JANUARY 17, 2023

A. CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM - is the system or process by which crimes are reported,
investigated, and the persons suspected thereof are taken into custody, prosecuted and tried,
and if found guilty, provisions are made for their correction and rehabilitation.

Generally, except for the community, when talking about the criminal justice system, this is
actually referring to established institutions, organized by the government in order to maintain
peace and order.

This system is composed of:

1. Law Enforcement - The Law Enforcement investigates crimes, and effects the arrest of
those people who violated the law. ( PNP, NBI, CIDG, etc)
2. Prosecution - investigates complaints and prosecutes cases;
3. Court - The Court is the cornerstone of the system wherein it determines whether the
person charged for a criminal offense is guilty or not.
4. Correctional - for the correction and rehabilitation of the accused ( Bureau of Prisons,
Parole and Probation administration)
5. Community- People & People’s Organizations

DISCUSSION:
CRIME, OFFENDER, VICTIM, VICTIMLESS CRIMES.

A crime is committed in a community. If a crime is committed, there are two (2) parties involved:
offender and victim. EXCEPT if the crime involve is a victimless crime.

Example:
If A stabbed B to death.
HOMICIDE is the crime
A is the offender
B is the victim

If the offense is sale of prohibit drugs e.g. shabu

Violation of RA 9165 is the crime
Seller of prohibited drug is the offender
State or Government itself would be the victim (because there is no specific victim
involved)
The person that would initiate the complaint would be the police officers or law
enforcement authorities.

Other crimes having victimless crimes are: illegal possession or firearms, illegal gambling.
Because there is no specific person who is victimized by the offender.
FIRST PILLAR: COMMUNITY
Again, a crime is committed within a community. The victim would come from the
community, as well as the offender.

The offender will not come into contact with the criminal justice system, unless he is
reported by the victim himself or the witness to the commission of the offense, who is also a
member of the community.

It is important for the people, where the area of the crime is committed, should actively
participate in maintaining peace and order in their locality.

Maintaining peace and order is not the sole responsibility of the police officers.

The PROBLEM: The victim nor the witness will not bother to report it to the police authorities for
fear of retaliation (paano kung balikan ako?). For some their reason is that they do not have the
time to appear in court and testify because they are busy with their work.

Thus, it is important for the community to report the commission of crimes; be willing to
appear as witnesses in court; and provide the necessary evidence to help the law enforcement
authorities in the investigation of the crime and in the apprehension of the suspect.

If the community will do this, it will give the second pillar to perform its role in our criminal
justice system.

SECOND PILLAR: LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

Government agencies charged with the enforcement of the laws. It is primarily
responsible for the investigation and determination whether an offense has been committed,
and when needed the apprehension of the alleged offenders for further investigation of the
third pillar.
 NBI – National Bureau of Investigation
 PNP – Philippine National Police
 PDEA – Philippine Drug Enforcement Agencies
 BUCOR – Bureau of Customs
 DOF – Department of Finance
 And other deputized government agencies

The trust rating of law enforcement agencies were put into question in the past years
especially during the term of Pres. Duterte; they were actively involved in various questionable
drug operations. This is because they have to reach a certain quota. Hence, most police officers
will arrest suspected drug personalities even if said people were not really involved in the
commission of the offense, or even if they were involved, law enforcement authorities does not
have sufficient evidence to arrest them.

What they did was to make it appear that these persons were caught in flagrante delicto,
selling or possessing prohibited drugs. Hence, a lot of these cases were dismissed by the Court.

The obligation of the law enforcement agencies does not end with arrest or
apprehension of the suspect. They are also tasked to testify in Court and show to the Court that
the evidence they have gathered in the course of their investigation or arrest of the accused,
would be admissible in evidence.
 The law enforcement officers are charged with the investigation, gathering of evidence,
apprehension of the suspect, and the preservation of evidence.

If the police officer involved in the investigation of the case is upright, with integrity,
honest, efficient, and worked hand in hand with the victim and the witnesses in order to provide
the prosecution good to be presented during trial, eh di maganda. Haha

LAW ENFORCEMENT
It is the police officers who take the statement or sinumpaang salaysay of the witnesses.
Pag sa sinumpaang salaysay, dapat nandun yung element of the crime. For example, in
the crime of theft, dapat may amount. This is the same with malicious mischief kasi damage to.
In Estafa, dapat makita yung deceit or how was the victim defrauded. Also, with respect to
extrajudicial confession, bakit madaming nadidis-regard na confession? Kasi hindi nag-
cocomply yung pulis sa rules na dapat assisted ng counsel yung accused. Dapat may counsel.

It is also the police officer that would see to it that all the necessary evidence will be
prepared. I.e for physical injuries dapat may medico legal certificate which should indicate the
period of the healing of the injury or the time when the victim was incapacitated. IN carnapping,
the OR-CR are needed to prove ownership.

For private investigators, hindi sila included sa law enforcement but they can act as
witness.

THIRD PILLAR: THE PROSECUTION

 It is mandated to prosecute violations of laws.

 It initially determines whether the warrantless arrest of the offender is valid or not, and
whether the latter will be subjected to inquest proceedings or be referred to
preliminary investigation.
 Determines whether the person will be charged in court or not.

If the respondent (pag wala pang kaso ito yung tawag sa offender), he will not be
represented to the prosecution.

TWO INSTANCES WHEN AN OFFENDER IS BROUGHT TO THE PROSECUTION SERVICE.

1. Through inquest proceedings
 This happens only if the offender was caught in flagrante delicto or caught in the act
of committing a crime or was arrested as a result of a hot pursuit or agad-agad nahuli.
 Example: Naghuli sa akto ng pagnanakaw.
After the police officer gathered the sinumpaang salaysay of the witnesses and the
victim, he would now bring the offender to the prosecutor for inquest proceedings
within the period provided under Article 125 of the RPC –
- The person arrested must be presented to the prosecutor for inquest within the
period of 12, 18 or 36 hours, depending upon the crime committed by the
offender.

The prosecutor will be the one to decide whether that particular theft case is proper
for inquest. Meaning to say, was the offender presented to him for inquest
proceedings within 12, 18 or 36 hours?
 If not, then hindi proper for inquest, you will file the case under preliminary
investigation. Meaning, i-rerelease yung offender, pero ifa-file yung reklamo sa Office
of the Fiscal, for preliminary investigation.

If proper for inquest, meaning, the offender was presented to him only after 6 hours
from the commission of the offense, the second question will be, second question of
the fiscal will be, was the arrest proper? Would it fall under valid warrantless arrest
under Section 5 Rule 113? Yes, because the offender was caught inflagrante delicto
committing the offense.

If pwede na sa inquest, the prosecutor will now then prepare the resolution and the
information, and will file the information in court. And since the accused is already
arrested, the court will file already issue a commitment order, not a warrant of arrest,
because the offender is already in custody of law.

 Example: If the theft happened but was reported by the victim the next day, so there
was a lapse in time. What will happen is that the complaint and sinumpaang salaysay,
and the supporting , will be filed before the prosecutor’s office for preliminary
investigation.

Pag preliminary investigation – the fiscal will issue a subpoena to the respondent, for
him to submit his counter affidavit within 10 days.

Pag nag-submit ng counter affidavit si respondent, the prosecutor will determine

whether there is probable cause to charge the respondent with theft, and if there is,
then the prosecutor will file the information in court.

The court now will evaluate the resolution and the supporting evidence, and if they
find probable cause, will issue a warrant of arrest. The police officers now would
apprehend the accused with that warrant of arrest issued by the court.

The prosecution is referred to as the moving force or the prime mover of the system.
Because, in its level, it could already kill the case. Pwede niyang sabihin na there is no
probable cause, or there is no sufficient evidence, case dismiss. Tapos yung kaso,
hindin na aabot sa court.
It is the prosecutor who will decide who will be charged and what case will be filed
against the accused, as well as to what will be presented in court.

So kung corrupt yung prosecutor, pwede niya manipulahin what case will be filed in
court. Example: He can file the case of Homicide instead of Murder for lower sentence
or penalty. If magaling si lawyer ni accused, ipapa-arraign na agad yung kaso para
hindi na ma-ammend yung information. Kasi kapag na arraign na yung homicide,
hindi na pwedeng maammend to Murder. Kasi Murder is not bailable, pero homicide,
bailable.

FOURT PILLAR: COURT

 The cornerstone of the system
 It determines whether the person charged with an offense is guilty or not.
 The judge must be impartial and free from influence like the “lady justice”
 It is the court who will judge whether the accused is guilty or not. Whether he will be
convicted or acquitted, or the case be dismissed.

The judged must be impartial and free from influence. They should be emotionless and
should decide based only on the evidence presented and the applicable law, regardless
who the complainant is or the victim.

FIFTH PILLAR: CORRECTIONS

 Formerly called prison or penitentiary
 Its purpose is to correct and rehabilitate the person deprived of liberty (PDL) to
become a productive citizen of the country after he goes out of the correctional, as
he will return to the community to live a new life as a normal person.
 While confined, the correctional institution should adopt measures and activities to
rehabilitate PDL (e.g. livelihood projects, educational/vocational trainings,
recreation/sports, religious/spiritual activites)

Granting that we have a good judged and the case was decided based on the merits,
presented and the accused was convicted for the offense charged. He will now be
forwarded to the corrections.

If the accused were given the penalty of imprisonment, then he would be confined in an
institution, which is referred to as correctional.

After the PDL has served his sentence, then he would be released to the community.
Which meant going back to the first pillar, which is the community.

The community plays a big role in the reformation of the PDL’s that were released from
the correctional. It is the community who will give the person a second chance to have a new
life or to deny him the opportunity to have a new life.

The five (5) pillars must act collectively and in cooperation and coordination with each
other in order for us to have a strong criminal justice system. Otherwise, we will not have a strong
but a dysfunctional and ineffective criminal justice system.

PART I – GENERAL PRINCIPLES

CONCEPTS OF REMEDIAL LAW

PUBLIC LAW PRIVATE LAW

- Deals with issues that affect the general - Affects the rights of individuals, families,
public or the society as a whole. business and deals with issues that involve
private matters.
- EXAMPLES:
 Criminal Law - EXAMPLES:
 Constitutional Law  Civil Law
 Election Law  Family Code
 Human Rights Law  Corporation Law
 Competition Law
 Or as long as that law, pertains only
to private matters
SUBSTANTIVE LAW REMEDIAL/ADJECTIVE LAW
- Defines and regulate rights and duties - Prescribes the methods of enforcing those
regarding life, liberty, or property which, rights and obligations created by
when violated gives rise to a cause of substantive law by providing a procedural
action; system for obtaining redress for the
invasion of rights and violation of duties;

- Does not create vested rights;

- Creates vested rights;
- May be retroactive in application;
- Prospective in application;
- Supreme Court is empowered to
- Cannot be enacted by the Supreme promulgate procedural rules.
Court.

 If applied to criminal law, substantive law is that law that declares what acts are
crimes, and prescribes the punishment or penalties.

 Remedial law provides for the steps by which one is committed a crime will be
punished.
ILLUSTRATION:

A stabbed B to death.

- A has committed a crime.

- That act consist of a violation of a law

Q: How will the victim or the family of the victim file an action against the offender?

A: The steps or the procedure that we have to follow would be seen in the remedial or adjective
law.

 SUBSTANTIVE LAW: Prospective in application except if the law itself provides for a
retroactive application.
Example: RA 10951, which amended the Revised Penal Code, it gives retroactive
application as it is specifically provided under the law because it is favorable for the
accused.

Before, Estafa’s penalty can be up to reclusion perpetua but under the new law,
masyadong mababa. But this was applied to already decided and pending cases.

 SUBSTANTIVE LAW: Cannot be enacted by the Supreme Court because it is enacted

by the Congress

 REMEDIAL LAW: Does not create vested rights, it can be changed or amended by the
Supreme Court every now and then.
If it says that the current rules are no longer applicable to the given times, then they
could change it, if it wants to.
CRIMINAL LAW VS. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

- Defines crimes, treats of their nature and - Lays down the procedure/processes by
provides for their punishment. which an offender is made to answer for
the violation of criminal cases.

- It is the method prescribed by law for the

apprehension and prosecution of persons
accused of criminal offense, and for their
punishment in case of conviction.

- It deals with the procedural steps through

which a criminal case passes, from
investigation of the crime, apprehension
of the subject, his prosecution in court as
an accused and the rendition of
judgement.

IMPORTANCE: Balance or harmonize

government’s duty to maintain law and order
while at the same time protecting the
constitutional rights of its citizens.

If the government or law enforcements would enforce our criminal laws, this would naturally
lead to some governmental intrusions to the rights of a person/privacy of a person.

There is a need, therefore to balance the societal interest of the government and those of the
individuals.

It is the duty of the government to enforce the laws, but it also their duty to see to it that the
enforcement of these laws has to respect the constitutional rights of its citizens.

If the event that there is a violation of rights of the citizen in the enforcement of laws, the
remedies of the accused can be found in criminal procedure.
SYSTEMS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

INQUISITORIAL ACCUSATORIAL/ADVERSARIAL
There is little use of judicial precedent (case Previous decisions by higher courts are
law). This means Judges are free to decide binding on lower courts.
each case independently of previous
decisions, by applying the relevant statutes.

A Judge may carry out or oversee the The responsibility for gathering evidence
investigative phase. rests with the parties (the Police and the
defense).
The examining Judge plays an active role in There is no examination phase, so an
the collection of evidence and interrogation independent evaluation of the evidence
of witnesses. collected during investigation is left to the
trial.
The main function of a trial is to present the An adversarial system requires the
case to the trial Judge and, in some cases, prosecutor, acting on behalf of the State,
the jury, and to allow the lawyers to present and the defense lawyer, acting on behalf
oral argument in public. of the accused, to offer their version of
events and argue their case before an
impartial adjudicator (a Judge and/or jury).
The Judge assumes the role of principal The Judge is a referee at the hearing. It is
interrogator of witnesses and the defendant, the Judge’s function to ensure that the
and is under an obligation to take evidence court case is conducted in a manner that
until he or she ascertains the truth. observes due process. The Judge decides
whether the defendant is guilty beyond
It is the Judge that carries out most of the reasonable doubt (except in jury trials
examination of witnesses, arising from their where the jury performs that role), and
obligation to inquire into the charges and to determines the sentence.
evaluate all relevant evidence in reaching
their decision

Philippines system of criminal procedure is adversarial or accusatorial.

There are two contending parties: the Prosecution and the Defense

In ACCUSATORIAL OR ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM:

 The judge is only a referee in a hearing

 The judge is neutral.
 It is up to the parties to present their respective evidence.
 The judge cannot give his comments until such time that the parties have
presented their respective evidence.
 Previous decision of higher courts are binding to the lower courts.
The above mentioned is not true In INQUISITORIAL SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

 There is legal use of judicial precedent.

 The judge may carry or oversee the investigative phase.
 The judge plays an active role in the collection of evidence and in the
interrogation of witnesses.
- Hindi lang siya judge, pulis din kasi nag-iinvestigate, and counsel kasi nagi-
interrogate din ng witnesses.

ADVANTAGE OF AN ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM:

 The judge appears to be more neutral.

 The judge is required to render a decision based on the presented by the parties
during trial.

DISADVANTAGE OF AN ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM:

 When it comes to finding evidence, this would depend upon the resources of the
parties in the litigation, which may be unequal.

MIXED SYSTEM
A combination of Inquisitorial and accusatorial

 Under the Philippine Criminal Justice System, litigation is adversarial/accusatorial in nature.

The judge plays a very passive role and stays neutral until judgement. The judge also ensures
that the trial proceeds according to the procedural rules of trials.

 The recent Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR) and the Rules on Alternative Dispute Resolution
promulgated by the Supreme Court however, theoretically shift the orientation of the
Philippine Justice System from a purely adversarial system to a mixed adversarial and
inquisitorial system. As such, the best practice of both systems are introduced. The JAR also
mandates fairness and full disclosure of all parties’ causes of action and evidence, and the
use of judicial affidavits in lieu of direct examination.

 The referral of the case for mediation (for cases subject to mediation) and thereafter to
Judicial Dispute Resolution are also vestiges of the inquisitorial system which we should
continue to practice.

 Anent the Pre-trial stage, our current system somehow already adopts the inquisitorial system
since pre-trial conference has become mandatory in criminal cases. The flow of the pre-trial
is also controlled by the judged with the aim in view of defining the issues, limiting the number
of witnesses and the documents to be presented during trial. It is also during this stage when
 the parties could mutually signify their intention to adopt judicial affidavit (in offenses
punishable by more than 6 years) to expedite proceedings.

 In cases involving summary procedure, the judge actively controls the search for evidence
and plays a central role in finding the truth, which is basically inquisitorial in nature.

The Supreme Court is trying to adopt the best practices of the inquisitorial system of criminal
procedure.

In the new rules of criminal procedure, the judge is now required to take an active role during
the pre-trial conference. Unlike before, if the defense will say,

D: “Your Honor, we will not be admitting any stipulation coming from the prosecution except
the identity of the accused.”

Judge: The pre-trial has been terminated; we will now set the case for trial.

So walang nangyari-during the pre-trial conference.

BUT UNDER THE NEW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE:

Pre-trial for criminal cases is mandatory, and the judge is required to oversee the conduct of the
pre-trial conference and assist the parties enter into stipulations, and see to it that the witnesses
listed in the pre-trial order are necessary witnesses and not merely corroborative witnesses.

For example, during pre-trial conference,

D: mag aadmit ka ng 5 witnesses,

J: sino sino ba yung witnesses mo.

D: Pulis 1, Pulis 2, … Pulis 5. Anong role nilang 5? Arresting officers po

J: Bakit silang 5, isa lang dapat, mamili ka sa kanila kasi the same statements naman.

In this case, may active participation si judge nad may mailalagay sa stipulation. So how I
interpreted this is, since may actual participation si judge during pre-trial, na –eeliminate na
yung ibang unnecessary shits para sa trial itself.
SOURCES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

These governed the pleading, practice, and procedure of all courts as well as admission to the
practice of law. All had the force and effect of law.

1. Constitution;

2. The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure

3. the revised penal code of 1930;

4. the New Rules of Court

5. Republic Acts

6. Presidential Decrees

7. Judicial decisions

8. Circulars

9. Civil code ( Art 32,33,34)

IN WHAT COURTS APPLICABLE? Sec 2 – These Rules shall apply in all the courts, except as
otherwise provided by the SC

IN WHAT CASES NOT APPLICABLE – Sec 4 – These Rules shall not apply to election cases, land
registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein
provided for, except by analogy or in suppletory character and whenever practicable and
convenient.

CRIMINAL ACTION –one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission
punishable by law. sec 3(b)

BASIS OF CRIMINAL ACTION: the right of a party or the State to institute an action arises from a
violation of an act or omission punishable by law, not necessarily against the party instituting
such action especially when it comes to the state, because such right to prosecute an offender
of the law is simply an exercise of the inherent “police power” of the State.

PARTIES: it involves 2 contending parties, the prosecution and the defense

CONSTRUCTION (SEC. 6) – These rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their
objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding.
RULES ON RETROACTIVITY - It is a general rule that rules of procedure may be given retroactive
effect as far as it benefits the accused.

CRIME v OFFENSE v FELONY v INFRACTION

 Crime - an act or omission in violation of a public law
 Offense - an act or omission in violation of a special law
 Felony -an act or omission in violation of the Revised Penal Code
 Infraction -an act or omission in violation of an ordinance
JANUARY 23, 2023

CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL POWER AND ROLE OF PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

DEFINITION OF JUDICIAL POWER ( sec. 1, Art VIII, 1987 Phil. Constitution)

- Judicial power is the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving
rights that are enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or the
redress of wrongs for violations of such rights. ( ART VIII, sec 1(1)

- Vested in the Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes:

1. The duty of the courts to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable; and

2. Lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the

government.

RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT (also referred to as Auxiliary or Administrative

Power of the SC)
- Sec 5(5), Art. VIII - Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to
the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged.

NOTE: The Supreme Court has been very active when it comes to promulgating new rules
concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. Just recently, there is the
writ of kalikasan, writ of hebeas data, and the Rules of Court has been overhauled by the
Suprene Court. And this was done because of its rule making power.

NOTE: The power of the SC includes the duty whether there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of the government. If Congress would pass a law, the same could be challenge before the
Supreme Court for the purpose of determining whether this particular law or the provisions of this
law complied with our Constitution. Otherwise, SC has the power to declare that law null and
void or some provisions of that law as null and void.
LIMITATIONS ON THE RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SC
1. It shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the disposition of cases
2. The rules must be uniform for all the courts of the same grade
3. The rules must not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights
4. The power to admit attorneys to the bar is not an arbitrary & despotic one, to be exercised
at the pleasure of the court, or from passion, prejudice or personal hostility, but is the duty
of the court to exercise and regulate it by a sound and judicial discretion.

ROLE OF JUDICIARY
The judiciary is the bulwark of liberty an judicial independence is a cornerstone of our
democracy. Consequently, Courts should not be subjected to improper influence from the other
branches of government, or from private or partisan interests. Judicial independence is vital and
important to the idea or separation of powers. The Judicial Department plays an indispensable
role in the government as the administrators of justice. The governments and consequently the
State will not survive without the judiciary. It preserves the cohesiveness of the different
government organs, always seeing to it that they function in accordance with the Constitution.
And inasmuch as the Philippines is a government of laws and not of men, the judiciary protects
the very essence of democracy being guardian or rights and legal processes. Thus, in order for
the judiciary to function effectively and impartially, the Constitution provides safeguards for its
independence.

POWER OF SC TO AMEND, RELAX AND SUSPEND PROCEDURAL RULES

GENERAL RULE: The adjudicatory bodies and the parties to a case are enjoined to abide strictly
by the rules.
- Procedural rules should be treated with utmost respect and due regard since they are
designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases and to ensure an orderly and speedy
administration of justice.

EXCEPTIONS: The courts have the power to relax or suspend technical or procedural rules or to
except a case from operation:
1. When compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice requires it. What
constitutes a good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules is
discretionary upon courts. (CIR v. Migrant Pagbilao Corp., GR 159593, Oct. 12, 2006).

Reasons that would warrant the suspension of the Rules:

a) the existence of special or compelling circumstances

Example: Party was not able to timely file his appeal because his lawyer had covid
and has to be confined in an institution.
 b) merits of the case
c) cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by
the suspension of rules
d) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory
e) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby (Sarmiento v. Zaratan, GR
167471, Feb. 5, 2007)
Note: The one invoking the suspension of the procedure must present a valid
reason to justify the suspension of the rules. Otherwise, the court will not allow the
suspension of the rules.

Example: The client is bound by the acts of his lawyers; by the negligence of his
lawyer. If his lawyer failed to file the appeal within 15 days from the receipt of the
adverse decision of the court, or failed to timely appeal the conviction of the
accuse, then the accuse is bound to the negligence of his client.

Question is, pwede bang isuspend ng supreme court yun if the accused filed his
appeal beyond the 15 day period and it was filed by another lawyer?

Answer: After reviewing the records, the SC found out na pinabayaan talaga
yung accused ng lawyer niya, walang effort na ginawa to protect the accused,
did not present any evidence to help his client during trial, and also did not
deliberately file the appeal within the 15 day period provided by under the rules.
Nakita ni SC na may valid reason. So yes pwede. Kasi if the court will sustain that
particular rule to the accused, then the accused has been denied his right to due
process. So pwedeng magrelax ang court and allow and accept the appeal of
the accused even if it was filed beyond the 15 day period.

2. To relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the
prescribed procedure and the mere invocation of substantial justice is not a magical
incantation that will automatically compel the Court to suspend procedural rules. (Cu-
Unjieng v. CA, 479 SCRA 594)

3. Where substantial and important issues await resolution. (Pagbilao, supra)

4. When transcendental matters of life, liberty or state security are involved. (Mindanao
Savings Loan Asso. V. Vicenta Vda. De Flores, 469 SCRA 416).

5. The constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of practice and
procedure necessarily carries with it the power to overturn judicial precedents on points
of remedial law through the amendment of the Rules of Court (Pinga vs. Heirs of Santiago,
GR 170354, June 30, 2006).
Test to determine whether the rule prescribed by the Supreme Court is procedural or substantive
In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court, for the practice and
procedure of the lower courts, abridges, enlarges, or modifies any substantive right, the test is
whether the rule really regulates procedure, that is, the judicial process for enforcing rights and
duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for a
disregard or infraction of them. If the rule takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the
rule creates a right such as the right to appeal, it may be classified as a substantive matter; but
if it operates as a means of implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely with
procedure. ( Fabian v Disierto, 295 SCRA 470, 492, [1998])
Example: Right to Appeal – this is a substantive right. IF the SC will pass a rule removing
this right to appeal of a convicted felon, then this is not a procedural rule, because it takes away
a vested right.
If the supreme court passed is instead of an appeal from Sandiganbayan directly to the
Supreme Court, the SC now pass a rule changing the mode of appeal and that is from
Sandiganbayan to the Court of Appeals. Is this a procedural or substantive rule?
This is a procedural rule. Because the right to appeal has been preserved. Only the
procedure by which the appeal is to be made or decided has been changed.
Okay lang na magpalit ng rule si Supreme Court basta wag lang itouch yung vested right
kasi excess in jurisdiction nap ag ganon.
NATURE/CONCEPT OF PHILIPPINE COURTS
Philippine courts are both courts of law and equity. Hence, both legal and equitable
jurisdiction is dispensed with in the same tribunal. (US v. Tamparong, 31 Phil. 321)

WHAT IS A COURT?
1. It is an organ of government belonging to the judicial department the function of
which is the application of the laws to the controversies brought before it as well as
the public administration of justice.

2. It is a governmental body officially assembled under authority of law at the

appropriate time and place for the administration of justice through which the State
enforces its sovereign rights and powers (21 CJS 16).

3. It is a board or tribunal which decides a litigation or contest (Hidalgo v. Manglapus,

64 OG 3189).

COURT VS JUDGE
1. A court is a tribunal officially assembled under authority of law; a judge is simply an officer
of such tribunal;

2. A court is an organ of the government with a personality separate and distinct from the
person or judge who sits on it;

3. A court is a being in imagination comparable to a corporation, whereas a judge is a

physical person ;

4. A court may be considered an office; a judge is a public officer; and

5. The circumstances of the court are not affected by the circumstances that would affect
the judge

6. A court possesses the elements of stability and permanency; a judge may come and go.

A judge may die, suspended, removed, but the Court stays.

CLASSIFICATION OF PHILIPPINE COURTS
1. Regular courts engaged in the administration of justice are organized into four (4) levels:
a. First Level (MTCs, MeTCs, MCTCs, MTCC) – which try and decide (1) criminal actions
involving violations of city or municipal ordinances

MTC – Municipal Trial Court

 Isa lang yung sineserbisyuha na municipality

MeTC – Metropolitan Trial Court

 Pag sa metropolitan areas e.g. Manila and Cebu

MCTC – Municipal Circuit Trial Court

 Dalawa yung sineserbisyuhan na municipality

MTCC – Municipal Trial Court in Cities

b. Second Level (RTC)

c. Third Level (Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals)
d. Fourth Level (Supreme Court)

2. Special Courts – Family Court; Drugs Court, Sandiganbayan, CTA, Shari’a District Courts,
Shari’a Circuit Courts

3. Collegiate Courts - SC, CS, SANDIGANBAYAN, CTA

4. LOWER COURTS – all courts except the SC

5. (3) Quasi-Court/ Quasi-judicial Agencies – Civil Service Commission. COMELEC, Agrarian

Courts, NLRC (May mag sarili silang adjudication bodies)

CONSTITUTIONAL v STATUTORY COURT

1. A constitutional court is one created by a direct Constitutional provision. Example of
this court is the SC, which owes its creation from the Constitution itself. Only the SC is
a Constitutional court.

2. A statutory court is one created by law other than the Constitution. All courts except
the SC are statutory courts. Sandiganbayan was not directly created by the
Constitution but by law pursuant to a constitutional mandate.

COURT OF LAW VS COURT OF EQUITY

COURT OF LAW – decide a case according to existing laws
COURT OF EQUITY – adjudicate controversy according to the common precepts of
what is right and just w/o inquiring into the terms of the statute.

Philippines – Court of law, but sometimes kapag walang applicable law, the Court may
apply the Court of Equity principle.
CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
- Is that which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgement only after trial.

KINDS OF DUE PROCESS:

a. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
- Requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person
to life, liberty or property. In short, it is to determine whether it has a valid
governmental objective like for the interest of the public as against mere
particular class.

- Ex post facto law – prohibits retrospectivity of penal laws ( makes an act

punishable as a crime when such act was not an offense when committed)

- Bill of attainder – a legislative act that inflicts punishment without judicial trial.

b. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

- one which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and
renders judgment only after trial
- twin requirement of notice and hearing

RATIONALE
- A basic presumption of law is "innocent until proven guilty.”A person cannot be convicted,
and criminal sanctions placed, until the prosecution has proved, beyond reasonable doubt,
that the person is guilty. Absolute certainty is not required of judges to do so, but merely
moral certainty that the person is indeed guilty of the crime charged. This is how the law
protects an accused from the immense power and wrath of the State.

- This constitutional protection is supported by due process of law. Not only must one be
proved to be guilty in Court; he must have been given the rights afforded to ALL accused,
administered in the regular order of justice, and all evidence leading from his arrest to his
conviction to final judgement must have been unadultered.
HIERARCHY OF COURTS vs DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY

HIERARCHY OF COURT – Court organization; ranking of courts

PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY

1. This is an ordained sequence of recourse to courts vested with concurrent jurisdiction,
beginning from the lowest, on to the next highest, and ultimately to the highest. This
hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and is likewise determinative of
the proper forum for petitions for extraordinary writs. This is an established policy
necessary to avoid inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and attention which
are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to preclude
the further clogging of the Court’s docket (Sec. 9[1], BP 129; Sec. 5[1], Art. VIII,
Constitution of the Philippines).
- There is a discussion in Ha Datu Tawahig v Hon. Cebu City Prosecutor regarding
hierarchy of courts.

2. A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress cannot be
obtained in the appropriate courts. The SC is a court of last resort. It cannot and should
not be burdened with the task of deciding cases in the first instances. Its jurisdiction to
issue extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or
where serious and important reasons exist.
 Application of this doctrine is not merely for practicality but to ensure that courts at
varying level acts in accord with the respective competencies.

If a particular case falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC, then you have to file it before
the RTC. If you are only questioning the validity of an ordinance, you cannot file your petition
directly to the Supreme Court, but it has to be filed first before the trial court because it is also
competent to determine that particular issue.

An adverse decision of the Municipal Trial Court has to be appealed before the Regional
Trial Court. The aggrieved party cannot file an appeal directly to the Court of Appeals. This
would be a violation in the principle of judicial hierarchy.

Important principles under Judicial Hierarchy and Judicial stability under Barroso v Omelio ( GR
194767, 10-14-15)

1. The rule on hierarchy of courts is an important component of the orderly

administration of justice and not imposed merely for whimsical and arbitrary reasons.
- It must first be emphasized that trifling with the rule is looked upon with disfavor by
the Court.

