabouts cannot be determined by due diligence. He shall be considered miscarriage of justice; and
unavailable whenever his whereabouts are known but his presence for trial
cannot be obtained by due diligence. (b) Whether or not the case taken as a whole is so novel, unusual and complex,
due to the number of accused or the nature of the prosecution, or that it is
- Atty. Europa’s case: One of the important witnesses for defense unreasonable to expect adequate preparation within the periods of time
executed an affidavit during the preliminary investigation. He was established therein. In addition, no continuance under section 3(f) of this Rule
threatened by the family of the complainant not to be a witness. shall be granted because of congestion of the court’s calendar or lack of diligent
There was a subpoena issued. He did not appear in court. The preparation or failure to obtain available witnesses on the part of the prosecutor.
private prosecutor was complaining that we should be considered to (sec. 10, cir. 38-98) When the evidence is complex. Atty. Europa: We were
waive the right to witness. An accused also has a right to compulsory private prosecutors in a case. A case for kiting that involved a complicated paper
processes to compel attendance of witnesses. It is not the fault of the trail (7 times A to Z).
accused that the witness is refusing to appear. The accused should
not be blamed for this delay. Section 5. Time limit following an order for new trial.— If the accused is to
- Who is an essential witness? be tried again pursuant to an order for a new trial, the trial shall commence
- Difference between absent (when his whereabouts are unknown or within thirty (30) days from notice of the order, provided that if the period
cannot be determined by due diligence) and unavailable (when his becomes impractical due to unavailability of witnesses and other factors, the
whereabouts are known or can be determined). court may extend it but not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from
notice of said order for a new trial. (sec. 11, cir. 38-98)
(c) Any period of delay resulting from the mental incompetence or physical
inability of the accused to stand trial. Either motu proprio or the defense’s Section 6. Extended time limit.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section
counsel files a motion for physical and mental examination and it is still on-going 1(g), Rule 116 and the preceding section 1, for the first twelve-calendar-month
period following its effectivity on September 15, 1998, the time limit with respect
(d) If the information is dismissed upon motion of the prosecution and thereafter to the period from arraignment to trial imposed by said provision shall be one
a charge is filed against the accused for the same offense, any period of delay hundred eighty (180) days. For the second twelve-month period, the time limit
from the date the charge was dismissed to the date the time limitation would shall be one hundred twenty (120) days, and for the third twelve-month period,
commence to run as to the subsequent charge had there been no previous the time limit shall be eighty (80) days. (sec. 7, cir. 38-98) Now: it is only 80
charge. There are situations where the prosecution will move for the dismissal of days. The period commenced on the release of the 1998 rules. This is the
the case. period from arraignment to trial.
(e) A reasonable period of delay when the accused is joined for trial with a co- Section 7. Public attorney’s duties where accused is imprisoned.—If the
accused over whom the court has not acquired jurisdiction, or, as to whom the public attorney assigned to defend a person charged with a crime knows that the
time for trial has not run and no motion for separate trial has been granted. latter is preventively detained, either because he is charged with a bailable crime
Multiple accused, one was arrested and the rest flees. Remember that an but has no means to post bail, or, is charged with a non-bailable crime, or, is
accused who has not been arrested, even if evidence were presented, the serving a term of imprisonment in any penal institution, it shall be his duty to do
evidence presented cannot be utilized against an accused who has not been the following:
arrested. Why? That would amount to the denial of the right of that accused to
confront witnesses against him as well as to be present during the presentation (a) Shall promptly undertake to obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial or
of evidence against him. The problem is there will be a duplication of the cause a notice to be served on the person having custody of the prisoner
presentation of evidence. Usually, judges will allow some time for the police to requiring such person to so advise the prisoner of his right to demand trial.
arrest the accused.
(b) Upon receipt of that notice, the custodian of the prisoner shall promptly
Can trial proceed against an accused considering that his co-accused has not advise the prisoner of the charge and of his right to demand trial. If at anytime
been arrested? Principal not arrested, but the accessory and accomplice were thereafter the prisoner informs his custodian that he demands such trial, the
arrested. YES, the trial can proceed. The evidence shall be enough to prove latter shall cause notice to that effect to be sent promptly to the public attorney.
the hypothetical guilt of the principal. The PAO lawyer should file a Motion to set the case for hearing.
If the two were convicted, is the principal also arrested? NO, the evidence (c) Upon receipt of such notice, the public attorney shall promptly seek to obtain
presented was not against the principal. There shall be a new trial for the the presence of the prisoner for trial.
_________________________________________________
19
(d) When the custodian of the prisoner receives from the public attorney a the same shall be interpreted as a bar to any charge of denial of the right to
properly supported request for the availability of the prisoner for purposes of trial, speedy trial guaranteed by section 14(2), article III, of the 1987 Constitution.
the prisoner shall be made available accordingly. (sec. 12, cir. 38-98) (sec. 15, cir. 38-98)
Section 8. Sanctions.— In any case in which private counsel for the accused,
the public attorney, or the prosecutor:
What is the BALANCING TEST in applying the time limits imposed in the
Speedy Trial Act of 1998?
(a) Knowingly allows the case to be set for trial without disclosing that a
necessary witness would be unavailable for trial; Federico Miguel Olbes vs. Danilo A. Buemio, et al., G.R. No. 173319,
December 4, 2009.
(b) Files a motion solely for delay which he knows is totally frivolous and without
merit; “The time limits set by the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 do not thus preclude justifiable
postponements and delays when so warranted by the situation. To the Court, the
(c) Makes a statement for the purpose of obtaining continuance which he knows reasons for the postponements and delays attendant to the present case reflected
to be false and which is material to the granting of a continuance; or above are not unreasonable. While the records indicate that neither petitioner nor
his counsel was notified of the resetting of the pre-trial to October 23, 2003, the
(d) Willfully fails to proceed to trial without justification consistent with the same appears to have been occasioned by oversight or simple negligence which,
provisions hereof, the court may punish such counsel, attorney, or prosecutor, standing alone, does not prove fatal to the prosecution's case. The faux pas was
as follows: acknowledged and corrected when the MeTC recalled the arrest warrant it had
issued against petitioner under the mistaken belief that petitioner had been duly
By imposing on a counsel privately retained in connection with the defense of an notified of the October 23, 2003 pre-trial setting.
accused, a fine not exceeding twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00);
Reiterating the Court's pronouncement in Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. that
By imposing on any appointed counsel de oficio, public attorney, or prosecutor a "speedy trial" is a relative and flexible term, Lumanlaw v. Peralta, Jr. summons the
fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00); and courts to maintain a delicate balance between the demands of due process and the
strictures of speedy trial on the one hand, and the right of the State to prosecute
crimes and rid society of criminals on the other.
By denying any defense counsel or prosecutor the right to practice before the
court trying the case for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days. The punishment
Applying the balancing test for determining whether an accused has been denied
provided for by this section shall be without prejudice to any appropriate criminal
his constitutional right to a speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of his case, taking
action or other sanction authorized under these rules. (sec. 13, cir. 38-98)
into account several factors such as the length and reason of the delay, the
accused's assertion or non-assertion of his right, and the prejudice to the accused
resulting from the delay, the Court does not find petitioner to have been unduly and
SECTION 9 is VERY IMPORTANT excessively prejudiced by the "delay" in the proceedings, especially given that he
had posted bail.”
SEC. 9. Remedy where accused is not brought to trial within the time limit. Provision in Rule 119 do not intend to limit the rights of the accused to speedy trial.
– 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 INTERESTING CASE ON THE ORDER OF TRIAL (Section 11) - Basic story in the
information may be dismissed on motion of the accused on the ground of denial presentation of evidence (who shall present evidence at which time).
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 In criminal cases, the burden of proof never shifts. It is always the prosecution’s
evidence to establish the exclusion of time under section 3 of this rule. The burden. However, the burden of evidence shifts. It refers to the party which is
dismissal shall be subject to the rules on double jeopardy. duty bound to present evidence.
If a case is dismissed on the ground of speedy trial, it amounts to acquittal. Refiling
of the same case against the accused will place the accused in double jeopardy. Section 11. Order of trial.— The trial shall proceed in the following order:
Take note that this is not mandatory. The information MAY be dismissed. The real (a) The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge and, in the
question is when should the judge grant a Motion to dismiss under this proper case, the civil liability.
provision? The judge should apply the BALANCING TEST.
(b) The accused may present evidence to prove his defense and damages, if
Bottomline: WHETHER OR NOT THE DELAY WAS REASONABLE.
any, arising from the issuance of a provisional remedy in the case.
Section 1(g) Rule 116 – accused should be arraigned within 30 days from the date
the court acquires jurisdiction over his person excluding the pendency of a motion (c) The prosecution and the defense may, in that order, present rebuttal and sur-
to quash or for a bill of particulars or other grounds for suspending arraignment. rebuttal evidence unless the court, in furtherance of justice, permits them to
present additional evidence bearing upon the main issue.
Section 1 Rule 119 – trial should begin within 30 days from receipt of pretrial order.
(Note: pre-trial should be conducted within 30 days from the date the court acquires (d) Upon admission of the evidence of the parties, the case shall be deemed
jurisdiction over the person of the accused – Section 1, Rule 118) submitted for decision unless the court directs them to argue orally or to submit
written memoranda.
Extension under Sec. 6 – period from arraignment to trial is 80 days. (Note: This is
because over three years have already passed since September 15, 1998) (e) When the accused admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or
information but interposes a lawful defense, the order of trial may be modified.
Note: Failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial shall constitute a (3a)
waiver of the right to dismiss under this section. (Sec. 14, Cir. 38-98)
(e) When the accused admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or
Section 10. Law on speedy trial not a bar to provision on speedy trial in the information but interposes a lawful defense, the order of trial may be
Constitution. — No provision of law on speedy trial and no rule implementing modified. (3a) Refers to a situation we call a REVERSE TRIAL.
_________________________________________________
20
Is this Mandatory or Discretionary? NO. MAY. You cannot compel a judge to
modify the order of trial in this situation. shall be taken. (5a)
Reversed Trial. If the defense is self-defense. The accused is admitting the

commission of the act but only because of self-defense. With the necessary 1. Judge
admission, there is nothing more for the prosecution to prove. The burden of 2. Member of the bar in good standing
evidence now shifts to the accused to prove the elements of self-defense. The first 3. Judge of the lower court
to present is the defense. This defense is determined during the pre-trial.
This opens the possibility of the examination being conducted somewhere else.
People vs. Mario Marcial, et al., G.R. Nos. 152864-65, September 27, 2006.
ion 11(e) uses the phrase “the order of trial MAY be modified,” Section 7 of R.A. No. Section 14. Bail to secure appearance of material witness.— When the court
8493 (Speedy Trial Act) uses the phrase “MAY modify the order of trial” and Section is satisfied, upon proof or oath, that a material witness will not testify when
3 of Supreme Court Circular No. 38-98 uses the SAME phrase. Thus, even if an required, it may, upon motion of either party, order the witness to post bail in
accused raises justifying circumstances or some other lawful defense while such sum as may be deemed proper. Upon refusal to post bail, the court shall
admitting the act or omission charged in the information, the court may still deny a commit him to prison until he complies, or is legally discharged after his
motion to reverse the order of trial. Marker testimony has been taken. (6a)
Rules on Conditional Examination of Witnesses (Sections 12-15)

Applies to witnesses for both the prosecution and the defense.
A situation where witnesses in a criminal case will be examined before trial.
This will become part of the evidence already. You have to know that in this Cross reference with WITNESS PROTECTION LAW (R.A. No. 6981) – to protect
situation, luging-lugi ang prosecution. witnesses who do not want to testify by reason of fear.
Example: If the eye witness saw that the accused was only defending himself. The Section 15. Examination of witness for the prosecution.—When it
witness is dying. In other words, if you wait for the date of trial, the witness might be satisfactorily appears that a witness for the prosecution is too sick or infirm to
dead. What shall you do? The remedies under Section 12-15 provide the rules that appear at the trial as directed by the court, or has to leave the Philippines with
govern situations like this on the part of the defense evidence as against the no definite date of returning, he may forthwith be conditionally examined before
prosecution’s evidence. The rules are so much more stringent when it comes to the the court where the case is pending. Such examination, in the presence of the
prosecution. accused, or in his absence after reasonable notice to attend the examination has
been served on him, shall be conducted in the same manner as an examination
Justification: Presumption of innocence. The vast disparity of the resources of the trial. Failure or refusal of the accused to attend the examination after
available to the state as against the accused. notice shall be considered a waiver. The statement taken may be admitted in
behalf of or against the accused. (7a)
The presumption is that the state has all the necessary resources to bring the
witnesses against the accused. 1. Sick
2. Has to Leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning
Grounds for conditional examination in (the witness’) behalf
Only before the court where the case is pending.
Section 12. Application for examination of witness for accused before trial.
— When the accused has been held to answer for an offense, he may, upon
motion with notice to the other parties, have witnesses conditionally examined in Distinguish Section 13 and 15
his behalf. The motion shall state:
13- Defense Witness
(a) the name and residence of the witness; 15- Prosecution Witness
13- Examination may be made before any member of the bar in good standing or
(b) the substance of his testimony; and the judge of an inferior court designated by the judge of the court where the case is
pending.
(c) that the witness is sick or infirm as to afford reasonable ground for believing 15- Examination may be made only before the judge or the court where the case is
that he will not be able to attend the trial, or resides more than one hundred pending.
(100) kilometers from the place of trial and has no means to attend the same,
or that other similar circumstances exist that would make him unavailable or Example: There is a witness in Cebu who cannot go to Davao because he is ill. If
prevent him from attending the trial. The motion shall be supported by an he is a witness for the accused, he may be examined there pursuant to Section 13.
affidavit of the accused and such other evidence as the court may require. (4a) On the other hand, if he is a witness of the prosecution, Section 15 applies. He has
to be presented before the judge of the court where the case is pending. He cannot
be examined in Cebu.
If the Court grants the Motion: Atty. Europa’s work-around: To apply the rules on electronic evidence.
Section 13. Examination of defense witness; how made.— If the court is
Why? Because the prosecution (the State) is presumed to have all the resources of
satisfied that the examination of a witness for the accused is necessary, an order
the government available to it to cause the production of its witnesses.
shall be made directing that the witness be examined at a specific date, time and
place and that a copy of the order be served on the prosecutor at least three (3)
Can the prosecution conduct a deposition of a prosecution witness in a place
days before the scheduled examination. The examination shall be taken
other than the place of the court where the case is pending by invoking the
before a judge, or, if not practicable, a member of the Bar in good standing so
rules on deposition under Rule 23? That cannot be done because there are
designated by the judge in the order, or if the order be made by a court of
specific provisions on the Rules in Criminal Procedure to govern the
superior jurisdiction, before an inferior court to be designated therein. The
situation. SPECIFIC over GENERAL. You cannot apply the civil rules in criminal
examination shall proceed notwithstanding the absence of the prosecutor
cases.
provided he was duly notified of the hearing. A written record of the testimony
_________________________________________________
21
[G.R. No. 152643. August 28, 2008.] Concepcion Cuenco Vda. De Manguerra designated therein," the examination of a witness for the prosecution under Section
and the Hon. Ramon C. Codilla, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial 15 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (December 1, 2000) may be done
Court of Cebu City, Branch 19, Petitioners v. Raul Risos, Susana Yongco, only "before the court where the case is pending".
Leah Abarquez and Atty. Gamaliel D.B. Bonje, Respondents.
Rule 119 categorically states that the conditional examination of a prosecution
On the more important issue of whether Rule 23 of the Rules of Court applies to the witness shall be made before the court where the case is pending. Contrary to
instant case, we rule in the negative. petitioners' contention, there is nothing in the rule which may remotely be
interpreted to mean that such requirement applies only to cases where the witness
It is basic that all witnesses shall give their testimonies at the trial of the case in the is within the jurisdiction of said court and not when he is kilometers away, as in the
presence of the judge. This is especially true in criminal cases in order that the present case. Therefore, the court may not introduce exceptions or conditions.
accused may be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses pursuant Neither may it engraft into the law (or the Rules) qualifications not contemplated.
to his constitutional right to confront the witnesses face to face. It also gives the When the words are clear and categorical, there is no room for interpretation. There
parties and their counsel the chance to propound such questions as they deem is only room for application. Petitioners further insist that Rule 23 applies to the
material and necessary to support their position or to test the credibility of said instant case, because the rules on civil procedure apply suppletorily to criminal
witnesses. Lastly, this rule enables the judge to observe the witnesses' demeanor. cases.
This rule, however, is not absolute. As exceptions, Rules 23 to 28 of the Rules of
Court provide for the different modes of discovery that may be resorted to by a party It is true that Section 3, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides that the rules of civil
to an action. These rules are adopted either to perpetuate the testimonies of procedure apply to all actions, civil or criminal, and special proceedings. In effect, it
witnesses or as modes of discovery. In criminal proceedings, Sections 12, 29 13 30 says that the rules of civil procedure have suppletory application to criminal cases.
and 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on However, it is likewise true that the criminal proceedings are primarily governed by
December 1, 2000, allow the conditional examination of both the defense and the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Considering that Rule 119 adequately
prosecution witnesses. and squarely covers the situation in the instant case, we find no cogent reason to
apply Rule 23 suppletorily or otherwise.
In the case at bench, in issue is the examination of a prosecution witness, who,
according to the petitioners, was too sick to travel and appear before the trial court. To reiterate, the conditional examination of a prosecution witness for the purpose of
Section 15 of Rule 119 thus comes into play, and it provides: taking his deposition should be made before the court, or at least before the judge,
where the case is pending. Such is the clear mandate of Section 15, Rule 119 of
Section 15. Examination of witness for the prosecution. — When it satisfactorily the Rules. We find no necessity to depart from, or to relax, this rule. As correctly
appears that a witness for the prosecution is too sick or infirm to appear at the trial held by the CA, if the deposition is made elsewhere, the accused may 139 not be
as directed by the court, or has to leave the Philippines with no definite date of able to attend, as when he is under detention. More importantly, this requirement
returning, he may forthwith be conditionally examined before the court where the ensures that the judge would be able to observe the witness' deportment to enable
case is pending. Such examination, in the presence of the accused, or in his him to properly assess his credibility. This is especially true when the witness'
absence after reasonable notice to attend the examination has been served on him, testimony is crucial to the prosecution's case.
shall be conducted in the same manner as an examination at the trial. Failure or
refusal of the accused to attend the examination after notice shall be considered a While we recognize the prosecution's right to preserve its witness' testimony to
waiver. prove its case, we cannot disregard rules which are designed mainly for the
protection of the accused's constitutional rights. The giving of testimony during trial
The statement taken may be admitted in behalf of or against the accused. is the general rule. The conditional examination of a witness outside of the trial is
Petitioners contend that Concepcion's advanced age and health condition exempt only an exception, and as such, calls for a strict construction of the rules.
her from the application of Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure,
and thus, calls for the application of Rule 23 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The POSSIBLE WORKAROUND UNDER THE RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
contention does not persuade. The very reason offered by the petitioners to exempt
Concepcion from the coverage of Rule 119 is at once the ground which places her People vs. Noel Enojas, Et Al, (G.R. No. 204894, March 10, 2014) the Supreme
squarely within the coverage of the same provision. Rule 119 specifically states that Courtaffirmed that in view of A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, September 24, 2002,
a witness may be conditionally examined: 1) if the witness is too sick or infirm to expanding the coverage of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the said rules
appear at the trial; or 2) if the witness has to leave the Philippines with no definite are APPLICABLE TO CRIMINAL CASES.
date of returning. Thus, when Concepcion moved that her deposition be taken, had
she not been too sick at that time, her motion would have been denied. Instead of
conditionally examining her outside the trial court, she would have been compelled RULE 10
to appear before the court for examination during the trial proper. Undoubtedly, the EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
procedure set forth in Rule 119 applies to the case at bar. It is thus required that the (Rules on Electronic Evidence)
conditional examination be made before the court where the case is pending. It is
also necessary that the accused be notified, so that he can attend the examination, Section 1. Electronic testimony. – After summarily hearing the parties
subject to his right to waive the same after reasonable notice. As to the manner of pursuant to Rule 9 of these Rules, the court may authorize the presentation of
examination, the Rules mandate that it be conducted in the same manner as an testimonial evidence by electronic means. Before so authorizing, the court shall
examination during trial, that is, through question and answer. determine the necessity for such presentation and prescribe terms and
conditions as may be necessary under the circumstances, including the
At this point, a query may thus be posed: in granting Concepcion's motion and in protection of the rights of the parties and witnesses concerned. File a Motion in
actually taking her deposition, were the above rules complied with? The CA Court then the witness will be teleconferenced (MS Teams). Does it violate
answered in the negative. The appellate court considered the taking of deposition Section 15? Atty. Europa: No, because the testimony will still be taken by the
before the Clerk of Court of Makati City erroneous and contrary to the clear judge of the court where the case is pending.
mandate of the Rules that the same be made before the court where the case is
pending. Accordingly, said the CA, the RTC order was issued with grave abuse of Section 2. Transcript of electronic testimony. – When examination of a
discretion. witness is done electronically, the entire proceedings, including the questions
and answers, shall be transcribed by a stenographer, stenotypist or other
We agree with the CA and quote with approval its ratiocination in this wise: recorder authorized for the purpose, who shall certify as correct the transcript
done by him. The transcript should reflect the fact that the proceedings, either in
Unlike an examination of a defense witness which, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 119 whole or in part, had been electronically recorded.
of the previous Rules, and now Section 13, Rule 119 of the present Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure, may be taken before any "judge, or, if not practicable, a Section 3. Storage of electronic evidence. – The electronic evidence and
member of the Bar in good standing so designated by the judge in the order, or, if recording thereof as well as the stenographic notes shall form part of the record
the order be made by a court of superior jurisdiction, before an inferior court to be
_________________________________________________
22
scene of the crime. It is possible that it can be corroborated with
of the case. Such transcript and recording shall be deemed prima facie evidence forensic evidence. It is not that his entire testimony should be
of such proceedings. corroborated by another witness because that would involve a
duplication of evidence and would negate the requirement that his
testimony is absolutely necessary.
(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty (does not
refer to the penalty, the determination in relation to Section 17 is
Section 16. Trial of several accused.—When two or more accused are jointly
based on actual degree of participation); and Conspiracy = the act of
charged with an offense, they shall be tried jointly unless the court, in its
one is the act of all. Everybody becomes equally guilty as far as
discretion and upon motion of the prosecutor or any accused, orders separate
penalties are concerned. The lookout has a lesser degree of
trial for one or more accused. (8a)
participation than those who actually went inside who robbed or killed
the people. He has a lesser degree of participation. Also includes a
getaway driver.
GO OVER RA 6981
Atty. Europa: Larranaga rape case. The lookout does not appear to be the most
One exception to that responsibility if the person who appears to be responsible is guilty. He was not the mastermind even if he also raped the victims. There is
granted immunity under the Witness Protection Act. really a lesser degree of actual participation. It emphasizes: 1) the fact that the
determination is based on actual degree of participation 2) the requisite is that
Discharge means that he will no longer be prosecuted for the crime. the applicant must appear not to be the MOST guilty. There is no requirement
that he has to be the LEAST guilty.
Two processes, pretty similar:
(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense
1) Judicial process under Section 17 Rule 119 involving moral turpitude.
2) Witness Protection Act (RA 6981)
Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form
Exception: If a suspect or a person accused to be responsible is granted coverage part of the trial. If the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused
under the witness protection act. as state witness, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.
(9a) If the accused denies the motion, the sworn statement of the accused that
Is it necessary that there is a case already before coverage under the Witness recounts his proposed testimony will not be utilized as against him. Inadmissible
Protection Act? NO, as early as preliminary investigation or even before that, if a as evidence. PERIOD.
person appears to be part of the commission of an offense, he can already be
granted coverage.
Atty. Europa: Cases where people surfaced who wanted to be state witnesses. WHEN SHOULD THE MOTION BE FILE? Before resting his case or before the
termination of the presentation of prosecution’s evidence.
In the Witness Protection Program, there is usually a regional implementor who is
the regional prosecutor. What the process involves is that the person who decides WHAT SHOULD BE IN THE MOTION? Justification for the grounds for the
to be admitted into the program has to execute an affidavit about what he knows discharge of the accused and that the accused has all the necessary requirements
about the offense. for him to be discharged.
What is important to remember is that the administrative process can be done even Attachments: Affidavit of the proposed state witness.
if there is no case filed yet.
DISCHARGE AMOUNTS TO AN ACQUITTAL
SEC. 17. Discharge of accused to be state witness. – When two or more

persons are jointly charged with the commission of any offense, upon motion of SEC. 18. Discharge of accused operates as acquittal. – The order indicated
the prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or more of the in the preceding section shall amount to an acquittal of the discharged accused
accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses for and shall be a bar to future prosecution for the same offense, unless the
the state when, after requiring the prosecution to present evidence and the accused fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance with his
sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the sworn statement constituting the basis for his discharge. (10a)
discharge, the court is satisfied that:
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused

whose discharge is requested; Without the testimony of the Caveat/Unless:
accused, the State will not likely prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable ground. 1) If he fails to testify or refuses to testify.
2) If his testimony is not in accordance with the sworn statement
(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper constituting the basis for his discharge.
prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of
said accused; Related to the first requisite. Bottomline: Without the HEARING IS MANDATORY. Hearing in support of discharge for the
testimony of the accused = prosecution cannot prove the guilt prosecution to prove the existence of the requisites. The other accused may
beyond reasonable doubt. oppose. After the hearing, the court will resolve whether or not to grant the
motion.
(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially
corroborated in its material points; This is a little vague. People Important principles:
have this idea that there must be other witnesses who can
corroborate the testimony of the accused. Parts of his testimony 1. Since the discharge of the accused operates as an acquittal, (Sec. 18)
should be supportable. Like, he was at the scene of the crime and regardless of whether or not his testimony is used by the prosecution it
there was another witness who can testify that he was indeed at the
_________________________________________________
23
cannot be revoked on this basis only. The acquittal cannot be “In the case of Webb vs. De Leon, where, as in this case, the petitioners questioned
revoked. the non-inclusion of Alfaro in the Information considering her alleged conspiratorial
participation in the crime, this Court explained:
2. Even if the judge erred in granting the discharge (e.g., the accused was
the most guilty) this will not affect the validity of the discharge or the “x x x the prosecution of crimes appertains to the executive department of
admissibility of the testimony of the witness but judges are warned in government whose principal power and responsibility is to see that our laws are
these instances to take the said testimony with a grain of salt. (Goco faithfully executed. A necessary component of this power to execute our laws is the
Case, 209 SCRA 329) Even if he is later found to be the most guilty. right to prosecute their violators.
Nope, nope, nope, nope because double jeopardy sets in.
The right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with a wide range of discretion---the
3. The term “does not appear to be the most guilty” refers to degree of discretion of whether, what and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on
actual participation and not to the imposable penalty which would be a smorgasbord of factors which are best appreciated by prosecutors. We thus hold
equal if there is conspiracy (People of the Philippines. v. Sumail, 212 that it is not constitutionally impermissible for Congress to enact R.A. No. 6981
SCRA 626) (Witness Protection Security and Benefit Act) vesting in the Department of Justice
the power to determine who can qualify as a witness in the program and who shall
4. The witness who is an accused may be discharged AFTER he testifies be granted immunity from prosecution.
(for as long as the prosecution has not yet rested “upon motion of the
prosecution before resting its case “ (Sec. 17) (Rosales v. CA, 215
SCRA 102) Section 9 of Rule 119 does not support the proposition that the power to choose
who shall be state witness is an inherent judicial prerogative. Under this provision,
Rosales case: The accused who wants to be a state witness is afraid of his friends. the court is given the power to discharge a state witness only because it has
If they discover that he has a plan to testify, he might be killed. He does not want to already acquired jurisdiction over the crime and the accused. The discharge of an
file a motion. During the presentation of prosecution’s evidence, he was accused is part of the exercise of jurisdiction but is not a recognition of an inherent
immediately called to testify for the prosecution. judicial function. x x x”
Lawyer: We have no objection your honor. He is waiving his right against self- 6. For this same reason, an MTC JUDGE who is conducting a preliminary
incrimination. After that, they filed a motion to discharge him as a state witness. The investigation in a criminal case cognizable by the RTC cannot order the
judge granted the motion. The case was raised until the Supreme Court. discharge of an accused since he is not the judge trying the case. (MTCs
cannot conduct PI anymore) No longer applicable
SC: If you look at the codal, the requirement is that the motion must be filed before
the prosecution rests, not before he testifies. This is difficult to do now. 7. What is meant by the requirement of “a hearing in support of the
discharge”? It is the hearing where the affidavit of the witness who is
5. The fiscal has no right to omit the inclusion of any of the accused from proposed to be discharged is presented to the court and the other
the information even if he intends to use him as a state witness (because accused are given an opportunity to oppose the motion to discharge him.
under Rule 110, Sec. 2 the information is supposed to be filed against all The witness is not actually required to testify during that same hearing.
persons who appear to be responsible for the offense involved) and it is (People of the Philippines v. CA and Jose Pring, 223 SCRA 479)
the judge who is trying the case who has the authority, under Sec. 17, to
order the discharge of the accused. (Note: exception is if a person has Note: The requirement of the submission of an affidavit of the proposed
been administratively declared a state witness prior to the filing of witness was introduced in the 1985 Rules so that the judge would have an idea
the information under R.A. No. 6981 or the Witness Protection Act) as to what this witness will be testifying on. (This inadequacy in the old law was
noted by the SC in the case of Flores v. SB, 124 SCRA 109)
If the motion will be granted under the judicial process = he will be DROPPED
as an accused. Is it necessary for the testimony of a proposed state witness to be corroborated by
other witnesses?
WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM (Administrative Process)
Rimberto T. Salvanera v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 143093, May 21,
1) What if there is no case filed yet but there was already coverage 2007.
under the Witness Protection Program? When the information is filed,
he will no longer be included as an accused. He is an exception to the - There is nobody else who can testify about it.
requirement that the prosecution must file the information against all
persons who appear to be responsible. “To require the two witnesses Parane and Salazar to corroborate the testimony of
2) Is the administrative process only allowed when there is no case in Abutin and Tampelix on the exact same points is to render nugatory the other
court? NO, even if the case is already pending in court, the requisite that “there must be no other direct evidence available for the proper
administrative process can still work. The DOJ still has the authority. prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of the state
That authority is constitutional. witness.” The corroborative evidence required by the Rules does not have to
consist of the very same evidence as will be testified on by the proposed
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: state witnesses. We have ruled that “a conspiracy is more readily proved by the
acts of a fellow criminal than by any other method. If it is shown that the statements
Judicial - discharged - dropped as accused of the conspirator are corroborated by other evidence, then we have convincing
proof of veracity. Even if the confirmatory testimony only applies to some
Administrative - You do not go through Section 17, the applicable rule will be the particulars, we can properly infer that the witness has told the truth in other
Rules on Amendment under Rule 110. respects.” It is enough that the testimony of a co-conspirator is corroborated by
some other witness or evidence. In the case at bar, we are satisfied from a reading
of the records that the testimonies of Abutin and Tampelix are corroborated on
Is the authority of the Department of Justice to grant immunity to state
important points by each other’s testimonies and the circumstances disclosed
witnesses under the Witness Protection Act an unconstitutional usurpation of
through the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses, and “to such extent that
judicial authority?
their trustworthiness becomes manifest.”
People v. Wilfredo Peralta,
G.R. No. 133267, August 8, 2002. Section 19. When mistake has been made in charging the proper offense.—
When it becomes manifest at any time before judgment that a mistake has been
_________________________________________________
24
She/he is the offended party. It is a very difficult thing to do. It takes a whole lot of
made in charging the proper offense and the accused cannot be convicted of the courage to do that.
offense charged or any other offense necessarily included therein, the accused
shall not be discharged if there appears good cause to detain him. In such case, A good example: A case of obscenity or pornogrpahy.
the court shall commit the accused to answer for the proper offense and dismiss
the original case upon the filing of the proper information. (11a)
Section 22. Consolidation of trials of related offenses.—Charges for
offenses founded on the same facts or forming part of a series of offenses of
REMEMBER: When the offense proven is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from the similar character may be tried jointly at the discretion of the court. (14a)
offense charged.
Cf., with last par of Sec. 14, Rule 110.

We talked about consolidation before (Section 2, Rule 111) which was about the
“If it appears at anytime before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging consolidation of the separate civil action/civil liability arising out of the offense
the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or information charged and the criminal case.
upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in accordance with section
19, Rule 119, provided the accused shall not be placed in double jeopardy. The Cf., Section 2, Rule 111 – TAKE NOTE that Rule 111 refers to consolidation of
court may require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance at the trial.” (14a) the civil aspect with the criminal in case where a separate civil action was filed.
Also Secs. 4 and 5 of Rule 117. Section 22 refers to consolidation of TRIALS of related cases. This usually
involves the same parties.
SEC. 4. Amendment of complaint or information. – If the motion to quash is
based on an alleged defect of the complaint or information which can be cured by Example: Duplicitous information. A motion to quash was filed and the 50 cases
amendment, the court shall order that an amendment be made. (4a) were filed separately. The remedy is to file a motion to consolidate the trial.
If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the Who can file? The rules do not exclude either party. Unless there is some
prosecution shall be given by the court an opportunity to correct the defect by reason why you would want to separate the trial. Atty. Europa: Usually I would just
amendment. The motion shall be granted if the prosecution fails to make the talk to the prosecutors involved and if they would be willing to consolidate the trials
amendment, or the complaint or information still suffers from the same defect of the related offenses so that they will only present evidence once.
despite the amendment. (n)
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
SEC. 5. Effect of sustaining the motion to quash. – If the motion to quash is
sustained, the court may order that another complaint or information be filed except Section 23. Demurrer to evidence.—After the prosecution rests its case, the
as provided in section 6 of this rule. If the order is made, the accused, if in custody, court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its
shall not be discharged unless admitted to bail. If no order is made or if having been own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2)
made, no new information is filed within the time specified in the order or within upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of
such further time as the court may allow for good cause, the accused, if in custody, court. If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the
shall be discharged unless he is also in custody of another charge. (5a) accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is
filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present evidence and
submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution.
Section 20. Appointment of acting prosecutor. — When a prosecutor, his (15a)
assistant or deputy is disqualified to act due to any of the grounds stated in
section 1 of Rule 137 or for any other reason, the judge or the prosecutor shall The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically
communicate with the Secretary of Justice in order that the latter may appoint an state its grounds and shall be filed within a non-extendible period of five (5) days
acting prosecutor. (12a) after the prosecution rests its case. The prosecution may oppose the motion
within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from its receipt. If leave of court
is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to evidence within a non-
For example there are grounds for inhibition. Like the accused is a brother of the extendible period of ten (10) days from notice. The prosecution may oppose
fiscal or prosecutor assigned. the demurrer to evidence within a similar period from its receipt.
Section 21. Exclusion of the public. —The judge may, motu proprio, exclude The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to
the public from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced during the trial is evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by
offensive to decency or public morals. He may also, on motion of the accused, certiorari before judgment. (n)
exclude the public from the trial except court personnel and the counsel of the
parties. (13a)
TO DEMUR: A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss. It is filed by the