2. The strictness of the policy is designed to shield the Court from having to deal with
causes that are also well within the competence of the lower courts, and thus leave
time for the Court to deal with the more fundamental and more essential tasks that
the Constitution has assigned to it. The Court may act on petitions for the extraordinary
writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only when absolutely necessary or when
serious and important reasons exist to justify an exception to the policy.

3. The doctrine that requires respect for the hierarchy of courts was created by this court
to ensure that every level of the judiciary performs its designated roles in an effective
and efficient manner.

4. For exceptionally compelling reasons, the Court may exercise its discretion to act on
special civil actions for certiorari filed directly with it. Examples of cases that present
compelling reasons are:

a. those involving genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at

the most immediate time;

b. those where the issues are of transcendental importance, and the threat to
fundamental constitutional rights are so great as to outweigh the necessity for
prudence;

c. cases of first impression, where no jurisprudence yet exists that will guide the
lower courts on such issues;

d. where the constitutional issues raised are better decided after a thorough
deliberation by a collegiate body and with the concurrence of the majority of
those who participated in its discussion;
 e. where time is of the essence;

f. where the act being questioned was that of a constitutional body;

g. where there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law that could free petitioner from the injurious effects of
respondents' acts in violation of their constitutional rights; and

h. the issues involve public welfare, the advancement of public policy, the
broader interest of justice, or where the orders complained of are patent
nullities, or where appeal can be considered as clearly an inappropriate
remedy

Example of this would be the constitutionality of some provisions of Cyber Crime Law.
Some petitioners question its provisions. They could file it before the RTC because it has also the
power to decide on the constitutional validity of a statute or an executive issuance in relation
to the Constitution. But considering that the matter involved a genuine constitutionality and
cases of first impression kasi bago and wala pang ganong jurisprudence. SO tatanggapin itong
petition na to before the SC.

Another example of this is with respect to Plea Bargaining Agreements. Sa RA 9165. Sec
23, provides that any person charged under RA 9165 regardless of the imposable penalty
charged shall not be allowed to avail on the probation of plea-bargaining. This was questioned
in the SC. The issue in the petition is one of transcendental importance and a case of first
impression. This is why it took cognizance over the case.

DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE OR DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY

1. Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s orders.
Thus, the RTC has no power to nullify or enjoin the enforcement of a writ of possession
issued by another RTC. The principle also bars a court from reviewing or interfering
with the judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no appellate jurisdiction or
power of review.

Example: If may appeal na sa RTC 1, hindi na pwedeng magfile pa ng appeal sa RTC

2.
Or if may issue si RTC 1, can RTC issue a TRO in order to prevent the execution of the
judgement issued by RTC 1? NO kasi may doctrine of non-interference or walang
pakialamanan.

2. This doctrine applies with equal force to administrative bodies. When the law provides
for an appeal from the decision of an administrative body to the SC or CA, it means
that such body is co-equal with the RTC in terms of rand and stature, and logically
beyond the control of the latter.
JUDICIAL SUPREMACY
- The Court has the distinguished but delicate duty of determining and defining
constitutional meaning, determining constitutional intent and deciding constitutional
disputes. Nonetheless, its judicial supremacy is never judicial superiority (for it is co-
equal with the other branches) or judicial tyranny (for it is supposed to be the least
dangerous branch).

The judiciary is superior to its co-equal branches. But this only means to say that under our
constitutional scheme, the SC is the ultimate guardian of the Constitution.

It is the SC who would decide whether a particular law, is valid or not because it complied
or failed to complied with the provisions of the Constitution.

DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY

- Under this doctrine, if a law or contract violates any norm of the Constitution, that law
or contract, whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or
entered into by private persons for private purposes, is null and void and without any
force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and
supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract. (Manila
Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997)
- the supremacy of the Constitution serves as the safety mechanism that will ensure the
faithful performance by this Court of its role as guardian of the fundamental law.

CONSTITUTIONAL v STATUTORY COURT

1. A constitutional court is one created by a direct Constitutional provision. Example of
this court is the SC, which owes its creation from the Constitution itself. Only the SC is
a Constitutional court.

2. A statutory court is one created by law other than the Constitution. All courts except
the SC are statutory courts. SB was not directly created by the Constitution but by law
pursuant to a constitutional mandate.

COURT OF LAW VS COURT OF EQUITY

 COURT OF LAW – decide a case according to existing laws
 COURT OF EQUITY – adjudicate controversy according to the common precepts of
what is right and just w/o inquiring into the terms of the statute.

DUE PROCESS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - mandatory and indispensable

a. MEANING OF DUE PROCESS
- the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play;
- Refers to the right of any person to be given notice and be heard before he is
condemned.

b. PURPOSE: a guaranty against any arbitrariness on the part of the government

c. CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARD – “ No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property

without due process of law.” ( sec 1, Art. III)
 d. Kinds of Due Process:
a. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
- requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person
to life, liberty or property. In short, it is to determine whether it has a valid
governmental objective like for the interest of the public as against mere
particular class.

- Ex post facto law – prohibits retrospectivity of penal laws ( makes an act

punishable as a crime when such act was not an offense when committed)

- Bill of attainder – a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial.

b. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

- one which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and
renders judgment only after trial
- twin requirement of notice and hearing

EQUIPOISE RULE
- where the evidence of the prosecution and of the defense are equally balanced,
the scale should be titled in favor of the accused in view of the constitutional
presumption of innocence.

RATIONALE:
- A basic presumption of law is "innocent until proven guilty. "A person cannot be
convicted, and criminal sanctions placed, until the prosecution has proved, beyond
reasonable doubt, that the person is guilty. Absolute certainty is not required of judges
to do so, but merely moral certainty that the person is indeed guilty of the crime
charged. This is how the law protects an accused from the immense power and wrath
of the State.

- It is the prosecution who has the duty to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
- Accused need not present evidence to prove innocence.
PART II - JURISDICTION

JURISDICTION v CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

JURISDICTION is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION – authority of the court to hear and try a particular offense and to
impose the punishment provided by law.

POWER OF CONGRESS TO DEFINE, PRESCRIBE AND APPORTION JURISDICTION OF COURTS;

LIMITATIONS (Art VIII, sec 2, 1987 Constitution) Section 2.
- The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction
of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over
cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.

- No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of
tenure of its Members.

- SC is a constitutional court and Art. 8 Sec. 5 provides for the cases falling in the
jurisdiction of the SC as set forth by the Constitution and hindi pwedeng baguhin ng
Congress.

KINDS OF JURISDICTION

There are 4 kinds of jurisdiction:

1. As to cases tried:
a. GENERAL (all cases) – are those with competence to decide on their own
jurisdiction and to take cognizance of all cases, civil and criminal of a particular
nature.

b. LIMITED/SPECIAL (specific cases)- those which have only a special jurisdiction for a
particular purpose or are clothed with special powers for the performance of
specified duties beyond which they have no authority of any kind.

Example: Family Court or Drugs Court – ito lang yung nature ng cases yung ihe-
hear wala nang ibang cases.

2. As to nature of cause:
a. ORIGINAL (where the case began)- means the power of a court to hear a case
for the first time; the action or proceeding is originally filed with it.

Example: Slight Physical Injuries, sa MTC lang i-fafile, it is where the case would
begin.
 b. APPELLATE (when brought to a higher court for review; higher courts won't
entertain problems unless the lower courts can't solve them first -but there are
exceptions, like habeas corpus.) – one with power of review over decisions or
orders of lower/subordinate courts and may correct the orders of lower courts if it
deems necessary.

Example: The decision made by the MTC could be appealed before the RTC.

3. As to extent of exercise:
a. EXCLUSIVE (limited to a particular court) – where one court has the power to
adjudicate a case to the exclusion of all other courts

Example: Drugs case, saan ifa-file? Sa Drugs Court.

b. CONCURRENT (or nonexclusive jurisdiction) – when more than 1 court may take
jurisdiction over the case; when different courts can try the same subject matter
at the same time and place; the court whose jurisdiction was first called on takes
over the case and the other courts won't touch it.

Example: HOMICIDE – falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC. Sa Baguio, may 5 RTC’s,
so it may fall within the jurisdiction in any of the 5 RTC’s because they all have
concurrent jurisdiction.

But if it has been raffled to RTC 1, and RTC will take cognizance of the particular
case, so excluded na yung RTC 2-5.

4. As to situs:
a. TERRITORIAL (limited to the area) – authority to hear cases involving crimes
committed (or any of its essential ingredients was committed) within the courts
defined boundary.

Example: If the homicide is committed within Baguio City, then the particular case
of homicide must be filed before the Courts of Baguio City.

b. EXTRA-TERRITORIAL (extends beyond the territorial limits.)- like those provided

under Art. 2 of the RPC.

Example: Crimes committed in a moving plane, ship, train, or private vehicle

passing through several territories, any territories can be a place of trial.

Example is yung example ni Prosec. Shoti. The crime of kidnapping happened in

Manila and dinala sa Baguio. So lahat ng nadaanan, Bulacan, Tarlac,
Pangasinan, pwedeng dun magfile ng kaso.

Sa example ni Atty. Soriano – crime of illegal recruitment. Even of the actual

recruitment happened in Manila or Cebu, but the private complainant lives in
Baguio, the action can be filed in Baguio city. Even if none of the elements of the
crime of illegal recruitment happened in Baguio.
CASES COVERED BY THE RULES ON BARANGAY CONCILIATION

GENERAL RULE:
- All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant to the Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law [formerly P. D. 1508, repealed and now replaced by Secs. 399-
422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, and Sec. 515, Title I, Book IV, R.A. 7160, otherwise known
as the Local Government Code of 1991], and prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition
before filing a complaint in court or any government offices.

- The Lupon of each barangay shall have the authority to bring together the parties
actually residing in the same municipality or city for amicable settlement of all
disputes.

If yung kaso is hindi karefer-refer sa barangay, if both the parties agreed, ALLOWED to
bring their dispute before the barangay.

EXCEPTIONS:
a. Where one party is the government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;

b. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the
performance of his official functions;

c. Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine exceeding

P5,000;
(no need to refer this to the barangay, you can immediately file it before the
prosecutor’s office)

d. Offenses where there is no private offended party;

(example for cases na illegal possession of firearms, drug cases, gambling, basta
walang private offended parties. diretso sa prosecutor’s office)

e. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities
unless the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by
an appropriate lupon;

f. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or

municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties
thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate
lupon;
(dapat parties is parehong residence ng barangay. Another example, if one party is
from La Trinidad and the other is from Baguio, pero the magkapit-bahay or malapit
lang sa boundary ng isat-isa, general rule, bawal dapat, pero if agreed upon by both
parties, pwedeng sa barangay ng La Trinidad or Baguio mag-file)

g. Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of
justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;
h. Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships, or juridical entities. The reason
is that only individuals shall be parties to barangay conciliation proceedings either as
complainants or respondents;
(hindi na irerefer sa barangay kasi only individuals shall be parties to barangay
concillation)

i. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being
committed or further continued, specifically:

 A criminal case where the accused is under police custody or detention;

(nahuli ka in flagrante delicto, under custody na ng pulis so you will be referred
to the prosecution for inquest proceedings)

 A petition for habeas corpus by a person illegally detained or deprived of his

liberty or one acting in his behalf;
 Actions coupled with provisional remedies, such as preliminary injunction,
attachment, replevin and support pendente lite;
 Where the action may be barred by statute of limitations

j. Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relationship;

k. Where the dispute arises from the CARL;

l. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which can be directly filed in court.
JANUARY 25, 2023

Previous Discussion:

Jurisdiction of the Barangay or cases that has to be referred to the Barangay before an action
could be filed before the Prosecutor’s office or before the Court.

If the complaint or information was immediately filed before the Court, without referring it first to
the barangay, the same will not divest it forth their jurisdiction. But it may dismiss on the grounds
of prematurity or the Court on its own may refer the case may refer it to the Barangay to comply
with the rule on Katarungang Pambarangay Law pertaining to barangay mediation.

JURISDICTION OF THE DIFFERENT COURTS

1. MTC, MCTC, MTCC Jurisdiction

 Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances
committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction (Batas Pambansa Big. 129,
Section 3211); Republic Act No. 7691);
 Remember, Courts have limited territorial jurisdiction.

 Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding 6 years IRRESPECTIVE of the amount of fine, and regardless of other
imposable or accessory penalties.

 GENERAL RULE: Not more than 6 years – Prision Correccional

Then that particular offense will fall under the jurisdiction of the MTC.

More than 6 years – Prision Mayor

RTC has the jurisdiction

 All cases involving damage to properties through criminal negligence regardless of

other penalties and civil cases resulting to reckless imprudence.

 If the penalty is only fine, Php 50,000 or less

 In election offenses, cases for failure to register or to vote.

 Cases in violation of BP 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law – regardless of the amount of

the check, it does not matter, for as long that the cheque is a worthless cheque, it
bounced when presented for payment, and the drawer failed to settled the value,
despite receipt of notice of dishonor, then the drawer of the cheque could be sued
for violation of BP 22.

 All offenses committed by public officers where the information does alleges
damaged the government or bribery or alleges damage or bribery not exceeding
Php 1 Million.
 If an offense was committed by a public officer, even if it was in relation to his public
office, it does not follow that that particular case would be filed before the
Sandiganbayan.

 Under the new law, the case may be filed before the SAndiganbayan or RTC or MTC.
IT depends on the offense and damaged caused to the government.

 Special jurisdiction to hear and to try petition for writ of habeas corpus for application
for bail in province or city where the RTC judge is absent.

 There are cases falling under the summary procedure. When we say that that
particular case falls under the summary procedure, that case will not undergo the
usual trial like the other cases do. You have there the judicial affidavit, the other party
has also submitted a counter affidavit in the form of judicial affidavit, then the case
will already be submitted for decision. Wala ng trial trial. The court could immediately
render a decision based only based only on the evidence submitted by both parties
on record.

 Violation of traffic laws and regulations, madalas dito fine lang. Except kung 2 nd
offense or 3rd offense, may community service na or revocation of license, pwede na
siyang kasuhan.

 All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law of the offense charged
is imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding Php 50,000.00 or both
irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessories or otherwise or the civil liability
arising therefrom.

 Provided however, for cases involving damaged to properties through criminal

negligence, this rule shall govern or the imposable fine does not exceed PHP
150,000.00

 Example: Action filed was damage to property through criminal negligence. MInsan
ang title na nilalagay is reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property. IF the
value of the damage does not exceed Php 150,000.00 then the case would also fall
under the jurisdiction of the MRC under summary procedure.

 Batas na nag-amend when it comes to jurisdiction – hindi batas pero Administrative

Matter issued by the SC. A.M. 08-8-7-SC Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First
Level Courts – March 1, 2022
- Php 50,000.00 na yung fine
2. JURISDICTION OF RTC
EXCLUSIVE/ORIGINAL
 All criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court tribunal or body.
 So kapag hindi mag-fafall sa ibang courts, RTC.

 But generally, if the penalty for the offense, is more than 6 years and 1 day to 12 years,
prision mayor.

 Homicide, Carnapping, Kidnapping,

 Criminal actions or proceedings in violation of the Omnibus Election Code (exception

yung failure to register or vote)

 Cases of written defamation or libel. Penalty for libel is just one year imprisonment but
it falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC

 Criminal actions involving violations of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

(RA 9165)

 All cases involving drugs will fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC. Kahit use of illegal
drugs lang. CONFINEMENT lang ang penalty kapag first offense.

 Money Laundering Cases, but if committed by public officers, and private persons in
conspiracy with each other, it may fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

 Violation of the Cyber Crimes Prevention Act (RA 10175) – example is unjust vexation
(unjustly annoys an innocent person) Ito yung kasong finafile kapag walang maifile.

Arresto Menor lang ang fine.

Kapag may nang-inis sayo, pinopost ka sa FB or dina-direct message ka ng insult or

any threats using ITC or related sa phone or net or social media (basta cyber hahaha_
, and wala kang mafile na kaso, file unjust vexation in relation to RA 10175. SO the
penaly will be one degree higher.

So from Arresto Menor, magiging Arresto Mayor.

But it is specifically provided under RA 10175, that all offenses involving violations of
said law, would be under the jurisdiction of the RTC.

 Family Court is an RTC. Drugs Court is an RTC. It is just that that court has an elated
and special jurisdiction.
 Regular RTC handles all kinds of cases except those cases falling within the jurisdiction
of an RTC Court, which has been designated as a Family or Drugs Court.

 For Family Court Cases, if the victim is a minor, or if the offender is a minor then the
case would fall under the jurisdiction of Family Courts, except if the victim is already
dead.
  In a case decided by the supreme court, the case is murder; victim was a minor but
was already dead. Sabi ng Family Court, dapat wala na to sa jurisdiction naming
dapat sa regular RTC na. SC replied, the law fixed to protect the welfare and best
interest of minors. IF the minor is already dead, then it would no longer require the
special attention and protection of a Family Court. So this particular case should be
under the Regular RTC Court.

 If the offender is a minor (CICL) kahit ano pang kaso nila, Slight Physical Injuries,
Homicide,RA 9165, ifile sa Family Court. Except if the crime committed by the minor
involves a violation of __________ (di nasabi ni Atty).

 Violation of VAWC or RA 9262

 Special Commercial Court, violation of intellectual property rights should be filed

before the RTC designated as Special Commercial Courts.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
 All cases decided by the MTC within its territorial jurisdiction.

3. JURISDICTION OF CA and SC will be discussed under Rule 124 and 125

REQUISITES IN THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter

2. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
3. Jurisdiction over the territory

1. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

CONCEPT: Refers to the authority of the court to hear and determine a particular criminal
case. It imports the power and authority to hear and determine issues of facts and law and
pronounce the judgment/impose punishment.

 How will you determine whether a court has jurisdiction over the offense charged?
For you to determine which court has jurisdiction over the offense charged, it is very
important that you examine the complaint or information filed in court. (see explanation
below)

For example; Crime of theft, which court has jurisdiction over the offense?
Theft may fall under the jurisdiction of the MTC or RTC depending upon the value stolen.
Crimes against property, theft and swindling (referring to Estafa) – if the amount stolen is
more than Php 600,000.00 but does not exceed Php 1.2 Million, then the penalty is prision
correctional in its medium and maximum period.

Threshold ng MTC is Php 1.2 Million.

If the value of the stolen property exceeds Php 1.2 Million, then the theft case will fall under
the jurisdiction of the RTC.

Same is true with Estafa cases. If the damage or amount of fraud is less than Php 2.4 Million
it will be filed to the MTC; more than Php 2.4 million then it will be filed to the RTC.

 Jurisdiction over the subject matter, it also known as JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE
CHARGED.

 The authority of the court to try a particular class of criminal offense as defined by the
legislature.

 RPC was authored by the legislative branch of the government- the Congress. It is therefore
conferred by law or sovereign authority which organize the court and is only given by law in
the manner and form prescribed by law. It must be clear and cannot be presumed to exist.

 Meaning, there must be a law specifically providing that this particular criminal offense falls
within the jurisdiction of this court. It cannot be fixed by the will of the parties nor can it be
acquired or diminished by any act of the parties.

 Can the parties enter into agreement stating that if there is a violation in their contract, then
the agreed party could file an Estafa case before the MTC regardless of the value of the
damage? The answer is NO. because jurisdiction over the subject matter can only be
conferred by law. Not by an agreement between parties, not by an administrative policy,
 and the supreme court cannot pass a rule that this particular case should fall under this
courts jurisdiction. CONGRESS CAN ONLY DO IT.

 For you to determine which court has jurisdiction over the offense charged, it is very
important that you examine the complaint or information filed in court. Mababsa mo kasi
dun. But of course, what you see in the complaint or information would only be the
allegations as to the elements of the crime committed by the accused.

 For example, nasa information, case of homicide. So what is the penalty for it, Reclusion
Temporal so more than 6 years imprisonment so RTC to.

 Pero for crimes against property, most of the time, ang titignan is yung value indicated in the
information.

 Check the penalty stated in the RPC for you to know which court has the jurisdiction over
the offense charged.

 It is not the captions of the pleading but the allegations therein that determine the nature of
the action.

 Q: Kung sa information nakalagay RTC, so nafile sa RTC, what would happen if that particular
offense is within the jurisdiction of the MTC?
A: The Court should dismiss the complaint. The court has no jurisdiction over the offense
charged so its only power is to dismiss the case. It does not even have the right to issue and
order remanding the case to the lower court. Its only power is to dismiss it because it has no
jurisdiction over the offense charged.

Q: So if the case has been dismissed by the RTC on the ground of lack on jurisdiction?

A: If the filling prosecutor would already receive the order from the court, that the information
that was filed has been dismissed, then the filling prosecutor should prepare a new
information and file it before the court which has jurisdiction over the offense charged.

Hindi dead end yun. I refile lang.

Q: The judge is not aware of the amendment and took cognizance over the action. The
parties have already presented their evidence, and after trial, the accused was convicted
of the offense charged. He filed for a motion for reconsideration and appealed his
conviction and raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction for the first time on appeal. Can he do
that or would that amount to an estoppel on the part of the parties considering that they
have actively participated in the trial of the case.

A: In Tijang vs Sibonghanoy, it talked about the doctrine of estoppel in relation to objection

to jurisdiction. It was mentioned there if a party actively participated in the proceedings or
the trial of a case, then that would be tantamount to the recognition to the court’s
 jurisdiction and it would already bar the parties from impugning the court’s jurisdiction. But
take note that this is a CIVIL CASE.

Hindi ito Criminal case where the penalty may involve imprisonment.

In criminal cases, the issue on jurisdiction can be raised even for the first time on appeal.
Why? Because a court which has no jurisdiction over the offense charged could not render
a valid judgement. The acquittal or conviction of the accused by the court, which has no
jurisdiction over the offense charge, is a void judgement. It will never attain finality. In so far
as the agreed party is concerned, he could always raise it as an issue even for the first time
on appeal. ESTOPPEL will not work over the aggrieved party.

2. JURISDICTION OVER EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is the power or authority of the court. The exercise of this power or authority is
the exercise of jurisdiction.

Ha Datu Tawahig v Hon. Cebu City Prosecutor, et al.

 The parties involved are both members of an indigenous cultural community. The
complainant is Lorraine Igot. She filed a rape case against Tawahig. The complaint was
first filed before the Dantulan Tribal Court. The accused, Tawahig, who is a tribal leader,
was absolved from liability. Nonetheless, Igot, filed a case before the prosecutor’s office.
The Prosecutor’s office found probable cause against Tawahig and filed the information
in court.

Tawahig filed a motion to quash the information claiming that the court has no jurisdiction
over his person because he is a member of an indigenous community. What should
govern should be the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997.

The judge held that, NO, because the issue here does not involved claims over ancestral
domains or the rights of indigenous communities. What is involved here is an offense of
rape.

Because of this, a tribal lawyer appeared (hindi talaga lawyer, customary lawyer). He
filed to release the indigenous person still contending that the case was already referred
to the council of elders, and the DAntulan Tribal Court has already rendered a decision
absolving Tawahig and the Court should respect this decision.

The Trial Court dismiss this, so they filed a writ of mandamus. But the same was denied by
the Court. The petition was directly filed to the SC.

Kaya may discussion dito regarding hierarchy of courts.

SC said that, yes, generally you have to follow the hierarchy of courts but the rule is not
absolute. There are certain exceptions to the general rule.
 Considering that the issue here is something that is novel, Supreme Court took
cognizance of the petition.

SC said that no, a crime is an offense against society, it is a breach of the security and
peace of people at large. SO to yield criminal prosecution would be to disregard the
State and the Filipino People as the object of criminal offenses.

Yielding prosecution would mean sanctioning and miscarriage of justice. And it was
never the intention of IPRA to facilitate the miscarriage of justice.

The petition was dismissed and the case was remanded to the trial court for the
continuation of the trial of the rape case.

3. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED

 This refers to the power of the Court with binding effect as against an accused.

 Q: When will the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused?

A: 1. By compulsory process or service of a warrant of arrest.

Kasi kapag sinerve yung warrant of arrest issued by the court, then it means to say
that this particular accuse will already be delivered to the court.
Magkakaroon ng RETURN OF WARRANT.
Nahuli siya because of a warrant of arrest issued by the court.

What if nahuli lang ng pulis?

A valid warrantless arrest, you were arrested by the police accordingly because
you were caught in flagrante delicto (caught in the act of committing the crime).

Does it follow that the court has already jurisdiction over the person of the
accused? NO. Kailangan muna na may na file na kaso sa court against that
particular person arrested and the court after finding probable cause to issue a
warrant of arrest will issue a COMMITMENT ORDER in lieu or a warrant of arrest.

Pag under the custody of law ng yung accused or nahuli na ng pulis, ang i-iissue
na ng court is commitment order kasi hindi na kailangan ng warrant of arrest kasi
nahuli na.

But that will only happen after an information has already been filed in court.
Kailangan na may kaso muna na ma-file sa court, and as a result of the case filed
in court, the accused was arrested.

Valid warrantless arrest – then the person is under custody but he may not be
under the jurisdiction of court.
2. Thru voluntary appearance.
a. First Way: The accused voluntarily submit himself to the court; or he
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court voluntarily.

b. Second Way: If the accused seeks an affirmative relief from the court.
He filed a motion seeking an affirmative relief from the court. This means
to say that he has deemed submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
court.

GENERAL RULE:
If the accused filed a motion before the court, motion to suspend the
proceeding because he filed a motion for reconsideration before the
prosecutors office, will the court act on his motion to suspend
proceedings? YES

Because by filling that motion, seeking an affirmative relief, then the

accused has voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Court.

Ito yung second concept ng voluntary appearance. Hindi lang ibig

sabihin na voluntary lang siya na nagpakita physically sa court. It also
includes their filling, a motion or pleadings in court seeking for affirmative
relief.

Example, you are asking the court to grant your prayer, so by asking a
relief from the court, you are invoking its jurisdiction.

This is why it would imply that the accused has voluntarily submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the court.

EXCEPTIONS:
1. If what has been filed by the accused is a motion to quash the
complaint or information on a ground of lack of jurisdiction; or

2. If he filed a motion to quash the warrant of arrest

If any of this two has been filed by the accused, it means to say that
he is only making a special appearance to the court and is not
voluntarily submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the court.

The very reason why he filed this motion to quash the complaint or
information on a ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court is to
prevent the court, from acquiring jurisdiction over his person. This is
why it is called a SPECIAL APPEARANCE.

Q: When can an accuse file a motion to quash an information on the

ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over his person?
 A: This is a remedy availed by the accused if he has been ILLEGALLY
ARRESTED.

Example: Hinuli ng pulis. He was cought in flagrante delicto daw

commiting an offense. He was brough to the prosecutor’s office for
inquest. The prosecutor filed the information in court.

When the information was filed in court, before the arraignment of the
accused, he filed a motion to quash the an information on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction of the court over his person contending that he was
illegally arrested.

He contended that he was only sleeping inside his house, when the police
barged in, arrested him, and made it appear that he was just arrested on
this particular date and time or a few hours before he was presented to
the prosecutor for inquest.

Pag nag-lapse na yung provided time under Article 125, 12, 18, 36 hours,
and hindi pa nafile yung information and hindi naman mafafall under hot
pursuit, illegal arrest na.

Example. A stabbed B. Nabuhay so frustrated homicide. Two days after

saka nahuli. Pina-inquest and filed the information in court, was he validly
arrested?

No. Kasi it is more than 36 hours. So hindi na mag-fafall under valid

warrantless arrest.

If the information was immediately filed in court, pursuant to an inquest

proceedings, then the accused can file for a motion to quash the
information on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over his person
because he has been illegally arrested.

Can the court say, since you have filed this motion, you have voluntarily
submitted yourself to the jurisdiction of the court – you have deemed
waive the right to question the validity of your arrest. The court cannot do
this. In filling that motion, the accused is just making a special
appearance and his very purpose is for the courts avoidance for
jurisdiction over his person.

Since EXCEPTION 2 with respect to a motion to quash the warrant of arrest, before
the judge should issue a warrant of arrest, he should not only look at the
information filed by the prosecutor but also the supporting evidence. It is only after
the judge has personally evaluated the information and the supporting
documents filed before the court, that it could issue a warrant of arrest after
finding probable cause that the crime has probably been committed and that
there is a need to arrest the accused or to take him into custody in order that he
may face trial.

If the warrant of arrest was haphazardly issued by the judge, walang basis to issue
a warrant of arrest, kasi information lang walang supporting documents to verify
the information – this is the reason why the accused files a motion to quash the
warrant of arrest.

Q: Should the court rule on the motion or would that imply that since the accused
is seeking relief from the court, he is voluntarily submitting himself to the jurisdiction
of the court?

A: The court should rule on the motion. The accused has not submitted himself to
the jurisdiction of the court. He only made a special appearance. His intention
when filling the motion to quash the warrant of arrest is for the court not to acquire
jurisdiction over his person.

REMEMBER:

The court could acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused is the warrant
of arrest issued by the court has already been served upon the accused or if he
made a voluntary appearance.

Pag voluntary appearance, it would mean that he voluntarily submitted himself or

when he seek an affirmative relief from the court. The court acquired jurisdiction
over his person.

Even if they have not been yet arrested, the court should rule on the motion filed
by the accused. Because by filling this motion seeking an affirmative relief from
the court, petitioners have deemed submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
court over his person.

And to recall or quash warrant of arrest. Then it is a special appearance and the
court did not acquire jurisdiction over his person.

But the court should rule the motion.

Miranda v Tuliao
 Miranda is the former mayor of Santiago City, Isabela.

There were 2 burnt cadavers discovered in Ramon, Isabela.

There were some police officers who were charged of murder before the RTC because
of the death of these two victims.

The trial of the case was moved to Manila because the parties, the accused were police
officers. So in order for them not to harass witnesses, the private complainant move for
the change of venue.

Later on, these police officers were acquitted. After their acquittal, one of the police
officers who was then at large, was arrested. When he was arrested, he confessed that
it was Jose Miranda and another police officers were responsible for the death of the 2
victims.

Because of this, the father of the victim filed a complaint against Miranda and the other
suspects. Subsequently, the presiding judge issued a warrant of arrest against the
petitioners.

What was filed by the petitioners in court is an urgent motion to complete preliminary
investigation to reinvestigate and to recall or to quash the warrant of arrest.

The judge denied it when he received the motion.

Because, when the motion was filed, the petitioners accused were still at large, hindi pa
sila nahuhuli.

The contention of the judge was that the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the
accused. The Court therefore could not take cognizance over the motion until such time
that it has acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

To the mind of the judge, there is a need first, for the accused, to surrender to the police
authorities or to the court before it could act on the motion filed by the petitioners.

The issue here is whether or not an accused can seek judicial relief if he has not yet
submitted his person to the jurisdiction of the court.

Kaya lang, madaming prayers, i.e. motion to reinvestigate. So anong sabi ng court?
There is difference between custody of law and jurisdiction over the person of the
accused.

CUSTODY OF LAW

- it is accomplished by the arrest of the accused whether with a warrant or without a

warrant or he voluntarily surrendered to the court.
- His body is within the control or custody of police officers.
- There is a restriction on his freedom of movement
- Pag nahuli ka and na-invite ka ng pulis for investigation, then under the custody of
law.
- Deprived of liberty
- Cannot leave the police station without a police officer or that there is a restraint in
your freedom of movement

Pero sabi ng judge dito, sumurrender ka muna sa pulis bago ko irule tong motion mo.

Hindi tama si judge because custody of law is required only if what has been filed by the
accused is an application on bail.

Then he would apply for bail and the court should not act on that application until such
time that he has voluntarily submitted himself to the police authorities or to the court.

If the accused has been arrested without a warrant, he is under the custody of law, under
the custody of police officers but not under the jurisdiction of the court.

It may happen that an accuse is under the custody of law but not under the jurisdiction
of the court and vice versa.

Example: cases has already been filed in court against this particular accuse. Trial has
commence, the court has jurisdiction over the person of the accused kasi nag ta-trial na.
nakadetain, but he escaped from prison. The court retains its custody over the person of
the accuse, that is why there is a trial in absentia (trial may proceed even in the absence
of the accused) even if the accused is no longer under the custody of law.

When will be the accused be considered again under the custody of law? IF THE POLICE
OFFICERS HAVE RE-ARRESTED HIM.

But since he has been arraigned, the courts jurisdiction over the person of the accused
continues until the promulgation of the judgement. Whether resulting to the admission or
acquittal of the accused.

JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED is REQUIRED for adjudication of reliefs
except if the accused is only making a special appearance.

Q: If ang filed is motion to reduce bail?

A: Motion seeking for affirmative relief from the court – voluntary surrender
Kahit hindi pa naaresto, the court can rule on this motion.
 Q: Filed is motion to be released on bail.

A: Kailangan under the custody of law.

PURPOSE OF BAIL: Temporary release of a person who under the custody of law.

Hindi ka pwede mag-bail kung hindi ka pa nahuhuli. Surrender muna.

Paderanga v CA

Main issue here is, the granting of Paderanga’s bail even if he was not physically under
the custody of law.

In certain cases of house/hospital arrest, pwede magbail kahit hindi under the custody
of law.

What is relevant to is the constructive custody of law. Again, before the court could act on
application for bail, the accused should be placed first under the custody of law and this is
acquired through arrest or voluntary surrender.

In this particular case, the accused was confined in a hospital. He filed for application for bail,
and was granted in his absence.

After granting the bail to the accused, it was questioned by the prosecution. But the SC said
that the case of Paderanga here falls under the CONSTRUCTIVE CUSTODY OF LAW.

Looking at the definition of arrest, SC said that arrest is made by an actual restraint of the
arrestee or merely by his submission to the custody of a person making the arrest. The latter
mode may be exemplify by the so called house arrest, or in case of military offenders, by being
confined to quarters or restricted to the military camp area.

Hospital arrest, House arrest, being confined to the quarters or military camp area, would
amount to constructive custody of law.

In this case, the prosecution and trial court, did not lift any finger to have the arrest warrant to
be served upon the accused even if they know for a fact that he is confined in this particular
hospital, which is just a kilometer away from the court, he was also not placed under guard.

The reason for this according to the SC, is because the court and the prosecution recognized
that the accused is under the constructive custody of law.
Why? Through the lawyers of the accused, he expressly submitted to a physical and legal control
over his person by filling the application for bail before the trial court, furnishing information of
his actual whereabouts by unequivocally recognizing the jurisdiction of said court.

When he came to his knowledge that a warrant of arrest was issued, he never made any
attempt to evade or escape the catchers of the law or concealed his whereabouts from the
authorities since the day that he was charged in court up to the submission of the application
for bail until the day of the hearing thereof.

Even the prosecution knew this facts, this is why they agreed during the hearing of the bail that
it would be the court who would decide whether or not to grant the bail even in the absence
of the accused.

Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations
in the complaint or information.

And once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the
evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the
court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.

In a criminal case, the prosecution must not only prove that the offense was committed, it must
also prove the identity of the accused and the fact that the offense was committed within the
jurisdiction of the court.

Case was referred to the IBP

Jurisdiction of a court or arbitrator means the inherent power to decide a case; whereas Venue
designates the particular location (county or city) in which a court or arbitrator with jurisdiction
may hear and determine the case or controversy
JANUARY 30, 2023

Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take
cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot
take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of that
limited territory.

The purpose of territorial jurisdiction is to favor the accused to ensure that the defendant or the
accused is not compelled to move to and appear in a different court from that of the province
where the crime was committed because it will be an inconvenience for looking for his witnesses
and other evidence.

GENERAL RULE: Before the court take cognizance over the case, the crime must have been
committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court or any of its essential ingredients must
have been within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

Other instances: Even if the crime or other ingredient was not committed within the jurisdiction
of the court, the court may take cognizance of the case if the law so provides.

The case may be filed at the private residence of the complainant. Even if the crime was not
committed in Baguio City, but the complainant resides in Baguio City, it can be filed in Baguio
City because it is provided so by law.

In cases committed under circumstances enumerated in Art. 2 of RPC, the offense shall be
cognizable by the court where criminal action was first filed.

The SC, pursuant to its constitutional power, can order a change of or a new place of trial in
order to avoid miscarriage of justice.

Jurisdiction is conferred to by law, it relates to the nature of the case.

VENUE: pertains to the place where the case is filed. It is not the law which would confer the
venue, you have to determine where the crime was committed or where any of its essential
ingredients took place.

Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases. If the information of the complaint was filed before a
court which is considered to be an improper venue then it would also be considered as it has
no jurisdiction over the territory over where the offense was filed.
ERROR OF JUDGEMENT VS ERROR IN DECISION

An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. For
as long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of
its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment. Errors of judgment
include errors of procedure or mistakes in the court’s findings.

You have there the facts, in rendering the decision, the court misappreciated the facts or
misapplied the law in relation to the facts.

ERROR IN JURISDICTION: the court took cognizance over the case. Where it has no jurisdiction
to do so.

Since this amount to grave abuse of discretion, this is correctible only by extraordinary writ of
certiorari. The court exercises jurisdiction not conferred to it by law.

Example: Case of Homicide, took cognizance by MTC. This is an ERROR in JURISDICTION kasi RTC
dapat ang maghandle ng case.

The decision of the court where it has no jurisdiction to took cognizance over the case is NULL
AND VOID; will never attain finality.

Q: Can lack of jurisdiction can be raised for the first time on appeal?

A: YES. It can be raised as an issue even in the first time on appeal.

Error in jurisdiction is correctible by appeal.

REMEDY of the party who claims that the court misappreciated the facts or did not apply the
evidence properly – APPEAL THE CONVICTION AS THE CASE MAY BE.

JURISDICTION OVER THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is the power or authority of the court. The exercise of this power or authority is the
exercise of jurisdiction.

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its determination requires the
expertise, specialized training and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must first be
obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort to the courts is had even if the matter
may well be within their proper jurisdiction.
Example: Complaint is in violation of Condomium Law, if the information was immediately filed
in court, the court will suspend the proceedings and refer the case to the administrative body,
HLURB, for its view if no prejudice would be cost to the parties.

DOCTRINE OF ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION / CONTINUITY OF JURISDICTION

In view of the principle that once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues
until the court has done all that it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction. This principle also
means that once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or
events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the
first instance. The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that jurisdiction until it finally
disposes of the case.

Once the court has acquired jurisdiction over the offense, that jurisdiction is retained by the
court until it finally disposes of the case. Other courts cannot interfere in the case already being
tried by that Court.

Under this doctrine, once jurisdiction is vested in the court, it is retained up to the end of litigation.
However, an exception, is if the change in jurisdiction is curative in character or when a newly
enacted statute changing the jurisdiction of the court is given a retroactive effect.

It can divest a court of jurisdiction of cases already pending before it which when filed has
jurisdiction over the offense charged.

Example: RA 10951 amending the RPC

RA 10951 before if value in Estafa case is Php 500,000.00 under the jurisdiction of RTC. But
because of the amendment, it could be forwarded to MTC even is accused was arraigned
before RTC because of its retroactive effect.

It would benefit the accused if the case would be forwarded to MTC because the penalty has
been reduced to Prisinon mayor to prison correccional or lower.
JURISDICTION IN COMPLEX CRIMES

In complex crimes, it is not uncommon that one constitutive offense carries with it an afflictive
penalty while the other or other constitutive offenses carry with them only a correctional or even
a light penalty. Jurisdiction over the whole complex crime must logically be lodged with the trial
court having jurisdiction to impose the maximum and most serious penalty imposable on an
offense forming part of the complex crime. A complex crime must be prosecuted integrally, as
it were, and not split into its component offenses and the latter made the subject of multiple
informations possibly brought in different courts.

Kidnappping with SPL – with respective to jurisdiction in complex crime, sa court which could
impose the most serious penalty.

Kidnapping RTC; SPL MTC

So sa RTC which would take cognizance over this complex crime

JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN

RA 10660 (amended PD) may 5,2015.

The Sandiganayan shall seat 7 divisions of 3 members each

SB is a court that exist by constitutional fiat specifically Sec. 5, Art. 8 1973 PC

- A collegial court meaning group of colleagues

- All of the members of the colleagues have equal powers
- They rule based on consensus or majority rule. So 3 members, dapat 2 votes in favor
of conviction or acquittal

SB was made into collegiate structure because of the fact that cases filed before SB involves
public officers or high ranking public officials who have political clout that can easily influence
a judge.

If offense is committed by public officer, I would be easier to influence one judge. It would be
difficult to influence these 3 sitting judges.

SB is sui generis in its judicial structure.

 SUI GENERIS - “of its own kind.” It refers to anything that is peculiar to itself; of its
own kind or class. In legal contexts, sui generis denotes an independent legal
classification.

Art. 8 or the Constitution can find it under the accountability of public officer.

Constitution ordained SB as special court. Because the cases filed before SB not only pertains
not only against people but an offense against people committed by the defenders of the
people. May abuse of power. The public officer took advantage of his public office.

Accordingly SB was created is to pursue to attain the highest conduct required public officers
shall serve with the highest degree of loyalty and remain accountable to the people.
"SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. – The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases
involving:

"a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book
II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying
the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim
capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:

Public office is an essential element of the offense. The offense cannot exist without the
office.

"(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher,
otherwise classified as Grade ’27’ and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:

Salary Grade alone does not determine the jurisdiction of the SAndiganbayan. Kasi meron sa
enumerated below na Salary Grade 26 kasali sa pwedeng jurisdiction ng SB

Serano vs SB: Compensation is not an essential element of public office and is merely incidental
to public office.

"(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan,

and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads:

"(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers,
assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;

"(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;

"(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;

"(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial
director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent and higher;

"(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in
the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;

"(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled

corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations.

(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade ’27’ and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;

"(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;

"(4) Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution; and
"(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade ’27’ and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

"b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the
public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a. of this section in relation to their
office.

The offense is committed in relation to public office; Offense is intimately connected to the
office of the offender and was perpetuated while he was in performance of his official function
whether the same was done improperly or irregularly.

OTHER OFFENSES or FELONIES, this may refer to ordinary crimes like murder.

Hindi kailangan na mayor ka to commit murder.

But if you have taken advantage of your office, and you were able to perpetuate the crime
may be filed before SB.

"c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2,
14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.

This is referring to sequestration cases.

As mentioned earlier, you may be charged and it may be filed before the SB because of the
amendment. Pero ngayon, kailaingan munang tignan:

"Provided, That the Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the
information: (a) does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or (b) alleges
damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related transactions or
acts in an amount not exceeding One million pesos (P1,000,000.00).

Ex. City engineer not receiving compensation under SG 27, information filed against you may
fall within the SB or Regular Courts. For it to fall before SB it is not enough that you have
committed cases under Sec 4a and one of the officers listed , it must be alleged that the
government has been damage with an amount more than Php 1 million.

May allegation ba ng damage to the government or bribery. Pag wala pero committed by a
public officer, it would fall under the jurisdiction of the regular courts.

Tignan yung allegation to the damage to the government, pag wala if crime was committed
by pub officers, it would fall to regular courts.

Even if during trial would be show that the offense is connected to the office of the offender but
the information lacks
Then that information would be filed before the regular courts. Labanan lagi information sa
allegation.

Tale note that it is provided therein "Subject to the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court,
the cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court under this section shall be tried
in a judicial region other than where the official holds office.

If crime is committed in Baguio, and the person charged is the mayor, then the information will
be filed to another judicial region.

In cases wherein none of he accused has a Salary Graed of 27 or higher, or wala sa mentioned
above, jurisdiction is sa proper regular courts na.

Cases involving public officers tried in MTC will be appealed sa RTC, appeal from RTC is
SANDIGANBAYAN hindi sa COURT OF APPEALS.

In the amendment, there is a focus on high ranking officiials

If the offense by the Public Official, violated RA 9165 would fall before RTC Drugs Courts.

Test to determine if SB has jurisdiction over the case:

Check if: Does the information alleged a close or intimate connection between the offense
charged and the accused public office, and is there an allegation to damage to the
government or any bribery in an amount exceeding Php 1 million.

When is an offense deemed committed in relation to Pub. Office.

1. When such office is an element of the crime charged. Violation of anti graft law’

2. When intimately connected with the discharged of the official function accused

 It is important that the information aver or allege the intimate relation the
offense charged and discharge of the official function.
CRISOSTOMO vs SANDIGANBAYAN
RULE 110 AND RULE 111:

PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES (Rule 110) and PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION (Rule 111)

RULE 110 - PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES Crime/offense – used interchangeably; an act or omission

punishable by law.

a. For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required pursuant to Sec. 1 of Rule 112,
by filling the complaint with the proper office for the purpose of conducting the requisite
preliminary investigation.

Preliminary Investigation – is mandatory if penalty prescribed by law is at least 4 years, 2

months and 1 day.

b. For all other offenses: (meaning this does not require preliminary investigation)

 By filling the complaint or information directly with the MTC and MCTC; or
 Filling the complaint with the office of the prosecutor.

In Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint shall be filed with the office of the
prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their charters.

PURPOSE OF CRIMINAL ACTION: to determine the penal liability of the accused for having
outraged the state with his crime & if found guilty, to punish him for it. - PP vs accused; victim is
only a witness for the People Real offended party: People of the Philippines, When a person
commits a crime he offends 2 entities; i. The State or society in which he lives, whose law has
been violated; ii. The individual member of the society whose person, right, honor chastity or
property was directly injured or damaged - the victim of the crime is entitled to intervene in its
prosecution where the civil action is impliedly instituted therein.

HOW CRIMINAL ACTIONS ARE INSTITUTED/MODES: ( sec 1) 1. For offenses requiring preliminary
investigation (PI), a criminal action is instituted by filing the complaint w/ the proper officer for
the purpose of conducting PI; 2. For all other offenses, a criminal action is instituted either: a. By
filing the complaint or info directly with the MTC and MCTC; b. By filing the complaint with the
office of the prosecutor. Note: unless otherwise provided in their charters ( like in Manila and
chartered cities, complaint must be filed with the OP)

Prosecutors conducts preliminary investigation.

For all other offenses does not require PI

Even if the offense has a penalty of 1 month only. The complaint must be filed first before
the prosecutors office because so provided in the City Charter of Baguio.

Are there complaints, which can be directly filed before MTC?

YES. In far flung areas, If the offense committed has a penalty of less than 4, 2,1 then the
complaint could be already f=be filed directly in court.

But in most places in the PH, all offenses whether the penalty is below 4, 2, 1, lahat
dadaan sa proseutors office.
FEBRUARY 1, 2023

RULE 110 PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES

CONTENTS OF AN INFORMATION AND ITS IMPORTANCE

Section 2 of Rules of Court: The complaint or information: the complaint or information shall be
in writing, in the name of the People of the Philippines and against all persons who appear to
be responsible for the offense involved. (2a)

Section 3: Complaint defined – A complaint is a sworn written statement charging a person with
an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer
charged with the enforcement of the law violated. (3)

Prepared by the private offended party or the police chief of the place in cases where
direct filling of complaint in the court is allowed.

Section 4. Information defined. — An information is an accusation in writing charging a person

with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court. (4a)

COMPLAINT ( SEC 3) INFORMATION ( sec 4)

A sworn written statement charging a person Is an accusation in writing charging a person
with an offense, subscribed by the offended with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor
party, any peace officer, or other public and filed with the court.
officer charged with the enforcement of the
law violated.
must be sworn, under oath requires no oath ( because the prosecutor is
acting under the oath of his office)
it is subscribed by the offended party, any it is subscribed by the prosecutor
peace officer, or other public officer charged
with the enforcement of the law

Even if the penalty of the offense does not total to 4-2-1, if the charter of the province or city
provides that the complaint must be filed first to the Prosecutor’s office, then that complaint has
to be filed first before the prosecutor’s office. If the prosecutor investigating the case would find
probable cause, then it is he who will file the necessary information, which would be filed in
court.

Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. — A complaint or information is sufficient if it

states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts
or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the
approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was
committed.

When the offense is committed by one person, all of theirs names should be included in the
complaint or information.
TEST FOR SUFFCIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR INFO – whether the crime is described in intelligible
terms with such particularity as to apprise the accused with reasonable certainty, of the offense
charged to enable the accused to suitable prepare for his defense.

- For it to be sufficient it must charge an offense, otherwise, it is defective.

IN short, all the elements of the offense must be alleged in the information. If one is missing, then
the information is defective

If there is non-compliance with section 6, the remedy before arraignment:

REMEDY BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT:

1. File a motion for Bill of Particulars

2. Motion to Quash Info – It does not conform to the prescribed form

Section 7. Name of the accused. — The complaint or information must state the name and
surname of the accused or any appellation or nickname by which he has been or is known. If
his name cannot be ascertained, he must be described under a fictitious name with a
statement that his true name is unknown. If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed
by him or appears in some other manner to the court, such true name shall be inserted in the
complaint or information and record. (7a)

Section 8. Designation of the offense. — The complaint or information shall state the designation
of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and
specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense,
reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. (8a)

Designation of the offense is Murder.

If the offense has no name or if there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made
to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. (8a)

Example RA 9165 or sale of prohibited drugs. The law did not provide a particular name

Pag may mistake sa name, remedy of the prosecutor is to amend the information, change the
name and countersign it. Ang importatnte, the eyewitness has pointed the same person.

Section 9. Cause of the accusation. — The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and
concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient
to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well
as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. (9a)

Section 10. Place of commission of the offense. — The complaint or information is sufficient if it
can be understood from its allegations that the offense was committed or some of the essential
ingredients occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular
place where it was committed constitutes an essential element of the offense or is necessary for
its identification. (10a)

Section 11. Date of commission of the offense. — It is not necessary to state in the complaint or
information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient
of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as
possible to the actual date of its commission. (11a)
Section 12. Name of the offended party. — The complaint or information must state the name
and surname of the person against whom or against whose property the offense was
committed, or any appellation or nickname by which such person has been or is known. If there
is no better way of identifying him, he must be described under a fictitious name.

(a) In offenses against property, if the name of the offended party is unknown, the property must
be described with such particularity as to properly identify the offense charged.

(b) If the true name of the of the person against whom or against whose properly the offense
was committed is thereafter disclosed or ascertained, the court must cause the true name to
be inserted in the complaint or information and the record.

(c) If the offended party is a juridical person, it is sufficient to state its name, or any name or
designation by which it is known or by which it may be identified, without need of averring that
it is a juridical person or that it is organized in accordance with law. (12a)

Crimes against property, name must be properly alleged if the subject matter is not specific.
If the subject matter of the offense is generic, erroneous designation of the party is material and
would result to the violation of the accused constitutional right.

Pag money, which is generic, ang ninakaw, the owner of the money must be described or must
be known since money would only be identified through its owner or possessor.

In Estafa cases, correct name of criminal act charge.

Defamation tama yung name ng offended party.

Highlighted part: PREAMBLE:

Yung ibang part: BODY of the INFORMATION

Not necessary to include the exact date unless material sa offense. Example sometime in
December 2019

If uncertain or ambiguous, violation sa right ni accuse. Deprives him to intelligently prepare for
his course.

Place of the commission of the offense: if it was shown was not committed in a place or any of
its elements, then walang jurisdiction yung place.
Kialangan exact or specific address or place if essential element of the case, example trespass
to dwelling

ACTS or OMISSION ultimate facts must be stated to enable a person of common understanding
to understand the body. IIf walang explanation sa allege pwedeng iquash.

BODY of the INFORMATION includes the elements of the crime

The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not in the caption, preamble not in the
specific allegation but by the actual recital of the facts in the body of the complaint or
information kahit may discrepancy
Pag CICL offender, victim is minor, names cannot be seen in the information.

Below the information, name ng prosecutor. Assistant or Associate City Prosecutor cannot rectify
an information without the approval of the Head Office.
Certification to be signed by investigation prosecutor.
Another certification, this is a certification that walang inquest proceedings. Warrantless arrest.

Section 13. Duplicity of the offense. — A complaint or information must charge but one offense,
except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses. (13a)

Accused is being charged with 2 crimes. Information is duplicitous. Remedy of the complainant
is to file to quash information. Pag failed, pwedeng maconviction siya ng two crimes.

Section 14. Amendment or substitution. — A complaint or information may be amended, in form

or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After
the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and
when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
SUBSTITUTION ( 2nd par of sec 14, R-110) a) If it appears at anytime before judgment that a
mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original
complaint or information upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense provided the
accused shall not be placed in double jeopardy. b) The dismissal of the original complaint or
info must be in accordance with section 19, Rule 119

AMENDMENT SUBSTITUTION
1. May either formal or substantial 1. Involves substantial change for the original
charge
2. A before plea can be effected w/o leave 2. Must be w/ leave of court as the original
of court info will be dismissed
3. When A is in form, no need for another PI 3. Another PI is entailed & the accused has to
and the retaking of the plea of the accused plead anew to the new info
4. It refers to the same offense charged in the 4. Presupposes that the new info involves a
original info or to an offense w/c necessarily different offense w/c does not include or is
includes or is necessarily included in the necessarily included in the original charge;
original charge hence accused cannot claim double
jeopardy.

AMENDMENT AFTER PLEA

A) Formal amendment – w/ leave of court; must not cause prejudice to the rights of the
accused;

B) Substantial amendment- not allowed except if the same is beneficial to the accused ( Ricarze
vs CA, 2-9-07, GR 160451)

SUBSTITUTION ( 2nd par of sec 14, R-110)

a) If it appears at anytime before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the
proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon the filing of a
new one charging the proper offense provided the accused shall not be placed in double
jeopardy.

b) The dismissal of the original complaint or info must be in accordance with section 19, Rule
119

Name is misspelled can make an amendment, write correct name then countersign

Date: same yes.

If may substantial amendment, ask permission, pero kung arrainged na, hindi na pwede

Change of substantial amendment is pwde kahit arraigned na. example slight physical injuries
[ero after some time namatay, pwede maging homicide or murder.

Hindi pwede if after thought less phy. Inj. Nafile sa information tapos narealize mo dapat serious
phy. Injuries pero arrainged na, hindi na pwede maamend.
If the amendment would downgrade offense charge and would exclude any accused from
the complaint or information, can only be made by t emotion by the prosecutor.
FEBRUARY 6, 2023

RULE 110 PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES

Section 1. Institution of criminal actions. — Criminal actions shall be instituted as follows:

(a) For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required pursuant to section 1 of Rule 112,
by filing the complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite
preliminary investigation.
(b) For all other offenses, by filing the complaint or information directly with the Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, or the complaint with the office of the prosecutor. In
Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor
unless otherwise provided in their charters.

The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running period of prescription of the
offense charged unless otherwise provided in special laws. (1a)

How to institute complaint criminal actions. File complaint to the proper officers.
RULE 111 Prosecution of Civil Action

Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. —

(a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising
from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the
offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the
civil action prior to the criminal action.

EFFECT OF INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION

 It shall interrupt the running of the prescriptive period of the offense charged
unless otherwise provided in special laws. (1a)

Q: What happens if you file the complaint before the prosecutor’s office?

A: Should interrupt the period of prescription unless otherwise provide in special laws.

Lalo na sa light offenses, it prescribes in 2 months.

If you have filed the complaint before the Prosecutors office 2 or 1 days prescriptive
period. It will stop running of prescriptive period. What is important is that you have filed
within the 2-month period provided for under the law.

The reason why the institution of the criminal action before the prosecutor’s office ould already
stop the running of the prescriptive period is because the filling the complaint for Preliminary
investigation already represents the initial steps of the proceedings against the offender. It also
unjust to deprive the injured party the right to obtain vindication on account of the delays that
are not under his control.

Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. — All criminal actions commenced by a
complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor.
However, in Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts when the prosecutor assigned
thereto or to the case is not available, the offended party, any peace officer, or public officer
charged with the enforcement of the law violated may prosecute the case. This authority cease
upon actual intervention of the prosecutor or upon elevation of the case to the Regional Trial
Court
Private prosecutor cannot appear for cases with victimless crimes.
Kapag may civil aspect pwde si private prosecutor under the supervision of a public prosecutor.

On appeal, Criminal aspect of the case will be handled by the Solicitor General if the case is
pending before the ombudsman, it will be handled by a special prosecutor.

Violation of special law, specialize dispute.

Private crimes – concubinage, adultery, seduction, abduction. Only the aggrieved party that
can constitute the complaint; partificapation of the offended party is required only for purposes
of initiating the complaint but not for its continuation.
Once the complaint had been filed by the victim, and during trial, the victim does not want to
proceed anymore with the prosecution of the case, can the public prosecutor continue with
the prosecution of the case without the victim, yes.

In private crimes, if the information was not submitted by the offended party, it can be quashed.

Adultery and cOncubinage- hindi pwedeng kabit lang ang kakasuhan dapat both. Kabit and
ung asawa.

Seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness. Exclusive to aggrieved party.

Defamation is a private crime canot be instituted by another person in her behalf.

Desistance of the offended party – private complainant waiver of civil indemnity.

Contents:
1. Name of the accused
2. Designation of the offense given by the statute
3. Cause of the accusation – the acts or ommissions complained of as constituting the
offense
4. Place of commission of the offense
5. Approximate date of commission of the offense
6. Name of the offended party
FEBRUARY 13, 2023

Willing to be detained if waived Art. 125 for as long as he is given the time to submit his counter
affidavit

Even if there is, no information filed in court, respondent can still post bail.

Pag may client na hinuli without a warrant and bailable, pwedeng mag post bail.

He was represented with inquest proceedings but waived Art 125

Inquest prosecutor will tell you his fee.

One important thing to know with respect to the resolution of the prosecutor. If there is an
adverse resolution, remedy motion for reconsideration form 10 days from receipt

If decision is still adverse, file it directly to the SOJ or to the office of the regional state prosecutor.

If charged falls MTC, petition for review.

If chaged under RTC, appeal directly to SOJ for petition for review.

Generally, SOJs decision is final

Pero kung may lack o can be elevated to CA petition for review.

Can the COUrt overturn no propabable cause by the prosecutor?

Answer: Prosec is under the executive department not under judiciary

Can SC direct the office of the prosec? Answered in Aguilar vs DOJ

RULE 113 - ARREST

Custodial Investigation

 RA 7478
 Look at Bill of Rights – Sec 12 Art 3 par 1 – 4 most basic and fundamental consti rights
deserving for a full protection,

Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he
must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence
of counsel.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
Who investigates crimes? PNP NBI PDEA BoC CIDG (law enforcers)

In the enforcement of law, the State has a limitation – see to it that enforcement of law must
respect the COnsti Rights of the respondent

IT is vested by the CONstitution. State values the dignitity full respect of human rights.

Special Law – rights of a person under custodial investigation

Involves any questioning by law officers when taken into custody

Deprived of his freedom of action

CI shall include practice of issuing invitation

There is a rambol, that too place in a bar in Baguio. As a result, X died because of stab wounds.
Immediately, upon being alerted, Police officers proceeded at the bar and invited some
persons in the bar to proceed in the police station to shed light to what happended.

Are the persons invited already entitled to counsel?

Are they subjected to CI? If yes, yes they need to be assisted by counsel, if not, eh di hindi.

CI commences if taken into custody and singled out to be a suspect to committing the crime.

It is only after the investigation ceases, _____ that the rule begins to operate

When the process shifted from investigatory to accusatory, CI has already commenced.

In the situation above, the questioning is just general inquiry.

If 8 of 10 pointed to A as the suspect. A was singled out if the police questioned A, he has to be
assisted by counsel before PO can question him with regards to the crime.

Duty ng police to do inquiry but if suspect is singled out plice should inform him of his custodial
rights.

MIRANDA RIGHTS or Miranda Warnings – Police officers are required to inform arrested person of
his rights.

Automatic to upon arrest.

Same in CI, if Police officers starts questioning for the purpose of

It is practically the same, right to remain silent, right t have a counsel,

Any waiver of Art, 125 shall be in writing in presence of his counsel otherwise null and void.

ERNESTO MIRANDA-arrested as a suspect in a kidnapping case. Invited for questioning, then

after may confession na agad, then nakulong, then convicted pero overturned by US High
Court.
He was still convicted. After na overturn ung ruling kasi pinabalik sa lower court yung case then
natried ulit.

When PO testify in courts, counsel will ask him if the pulis informed him his Miranda rights.

What happens if the person had been arrested and pulis started questioning but was not
informed of his rights?

Answer? The arrest of the person will be considered as valid. Without prejudice the liability of the
pulis who did not introdueced him of his rigts

When custodial rights become relevant – for extra judicial admission or confession and becomes
the basis of his conviction.
Even if not informed ng Custodial rights, irrelevant.

Read PP vs Lugnasin.

If a person voluntarily admitted without questioning from the Pulis and wasnot informed of his
custodial rights, would the admission be

Person under CI or without warrant – entitled to counsel independent and competent.

Constitutional procedure in CI od not apply if involved voluntary and spontaneous confession.

Not preventing from freely telling the truth

Can be admitted as evidence.

Identifiacation in a police line-up: witness ang tinatanong hindi suspect.

SC no need to person subject to question to be assisted by counsel does not invalidate during
police line-up. Minimum of 5 or more.

MAHINAY DOCTRINE/EXPANDED MIRANDA RIGHTS.

- Person arrested is informed of rights being subjected to torture or confined
incommunicado.
FEBRUARY 15, 2023

Custodial Investigation

Arrest:

Even if there was no actual restraint, if the suspect by his action and words showed that he is
submitting himself to the person making an arrest then he is considered to be under arrest.

Custom arrest – house arrest, hospital arrest, inside a room, has restriction in freedom of
movement

A mere command from the pulis would suffice, no need to handcuff or hit or use any form of
violence against the suspect.

Constitutional Limitations:
It is the duty of the state to fully enforce its laws.
The State does not have an absolute power to arrest of a person.