defense to dismiss the case on the ground that the evidence presented by the
The right of the accused to a public trial is not absolute. The public may be prosecution is not enough to justify the conviction of the accused. Why should
excluded if the evidence to be produced is offensive to decency or public morals. the defense present evidence if the evidence presented by the prosecution is not
enough?
Examples of instances when the public or some of the public may be excluded:
SC has emphasized that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence
1. The evidence to be presented is of such character as to be offensive to and not on the weakness of the evidence of the defense.
public morals;
2. When the accused requests it; There are very specific rules involving the filing of the demurrer of evidence.
3. To prevent disorder in the court;
4. To prevent the embarrassment of a witness; Leave of Court - A fancy way of saying that you are asking for the permission of
5. To limit the attendance to seating capacity. the court. Is a motion for leave of court important? Yes. It shall be filed first
before the Motion to demurrer to evidence.
If there is testimony to be given in a rape case. Atty. Europa: This should never be
the ase. If the victim of rape sits on the witness stand to testify on the violation WHY? Before you file a Demurrer to Evidence, the defense is supposed to ask for
which the person suffered, I will never say that it is offensive to public morals. leave of court (Motion for leave of court to file Demurrer to Evidence). The codal
_________________________________________________
25
also says that if a Demurrer to Evidence is filed with the leave of court, meaning a October 2, 2009) only after the court shall have ruled on the prosecution’s formal
Motion to leave was filed and it was granted, then a Demurrer to Evidence is filed, if offer for that is when it can be deemed to have rested its case”
it is denied, then the accused will be allowed to present evidence.
Reason: It is only when the court has decided which pieces of evidence it is going
If a Demurrer to Evidence is filed in a criminal case without leave of court, and it is to admit or deny that the accused or defense has a complete picture of the
denied, patay kang akusado ka. The accused will have waived its right to present evidence against the accused.
evidence. This means that the court is saying that the accused is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. 99% convicted. When you want to file a Demurrer to Evidence you are going to say that the
evidence presented is not enough. How can you file a Demurrer to Evidence if you
When do you file the motion for leave of court? Within 5 days when the do not know all the evidence that the prosecution is going to utilize or that the court
prosecution rests or when the prosecution has terminated the presentation of its will allow in the case?
evidence. When exactly is that? The term rest is also loosely utilized in court. That
is the term that a party in a case will say when he has presented his last witness. Atty. Europa: I handled a case before involving a public officer who was accused
The prosecution will usually say, “Your honor that is our last witness. We are resting of having falsified his PDS. When the custodian of the records testified, on cross-
our case.” examination, the custodian admitted that there is no longer an original copy of the
PDS. Under the Rules of Evidence, the certified copy is an equivalent of the
When do you count the 5-year period? When you study the Rules on Evidence, original. However, in the definition of what a certified copy is, it is a duplicate that is
you will learn that there is this thing called the Formal offer of Evidence. It is certified by the custodian with the effect that it is a faithful reproduction of the
basically a list of the documentary and other evidence presented by a party. It also original in the record. There cannot be a certified copy if there is no original.
states the purpose and marking of that documentary evidence.
After the prosecution filed its formal offer, utilizing the certified copy that was
Answer: From the date that the defense receives the order of the court acting testified to by the custodian, I immediately opposed the formal offer saying that it
on the formal offer of documentary exhibits. cannot be admitted into evidence because it fails to comply with the requisites of
what a certified copy is. It cannot be given the same weight as the original and
SOME PRINCIPLES RELATING TO DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE: therefore, it violates the best evidence rule for it to be allowed to be utilized against
the accused.
1. After the prosecution rests, the court motu propio can dismiss the case
due to insufficiency of evidence without the accused filing a demurrer to When the judge agreed with me and denied the admission of that crucial piece of
evidence. However, the judge must give the prosecution an opportunity evidence, that was the only time when I had a good ground to a Demurrer to
to be heard before he can dismiss the case. Evidence.
2. The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall be filed How strictly is the 5-day period construed? VERY STRICTLY.
within a non-extendible period of five days after the prosecution rests its
case and the prosecution may oppose the motion within a non- Take Note: The possibility that the case will be dismissed because of the
extendible period of five days from its receipt. insufficiency of evidence can also be taken into consideration at the initiative of the
court “moto proprio”.
3. If a demurrer to evidence is filed with leave of court, the accused can
present evidence if it is denied. However, if it is filed without leave of 10 days to file the Demurrer to Evidence
court, the accused waives the right to present evidence. 10 days for motion to oppose, and then the Judge shall resolve it
4. The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to Dilatory Tactic: Petition for Certiorari = the criminal case cannot proceed. The SC
evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by decided to address it through the last paragraph: BAWAL NA MAG CERTIORARI
certiorari before judgment.
The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence
5. If the court grants a demurrer to evidence and thus, dismisses the case, or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before
this amounts to an acquittal. DOUBLE JEOPARDY CAN ARISE judgment. (n)
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DEMURRER WAS FILED BY THE
ACCUSED. (i.e.,filing a demurrer to evidence does not amount to the THIS HAS BEEN AFFECTED BY THE REVISED GUIDELINES FOR
express consent of the accused to the dismissal) CONTINUOUS TRIALS OF CRIMINAL CASES - Right after the presentation of the
last witness for the prosecution, it is now necessary or required for the prosecution
Section 15, Rules 119 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure is clear on the fact to make an oral offer of evidence. At that time the defense is also required to make
that if an accused files a Demurrer to Evidence WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT, an opposition. The judge is also required to rule, then and there, whether or not the
he WAIVES the right to present evidence if it is DENIED. evidence shall be presented.
People v. Dominador Cachola, G.R. Nos. 148712-15, January 21, 2004. Atty. Europa: I understand the reason by the Supreme Court to speed up cases.
IMPORTANT CASE However, I believe that this should be strictly implemented only in those cases
where there are a few pieces of documentary evidence.
“The filing by the appellants of a demurrer to evidence in the absence of prior leave
of court was a clear waiver of their right to present their own evidence. To sustain
their claim that they had been denied due process because the evidence they Section 24. Reopening.—At any time before finality of the judgment of
belatedly sought to offer would have exculpated them would be to allow them to conviction, the judge may, motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either
“wager on the outcome of judicial proceedings by espousing inconsistent viewpoints case, reopen the proceedings to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The proceedings
whenever dictated by convenience.” shall be terminated within thirty (30) days from the order granting it. (n)
When is the prosecution deemed to have rested or when will the 5 day period
to file a motion for leave start? This is a very wide remedy. The SC reiterated the basic requisites:
Elsa B. Reyes vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148607, September 5, 2012) 1) The reopening must be before the finality of judgment of the court.
“Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a “motion for 2) The order is issued by the judge on his own initiative or upon motion.
leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically state its grounds and 3) The order is issued only after a hearing is conducted.
shall be filed with in a non-extendible period of five (5) days after the prosecution 4) The order is intended to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
rests its case.” This period runs, according to Cabador v. People (G.R. No. 186001,
_________________________________________________
26
5) The presentation of additional and/or further evidence should be What must a judgment contain?
terminated within thirty (30) days from the issuance of the order.
Section 2. Contents of the judgment.—If the judgment is of conviction, it shall
Ophelia Hernan v. Sandiganbayan GR 217874 state
Cross Reference Rule 119 with (1) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed by
the accused and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances which attended
R.A. No. 4908 SPEEDY TRIAL OF CASES WHERE OFFENDED PARTY IS its commission;
ABOUT TO LEAVE THE PHILS WITH NO DEFINITE DATE OF RETURN. Tourist
who is a victim of theft. (2) the participation of the accused in the offense, whether as principal,
accomplice, or accessory;
R.A. No. 6033 PREFERENCE OF CASES INVOLVING INDIGENTS
(3) the penalty imposed upon the accused; and
R.A. No. 6034 TRANSPORT AND ALLOWANCES FOR INDIGENT LITIGANTS
(4) the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or omission to be
R.A. No. 6035 FREE TRANSCRIPTS FOR INDIGENT LITIGANTS recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is any, unless the
enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil action has been reserved or
RULE 120 - JUDGMENT waived. In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether the evidence
of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely
failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment
shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did
Section 1. Judgment; definition and form. —Judgment is the adjudication by
not exist. (2a)
the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged and the
imposition on him of the proper penalty and civil liability, if any. It must be written
in the official language, personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed
by him and shall contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts and the People of the Philippines vs. Marcelino A. Bugarin G.R. Nos. 110817-22. June
law upon which it is based. (1a) 13, 1997
- The judge summarized all the evidence presented. Ang nagpahaba lang
ay yung summary of the evidence presented.
JUDGMENT MUST BE IN WRITING
- The requirement of the fact and the law or the findings of the court.
Atty. Europa: There was a case set for reception of prosecution’s evidence. When
In a two-page decision, promulgated on February 11, 1993, the trial court, after
the case was called, the fiscal, complainant and witness were absent. The fiscal
giving a summary of the testimonies of the complainant and accusedappellant,
arrived with blood on the Barong because they were involved in a vehicular
laconically ruled:
accident. So the judge ordered the case to be set in trial.
The issue is simple. Is the private complainant credible in her story of how
The counsel for the accused claimed that a dismissal on the ground of a violation
she was raped? The answer of this Court is an undoubtful and a definite yes.
on the right of the accused to speedy trial amounts to an acquittal which is
immediately executory. To allow the reconsideration violates the right of the
- After, there was a finding of the guilt. SC: There has to be explanation of
accused against double jeopardy. Is he right? NO. The order of the court
the judge on why he believes that the accused is credible and what were
dismissing the case HAS NOT YET been reduced into writing and signed by the
the evidence supporting that?
judge. It fails in the first requisite that it has to be in writing.
Does this comply with the required contents of a judgment?
Abay, Sr. v. Garcia, 162 SCRA 665.
“The decision of the trial court falls short of this requirement in at least three
Marcelino Rivera, Jr. v. People of the Philippines G. R. No. 93219 August 30,
respects. First, it does not contain an evaluation of the evidence of the parties and a
1990
discussion of the legal questions involved. It does not explain why the trial court
considered the complainant's testimony credible despite the fact that, as
"Where there is a valid information and the accused has been arraigned, an order
accusedappellant points out, complainant could not remember the time of the day
of dismissal issued by the court, motu proprio, in the course of a trial of a criminal
when she was allegedly raped. It does not explain why accused-appellant's licking
case, whether based on the merits or for failure of prosecution witnesses to appear,
of complainant's genital constituted attempted rape and not another crime. Second,
has the effect of a judgment of acquittal and double jeopardy attaches. The order is
the complainant testified that she had been raped five times, to wit, in November
also immediately executory. However, this order of dismissal must be written in the
1989, on December 24, 1989, in June 1990, on March 14, 1991, and on December
official language, personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him
23, 1991, and that once, on January 17, 1992, she was molested by her father who
conformably with the provisions of Rule 120, section 2 of the Rules of Court. In the
licked her private part, for which reason six informations were filed against him, but
instant case, it is very clear that the order was merely dictated in open court by the
the decision found the accused-appellant guilty of only four counts of rape (which
trial judge. There is no showing that this verbal order of dismissal was ever reduced
the trial court erroneously said three counts) and one count of attempted rape,
to writing and duly signed by him. Thus, it did not yet attain the effect of a judgment
without explaining whether accused-appellant was being acquitted of one charge of
of acquittal, so that it was still within the powers of the judge to set it aside and enter
rape. Third, the decision is so carelessly prepared that it finds the accused-
another order, now in writing and duly signed by him, reinstating the case."
appellant guilty of three counts of consummated rape but sentences him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua ‘for each of the four counts of . . . rape.’" “
Personally and directly prepared by the judge. He must prepare the decision. Is
this in the Constitution? NO. What is included under the Constitution is “shall
The requirement that the decisions of courts must be in writing and that they must
contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts and the law upon which it is
set forth clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which they are based serves
based. ”
many functions. It is intended, among other things, to inform the parties of the
reason or reasons for the decision so that if any of them appeals, he can point out
There was a forum called by the Supreme Court of teachers soliciting to the appellate court the finding of facts or the rulings on points of law with which
suggestions/proposals for possible amendments to the rules to speed things up. he disagrees. More than that, the requirement is an assurance to the parties that, in
Atty. Europa suggested that we do away with this particular part of the rules. The reaching judgment, the judge did so through the processes of legal reasoning. It is,
parties shall be required to submit draft decisions. The court insisted that it will thus, a safeguard against the impetuosity of the judge, preventing him from deciding
violate the Constitution. by ipse dixit. Vouchsafed neither the sword nor the purse by the Constitution but
_________________________________________________
27
nonetheless vested with the sovereign prerogative of passing judgment on the life,
liberty or property of his fellowmen, the judge must ultimately depend on the power Considering that it has already been settled that while under Rule 110, an
of reason for sustained public confidence in the justness of his decision. The information or complaint should only charge one offense and that this is a ground
decision of the trial court in this case disrespects the judicial function.” for quashal under Rule 117, this defect is waivable.
These requirements are applicable even on appealed cases, there shall be a Thus, if it is waived, the accused can be convicted of as many crimes as there are
finding of the facts and law. charged in the information or complaint.
MEMORANDUM DECISION. BP 129 allows appellate courts to adopt the findings - Remember duplicitous information : ground to ask for quashal
of the fact and law of the lower courts. - If no motion to quash filed and more than 1 offense is filed?
- section 3 kicks in
Ong Chiu Kwan v. CA, G.R. No. 113006. November 23, 2000 - Ex: estafa, 50 counts - failed to object the two or more offense - allowed
separate penalty for each offense.
The Court notes that in the decision of the Regional Trial Court which the Court of
Appeals affirmed peremptorily without noticing its nullity, the Regional Trial Court Scenario: Rape - 3 accused, each took turn raping and holding the victim = 9
merely quoted the decision of the Municipal Trial Court in full and added two counts + sexual assault.
paragraphs, thus:
People v. Conde Rapisora, G.R. No. 138086. January 25, 2001
"This Court, in accordance with the rules, required the parties to submit their
corresponding memorandum or brief. The prosecution filed its memorandum, and “The information against the accused has charged him with multiple rape, at least
also with the defense. six times according to the trial court in its findings. Section 3, Rule 120, of the Rules
of Court provides that "when two or more offenses are charged in a single
"After a careful perusal of the record of the case and evaluating the evidence complaint or information, and the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court
thereto and exhibits thereof, this Court finds no ground to modify, reverse or alter may convict the accused of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and
the above-stated decision and hereby affirms the decision of the lower court in impose on him the penalty for each and every one of them . . ." Rapisora can thus
toto." be held responsible for as many rapes as might have been committed by him which
are duly proven at the trial.”
The Constitution requires that "[N]o decision shall be rendered by any court without
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based." Can an accused be convicted of TWO (2) COUNTS OF MURDER under an
The 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides that "[T]he judgment information that charges the accused with a complex crime of Double
must be written in the official language, personally and directly prepared by the Murder? YES.
judge and signed by him and shall contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the
facts proved or admitted by the accused and the law upon which the judgment is People of the Philippines v. Rosendo Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27,
based." 2011.
Although a memorandum decision is permitted under certain conditions, it cannot The body of the Information for Double Murder in this case stated thus:
merely refer to the findings of fact and the conclusions of law of the lower court. The
court must make a full findings of fact and conclusion of law of its own. “That on or about the 6th day of November, 2002, in the Municipality of Carigara,
Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
Consequently, the decision of the regional trial court is a nullity. above-named accused, with deliberate intent to kill, with treachery and evident
premeditation and abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
IF FOR ACQUITTAL and feloniously attack, assault and wound FELIPE LAGERA Y OBERO, 65 years
old and RANIL TAGPIS Y LAGERA, 1 year old, with the use of a long bolo
“In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether the evidence of the (sundang) which the accused had provided himself for the purpose, thereby
prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely inflicting upon Felipe Lagera: Hypovolemic shock, massive blood loss and multiple
failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the hacking wounds upon Ranil Tagpis:
judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability
might arise did not exist. (2a) Hypovolemic shock, massive blood loss and hacking wound, head[,] which wounds
caused the death of Felipe Lagera y Obera and Ranil Tagpis y Lagera, immediately
WHY? Because of the possibility of civil liability. If the judge says that it could not thereafter.”
have been A because he proved he was in Africa at that time, then there is no civil
liability. However, if the finding is that the evidence presented is not enough or the Held: With regard to the conflicting rulings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals vis-
court cannot justify the moral certainty necessary to find the accused guilty beyond a-vis the nature of crimes committed, we agree with the appellate court that the
reasonable doubt, when it is based on reasonable doubt, there is a possibility that accusedappellant should be held liable for two (2) separate counts of murder, not
the accused can be held civilly liable but the evidence is not enough to warrant a the complex crime of double murder.
conviction.
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that [w]hen a single act constitutes
two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means
Section 3. Judgment for two or more offenses. —When two or more offenses for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed,
are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object the same to be applied in its maximum period. There are, thus, two kinds of
to it before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged complex crimes. The first is known as compound crime, or when a single act
and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting out constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. The second is known as
separately the findings of fact and law in each offense. (3a) complex crime proper, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the
other.
Remember duplicitous information is a ground to ask for a quashal. What if The Court finds that there is a paucity of evidence to prove that the instant case
there was no motion to quash filed and more than one offense is charged in a falls under any of the two classes of complex crimes. The evidence of the
single occasion? That is when Section 3 applies. prosecution failed to clearly and indubitably establish the fact that Felipe and Ranil
were killed by a single fatal hacking blow from the accused-appellant. The
For example: 50 cases and only 1 information was filed. Supposedly, the rule is one eyewitness testimony of Carmela did not contain any detail as to this material fact.
count of BP 22 per case. He can be convicted of 50 counts under that single To a greater degree, it was neither proven that the murder of Felipe was committed
information. as a necessary means for committing and/or facilitating the murder of Ranil and
_________________________________________________
28
vice versa. As the factual milieu of the case at bar excludes the application of Article
48 of the Revised Penal Code, the accused-appellant should be made liable for two The answer is in the affirmative in view of the variance doctrine
separate and distinct acts of murder. In the past, when two crimes have been embodied in Section 4, in relation to Section 5, Rule 120, Rules of Criminal
improperly designated as a complex crime, this Court has affirmed the conviction of Procedure.
the accused for the component crimes separately instead of the complex crime.
Can a person accused of murder as a principal be convicted of murder as an
VARIANCE DOCTRINE : There is a variance between the offense charged and accessory? YES
that proven. This is not an entirely different offense.
- But if charged as accessory you cannot be convicted as principal
Section 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof.—
When there is variance between the offense charge in the complaint or Lito Vino v. CA, G.R. No. 84163 October 19, 1989
information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or
necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the “In this case, the correct offense of murder was charged in the information. The
offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense commission of the said crime was established by the evidence. There is no
charged which is included in the offense proved. (4a) variance as to the offense committed. The variance is in the participation or
complicity of the petitioner. While the petitioner was being held responsible as a
principal in the information, the evidence adduced, however, showed that his
THIS IS CALLED THE VARIANCE DOCTRINE participation is merely that of an accessory. The greater responsibility necessarily
includes the lesser. An accused can be validly convicted as an accomplice or
SIMPLE PRINCIPLE: The accused can be convicted of an offense necessarily accessory under an information charging him as a principal.”
included in the offense charged but he can NEVER be convicted of a higher
offense. (than that charged) Is Malversation included in Technical Malversation? NO
e.g., Charged with murder. If only homicide is proven he can be convicted of - The two cases are different
homicide. - Malversation : public funds used for private purposes
- Technical Malversation : funds earmarked for one purpose
But if charged with homicide, even if murder is proven, he can only be convicted of but used for another public purpose
murder.
Oscar Parungao v. Sandiganbayan, 274 Phil. 451 (1991).
Section 5. When an offense includes or is included in another.—An offense “A comparison of the two articles reveals that their elements are entirely distinct and
charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential different from the other. In malversation of public funds, the offender
elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, misappropriates public funds for his own personal use or allows any other person to
constitute the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the take such public funds for the latter's personal use. In technical malversation, the
offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form public officer applies public funds under his administration not for his or another's
part of those constituting the latter. (5a) personal use, but to a public use other than that for which the fund was
appropriated by law or ordinance. Technical malversation is, therefore, not included
in nor does it necessarily include the crime of malversation of public funds charged
When ALL of the elements of one offense form SOME of the elements of another in the information. Since the acts constituting the crime of technical malversation
offense, then the first offense is NECESSARILY included in the second offense, were not alleged in the information, and since technical malversation does not
and the second offense NECESSARILY includes the first. include, or is not included in the crime of malversation of public funds, he cannot
resultantly be convicted of technical malversation.”
For example homicide and murder. All of the elements of homicide form some of
the elements of murder. The only difference is the qualifying circumstance. We can Rape and Qualified Seduction ? NO. There are requisites for qualified seduction
say that homicide is necessarily included in murder or murder necessarily includes which are not included in the allegations for rape.
homicide.
People of the Philippines. v. Servillano Velasquez, 205 Phil. 741.
Important: If the offense proven is not necessarily included or does not
necessarily include the offense charged then follow the rule on mistake in “Assuming it to be a fact that the appellant may be considered a "domestic" within
charging the offense. This is because, in this situation, the offense proven it the meaning of Art. 337 of the Revised Penal Code — a point disputed by the
is clearly a WHOLLY DIFFERENT OFFENSE from the offense charged. appellant who claimed that he was not staying in the house of his sister but only
operated a radio repair shop in the ground floor of said house — still, no conviction
- This is how to know if the offense is necessarily included in the offense for qualified seduction may be decreed against the appellant. This is because there
charged is no allegation in the information filed against him of two of the essential elements
- Example: homicide and murder the difference is that in murder there is of the crime of qualified seduction, to wit: virginity of the offended party, and that the
qualifying circumstance - homicide is necesarily included in murder and latter is over 12 but under 18 years of age. In the event of a variance between the
vice versa offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved or established by
the evidence, the accused may only be convicted of the offense proved included in
Can a municipal mayor charged with UNLAWFUL INTERVENTION in the that which is charged, or of the offense charged included in that which is proved.
issuance of a cockpit license be convicted of POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED The view that conviction for qualified seduction may not be had on a charge of rape
INTEREST of the same cockpit when the latter offense is not included in the had already been expounded by Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando in People vs.
information but was proven during the trial? Ramires, 69 SCRA 144. For similar reasons, neither may the appellant be validly
convicted of the crime of simple seduction. As may be noted from the information
- SC: allowed filed against the appellant, there is likewise no allegation therein of the elements of
- What is important is the specific allegations in the information - this is the good reputation of the offended party and of the latter being over 12 but under
what complies with the right of the accused to know the charges against 18 years of age, which are essential for the commission of the crime simple
him. seduction.”
- Regardless of definitions, if the allegations in the information sufficiently
allege the elements of a particular crime and those are proven, he can People of the Philippines. v. Napoleon Subingsubing, November 25, 1993.
be convicted of that crime.
The verified complainant for rape contains allegations, sans averment on the use of
Edgar Teves v. Sandiganbayan (En Banc) force, which impute the crime of qualified seduction. Any deficiency in the complaint
G.R. No. 154182, December 17, 2004.
_________________________________________________
29
is supplied by the supporting affidavit, where complainant averred that the accused “While a criminal negligent act is not a simple modality of a willful crime, as we held
Napoleon Subingsubing, her uncle, who was living in the same house as the in Quizon v. Justice of the Peace of Bacolor, G.R. No. L-6641, July 28, 1955, but a
complainant, had sexual intercourse with her. The accused took advantage of his distinct crime in itself, designated as a quasi offense in our Penal Code, it may
moral ascendancy if not dominance over the complainant. She was presumably a however be said that a conviction for the former can be had under an information
virgin. As already stated, the accused was a domestic in relation to the complainant exclusively charging the commission of a willful offense, upon the theory that the
within the meaning of Art. 337 of the Revised Penal Code. greater includes the lesser offense.”
Apolinario Gonzales vs. CA G.R. No. 108811 May 31, 1994 “The fact that the information does not allege that the falsification was committed
with imprudence is of no moment for here this deficiency appears supplied by the
Rape and qualified seduction are not identical offenses. The elements of rape — (1) evidence submitted by appellant himself and the result has proven beneficial to
that the offender has had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such act is him.”
accomplished (a) by using force or intimidation, or (b) when the woman is deprived
of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the woman is under twelve (12) “In People v. Fernando, the accused was charged with, and convicted of, murder by
years of age — substantially differ from the elements of qualified seduction. The the trial court. On appeal, this Court modified the judgment and held the accused
latter requires (1) that the offended party is a virgin, which is presumed if she is liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide after finding that he did not act
unmarried and of good reputation; (2) that she must be over twelve (12) and under with criminal intent.”
eighteen (18) years of age; (3) that the offender has sexual intercourse with her;
and (4) that there is abuse of authority, confidence or relationship on the part of the Can an information charging the accused with having “sexually abused” the
offender. While the two felonies have one common element, i.e., carnal knowledge victim be sufficient to justify a conviction for rape?
of a woman, they significantly vary in all other respects. Contrary to the assertion of
accused-petitioner, the case of People vs. Samillano (56 SCRA 573), did not hold People v. Pedro Flores, December 27, 2002.
that qualified seduction is necessarily included in rape; what this Court has said is
that one who is charged with rape may be found guilty of qualified seduction when - Case on sexual abuse. It was not proven that it was his bullet that killed
the "verified complaint for rape contains allegations which aver the crime of the victim.
seduction."
The information: “That on the 28th day of December 1996, in the evening at Sitio
People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Ortega G.R. No. 116736. July 24, 1997 Buenlag, Brgy Nancamaliran West, Municipality of Urdaneta, Province of
Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
Appellant Garcia cannot be convicted of homicide through drowning under an above-named accused, with deliberate intent and by means of force and
information that charges murder by means of stabbing. intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, criminally and feloniously
sexually abuse the herein complaining witness FILIPINA FLORES, an 11 years old
Odon Pecho v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 111399. September 27, 1996 and daughter of the herein accused with the use of sharp pointed bladed weapon
and all against her will”
There is no such thing as attempted violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act. These stages apply only to felonies under the RPC. Held: The case at bar, however, is not one of variance between allegation and
proof. The recital of facts in the criminal complaints simply does not properly charge
Can an accused held liable for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide if rape, "sexual abuse" not being an essential element or ingredient thereof.
the information charges murder?
Neither can accused-appellant be convicted of acts of lasciviousness or of any
People of the Philippines. v. Eutiquia Carmen, et al., G.R. No. 137268, March offense for that matter under our penal laws. It is settled that what characterizes the
26, 2001 REMEMBER THIS CASE charge is the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information. For every crime
is made up of certain acts and intent which must be set forth in the complaint or
- It emphasizes the fact that if a person is charged with a crime premised information with reasonable particularity of time, place, names (plaintiff and
on dolo, he can be convicted of the same crime premised on culpa. defendant), and circumstances. In other words, the complaint must contain a
- This involved the crime involving a young child. The exorcist said that specific allegation of every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the crime
the child will be revived after 3 days. charged, the accused being presumed to have no independent knowledge of the
- There was no intent to kill but there was intent to exorcise. There was facts that constitute the offense.
still reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
- Can they be convicted of a crime premised on culpa when they were And even under the provisions of Republic Act No. 7610 (The Special Protection of
charged of a crime premised on dolo? YES. It was considered to be Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act), accused-
necessarily included in the crime premised on dolo. appellant cannot be held liable.
The parents of a young boy, believing that their son is “possessed” brought him to a Section 2 (g) of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of
“healer” who said she could exorcise the “bad spirit”. However the process of Child Abuse Cases 40, issued pursuant to Section 32 of Republic Act No. 7610,
“exorcism” done through immersing the boy head first into a drum of water resulted defines "sexual abuse" by inclusion as follows:
to his death. The accused, the healer and her assistants, were charged with
murder. Sexual abuse includes 1) the employment, use, persuasion, enticement, or coercion
of a child to engage in, or assist another person to engage in sexual intercourse or
Held: “In United States v. Divino, the accused, who was not a licensed physician, in lascivious conduct or 2) the molestation, 3) prostitution, or 4) incest with children.
an attempt to cure the victim of ulcers in her feet, wrapped a piece of clothing which (Emphasis supplied.)
had been soaked in petroleum around the victim's feet and then lighted the clothing,
thereby causing injuries to the victim. The Court held the accused liable for reckless From this broad, non-exclusive definition, this Court finds that the phrase "sexually
imprudence resulting in physical injuries. It was noted that the accused had no abuse" in the criminal complaints at bar does not comply with the requirement that
intention to cause an evil but rather to remedy the victim's ailment. (US v. Divino: the complaint must contain a specific averment of every fact necessary to constitute
He had skin irritation) the crime. Notably, the phrase "sexual abuse" is not used under R.A. No. 7610 as
an elemental fact but as an altogether separate offense. above-quoted Section 5
In another case, People v. Vda. de Golez, the Court ruled that the proper charge to thereof enumerates the punishable acts that must be alleged in the complaint or
file against a non-medical practitioner, who had treated the victim despite the fact information to hold an accused liable, none of which is reflected, in the complaints
that she did not possess the necessary technical knowledge or skill to do so and at bar charging accused-appellant.”
caused the latter's death, was homicide through reckless imprudence.”
The Supreme Court found the information to be VOID and DISMISSED the case.
_________________________________________________
30
Can an accused be convicted of illegal discharge of firearm if the charge is civil damages in the same case. It is not even necessary that a separate civil
murder? People v. Geronimo Dado G.R. No. 131421. November 18, 2002 action be instituted.
“In the same vein, petitioner cannot be held responsible for the wound inflicted on A court trying a criminal case CANNOT AWARD DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF THE
the victim's right outer lateral arm for the same reason that there is no evidence ACCUSED. The task of the trial court is limited to determining the guilt of the
proving beyond moral certainty that said wound was caused by the bullet fired from accused and if proper, to determine his civil liability. A criminal case is not
petitioner's .45 caliber pistol. the proper proceedings to determine the private complainant’s civil liability, if
any.
Nevertheless, petitioner is not completely without liability. The Court sustains the
finding of the trial court that petitioner fired his .45 caliber pistol towards the victim. Oscar Maccay, Et Al vs. Spouses Nobela G.R. No. 145823. March 31, 2005
From the attendant circumstances, it appears that there is no evidence tending to
prove that petitioner had animus interficendi or intent to kill the victim. Note that the - No counterclaims or cross-claims are allowed in criminal cases
prosecution witnesses did not see whether petitioner aimed to kill the victim. Intent - Casupanan v. Laroya
to kill cannot be automatically drawn from the mere fact that the use of firearms is
dangerous to life. Animus interficendi must be established with the same degree of The trial court erred in ordering complainant petitioner Maccay and prosecution
certainty as is required of the other elements of the crime. The inference of intent to witness Potenciano, as part of the judgment in the criminal case, to reimburse the
kill should not be drawn in the absence of circumstances sufficient to prove such P300,000 and pay damages to the accused respondent spouses. This Court ruled
intent beyond reasonable doubt. in Cabaero v. Hon. Cantos that a court trying a criminal case should limit itself to the
criminal and civil liability of the accused, thus:
Absent an intent to kill in firing the gun towards the victim, petitioner should be held
liable for the crime of illegal discharge of firearm under Article 254 of the Revised [Thus,] the trial court should confine itself to the criminal aspect and the possible
Penal Code. The elements of this crime are: (1) that the offender discharges a civil liability of the accused arising out of the crime. The counterclaim (and cross-
firearm against or at another person; and (2) that the offender has no intention to kill claim or third-party complaint, if any) should be set aside or refused cognizance
that person. Though the information charged the petitioner with murder, he could be without prejudice to their filing in separate proceedings at the proper time.
validly convicted of illegal discharge of firearm, an offense which is necessarily
included in the crime of unlawful killing of a person.” On PROMULGATION
In case of an acquittal may the accused be found CIVILLY LIABLE in the same Basic idea: In criminal cases, it is scheduled by promulgation. The entire decision
criminal case? will be read to the accused.
Anamer Salazar v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 151931, September 23, “In the presence of the accused”
2003.
Promulgation of judgment is one of the instances where the presence of the
The acquittal of the accused does not prevent a judgment against him on the civil accused is required. As provided, one of the exceptions is when the conviction is for
aspect of the case where: a light offense.
(a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence What are light felonies?
is required;
Article 9 of the Revised Penal Code “Light felonies are those infractions of
(b) where the court declared that the liability of the accused is only civil; law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos or both, is provided.”
(c) where the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon
the crime of which the accused was acquitted. What about if the judgment is for acquittal? It is allowed. The accused does not
need to avail of any remedy.
Moreover, the civil action based on the delict is extinguished if there is a finding in
the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil Myla Paredes et al. v. Judge Jacinto Manalo, A.M. No. MTJ-93-842 May 10,
liability might arise did not exist or where the accused did not commit the acts or 1995
omission imputed to him”
The delay in the promulgation of the decision in Crim. Case No. 1603 was ironically
Sonny D. Romero vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 167546. July 17, 2009 caused by respondent Judge. We find that he acquitted complainants in the case.
Such being the case, the presence of accused was not necessary as the judgment
The 2nd paragraph of Section 2 of Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Court provides was one of acquittal. Moreover, Sec. 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court explicitly
that “In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether the evidence of the provides that if the accused fails to appear, the promulgation shall consist in the
prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to recording of the judgment in the criminal docket and a copy thereof served upon his
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment shall counsel.
determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not
exist.” Yolanda Cruz v. Filomeno Pascual A.M. No. MTJ-93-782 May 12, 1995
Dado
With regard to the absence of the accused during the promulgation of the judgment,
In case of aquital civilly liable? Yes we hold that respondent Judge did not administratively err in proceeding with the
Maccay v nobela promulgation. In a verdict of acquittal, the presence of the accused is not
- Important to remember that the court in a crim case cannot award civil indispensable since no appeal is necessary and the judgment become final and
damages in favor of the accused sec 1 rule 111 is clear - no counter or executory immediately after promulgation. The reading of the sentence in open
cross claims are allowed in criminal cases court to counsel for the accused or giving a copy of the decision to the accused or
- Remember casupanan v laroya - the accused in the criminal case can his counsel is sufficient promulgation.
file separate civil case based on other source of obli :aquiliana / quasi
delict Is it necessary for the offended party to be notified? NO. But, the SC has stated
that it is the better policy to inform the offended party.
Thus, the rule is that the acquittal of an accused of the crime charged will not
necessarily extinguish his civil liability, unless the court declares in a final Abraham Ramirez v. Antonia Corpuz-Macandong
judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. A.M. No. R-351-RTJ, Sept. 26, 1986
Courts can acquit an accused on reasonable doubt but still order payment of
_________________________________________________
31
Neither could respondent be held administratively liable for failing to notify
complainant of the promulgation of the decision in said criminal case. While it may changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application
be the better practice to notify the offended party of such promulgation, the Rules of for bail can only be filed and resolved by the appellate court.
Court do not require a judge to do so.
- Take note that whenever a person is detained somewhere else,
The last paragraph was taken from the case of People of the Philippines. v. especially if he is already serving sentence, the Rules make it very
Omar Mapalao, G.R. No. 92415. May 14, 1991 One of the hot cases when Atty. difficult to move the accused because of the danger or possibility of
Europa took the bar escape.
- What will be done?
- Where the Promulgation in Absentia came from - Section 5 of Rule 114, only the appellate court can grant bail
“If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was The proper clerk of court shall give notice to the accused personally or through
without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these rules against his bondsman or warden and counsel, requiring him to be present at the
the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the decision. If the accused was tried in absentia because he
promulgation of judgment, however, the accused may surrender and file a motion jumped bail or escaped from prison, thenotice to him shall be served at his last
for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state the reasons for his known address.
absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a
justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) - At his last known address
days from notice. (6a)”
In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation of
The reason for this rule is because once an accused escapes from prison or judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall be made by recording the
confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last known
court and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court he is address or thru his counsel.
deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court.
- Criminal docket is an actual book wherein the dispositive portion of
Note: The judgment must be promulgated during the incumbency of the judge the judgment is recorded
rendering the decision otherwise it would no longer be a decision penned - This is known as Promulgation in Absentia (due notice + failed to
personally and directly by the judge. appear).
- This is very important because if a judgment is validly promulgated in
absentia, the consequences are the following:
- A decision must be written directly and personally by the judge.
- The judgment must be rendered during the incumbency. Once he is no
If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was
longer the judge, the decision is no longer penned directly and
without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these rules
personally by the judge.
against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15)
- The decisions of judges are sealed and endorsed to the Clerk of Court
days from promulgation of judgment, however, the accused may surrender
and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state the
People of the Philippines. v. CFI of Quezon City, 227 SCRA 457.
reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his
absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies
Judge who penned the decision detailed to another branch of the RTC OF QC.
within fifteen (15) days from notice. (6a)
No violation because he belongs to the same court even if different branch.
TYPES OF PROMULGATION - He shall lose the remedies available in these rules against the
judgment and the court shall order his arrest + the court shall order
Section 6. Promulgation of judgment.— The judgment is promulgated by his arrest = patay kang bata ka!
reading it in the presence of the accused and any judge of the court in which - If there is just reason, the Court may reset or excuse the accused
it was rendered. However, if the conviction is for a light offense, the judgment - 15 days from promulgation, the accused may surrender and file a
may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. When the motion for leave of court to avail of the remedies. He has to convince
judge is absent or outside the province or city, the judgment may be the court that there was justification for his absence.
promulgated by the clerk of court. - 15 days from receipt of notice, he shall avail of the said remedies
- The usual kind of promulgation