The state is bound to respect the constitutional rights of the person arrested

Arrest falls under the term seizure

If you seize a person, you are intruding to secure the right to privacy

TWO CLASSIFICATION OF ARREST:

1. CONVENTIONAL ARREST
2. PROVISIONAL ARREST

Preliminary arrest is for the purpose f extradicting the person arrested.

PD 1069 – extradition means removal of an accused from the Philippines placing him at the
disposal of authorities.

Section 5- lawful warrantless arrest.

2 requisites must concur:

1. The person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing or attempting to commit an offense.
2. Such overt act is done in the presence or within the purview

VALID or LAWFUL WARRANTLESS ARREST

When an offense has been committed and there was probable cause

Refered to as Hot Pursuit Arrest

Requisites:
1. An offense has just been committed
–Connotes immediacy
 2. The person making the arrest has orobable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.

There is no fixed period for one to say there is compliance for the term immediacy.

Sometimes SC could say the offense has just been committed.

Validity would depend upon what is contained in their affidavit of arrest.

Ex. Right ater they received the repost, went bak ot the police station, in the afternoon, they
received an information, the person was spotted

If this is the case, and appeared in the affidavit, warrantless arrest was not valid.

If in the affidavit of arrest, it was made to appear that the pulis did not stop in the operation in
order to look for the culprit, valid yung warrantless arrest.If there was continued operation, then
they could justify the warrantless arrest as a hotpursuit arrest.

The reason why there must be immediacy and close proximity in the time of the arrest of the
time, as the time gap widens, information can be contaminated.

Hindi na accurate yung makukuha na information as the gap of time widens.

For determining probable cause, for the filling of information hindi warrant of arrest

Judicial deerminaiton of probable cause – non existent na

PP v Espinosa, GR Nos. 1553714-20, 8-15-03

a. Can there be a conditional arraignment?

Facts:
Separate cases of Estafa and Attempted corruption of public officers were filed by the Office
of the Ombudsman against Espinosa, Vasquez and Sanano.

Prior to his arraignment, Espinosa filed a Motion for Reinvestigation. SBN granted the Motion and
directed the Office of the Special Prosecutor to evaluate the evidence against the accused.

While the cases were being reevaluated, Espinosa filed with the SBN a Motion for Leave to Travel
Abroad for the period May 2-13, 1999.

On the date set for the hearing of the Motion, the SBN (Fourth Division) issued an Order resetting
the hearing to April 22, 1999. It required private respondent to be "conditionally arraigned on
that date" before it would act on his Motion to Travel.

As ordered, private respondent was arraigned, and thereafter granted his Motion to Travel. The
Order of Arraignment dated April 22, 2000, stated that "upon being duly arraigned, [he] entered
a plea of ‘Not Guilty’ to both Informations in Crim. Case Nos. 24438 and 24439."
MODULE 8 Cases

SPO4 Soberano, et al. V PP, GR 154629, 10-5-05

Prominent public relations practitioner Salvador Dacer together with his driver Corbito,
was abducted in Manila. Their charred remains, consisting of burned bones, metal dental plates
and ring, were later found in Cavite. They were positively identified by their dentists and by a
forensic pathologist. Both victims were killed by strangulation.

A preliminary investigation was conducted and an Information was filed before the RTC.
Some of the accused are public officers of the PNP.

A Motion to Admit Amended Information was filed and granted. In the amended
information, the following information was added: “abduct SALVADOR (Bubby) DACER and
EMMANUEL CORBITO at the corner of Osmeña Highway (formerly South Super Highway) and
Zobel Roxas Street in Manila, and later brought them to Indang, Cavite.”

although the original Information has already been filed, the four (4) accused sought to be
discharged or excluded from the Amended Information have not been arraigned and no trial
has been commenced. Thus, the discharge or exclusion being sought by the petitioner may
come under the purview of Republic Act No. 6981, a special law which the Department of
Justice is called upon to enforce and implement. Considering that the State Prosecutor’s
disposition on the investigation in Criminal Case No. 01-191969 should be the sole and only valid
basis of respondent JUDGE RODOLFO A. PONFERRADA in considering whether the Amended
Information sought to be admitted should stand or not, it follows that the discharge/exclusion of
the four (4) accused under Republic Act No. 6981 must be directed by the Department of
Justice, not by the court a quo.

a. Distinguish amendment from substitution

b. Distinguish sec. 14 Rule-110 and sec. 17, Rule-119

Section 14. Amendment or substitution. — A complaint or information may be amended, in form

or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After
the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and
when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.

However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of the offense charged
in or excludes any accused from the complaint or information, can be made only upon motion
by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court. The court shall
state its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of its order shall be furnished all parties,
especially the offended party. (n)

If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper
offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one
charging the proper offense in accordance with section 19, Rule 119, provided the accused
shall not be placed in double jeopardy. The court may require the witnesses to give bail for their
appearance at the trial. (14a)
Section 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 the prosecution before resting its
case, the court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so
that they may be witnesses for the state when, after requiring the prosecution to present
evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of
the discharge, the court is satisfied that:

(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is
requested;

(b) The is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense
committed, except the testimony of said accused;

(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;

(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and

(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral
turpitude.

Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. If the
court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, his sworn statement shall
be inadmissible in evidence. (9a)

c. Can an accused who was not admitted to the witness protection program be discharged as
state witness?

Yes. The guidelines in the admission to the witness program did not state that the person needs
to be a statewitness

Section 3. Admission into the Program. - Any person who has witnessed or has knowledge or
information on the commission of a crime and has testified or is testifying or about to testify
before any judicial or quasi-judicial body, or before any investigating authority, may be
admitted into the Program:

Provided, That:

a) the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined under the
Revised Penal Code, or its equivalent under special laws;lawphi1Ÿ

b) his testimony can be substantially corroborated in its material points;

c) he or any member of his family within the second civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity is subjected to threats to his life or bodily injury or there is a likelihood that he will
be killed, forced, intimidated, harassed or corrupted to prevent him from testifying, or to
testify falsely, or evasively, because or on account of his testimony; and
d) he is not a law enforcement officer, even if he would be testifying against the other
law enforcement officers. In such a case, only the immediate members of his family may
avail themselves of the protection provided for under this Act.
Yu v Hon Presiding Judge, RTC of Tagaytay City, et al., GR 142848 , 6-30-

Atty. Tan with his driver Constantino were abducted and were shot dead. 3 days later, their
bodies were dug up in a shallow grave. One of the accused is Eugene Yu and his wife. Charges
against them were later dropped for lack of evidence to establish probable cause. Later on,
Eugene Yu was implicated by the Ochoa and De Los Santos,other accused. Yu filed a motion
to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the sworn statements submitted by the other accused
were inadmissible in evidence and does not establish probable cause against him. His motion
was denied. 3 separate information was filed against him. He filed an omnibus motion to quash
the warrant of arrest and to quash the information.

ISSUE:
Is discharge of an accused not a judicial function?

Pertinent provision of Republic Act No. 6981 employed by the prosecution in the discharge of
the private respondents reads:

SEC. 3. Admission into the Program. – Any person who has witnessed or has knowledge or
information on the commission of a crime and has testified or is testifying or about to testify
before any judicial or quasi-judicial body, or before any investigating authority, may be
admitted into the Program:

Provided, That:

a) the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined under the
Revised Penal Code, or its equivalent under special laws;

b) his testimony can be substantially corroborated in its material points;

c) he or any member of his family within the second civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity is subjected to threats to his life or bodily injury or there is a likelihood that he will
be killed, forced, intimidated, harassed or corrupted to prevent him from testifying, or to
testify falsely, or evasively, because or on account of his testimony; and

d) he is not a law enforcement officer, even if he would be testifying against other law
enforcement officers. In such a case, only the immediate members of his family may avail
themselves of the protection provided for under this Act.

If the Department, after examination of said applicant and other relevant facts, is convinced
that the requirements of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations have been complied
with, it shall admit said applicant to the Program, require said witness to execute a sworn
statement detailing his knowledge or information on the commission of the crime, and
thereafter issue the proper certification. For purposes of this Act, any such person admitted to
the Program shall be known as the Witness.

SEC. 10. State Witness. – Any person who has participated in the commission of a crime and
desires to be a witness for the State, can apply and, if qualified as determined in this Act and
by the Department, shall be admitted into the Program whenever the following circumstances
are present:

a) the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined under the
Revised Penal Code or its equivalent under special laws;

b) there is absolute necessity for his testimony;

c) there is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense
committed;

d) his testimony can be substantially corroborated on its material points;

e) he does not appear to be most guilty; and

f) he has not at any time been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude.

An accused discharged from an information or criminal complaint by the court in order that he
may be a State Witness pursuant to Sections 9 and 10 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court
may upon his petition be admitted to the Program if he complies with the other requirements of
this Act. Nothing in this Act shall prevent the discharge of an accused, so that he can be used
as a State Witness under Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court.

On the other hand, Rule 119, Section 17, of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, upon which
petitioner relies reads:

Section 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 the prosecution before resting its
case, the court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so
that they may be witnesses for the state when, after requiring the prosecution to present
evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of
the discharge, the court is satisfied that:

(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is
requested;

(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense
committed, except the testimony of said accused;

(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;

(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and

(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral
turpitude.

Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. If the
court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, his sworn statement shall
be inadmissible in evidence.
The discharge of an accused under Republic Act No. 6981 as availed of by the prosecution in
favor of the private respondents, is distinct and separate from the discharge of an accused
under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
The discharge of an accused to be a state witness under Republic Act No. 6981 is only one of
the modes for a participant in the commission of a crime to be a state witness. Rule 119, Section
17, of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, is another mode of discharge. The immunity
provided under Republic Act No. 6981 is granted by the DOJ while the other is granted by the
court.

Rule 119, Section 17, of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, contemplates a situation where
the information has been filed and the accused had been arraigned and the case is
undergoing trial. The discharge of an accused under this rule may be ordered upon motion of
the prosecution before resting its case, that is, at any stage of the proceedings, from the filing
of the information to the time the defense starts to offer any evidence. 10

On the other hand, in the discharge of an accused under Republic Act No. 6981, only
compliance with the requirement of Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure11 is required but not the requirement of Rule 119, Section 17.

As found by the DOJ, based on the extrajudicial statements executed by the private
respondents regarding their participation in the abduction and killing of Atty. Eugene Tan and
his driver, it appears that they were included in an alleged military operation and unaware that
the persons they abducted were innocent civilians because they were misled by their military
superiors into believing that these individuals were unnamed communist rebels. From their
account, private respondents claim to have been oblivious that the persons subject of their
surveillance were to be abducted and subsequently killed.

The rule prevailing in this jurisdiction is that the discharge of an accused to be utilized as a state
witness because he does not appear to be the most guilty, is highly factual in nature. The
discretionary judgment of the trial court on this factual issue is seldom interfered with by the
appellate courts except in case of grave abuse of discretion,17 which we find not present in the
case at bar.

On the issue of failure of the prosecution to present the sworn statement and memorandum of
agreement between the private respondents and the DOJ, there is no requirement under
Republic Act No. 6981 that the same be first presented in court before an accused may be
admitted to the WPSBP. Moreover, the DOJ which is tasked to implement the provisions of
Republic Act No. 6981, has determined that the private respondents have satisfied the
requirements for admission under the WPSBP. This interpretation of the provisions of Republic Act
No. 6981 by the DOJ deserves the respect of the court under the principle that the determination
of a government agency tasked to implement a statute is accorded great respect and
ordinarily controls the construction of the courts.
4. Monge v PP, GR 170308, 3-7-08

a. What is the effect if it turns out after the discharged of the accused, that all the conditions
under sec. 17, R-119 were not actually fulfilled?

FACTS:

Monge and Potencio were found by barangay tanods in possession of and transporting 3 pcs
of mahogany lumber. They were ask for the permit and authority from the DENR, but the two
failed to present any. Monge fled the scene, while Potencio was brought to the police station
for interrogation. Later on Monge and Potencio was charged with an offense Section 68 of P.D.
No. 705 and both pleaded not guilty.

During trial, a testimony was stricken out because the witness was failed to appear for cross
examination. Potencio was dischared to be used as state wtiness.

he testified on the circumstances of the arrest but claimed that for a promised fee he was
merely requested by petitioner, the owner of the log, to assist him in hauling the same down
from the mountain. Potencio’s testimony was materially corroborated by Molina. 14 Petitioner did
not contest the allegations, except that it was not he but Potencio who owned the lumber. He
lamented that contrary to what Potencio had stated in court, it was the latter who hired him to
bring the log from the site to the sawmill where the same was to be sawn into pieces.

Monge was charged guilty. He elevated the case to the CA. where he challenged the
discharge of Potencio as a state witness on the ground that the latter was not the least guilty of
the offense and that there was no absolute necessity for his testimony. 17 The appellate court
dismissed this challenge and affirmed the findings of the trial court.

His motion for reconsideration was denied, hence the present appeal whereby petitioner
reiterates his challenge against the discharge of Potencio.

Petitioner and Potencio were caught in flagrante delicto transporting, and thus in possession of,
processed mahogany lumber without proper authority from the DENR. Petitioner has never
denied this fact. But in his attempt to exonerate himself from liability, he claims that it was
Potencio, the owner of the lumber, who requested his assistance in hauling the log down from
the mountain and in transporting the same to the sawmill for processing. The contention is
unavailing.

The direct and affirmative testimony of Molina and Potencio as a state witness on the
circumstances surrounding the apprehension well establishes petitioner’s liability.

Considering the overwhelming body of evidence pointing to nothing less than petitioner’s guilt
of the offense charged, there is no cogent reason to reverse his conviction.

Not a few cases established the doctrine that the discharge of an accused so he may turn
state witness is left to the exercise of the trial court’s sound discretion23 limited only by the
requirements set forth in Section 17,24 Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. Thus, whether the accused
offered to be discharged appears to be the least guilty and whether there is objectively an
absolute necessity for his testimony are questions that lie within the domain of the trial court, it
being competent to resolve issues of fact. The discretionary judgment of the trial court with
respect this highly factual issue is not to be interfered with by the appellate courts except in
case of grave abuse of discretion.25 No such grave abuse is present in this case. Suffice it to say
that issues relative to the discharge of an accused must be raised in the trial court as they
cannot be addressed for the first time on appeal.26
PP v Dominguez, GR 229420, 2-19-18
a. What is the effect of the death of a discharged witness?
b. What is the effect of discharged of an accused to be a state witness?

Venson Evangelista, a car salesman, was abducted in Cubao, Quezon City by a group of men
later pinpointed as the respondents herein. Evangelista's charred remains were discovered the
following day in Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija.

In connection with the incident, Mendiola and Ferdinand Parulan (Parulan) voluntarily
surrendered to the Philippine National Police (PNP) and executed extrajudicial confessions
identifying respondents Roger and Raymond Dominguez (Dominguez Brothers) as the
masterminds behind the killing. This led to the filing before the Quezon City RTC of an Information
against Mendiola and the respondents for Carnapping with Homicide

Only the Dominguez brothers and Miranda were apprehended. the three arrested respondents
pleaded not guilty to the offense.

a hearing was conducted on the prosecution's motion 5 that Mendiola be discharged as an

accused to become a state witness. On the said date, Mendiola gave his testimony and was
cross examined by the counsel for the defense. Nevertheless, the defense manifested that the
cross-examination was limited only to the incident of discharge, and that their party reserved
the right to a more lengthy cross examination during the prosecution's presentation of the
evidence in chief.

RTC issued an Order granting the motion to discharge Mendiola as an accused to become a
state witness.

Thereafter, by a surprise turn of events, Mendiola was found dead.

The RTC then required the parties to submit their respective position papers on whether or not
Mendiola's testimony during the discharge proceeding should be admitted as part of the
prosecution's evidence in chief despite his failure to testify during the trial proper prior to his
death.

ISSUE:
The primordial issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the testimony of Mendiola should
be stricken off the records

HELD:

The death of the state witness prior to trial proper will not automatically render his testimony
during the discharge proceeding inadmissible

Section 17 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court pertinently provides:

Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. If the
court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, his sworn statement shall
be inadmissible in evidence.
The rule is explicit that the testimony of the witness during the discharge proceeding will only be
inadmissible if the court denies the motion to discharge the accused as a state witness.
However, the motion hearing in this case had already concluded and the motion for discharge,
approved. Thus, whatever transpired during the hearing is already automatically deemed part
of the records of Criminal Case No. Q-11-168431 and admissible in evidence pursuant to the
rule.

Mendiola's testimony was not incomplete, contrary to how Miranda paints it to be. The contents
of his lengthy narration were more than sufficient to establish his possession of all the necessary
qualifications, and none of the disqualifications, under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court
to be eligible as a state witness.

Section 18. Discharge of accused operates as acquittal. - The order indicated in the preceding
section shall amount to an acquittal of the discharged accused and shall be a bar to future
prosecution for the same offense, unless the accused fails or refuses to testify against his co-
accused in accordance with his sworn statement constituting the basis for the discharge.
Rivac v PP, GR 224673, 1-22-18
a. When is it proper to file a motion to reopen a case?
b. What is the ground to re-open a case?

FACtS:
case stemmed from an Information 4 filed before the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, Ilocos
Norte, Branch 14 (RTC), charging Rivac of the crime of Estafa, when he received for sale on
consignment from Farinas pcs of jewelry and did not remit the proceeds of the sale and the
unsold pcs of jewelry.

RIvac pleaded not guilty and claims that her liability is only civil and not criminal in nature.

RTC found her guilty. After the promulgation of the aforesaid Judgment and before it lapsed
into finality, Rivac moved to reopen proceedings on the ground that she intends to present the
testimonies of Fariñas and a certain Atty. Ma. Valenie Blando (Atty. Blando) to prove the true
nature of her transaction with Fariñas.

RTC, inter alia, partly granted the motion insofar as Fariñas's testimony was concerned, as the
apparent revision of her recollection of events could not have been anticipated during the
course of the trial.20 It, however, denied the same as to Atty. Blando's testimony, opining that
there was no showing that Rivac could not present her during the trial proper.

Consequently, the Court re-took Fariñas's testimony, where she "clarified" that she now
remembered that the consignment document never became effective or enforceable as she
did not allow Rivac to take the jewelry because she has yet to pay her outstanding loan
obligation plus interest.22

, the RTC found Rivac's testimony the same to be unworthy of credence

CA
CA upheld Rivac's conviction.
it held that the RTC erred in allowing the reopening of the case, since it had already
promulgated a ruling therein.

The Issue Before the Court

The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly: (a) ruled that it was
improper for the RTC to reopen its proceedings; and (b) upheld Rivac's conviction for the crime
of Estafa.

The Court's Ruling

The petition must be denied.

Section 24, Rule 119 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure governs the reopening of
criminal cases for further trial. It states in verbatim: "At any time before finality of the judgment of
conviction, the judge may, motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either case, reopen
the proceedings to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The proceedings shall be terminated within
thirty (30) days from the order granting it."

Section 24, Rule 119 and existing jurisprudence stress the following requirements for reopening a
case: (1) the reopening must be before the finality of a judgment of conviction; (2) the order is
issued by the judge on his own initiative or upon motion; (3) the order is issued only after a
hearing is conducted; (4) the order intends to prevent a miscarriage of justice; and (5) the
presentation of additional and/or further evidence should be terminated within thirty days from
the issuance of the order.

Generally, after the parties have produced their respective direct proofs, they are allowed to
offer rebutting evidence only. However, the court, for good reasons, and in the furtherance of
justice, may allow new evidence upon their original case, and its ruling will not be disturbed in
the appellate court where no abuse of discretion appears. A motion to reopen may thus
properly be presented only after either or both parties had formally offered and closed their
evidence, but before judgment is rendered, and even after promulgation but before finality of
judgment and the only controlling guideline covering a motion to reopen is the paramount
interest of justice. This remedy of reopening a case was meant to prevent a miscarriage of
justice.
Cabarles v Hon Maceda & PP, GR 161330, 2-20-07
a. Is hearing required for the re-opening of a case?
b. Can this particular case be re-opened?

FACTS:
Cabarles was charged with murder for attacking, assaulting and stabbing Antonio Callosa.

He pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution issued subpoenas to its witnesses. Through no fault of its own, the prosecution
was unable to present its evidence on the first four hearing dates. Still, the other scheduled
witnesses were absent. The judge gave the prosecution a last chance but warned:

… It is however understood whether the subpoena is actually issued and served or not upon the
prosecution witnesses and service of such subpoena or notice will not relieved (sic) the
prosecution to make a formal offer of evidence should the prosecution failed (sic) to present
any witness in the next scheduled hearing.

With no witness for its last hearing, the prosecution rested its case and formally offered its
evidence.

Thereafter, Cabarles, with leave of court, filed a demurrer to evidence but it was denied by
Judge Maceda.16 Two witnesses were called for the defense, accused Cabarles and Luisito
Javier, a fisherman.

A day before the scheduled promulgation of judgment on April 2, 2003, Judge Maceda motu
proprio issued the questioned order reopening the case. In it, he observed that the prosecution
may not have been given its day in court resulting in a miscarriage of justice. He explained that
because there was a mix-up in the dates specified in the subpoena and the hearing dates of
when the case was actually heard

Finally, one of the witness ook the witness stand and completed her direct examination. A few
days thereafter, Cabarles filed the present petition questioning Judge Maceda’s order, alleging
that it was issued with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE:

[1] WHETHER THE RESPONDENT HONORABLE JUDGE GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE
ISSUED THE QUESTIONED ORDER DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A FINAL JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION.

[2] WHETHER PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF HIS CASE WAS
VIOLATED.

Did Judge Maceda act with grave abuse of discretion in issuing motu proprio the April 1, 2003
Order reopening the case, before judgment was rendered, to receive the testimonies of two
prosecution witnesses after both parties had rested their case? Did the said order violate
Cabarles’s right to due process and speedy disposition of his case?
HELD:
A motion to reopen a case to receive further proofs was not in the old rules but it was
nonetheless a recognized procedural recourse, deriving validity and acceptance from long,
established usage.24 This lack of a specific provision covering motions to reopen was remedied
by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which took effect on December 1, 2000.
A motion to reopen a case to receive further proofs was not in the old rules but it was
nonetheless a recognized procedural recourse, deriving validity and acceptance from long,
established usage.24 This lack of a specific provision covering motions to reopen was remedied
by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which took effect on December 1, 2000.

while Judge Maceda is allowed to reopen the case before judgment is rendered, Section 24
requires that a hearing must first be conducted. Judge Maceda issued the April 1, 2003 Order
without notice and hearing and without giving the prosecution and accused an opportunity to
manifest their position on the matter. This failure, to our mind, constitutes grave abuse of
discretion and goes against the due process clause of the Constitution which requires notice
and opportunity to be heard.30 The issuance of the said order, without the benefit of a hearing,
is contrary to the express language of Section 24, Rule 119.

On the second issue, Cabarles maintains that contrary to Judge Maceda’s observation, the
prosecution was given ample opportunity to present its case as seen by the issuance of several
subpoenas to Pedrosa and Dr. Salen. Cabarles argues that he is presumed innocent until proven
guilty and should not be made to wait indefinitely for prosecution witnesses to testify. To do so
would violate his constitutional right to due process and a speedy disposition of his case.
According to Cabarles, the reopening of the case is clearly detrimental to him since it meant
another day in prison.

of the trial court judge, this judicial action must not, however, be done whimsically, capriciously
and/or unreasonably.33 In this particular case, the prosecution was given ample opportunity to
present all its witnesses but it failed to do so. The failure of the prosecution to take full advantage
of the opportunities given does not change the fact that it was accorded such opportunities.
Contrary to the justification stated in the April 1, 2003 Order, the prosecution was not deprived
of its day in court. While it may be true that due to some confusion with the trial court’s calendar,
some of the trial dates assigned to the prosecution did not push through and some of the
subpoenas issued to Pedrosa and/or Dr. Salen pertained to hearing dates which were different
from those assigned for reception of prosecution’s evidence, still the prosecution had a total of
four hearing dates when it was given the chance to prove its case: May 23, June 20 and 27,
and August 1, 2001. The presence of prosecution witnesses in court is the responsibility of the
public prosecutor and it is incumbent upon him to take the initiative of ensuring the attendance
of his witnesses at the trial.34

Since Judge Maceda issued the questioned order without complying with the third requirement
of Section 24, that there be a hearing conducted before the order to reopen is issued, then the
assailed order must be annulled and set aside for having been issued contrary to law and
consequently with grave abuse of discretion.35
The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated only
when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, 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 time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case
tried.38
REOPENING OF TRIAL
Rule 119, Section 24, Rules of Court

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

What are the requirements for reopening a case?

(1) the reopening must be before the finality of a judgment of conviction;

(2) the order is issued by the judge on his own initiative or upon motion;

(3) the order is issued only after a hearing is conducted;

(4) the order intends to prevent a miscarriage of justice; and

(5) the presentation of additional and/or further evidence should be terminated within thirty
days from the issuance of the order. (Cabarles vs. Judge Maceda, G.R. No. 161330, February
20, 2007)

When must a motion to reopen trial be filed?

After either or both parties had formally offered and closed their evidence, but before judgment
is rendered, and even after promulgation but before finality of judgment. (Cabarles vs. Judge
Maceda, ibid)

Who may reopen a trial?

The judge on his own initiative or upon motion.

Is hearing required?

Yes.

While Judge Maceda is allowed to reopen the case before judgment is rendered, Section 24
requires that a hearing must first be conducted. Judge Maceda issued the April 1, 2003 Order
without notice and hearing and without giving the prosecution and accused an opportunity to
manifest their position on the matter. This failure, to our mind, constitutes grave abuse of
discretion and goes against the due process clause of the Constitution which requires notice
and opportunity to be heard. The issuance of the said order, without the benefit of a hearing,
is contrary to the express language of Section 24, Rule 119. Since Judge Maceda issued the
questioned order without complying with the third requirement of Section 24, that there be a
hearing conducted before the order to reopen is issued, then the assailed order must be
annulled and set aside for having been issued contrary to law and consequently with grave
abuse of discretion. (Cabarles vs. Judge Maceda, ibid)
 What is the purpose of the rule?

To prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Generally, after the parties have produced their respective direct proofs, they are allowed to
offer rebutting evidence only. However, the court, for good reasons, in the furtherance of
justice, may allow new evidence upon their original case, and its ruling will not be disturbed in
the appellate court where no abuse of discretion appears. A motion to reopen may thus
properly be presented only after either or both parties had formally offered and closed their
evidence, but before judgment is rendered, and even after promulgation but before finality of
judgment and the only controlling guideline governing a motion to reopen is the paramount
interest of justice. This remedy of reopening a case was meant to prevent a miscarriage of
justice. (Cabarles vs. Judge Maceda, ibid)

Distinguish motion to reopen from a motion for new trial or reconsideration

The reopening of a case for the reception of further evidence before judgment is not the
granting of a new trial (Alegre vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-56923, May 9, 1988, 161 SCRA 226).

Motion for New Trial

1. Must be filed at any time before a judgment of conviction becomes final.

2. May be applied for and granted only upon specific, well-defined grounds set forth respectively
in Rules 37 (Section 1) and 121 (Section 2) of the Rules of Court.

3. The case is opened again after judgment for the reception of new evidence and further
proceedings.

Motion to Reopen Trial

1. May be presented only after either or both parties had formally offered and closed their
evidence, but before judgment is rendered, and even after promulgation but before finality of
judgment.

2. The reopening of a case is controlled by no other rule than that of the paramount interests of
justice, resting entirely in the sound judicial discretion of a Trial Court; and its concession, or
denial, by said Court in the exercise of that discretion will not be reviewed on appeal unless a
clear abuse thereof is shown.

3. It is still possible to have trials or hearings.

Motion for Reconsideration

1. Must be filed at any time before a judgment of conviction becomes final.

2. May be applied for and granted only upon specific, well-defined grounds set forth respectively
in Rules 37 (Section 1) and 121 (Section 3) of the Rules of Court.

3. The case is not reopened for further proceeding. The court is merely asked to reconsider its
findings of law in order to make them conformable to the law applicable to the case. The
judgment will be based on the pleadings submitted by the parties.

Nothing to reopen when the prosecution had not formally rested its case.

Strictly speaking, however, there was no reopening of the cases in the proceedings below. A
motion to reopen may properly be presented only after either or both parties have formally
offered and closed their evidence, but before judgment. In the instant case, the records show
that on April 19, 1999, the prosecution was directed to close its evidence and given 15 days to
make its formal offer of evidence. This order apparently arose from the manifestation of the
prosecution on April 16, 1999 that should they fail to produce witness Abratique on the
next scheduled hearing the prosecution would rest its case. On April 19, 1999, which was the
next scheduled hearing after April 16, 1999, Abratique was absent notwithstanding notices,
orders, and warrants of arrest. However, on April 27, 1999, or before the prosecution had formally
offered its evidence, Abratique was brought to the trial court by the NBI. In its order of said date,
the trial court pointed out that the prosecution could move to "reopen" the case for the taking
of Abratique’s testimony. On May 7, 1999, the prosecution so moved, stressing that it had not
yet formally offered its evidence and that the substantial rights of the accused would not be
prejudiced inasmuch as the latter had yet to present his evidence. Appellant filed no opposition
to the motion. The trial court granted the motion six days later. Plainly, there was nothing to
reopen, as the prosecution had not formally rested its case. Moreover, the taking of Abratique’s
testimony was not for the purpose of presenting additional evidence, but more properly for the
completion of his unfinished testimony. In U.S. vs. Base, we held that a trial court is not in error, if
it opts to reopen the proceedings of a case, even after both sides had rested and the
case submitted for decision, by the calling of additional witnesses or recalling of witnesses so as
to satisfy the judge’s mind with reference to particular facts involved in the case. A judge cannot
be faulted should he require a material witness to complete his testimony, which is what
happened in this case. It is but proper that the judge’s mind be satisfied on any and all questions
presented during the trial, in order to serve the cause of justice.

Appellant’s claim that the trial court’s concession to "reopen" the case unduly prejudiced him is
not well taken. We note that appellant had every opportunity to present his evidence to support
his case or to refute the prosecution’s evidence point-by-point, after the prosecution had rested
its case. In short, appellant was never deprived of his day in court. A day in court is the
touchstone of the right to due process in criminal justice. Thus, we are unable to hold that a
grave abuse of discretion was committed by the trial court when it ordered the so-called
"reopening" in order to complete the testimony of a prosecution witness. (People vs. Tee, G.R.
Nos. 140546-47, January 20, 2003)
8. Sabay v PP, GR 192150, 10-01-14
a. Effect of failure to offer a certification to file action

Sabay and his daughter Erlinda Sabay (Erlinda) were busy laying wood and water pipes in the
yard of Godofredo Lopez (Godofredo), the latter confronted the petitioner about his (the
petitioner’s) alleged intrusion into Godofredo’s property. A verbal altercation ensued between
them.