- First Type or the ordinary type wherein the judgment will be read in
the presence of the accused TYPES OF PROMULGATION (Sec. 6)
- How many RTCs are there in the country? There are just 13 (1
regional trial court per region, there are just several branches per 1. ORDINARY PROMULGATION – reading it in the presence of the accused and
RTC, Davao City 10 to 17 + 33 + 3 new). any judge of the court in which it was rendered.
- Decisions can be quite long depending on the writing ability and style
of the judge. Technically, you will read the entire decision. However, it 2. PROMULGATION OF CONVICTION IN A LIGHT FELONY – the judgment may
has been a common practice in court, that the accused can waive the be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative.
reading of the body and just proceed with the dispositive portion.
- Second Type if the conviction is for a light offense (if it is 3. PROMULGATION BY CLERK OF COURT – when the judge is absent or outside
punishable by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or the province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court.
both, 1 day to 30 days). The accused may not be present.
- Third Type is by the Clerk of Court. When the judge is absent or 4. PROMULGATION BY EXEC. JUDGE – If the accused is confined or detained in
outside the province or city another province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the executive judge
of the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the place of confinement or
detention upon request of the court which rendered the judgment.
If the accused is confined or detained in another province or city, the judgment
may be promulgated by the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court having
5. PROMULGATION IN ABSENTIA – In case the accused fails to appear at the
jurisdiction over the place of confinement or detention upon request of the court
scheduled date of promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall
which rendered the judgment. The court promulgating the judgment shall have
be made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy
authority to accept the notice of appeal and to approve the bail bond pending
thereof at his last known address or thru his counsel.
appeal; provided, that if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused
_________________________________________________
32
Essential requisites of promulgation in absentia: The RTC should have considered the joint motion to have been filed solely by the
accused who was present as the other accused had lost all remedies against the
(a) that the accused was notified of the scheduled date of promulgation; judgment.
(b) that despite such notice, he failed to appear;
(c) that the judgment be recorded in the criminal docket; and If, in the same case, the judge ACQUITTED two of the accused on the basis of
(d) that a copy thereof shall be served upon the accused or counsel. the motion for reconsideration, can these two claim double jeopardy if the
case against them is reinstated?
If the accused fails to appear during promulgation despite notice and the
judgment is read in the presence of her counsel, will the failure of the No, the court had no jurisdiction or authority to take cognizance of the motion for
recording of the judgment in the criminal docket affect the validity of the reconsideration as to the accused who were at large, thus their acquittal upon
promulgation? action on the motion for reconsideration was VOID. They cannot thus claim double
jeopardy on the basis of a VOID order.
Marilyn C. Pascua vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 140243. December 14, 2000
In the absence of the recording of the judgment in the criminal docket, there Section 7. Modification of judgment.—A judgment of conviction may, upon
can be NO VALID PROMULGATION. A void promulgation will never attain finality motion of the accused, be modified or set aside before it becomes final or before
of judgment even if it was served to the lawyer of the accused. appeal is perfected. Except where the death penalty is imposed, a judgment
becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the
In the same case, will the fact that the accused subsequently received a copy sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or when the accused
of the decision cause the 15-day period to appeal to begin to run? has waived in writing his right to appeal, or has applied for probation. (7a)
“We rule in the negative. Petitioner's later receipt of the copy of the decision does
not in any way cure an invalid promulgation. And even if said decision be recorded Other modes of accelerating the finality of the judgment of conviction.
in the criminal docket later, such piece-meal compliance with the Rules will still not
validate the May 5, 1998 promulgation which was invalid at the time it was 1) Service of the sentence
conducted. The express mention in the provision of both requirements for a valid 2) Satisfaction
promulgation in absentia clearly means that they indeed must concur.” 3) Waiver of the right to Appeal
4) An application of Probation (the waiver of the right to appeal). Pwede
If the accused jumps bail, it amounts to an abandonment of his appeal and magchange ang mind ng accused
the judgment immediately becomes final and executory. That will amount to an
abandonment of his appeal. An interesting case, the accused wanted to serve sentence. Nagfile ng Notice of
Appeal ang offended party as far as the civil aspect is concerned. The accused
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. argued because he already started serving the sentence. The accused is wrong.
147703, April 14, 2004. The modes of accelerating finality only affects the criminal aspect.
- Article 103 of the Civil Code. If the accused does not appeal because he NOTE: Prosecution cannot move for modification. People of the Philippines v.
jumps bail, the employer also loses his right to appeal. That will be Eladio Viernes, G.R. Nos. 136733-35, December 13, 2001.
binding even with the employer.
In 1985, Section 7 of Rule 120 was amended to include the phrase "upon motion of
“As to when a judgment of conviction attains finality is explained in Section 7 of the accused" — effectively resurrecting the Ang Cho Kio ruling (95 Phil. 475)
Rule 120 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, which we quote: prohibiting the prosecution from seeking a modification of a judgment of conviction.
“A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or set Under this Rule, a judgment of conviction, before it became final, could be modified
aside before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected. Except where the death or set aside upon motion of the accused. It obviously aims to protect the accused
penalty is imposed, a judgment becomes final after the lapse of the period for from being put anew to defend himself from more serious offenses or penalties
perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or which the prosecution or the court may have overlooked in the original trial. It does
served, or when the accused has waived in writing his right to appeal, or has not however bar him from seeking or receiving more favorable modifications.
applied for probation.”
Significantly, the present Rules, as amended last year, retained the phrase "upon
In the case before us, the accused-employee has escaped and refused to motion of the accused,"
surrender to the proper authorities; thus, he is deemed to have abandoned his
appeal. Consequently, the judgment against him has become final and executory.” Note: Even if finality of the criminal aspect is accelerated, the civil aspect will
become final only after the lapse of the 15-day period to appeal.
If there is more than one accused and, during the promulgation, only one of
the accused was present and the others jumped bail, can the court take People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Santiago June 20, 1989 G.R. No. 80778, 20
cognizance of a joint motion for reconsideration? June 1989 Reiterated in Palu-ay vs. CA, G.R. No. 112995, July 30, 1998
People v. Joven De Grano, G.R. No. 167710, June 5, 2009. It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the
interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil
- There were multiple accused. Only “Jose” attended the hearing. Jose- liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is limited to
ordinary, others promulgation in absentia. A joint Motion for that of a witness for the prosecution. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court
Reconsideration was filed for all of them. It was resolved by the court. or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be
Jose was convicted, the 4 were acquitted. The judge should not have undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor
taken the MR because the 4 lose all remedies. The judge should have General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The private
considered the Motion filed only as to Jose. offended party or complainant may not take such appeal. However, the said
- Can it still be reversed? Yes because the judge has no jurisdiction since offended party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of
he had no authority. It was not a valid order insofar as the 4 were the accused.
concerned. There is no double jeopardy because there was no valid
prior acquittal.
Section 8. Entry of judgment.—After a judgment has become final, it shall be
entered in accordance with Rule 36. (8) Section 9. Existing provisions governing
suspension of sentence, probation and parole not affected by this Rule.—
_________________________________________________
33
Atty. Europa: As a matter of habit, I normally request for the issuance of a
Nothing in this Rule shall affect any existing provisions in the laws governing subpoena. Two days before the trial, the witness can no longer be contacted. The
suspension of sentence, probation or parole. (9a) witness did not appear. I manifested to the court that a subpoena has been served
and the witness informed us that he would be coming. The judge said that you will
be considered to have waived the right to present the witness. Atty. Europa
requested for a reconsideration, asked that the case will be reset and a subpoena
RULE 121 - NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION will be reissued. The judge still denied the request. This is unprocedural and an
error in the application of the rules. Between a rule and a constitutional right, the
rule has to be relaxed.
Can only be filed by the accused. He necessarily waives his right against double
jeopardy. If he is charged with murder but only found guilty of homicide then he files
“May mga lawyers na siraulo.” There are also instances wherein the lawyer is fake
for motion for recosnideration, the Court may find him guilty of murder. There would
or who is not a member of the Bar. This happens especially in large cities.
be no violation of his right against double jeopardy.
This refers to instances where there was a serious breach of procedure that
Two Motions:
prejudiced the substantial rights of the accused. Examples:
1) Reconsideration - you are asking the court to take a second look at the
1. The accused was forced to go into trial without counsel;
same evidence. You might put forth new arguments or other things or
issues to convince the court that there was some error in the conviction.
2. The counsel for the accused turned out to be a fraud who is not actually a lawyer;
2) For a New Trial - the accused is asking the court to allow the
presentation of additional evidence.
3. A material witness for the accused was not allowed to testify on the basis on an
erroneous application of the rules;
When will you be allowed to file? BOTH has to be with the consent of the
accused.
4. The court erroneously refused to issue subpoena to compel the attendance of a
Section 1. New trial or reconsideration. —At any time before a judgment of material witness for the accused.
conviction becomes final, the court may, on motion of the accused or at its own
instance but with the consent of the accused, grant a new trial or Atty. Europa: The witness that I presented this morning was asked by the
reconsideration. (1a) complainant not to testify. “I will not allow my son to appear in court.” I was very
hesitant to present a witness whom I am not sure will testify in favor of my client.
The witness has executed an affidavit during the preliminary investigation. He
confirmed everything that he said in the affidavit.
“At any time before a judgment of conviction becomes final”
“newly discovered evidence”
1. This Rule applies only to judgments of conviction- an acquittal is immediately
final and executory. Requisites:
2. Within fifteen days from the date of promulgation the accused can appeal. The People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Tirona G.R. No. 128907 December 22,
period to appeal is interrupted (Take Note: not suspended) by the filing of a 1998
Motion for Reconsideration or a Motion for New Trial. The period will run again from
notice of the denial of the Motion. (A new 15-day period per the Neypes Ruling) For newly discovered evidence to be a ground for new trial under paragraph
(b) above, it is required that
3. If the accused files a Motion for New Trial or a Motion for Reconsideration, he
waives the right against double jeopardy. This means that the court can modify the i) the evidence is discovered after trial;
judgment to a graver offense, e.g., Charged with Murder Convicted of Homicide,
filed a Motion for Reconsideration, judge modified the judgment to murder. ii) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even
with the exercise of reasonable diligence; and
4. Distinctions between Motion for Reconsideration or New Trial and Modification of
judgment. iii) the evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching,
and of such weight that, if admitted, would probably change the judgment. This is
BOTH can affect only judgments of conviction. very IMPORTANT. It should be something earth-shaking or if the court will
take it into consideration, it would probably change the judgment.
a) Modification of judgment can be had only upon motion of the accused while
Recon and New Trial can also be at the court’s own instance with the consent of the Atty. Europa: Ballistic report that was sent after the presentation of evidence. I was
accused. able to present it during the rebuttal. If he was convicted, we could argue that we
could not produce it because the NBI just released it.
b) In modification of judgment the original judgment stands while in a Motion for
Recon or New Trial, if it is granted, there will be an entirely new judgment. Will the recantation of a witness through an affidavit of desistance be
sufficient ground for a new trial? One of the favorite things of the lawyer. The
Section 2. Grounds for a new trial.—The court shall grant a new trial on any of witness will execute an Affidavit of Recantation. He will state that what he
the following grounds: (a) That errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the previously stated was not true.
substantial rights of the accused have been committed during the trial; (b) That
new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not Affidavit of Desistance : He is no longer interested in pursuing the case.
with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if
introduced and admitted would probably change the judgment. (2a) These two are very different from each other.
Not all affidavits of recantation are kalokohan.