In the course of the verbal exchange, Erlinda hit Godofredo on the head with a hard object.
The petitioner joined in by throwing a stone at Godofredo’s face, breaking the latter’s
eyeglasses. Godofredo claimed that as a result, he felt dizzy. 5 The petitioner and Erlinda then
shouted at Godofredo and threatened to kill him.

mmediately thereafter, Jervie Lopez (Jervie) came and pacified the three. But in the course his
efforts, he was hit in the hand with a bolo.6 The neighbors intervened not long after and pacified
the parties.

On June 13, 2001, Godofredo and Jervie filed a complaint against the petitioner before the
barangay.8 The parties agreed to settle the complaint based on the recommendation of the
building inspector and reflected their agreement in their Kasunduang Pag-aayos9 (Kasunduan)
dated June 20, 2001. The Kasunduan, however, was not implemented because the building
inspector failed to make the promised recommendation to resolve the boundary dispute
between the parties.10 Thus, the Office of the Barangay Captain issued a Certificate to File an
Action.

The petitioner was accordingly charged before the MTC with the crime of Physical Injuries under
two (2) Informations

MTC believed the prosecution's version of the incident and found the petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of slight physical injuries. The MTC, however, dismissed the
light threats charged, as this offense is deemed absorbed in the crime of slight physical injuries.
Further, it absolved Erlinda for the crime of light threats as there was no allegation that she
uttered threatening words against Godofredo.

The MTC rejected the petitioner’s claim of self-defense for lack of clear, convincing and
satisfactory supporting evidence. The MTC held that the petitioner failed to prove that there
had been unlawful aggression by Godofredo; he did not even present the medical certificate
of his injury as evidence.

The CA rejected the petitioner’s arguments and affirmed the RTC’s decision. The CA held that
even if there had been no formal offer of exhibit pursuant to Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules on
Evidence, the Certification to File an Action could still be admitted against the adverse party if,
first, it has been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and, second, it has been
incorporated into the records of the case. Noting that the Certification to File an Action was
identified by the complainants and is attached to the records of the case, the CA ruled that an
exception to Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence could be recognized.

ISSUES:
On the basis of the same arguments raised before the CA, the petitioner questions: (1) the
jurisdiction of the MTC over the criminal cases in view of the alleged inadmissibility ofthe
Certification to File Action;

HELD:

The Office of the Barangay Captain Cannot be Precluded From Issuing a Certification to File an
Action Where NoActual Settlement Was Reached; the Certification to File an Action

Issued by The Office of The Barangay is Valid.

The present case was indisputably referred to the Barangay Luponfor conciliation prior to the
institution of the criminal cases before the MTC. The parties in fact admitted that a meeting
before the Lupontranspired between them, resulting in a Kasunduan.

The CA correctly observed and considered the situation: the settlement of the case was
conditioned on the recommendation of the building inspector; with no recommendation, no
resolution of the conflict likewise took place.

Furthermore, the BarangayCaptain, as a public official, is presumed to act regularly in the

performance of official duty.13 In the absence of contrary evidence, this presumption prevails;
his issuance of the disputed Certification to File an Actio
PP v Ting & Garcia, GR 221505, 12-05-18
a. What is the effect of granting a demurrer to evidence - demurrer amounts to acquittal

FACTS:
City Mayor Ting and Ciy treasurer Garcia was charged wit omnibus election code for issuing a
treasury warrant during the forty-five (45)-day election ban period as payment for two (2)
parcels of land to be used as a public cemetery for the city.

Upon arraignment they entered a plea of not guilty. After Pretrial, the prosecution filed its formal
offer of evidence. Instead of presenting their evidence, the respondents fie a motion for filed a
Motion for Leave to File a Demurrer to Evidence and, subsequently, a Demurrer to Evidence.

RTC granted the same and acquitted the respondents.

the CA denied the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by the Office
of the Solicitor General (OSG), and affirmed the RTC's Order.

Like the RTC, the CA cited the Negotiable Instruments Law and held that every contract on a
negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instrument to the payee
for the purpose of giving effect thereto. Without initial delivery of the instrument from the drawer
of the check to the payee, there can be no valid and binding contract and no liability on the
instrument.

ISSUE:
Should the demurrer to evidence be granted DESPITE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROSECUTION'S
EVIDENCE ON RECORD?

HELD:

Time and again, the Court has held that double jeopardy attaches if the following elements are
present: (1) a valid complaint or information; (2) a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the
defendant had pleaded to the charge; and (4) the defendant was acquitted or convicted, or
the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

Jurisprudence, however, allows for certain exceptions when the dismissal is considered final
even if it was made on motion of the accused, to wit: (1) "[w]here the dismissal is based on a
demurrer to evidence filed by the accused after the prosecution has rested, which has the
effect of a judgment on the merits and operates as an acquittal[; and] (2) [w]here the dismissal
is made, also on motion of the accused, because of the denial of his right to a speedy trial which
is in effect a failure to prosecute."22

A demurrer to evidence is filed after the prosecution has rested its case and the trial court is
required to evaluate whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient enough
to warrant the conviction of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If the court finds that the
evidence is not sufficient and grants the demurrer to evidence, such dismissal of the case is one
on the merits, which is equivalent to the acquittal of the accused. Well-established is the rule
that the Court cannot review an order granting the demurrer to evidence and acquitting the
accused on the ground of insufficiency of evidence because to do so will place the accused
in double Jeopardy.23

To reiterate, for an acquittal to be considered tainted with grave abuse of discretion, there must
be a showing that the prosecution's right to due process was violated or that the trial conducted
was a sham.

Section 23. Demurrer to evidence. — After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss
the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the
prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused
with or without leave of court.

If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the 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. (15a)

The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically state its grounds and
shall be filed within a non-extendible period of five (5) days 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-
extendible period of ten (10) days from notice. The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to
evidence within a similar period from its receipt.

The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer
itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment. (n)
QUIZ 3 QUESTIONS

1. Is legal jeopardy same as double jeopardy

2. Modesto, plead guilty for murder what will the court do? Explain the procedure
2. Modesto contended he is forced by his counsel , will the court set aside his conviction?
3. Why is the presence of the offended party needed in pre-trial?
4. Jessie plead guilty to the offense charged of SPI what will the court do?
5. What are the grounds to invoke in Suspension of an arraignment?
6.3 meritorious and prohibited motions
7. Importance of pre-trial order
8.finality of acquittal doctrine
9.
10.
PP v Udang, Sr., GR 210161, 1-10-18

FACTS:

Two information for child abuse were filed against Udang.

 First Information charged Udang of Rape
 2nd information charged Udang with Sexual Abuse

Udang pleaded not guilty to both charges.

In 2002, AAA, then 12 years old, together with Udang’s children, drank alcoholic beverages.
After drinking 5 bottles of Tanduay rum, AAA became intoxicated. She later realized that she
was being carried by Udang into a dark room where he laid her on the bed, undressed her, and
started kissing her. Udang then went on top of AAA and inserted his penis into her vagina. After
the incident, Udang went out to report for duty as barangay tanod while AAA remained inside
his house, as she was still too weak to move.

In 2003, AAA, who was then 13 years old, again had drinks with Bienvinido Jr. and Udang himself.
When AAA felt sleepy, she went into one (1) of the rooms inside the house. While AAA was lying
in bed, Udang, who had followed her into the room, went on top of her, undressed her, and
inserted his penis into her vagina until he ejaculated. 13 After having sexual intercourse with
AAA, Udang went out to report for duty as barangay tanod. AAA, too tired, remained lying in
bed.

In 2004, AAA had herself physically examined. The doctor found that AAA had hymenal
lacerations, which were old and already healed.

1. Trials courts decision is valid regardless of the fact that the judge who heard the witnesses
and the judge who wrote the decision are different. With no showing of any irregularity
in the transcript of records, it is presumed to be a "complete, authentic record of
everything that transpire[d] during the trial,"71 sufficient for Judge Mordeno to have
evaluated the credibility of the witnesses, specifically, of AAA.
2. VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 (B), ARTICLE III OF RA 7610 AND RAPE ARE SEP ARA TE AND
DISTINCT CRIMES
Pangilinan v CA, GR 117363, 12-17-99

Is the conviction of the accused-appellant by the Regional Trial Court under an information
falling within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court valid?

FACTS:

Mila Pangilinan was charged with Estafa for taking the stereo component, headphones,
electrical jack and two record tapes worth Php 17,450. She was arraigned before the Regional
Trial Court of Morong, Rizal, where she entered a plea of not guilty. The trial court convicted her
of the crime of Estafa

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RC but modified the sentence. Both
the Motion for Reconsideration and a Petition for New Trial in the Court of Appeals was denied.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the decision of the trial court convicting her is null and void for lack of
jurisdiction over the crime charged.
2. Guilt of the accused had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:
The Court of Appeals, the accused was charged under an Information falling under the
provision of “other Deceits”.

The offense the accused was charged falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC.

However, the Office of the Solicitor General contends that the appellant is barred from
raising the issue of jurisdiction, estoppel having already set in.

But this contention is without merit. In our legal system, the question of jurisdiction may be
raised at any stage of the proceedings. Thus, we apply the general rule that jurisdiction is vested
by law and cannot be conferred or waived by the parties.

Having arrived at the conclusion that the Regional Trial Court did not have jurisdiction to
try the case against the appellant, it is no longer necessary to consider the other issues raised as
the decision of the Regional Trial Court is null and void.

The instant petition is granted.

Barredo v Hon. Vinarao, GR 168728, 8-2-07

Barredo files a petition for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he has
already served the sentence imposed on him. Two criminal cases were charged against him.
One for carnapping and the second is for illegal possession of fire arms. The cases were tried
jointly. He was found guilty of both charges. He was sentenced to be imprisoned for 30 years for
carnapping. And 18 years for the illegal possession of fire arms.

According to petitioner, as of August 2, 2004, he already served a total of 18 years. He claims

that, on October 9, 2001, the Board of Pardons and Parole passed a resolution recommending
the commutation of his sentence to a period of from 15 to 20 years. He further points out that,
based on the Bureau of Corrections’ revised computation table for determining the time to be
credited prisoners for good conduct while serving sentence, he should only serve 14 years, 9
months and 18 days. Thus, this petition.

Is petitioner entitled to the writ of habeas corpus? No.

Writ of Habeas Corpus Will Not Issue If Detention Is By Virtue Of Valid Judgment

The writ of habeas corpus applies to all cases of illegal confinement, detention or deprivation
of liberty.9 It was devised as a speedy and effective remedy to relieve persons from unlawful
restraint.10 More specifically, it is a remedy to obtain immediate relief for those who may have
been illegally confined or imprisoned without sufficient cause and thus deliver them from
unlawful custody.11 It is therefore a writ of inquiry intended to test the circumstances under which
a person is detained.

The writ may not be availed of when the person in custody is under a judicial process or by virtue
of a valid judgment.13 However, the writ may be allowed as a post-conviction remedy when the
proceedings leading to the conviction were attended by any of the following exceptional
circumstances:

(1) there was a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person;

(2) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence or

(3) the imposed penalty was excessive, thus voiding the sentence as to such excess.

Sec. 4. When writ not allowed or discharge authorized. – If it appears that the person alleged to
be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge
or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had
jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ shall not be
allowed;
Petitioner was detained pursuant to a final judgment of the Quezon City RTC convicting him for
the crimes of carnapping and illegal possession of firearms. He is therefore not entitled to the
writ of habeas corpus.

Per the certification issued by the Bureau of Corrections,24 as of April 3, 2007, petitioner has
served a total of 18 years, 4 months and 26 days, inclusive of his good conduct time allowance
and preventive imprisonment. Thus, while he has already served the minimum penalty in the
carnapping case, he has not yet served the minimum penalty in the illegal possession of firearms
case. Consequently, petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Neither
is he eligible for parole because only prisoners who have served the minimum penalty imposed
on them may be released on parole on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the
Board of Pardons and Parole.
De Villa v The Dir. Of New Bilibid Prisons, GR 158802, 11-17-04

a.Is the remedy of habeas corpus proper in this case?

FACTS:

Reynaldo was convicted of rape for having sexual intercourse with her niece. The
incident resulted to the pregnancy of her niece. After 3 years, reynaldo’s son, ask the alleged
child of Reynaldo, and reynaldo’s grandson to spit in a sterile cup, which was subjected to DNA
testing. The result came and stated that Reynaldo is not the father of his niece’s child.

ISSUED:

Whether or not the DNA result is a valid basis for habeas corpus and new trial?

HELD:

No. The most criterion for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, is that the individual seeking
such relief be illegally deprived of his freedom of movement or placed under some form of
illegal restraint. If an individual’s liberty is restrained via some the legal process, the writ of habeas
corpus is unavailing. In the recent case of Feria v. CA, it was held that review of judgment of
conviction is allowed in a petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus only in a very
specific instances, such as when, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, (a) there has
been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person; (b) the court
had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or (c) an excessive penalty has been imposed, as
such sentence is void as to such excess. This court stated the general rule that the writ of habeas
corpus is not a writ of error, and should not be thus used.

A motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence may be granted only if the following
requisites are met: (a) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) that said evidence could
not have been discovered and produced at the trail even with the exercise of reasonable
diligence; (c) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (d)
that the evidence is of such weight that, if admitted, it would probably change the judgment.

Petitioner-relator’s claim that he was “unaware” of the existence of DNA testing until the trial
was concluded carries no weight with this court. Lack of knowledge of the existence of DNA
testing speaks of negligence, either on the part of petitioner, or on the part of petitioner’s
counsel. In either instance, however, this negligence is binding upon petitioner.
Dormido v Office of the Ombudsman, et al., GR 198241, 2-24-20

a. What is the difference between error of judgment and error of jurisdiction?

FACTS:
Involved in this case is Lot 823. Dormido and spouses manahan had brought their
respective disputing claims over Lot 823 before the Lands Management Bureau (LMB). At that
time, Adobo was the LMB's OIC- Director of Lands.

Adobo sought the opinion of De la Peña, then Undersecretary for Legal Affairs of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), on the matter. In response, De la
Peña issued a Memorandum stating that the Office of the DENR Undersecretary was not in a
position to question Adobo's factual conclusions as to the validity of Felicitas Manahan's claims
of ownership over Lot 823, that the government no longer retains ownership thereof, and that
the title to the said property supposedly held by Dormido's family, the Manotoks, was void ab
initio.

De la Peña also recommended in his Memorandum that it was ministerial upon the LMB
to issue a deed of conveyance in favor of the spouses Manahan.

On October 30, 2000, Adobo issued Deed of Conveyance No. V-2000229 conveying Lot
823 in favor of the spouses Manahan. On August 16, 2010, aggrieved by the issuance of the
Deed of Conveyance No. V-200022,

Dormido filed a Complaint before the Ombudsman charging the respondents with
conspiracy and violation of Section 3(e) in relation to Section 4(b) of RA 3019. She alleged that
respondents disregarded the basis of her claims on Lot 823, particularly the existence of the
Manotoks' titles thereto. She also posited that the validity of a Torrens title may only be
questioned in a direct proceeding before the trial courts.

HELD:

Any error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of judgment that cannot
be remedied by certiorari. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the
exercise of its jurisdiction.

An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, which is tantamount to lack or in excess
of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.

Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors of the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of
the parties, or its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its conclusions of law. It is not
for this Court to re-examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of the witnesses or
substitute the findings of fact of the court a quo.
PP v Segrio & Lacanilao, GR 240053, 3-21-22

Mary Jane, Cristina and Julius were friends and neighbors. Cristina and Julius offered mary jane
a job Malaysia. In order to pay the required placement fee, Mary Jane scraped every money
she have, her husband sold their motorcycle, and borrowed money from their relatives.

Mary jane, together with Cristina left for Malaysia. In Malaysia, mary jane was informed
that the was no longer available. Mary Jane was sent to Indonesia for a seven day holiday.
Cristina gave her a plane ticket and a luggage.

Upon mary jane’s arrival at the Indonesia Airport, she was apprehended by police offices
for allegedly carrying 2.6 kg heroin inside her luggage. She was charged with drug trafficking
before the court in Indonesia.

Mary jane seek help from her family in the Philippines. Her family confronted Cristina, but
instead of helping them, the latter threatened the family not to expose the issue to the media,
and that she was part of an international drug syndicate who would spend millions to get mary
jane out of prison.

However, the District court of Indonesia convicted mary jane and 8 other felons of drug
trafficking and sentenced her to death by firing squad.

The 8 other felons were executed except for mary jane.

The president of Indonesia granted her an indefinite reprieve. Request ng court para makapag
testify si mary jane against cristina and Julius and ike.

Main issue proper ban a gamitin rule 23 ng rules on civil procedure and tama ba yung
suggestion ni court na trhough written statements lang communication nila. May deprivation
ba ng rights to crossexamin thhe witness.

Sabi ni court. Tama si rtc. Hindi violated yung right ng mga accused kasi ma crocross naman
nila si mary jane. Sa sulat nga lang. given the circumstances na meron.

Immutability of Judgments
It is a well-established rule that a judgment, once it has attained finality, can never be altered,
amended, or modified, even if the alteration, amendment or modification is to correct an
erroneous of judgment.
PP v Alejandro, GR 223099, 1-11-18
Alejandro was charged with two counts of rape. For inserting his penis into AAA’s vagina on
two separate occasions.

Alejandro manifested in open court that he would no longer present any evidence for the
defense and submitted the case for decision.

Rtc acquitted alejandro. On that same day, however, the rtc recalled the decision and issued
an order stating that:

there were Orders that were inadvertently placed in the record of Criminal Case No. Br. 20-4979
involving the same accused but different private complainant-victim, XXX, which if considered
will result in a different verdict. The Order dated September 24, 2007, showed that private
complainant-victim, AAA, in the above[-]quoted cases, Crim. Case No. Br-20-6096 & 6097, has
actually testified in Court. WHEREFORE, to rectify the error committed and in order to prevent
the miscarriage of justice, the Decision promulgated today acquitting the accused is hereby
RECALLED and SET ASIDE.

Accused-appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration10 arguing that a judgment of acquittal is

immediately final and executory and can neither be withdrawn nor modified, because to do
so would place an accused-appellant in double jeopardy.

Dineny ni rtc kasi faw yung decision nila ng acquittal is para sa criminal case ni XXX pero si
alejandro pa din yung accused and rape din yung kaso.

Nag issue ng bagong ruling rtc convicting him guilty sa two counts of rape.

Main issue:
Was the decision of acquittal ng rtc is final and executory?

Held:

finality-of-acquittal doctrine, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable.

All the elements of the first jeopardy are present nung na acquit si accused appellant.
haowever
May exceptions ang double jeopardy. Kapag ay grave abuse of discretion and may
deprivation of due process.

Sa case na to walang deprivation of due process. The prosecution was able to present their
case ad witness.

A mere manifestation also will not suffice in assailing a judgment of acquittal. A petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules should have been filed. A judgment of acquittal may
only be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules. If the petition, regardless of
its nomenclature, merely calls for an ordinary review of the findings of the court a quo, the
constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy would be violated.

In this case, the acquittal was not even questioned on the basis of grave abuse of discretion. It
was only through a supposed mere manifestation of the prosecutor, a copy of which was not in
the records, that the RTC was apprised of the supposed mistake it committed.
Accused appellant was acquitted.
Chua v PP, GR 196853, 7-13-15

Robert Chua and Philip See were long time-friends. However, See charged Chua with 54 counts
of violation of BP 22 for the issuance of checks which were dishonored for either drawn against
insufficient funds or closed account.

During the course of the trial, the prosecution offered as its evidence a demand letter dated
December 10, 1993, which Chua objected its admissibility on the grounds that it is a mere
photocopy and it does not bear any proof that he received it.

Chua filed a Motion to Submit Demurrer to Evidence, which the MeTC failed to act because the
judge vacated his port.

Several years later, the prosecution filed a Motion to Re-Open Presentation of Prosecution’s
Evidence and Motion to Allow Prosecution to Submit Additional Formal Offer of Evidence.

It averred that while See was still trying to locate a demand letter dated November 30, 1993
(which it alleged to have been personally served upon Chua), the prosecution nevertheless
decided to rest its case on February 24, 1999 so as not to further delay the proceedings.
However, sometime in February 2002, See decided to have his house rented out such that he
emptied it with all his belongings and had it cleaned. It was during this time that he found the
demand letter dated November 30, 1993.

Chua objected to the same claiming that he papers on which the demand letter dated
November 30, 1993 are written were given to him as blank papers. He affixed his signature
thereon purportedly to give See the authority to retrieve a car which was supposed to serve as
payment for Chua’s obligation to See.

The MeTC, convicted Chua guilty of violation of BP 22, which the RTC and CA affirmed.

Si See, kinsuhan si Chua ng BP 22 for the 54 bum checks.

Nung una, ang prinesent na evidence is a demand letter dated December 10, 1993.
Nag-object si Chua kasi photocopy lang yung nasubmit and it does not bear his signature and
proof na he received it.

After several years, See filed a motion to offer in evidence yung demand letter dated November
30, 1993. Kakahanp niya lang daw after malinis nung bahay or office niya kasi ipaparent niya.
Chua again objected on this kasi yung paper kung saan nakasulat yung demand letter ng
November 30, 1993, blank paper yung nung pinapirma sa kaniya para daw purportedly to give
See the authority to retrieve a car which was supposed to serve as payment for Chua’s
obligation to See.

MeTC, convicted him for BP 22. Affirmed by RTC and CA

Si Chua, again objected kasi hindi naman daw na prove na nareceive niya yung demand letter
kasi walang signature proving na he did. And hindi pwedeng sabihin na new evidence yung
Nov. 30 a demand letter.

Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred when it upheld na Chua had knowledge that the checks were
dishonored or insufficient dahil lang sa demand letter ng nov. 30. And if it can be said na it is a
newly discovered evidence.

HELD:
No. Chua was acquitted for the following reasons.

Hindi na satisfy yung 2nd requisite ng BP 22, which is the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or
issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment;

Hindi daw pwedeng iconsider na yung date when the demand letter was send is yun yung date
kung kelan nareceived ni Chua yung demand letter. The receipt of the demand letter should
be proven.

Hindi din siya newly discovery due to lack of due diligence. Dapat una pa lang hinanap na ni
See yung demand letter knowing na nasa bahay lang.

QUESTION OF LAW when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of
facts or circumstances;

QUESTION OF FACT when the issue raised on appeal pertains to the truth or falsity of the alleged
facts.

whether the reviewing court can resolve the issues raised without evaluating the evidence, in
which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is one of fact. In other words, where there is no
dispute as to the facts, the question of whether or not the conclusions drawn from these facts
are correct is a question of law. However, if the question posed requires a re-evaluation of the
credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their
relationship to each other, the issue is factual."
PP v Valdez, GR 175602, 2-12-13

P02 Eduardo Valdez and Edwin Valdez were both charged with 3 counts of murder by the RTC
and CA.

The two accused filed a final appeal with the Supreme Court. However, Edwin Valdez filed a
motion to withdraw appeal, which the Court granted thereby deeming Edwin’s appeal closed
and terminated.

The Court promulgated its judgment on the appeal of PO2 Eduardo Valdez, finding him guilty
of three counts of homicide, instead of three counts of murder, and his sentenced was reduced.

Subsequently, Edwin Valdez sent to the Court Administrator a selfexplanatory letter where he
pleaded for the application to him of the judgment promulgated on January 18, 2012 on the
ground that the judgment would be beneficial to him as an accused.

His decided to withdraw his appeal because he lose hope.

HELD:

The Court granted the appeal because he should benefit from Section 11 (a) , Rule 122 of the
Rules of Court. "(a) An Appeal taken by the 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: x x x"

The court held that there was conspiracy and that it is right to afford Edwin the same judgement
that Eduardo received even if he withdraw his appeal.

YES. THE PENALTY IMPOSED UPON THE ACCUSED CAN BE REDUCED.

What is controlling in the information is not the title but the description of the crime charged and
the particular facts stated therein.
PP v Laguio, Jr., GR 128587, 3-16-07

SPO2 Vergel de Dios, Anoble and Rellano were arrested for unlawful possession of shabu. An
entrapment operation ensured to arrest the persons whom they got the prohibited drug. They
arrested Teck and Junio.

They said that they are working for Wang. They disclosed that they knew of a scheduled delivery
of shabu and that Wang could be found at an apartment in Malate, Manila. The police
operatives decided to look for Wang to shed light on the illegal drug activities and placed the
same under surveillance.

The witness testified that around 2 am of May 17, Wang who was described by Teck and Junio,
came out of the apartment and walked towards a parked BMW car.

On nearing the car, the police officers approached Wang and introduced themselves to him
as police officers, ask for his name, and upon hearing Lawrance Wang, they immediately frisked
him and asked him to open the back compartment of the BMW car. They confiscated from him
an unlicensed loaded firearm, shabu, scales and cash. Wang resisted the warrantless arrest and
search.

Wang was charged for violating the dangerous drugs act, illegal possession of firearms and
comelec gun ban.

Wang filed his undated Demurrer to Evidence and prayed for his acquittal and dismissal of the
case for lack of valid arrest and search warrants and the inadmissibility of the evidence against
him. The prosecution opposed alleging that the warrantless search was legal as an incident to
the lawful arrest.

Judge Laguio acquitted Wang for all charges for lack of evidence.

ISSUES:

The case presents two main issues:

(a) whether the prosecution may appeal the trial court’s resolution granting Wang’s demurrer to
evidence and acquitting him of all the charges against him without violating the constitutional
proscription against double jeopardy; and

(b) whether there was lawful arrest, search and seizure by the police operatives in this case
despite the absence of a warrant of arrest and/or a search warrant.

HELD:

An order granting an accused’s demurrer to evidence is a resolution of the case on the merits,
and it amounts to an acquittal. Generally, any further prosecution of the accused after an
acquittal would violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy. To this general rule,
however, the Court has previously made some exceptions.

Galman v. Sandiganbayan – when the prosecution is denied due process of law.

In this case, there was no double jeopardy because the first jeopardy was not terminated and
the remand of the criminal case for further hearing and/or trial before the lower courts amounts
merely to a continuation of the first jeopardy, and does not expose the accused to a second
jeopardy.

Another exception is when the trial court commits grave abuse of discretion in dismissing a
criminal case by granting the accused’s demurrer to evidence.

The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable.

The same rule applies in criminal cases where a demurrer to evidence is granted.

Under Rule 119, Section 23 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, the trial
court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence upon a demurrer to
evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court. In resolving accused’s demurrer
to evidence, the court is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient
evidence to sustain the indictment or support a verdict of guilt.

The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and
its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse of discretion.
Significantly, once the court grants the demurrer, such order amounts to an acquittal and any
further prosecution of the accused would violate the constitutional proscription on double
jeopardy. This constitutes an exception to the rule that the dismissal of a criminal case made
with the express consent of the accused or upon his own motion bars a plea of double jeopardy.

Given the far-reaching scope of an accused’s right against double jeopardy, even an appeal
based on an alleged misappreciation of evidence will not lie. The only instance when double
jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to
present its case or where the trial was a sham. However, while certiorari may be availed of to
correct an erroneous acquittal, the petitioner in such an extraordinary proceeding must clearly
demonstrate that the trial court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive
it of its very power to dispense justice.

By this time, it is settled that the appellate court may review dismissal orders of trial courts
granting an accused’s demurrer to evidence. This may be done via the special civil action of
certiorari under Rule 65 based on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction. Such dismissal order, being considered void judgment, does not result in
jeopardy. Thus, when the order of dismissal is annulled or set aside by an appellate court in an
original special civil action via certiorari, the right of the accused against double jeopardy is not
violated.

Unfortunately, what petitioner People of the Philippines, filed with the Court in the present case
is an appeal by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 raising a pure question
of law, which is different from a petition for certiorari under Rule 65

Appeal and Certiorari Distinguished

As to the Purpose. Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not
errors of judgment.

The supervisory jurisdiction of a court over the issuance of a writ of certiorari cannot be exercised
for the purpose of reviewing the intrinsic correctness of a judgment of the lower court -- on the
basis either of the law or the facts of the case, or of the wisdom or legal soundness of the
decision. Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case,
such correction is normally beyond the province of certiorari.

Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but of an error of law or fact -- a mistake of judgment -
- appeal is the remedy.

As to the Manner of Filing. Over an appeal, the CA exercises its appellate jurisdiction and power
of review. Over a certiorari, the higher court uses its original jurisdiction in accordance with its
power of control and supervision over the proceedings of lower courts.

An appeal is thus a continuation of the original suit, while a petition for certiorari is an original
and independent action that was not part of the trial that had resulted in the rendition of the
judgment or order complained of.

The parties to an appeal are the original parties to the action. In contrast, the parties to a petition
for certiorari are the aggrieved party (who thereby becomes the petitioner) against the lower
court or quasi-judicial agency, and the prevailing parties (the public and the private
respondents, respectively).

As to the Subject Matter. Only judgments or final orders and those that the Rules of Court so
declared are appealable. Since the issue is jurisdiction, an original action for certiorari may be
directed against an interlocutory order of the lower court prior to an appeal from the judgment;
or where there is no appeal or any plain, speedy or adequate remedy.

As to the Period of Filing. Ordinary appeals should be filed within fifteen days from the notice of
judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant
must file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty days from the said notice of
judgment or final order.

A petition for review should be filed and served within fifteen days from the notice of denial of
the decision, or of the petitioner’s timely filed motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration.
In an appeal by certiorari, the petition should be filed also within fifteen days from the notice of
judgment or final order, or of the denial of the petitioner’s motion for new trial or motion for
reconsideration.

On the other hand, a petition for certiorari should be filed not later than sixty days from the
notice of judgment, order, or resolution. If a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration
was timely filed, the period shall be counted from the denial of the motion.

As to the Need for a Motion for Reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration is generally
required prior to the filing of a petition for certiorari, in order to afford the tribunal an opportunity
to correct the alleged errors. Note also that this motion is a plain and adequate remedy
expressly available under the law. Such motion is not required before appealing a judgment or
final order.
In the dismissal of a criminal case upon demurrer to evidence, appeal is not available as such
an appeal will put the accused in double jeopardy. Certiorari, however, is allowed.

For being the wrong remedy taken by petitioner People of the Philippines in this case, this petition
is outrightly dismissible. The Court cannot reverse the assailed dismissal order of the trial court
by appeal without violating private respondent’s right against double jeopardy.

INVALID ARREST AND SEARCH AND SEIZURE

The accused was merely walking from the Maria Orosa Apartment and was about to enter the
parked BMW car when the police officers arrested and frisked him and searched his car. The
accused was not committing any visible offense at the time of his arrest. Neither was there an
indication that he was about to commit a crime or that he had just committed an offense. The
unlicensed AMT Cal.380 9mm Automatic Back-up Pistol that the accused had in his possession
was concealed inside the right front pocket of his pants. And the handgun was bantam and
slim in size that it would not give an outward indication of a concealed gun if placed inside the
pant's side pocket as was done by the accused. The arresting officers had no information and
knowledge that the accused was carrying an unlicensed handgun, nor did they see him in
possession thereof immediately prior to his arrest.

Clearly therefore, the warrantless arrest of the accused and the search of his person and the
car were without probable cause and could not be licit. The arrest of the accused did not fall
under any of the exception to the requirements of warrantless arrests, (Sec. 5, Rule 113, Rules of
Court) and is therefore, unlawful and derogatory of his constitutional right of liberty.

The trial court resolved the case on the basis of its findings that the arrest preceded the search,
and finding no basis to rule in favor of a lawful arrest, it ruled that the incidental search is likewise
unlawful. Any and all pieces of evidence acquired as a consequence thereof are inadmissible
in evidence. Thus, the trial court dismissed the case for lack of evidence.

TAMA YUNG DECISION NI JUDGE LAGUIO.

Yap v PP, GR 2344217, 11-14-18

Yap was charged with attempted murder for by forcing George Hao Ang, to drink coffee laced
with benzodiazipines, a sleep-inducing psychoactive drug, which immediately made the latter
fall asleep, and while he was sleeping, the said accused repeatedly hit the said George Hao
Ang on the head with a rolling pin that caused profuse bleeding.

Yap pleaded not guilty. He invoke self-defense.

Sabi I Yap, magkikkita sila ni Ang sa KFC to meet the girls. Since umaambon, sabi ni Yap sa kotse
muna sila ni Ang. While waiting sa mga girls, sabi ni Yap, yung imemeet nila is yung dati na nilang
nameet. Sabi ni Ang, ayaw niya sa nakapartner niya na babae. Nagkaroon sila ng pagtatalo
and nagkapaluan sila nung rolling pin. They managed to get out of the car and ran towards
opposite directions.

Sabi ni Ang, kaya sila magkikita ni Yap kasi may ipapakilala na former businessman. Dumating
si Yap na may dalang 2 kape. Sabi ni ang sa KFC sila mag antay pero Yap insisted na sa kotse
nalang ni Ang. Pinilit ni Yap na inumin ni Ang yung kape kasi daw mahal. Afterwards Ang felt
groggy and lost consciousness. Nung magkamalay siya, pinapalo na siya ni Yap ng rolling pin.
He manage to get out of the car and asked for help kaya siya nadala sa ospital.

Yap was guilty as charged sabi ng RTC.

CA affirmed RTC’s judgement.

The CA held that by invoking self-defense during pre-trial, Yap has admitted performing the
criminal act and it is incumbent upon him to prove the presence of any claimed justifying
circumstance. The CA, however, ruled that the defense failed to establish the essential element
of unlawful aggression on the part of Ang; that the RTC correctly found that the severity and
location of the injuries sustained by Ang are indicative of a serious intent to inflict harm upon
him and not merely accidentally inflicted as Yap claims. The CA also gave credence to the
findings of the RTC of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA correctly upheld the conviction of herein petitioner for attempted
murder.

HELD:

It is a well-settled rule that the client is bound by the counsel's conduct, negligence, and
mistakes in handling the case; and the client cannot be heard to complain that the result might
have been different had his lawyer proceeded differently.

An exception to this rule is consistently enunciated in a number of cases,

when the negligence of counsel had been so egregious that it prejudiced his client's interest
and denied him his day in court.
In the instant case, the general rule applies and the above exception finds no application
because petitioner failed to prove that his previous counsel's act of invoking self-defense, on
petitioner's behalf, is tantamount to gross negligence as to deprive petitioner of his right to due
process.

that records would show that petitioner was ably represented by his former counsel during trial
and was not denied due process, as shown by the following:

first, petitioner and his wife were able to take the witness stand where they themselves were
personally able to present their case to the court during direct examination;

second, during cross-examination, petitioner was able to knowingly and intelligently answer the
questions propounded to him by the prosecutor and the trial judge; and

third, when the prosecution presented its case, petitioner, through his former counsel, was able
to examine the witnesses and the evidence presented.

In the present case, the Court finds no error in the OSG 's argument that there is nothing on
record which would show that petitioner's former counsel handled his defense in an
incompetent manner nor did he evade his duties as such. On the contrary, petitioner, through
his previous counsel, was able to participate actively in the proceedings before the trial court.

May negligence din sa part ni petitioner kasi nung naghanap siya ng bagong counsel, hindi nila
niraise sa CA yung negligence ng dati niyang counsel.

Failing in this regard, petitioner should suffer whatever adverse judgment is rendered against
him.

Tama yung decision ng RTC and CA. Hindi pwede i-invoke ang self defense kasi walang lawful
aggression from Ang. The RTC observed na Yap never mentioned during police investigation
that he acted in self defense.

May error lang sa judgement ng attempted murder. Slight physical injuries lang yung nakaso
kay Yap. Kasi intent to kill was not clear. There was no evidence showing that Yap carried with
him any deadly weapon kasi the rolling pin that was used to hit Ang was already inside the car.
Then sabi sa med cert, yung injury ni Ang is caused by a single blow to the forehead. Location
and nature of the wound were not serious nor severe. Walang head trauma or fracture sa ulo
ni ang. In fact Ang was treated within 2 hours and was immediately sent home. Ang’s life and
limb were never in actual peril.

Sabi ni Court. Kahit may intet to harm Ang, hindi pwedeng iclaim na may intent to kill. Kahit may
intent to kill but the wounds inflicted are lacking, hindi pwedeng iclaim na attempted murder.
Physical injuries lang.
Wala ding evidence na unconscious si Ang when Yap began to attack him. Uncontested na
conscious si ang nung dinala sa hospital and did walang manifestation of being intoxicated or
drugged. It contradicted the evidence of the prosec na may nakitang sleep inducing drug sa
urine ni ang which is 5x more than the dosage. It should last up to 5 hours. So the court negates
the theory that ang was totally defenseless kaya walang treachery.

At this point, it bears to reiterate the settled rule that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the
entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though
unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on
grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court
full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the
judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.
Deepak Kumar v. People, G.R. No 247661, June 15, 2020

The remedy facilitated by Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is appeal by certiorari. For any petition
for review on certiorari to prosper and warrant attention by this Court, it must satisfy the basic
procedural requisites imposed by Rule 45.

Among others, it must not only raise pure questions of law but also questions of such substance
as to be of distinctly significant consequence and value.

A Rule 45 petition that fails to readily demonstrate "special and important reasons[,]" as required
by Rule 45, Section 6, may be denied due course, and disposed without further action by this
Court.

Facts:

This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 praying for the CA to reverse and
set aside its decision denying Kumar’s petition for certiorari under rule 65 and found no grave
abuse of discretion on the RTC for in declining Kumar’s Notice of Appeal because what he
sought to appeal had lapsed into finality.

Kumar was found guilty for charges of violating RA 9262 or the Anti-VAWC.

RTC found him guilty. Despite notice, kumar was absent during the promulgation of judgement.
A copy of the decision was received by Kumar’s counsel. There was no motion, pleading or
other submission filed before the RTC. The decision lapsed into finality. Entry of judgement was
made. Kumar’s counsel of record was served notice of such entry.

A year and a half later, a law firm filed before the RTC an Entry of Appearance with Notice to
Appeal. The RTC denied it. Kumar filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA.

CA denied said motion kasi walang grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC on denying
the appeal.

ISSUE:

whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of Regional Trial Court Judge Philip A. Aguinaldo in
refusing to entertain petitioner Deepak Kumar's Notice of Appeal.

HELD:

This Court dispenses with the filing of a Comment by respondent and outright denies due course
to the present Petition. It fails to present any consideration of such character as those identified
in Rule 45, Section 6 of the Rules of Court and as would warrant the exercise of this Court's power
of judicial review.

Petitioner comes to this Court by way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court. Other than appeals brought to this Court concerning "criminal cases where the
penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment[,]"13 a Petition for Review on
Certiorari is the sole procedural vehicle through which appeals may be taken to this Court.

Failing in these, this Court is at liberty to deny outright or deny due course to a Rule 45 Petition.
Any such denial may be done without the need of any further action, such as the filing of
responsive pleadings or submission of documents, the elevation of records, or the conduct of
oral arguments.

Furthermore, this Court's denial may come in the form of a minute resolution which does not go
into the merits of the case, and instead merely states which among the eight (8) standards it is
based. A denial by minute resolution does not violate the constitutional imperative that judicial
decisions "[express]. . . clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which [they are] based."

This is because any such minute resolution is not a judgment on a case, but is a declaration that
a Rule 45 petition is insufficient in form and substance.

Hence, it is that petition's manifest inadequacies that prevent it from proceeding any further, not
the ultimate quality of its factual and legal assertions.

Rule 45, Section 6 expounds on the eighth standard. Thus, to say that the questions raised in a
Rule 45 Petition must be of such substance as to warrant consideration is to say that judicial
review shall proceed "only when there are special and important reasons." The use of the
conjunctive "and" vis-à-vis the adjectives "special" and "important" means that the reasons
invoked for review must be of distinctly significant consequence and value. Rule 45, Section 6
(a) and (b) illustrate the gravity of reasons which would move this Court to act:

(a) When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by
the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the
applicable decisions of the Supreme Court; or

(b) When the court a quo has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial
proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of
the power of supervision. (Emphasis in the original)

This Court may decline to review cases when all that are involved are settled rules for which
nothing remains but their application. Also, when there is no manifest or demonstrable departure
from legal provisions and/or jurisprudence. So too, when the court whose ruling is assailed has
not been shown to have so wantonly deviated
Rule 45 petition must initially demonstrate itself to be compliant with the eight (8) standards
previously discussed. Among others, it must raise questions of substance

From Rule 45's provisions will be gleaned basic procedural standards which a petitioner must
satisfy if one's Rule 45 Petition is to be entertained:

(1) that the petition does not only exclusively raise questions of law, but also that it
distinctly sets forth those legal issues;

(2) that it be filed within 15 days of notice of the adverse ruling that impels it;

(3) that docket and other lawful fees are paid;

(4) that proper service is made;

(5) that all matters that Section 4 specifies are indicated, stated, or otherwise contained
in it;

(6) that it is manifestly meritorious;

(7) that it is not prosecuted manifestly for delay; and

(8) that that the questions raised in it are of such substance as to warrant consideration.

This Court finds the present Petition to be so utterly devoid of merit and so woefully failing to
present questions of substance.

This Petition merits outright denial through a mere minute resolution.

The only consideration that justified the issuance of this full Decision is how the fact of the Petition
being so utterly devoid of merit makes it an opportune illustrative case to discuss the standards
for when Rule 45 petitions ought to be denied due course.

It is basic that appeal is not a matter of right.

Parties wishing to appeal must comply with the rules, otherwise they lose their opportunity to
appeal:

[T]he right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege,
and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.
The party who seeks to avail of the remedy of appeal must comply with the requirements of the
rules; otherwise, the appeal is lost. Rules of procedure are required to be followed, except only
when, for the most persuasive of reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve the litigant of an
injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the
procedure prescribed.

It was therefore incumbent on petitioner, and on those representing him, to timely act on the
adverse judgment that he later sought to appeal. Failure to do so meant the adverse judgment's
lapsing into finality as a matter of course. Such is the case here when, following proper service
upon petitioner's counsel of record on August 23, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court's August 18,
2016 Joint Decision, that Decision lapsed into finality. Accordingly, entry of judgment was made.
Notice of such entry was further served on petitioner's counsel of record on September 8, 2016.

The finality of the Regional Trial Court's Decision means that it can no longer be disturbed:

[A] decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. As such, it may no
longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the
highest court of the land.

From these, it is clear that Judge Aguinaldo merely acted in keeping with settled principles in
declining to entertain the Notice of Appeal filed by petitioner through another counsel a year
and a half after entry of judgment was made. This is not at all grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals, thus, did not err in dismissing petitioner's Rule 65 Petition.

Petitioner would insist on a more basic error: that the Regional Trial Court erred in promulgating
its Joint Decision in his absence.

He would claim that service of prior and subsequent notices on his counsel of record was
ineffectual as this counsel had already withdrawn.

However, as noted by both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, the records show
no indication of any such withdrawal. This claim of withdrawal remains to be nothing more than
an unsubstantiated, self-serving allegation.

Denied.
APRIL 24, 2023

Section 17, Rule 119 – Discharge of an Accused to be A State Witness

Whenever there is a question for an accused to be a state witness, check what would apply
would be Section 17, Rule 119 or Section 10 of RA 6981

MEMORIZE REQUISITES UNDER SECTION 17 RULE 119 AND Section 10 RA 6981 – on matters to be
proven in court to satisfy the judge that the accused should be discharged as a State witness
for the People.

Rule 119

Section 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 the prosecution before resting its
case, the court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so
that they may be witnesses for the state when, after requiring the prosecution to present
evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of
the discharge, the court is satisfied that:

(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is
requested;

(b) The is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense
committed, except the testimony of said accused;

(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;

(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and

(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral
turpitude.

Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. If the
court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, his sworn statement shall
be inadmissible in evidence. (9a)

RA 6981

Section 10. State Witness. - Any person who has participated in the commission of a crime and
desires to be a witness for the State, can apply and, if qualified as determined in this Act and
by the Department, shall be admitted into the Program whenever the following circumstances
are present:

(a) the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined under the
Revised Penal Code or its equivalent under special laws;

(b) there is absolute necessity for his testimony;

 (c) there is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense
committed:

(d) his testimony can be substantially corroborated on its material points;

(e) he does not appear to be most guilty; and

(f) he has not at any time been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude.

An accused discharged from an information or criminal complaint by the court in order that
he may be a State Witness pursuant to Section 9 and 10 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of
Court may upon his petition be admitted to the Program if he complies with the other
requirements of this Act. Nothing in this Act shall prevent the discharge of an accused, so that
he can be used as a State Witness under Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Under Section 17, check if :

 Two or more people who are jointly charged in the commission of an offense
 The prosecution filed a motion to discharged one or two or more of the accused before
it rest its case
 Prosecution must present evidence in the sworn statement of each of the proposed state
witness at a hearing in support of the discharge.
 There must be a hearing wherein the intended accused to be discharged will be
presented as witness.
 The accused must give consent to be discharged as a state witness

When the accused gives consent to be a state witness:

 There are instances where initially the accused may want to become a state witness,
and testify against his co-accused with the intention of being acquitted from the
commission of the offense while the rest of the accused will be convicted of the offense.
 The effect of being discharged as an accused to become a state witness is that it would
amount to an acquittal provided that he would testify in accordance with his sworn
statement against his co-accused.

Q: What if the accused decided to change his mind and decided that he would not want to
testify against is co-accused?

A: His sworn statement will be disregarded by the court and it will not be used against him or to
any of his co-accused.

- He will not be discharged as a state witness, but he will be continue to be as accused

and be tried accordingly.
 The problem in the discharged of an accused to be a state witness is the prosecutor is
already desperate that he has no evidence to convict the accused for the offense.
 The only option of the prosecutor is to discharge one or two of the accused instead of
freeing them all as a result of their acquittal.
  Whether an accused would want to testify against his co-accused or not, would depend
upon this particular accused.

Rule 119 Section 17:

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

- There is absolute necessity if that accused alone has knowledge of the commission of
the crime.

- If the testimony of the accused would simply corroborate or strengthen the prosecutions
evidence, that accused should not be discharged.

- dapat may absolute necessity. Dapat he and he’s co-accused has the sole knowledge
as to how the crime was committed.

(b) The is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense
committed, except the testimony of said accused;

- In crimes committed by syndicates, the same is committed in secrecy. Only the persons
involved has knowledge as to how the crime was committed

- In order that certain facts to come out on how the crime was committed, there is a
necessity for one of the accused to be discharge, so that it would be him that would
reveal how the crime was committed and what are the participation of each of the
accused.

NO OTHER DIRECT EVIDENCE EXCEPT FOR THAT CONFESSION OF THAT PARTICULAR

ACCUSED.

(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;

- It is not enough for the accused to be discharged to point to his co accused as the
persons who committed the offense
- There should be object evidence or other circumstantial evidence which could show
that this other accused have participation in the commission of the offense.
- Take note: in the case of Jimenez vs Pp., the petitioner, Manuel Jimenez was questioning
was this Montero is being discharged when his testimony cannot be substantially
corroborated in all its material points. There are inconsistencies or discrepancies in the
sworn statements, in the narration of Montero as to how the crime was committed
compared to some evidence some evidence that were shown by the accused during
the hearing of the discharged.
- IN the testimony of Montero, he did not mentioned that a packaging tape was wrapped
around the neck and head of the victim. He stated that Ruby Rose was killed by a
 strangulation by a lubid. But the death certificate allegedly show that the victim died of
suffocation and not by strangulation.
- May discrepancy din sa height of the victim and the dental reports than that of the
recovered evidence.
- SC HELD: the alleged discrepancies can be dealt with during the trial of the case. The
rule provides that the testimony of the accused can be corroborated in its material
points. It did not say na it should be corroborated in ALL material points.
- Otherwise, there is no need for a trial anymore considering that all the statements of the
accused to be discharged could be corroborated in all its material points.

(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty

- Remember not appear to be the most guilty hindi the least guilty.

Q: How to know if the accused intended to be discharged is not the most guilty?

A: SC held: Take into account the degree of participation of the accused in the commission of
the crime.

- In the case of Jimenez, it was found that in so far as Montero is concerned, the
participation of Montero was limited to providing the steel box where the drum
containing the victims body was placed; welding the steel box to seal the cadaver inside.
Operating the tugboat and dropping the steal box containing the cadaver into the sea.
- He has no actual participation in the planning and killing of Ruby Rose.
- He does not appear to be the most guilty among all the accused.

(f) he has not at any time been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude.

- Kapag naconvict na nag Estafa, it is a crime involving moral turpitude.

Q: In the case of Jimenez, one of the issues raised was: Is an actual hearing required? Kasi one
of the requisites sa Section 17, there must be a hearing which will be conducted where the
prosecution would present its evidence and the sworn statement of the proposed state witness
in support of the discharged.

A: In this case, the SC held that an actual hearing is not required provided that both parties
have presented their sides on the merits of the motion.

The objective of the law in requiring a hearing is to receive an evidence for or against the
discharged which will be used by the court as a basis in granting or denying the motion to
discharged.

EVEN if no actual hearing was conducted, for as long as the parties were given an opportunity
to present their respective sides on the motion to discharged, then that would already suffice.
Q: Can the court be considered his contribution to the commission of the crime as principal by
cooperation?

A: He cooperated. Yes. All of them could be considered as principal, by inducement, by direct

participation, but even if they all qualify as principal, one of them may still be considered as not
the most guilty. Although, if there is conspiracy, then all of them will be meted with the same
penalty. But for the purpose of determining whether this particular accused would qualify to be
discharged as a state witness, what the court will consider would be his degree of participation
in the commission of an offense vis-à-vis the participation of the other accused.

IN that case, SC held that by jurisprudence, most guilty refers to the highest degree of culpability
in terms of participation in the commission of the offense and does not necessarily means the
severity of the penalty imposed. While all the accused may be given the same penalty by
reason of conspiracy, yet one may be considered to have lesser or the least guilt, taking into
account is degree of participation in the commission of the offense. What the rule avoids is the
possibility that the most guilty would be set free while his co-accused who are less guilty in terms
of participation would be penalized.

For the purpose of determining whether the accused will be discharge or not, do not focused
on the fact the he is a co-conspirator who should be meted the same penalty as the rest of the
accused.

FOR PURPOSES OF DISCHARGED: Consider the degree of participation in the commission of the
crime.

Effect of Discharge of accused as state witness – it operates as an acquittal.

- The order indicated in the preceding section shall amount to an acquittal of the
discharged accused and shall be a bar to future prosecution for the same offense.
-
- EXCEPTION: If the accused fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance
with his sworn statement constituting the basis for the discharge
-
- IF MOTION TO DISCHARGE is DENIED: Accused judicial admission will be set aside.
- After hearing, the court was not satisfied that the particular accused should be
discharge, the sworn statement would be set aside and he will be tried just like his
other co-accused.
Q: What will happen if there is an error in the discharged of the accused?

The accused was already discharged, which amounts to an acquittal. After his acquittal, it
was found out that the particular accused was previously convicted of an offense involving
moral turpitude, so he failed to comply with one of the requisites for an accused to qualify
as a state witness. Will his discharged, as accused be set aside and be included again in the
information as one of the accused

A: NO.

SC held that - Any future development showing that any or all of the requisites provided in
section 17, Rule 119, have not actually been fulfilled, will not affect the legal consequence
of an acquittal.

Any witting or unwitting error of the prosecution in moving for the discharge, and of the court
in granting the motion, no question of jurisdiction being involved, will not deprived the
discharge of an accused of the benefit of an acquittal and his right against double
jeopardy.

Any contrary rule would be unfair to the discharge of the accused because he will then be
faulted for a failure attributable to the prosecutor.

The only instance when the accused will be included again as an accused is if he fails or
refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance with his sworn statement which was
used as a basis for his discharged. This does not amount to double jeopardy.

If nagkamali si prosecutor, tapos siya pala talaga yung most guilty, In Monge vs Pp, sabi ng
SC, an order discharging an accused from the information in order that he may testify for
the prosecution has an effect of an acquittal.
TWO MODE OF DISCHARGE:

1. Under Section 17 Rule 119

2. Under Section 10 RA 6981

All requisites are the same except under Section 10(a) RA 69821

1. Discharge as state witness under RA 6981 – is distinct and separate from the discharge on an
accused under SEC 17 R-119

State Witness. - Any person who has participated in the commission of a crime and desires
to be a witness for the State, can apply and, if qualified as determined in this Act and by
the Department, shall be admitted into the Program whenever the following
circumstances are present:

(a) the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined
under the Revised Penal Code or its equivalent under special laws;

(b) there is absolute necessity for his testimony;

(c) there is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the
offense committed:

(d) his testimony can be substantially corroborated on its material points;

(e) he does not appear to be most guilty; and (f) he has not at any time been
convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. ( SEC 10)

2. Discharge of an accused to be a state witness under SEC 17 R-119

Discharge under RA 6981 Discharge under Section 17, Rule 119

The immunity provided under Republic Act The immunity is granted by the court.
No. 6981 is granted by the DOJ
Accused has not yet been arraigned. An It contemplates a situation where the
amendment of the information made before information has been filed and the accused
plea which excludes some or one of the had been arraigned and the case is
accused must be made only upon motion by undergoing trial.
the prosecutor, with notice to the offended
party and with leave of court in compliance - information has been filed and the
with Section 14, Rule 110 accused had been arraigned, the
prosecution has already presented its
- The accused has not yet been evidence, but before it rested its case,
arraigned. There is an information filed the prosecutor filed a motion to
in court where in the accused discharge an accused to become a
intended to be discharge was listed as state witness.
one of the accused.

In the discharge of an accused, only The discharge of an accused under this rule
compliance with the requirement of Section may be ordered upon motion of the
14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal prosecution before resting its case, that is, at
any stage of the proceedings, from the filing
 Proc is required but not the requirement of of the information to the time the defense
Rule 119, Section 17. starts to offer any evidence

There must be compliance with the requisites

under Section 17, Rule 119
At this level, the procedural requirements of Hearing must be conducted - prosecution to
Section 17, Rule 119 on the need for the present evidence and the sworn statement of
prosecution to present evidence and the each state witness at a hearing in support of
sworn statement of each state witness at a the discharge.
hearing in support of the discharge do not yet
come into play. This is because, as correctly Read case of Yu and SPO4 Soberano
pointed out by the Court of Appeals, the
determination of who should be criminally
charged in court is essentially an executive
function, not a judicial one.

- Kasi wala pa nga kasing hearing, hindi

pa arraigned yung mga accused and
the prosecution already filed a motion
to discharge the accused or to drop
him from the information for him to be
used as a state witness.

In this connection, Section 12 of Republic Act

No. 6981. full faith by the provincial or city
prosecutor who is required not to include the
witness in the criminal complaint or
information, and if included, to petition for his
discharge in order that he can be utilized as
a state witness.

Q: Paano matatangal si intended accused to be discharge sa information under RA 6981.

A: By amending the information before plea. Apply Section 14, Rule 110.

Section 14. Amendment or substitution. — A complaint or information may be amended, in form

or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After
the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and
when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.

A: Court will file, Motion to Amend the Information with Leave of Court for the purpose of
excluding the name of the accused in the case. This will be set for hearing.
April 26, 2023

With respect to the discharge of an accused under Rule 119 Section 17, accused must have
been arraigned and the case must already be on trial, but before the prosecution rested its
case he filed a motion to discharge one or some of the accused to be a state witness.

A hearing must be conducted. The prosecution must present sworn statements of the accused
intended to be discharge and other evidence that would show the presence of the five
requisites which would convince the judge that this particular accused has to be discharge in
order for the prosecution to use him as state witness.

As mentioned, during the hearing itself, the accused may change his mind, and not testify in
accordance with the allegations contained in his sworn statements. If this happened, the
motion will be denied, and the accused will remain to be an accused and the trial will proceed
as a matter of course.

If the prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of all the accused beyond reasonable doubt,
then they will be acquitted. But if during the hearing of the Motion to discharge, the prosecution
was able to show to the judge the presence of all the requisites required under the law,

i.e that there is an absolute necessity for the testimony of the witness intended to be discharge,
meaning – he is the only person who has knowledge about the commission of the crime and
the participation of the other accused in the commission of the offense.

Without this testimony of the witness to be discharge, then there would be no direct evidence
which would show the exact participation of the accused and how the crime was committed.

It is this accused who will give light as to how the crime was committed.

Aside from the testimony, this testimony can be corroborated in some of its material points, not
in all material points.

Hindi required na all material points.

As discussed in Jimenez, there were discrepancies in the testimony of the accused to be

discharged and the physical evidence, but when the court examined the testimony of the
accused, some of his statements turned out to be correct. Meaning, it was corroborated by
some of the physical or object evidence, and it is what matters. Whether if he was telling the
truth or not, is something which could be tested when he testify in court.

Not the most guilty, hindi least guilty ang requirement. Baka may least guilty pa sa kaniya pero
ayaw magtestify against co-accused.
Basta ang imporatante, he is not the most guilty.

To determine is the accused intended to be discharge is not the most guilty

- Take into account his participation in the commission of the offense.

- Was he part of the planning, in the actual killing of the victim or not?
- In this case, Montero was not part of the actual killing nor planning. He may be aware

Not previously convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude.

Q: What happens if the accused has been discharge as an accused in order to be a state
witness?

A: it amounts to an acquittal.

Q: If it turns out later that the accused who was discharged is not qualified to be discharged
because he was the most guilty of previously convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude,
can he be included again as an accused?

A: No. Once he was discharged, it would amount to an acquittal, and if he would be charge
or included in the charge again, then he can invoke double jeopardy.

Q: When can the accused be charge or included in the charge again?

A: If he refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance with his sworn statement.

If the discharge is under RA 6981,

- Accused has not yet been arraigned. But he was charged and was included in the
information.
- The DOJ, wants to use this particular person as a state witness. After evaluating the
confession of the accused, then he will be required to execute a sworn statement
detailing how the crime was committed and the participation this accused
- If DOJ believes that he complied with all the conditions provided under RA 6981, for him
to be discharge as an accused to be order to become a state witness, then it would file
a motion before the court to amend the information with leave of court for the purpose
of excluding or dropping the accused from the information with notice with the private
complainant.
- REMEMBER: What would apply here is not rule 119 Section 17 but Section 14, Rule 110.
- The immunity being granted here is given by the department of justice (DOJ), not the
court.
- Iba yung discharged under Rule 119, iba under RA 6981
SPO4 Soberano vs Pp

- The case of Bobby Dacer and his driver who was killed and burned.
- Dacer’s family claims that the mastermind for this case is Senator Lacson, who was the
chief of PNP before.
- Pero they were not able to prove it.
- One of the men of Lacson, si Dumlao, executed in his sworn statement the participation
of the police officers and other persons who were not included in the information.
- On the account of the sworn statement of Dumlao, the prosecution filed a motion for re-
investigation
- After conducting a reinvestigation, they filed a motion to admit an amended
information. Pero walang leave of court.
- Nonetheless, SC said, even if there was no Leave of Court in the Motion to amend the
information, the fact that the court granted the motion for reinvestigation filed by the
prosecution would imply that it has actually given deference to a permission to the DOJ
to conduct the reinvestigation.
 ISSUE pa na isa na the motion should not have been granted because it failed to
comply with Rule 119.
 SC HELD: No need to comply with Rule 119 because what would apply here is Rule
110 section 14
 ISSUE: Police Officer Dumlao should not have been discharge because he was not
admitted in the witness protection program
 SC HELD: These are two different matters. To be admitted as a state witness and to be
admitted in the witness protection program of the DOJ.
 Even if the accused was not admitted in the witness protection program because he
is disqualified for being a police officer, it does not bar him for being discharge as a
state witness if he has complied or met all the conditions under RA 6981 for him to be
discharge as such.

Q: What if the court has already taken the testimony of the state witness thus convicting his co-
accused. However, after the judgment, there is recantation (renunciation or retraction). What
will be its effect in terms of judgement? Will it be set aside?

Q: If there is recantation but the other co-accused has been convicted, will that result to an
acquittal, a reversal of the judgement of the court?

A: Generally, it will not, because judgement has already been rendered, the accused has
already been discharged as state witness, and he could not have been discharged if his
testimony cannot be corroborated by other evidence.

Looking at it, his conviction was not solely because of the testimony, but because his
testimony was corroborated by other evidence.

If you take his testimony, in conjunction with other evidence, then the court would be
convince that all the accused have committed the offense as charged. The prosecution
was able to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It may already be too late for that accused to recant his testimony since he has already
gave his testimony in court, which already resulted to the conviction of his co-accused.
 It would be different if the accused was not yet convicted.

In the case of Jimenez, si Montero, he executed a sinumpaang salaysay but he recanted

his testimony when it was his turn to testify on court, he changed his story.

Montero recanted kaya acquitted yung mga co-accused. Kaya acquitted sila Jimenez
kasi ang daming butas ng kaso. Hindi naprove yung guilt.

If they were already convicted, pwede pa namang mag-appeal after the conviction so
that the appellate court can look at the weight of the recantation.

The court does not really give weight to the recantation if a testimony was already given
in court. Mahirap magparecant if the prosecution has already rested its case. Meron na
kasing evidence. Normally, the court will disregard the recantation, then rule the case
based on the testimony and other evidence which would prove guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

In one case, na 2 lang yung accused, yung isa na discharged as state witness, pwede to.
Monge vs Pp. Kahit na ang may kasalanan yung nadischarged, sabi ng court, any error
committed by the prosecution or the court, the discharge of the accused as a state witness will
not reinstate the person to become an accused, because it will already constitute a violation of
his right against double jeopardy. The prosecution can only fault itself and nobody else.

Q: Can he raise the recantation on appeal?

A: Yes. It could be raised on appeal. Na yung reason why he testified against them is for
reconsideration, he was paid or promised by the prosecution etc.

Depende nalang sa appellate court. Pero frowned upon by the court.

Q: With respect with the discharge of an accused to be a state witness under Rule 119, there is
a discussion in the case of Jimenez, as to who has the call, whether that particular accused will
be discharged as an accused or not.