THE CONSEQUENCES ARE DEPENDENT ON THE GROUNDS.
Gomez v. IAC, 135 SCRA 6. People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Garcia G.R.
“That errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the No. 120387-88. March 31, 1998
accused have been committed during the trial” IThere were certain rules that
where erroneously applied. - SC did not state that an affidavit of recantation is not allowed but SC
said that you have to take it with a grain of salt. If courts are allowed to
_________________________________________________
34
just accept any kind of affidavit of recantation as a ground for a motion You may present affidavits, depositions, or a judge may require the
for new trial, it will open the floodgates of witnesses to issues such presentation of oral testimony. You have to know that under the present
affidavit because of inducement or threat. rules, it is the discretion of the judge whether or not to set a case for hearing.
- GR: If a witness has testified in court. Such affidavit cannot automatically
result in disbelieving his testimony.
- Atty. Europa: I defended a client in the murder case. I did a background Section 6. Effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration.— The effects of
check on the witnesses of the other side. I was able to talk to witnesses granting a new trial or reconsideration are the following:
who knew that the witnesses were not present during the crime. She
attended a birthday party in Panabo. Find a way to talk to people who (a) When a new trial is granted on the ground of errors of law or irregularities
attended the party. He was able to gather photos that the witness was in committed during the trial, all the proceedings and evidence affected thereby
Panabo City. I talked to the witness. Will you recant your testimony or I shall be set aside and taken anew. The court may, in the interest of justice, allow
will file perjury? the introduction of additional evidence.
- GR: Courts shall take it with a grain of salt.
(b) When a new trial is granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, the
“When confronted with an affidavit of recantation, courts are called upon to weigh evidence already adduced shall stand and the newly-discovered and such other
countervailing values in our legal and judicial system. A recantation, as a general evidence as the court may, in the interest of justice, allow to be introduced shall
rule, is not sufficient to warrant a new trial. If it were otherwise, a new trial would be be taken and considered together with the evidence already in the record.
granted whenever an interested party succeeds in intimidating or inducing any or
some of the witnesses to retract after trial their testimony, thus, opening the door (c) In all cases, when the court grants new trial or reconsideration, the original
to endless litigation. It is also injudicious to reject a testimony solely on the basis judgment shall be set aside or vacated and a new judgment rendered
of such recantation, which may later be repudiated, as this "will make a solemn trial accordingly. (6a)
a mockery and place the investigation at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses."
To warrant a new trial, Joylyn's affidavit of desistance must constitute a recantation

and not a mere withdrawal from the prosecution of the case. The Court en banc in The consequence of granting the motion is dependent on the ground.
Alonte, speaking through Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug, held that the complainant's
affidavit of desistance did not constitute a recantation, because she did not deny - Only the portion tainted with that irregularity will be redone. Like if the
the truth of her complaint but merely sought to "be allowed to withdraw" and lawyer is fake, only the period wherein the accused was represented by
"discontinue" the case because she wished "to start life anew and live normally a genuine lawyer, leave that as is.
again." She never absolved or exculpated the accused. In other words, a - If your ground is newly discovered evidence, then the evidence you
recantation of a prior statement or testimony must necessarily renounce the said presented will remain as is. There will be a new trial only as to the newly
statement or testimony and withdraw it formally and publicly discovered evidence.
Once a motion for new trial is granted. The judge has the discretion to
allow the presentation of additional evidence.
Section 3. Ground for reconsideration.—The court shall grant reconsideration - EFFECT: THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IS VACATED OR SET
on the ground of errors of law or fact in the judgment, which requires no ASIDE AFTER THE TRIAL, THERE WILL BE A NEW JUDGMENT.
further proceedings. (3a) - Can you file a motion for new trial and motion for reconsideration again?
It depends. If the ground was existing in the first motion, then you
cannot. If the ground is new, then you can.
There will be no grounds for new evidence. You just want the judge to take another
look at the case.
RULE 122 - APPEAL
“errors of law or fact in the judgment, which requires no further proceedings”
What are the grounds? Rule 122 is the start on the rules of appeal as far as criminal cases are concerned.
1. court made a mistake in arriving at its decision. This is one of the most difficult Caveat: The appeal must not place the accused in double jeopardy.
things to do. Atty. Europa: Only time that I am able to convince the judge is when I
present latest jurisprudence that are on all fours of the current case. Judges are ONLY FINAL JUDGEMENTS OR FINAL ORDERS MAY BE APPEALED.
hesitant to accept things from a new lawyer but they cannot say that they are above
the Supreme Court. You have to do it very diplomatically. A final order is one that disposes a case. If there is nothing left for the court
to do in relation to that case.
2. decision is not in accordance with the law.
If A Motion to Quash if filed where the court dismisses the case. There is
3. decision not in accordance with the evidence. nothing more to do.
Section 4. Form of motion and notice to the prosecutor.—The motion for Section 1. Who may appeal.— Any party may appeal from a judgment or final
new trial or reconsideration shall be in writing and shall state the grounds on order, unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy. (2a)
which it is based. If based on a newly-discovered evidence, the motion must be
supported by affidavits of witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be
given or by duly authenticated copies of documents which are proposed to be 1. Prosecution for as long as the accused will not be placed in double
introduced in evidence. Notice of the motion for new trial or reconsideration shall jeopardy.
be given to the prosecutor. (4a)
The best example is if prior to arraignment. If there has been no arraignment yet,
the jeopardy has not yet attached. Therefore, there is no possibility of double
jeopardy.
Section 5. Hearing on motion.—Where a motion for new trial calls for
resolution of any question of fact, the court may hear evidence thereon by If in the RTC the accused was convicted of homicide and he appeals. He stands the
affidavits or otherwise. (5a) risk that the CA will find him guilty of murder. By appealing, he waives the right
against the double jeopardy.
_________________________________________________
35
General Rule: Prosecutor cannot appeal because the accused will be placed in
double jeopardy. It should be stressed that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of
due process. It is merely a procedural remedy of statutory origin, a remedy that may
Exception: e.g., accused filed motion to quash on the basis of lack of jurisdiction be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing
granted by court, pros can appeal, no double jeopardy since it was at the instance such exercise. Hence, the legal requirements must be strictly complied with.”
of the accused.
NOTA BENE -interesting case on Subsidiary Liability
2. The accused. (An appeal by the accused waives double jeopardy. Thus, if he
was convicted for homicide under a charge of murder and he appeals, the appellate Rolito Calang, Et Al vs. People G.R. No. 190696, August 3, 2010
court can convict him for murder)
The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liability Articles 102 and
3. Offended party insofar as the civil aspect is concerned. (Palu-ay v. CA, July 103 are deemed written into the judgments in cases to which they are applicable.
30, G.R. No. 112995,) Thus, in the dispositive portion of its decision, the trial court need not expressly
pronounce the subsidiary liability of the employer. Nonetheless, before the
People of the Philippines vs. Madali Jan 16, 2001. G.R. No. 126050. January employers subsidiary liability is enforced, adequate evidence must exist
16, 2001 “Rule 122, §1 of the Revised Rules in Criminal Procedure provides that establishing that (1) they are indeed the employers of the convicted employees; (2)
"(a)ny party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the accused will be they are engaged in some kind of industry; (3) the crime was committed by the
placed in double jeopardy." It has been held that the word "party" in the provision in employees in the discharge of their duties; and (4) the execution against the latter
question includes not only the government and the accused but other persons as has not been satisfied due to insolvency. The determination of these conditions may
well, such as the complainant who may be affected by the judgment rendered in the be done in the same criminal action in which the employees liability, criminal and
criminal proceedings. The complainant has an interest in the civil liability arising civil, has been pronounced, in a hearing set for that precise purpose, with due
from the crime, unless of course he has reserved to bring a separate civil action to notice to the employer, as part of the proceedings for the execution of the judgment.
recover the civil liability. Hence, in the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's
role is that of a witness for the prosecution. Ordinarily, the appeal of criminal cases What is the remedy of the offended party if the court grants an accused’s
involves as parties only the accused, as appellants, and the State, represented by motion to withdraw the Information?
the Office of the Solicitor General, as the appellee.
First Women’s Credit Corp. et al. v. Hon. Rommel O. Baybay, et al., G.R. No.
The participation of the private offended party would be a mere surplusage, if the 166888, January 31, 2007.
State were simply to seek the affirmation of a judgment of conviction. However,
where the Office of the Solicitor General takes a contrary position and recommends, “As to what mode of review petitioners may avail of after a court grants an
as in this case, the acquittal of the accused, the complainant's right to be heard on accused’s motion to withdraw information and/or to dismiss the case, Section 1 of
the question of award of indemnity and damages arises. In the interest of justice Rule 122 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure instructs: “Any party
and equity and to provide perspective for this appeal, therefore, the Court hereby may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the accused will be placed in
allows in this case the memorandum filed by complainant which is hereby admitted double jeopardy.”
as part of the records of this appeal”.
In availing of the remedy of certiorari before the RTC, petitioners claim that they had
4. bondsmen of the accused in relation to liability on the bond. If there is a no plain, adequate and speedy remedy to question the MeTC’s grant of the motion.
judgment on the bond, the bondsmen can appeal insofar that the judgment against
the bond is concerned. No double jeopardy because it does not involve the criminal The records of the cases show, however, that the motion was granted by the MeTC
aspect of the case. before respondents were arraigned. Thus, the prohibition against appeal in case a
criminal case is dismissed as the accused would be placed in double jeopardy does
5. employer in relation to subsidiary liability under Article 103 of the RP. So not apply. “
far as the subsidiary liability under Article 103. However, based on the Rabbit Bus
Line case, if the accused loses the right to appeal, the employer also loses the right EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE MEMORANDUM ON APPEAL
to appeal.
Jose Sanico vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 198753, March 25, 2015
If the employee absconds or jumps bail and there is a judgment for civil BERSAMIN, J.
liability, can the employer appeal?
Failure to file a memorandum on appeal is a ground for the RTC to dismiss an
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 147703, appeal ONLY IN CIVIL CASES BUT NOT IN CRIMINAL CASES.
April 14, 2004.
Section 9(c) Rule 122, provides that the RTC must decide the appeal “on the basis
“When the accused-employee absconds or jumps bail, the judgment meted out of the entire record of the case and of such memoranda or briefs as may have been
becomes final and executory. The employer cannot defeat the finality of the filed” upon the submission of the appellate memoranda or briefs, or upon the
judgment by filing a notice of appeal on its own behalf in the guise of asking for a expiration of the period to file the same.
review of its subsidiary civil liability. Both the primary civil liability of the accused-
employee and the subsidiary civil liability of the employer are carried in one single
decision that has become final and executory.” Section 2. Where to appeal.—The appeal may be taken as follows: (a) To the
Regional Trial Court, in cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal
“Just because the present petitioner participated in the defense of its accused- Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court; (b) To
employee does not mean that its liability has transformed its nature; its liability the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court in the proper cases provided by
remains subsidiary. Neither will its participation erase its subsidiary liability. The fact law, in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court; and (c) To the Supreme
remains that since the accused-employee’s conviction has attained finality, then the Court, in cases decided by the Court of Appeals. (1a)
subsidiary liability of the employer ipso facto attaches.
“As to the argument that petitioner was deprived of due process, we reiterate that Page 5 of the notes on appellate jurisdiction.
what is sought to be enforced is the subsidiary civil liability incident to and
dependent upon the employee’s criminal negligence. In other words, the employer What is the problem? Considering the different modes of appeal, where will you
becomes ipso facto subsidiarily liable upon the conviction of the employee and appeal and what would your mode of appeal be?
upon proof of the latter’s insolvency, in the same way that acquittal wipes out not
only his primary civil liability, but also his employer’s subsidiary liability for his Atty. Europa’s Basic Premises
criminal negligence.
_________________________________________________
36
1. ALL appeals from the CA go to the Supreme Court. b) Whenever the Sandiganbayan, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, finds
2. ALL appeals from the Sandiganbayan go to the Supreme Court that the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment should be
3. ALL appeals from the MTC, MTCC, MCTC, go to the RTC regardless of the imposed, it shall render judgment accordingly. However, it shall refrain from
ISSUE entering the judgment and forthwith certify the case and elevate its entire record to
the Supreme Court for review.
Conclusion: The ONLY PROBLEM in appeals is WHERE DO YOU APPEAL
FROM A DECISION OF THE RTC? ONE STEP, TWO STEP RULE
General Rule: Appeals, by notice of appeal or petition for review, from IF IT IS THE FIRST APPEAL, YOUR MODE OF APPEAL WILL ALWAYS BE A
Decisions of the Regional Trial Court are appealable to the COURT OF NOTICE OF APPEAL.
APPEALS.
IF IT IS TWO STEP, IT IS PETITION FOR REVIEW. (RULE 42)
Master these exceptions:
IF IT IS TWO OR MORE STEPS GOING TO SC, IT IS THROUGH PETITION FOR
1. To the Sandiganbayan: All cases decided by the RTC, whether in its CERTIORARI. (RULE 45)
original or appellate jurisdiction which would have been within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan if any of the accused had been
occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade “27” or higher, Section 3. How appeal taken.—
as prescribed in the said R.A. No. 6758, or military and PNP officer
mentioned in the Sandiganbayan law. a) The appeal to the Regional Trial Court, or to the Court of Appeals in cases
decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction,
2. To the Supreme Court directly shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the
judgment or final order appealed from and by serving a copy thereof upon the
a. All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. adverse party.
Note: in cases where the jurisdiction of a court or the (b) The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial
constitutionality of a law is in issue, it must be THE ONLY issue left Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review
otherwise the appeal will be a mixed question of fact and law and under Rule 42.
must be appealed to the CA.
(c) The appeal to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed by the
PROCEDURE IN CASES WHERE PENALTY IMPOSED IS DEATH (as amended Regional Trial Court is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, or where a lesser
DUE TO PEOPLE v. EFREN G. MATEO (G.R. No. 147678-87, July 7, 2004) penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the same occasion or which
(Note: The Death Penalty was abolished by R.A. No. 9346 signed into law on arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for
June 24, 2006.) which the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed,
shall be by filing a notice of appeal in accordance with paragraph (a) of this
1. If Death, appeal is AUTOMATIC to the Court of Appeals; section.
2. If Reclusion Perpetua or life imprisonment, appeal is to the Court of (d) No notice of appeal is necessary in cases where the death penalty is
Appeals but is NOT AUTOMATIC, a Notice of Appeal must be filed. imposed by the Regional Trial Court. The same shall be automatically reviewed
by the Supreme Court as provided in section 10 of this Rule.
AMENDED RULES TO GOVERN REVIEW OF DEATH PENALTY CASES
(e) Except as provided in the last paragraph of section 13, Rule 124, all other
FROM THE RTC appeals to the Supreme Court shall be by petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45. (3a)
a) If P=Death= Automatic Appeal to CA
If CA affirms it will render judgment but will not enter judgment and will transmit the
case to the SC; Note: If other accused are imposed lesser penalties for offenses
committed on the same occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence, all will Section 4. Service of notice of appeal.—If personal service of the copy of the
be transmitted to the SC. notice of appeal can not be made upon the adverse party or his counsel, service
may be done by registered mail or by substituted service pursuant to
If CA finds penalty should be reclusion perpetua or lesser, it will render judgment sections 7 and 8 of Rule 13.(4a)
and enter judgment. CA’s decision can be appealed to the SC via the filing of a
notice of appeal with the CA.
This is very important in cases where you cannot serve the opposing party. You will
b) If P=Reclusion Perpetua or Life Imprisonment= Appeal by Notice of Appeal appreciate this under the Rules on Procedure.
If CA affirms or imposes lesser penalty then it will render judgment and enter
judgment. CA’s decision can be appealed to the SC via the filing of a notice of Section 5. Waiver of notice.—The appellee may waive his right to a notice that
appeal with the CA. an appeal has been taken. The appellate court may, in its discretion, entertain
an appeal notwithstanding failure to give such notice if the interests of justice so
FROM THE SANDIGANBAYAN ( 2018 Revised Internal Rules of the require. (5a)
Sandiganbayan) A.M. 13-7-05-SB
General Rule: Appeals from SB to SC via NOTICE OF APPEAL

Even if there was some kind of defect, it is really the discretion of the appellate
Exception: court to waive that defect.
a) If Penalty imposed by SB is DEATH appeal to SC is AUTOMATIC (including Section 6. When appeal, to be taken.—An appeal must be taken within fifteen
appeal of accused imposed lesser penalties for offenses committed on the same (15) days from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order
occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence) appealed from. This period for perfecting an appeal shall be suspended from the
_________________________________________________
37
time a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused.—
overruling the motion has been served upon the accused or his counsel at which
time the balance of the period begins to run. (6a) (a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those
who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is
favorable and applicable to the latter.
Normally 15 days from the date of promulgation. If the accused files a Motion for
Reconsideration or Motion for New Trial and it is denied, the SC introduced the (b) The appeal of the offended party from the civil aspect shall not affect the
fresh period rule. You have a fresh period of 15 days. criminal aspect of the judgment or order appealed from.
(c) Upon perfection of the appeal, the execution of the judgment or final order
Section 7. Transcribing and filing notes of stenographic reporter upon appealed from shall be stayed as to the appealing party, (11a)
appeal.—When notice of appeal is filed by the accused, the trial court shall
direct the stenographic reporter to transcribe his notes of the proceedings. When
filed by the People of the Philippines, the trial court shall direct the stenographic
reporter to transcribe such portion of his notes of the proceedings as the court, For example you were out on bail, and you appealed from the CA. You will not
upon motion, shall specify in writing. The stenographic reporter shall certify to serve the sentence yet.
the correctness of the notes and the transcript thereof, which shall consist of the
original and four copies, and shall file said original and four copies with the clerk People of the Philippines vs. PO2 Eduardo Valdez and Edwin Valdez G.R. No.
without unnecessary delay. If death penalty is imposed, the stenographic 175602, February 13, 2013 (BERSAMIN, J.)
reporter shall, within thirty (30) days from promulgation of the sentence, file with
the clerk the original and four copies of the duly certified transcript of his notes of Facts: Edwin and Eduardo were convicted by the RTC for three (3) counts of
the proceedings. No extension of time for filing of said transcript of stenographic murder which was affirmed by the CA. They both appealed to the SC but pending
notes shall be granted except by the Supreme Court and only upon justifiable the appeal, Edwin filed a motion to withdraw appeal which was granted the SC
grounds. (7a) deemed the appeal, as to him, closed and terminated. Thereafter, the SC ruled on
Eduardo’s appeal by downgrading the conviction to three (3) counts of homicide
instead of murder. Edwin sent a letter to the Court Administrator a letter pleading
that the same judgment be made applicable to him. Issue: Whether or not the SC’s
Section 8. Transmission of papers to appellate court upon appeal.—Within judgment should benefit Edwin in view of the withdrawal of his appeal
five (5) days from the filing of the notice of appeal, the clerk of the court with
whom the notice of appeal was filed must transmit to the clerk of court of the Ruling: Yes. Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court is applicable.
appellate court the complete record of the case, together with said notice. The “Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. – (a) An appeal taken
original and three copies of the transcript of stenographic notes, together with by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal,
the records, shall also be transmitted to the clerk of the appellate court without except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and
undue delay. The other copy of the transcript shall remain in the lower court. (8a) applicable to the latter.
Section 12. Withdrawal of appeal. — Notwithstanding perfection of the appeal,

the Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Even some lawyers do not understand this. When you file anything in court, the Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, as the case may be, may
court will always get two copies. Lawyers comply with this all the time. Some allow the appellant to withdraw his appeal before the record has been
lawyers fail to understand the reason behind it. Once an appeal is taken, the trial forwarded by the clerk of court to the proper appellate court as provided in
court is under obligation to transmit the records of the case to the appellate court. 1 section 8, in which case the judgment shall become final. The Regional Trial
copy will be sent to the appellate court (the original record will be transmitted). Court may also, in its discretion, allow the appellant from the judgment of a
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or
Section 9. Appeal to the Regional Trial Courts.— Municipal Circuit Trial Court to withdraw his appeal, provided a motion to that
effect is filed before rendition of the judgment in the case on appeal, in which
(a) Within five (5) days from perfection of the appeal, the clerk of court shall case the judgment of the court of origin shall become final and the case shall be
transmit the original record to the appropriate Regional Trial Court. remanded to the latter court for execution of the judgment. (12a)
(b) Upon receipt of the complete record of the case, transcripts and exhibits, the
clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court shall notify the parties of such fact. Can you withdraw an appeal? YES. But if you go over Section 12, it is clear that
(c) Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of said notice, the parties may submit People v. Ricardo Rio, G.R. No. 90294, September 24, 1991.
memoranda or briefs, or may be required by the Regional Trial Court to do so.
After the submission of such memoranda or briefs, or upon the expiration of the - A case in the Supreme Court. The accused filed a Manifestation for a
period to file the same, the Regional Trial Court shall decide the case on the Motion that he is withdrawing the appeal because he can no longer
basis of the entire record of the case and of such memoranda or briefs as may afford to pay his lawyer.
have been filed. (9a) - SC did not allow the accused to withdraw his appeal. SC said that this
cannot be a reason for the withdrawal. In cases like this, the SC will
appoint a counsel de officio on appeal.
Section 10. Transmission of records in case of death penalty.— In all cases This right to a counsel de oficio does not cease upon the conviction of an accused
where the death penalty is imposed by the trial court, the records shall be by a trial court. It continues, even during appeal, such that the duty of the court to
forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review and judgment within five assign a counsel de oficio persists where an accused interposes an intent to
(5) days after the fifteenth (15) day following the promulgation of the judgment or appeal. Even in a case, such as the one at bar, where the accused had signified his
notice of denial of a motion for new trial or reconsideration. The transcript shall intent to withdraw his appeal, the court is required to inquire into the reason for the
also be forwarded within ten (10) days after the filing thereof by the stenographic withdrawal. Where it finds the sole reason for the withdrawal to be poverty, as in
reporter. (10a) this case, the court must assign a counsel de oficio, for despite such withdrawal, the
duty to protect the rights of the accused subsists and perhaps, with greater reason.
After all, "those who have less in life must have more in law." Justice should never
be limited to those who have the means.
_________________________________________________
38
offense charged is necessarily related to another criminal case subject to the
It is for everyone, whether rich or poor. Its scales should always be balanced and ordinary procedure.
should never equivocate or cogitate in order to favor one party over another. It is
with this thought in mind that we charge clerks of court of trial courts to be more - If one of the accused is a minor, regardless if it is MTC or RTC, it should
circumspect with the duty imposed on them by law (Section 13, Rule 122 of the be filed in the Family Court. The Rule on Summary Procedure shall not
Rules of Court) so that courts will be above reproach and that never (if possible) will be applied. There is a particular applicable rule.
an innocent person be sentenced for a crime he has not committed nor the guilty
allowed to go scot-free. Atty. Hugolino V. Balayon, Jr., vs. Judge Gaydifredo O. Ocampo A.M. No.
MTJ-91-619 January 29, 1993
Section 13. Appointment of counsel de oficio for accused on appeal.—It - Under the Rule on Summary Procedure, there is a requirement that the
shall be the duty of the clerk of the trial court, upon filing of a notice of appeal, affidavit of witnesses must be submitted beforehand. If there is an
to ascertain from the appellant, if confined in prison, whether he desires the attempt to present a witness where his affidavit was not submitted
Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court to appoint a beforehand, this should not be allowed. This rule is not absolute.
counsel de oficio to defend him and to transmit with the record on a form to be - Involved a government medical doctor. One of the evidence was a
prepared by the clerk of court of the appellate court, a certificate of compliance medical certificate. The doctor shall still be allowed to testify on the
with this duty and of the response of the appellant to his inquiry. (13a) contents of the medical certificate.
- 2 basic reasons: The witness should be allowed on a specific factual
matter relevant to the issue and it is not difficult or parties would not
- Either the case is non bailable or bailable but the accused cannot pay have a hard time getting an affidavit of their own witnesses (somebody
the bail who is under the control or related to either party).
- In these cases, it is required that the court clerk to ask whether the - Atty. Europa: I was prosecuting a BP 22 case and one of the requisites
accused want it to appoint a counsel de officio was a notice of dishonor and how do you prove the facts of dishonor.
- The supreme court laid this rule, so that indigents who appeals will not DAIF (Drawn Against Insufficient Funds). I requested an issuance of
be deprived with the services of a counsel on appeal (pp v ricardo rio) - subpoena. The other party opposed since there was no prior affidavit.
was the reason for such amendment
In Orino v. Judge Gervasio, the Supreme Court ruled in a Minute Resolution that
even if a witness has not priorly submitted his/her affidavit, he may be called to
RULE 123 - PROCEDURE IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS testify in connection with a specific factual matter relevant to the issue. Thus, a
medical doctor whose medical certificate is among the evidence on record may be
called to testify. This also applies to a Register of Deeds or Provincial Assessor in
Rule 123 is medyo saag
connection with official documents issued by his office.
Section 1. Uniform Procedure.—The procedure to be observed in the Rules 124 and 125 are mostly codal (not included in Atty. Europa’s notes)
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial CA has no original jurisdiction of criminal cases
Courts shall be the same as in the Regional Trial Courts, except where a
particular provision applies only to either of said courts and in criminal cases
RULE 124 PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. (1a)
Section 1. Title of the case.—In all criminal cases appealed to the Court of
Appeals, the party appealing the case shall be called the “appellant” and the
1991 RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE adverse party the “appellee,” but the title of the case shall remain as it was in
the court of origin. (1a)
Coverage as to Criminal Cases (Sec. 1 [B])
Section 2. Appointment of counsel de oficio for the accused.—If it appears
B. Criminal Cases: from the record of the case as transmitted that (a) the accused is confined in
prison, (b) is without counsel de parte on appeal, or (c) has signed the notice of
(1) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations; appeal himself, the clerk of court of the Court of Appeals shall designate a
counsel de oficio. An appellant who is not confined in prison may, upon request,
(2) Violations of the rental law; be assigned a counsel de oficio within ten (10) days from receipt of the notice to
file brief and he establishes his right thereto. (2a)
(3) Violations of municipal or city ordinances; (common in Davao City because of
the Anti-Smoking Ordinance) - Appeal (RTC) ; Brief (CA)
(4) Violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing Checks Law); Section 3. When brief for appellant to be filed.—Within thirty (30) days from
receipt by the appellant or his counsel of the notice from the clerk of court of
- This is a summary procedure regardless of the check’s amount the Court of Appeals that the evidence, oral and documentary, is already
attached to the record, the appellant shall file seven (7) copies of his brief with
(5) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense the clerk of court which shall be accompanied by proof of service of two (2)
charged is imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding copies thereof upon the appellee. (3a)
(P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or
otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom: Provided, however, that in
offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, this Rule shall - If you file an appeal, part and parcel of what the lower should do is to
govern where the imposable fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos transmit the record of the case to the CA. What they will send is not a
(P10,000.00). notice to file an appellant's brief but just the bare minimum of
informing the appellant that the records/evidence has already been
- General rule or catch-all provision transmitted/received. Already part of the record = start counting 30
days
This Rule shall not apply to a civil case where the plaintiffs cause of action is
pleaded in the same complaint with another cause of action subject to the Section 4. When brief for appellee to be filed; reply brief of the appellant.—
ordinary procedure (refers to a civil case); nor to a criminal case where the Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the brief of the appellant, the appellee shall
file seven (7) copies of the brief of the appellee with the clerk of court which
_________________________________________________
39
shall be accompanied by proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the final resolution, which shall be reached in consultation before the writing of the
appellant. Within twenty (20) days from receipt of the Brief of the appellee, the opinion by a member of the division. In the event that the three (3) Justices can
appellant may file a reply brief traversing matters raised in the former but not not reach a unanimous vote, the Presiding Justice shall direct the raffle
covered in the brief of the appellant. (4a) committee of the Court to designate two (2) additional Justices to sit temporarily
with them, forming a special division of five (5) members and the concurrence of
- Efficient use of paper rule + requirement to submit soft copies + a majority of such division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a
Declaration that the soft copy is a faithful reproduction of the hard judgment or final resolution. The designation of such additional Justices shall be
copy that you filed made strictly by raffle and rotation among all other Justices of the Court of
Appeals. Whenever the Court of Appeals finds that the penalty of death,
Section 5. Extension of time for filing briefs. — Extension of time for the filing reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment should be imposed in a case, the court,
of briefs will not be allowed except for good and sufficient cause and only if the after discussion of the evidence and the law involved, shall render judgment
motion for extension is filed before the expiration of the time sought to be imposing the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment as the
extended. (5a) Section 6. Form of briefs.—Briefs shall either be printed, encoded circumstances warrant. However, it shall refrain from entering the judgment and
or typewritten in double space on legal size, good quality unglazed paper, 330 forthwith certify the case and elevate the entire record thereof to the Supreme
mm. in length by 216 mm. in width. (6a) Court for review. (13a)
- You can file an extension if you have good and sufficient cause Section 14. Motion for new trial.—At any time after the appeal from the lower
- Printed refers to a time when lawyers hired printing press to print court has been perfected and before the judgment of the Court of Appeals
briefs for them. Briefs na parang libro. convicting the appellant becomes final, the latter may move for a new trial on the
ground of newly-discovered evidence material to his defense. The motion shall
conform with the provisions of section 4, Rule 121. (14a)
Section 7. Contents of brief.—The briefs in criminal cases shall have the same
contents as provided in sections 13 and 14 of Rule 44. A certified true copy of
the decision or final order appealed from shall be appended to the brief of the - Ground: newly-discovered evidence
appellant. (7a)
Section 15. Where new trial conducted.—When a new trial is granted, the
Section 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. — Court of Appeals may conduct the hearing and receive evidence as provided in
The Court of Appeals may, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and with section 12 of this Rule or refer the trial to the court of origin. (15a)
notice to the appellant in either case, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to
file his brief within the time prescribed by this Rule, except where the appellant is Section 16. Reconsideration.—A motion for reconsideration shall be filed
represented by a counsel de oficio. The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision or final order of the Court of
of the appellee or motu proprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from Appeals, with copies thereof served upon the adverse party, setting forth the
prison or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the grounds in support thereof. The mittimus shall be stayed during the pendency of
pendency of the appeal. (8a) the motion for reconsideration. No party shall be allowed a second motion for
reconsideration of a judgment or final order. (16a)
- If you fail to file an appellant's brief in the CA, it can be considered as
an abandonment and can be a ground to dismiss. - No second motion for reconsideration is allowed.
- Mapalao case when you jumped bail while the appeal is pending.
That is a waiver of the right to appeal. Section 17. Judgment transmitted and filed in trial court.—When the entry of
judgment of the Court of Appeals is issued, a certified true copy of the judgment
Section 9. Prompt disposition of appeals.—Appeals of accused who are shall be attached to the original record which shall be remanded to the clerk of
under detention shall be given precedence in their disposition over other the court from which the appeal was taken. (17a)
appeals. The Court of Appeals shall hear and decide the appeal at the earliest
practicable time with due regard to the rights of the parties. The accused need Section 18. Application of certain rules in civil procedure to criminal cases.
not be present in court during the hearing of the appeal. (9a) —The provisions of Rules 42, 44 to 46 and 48 to 56 relating to procedure in the
Court of Appeals and in the Supreme Court in original and appealed civil cases
Section 10. Judgment not to be reversed or modified except for substantial shall be applied to criminal cases insofar as they are applicable and not
error. —No judgment shall be reversed or modified unless the Court of Appeals, inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule. (18a)
after an examination of the record and of the evidence adduced by the parties, is
of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial CA, per division there are 3 justices. Every decision of the CA must be
rights of the appellant. (10a) concurred by 3 judges. GR: They will deliberate and they have to be unanimous
in order to issue a decision. What if they do not agree? The presiding justice of
- Except on substantial errors the CA will assign 2 justices from another division to that division. The majority
vote is required (5, is 3). Every decision has to be conferred by 3 justices.
Section 11. Scope of judgment.—The Court of Appeals may reverse, affirm, or
modify the judgment and increase or reduce the penalty imposed by the trial Supreme Court rarely resolves cases en banc. For the most part, they decide by
court, remand the case to the Regional Trial Court for new trial or retrial, or decision. Whether by division or en banc, it is still a decision of the Supreme
dismiss the case. (11a) Court.
Section 12. Power to receive evidence.—The Court of Appeals shall have the RULE 125 PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME COURT
power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and
all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases (a) falling within its Section 1. Uniform procedure.—Unless otherwise provided by the Constitution
original jurisdiction, (b) involving claims for damages arising from provisional or by law, the procedure in the Supreme Court in original and in appealed cases
remedies, or (c) where the court grants a new trial based only on the ground of shall be the same as in the Court of Appeals. (1a)
newly-discovered evidence. (12a)
- CA to SC cases
Section 13. Quorum of the court; certification or appeal of cases to
Supreme Court.—Three (3) Justices of the Court of Appeals shall constitute a Section 2. Review of decisions of the Court of Appeals.—The procedure for
quorum for the sessions of a division. The unanimous vote of the three (3) the review by the Supreme Court of decisions in criminal cases rendered by the
Justices of a division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a judgment or Court of Appeals shall be the same as in civil cases. (2a) Except for those
_________________________________________________
40
covered by Rule 45, as discussed before Section 12 of Rule 126 provides that a lawfully arrested person may be searched
without a warrant for dangerous weapons or anything else that may be used as
Section 3. Decision if opinion is equally divided.—When the Supreme Court evidence of the offense. Such incidental search is, however, limited to the person of
en banc is equally divided in opinion or the necessary majority cannot be had on the arrestee at the time of the apprehension. The search cannot be extended to or
whether to acquit the appellant, the case shall again be deliberated upon and if made in a place other than the place of the arrest.
no decision is reached after re-deliberation, the judgment of conviction of the
lower court shall be reversed and the accused acquitted. (3a) 2. The "Plain View" Doctrine most abused by policemen
The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur:
How does CA decide cases?
(1) the law enforcement officer is in a position where he has a clear view of a
CA has 3 justices. Every decision of the CA must be concurred in by 3 justices.
particular area or has prior justification for an intrusion;
General Rule: They have to deliberate and they have to be unanimous.
What if they do not agree? 2 against 1. If they cannot come up with a unanimous
(2) said officer inadvertently comes across (or sees in plain view) a piece of
vote on a particular issue, the presiding judge will assign 2 justices from another
incriminating evidence; and
division to that division. They will deliberate and vote on it. Then the majority vote
will be taken. (5 justices, 3 votes ia the majority)
(3) it is immediately apparent to such officer that the item he sees may be evidence
of a crime or a contraband or is otherwise subject to seizure.
How does the SC decide case?
They seldom decide cases en banc. SC Decided in divisions. There is no such thing
3. Search of Moving Vehicles
as an appeal from a division to the court en banc. Whether it is a decision of a
division or the decision of the court en banc, it is THE DECISION of the Supreme
- Includes checkpoints
Court. It does not change the fact that it is still a decision of the Supreme Court.
The warrantless search of moving vehicles (including shipping vessels and aircraft)
16 Justices - 3 Divisions of 5 each
is justified by practicability, viz.: "The guaranty of freedom from unreasonable
When the Supreme Court en banc is equally divided in opinion or the necessary
searches and seizures construed as recognizing a necessary difference between a
majority cannot be had on whether to acquit the appellant, there will be a second
search of a dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a search warrant
deliberation. If no decision is reached after re-deliberation, the judgment of
may readily be obtained and a search of a ship, motorboat, wagon, or automobile
conviction of the lower court shall be reversed and the accused shall be acquitted.
for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant, because the
Why? This means that there is some kind of reasonable doubt.
vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant
must be sought. x x x x x x x x x "The automobile is a swift and powerful vehicle x x
One member is assigned to write the decision - your ponente.
x Constructed as covered vehicles to standard form in immense quantities, and with
a capacity for speed rivaling express trains, they furnish for successful commission
RULE 126 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE of crime a distinguishing means of silent approach and swift escape unknown in the
history of the world before their advent.
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution + Section 3 on the exclusionary The question of their police control and reasonable search on highways or other
rule (Section 2 refers to searches allowed by a warrant) public place is a serious question far deeper and broader than their use in so-called
'bootlegging' or 'rum running,' which in itself is no small matter. While a possession
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects in the sense of private ownership, they are but a vehicle constructed for travel and
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any transportation on highways. Their active use is not in homes or on private premises,
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue the privacy of which the law especially guards from search and seizure without
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after process. The baffling extent to which they are successfully utilized to facilitate
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may commission of crime of all degrees, from those against morality, chastity, and
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or decency to robbery, rape, burglary, and murder, is a matter of common knowledge.
things to be seized. Upon that problem, a condition, and not a theory, confronts proper administration of
our criminal laws. Whether search of and seizure from an automobile upon a
Case of Doria with the concurring opinion of Justice Panganiban - He likes to highway or other public place without a search warrant is unreasonable is in its final
cite jurisprudential history. analysis to be determined as a judicial question in view of all the circumstances
under which it is made."
This Rule speaks of searches where a warrant is issued.
4. Customs Searches
Jurisprudence mentions the following instances under which a warrantless
search and seizure may be effected, to wit: Under the Tariff and Customs Code, searches, seizures and arrests may be made
even without warrants, for purposes of enforcing customs and tariff laws. Without
VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCHES: From the concurring opinion of Justice mention of the need to priorly obtain a judicial warrant, the Code specifically allows
Panganiban In the case of People v. Florencio Doria G.R. No. 125299. January police authorities to "enter, pass through or search any land, enclosure, warehouse,
22, 1999 store or building, not being a dwelling house; and also to inspect, search and
examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, box or envelope or any
1. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest person on board[;]or stop and search and examine any vehicle, beast or person
suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into
What is the reason behind it? the Philippines contrary to law."
a) To prevent the accused from utilizing any weapon within his reach that 5. Search With Consent
may be utilized against the person arresting him.
b) To prevent the accused from destroying evidence on his person within Waiver of any objection to the unreasonableness or invalidity of a search is a
his field of control that may be utilized against the person arresting him. recognized exception to the rule against a warrantless search. The consent to the
search, however, must be express, knowing and voluntary. A search based merely
Search is limited to his person and his immediate surroundings on implied acquiescence is not valid, because such consent is not within the
purview of the constitutional guarantee, but only a passive conformity to the search
Attye. Europa: He was arrested in his car, asked him to drive his car to his home. given under intimidating and coercive circumstances. In People v. Lacerna, it was
This is not allowed. This is too much.
_________________________________________________
41
held that the otherwise prohibited intrusive search of appellant's plastic bag was In People v. Maspil, a checkpoint was set up by elements of the First Narcotics
validated by the express consent of appellant himself, who was observed to be Regional Unit of the Narcotics Command at Sayangan, Atok, Benguet, to monitor,
"urbanized in mannerism and speech," and who moreover stated that he had inspect and scrutinize vehicles on the highway going towards Baguio City. This was
nothing to hide and had done nothing wrong. done because of a confidential report by informers that Maspil and Bagking, would
be transporting a large quantity of marijuana to Baguio City. In fact, the informers
- A case in the hotel wherein the police went inside the room with the were with the policemen manning the checkpoint. As expected, at about two o'clock
consent of a woman, who was not checked in the room because she in the early morning of November 1, 1986, a jeepney approached the checkpoint,
was only a manikurista. Suspected “pot session”, but it was actually a driven by Maspil, with Bagking as passenger. The officers stopped the vehicle and
shabu session. Is it a consented search? Yes, the police were in good saw that on it were loaded 2 plastic sacks, a jute sack, and three big round tin cans.
faith. They did not know that the woman did not register as the guest. When opened, the sacks and cans were seen to contain what appeared to be
There was no indication that she had no authority to allow entry into the marijuana leaves. The policemen thereupon placed Maspil and Bagking under
room. arrest, and confiscated the leaves which, upon scientific examination, were verified
to be marijuana leaves. The Court upheld the validity of the search thus conducted,
6. "Stop and Frisk" as being incidental to lawful warrantless arrest and declared that Maspil and
Bagking had been caught in flagrante delicto transporting prohibited drugs.
- Terry Search
- What constitutes suspicious behavior? The circumstances of the search In People v. Malmstedt, Narcom agents set up checkpoint at Acop, Tublay,
is always taken into consideration. Mountain Province in view of reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were
transporting marijuana. They likewise received information that a Caucasian coming
The "stop and frisk" concept is of American origin, the most notable case thereon from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs. There was no reasonable time
being Terry v. Ohio. The idea is that a police officer may after properly introducing to obtain a search warrant, especially since the identity of the suspect could not be
himself and making initial inquiries, approach and restrain a person manifesting readily ascertained. Accused's actuations also aroused the suspicion of the officers
unusual and suspicious conduct, in order to check, the latter's outer clothing for conducting the inspection aboard the bus. The Court held that in light of such
possibly concealed weapons. The strict manner in which this notion should be circumstances, to deprive the agents of the ability and facility to act promptly,
applied has been laid down as follows: including a search without a warrant, would be to sanction impotence and
ineffectiveness in law enforcement, to the detriment of society.
"x x x where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably
to conclude in the light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that In People v. Bagista, the NARCOM officers had probable cause to stop and search
the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, all vehicles coming from the north to Acop, Tublay, Benguet in view of the
where in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a confidential information they received from their regular informant that a woman
policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages having the same appearance as that of accused-appellant would be bringing
of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own and others' safety, marijuana from up north. They likewise had probable cause to search accused-
he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a appellant's belongings since she fitted the description given by the NARCOM
carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to informant.
discover weapons which might be used to assault him."
In Manalili v. Court of Appeals, the policemen conducted a surveillance in an area
As in the warrantless arrest of a person reasonably suspected of having just of the Kalookan Cemetery based on information that drug addicts were roaming
committed a crime, mere suspicious behavior would not call for a "stop and frisk." therein. Upon reaching the place, they chanced upon a man in front of the cemetery
There must be a genuine reason, in accordance with the police officer's experience who appeared to be "high" on drugs. He was observed to have reddish eyes and to
and the surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person to be held has be walking in a swaying manner. Moreover, he appeared to be trying to avoid the
weapons (or contraband) concealed about him. policemen. When approached and asked what he was holding in his hands, he tried
to resist. When he showed his wallet, it contained marijuana. The Court held that
A valid application of the doctrine was recognized in Posadas v. Court of Appeals the policemen had sufficient reason to accost accused-appellant to determine if he
and in Manalili v. Court of Appeals. In Manalili, the law enforcers who were was actually "high" on drugs due to his suspicious actuations, coupled with the fact
members of the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Caloocan City Police, observed during that based on information, this area was a haven for drug addicts
their surveillance that appellant had red eyes and was walking in a wobbly manner
along the city cemetery which, according to police information, was a popular What is the extent of an allowable “routine search” at police or military
hangout of drug addicts. Based on police experience, such suspicious behavior was checkpoints (part of Search of Moving Vehicles)?
characteristic of persons who were "high" on drugs. The Court held that past
experience and the surrounding circumstances gave the police sufficient reason to Rudy Caballes v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 136292. January 15, 2002
stop the suspect and to investigate if he was really high on drugs. The marijuana
that they found in the suspect's possession was held to be admissible in evidence. - They looked into the pile of leaves. This is not allowed.
Some cases where “tipped information” was sufficient to justify warrantless Routine inspections are not regarded as violative of an individual's right against
searches Tipped information + acted upon in good faith unreasonable search. The search which is normally permissible in this instance is
limited to the following instances:
From People vs. Samuel Valdez G.R. No. 127801. March 3, 1999
(1) where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is
In People v. Tangliben, two police officers and a barangay tanod were conducting parked on the public fair grounds;
surveillance mission at the Victory Liner terminal compound in San Fernando,
Pampanga against persons who may commit misdemeanors and also on those who (2) simply looks into a vehicle;
may be engaging in the traffic of dangerous drugs based on Information supplied by
informers. At 9:30 in the evening, the policemen noticed a person carrying a red (3) flashes a light therein without opening the car's doors;
travelling bag who was acting suspiciously. An informer pointed to the accused-
appellant as carrying marijuana. They confronted him and requested him to open (4) where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search;
his bag but he refused. He acceded later on when the policemen identified
themselves. Inside the bag were marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic wrapper. (5) where the inspection of the vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual
The police officers only knew of the activities of Tangliben on the night of his arrest. inspection; and
Hence, faced with such on-the-spot tip, the police officers acted quickly as there
was not enough time to secure a search warrant. (6) where the routine check is conducted in a fixed area.
_________________________________________________
42
Examples of valid warrantless searches with consent: Also from Rudy G.R. No. 104879, May 6, 1994.
Caballes v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 136292. January 15, 2002
Application for search warrant was filed with RTC of Caloocan and
In Asuncion v. Court of Appeals, the apprehending officers sought the permission of enforced/implemented in Quezon City.
petitioner to search the car, to which the latter agreed. Petitioner therein himself
freely gave his consent to said search. Held: “No law or rule imposes such a limitation on search warrants, in the same
manner that no such restriction is provided for warrants of arrest. Parenthetically, in
In People v. Lacerna, the appellants who were riding in a taxi were stopped by two certain states within the American jurisdiction, there were limitations of the time
policemen who asked permission to search the vehicle and the appellants readily wherein a warrant of arrest could be enforced. In our jurisdiction, no period is
agreed. In upholding the validity of the consented search, the Court held that provided for the enforceability of warrants of arrest, and although within ten days
appellant himself who was "urbanized in mannerism and speech" expressly said from the delivery of the warrant of arrest for execution a return thereon must be
that he was consenting to the search as he allegedly had nothing to hide and had made to the issuing judge, said warrant does not become functus officio but is
done nothing wrong. enforceable indefinitely until the same is enforced or recalled. On the other hand,
the lifetime of a search warrant has been expressly set in our Rules at ten days but
In People v. Cuizon, the accused admitted that they signed a written permission there is no provision as to the extent of the territory wherein it may be enforced,
stating that they freely consented to the search of their luggage by the NBI agents provided it is implemented on and within the premises specifically described therein
to determine if they were carrying shabu. which may or may not be within the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing court.”
In People v. Montilla, it was held that the accused spontaneously performed GUIDELINES LAID DOWN IN MALALOAN
affirmative acts of volition by himself opening the bag without being forced or In relation to the authority of courts to issue warrants of arrest
intimidated to do so, which acts should properly be construed as a clear waiver of
his right. 1. The Court wherein the criminal case is pending shall have primary jurisdiction to
issue search warrants necessitated by and for purposes of said case. An
In People v. Omaweng, the police officers asked the accused if they could see the application for a search warrant may be filed with another court only under extreme
contents of his bag to which the accused said "you can see the contents but those and compelling circumstances that the applicant must prove to the satisfaction of
are only clothings." Then the policemen asked if they could open and see it, and the latter court which may or may not give due course to the application depending
accused answered "you can see it." The Court said there was a valid consented on the validity of the justification offered for not filing the same in the court with
search. primary jurisdiction thereover.
2. When the latter court issues the search warrant, a motion to quash the same may
Section 1. Search warrant defined.—A search warrant is an order in writing be filed in and shall be resolved by said court, without prejudice to any proper
issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and recourse to the appropriate higher court by the party aggrieved by the resolution of
directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property the issuing court. All grounds and objections then available, existent or known shall
described therein and bring it before the court. (1) be raised in the original or subsequent proceedings for the quashal of the warrant,
otherwise they shall be deemed waived.
3. Where no motion to quash the search warrant was filed in or resolved by the
Section 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed.—An issuing court, the interested party may move in the court where the criminal case is
application for search warrant shall be filed with the following: pending for the suppression as evidence of the personal property seized under the
warrant if the same is offered therein for said purpose. Since two separate courts
(a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed. with different participations are involved in this situation, a motion to quash a search
warrant and a motion to suppress evidence are alternative and not cumulative
(b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the judicial remedies. In order to prevent forum shopping, a motion to quash shall consequently
region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the be governed by the omnibus motion rule, provided, however, that objections not
crime is known, or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be available, existent or known during the proceedings for the quashal of the warrant
enforced. may be raised in the hearing of the motion to suppress. The resolution of the court
on the motion to suppress shall likewise be subject to any proper remedy in the
However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only appropriate higher court.
be made in the court where the criminal action is pending. (n)
4. Where the court which issued the search warrant denies the motion to quash the
same and is not otherwise prevented from further proceeding thereon, all personal
property seized under the warrant shall forthwith be transmitted by it to the court
Think about the usual process. The implementation of the search warrant will result wherein the criminal case is pending, with the necessary safeguards and
into the filing of the case. documentation therefor.
“A criminal action has already been filed” For example there is a case of robbery. 5. These guidelines shall likewise be observed where the same criminal offense is
Other stolen items are in a certain place. The application shall be filed where the charged in different Informations or complaints and filed in two or more courts with
case is pending. concurrent original jurisdiction over the criminal action. When the issue of which
court will try the case shall have been resolved, such court shall be considered as
General Rule: In the court that has jurisdiction in the place of commission. vested with primary jurisdiction to act on applications for search warrants incident to
the criminal case.
Exception: If you do not know the place of commission, you can apply for a
warrant in the place where it is to be enforced. TAKE NOTE OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION UNDER Administrative Matter No. 99-
10-09-SC Take note on what crimes are included
THIS IS AN ENTIRELY NEW PROVISION
Spouses Joel and Marietta Marimla v. People of the Philippines G.R. No.
Whether or not a court may take cognizance of an application for a search warrant 158467, October 16, 2009.
in connection with an offense committed outside its territorial boundary and,
thereafter, issue the warrant to conduct a search on a place outside the court's “it may be seen that A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC authorizes the Executive Judge and
supposed territorial jurisdiction. Vice Executive Judges of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City to act on all
applications for search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling,
Elizalde Malaloan, et al., v. CA,
_________________________________________________
43
dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms on application filed by the PNP, - Technical definition: facts and circumstances which would lead a
NBI, PAOC-TF, and REACT-TF. reasonable, discreet, and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the
On the other hand, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides offense are in the person to be searched.
that the application for search warrant shall be filed with: (a) any court within whose
territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed, and (b) for compelling reasons, any Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff,
court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the 133 SCRA 800
commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial region where the Quintero v. National Bureau of Investigation, et al.,
warrant shall be enforced. June 23, 1988, 162 SCRA 467.
“In Philippine jurisprudence, probable cause has been uniformly defined as

Section 3. Personal property to be seized.—A search warrant may be issued such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable, discreet and prudent
for the search and seizure of personal property: man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.
(a) Subject of the offense;
2. Determined Personally by the judge Abdula v. Guiani G.R. No. 118821.
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or February 18, 2000
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. (2a) Similar to the requirements for the issuance of a warrant of arrest where
jurisprudence clearly explains that “What the Constitution underscores is the
exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of
the existence of probable cause.”
- Deals with what can be a subject of a search warrant
3. The complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce are personally
Requisites for issuing a search warrant examined by the judge, in writing and under oath or affirmation;
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 255 SCRA 438, March 29, 1996. Paper Industries Corp. of the Phil. vs. Asuncion G.R. No. 122092. May 19, 1999
(1) probable cause is present; - Affidavits of the complainants are not sufficient. They must testify.
(2) such presence is determined personally by the judge; “Chief Inspector Pascua's application for a search warrant was supported by (1) the
joint Deposition of SPO3 Cicero S. Bacolod and SPO2 Cecilio T. Morito, (2) a
(3) the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce are personally summary information and (3) supplementary statements of Mario Enad and Felipe
examined by the judge, in writing and under oath or affirmation; Moreno. Except for Pascua and Bacolod, however, none of the aforementioned
witnesses and policemen appeared before the trial court. Moreover, the applicant's
- They must be presented during the hearing for the issuance of the participation in the hearing for the issuance of the search warrant consisted only of
search warrant. introducing Witness Bacolod and it turned out that even Bacolod testified only that
- Herein lies a basic difference between a warrant of arrest as against he believed that the PICOP security guards had no license to possess the subject
search warrant. firearms. This, however, does not meet the requirement that a witness must testify
- In warrant of arrest, the judge can just base it on affidavit as well as on his personal knowledge, not belief.
other witnesses submitted during the preliminary investigation. In
warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to interview the witnesses. All Held: "Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient.
the judge has to do is to make a personal determination of probable The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the
cause based on the affidavit and other evidence submitted during the witnesses he may produce and attach them to the record. Such written deposition is
preliminary investigation. (Section 5, Rule 112) necessary in order that Judge may be able to properly determine the existence or
- Atty. Europa’s Bayugan case non-existence of the probable cause, to hold liable for perjury the person giving it if
it will be found later that his declarations are false.”
(4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on facts personally known to them; and
"It is axiomatic that the examination must be probing and exhaustive not merely
(5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be routinary or pro forma, if the claimed probable cause is to be established. The
seized; examining magistrate must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must
make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of the application.”
Add:
4. The Applicant And The Witnesses Testify On Facts Personally Known To
(6) the warrant is in connection with one specific offense. Them;
- For example the police received information that there is a criminal who Paper Industries Corp. of the Phil. vs. Asuncion G.R. No. 122092. May 19, 1999
keeps drugs and guns inside his home. The proper thing to do is to file
two applications: for illegal possession of firearms and for violation of RA - Affidavits and hearsay testimony is not sufficient, the search warrant
9165, to search for the drugs and the guns. may be nullified
- When only one warrant was issued but they found the other item under - Atty. Europa: One of the first things I do is try to get a record of the
the plain view doctrine, then the seizures are valid. However, if their application for search warrant including the testimony of the witness. If I
information beforehand was for the guns and drugs, they must apply for can show that they did not have personal knowledge, I can have the
two search warrants. search warrant nullified either by the court that issued it or the court
- Atty. Europa: I had searches nullified because the search warrants where the case is pending.
indicated two crimes.
5 The Warrant Specifically Describes The Place To Be Searched And The
1. Probable Cause is present Things To Be Seized
- Probable cause is evidence that would convince a reasonable man that Frank Uy, et al., v. BIR, G.R. No. 129651, October 20, 2000. As to place
a thing is so.
_________________________________________________
44
- To enable law enforcers to find the place. They were able to find it. More - If more than one, it can be called as a scatter-shot warrant or shotgun
importantly, there was no Hernan Cortes St., Cebu City. warrant.
- A warrant issued for 50 John Does is invalid.
Search Warrant A-1 indicates the address of Uy Chin Ho alias Frank Uy as "Hernan
Cortes St., Cebu City" while the body of the same warrant states the address as GENERAL WARRANT OR “SCATTER-SHOT WARRANT” SHOTGUN
"Hernan Cortes St., Mandaue City." Parenthetically, Search Warrants A-2 and B WARRANT
consistently state the address of petitioner as "Hernan Cortes St., Mandaue City. Tambasan v. People, 246 SCRA 184, July 14 1995.
The rule is that a description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with On its face, the search warrant violates Section 3, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of
the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended Court, which prohibits the issuance of a search warrant for more than one specific
and distinguish it from other places in the community. Any designation or offense. The caption of Search Warrant No. 365 reflects the violation of two special
description known to the locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all laws: P.D. No. 1866 for illegal possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives;
others, and on inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional and R.A. No. 1700, the Anti-Subversion Law. Search Warrant No. 365 was
requirement. Thus, in Castro v. Pabalan, where the search warrant mistakenly therefore a "scatter-shot warrant" and totally null and void.
identified the residence of the petitioners therein as Barrio Padasil instead of the
adjoining Barrio Maria Cristina, this Court "admitted that the deficiency in the writ is Kenneth Roy Savage vs. Aproniano Taypin, et al., G.R. No. 134217. May 11,
not of sufficient gravity to call for its invalidation." 2000
In this case, it was not shown that a street similarly named Hernan Cortes could be Search warrant issued in relation to alleged “unfair competition” (Intellectual
found in Cebu City. Nor was it established that the enforcing officers had any Properties case)
difficulty in locating the premises of petitioner corporation. That Search Warrant A-1,
therefore, inconsistently identified the city where the premises to be searched is not No such crime under the Intellectual Properties Code that should be given
a defect that would spell the warrant's invalidation in this case. retroactive effect to benefit the accused.
As to things to be seized No basis for the issuance of a warrant.
- It is also important to know what information was available to the judge. Paper Industries Corp. of the Phil. v. Asuncion G.R. No. 122092. May 19, 1999
- How specifically should the place to be seized be described? It is
important to know what information is available to the judge. One of the “The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the
witnesses furnished the judge photocopies of the things to be searched. witnesses he may produce and attach them to the record. Such written deposition is
- “Multiple sets” was not enough because under the circumstances, the necessary in order that Judge may be able to properly determine the existence or
judge had a more specific description available. It is not just the non-existence of the probable cause, to hold liable for perjury the person giving it if
description will be required as specific as possible. If the judge has in his it will be found later that his declarations are false.”
record a more specific description of, like receipts with series, the judge
shall use it and not settle with a specific description.
Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect search.—The officer, if
“We agree that most of the items listed in the warrants fail to meet the test of refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his
particularity, especially since witness Abos had furnished the judge photocopies of purpose and authority, may break open any outer or inner door or window of a
the documents sought to be seized. The issuing judge could have formed a more house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant or
specific description of these documents from said photocopies instead of merely liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained
employing a generic description thereof. The use of a generic term or a general therein. (6)
description in a warrant is acceptable only when a more specific description of the
things to be seized is unavailable. The failure to employ the specificity available will
invalidate a general description in a warrant. The use by the issuing judge of the - You must show that you were refused admittance.
terms "multiple sets of books of accounts, ledgers, journals, columnar books, cash
register books, sales books or records, provisional & official receipts," "production
record books/inventory lists, stock cards," "sales records, job order," "corporate Section 8. Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of
financial records," and "bank statements/cancelled checks" is therefore two witnesses.—No search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be
unacceptable considering the circumstances of this case. made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of
his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and
As regards the terms "unregistered delivery receipts" and "unregistered purchase & discretion residing in the same locality. (7a)
sales invoices," however, we hold otherwise. The Solicitor General correctly argues
that the serial markings of these documents need not be specified as it is not
possible to do so precisely because they are unregistered. 36 Where, by the nature
of the goods to be seized, their description must be rather general, it is not required As much as possible, the witness must be the lawful occupant or the member of his
that a technical description be given, as this would mean that no warrant could family. If the lawful occupant or member of his family is absent, or if they refused,
issue. Taking into consideration the nature of the articles so described, it is clear then the witness may be the two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing
that no other more adequate and detailed description could have been given, in the same locality.
particularly because it is difficult to give a particular description of the contents
thereof. Although it appears that photocopies of these unregistered documents Atty. Europa: I have nullified at least 10 searches because the police failed to follow
were among those handed by Abos to the issuing judge, it would be impractical to this. They were only able to have one person sign. There is no requirement that the
require the latter to specify each and every receipt and invoice, and the contents witness has to be a member or official of the barangay. It has become a habit since
thereof, to the minutest detail. if they ask an officer of the barangay, it can no longer be questioned that he is a
resident of that locality.
The general description of most of the documents listed in the warrants does not
render the entire warrant void. Insofar as the warrants authorize the search and WITNESS TO SEARCH RULE
seizure of unregistered delivery receipts and unregistered purchase and sales
invoices, the warrants remain valid. The search warrant is severable, and those THE SEARCH ITSELF MUST BE WITNESSED. YUNG PAGHAHANAP ANG
items not particularly described may be cut off without destroying the whole warrant. DAPAT MAWITNESS.
6. In Connection With One Specific Offense Atty. Europa: Ilang times na ako nakapainvalitdate ng warrant based on media
coverage. Pagpasok ng bahay, may police na agad sa loob holding the thing to be
searched.
_________________________________________________
45
questioned warrant did not abuse his discretion in allowing a search "at any
In a case, the laundrywoman was not a stay-in. reasonable hour of the day or night." Absent such abuse of discretion, a search
conducted at night where so allowed, is not improper.”
Quintero v. NBI, 162 SCRA 467.
Mustang Lumber v. CA, 257 SCRA 430.
NBI agents, armed with a search warrant, raided a house. There was a witness but
the NBI agents searched different rooms simultaneously. We also affirm the rulings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the
search on 4 April 1990 was a continuation of the search on 3 April 1990 done under
This cannot be allowed because it defeats the purpose of having a witness. and by virtue of the search warrant issued on 3 April 1990 by Executive Judge
The witness cannot be in all the places being searched at the same time. Osorio. Under Section 9, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, a search warrant has a
lifetime of ten days. Hence, it could be served at any time within the said period,
People vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 117412. December 8, 2000 and if its object or purpose cannot be accomplished in one day, the same may be
continued the following day or days until completed. Thus, when the search under a
But was the witness-to-search rule violated by the police officers who conducted the warrant on one day was interrupted, it may be continued under the same warrant
search notwithstanding the absence of private respondent and despite the refusal the following day, provided it is still within the ten-day period.
of the members of his household to act as witnesses to the search?
Validity of search warrant SPECIFIC lifetime and is strictly applied.
The witness-to-search rule is embodied in Section 7 of Rule 126, which reads:
Prior to the 2000 Rules A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter, it
shall be void. (Sec. 10, Rule 126) Unlike a warrant of arrest, a search warrant
"SECTION 7.Search of house, room, or premise, to be made in presence of two has a DEFINITE LIFETIME.
witnesses. — No search of a house, room, or any other premise shall be made
except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or
in the absence of the latter, in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and Section 10. Validity of search warrant.—A search warrant shall be valid for ten
discretion residing in the same locality." (10) days from its date. Thereafter, it shall be void. (9a)
Petitioner submits that there was no violation of the aforementioned rule since the
searchers were justified in availing of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion, If they saw the person on the 9th day, they have 2 days (9th and 10th day).
after respondent's wife and maid refused. The regularity of the search is best
evidenced by the "Certification of Orderly Search" and the receipt of the property
seized signed by respondent's wife. We find merit in the petitioner's argument that Section 11. Receipt for the property seized.—The officer seizing property
private respondent's wife had no justifiable reason to refuse to be a witness to the under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to the lawful
search and that her refusal to be a witness cannot hamper the performance of occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and seizure were
official duty. In the absence of the lawful occupant of the premises or any member made, or in the absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of at least
of his family, the witness-to-search rule allows the search to be made "in the two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality,
presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same leave a receipt in the place in which he found the seized property. (10a)
locality." There was no irregularity when the PNP-CISC team asked the bailiff of the
Parañaque court and the barangay security officer to act as witnesses to the
search. To hold otherwise would allow lawful searches to be frustrated by the mere
refusal of those required by law to be witnesses. This is important. This is also very strictly applied.
Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and
Section 9. Time of making search.—The warrant must direct that it be served proceedings thereon. —
in the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or
in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted (a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued
that it be served at any time of the day or night. (8) the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath. (
b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing judge shall
ascertain if the return has been made, and if none, shall summon the person to
General Rule: MUST BE DAY TIME. whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return was
made. If the return has been made, the judge shall ascertain whether section 11
Exception: If the testimony of the witness states that the item will only be with of this Rule has been complied with and shall require that the property seized be
the accused during the nighttime. It must be specified in the Search Warrant. delivered to him. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has been
complied with.
WHY? To prevent agriculture or planting of evidence.
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of
People vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 117412. December 8, 2000 the log book on search warrants who shall enter therein the date of the return,
the result, and other actions of the judge. A violation of this section shall
The general rule is that search warrants must be served during the daytime. constitute contempt of court. (11a)
However, the rule allows an exception, namely, a search at any reasonable hour of
the day or night, when the application asserts that the property is on the person or
place ordered to be searched. In the instant case, the judge issuing the warrant
relied on the positive assertion of the applicant and his witnesses that the firearms
and ammunition were kept at private respondent's residence. Evidently, the court Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest.—A person lawfully arrested may
issuing the warrant was satisfied that the affidavits of the applicants clearly satisfied be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or
the requirements of Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. The rule on issuance constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. (12a)
of a search warrant allows for the exercise of judicial discretion in fixing the time
within which the warrant may be served, subject to the statutory requirement fixing
the maximum time for the execution of a warrant. We have examined the Important questions:
application for search warrant, and the deposition of the witnesses supporting said
application, and find that both satisfactorily comply with the requirements of Section 1. How should an accused challenge the admissibility of evidence derived
8, Rule 126. The inescapable conclusion is that the judge who issued the from the implementation of a search warrant?
_________________________________________________
46
in and acted upon only by the court where the action has been instituted. Under the
2. WHICH COURT should resolve the motion to quash search warrant in a same section, the court which issued the search warrant may be prevented from
case where the court that issued it is not the court with which the case is filed resolving a motion to quash or suppress evidence only when a criminal case is
as a consequence of the service of the warrant? subsequently filed in another court, in which case, the motion is to be resolved by
the latter court. It is therefore puerile to argue that the court that issued the warrant
SECTION 14 IS VERY IMPORTANT. What are your remedies or grounds to cannot entertain motions to suppress evidence while a preliminary investigation is
question the validity of the search warrant. ongoing. Such erroneous interpretation would place a person whose property has
been seized by virtue of an invalid warrant without a remedy while the goods
procured by virtue thereof are subject of a preliminary investigation”
Section 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence;
where to file.— A motion to quash a search warrant and/or to suppress
evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and acted upon only by the court RULE 127 - PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN CRIMINAL CASES
where the action has been instituted. If no criminal action has been instituted,
the motion may be filed in and resolved by the court that issued the search
warrant. However, if such court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case Provisional remedies in criminal cases.
is subsequently filed in another court, the motion shall be resolved by the latter
court. (n) The long and short of it is that the best way it can be described is that these
are stop gap measures these are remedies under the rule to address
situations which need quick remedies
WHERE and HOW