A: Initial assessment is done by the prosecution. Final assessment is made by the Judge.

As to who among the accused will be discharge, the prosecution would initially
determine whether that particular accused has met all the requisites or conditions
provided under the rule that would qualify him to be discharged.

But ultimately, it is the judge who will decide whether this particular accused is qualified
to be discharge or not.

Kaya kailangan ng prosecution to present its evidence and the sworn statement of the
accused in a hearing in support of the discharge.
Pp vs Dominguez

- The State Witness was killed after he was discharge as a state witness.
- Ito yung Dominguez brothers. Famous sa robbery with homicide cases.
- Victims nila nagbebenta ng mamahaling sasakyan, kunwari itetest drive yung sasakyan,
pag malayo na, dun nila papatayin yung nagbebenta, then itatakbo yung sasakyan.
- Sa hearing, the prosecution ask him so many questions, instead of limiting the questions
for the purpose of showing or qualifying him as a state witness.
- Normally, just to show that he is qualified to be a state witness pero kung hearing, pano
mo ipapakita na there is absolute necessity of his testimony kung hindi ka talaga mag
tatanong about his knowledge about the crime committed and the participation of the
other accused.
- He was extensively questioned during the direct examination and cross-examination.
After this, he was killed.
- Although the matters taken during hearing, for the purpose of discharging the accused
to be a state witness, would be automatically adopted during the hearing proper of the
case, it is without prejudice for the prosecution to conduct direct examination and on
the part of the defense to conduct cross examination on the discharge of the accused.
- Magaling yung sindikato, so kahit nasa witness protection, napatay pa din siya.

Q: They are now claiming that the testimony of Mendiola should not be admitted in the trial
proper involving the robbery with homicide cases of the reversal of the Dominguez Brothers.

A: SC Held – in the case at bar, the records disclosed that Mendiola was cross-examined at
length for his testimony by the counsel of Miranda and Dominguez brothers. Such cross-
examination already covered the details of the commission of the offense.

“Respondents' reservation for trial proper of the right to further cross� examine Mendiola
did not diminish the sufficiency of the opportunity that they were given to confront the adverse
witnesses. Notwithstanding the said reservation, Mendiola's testimonies and admissions as
regards the particulars of the crime already formed part of the records of the case when the
RTC granted his motion to be declared a state witness. Respondents' constitutional rights were
not violated since the fair hearing envisaged by criminal due process had been complied with
when the counsels for the respondents conducted a rigorous and exhaustive cross-examination
of the deceased witness during the discharge hearing.”

Hindi dinisregard ng court yung testimony ni Mendiola.

Q: If the accused filed a demurrer to evidence?

A: Basis is the insufficiency of evidence in the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.

Filed only after the prosecution has rested its case.

It is a motion to dismiss filed by the accused after the prosecution has rested its case. But
it is not a motion to dismiss.

MOTION TO DISMISS – can be filed anytime based of the grounds nasa Rule something (i.e. lack
of jurisdiction)

BUT DEMURRER TO EVIDeNCe – is praying for the dismissal of the case but can be filed only after
the prosecution has rested its case and ang ground is because the evidence of the prosecution
is not sufficient to prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt

The court filing the demurrer to evidence is challenging the evidence of the prosecution.

Q: If demurrer to evidence is denied by the court, and it was filed with leave of court?

A: The defense could already present its evidence.

Q: If demurrer to evidence is denied by the court, and it was filed without leave of court?

A: It means that the accused has already waived its right to present its evidence and that the
case is already submitted for decision based only on the evidence presented by the
prosecution.

It makes a lot of difference if the filling of demurrer to evidence was done with or without leave
of court.

Q: If the court convicted him?

A: Accused may appeal his conviction, raise it to the appellate court yung mga grounds na
nakalagay sa demurrer to evidence.
Q: If demurrer to evidence was granted by the court?

A: Demurrer to evidence will amount to an acquittal of the accused. It cannot be appeal

because it would amount to double jeopardy.

Since it cannot be appealed, if the prosecution believes that the granting of the demurrer to
evidence was done by the court with grave abuse of discretion?

REMEDY: File a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 65.

Q: how to know if the evidence of the prosecution is sufficient?

A: Based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, it must prove the commission of the
crime and the precise degree of participation of the accused.

This is what the prosecution must establish before they rest their case. Present testimonial
and documentary evidence showing how the crime was committed and the participation of
the accused in the commission of the crime.

FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE

Q: What will happen if the prosecution or the defense did not file a formal offer of
evidence?

A: The documents marked as EXHIBITS and identified during pre-trial or trial, which were
not formally offered in evidence cannot be treated as evidence.

They will be excluded and rejected by the court.

REASON: Judge must rest his findings of facts and the judgment should be based only on
the evidence offered by the parties during trial.

Q: Hindi ba during pre-trial ino-offer mga documents?

A: NO.

During pre-trial, documents are being marked as exhibits.

During pre-trial, you confirm original with the Xerox copies attached on record.

But during the trial proper. The witness will identify the exhibits or pwedeng nasa affidavit and
nakalagay na yung identification ng document.

After the presentation of all witnesses, next if the FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE.

- You will state one by one your exhibits and the opposing party will make its comments
or objections on the offer made.
 - Ex. Medico legal certificate issued by Dr. Sow.
- Pag i-oofer mo, We are offering the medico legal certificate in order to prove the injury
sustained by private complainant.
- Opposing Party: We are objecting the admission of that medico legal certificate
considering that it was not identified by any witness who issued the medico legal
certificate
- Then the Court will make a ruling if it would admit that document and the offer or
purpose for which it is being offered, or not.

There are instances where the court allow the admission of documents not offered by the
prosecution when it was duly identified by testimony duly recorded.

Ex. Deed of Sale na hindi na offer in evidence, pero sa transcript of stenographic notes, the
witness described that deed of sale. Who are the parties, and the contents of that deed of sale.
Meaning, nandun na sa deed of sale yung essential matters na dapat iprove.

So even if that document was not formally offered, the rule is that document excluded may be
relaxed if it was duly identified through the testimony of a witness which is duly recorded during
the proceedings, or the evidence was incorporated in the records of the case.

TRIAL IN ABSENTIA – dapat arraigned, and after arraignment, if he failed to appear

notwithstanding that he was duly notified of the scheduled hearing and failed to appear
without justifiable reason, then the trial could proceed even in his absence.

Q: What if, without fault of the accused, and the case was revived, and hindi niya nareceived
yung notice to appear in the hearing?

A: If the case is revived, in the motion to revive the case, the movant would have to prove to
the court that the accused was duly notified of the hearing. MOVANT has to prove it.

What are the indications that the accused was duly notified?

 There is a notation at the bottom of the motion signed by the barangay officials that that
particular accused was no longer a resident of that place and his current whereabouts
is unknown.
 Madalas nangyayari kapag na provisional dismissal magpapalit na nang address si
accused para hindi na mahanap para magbayad.
 What is important is that he is notified in his last known address.
 If he changed his address without notifying the court, then that is his fault.
 How to prove na nagnotify ka, magpatulong sa barangay to prove na nagnotify ka sa
accused. Maglalagay sila ng notation dun.
 Isa pang way is magpadala by registered mail with return card. Para may notation din
yung post man na the addressee is no longer a resident of the said place.
  Can he still be tried in absentia? YES.

Q: What if, sa case ng Estafa, provisionally dismissed yung case on the condition na magbayad
si accused within 10 months. Pero good payer naman si accused pero hindi kayang mabayaran
in full within 10 months. Eh need irevive ng case para hindi dismiss totally, so na-revive yung case,
pwede bang iprovisionally dismiss ulit yung case para sure na magbayad?

A: Yes. Pwedeng mag second provisional dismissal. Sabi ni judge, the rules did not provide that
the case should be provisionally dismissed once. Hindi pa nachchallenge kasi nga wala naman
sa rules na bawal mag ulit.

Q: One exception to formal offer to evidence is when the court is judicial notice, what are the
instances when the court shall take judicial notice.

A: Rules on judicial notice, nasa rules on evidence, naka enumerate yung matters when court
shall take judicial notice. Ex. History – that iin that particular date, the accused was not able to
receive the notice because of a strong typhoon, it is something of public knowledge (pwedeng
local, national)

Ex. On that particular date, there was a typhoon and their barangay was flooded. It is the reason
why he was not able to go to the house of the complainant to pay his obligation. He was not
able to mark the certification issued by the barangay showing that on that particular date and
time, their barangay was really submerged with water. Not offered in evidence but the court
will take judicial notice of that fact and that fact is known to everyone.

Pwede din judicial admission. The court will also consider matters judicially admitted by the
accused even if the document, which was used for him to admit said particular fact, was not
presented as evidence in court. Na-admit na eh, pero hindi na offer yung document. It does
not matter kasi sa bibig mismo nanggalling yung admission.

Maraming matters that covers judicial admission. Time, weather.

Ex. Commission of the offense, it was not him because during that time, since the time was
committed at 6 pm, the place was already dark but the court may take judicial notice of the
fact that on that particular day, when the crime was committed, summer yung eh so 6 pm is
maliwanag pa. The court will take judicial notice kung maliwanag pa ba or madilim na.

Q: For double jeopardy. If A was convicted with homicide for killing B. After serving his sentence,
he committed the same offense but this time, C was killed. Will there be double jeopardy?

A: No. Kasi magka-iba yung victim. He committed two crimes against two different persons so
no double jeopardy.

Double jeopardy is if you committed homicide, then after, he was charged a new with murder,
because in the first information, the prosecution failed to alleged the qualifying circumstance
of treachery. So, in order for him to be meted with a higher penalty, a new information was filed
against him. This time, he can invoke double jeopardy.

Q: IF 2 information filed against the accused, arising from the same act, can he invoke double
jeopardy?

A: No. Legal jeopardy must be terminated first without his express consent. Pero if yung isang
case is convicted na, terminated or acquitted, then pwede na mag invoke ng double jeopardy
if he will be arraigned under the second information involving the same act which he
committed.

Q: With regards to the two information, can the accused choose from the two information kung
saan niya gustong ma-arraign?

A: Yes. Sa case ni Ivler, nag-arraign sa may lower penalty and pleaded guilty agad.

Pero it will be different if the accused was charged with a violation of the RPC or Special law.

He can be charged for 2 or more offenses arising from the same act. Sa Estafa and BP 22, same
act na bouncing check, pero yung isa, mala in se, the other one is malum prohibitum.

Pwede din na illegal trafficking, illegal recruitment, and Estafa. Pwedeng tatlo. Magkakaiba sila.

Q: May bayad ba lahat ng witnesses? Kasi yung ibang professional’s may fee kapag mag-
aapear sa court.

A: Walang bayad ang witness. Pero may iba na, example, yung sa mga banks, nagpapabayad
na. pero kung may private lawyer baka nagbibigay lang ng pamasahe. Pero in general, wala
dapat bayad.
May 3, 2023

RULE 120 – JUDGEMENT

 Accused is discharged as a state witness, it amounts to acquittal.

 Accused refused to testify in accordance to his sworn statement which he has executed
and was used as the basis for his discharged, he could be reinstated as an accused. His
trial as an accused will continue.
 If he was discharged, but the prosecution found out that he was not qualified to be
discharged as a state witness, he cannot be reinstated as an accused. The fault of the
prosecutor cannot be attributed to the accused. His discharged amounts to acquittal.

RULE 120

 About judgment.
 When an accused is charged in court,
- He will be arraigned.
- Next is the Pre-trial conference
- Next is Trial
 During Trial, prosecution will present evidence
 Followed by the accused
 Then there could be a rebuttal, if the prosecution wishes to present a rebuttal
evidence
 And the accused would likewise have an opportunity to serve his rebuttal
evidence.
- The case will now be submitted for decision.
 It is time for the court to make a ruling, whether this particular accused
should be convicted or acquitted of the offense charged.

Section 1. Judgment definition and form. — Judgment is the adjudication by the court that the
accused is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged and the imposition on him of the proper
penalty and civil liability, if any.

Requisites of judgment:
(1) It must be written in the official language;
(2) It must be personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him and
(3) It shall contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts and the law upon which it is
based. (1a)

Requisite No. 1 - It must be written in the official language;

Q: What is the official language?

A: English and Filipino

Q: Can the Judge wrote his decision in another dialect i.e. Ilocano, Cebuano, etc. other than
sa English and Filipino, para madaling maintindihan ni accused?

A: YES. The judge can actually do it. BUT! There should be an English translation of her decision
which is written in Cebuano or Ilocano.

REASON: If the accused would appeal the conviction, the same would be elevated to the CA
and SC. So kung ibang dialect, hindi maiintindihan ng CA and SC.

The judge is not prohibited in doing it, as long as there is an English translation of the same.

Kaya nag-quoquote ng verbatim ng threats or defamatory remarks, sa ilalim, merong English

translation para sa mga hindi nakakaintindi ng dialect na ginamit.

Q: In cases where there is an ambiguity in the translation, can the accused file for a motion
based on the local language?

A: Yes.

Problem in making appropriate word, for a particular dialect, mahirap itranslate sa English.

Kaya ang gagawin, i-qouqoute exactly yung statement.

Q: Kasi napapansin ko, defamatory sa tagalog, pero sa English, gets euphemize and gets no
longer defamatory.

A: It may happen. Mahirap hanapin yung proper word to give the exact meaning when the
person said those words.

KAYA VERBATIM and then ENGLISH TRANSLATION. The judge will have to give meaning sa
defamatory statement based on the information as to how and when it was uttered.

Example – putang-ina. Common expression. Hindi defamatory. Pero pano kung yung sinabihan
mo is judge pala and madaming tao. Consider the circumstance when it was uttered. Kung
between friends, hindi masyadong considered as defamatory.

REASON: why the SC cannot fully agree that the judgment be written in the regional language
or dialect of the place where the case was filed is because of the difficulty of finding the proper
word to interpret the spoken word in their original dialect of the accused or victim.
MAhirap din hanapan ng correct interpretation yung batas natin. Example, petition for
certiorari, pano mo itatagalog to.

Mostly, legal terms walang counterpart na tagalog or English.

Sa cross, minsan pinapayagan mag tagalog.

There was a case where the court rendered an oral judgement of acquittal. When the court
issued a written judgment, the judgment of the court became a conviction of the accused.
Nagiba yung findings of fact and law.

Accused said na the court can no longer find him guilty of the offense charged, otherwise he
would be placed in double jeopardy.

SC HELD: the oral judgment made by the court is void. What is controlling is the written judgment
of the court. Prior the written judgment, the court may change what he said before the court.

JUDGMENT MUST BE IN WRITING.

Requisite No. 2 It must be personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him
- This should be done during his incumbency.

 You have a judge who heard all the testimonies and heard all the witnesses.
 He prepared the decision
 Before the promulgation of judgment, he already retired
 New judge promulgated the judgment. The decision penned by the previous
presiding judge.
 Promulgated the judgment.

Q: is it a valid judgment?

A: RULE: the judgment should be penned and promulgated by the judge during his
incumbency.

WHEN JUDGEMENT IS INVALID:

Where the judge, who signed the decision, was no longer a judge of the court of the time of
the promulgation because he had already died, retired, or had retired or promoted to a higher
court or appointed to another office, with inconsistent functions and another judge
promulgated it, the judgment is invalid.

Q: What if the judge who wrote the decision did not heard the case? Dumating lang nung for
decision na. He was not able to observed the demeanor of the witnesses. But he was the one
who wrote the decision. Is the decision or the judgment considered valid?

A: It was personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him during his
incumbency.

Q: How would he be able to make a proper judgment when he was not the one who heard the
case?

A: Stenographic notes are attached. All of the testimonies of the witnesses have been recorded.
What the judge will do is to review the records. So kahit hindi nawitness ni judge yung demeanor
ng witnesses, may stenographic notes naman.

IMPORTANT: for the counsels to make the proper manifestation in court. To put on record the
demeanor of the witness if the same is significant for the court to consider when it is time for
them to decide on the case.

Ex. The witness is crying while testifying, his counsel should manifest in court, “May we put on
record, your honor, that the witness is crying while testifying.

Or if hindi makasagot yung witness, may we put your honor that it is taking time for the witness
to answer the very simple question of the court.
Pag ginawa mo yung mga manifestations na to, on record lahat. Naiimagine to ng judge,

But if you fail to make the proper manifestations, how will the court be able to imagine that the
witness was crying or laughing while testifying.

Judges who conducted the trial and heard the testimonies of some or all of the witnesses shall
not defer the submission of the case for decision on the ground of incomplete or missing
transcript of stenographic notes. If the case was heard completely by another judge, not the
judge tasked to write the decision, the latter shall direct the stenographers concerned to submit
the cornplete transcripts within a period of thirty (30) calendar days from date of his/her
assumption to office.
Requisite No. 3: It shall contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts and the law upon
which it is based.

- This is a demand from the constitution.

- Art II, sec 14 of the Constitution – “ No court shall render a decision without stating
clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. Xxx”
- REASON: In order for the accused to know the reason behind his conviction or
acquittal.

Q: You are charged with rape. The court issued a judgment without any discussion of the
evidence presented by the parties. But only containing a dispositive portion.

Wherefore, after trial on the merits the judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt with rape. Ok na ba to sayo?

A: NO! You should know why you were convicted by the court. If you are acquitted. It is the right
of the prosecution and the complainant to know why the accused was acquitted.

IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF DUE PROCESS AND FAIR PLAY.

How did the court find judgment that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The facts
must be there, the evidence presented in support of the findings of the court must be in the
decision as well as the legal basis.

“SIN PERJUCIO” JUDGMENT

 Is a judgment without a statement of the facts in support of the conclusion to be later

supplemented by the final judgment. Such a judgement is void for it violates section 14
art 8 of the constitution.

Schedule of promulgation. - The court shall announce in open court and include in the order
submitting the case for decision, the date of the promulgation of its decision which shall not be
more than ninety (90) calendar days from the date the case is submitted for decision.,except
when the case is covered by Special Rules and other laws which provide for a shorter period.

 After the defense has rested its case, and the court did not require the parties to submit
a memorandum, the case must be decided within 90 calendar days from the time it is
submitted for decision.
 REASON: Because of Continuous trial rule.
 During the last hearing for the presentation of evidence for the defense, he will rest its
case. The court will ask the prosecution if it would present rebuttal evidence. If they said
no, we will not be submitting our rebuttal evidence, we will submit the case for resolution.
 Q: Anong duty ng court kung ito yung manifestation ng prosecution?
  A: On that particular date, the court should already schedule the date of the
promulgation of judgement. In open court, the court will already announce the date
when the parties will return for the promulgation of judgment.
 Q: Anong kagandahan?
 A: The judges are forced to decide a judgement within the period provided in the rules
kasi nasa order na nila yung date ng promulgation.
 Unlike before this rule, minsan 1 year na wala pang decision

 In some cases, like drugs, within 15 days from the date the case is submitted for decision.

Section 2. Contents of the judgment. — If the judgment is of conviction, it shall state

(1) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed by the
accused and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances which attended its
commission;

 Homicide ba, Rape, or SLI, Illegal possession of firearms, dapat nakalagay sa

judgment.
 Indicate aggravating and mitigating circumstance to fix the proper penalty.

With mitigating – minimum period

Aggravating – maximum period

No mitigating no aggravating – medium period

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

- Indicate whether the accused is a principal, accomplice or accessory if there are

several accused and there is an allegation of conspiracy.

(3) the penalty imposed upon the accused; and

(4) the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or omission to be 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 waived.

EXAMPLE:
Kulang yung information. Walang aggravating, walang mitigating. Dapat may nakalagay din
na qualifying circumstance, with treachery for example dapat parang SAMPLE 2.

SAMPLE 2 – MAY ALLEGATION OF CONSPIRACY

 Dito magkaiba yung findings ng court with respect with their participation in the offese
 Kaya yung penalty nila is either higher or lighter than the other.
NOTES SA PAGGAWA NG INFORMATION:

 If it is a special law, state the special law involve.

 Then indicate the penalty
 Award for damages if any.

 If the accused is acquitted, judgement will be like SAMPLE 3

 If the accused, as if committed the offense, but there is also doubt that he committed
the offense,

SC HELD: if there is doubt, resolve it in favor , or tilt the scales of justice in favor of the
accused. Taking into consideration the presumption of innocence of the accused.
Acquitted.

DEFENSE COUNSELS DUTY: create a doubt in the mind of the judge for the accused to be
acquitted.

In case the judgment is of acquittal,

(1) 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.

 Pag REASONABLE DOUBT - merely failed to prove his guilt beyond

reasonable doubt
- If the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, the acquittal does not
prevent a judgement from being rendered on the civil aspect on the
criminal case unless the court finds and declares that the facts from
which the civil liability might arise did not exist.
 - REASON: Civil liability can be proven only by preponderance of
evidence
- IT is common that the court may acquit the accused in an Estafa case
but render judgement against him in the civil aspect of the case.
- Pano nangyayari, a lot of times, the accused would show to the court
that the check was issued in payment of a preexisting obligation. If it is
a payment of a preexisting obligation, there is the absence of deceit.
Kapag Estafa, kailangan palitan, the accused was able to derived
something from the private complainant with the used of check and by
means of deceit. Simultaneous exchange of consideration.
- Kapag hindi, i.e. he borrowed 100k, 3 days later, he issued a check in
payment of that 100k but it bounce. The check was used to pay an
existing obligation, then there is no Estafa. There may be violation of BP
22, but no Estafa.
- If during trial, accused invoke the defense of existing obligation, he
admitted that he owes the complainant a certain amount of money,
and he was not able to pay it because he lost his job for example.
- By his admission, can the court make him civilly liable if he was acquitted
of Estafa? Yes. Same sa BP 22.
- BP 22 reason of acquittal – demand letter. He did not receive a notice
of dishonor from. Walang proof of receipt of the demand letter kaya na
– aacquit
- Pero may admission ng liability kaya pwedeng maging civilly liable.
- May case ng Estafa and BP 22. Sa BP 22, the civil liability of the accused
is deemed instituted of the violation of BP 22. Hindi pwedeng
paghiwalayin. The accused in this case was acquitted. And the court
did not award any damages to the private complainant. But in the
Estafa case, the accused was acquitted also, but the court found him
liable for damages. Sabi ng accused, the court committed a serious
error. I was already acquitted in bP 22 and Estafa case, so there is no
basis for the court to adjudge him civilly liable.
- SC HELD: it may still happen. BP 22 is an entirely different case from
Estafa.

 absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused

- there is really no evidence which would link the accused to the

commission of the offense.
- Or he prosecution was not able to prove that the accused is the author
of the act or omission being complained of.
- Mistaken Identity or no eye witness who pointed to the accused as the
person who has committed the offense; and there is no circumstantial
evidence which would indicate that the one who has committed the
offense.ABSOLUTELY FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED.

(2) In either case, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the
civil liability might arise did not exist. (2a)

NOTE: Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability unless
the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.
TWO KINDS OF ACQUITTAL

1. Acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission
complained of. - This closes the door to civil liability; there being no delict, civil liability ex
delicto is out of the question.
2. Acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. - The acquittal does
not prevent a judgment from being rendered against him on the civil aspect of the
criminal case unless the court finds and declares that the fact from which the civil liability
might arise did not exist. - Civil liability may be proved only by preponderance of
evidence.

Section 3. Judgment for two or more offenses. ( duplicitous complaint or information) — When
two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to
object to it before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and
proved, and impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting out separately the findings of
fact and law in each offense.

- Failure to raise this issue during arraignment amounts to a waiver, and the objection can no
longer be raised on appeal.

I.e charged ng Rape through carnal knowledge and rape through sexual assault. He did not file
a motion to quash for being duplicitous, he can be convicted with both. 1 count for each if
evidence showed that he committed both.

Section 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. ( variance doctrine)—
When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that
proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved,

(a) the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense
charged, or

e.g. Murder- charged Proven - homicide

 Ex. Accused was charged with murder,

 During trial, prosecution was able to prove only Homicide.
 Qualifying circumstance was not established by the prosecution
 The accused will only be convicted with offense proved included in the offense
charged.
 Q: Pag ang na prove is Theft, is that an example included in the offense charged
(murder)?
 A: NO! Accused will be acquitted of murder. If evidence showed that he
committed theft, then file a new information against him for theft.

(b) the accused shall be convicted of the offense charged which is included in the offense
proved.
 e.g. Homicide – charged Proven – Murder

 Ex. Accused was charged with Homicide

 But the prosecution proved the presence of qualifying circumstance.
 Q: can he be convicted of murder?
 A: NO! He can only be convicted with homicide which is an offense that he was
charged.
 REASON: Cannot convict an accused with an offense which is graver than the
offense charged
 Hindi pwedeng mas mabigat na kaso yung icoconvict sa kaniya. Acts of
lasciviousness yung charge, he cannot be convicted with rape kahit na prove na
may rape.
 Qualifying circumstance of the victim – hindi nakalagay sa information na minor
yung victim, he cannot be convicted ng rape which bears a higher penalty
aggravated by minority of the victim kasi hindi alleged sa information.
 In one case, accused was charged with falsification of public documents. He was
convicted with Falsification of PRIVATE Document. Accused cannot be convicted
with falsification of public document if falsification of private document
nakalagay. Kasi element ng dalawa are not the same.
 Q: What if falsification of public documents but the accused was found liable only
of reckless imprudence or falsification of documents through reckless
imprudence?
 A. PWEDE. Lighter charged yung reckless.

IN APPLYING VARIANCE DOCTRINE: consider the particular offense proved during trial falls within
the same title as defined in the RPC if he was charged with an offense punishable under the
RPC.

i.e. Frustrated Homicide yung charged. Pero during trial, prosecutor was not able to prove intent
to kill and presence of fatal wound. What was proven is Slight physical injuries.

Q: Can he be convicted of the latter?

A: Yes. Lighter offense yun as long as they fall within the same title.

But

Q: if accused was charged with serious physical injuries but during trial, it was proven that it was
committed with intent to kill and the victim sustained fatal wound. Can he be convicted with
frustrated homicide?

A: NO. Kasi Graver Offense na.

EXCEPTION: Presence of Supervening Event.

Section 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. — An offense charged necessarily

includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former,
as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is
necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former
constitute or form a part of those constituting the latter. (5a)

General rule: accused may be convicted only of the crime with which he is charged.

Exception: the variance doctrine: - it presupposes that the court rendering the judgment has
jurisdiction over the case based on the allegations in the information.

VARIANCE IN THE MODE OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME: - a variance in the mode of
commission of the offense is binding upon the accused if he fails to object to evidence showing that the crime was
committed in a different manner than what was alleged.. The Information alleges force and intimidation as the mode
of commission, while AAA testified during the trial that she was asleep at the time it happened and only awoke to
find Abellos male organ inside her mouth. In the present case, Abello did not object to the presentation of evidence
showing that the crime charged was committed in a different manner than what was stated in the Information. Thus,
the variance is not a bar to Abellos conviction of the crime charged in the Information. This variance is not fatal to
Abellos conviction for rape by sexual assault. ( PP vs Abello, 582 S 378, March 25, 2009) -the character of the
crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the information or from the specification of the provision of
law alleged to have been violated; the crime committed is determined by the recital of the ultimate facts and
circumstances in the complaint or information.

Section 6. Promulgation of judgment. — The judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused
and any judge of the court in which it was rendered.

a) if the conviction is for a light offense, the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or
representative. When the judge is absent or outside of the province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by
the clerk of court.

 Note: Judgement MUST BE PROMULGATED WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED AND THE
JUDGE.
 EXCEPTION OF THIS RULE: If the accused is only convicted of a light offense.
 Q: If the accused was absent during the promulgation of judgement pero present naman yung counsel, okay
lang ba na mapromulgate?
 A: Yes. Under the Rules, if the conviction if for a light offense. Judgment may be pronounce in the presence
of his counsel or representative.

b) 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 jurisdiction over the place of confinement or detention upon
request of the court which rendered the judgment. The court promulgating the judgment shall have authority to
accept the notice of appeal and to approve the bail bond pending appeal; provided, that if the decision of the trial
court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for
bail can only be filed and resolved by the appellate court.
  Accused has a case in Baguio and in La union. He was currently detained in La union.
With respect to his pending case in Baguio, the court found him guilty. May judgment of
conviction.
 Q: How is this judgment of conviction be promulgated?
 A: Pwede pero hindi daw madadala yung detainee, walang pamasahe.
 REMEDY: The judge in Baguio may request the executive judge of the RTC of La union to
promulgate the judgment.
 Ipapadala sa executive judge ng La union yung judgment ni Baguio. Si judge ng LA union
ang magbabasa before the detainee.
 Judge ng LA union will accept the notice on appeal and act on the bail pending appeal
filed by the accused if any.
 EXCEPTION: If nature of the offense changed from non-bailable to bailable, then the
application on bail can only be acted upon by the court of appeals.

Q: The accused cannot be convicted by a graver crime than that alleged in the information.
Ex. Public prosecutor filed a case acts of lasciviousness pero during trial, it was found out that he
committed rape. Can the lawyer be administratively held liable for committing such an error?

A: The person who files an info in court. If the prosec based on the evidence found that the
crime should be charged against the accused is acts of lasciviousness, then he would prepare
an info for acts of lasciviousness.

If the private complainant did not agree to the findings of the public prosecutor, he or she can
flie a motion for reconsideration. If denied, she can file for a petition for review. Ito yung proper
recourse.

But if the information was already filed in court and he did not any motion and the accused
was arraigned with acts of lasciviousness, then yun lang pwedeng maconvict si accused.

Kaya to nangyayari, when they file the info before the prosecutor, minsan, kulang mga
documents. Yung lang eevaluate ng prosecutor. If pulis mag fafile, a-advisan sila to first
complete the information and the affidavit of the witnesses before magfile, para tamang kaso
ang maifile against the accused.

The fiscal can only rely on the documents submitted. The prosecutor is not bound sa nilagay mo
na kaso kasi si prosecutor ang magdedecide kung ano yung ifafile na case against the
accused.

Kaya pag murder dapat yung kaso , pero hindi naisama sa documents na may qualifying
circumstance, homicide lang naifafile ng prosec.
INFORMATION CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDED AFTER THE ARRAIGNMENT OF THE ACCUSED
BECAUSE IT WOULD PREJUDICE THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED.

Q: What if the additional evidence, the victim herself only provided additional information
during cross examination. Example, in the crime of rape, one complaint was filed but during
cross, there was also other instances when rape occurred. What is the proper recourse for that?

A: File a new information for the accused concerning the other rape not alleged in the
information, considering that those are different incidence. The private complainant is not
prohibited from filing new complaints against the accused. The accused was only tried with
respect to the incidence as alleged in the information. Kung madami pala, mag-file lang sila.

How accused is notified of the promulgation: - The proper clerk of court shall give notice to the accused
personally or through his bondsman or warden and counsel, requiring him to be present at the promulgation of the
decision. If the accused tried in absentia because he jumped bail or escaped from prison, the notice to him shall be
served at his last known address.