Section 1. Availability of provisional remedies.—The provisional remedies in
Digos case about a search warrant. I drafted a petition to be allowed to post bail. civil actions, insofar as they are applicable, may be availed of in connection with
They did not want to issue a certification that the father was arrested. So, tumayo the civil action deemed instituted with the criminal action. (1a)
kayo at lumabas. “Ah hndi kayo pwede maglabas.‘ It’s either you were not arrested
or he is under arrest. Therefore, they are under obligation to give the certification or
excerpt.
These are QUICK remedies.
They issued the certification. By the time they were brought to the fiscal office, there
was the order allowing the posting of bail. There was no longer the danger to detain Injunction - For example the defendant is building a wall between your property
the father. and his. He has already encroached on your property and you can prove it. You file
an action to stop him and remove whatever he built on your property.
Only one person signed the inventory. I insisted that the case will be filed.
Support - For example ah, action for paternity - denial kings! - kamukha bata pero
“A motion to quash a search warrant and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby gina dinay - for action for filiation - motion for support pendente lite can also be filed
may be filed in and acted upon only by the court where the action has been - because you cannot tell the child na wag ka muna kumain o mag skwela - habang
instituted.” The search warrant was issued by the court in Manila. If there is no case ga kaso pa.
filed in court, we have the remedies. The remedy is motion to quash the search
warrant to be filed where the warrant was issued. So we have to file it in Manila. Section 1 says that all provisional remedies in civil actions may be availed of as
long as they are applicable
I wanted the case to be viewed by fresh eyes or home-court advantage. Once filed,
we can file the motion to suppress evidence here. No longer the motion to quash
warrant (issuing court). Section 2. Attachment.—When the civil action is properly instituted in the
criminal action as provided in Rule 111, the offended party may have the
Remember: property of the accused attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment
that may be recovered from the accused in the following cases:
No case filed - File the motion to quash at the court which issued the search
warrant (a) When the accused is about to abscond from the Philippines;
If the information was filed - File the motion quash where the case is pending
(b) When the criminal action is based on a claim for money or property
If the motion to quash was already filed in the court which issued the warrant but he embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted to the use of the accused
has not resolved it, and the case was filed, then he should not resolve the case. He who is a public officer, officer of a corporation, attorney, factor, broker, agent or
must forward the motion to quash to the court where the case is pending. 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;
Can the court that issued the warrant entertain a motion to quash the warrant
if the case is still pending preliminary investigation? YES. - A relationship of trust exists
Solid Triangle Sales Corp. The Sheriff of RTC QC, et al. G.R. No. 144309 (c) When the accused has concealed, removed, or disposed of his property, or is
November 23, 2001 about to do so; and
- If the preliminary investigation is still pending, can you file the Motion to
- In civil cases, when you can show that the defendant is already
Quash to the court who issued?
engaged in an action to defraud creditors.
“Petitioners also argue that Section 14, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, supra, while intended "to resolve conflicts of responsibility between (d) When the accused resides outside the Philippines. (2a)
courts," "does not expressly cover the situation where the criminal complaint is
pending with the prosecutor." In such a case, petitioners submit, the public - Remember that it is very important that the court must have
prosecutor should be allowed to resolve the question of whether or not probable jurisdiction over the person of the accused before the court can
cause exists. enforce any of these provisional remedies.
The Court finds this interpretation too contrived. Section 14, Rule 126 precisely
covers situations like the one at bar. Section 14 expressly provides that a motion to
quash a search warrant and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed What are the provisional remedies?
_________________________________________________
47
“x x x No levy on attachment pursuant to the writ issued under section 2 hereof shall
1. Preliminary Attachment Rule 57 be enforced unless it is preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, by service
of summons, together with a copy of the complaint, the application for attachment,
Prelim attachment - remedy whereby properties of the defendant can already be the applicant's affidavit and bond, and the order and writ of attachment, on the
held to answer whatever ay okay sorry haha defendant within the Philippines
2. Preliminary Injunction Rule 58 The requirement of prior or contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply
3. Receivership Rule 59 where the summons could not be served personally or by substituted service
despite diligent efforts, or the defendant is a resident of the Philippines temporarily
It is a remedy where property will be subjected to management by a receiver absent therefrom, or the defendant is a nonresident of the Philippines, or the action
xxx - for instances when there is claim between conflicting parties - of who is one in rem or quasi in rem. (5a)”
should possess it or is entitled to it
4. Replevin Rule 60 - recovery of personal property KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY

5. Support Pendente Lite Rule 61 - One entitled to support can ask for
support during the case. History
Another example is rape, and the girl got preggo - you can ask for dna testing and Originally covered by P.D. 1508 “Katarungang Pambarangay Law” replaced
with motion for support for pendente lite. by Secs. 399-422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, and Sec. 515, Title I, Book IV,
R.A. 7160 “The Local Government Code”
How can these be applicable in criminal cases?
Well actually, many lawyers do not avail of it but its allowed like - in violations of - Erroneously called as “barangay court” but there is no such thing.
BP22 - or estafa - motion for preliminary attachment can be asked for. In VAWC - It is considered as an alternative dispute resolution system. It has long
cases, injunction is typically included (built-in) (TPO, PPO) - applicable in crim been in existence, traditional.
vawc not only om civil vawc. For qualified theft - like theft of coconuts - one of the - Before even policemen can get people to settle by talking to them - now
cases that usually branches off are cases policemen are less respected and less trusted - hence it is not as
effective as before (form of ADR)
Case na nagasanga-sanga - The katarungang pambarangay system was incorporated in the LGC
- It was incorporated under the Local Government Code
1) Family feud on agricultural land with coconuts
Harvest si a - qualified theft si b harvest si b - qualified theft si a Guidelines:
- First , injunction to stop the other side from harvesting
- Second, have the entire property placed under receivership Guidelines in the implementation of the Katarungang Pambarangay system
- were given by the Supreme Court in Administrative Circular No. 14-93, dated
July 15, 1993.
Grounds for attachment in civil cases: Applicability to Criminal Cases:
(a) In an action for the recovery of a specified amount of money or damages, other Applicable to all Criminal Cases Except:
than moral and exemplary, on a cause of action arising from law, contract, quasi-
contract, delict or quasi-delict against a party who is about to depart from the 1. Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships or juridical
Philippines with intent to defraud his creditors; entities, since only individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation
proceedings either as complainants or respondents (Sec. 1, Rule VI,
Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);
(b) In an action for money or property embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or - Can a juridical person be a party to a criminal case? Yes,
converted to his own use by a public officer, or an officer of a corporation, or an such as in crimes against property (theft, estafa)
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; 2. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different
cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each
(c) In an action to recover the possession of property unjustly or fraudulently taken, other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to
detained or converted, when the property, or any part thereof, has been concealed, amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
removed, or disposed of to prevent its being found or taken by the applicant or an
authorized person; - Except if voluntary, like magkadikit ang kanilang barangays
(d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the 3. Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of
debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought, or in the imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine over five thousand
performance thereof; pesos (P5,000.00);
(e) In an action against a party who has removed or disposed of his property, or is 4. Offenses where there is no private offended party;
about to do so, with intent to defraud his creditors; or
5. Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention (See
(f) In an action against a party who does not reside and is not found in the Sec. 412 (b)(1), Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law);
Philippines, or on whom summons may be served by publication. (1a)
- The detention might be prolonged if you still go through the
Very Important: Katarungang Pambarangay
Court MUST have jurisdiction over the person of the accused for it to act on WHERE?
applications for provisional remedies.
Venue:
Section 5 of Rule 57 provides, in part thus:
_________________________________________________
48
(a) Disputes between persons actually residing in the same barangay shall be Can the absence of a prior referral to Barangay Conciliation be raised after
brought for amicable settlement before the lupon of said barangay. arraignment?
Is it jurisdictional? NO, It is a condition precedent. If the accused raises it prior
(b) Those involving actual residents of different barangays within the same city or to the arraignment, then it can lead to the dismissal or suspension of the case while
municipality shall be brought in the barangay where the respondent or any of it is referred to the proper katarungang barangay for mediation.
the respondents actually resides, at the election of the complaint.
- Sec 19 summary procedure - prohibited pleading motions to quash
- Barangay of the respondent is where the complainant should complain exception motion to quash for jurisdiction because of failure to go
- If many respondent, any of them through the katarungang pambarangay
- Sec 18 of summary procedure mentions the lupon
(c) All disputes involving real property or any interest therein shall be brought in
the barangay where the real property or the larger portion thereof is situated. Bañares II v. Balising, G.R. No. 132624, March 13, 2000.
(d) Those arising at the workplace where the contending parties are employed or - It is not jurisdictional
at the institution where such parties are enrolled for study, shall be brought in the
barangay where such workplace or institution is located. The Court also finds it necessary to correct the mistaken impression of petitioners
and the municipal trial court that the non-referral of a case for barangay conciliation
Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation proceedings before the punong as required under the Local Government Code of 1991 51 may be raised in a
barangay; otherwise, the same shall be deemed waived. Any legal question which motion to dismiss even after the accused has been arraigned.
may confront the punong barangay in resolving objections to venue herein referred
to may be submitted to the Secretary of Justice, or his duly 182 designated It is well-settled that the non-referral of a case for barangay conciliation when so
representative, whose ruling thereon shall be binding. (Section 409, R.A. No. 7160) required under the law is not jurisdictional in nature and may therefore be deemed
waived if not raised seasonably in a motion to dismiss. The Court notes that
Procedure: You have to understand how it happens. although petitioners could have invoked the ground of prematurity of the causes of
action against them due to the failure to submit the dispute to Lupon prior to the
(a) Who may initiate proceeding — Upon payment of the appropriate filing fee, filing of the cases as soon as they received the complaints against them, petitioners
any individual who has a cause of action against another individual involving any raised the said ground only after their arraignment.
matter within the authority of the lupon may complain, orally or in writing, to the
lupon chairman of the barangay. However, while the trial court committed an error in dismissing the criminal cases
against petitioners on the ground that the same were not referred to the Lupon prior
(b) Mediation by lupon chairman — Upon receipt of the complaint, the lupon to the filing thereof in court although said ground was raised by them belatedly, the
chairman shall within the next working day summon the respondent(s), with notice said order may no longer be revoked at present considering that the same had
to the complainant(s) for them and their witnesses to appear before him for a already become final and executory, and as earlier stated, may no longer be
mediation of their conflicting interests. If he fails in his mediation effort within fifteen annulled by the Municipal Trial Court, nor by the Regional Trial Court or this Court.
(15) days from the first meeting of the parties before him, he shall forthwith set a
date for the constitution of the pangkat in accordance with the provisions of this SOME INTERESTING CASES
Chapter.
People of the Philippines, et al. v. Rafael Bitanga, G.R. No. 159222, June 26,
- Lupon in any barangay there are called Lupon ng Tagapamayapa 2007.
(peacemakers) appointed by the barangay captain.
- Lupon Chairman (if fails) then Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo (3 members A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is NOT APPLICABLE against
of the Lupon). There are usually 2 sessions in order to try to reconcile criminal cases. Section 1 of Rule 47 provides thus “This Rule shall govern the
the parties. annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in
- After this, there will be issued certification to file action CIVIL ACTIONS of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new
- Remember: During the 60-day period that it is in the Barangay level, the trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available
prescriptive period is SUSPENDED. Only upto 60 days. through no fault of the petitioner.
(c) Suspension of prescriptive period of offenses — While the dispute is under Moreover, Section 18 of Rule 124 excludes Rule 47 from the rules on civil
mediation, conciliation, or arbitration, the prescriptive periods for offenses and procedure that are suppletorily applicable to criminal cases, to wit:
cause of action under existing laws shall be interrupted upon filing the complaint
with the punong barangay. The prescriptive periods shall resume upon receipt by “Sec. 18. Application of certain rules in civil procedure to criminal cases. – The
the complainant of the complainant or the certificate of repudiation or of the provisions of Rules 42, 44 to 46 and 48 to 56 relating to procedure in the Court of
certification to file action issued by the lupon or pangkat secretary: Provided, Appeals and in the Supreme Court in original and appealed civil cases shall be
however, That such interruption shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the filing of applied to criminal cases insofar as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the
the complaint with the punong barangay. provisions of this Rule.”
(d) Issuance of summons; hearing; grounds for disqualification — The Is the failure to file an appellants’ brief a ground to dismiss the appeal of an
pangkat shall convene not later than three (3) days from its constitution, on the day accused?
and hour set by the lupon chairman, to hear both parties and their witnesses,
simplify issues, and explore all possibilities for amicable settlement. For this General Rule: YES
purpose, the pangkat may issue summons for the personal appearance of parties
and witnesses before it. In the event that a party moves to disqualify any member of However, take note of: Niño Masas y Milan v. People of the Philippines, G.R.
the pangkat by reason of relationship, bias, interest, or any other similar grounds No. 177313, December 19, 2007.
discovered after the constitution of the pangkat, the matter shall be resolved by the
affirmative vote of the majority of the pangkat whose decision shall be final. Should “Section 8 of Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: SEC.
disqualification be decided upon, the resulting vacancy shall be filled as herein 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. - The Court of
provided for. e) Period to arrive at a settlement — The pangkat shall arrive at a Appeals may, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and with notice to the
settlement or resolution of the dispute within fifteen (15) days from the day it appellant in either case, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief
convenes in accordance with this section. This period shall, at the discretion of the within the time prescribed by this Rule, except where the appellant is represented
pangkat, be extendible for another period which shall not exceed fifteen (15) days, by a counsel de oficio.
except in clearly meritorious cases. (Section 410, R.A. No. 7160)
_________________________________________________
49
The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio,
dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail
or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal. (Emphasis
supplied.)
The provision is clear and unambiguous. Section 8 provides for an exception in the
dismissal of appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief, that is, where the appellant
is represented by a counsel de oficio.
Note: Read the actual codal provisions
FINAL IMPORTANT REMINDER
DO NOT FORGET TO REVIEW THE CODAL PROVISIONS. A LOT OF THESE

PROVISIONS WERE NO LONGER REPRODUCED IN THESE NOTES NOT
BECAUSE THEY ARE UNIMPORTANT BUT BECAUSE NO FURTHER
EXPLANATION IS NEEDED.
_________________________________________________

Criminal Procedure (Second Exam) - Atty. Europa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Procedure (Second Exam) - Atty. Europa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Procedure (Second Exam) - Atty. Europa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

People v. Edgar Lagmay, April 21, 1999.

There are varying degrees of evidence required

“The misplaced rule on evidence.” People v. Benjamin Sabayoc,

On the Right to Speedy Trial RULE 116 - ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA

People of the Philippines v. Mario Serzo, Jr., June 20, 1997

(b) There exists a prejudicial question; and

Coverage: Time of Arraignment Suspension of Arraignment (Section 11, Rule

Section 11. Suspension of arraignment.–Upon motion by the proper party, the

We hasten to add though that if the offended party is represented by a private

Is the approval by the court of the pre-trial agreement necessary for it to be

Delay resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders;

Reversed Trial. If the defense is self-defense. The accused is admitting the

Rules on Conditional Examination of Witnesses (Sections 12-15)

SEC. 17. Discharge of accused to be state witness. – When two or more

(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused

Cf., with last par of Sec. 14, Rule 110.

TO DEMUR: A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss. It is filed by the

- The usual kind of promulgation

Not all affidavits of recantation are kalokohan.

To warrant a new trial, Joylyn's affidavit of desistance must constitute a recantation

General Rule: Appeals from SB to SC via NOTICE OF APPEAL

Section 12. Withdrawal of appeal. — Notwithstanding perfection of the appeal,

“In Philippine jurisprudence, probable cause has been uniformly defined as

As to things to be seized No basis for the issuance of a warrant.

WHERE and HOW

4. Replevin Rule 60 - recovery of personal property KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY

Grounds for attachment in civil cases: Applicability to Criminal Cases:

Note: Read the actual codal provisions

FINAL IMPORTANT REMINDER

DO NOT FORGET TO REVIEW THE CODAL PROVISIONS. A LOT OF THESE

You might also like