 Accused can be notified PERSONALLY or through his BONDSMAN

 Nagpyansa si accused, pero ibang tao ang nagpyansa para sa kaniya. That person will also be notified.
 SURETY BOND ang fi-nile niya, then the Surety Company will also be notified.
 It is the obligation of the bondsman to present the accused during the promulgation.
 ACCUSED IS DETAINED – the WARDEN will be notified.
 And the COUNSEL
 If tried in absentia, notice to the accused will be served in his last known address and to his counsel.

IN short, the people who will be notified of the promulgation will be the:

 Accused
 Surety or Bondsman
 Warden
 Counsel

Rule if accused failed to appear in the promulgation:

- In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation of judgment despite notice,

1. the promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof
at his last known address or thru his counsel.

2. If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall
lose the remedies available in these rules against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest.

In practice:

Today is the promulgation of the judgment. The accused was charged with homicide.
 Judge: Where is the accused?

Clerk of Court: He is not in court, your Honor.

Judge: Will you check the record if he was duly notified of todays promulgation?

CoC: He was duly notified, Your Honor.

Judge: Is the defense counsel in court?

Defense Counsel: Present.

Judge: Where is the accused?

Defense Counsel: I am sorry your Honor, I have no contact with the accused. I have tried all means to
contact him but I was not able to do so.

Judge: What is the pleasure of the Prosecutor?

NOTE: The Judge need to ask the Prosecutor. You need to know your Rules:

Prosecutor: May we pray your Honor that the Promulgation be made by recording the judgment in the
criminal docket of the court and the copy thereof be serve at the last known address of the accused
and his counsel. May we also pray that a warrant of arrest may be issued against the accused and the
bail bond posted by the accused be canceled in favor of the Government.

NOTE: THIS IS WHAT THE PROSECUTOR SHOULD MANIFEST.

If the accused failed to appear during the promulgation, swerte siya. Kasi acquittal yung judgment ng court.

In the promulgation of an acquittal, even if the accused is absent during the promulgation, walang problema.

Q: What if the accused was convicted?

A: The accused will lose all the remedies available in this rule.

Remedies are:

- Right to appeal
- Right to file a motion for reconsideration
- All other remedies available after the promulgation of judgment.

Q: If you were the accused, and you came to know that, you were convicted, but failed to appear in the promulgation
despite due notice. What will you do.

A: Within 15 days – SURRENDER from promulgation of judgment because the court already issued a warrant of
arrest, hence he need to surrender.

The file a motion of LEAVE OF COURT – to avail remedies

 His motion should state his reason of his absence

If his failure to appear was for a justifiable reason

The Court will grant his motion and allowed him to avail of the remedies provided in the rules.

REMEDY OF ACCUSED: -

Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the accused may surrender and file a
motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies.

He shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for
a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice. (6a)

--If the judgment is for conviction and the failure to appear was without justifiable cause, the accused shall lose the
remedies available in the Rules of Court against the judgment. Thus, it is incumbent upon the accused to appear on
the scheduled date of promulgation, because it determines the availability of their possible remedies against the
judgment of conviction. When the accused fail to present themselves at the promulgation of the judgment of
conviction, they lose the remedies of filing a motion for a new trial or reconsideration (Rule 121) and an appeal
from the judgment ofconviction (Rule 122). The reason is simple. When the accused on bail fail to present
themselves at the promulgation of a judgment of conviction, they are considered to have lost their standing in court.
Without any standing in court, the accused cannot invoke its jurisdiction to seek relief. ( Jaylo vs Sandiganbayan,
GR 183152-52, 1-21-15) - Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court,does not take away substantive rights; it merely
provides the manner through which an existing right may be implemented.

What is the REASON:

If the accused failed to appear during the promulgation that he will lose his right to avail these remedies.

ANSWER:

He has lost his standing in court. If he has no longer have a standing in court, he cannot invoke its jurisdiction and
seek relief from the court.

EXAMPLE:

An accused charged with Homicide and he failed to appear the promulgation of judgment despite due
notice.

He filed a motion for reconsideration and the court granted such motion, and acquitted him.

The Court reversed his conviction and acquitted the accused.

Q: Is the Court correct in acquitting the accused?

A: NO. The accused failed to appear during the promulgation despite notice. He has lost his standing in court, hence
he cannot avail of these remedies ( file a motion for reconsideration, notice of an appeal, other remedies, like motion
for re-opening or modification of judgement as the case maybe)

ONLY REMEDY IS TO SURRENDER AND FILE A MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT to avail the remedies
under the rules.

Q: If there are 5 accused, and only 1 person appear during the promulgation, and they were all convicted. All of
them filed an appeal, the court gave due course to the appeal made by all the accused. Was the Court correct in
doing so?

A: NO. That 1 person who appeared during the promulgation should be allowed to file an appeal. The 4 absent
accused should not be allowed to appeal the decision of the court because of their failure to appear the promulgation
despite due notice.

Q: Will the effect of appeal will bind the four other accused?

A: No, it will not bind the four other accused because they have lost the remedies under the law.

If the decision during the appeal would result to an acquittal, which is favorable to the remaining accused, ordinarily,
that would apply to the accused who did not appear during the promulgation.

Q: Would an accused who has lost his remedies under the rules because he failed to appear during
promulgation, would still benefit if a co-accused who has appealed his conviction would be able to obtain an
acquittal or would be able to obtain a lesser conviction

A: Yes, he would still benefit provided that the ruling of the CA or appellate court is something which is
applicable and favorable to him.

If it is for a graver penalty, the other accused will not be bound kapag sa appeal.

Q: Can there be a promulgation of judgement in absentia?

A: Yes. It can be rendered by recording the judgment in the criminal docket of the court and the copy will be
furnished to the accused to his last known address or to his counsel.

REMEDIES BEFORE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BECOMES FINAL: (bago mag-final)

1. Modification of judgment ( sec 7, R-120) - A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the
accused, be modified or set aside before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected

( sec 7, R-120 – did not mentioned the specific ground when the judgment may be modified. It can be
done by the Court upon motion of the accused. (Or set aside before it becomes final)

The only ground that can be used here is that, in order to prevent a manifest injustice committed to the
accused.
 There could be a modification of judgment: The accused was able to present evidence that he
voluntarily surrendered but the same was not considered by the court in its judgment but it can be borne
from the records that he voluntarily surrendered. The court should consider the certification issued by
the police officers who have deter the warrant indicating that the accused voluntarily surrendered.
Meaning, the accused went to the police station and voluntarily surrendered himself before the police
officers serve the warrant.

Q: Can the court consider this pursuant to a motion filed by the accused for the modification of the
judgement?
A: Yes.

2. Re-opening of the proceedings ( sec. 24, R-119) - At any time before finality of the judgment of
conviction, the judge may, motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either case, reopen the
proceedings to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The proceedings shall be terminated within thirty (30)
days from the order grating

If the court terminated the presentation of evidence of the defense, contending that it already used all
the dates indicated in the pre-trial order, for the defense to present all its evidence. But upon motion of
the accused, it was shown there that the reason why some of the dates indicated in the pre-trial order
were cancelled were due to the fact that on that particular date, it was declared that it was a holiday,
typhoon, the judge was not around, in short, walang fault on the part of the accused to present its
witnesses.

Since, the accused was not allowed to fully present its evidence and because of this, he was found guilty
by the court. Then the court realizes that the accused bears no fault why the hearings was cancelled.

The court may re-open the proceedings and allow the accused to continue with the presentation of its
evidence.

3. Motion for New Trial ( sec 1, R-121)

4. Motion for Reconsideration ( sec. 1, R-121)

5. Appeal from the judgment ( R-122)

6. Apply for Probation

Can be availed by the accused if his penalty meted to him is imprisonment not more than 6 years.

Q: If the accused appealed his conviction he can no longer apply for probation because these two are
ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES.

A: He has an option to appeal conviction or apply for probation.

Q: If he opted to appeal his conviction, then he has deemed waived his right to apply for probation.

In one case decided by the SC, accused was convicted with an offense where the penalty was more than 6
years of imprisonment. He was not qualified to apply for probation, when the CA rendered its decision, he
was convicted for a lighter offense, which would now qualify him to apply for probation.
 Accused apply for probation. People opposed. Hindi ka na pwede mag-apply for probation kasi nag-appeal
ka na eh. Alternative remedies yan.

SC Held: He could apply for probation because when he availed of his remedy to appeal his conviction, he
was not given the option to apply for probation considering the penalty imposed upon him.

Kasi nga yung penalty niya sa lower court is more than 6 years, so walang choice si accused during that
time.

Pero ngayon based sa judgment ni CA, may option na siya to apply for probation or appeal his conviction
before the CA.

7. Habeas Corpus (R-102) as a post-conviction remedy, it may be allowed as a consequence of a judicial

proceeding, if any of the following circumstances is present:

a. There has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person.

b. The court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence.

c. The imposed penalty has been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as to such excess (Go vs
Dimagiba, 2005)

Section 7. Modification of judgment. — A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the

accused, be modified or set aside before it becomes final or before 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 sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or
served, or when the accused has waived in writing his right to appeal, or has applied for
probation. (7a)

The court has the authority to suspend the execution of a final judgment or to cause
modification thereof when it becomes imperative in the higher interest of justice or when
supervening events warrant it. (Pp vs Gallo, 315 SCRA 461)

Normally, if there is a supervening event and it pertains to a newly discovered evidence, what
is filed is a MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR NEW TRIAL based on the newly discovered
evidence. HINDI MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT.

WHEN JUDGMENT BECOMES FINAL (Except where the death penalty is imposed)

(1) after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or a judgement becomes final if no
appeal is seasonably perfected within 15 days from service of a copy thereof upon the accused
or his counsel

(2) when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or

(the time of the promulgation of judgement, halos na serve mo na yung penalty, so the
judgement will become final.)

(3) when the accused has waived in writing his right to appeal, or
 There are some instances where the accused manifest in an open court that he would
no longer appeal his conviction. Court will ask the accused to put his motion in writing
that he is waiving his right to appeal.

Kailan nangyayari to? If his conviction is for a lighter offense. Ex. Charged with murder
but was convicted with homicide, or frustrated homicide pero convicted lang ng
attempted homicide, ayaw na niyang i-appeal kasi baka mareverse and tumaas pa lalo
yung conviction ng appellate court.

(4) has applied for probation. (7a)

He can only apply for probation if he was convicted with a penalty which carries an
imprisonment of not more than 6 years.

If he has already filed an application for probation, and was denied by the court
because he was not qualified. HE CANNOT APPEAL HIS CONVICTION.

It is an alternative remedy. Either appeal conviction or apply for probation.

If probation was denied, he has no choice but to serve his sentence.

He could apply for probation, but the probation office will still conduct an investigation,
whether he is qualified or not.

PROBATION – a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence is released
subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer.

- Promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individualized
treatment

-provide opportunity for reformation.

-may be granted whether the sentence imposes a form of imprisonment (less than 6 years or
fine)

PAROLE – refers to the conditional rlease of an offender from a correctional institution after he
has served the minimum of his prison sentence.

-to uplift and redeem human material to economic usefulness and to prebent unnecessary and
excessive deprivation of personal liberty.

SENTENCE – the judgment formally pronounced by the court upon the defendant after his conviction in a criminal
prosecution imposing the punishment to be inflicted.
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE of a minor – instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall
place the CICL under suspended sentence. Once the child reaches 18, RA 9344 provides that the court shall
determine whether o discharge the child, order execution of sentence, or extend the suspended sentence for a certain
specified time until the child reaches the age of 21.

If the social welfare officer recommended that the child reformed his ways, and it would benefit the CICL, then he
will not be asked to serve his sentence.

But if the CICL was not able to reform and still committed several offenses, then he will serve his sentence upon
reaching 18 years old.
Section 8. Entry of judgment. — After a judgment has become final, it shall be entered in
accordance with Rule 36. (8)

Finality of judgment is entirely distinct from its entry and the delay in the latter does not affect the effectivity of the
former which is counted from the expiration of the period to appeal.

May book of judgment. Duon nilalagay yung entry of judgement which would implicate that the judgment has
become final and executory

Minsan nakakalimutan ng clerk of court to make the entry of judgement. Would that prevent the decision from
becoming final and executory?

A: No. once the 15 day period to appeal had lapse and the accused did not afford of the remedies provided for under
the rules, the decision will become final.

Once the decision becomes final, it can no longer be amended, modified or altered because of DOCTRINE OF
IMMUTABILITY OF FINAL JUDGMENTS

Doctrine of Immutability of Final Judgments - upon finality of the judgment, the Court loses its jurisdiction to
amend, modify or alter the same. Except for correction of clerical errors or the making of nunc pro tunc entries
which cause no prejudice to any party, or where the judgment is void, the judgment can neither be amended nor
altered after it has become final and executory. This is the principle of immutability of final judgment.

Every litigation must come to an end once a judgment becomes final, executory and unappealable. For just
as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the
correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case by the execution and satisfaction of the
judgment, which is the life of the law. To frustrate it by dilatory schemes on the part of the losing party is
to frustrate all the efforts, time and expenditure of the courts. It is in the interest of justice that we should
write finis to this litigation. Consequently, we find no grave abuse of discretion when the Sandiganbayan
denied petitioners motion to hold in abeyance the execution of judgment.

A judgment on compromise agreement is a judgment on the merits. It has the effect of res judicata, and is
immediately final and executory unless set aside because of falsity or vices of consent. The doctrine of
immutability of judgments bars courts from modifying decisions that have already attained finality, even if
the purpose of the modification is to correct errors of fact or law.

GENERAL RULE: final and executory judgements are immutable and unalterable

3 exceptions:

1. CLERICAL ERRORS
2. NUNC PRO TUNC Entries which cause no prejudice to any party
3. VOID JUDGMENTS

Nunc pro tunc judgments or order, a latin term for “now for then” that means that it is to be given
retroactive effect.

Clerical errors – may mistake sa amount or spelling or hindi consistent yung mga names.
Nunc pro tunc entries – ex. The court omitted in its decision a statement which should have been written because it
is presented as evidence by the parties, but that statement has nothing to do with the finding of guilt of the accused.
The same can be entered in the judgment even if it has become final and executory.

Q: What is the used of entering or correcting such mistakes if judgment was already final and executory
A; For void judgment, it would not become immutable and unalterable because a void judgment is always void.

Kahit 1 year lapsed, the parties can question that void judgment because it will never attain finality because it is a
void judgement.

KINDS OF JUDGMENT

1. JUDGMENT OF THE MERITS

A decision of the court which amounts to a legal declaration of the respective rights and duies of the parties,
based upon the disclosed facts

2. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s
pleading, the court may, on motion of the party, direct judgment on such pleading.

3. CONSENT JUDGMENT

A compromise agreement between the parties to end further litigation by having a court of competent
jurisdiction approve the compromise as having the same force and effect as a judgment by the court. Thus
once approve, it has the force of res judicata with respect to the contentions issues in the case.

In criminal case, there is also the civil liability of the accused. So if the parties entered into a compromised
agreement, and the same was submitted to the court for approval, and the court rendered judgment based
on the compromise agreement, it is referred to as consent judgment (in civil case) or JUDGMENT ON
COMPROMISE (in criminal cases)

4. SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

an adjudication by the court resolving the issues in litigation to protect the complainant from sham defenses
intended merely to delay or to defeat recovery, or to shield the defendant from harassment complaints filed
merely for their nuisance value. It refers to a judgment which a court may render before trial after both
parties have pleaded and the court finds that there is no genuine issues between them.

5. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT

It is a judgment in favor of a plaintiff when the defendant has not responded to a summons or has failed to
appear before a court of law.

OTHER CONCEPTS

FINAL ORDER
Is an order issued by the court which disposes the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding
or action, leaving nothing more to be done except to enforce by execution what the court has determined, but the
latter does not completely dispose of the case but leaves something else to be decided upon.

Appealable.

Relevant if it can be appealed or not

Q: Accused filed a motion to quash on the ground of prescription and the court granted it. But the prosecutor believes
that the action has not yet prescribed. Since the dismissal of the case, there is nothing for the court to do on the
account of the issuance of that order. It will be regarded as FINAL order

A: the prosecution can appeal that final order or if they believe the court exceeded their authority and committed
grave abused they can file a petition for certiorari against the order of the court.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDER

Refers to something intervening between the commencement and the end of the suit which decides some point or
matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy

It merely resolves incidental matters and leaves something more to be done to resolve the merits of the case

Remedy is an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 if it is rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction of
with grave abuse of discretion.

It cannot be the subject of appeal

Q. if the accused filed a motion to quash the info on the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction over his person
because he was illegally arrested but the court denied his motion, can he appeal the order denying his motion to
quash?

A: No. because it is an interlocutory order

Remedy: Continue with the trial of the case and raised it as an issue if he was convicted.
Obiter Dictum – second opinion of the court which is indicated in the judgment but it is not necessary in deciding
the issues in the court.

Ratio decidendi –

Per curiam – the decision is written as a whole.

Notatu dignum
MAY 8, 2023

Summary of last meetings topic

REMEDIES BEFORE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BECOMES FINAL: (bago mag-final)

1. Modification of judgment ( sec 7, R-120) - A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the
accused, be modified or set aside before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected

( sec 7, R-120 – did not mentioned the specific ground when the judgment may be modified. It can be
done by the Court upon motion of the accused. (Or set aside before it becomes final)

The only ground that can be used here is that, in order to prevent a manifest injustice committed to the
accused.

There could be a modification of judgment: The accused was able to present evidence that he
voluntarily surrendered but the same was not considered by the court in its judgment but it can be borne
from the records that he voluntarily surrendered. The court should consider the certification issued by
the police officers who have deter the warrant indicating that the accused voluntarily surrendered.
Meaning, the accused went to the police station and voluntarily surrendered himself before the police
officers serve the warrant.

Q: Can the court consider this pursuant to a motion filed by the accused for the modification of the
judgement?
A: Yes.

2. Re-opening of the proceedings ( sec. 24, R-119) - At any time before finality of the judgment of
conviction, the judge may, motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either case, reopen the
proceedings to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The proceedings shall be terminated within thirty (30)
days from the order grating

If the court terminated the presentation of evidence of the defense, contending that it already used all
the dates indicated in the pre-trial order, for the defense to present all its evidence. But upon motion of
the accused, it was shown there that the reason why some of the dates indicated in the pre-trial order
were cancelled were due to the fact that on that particular date, it was declared that it was a holiday,
typhoon, the judge was not around, in short, walang fault on the part of the accused to present its
witnesses.

Since, the accused was not allowed to fully present its evidence and because of this, he was found guilty
by the court. Then the court realizes that the accused bears no fault why the hearings was cancelled.

The court may re-open the proceedings and allow the accused to continue with the presentation of its
evidence.
 3. Motion for New Trial ( sec 1, R-121)

Section 1. New trial or reconsideration. — At any time before a judgment of 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 reconsideration. (1a)

Section 2. Grounds for a new trial. — The court shall grant a new trial on any of the following
grounds:

(a) The errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused
have been committed during the trial;’

The court immediately terminated the proceedings without giving the accused
the opportunity to fully present its evidence

It appears that the court committed an error because the cancellation of the
previous hearings is not because of the fault of the accused but by the fault of the
accused.

Preterminating the presentation of evidence the accused would put the latters
prejudice which may constitute irregularity prejudicial to the substantial rights of
the accused.

(b) The new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not
with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if
introduced and admitted would probably change the judgment. (2a)

It must be discovered only after trial. It could not have been discovered

And produced at the trial even in the exercise of due diligence.

In a decided case:

For a newly discovered evidence to be appreciated as a ground for granting a motion

for new trial, it must fairly be shown that

(1) the evidence was discovered after trial;

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

(3) it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and

(4) the evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if
admitted.

NOTE: newly discovered evidence, if it was already existing during trial and the accused was already aware
of its existence but did not make use of this evidence. Only after his conviction that he would want to
introduce said evidence as a Newly Discovered Evidece.

The motion on his should be denied because it is not a newly discovered evidence.
 4. Motion for Reconsideration ( sec. 1, R-121)

5. Appeal from the judgment ( R-122)

NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE RULE

 Came from Berry vs State of Georgia

 The standards or the requisites is called the BERRY RULE
 It is a rule wherein the standards or requisites for new trial based from newly discovered evidence
are listed

BERRY RULE

(1) the evidence was discovered after trial;

(2) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial
even with the exercise of reasonable diligence;
(3) it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and
(4) the evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if
admitted.

Section 3. Ground for reconsideration. — The court shall grant reconsideration on the ground of
errors of law or fact in the judgment, which requires no further proceedings. (3a)

 Normally the accused will file an MR based on errors of law or the court did not taken to account
the law that should be taken into i.e. age of the victim was not alleged in the info but was considered
by the court as a qualifying circumstance
 Or there were presence of mitigating circumstance based from the facts presented by the accused
but were not considered by the court
 Misappreciation of facts: Accused was invoking self-defense but was not appreciated by the court.-
these are ERROR OF FACT
 ERROR OF FACT – write there the alleged errors committed by the court and the court will
immediately rule on the motion without further proceedings

Section 4. Form of motion and notice to the prosecutor. — The motion for a new trial or
reconsideration shall be in writing and shall state the grounds on which it is based. 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 introduced in evidence. Notice of the motion for new trial or reconsideration
shall be given to the prosecutor. (4a)

 Shall be in writing
 Based on newly discovered evidence
 Supported by affidavits of witnesses
 Notice of the motion for new trial shall be given to the prosecutor
 Section 5. Hearing on motion. — Where a motion for a new trial calls for resolution of any
question of fact, the court may hear evidence thereon by affidavits or otherwise. (5a)

Section 6. Effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration. — The effects of granting a

new trial or reconsideration are the following:

(a) When a new trial is granted on the ground of errors of law or irregularities committed
during the trial, all proceedings and evidence affected thereby shall be set aside and
taken anew. The court may, in the interest of justice, allow the introduction of additional
evidence.

(b) When a new trial is granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, the
evidence already adduced shall stand and the newly-discovered and such other
evidence as the court may, in the interest of justice, allow to be introduced shall be taken
and considered together with the evidence already in the record.

 The basis of the new trial is because of errors of of law or irregularities committed
during the trial, all proceedings and evidence affected thereby shall be set aside
or disregarded.
 If the basis is newly discovered evidence, the evidence introduce before will stay
and the court will received the newly discovered evidence, and resolve the case
based on the evidence presented before and the newly discovered evidence.

(c) In all cases, when the court grants new trial or reconsideration, the original judgment
shall be set aside or vacated and a new judgment rendered accordingly. (6a)

RULE 122 –APPEAL ON JUDGMENT

Section 1. Who may appeal. — Any party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless
the accused will be placed in double jeopardy. (2a)

- We have there the prosecution may file an appeal provided that the accused will
not be placed in double jeopardy
- Always remember the exceptions in the finality of acquittal doctrine:
- Accused may appeal his conviction but he should waive his protections on
prohibitions against double jeopardy and runs the risks the imposing of penalties
higher than that imposed by the trial court.
- REASON for the subject matter on appeal – AN APPEAL THROWS AN ENTIRE CASE WIDE
OPEN FOR REVIEW.
- The reviewing tribunals can correct errors though an assigned from the appealed
judgment or even reversed the trial courts decision based on grounds other than
those that the parties raised as an error.
- Appellate court can reexamine the records, revised the judgment, increased the
penalty and cite the proper provision of the penal law
- Q: Accused was convicted with homicide and he appealed his conviction. Can he
be convicted with murder by the appellate court?
- A: Yes. By appealing his conviction, he waives his protection against double jeopardy
and runs the risk of being convicted with a higher penalty imposed by the lower court.
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

 It is a matter which rest within the powers of the trial courts.

 What ever the findings of the trial courts with respect with the credibility of
the witness is given great weight by the appellate court.
 It is conclusive and binding unless it shown to be tainted with arbitrariness
 The trial courts are the SC’s eyes.

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
Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court;

(b) To the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court in the proper cases provided by law,
in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court; and

(c) To the Supreme Court, in cases decided by the Court of Appeals. (1a)

WHERE TO APPEAL:

 From MTC appeal the judgment or final order with the RTC by notice of
appeal within 15 days from notice of judgment and a copy of the notice of
the appeal shall be send to the adverse parties.
 Cases decided by the RTC within its original jurisdiction
RTC appeals to the CA by notice of appeal within 15 days from notice of
judgment and a copy of the notice of the appeal shall be send to the
adverse parties.
 Q: How about with respect to decision of the RTC under its original
jurisdiction where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment
 A: Notice of appeal to the CA within 15 days from notice of judgment
 Q: If he penalty is death
A: It is an automatic review by the CA
 Q: Accused was convicted with serious physical injuries. Where will he file
his conviction?
A: BEFORE THE RTC by notice of appeal within 15 days from notice of
judgment
 Q: What if the RTC affirmed his conviction, where will he appeal his
conviction?
A: Before the CA by Petition for Review under Rule 42
It is only applicable to the rendered decision of the RTC was rendered by
its appellate jurisdiction
Nagstart sa MTC then RTC then CA.
 If original case came from RTC, i.e. homicide, then i-aappeal conviction
mo sa CA, by notice of appeal to kasi Homicide falls under the ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION of the RTC.
 Q: Accused was convicted of Homidice, he appeared his conviction with
the CA, Accused shall file a notice of appeal within 15 days from notice of
judgment
  His conviction was affirmed by the CA, file a petition for review on certiorari
in accordance Rule 45

MODES OF APPEAL (for criminal and civil cases are the same

Section 3. How appeal taken. —

(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, 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 adverse party.

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

(c) The appeal to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed by the
Regional Trial Court is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, or where a lesser
penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose out
of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which the penalty
of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed, shall be by filing a notice of
appeal in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.

(d) No notice of appeal is necessary in cases where the death penalty is imposed by the
Regional Trial Court. The same shall be automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court as
provided in section 10 of this Rule.

(e) Except as provided in the last paragraph of section 13, Rule 124, all other appeals to
the Supreme Court shall be by petition for review on certiorari under Rules 45. (3a)

Q: If the judgment rendered by the RTC changed the nature of the offense. From murder to
homicide, where to file notice of appeal?

A: CA. The application for bail will be filed with the CA and not with the RTC.

Q: Accused was charged with Homicide and was convicted with Homicide with the RTC. It was
mentioned that he has 15 days to file an appeal before the CA or the court to render judgment.
How about if the accused file an MR of his judgment of conviction on the 13 th day. (may 2 first
day – may 17 last day – May 15 nag-file ng appeal) His MR was denied May 20, 2023. Until when
can he appeal?

A: The accused will have a fresh period of 15 days for him to appeal his conviction to be counted
from the date of the denial of his motion for reconsideration.
FRESH PERIOD RULE

The accused is given a fresh or new period of 15 day within which he could elevate to the
appellate court his conviction.

Kahit magfile siya ng kahit anong motion, okay lang. basta ma-file niya within 15 fresh period
days

Section 9. Appeal to the Regional Trial Courts. —

(a) Within five (5) days from perfection of the appeal, the clerk of court shall transmit the
original record to the appropriate Regional Trial Court.

(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.

(c) Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the said notice, the parties may submit
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 period to file the
same, the Regional Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of the entire record of
the case and of such memoranda or briefs as may have been filed. (9a)

Sometimes if the decision of the MTC was elevated to the RTC the judge may require the parties to submit a
memorandum, but it depends upon the judge. Sometimes, the court will immediately resolve the appeal based from
the records forwarded to the regional record.

Q: Accused was convicted but the plaintiff was not satisfied to the relief given. She appealed to the appellate court.
Is that possible and does it not constitute double jeopardy

A: The plaintiff or private complainant can file an appeal pero ONLY ON THE CIVIL ASPECT OF THE CASE.
She has no personality to appeal the criminal aspect case when it is to be elevated to the appellate court, it will the
be OSG who would represent the People and no longer the public prosecutor who appeared before the RTC or
MTC.
VERY IMPORTANT – SECTION 11

Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. —

(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;

(b) The appeal of the offended party from the civil aspect shall not affect the criminal
aspect of the judgment or order appealed from.

(c) Upon perfection of the appeal, the execution of the judgment or final order
appealed from shall be stayed as to the appealing party. (11a)

The benefit of the stay of execution afforded to an accused who timely filed his appeal cannot be extended to those
who failed to file the same. The period for appeal will continue to run for the petitioner notwithstanding the petition
for review filed by the co-accused.

Q: 5 accused, 1 appealed.

A: The 4 accused who did not file an appeal – the judgment of conviction will become final after the lapse of 15
days from the receipt of the judgment without them appealing a judgment of conviction.

A: The 1 accused who filed to appeal his conviction, the execution of judgment will be stayed pending appeal.

If he was on bail before, he may continue to be out of bail if the court believes that he is entitled to do so.

Q: 5 accused charged with homicide. Only 1 accused appealed his conviction. The appellate court found him guilty
of murder.

A:It will not affect the 4 remaining accused who did not appeal their conviction. The penalty meted to them by the
lower court will still be the same – penalty for homicide.

A: For the 1 accused who filed an appeal, if the SC affirmed the findings of the CA, that he is guilty of Murder and
not Homicide, he will suffer the penalty for murder.

Q: Can he invoke double jeopardy, can he claim that he cannot be meted with a penalty higher than what he received
from the RTC

A: No. By appealing his conviction, he has waived his right to be protected by the rules on double jeopardy. He
allowed the appellate court to review the entire records of the case and runs the risk of being convicted with a higher
penalty.
Q: 5 accused. 1 appealed their conviction. The CA reversed the conviction of that 1 accused and acquitted him.
Will the 4 other accused be acquitted as well even if they did not file an appeal.

A: It dependes. If it is FAVORABLE AND APPLICABLE to them.

Q: If the finding of the CA is, this accused X is not liable for homicide because he did not take part in the commission
of the offense. The prosecution failed to establish that he conspired with the rest of the accused. He was just a
bystander at the wrong place at the wrong time, but he did not execute any act that he participated in any way in
conspiracy with the accused in the commission of the offense.

A: This finding is only applicable to X. not applicable to the 4 accusde.

Q: Example for drug cases, non-compliance with sec 21 and basis ng acquittal ng 1 accused.

A: Acquittal will apply to the 4 remaining accused because it was favorable and applicable to them.

Q: Even if the accused initially appealed his conviction, he may later on, decide to withdraw his appeal before the
records has been forwarded by the Clerk of Court to the proper appellate court, is this allowed?

A: Yes.

PERIOD OF APPEAL – should be taken from 15 days from the notice of the judgment or final order appeal from.

Q:An accused who filed a notice of appeal MUST HAVE A STANDING TO APPEAL. If he has no standing to
appeal because he was tried in absentia and he failed to appeal during the promulgation of judgment,

A: He has no standing to appeal. The court shall not entertain his appeal who lost his remedies under the law.

GROUND FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL

1. If the appeal is patently without merit

2. It is prosecuted manifestly for the delay
3. The questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require reconsideration.

Q: Case of Pp vs Alejandro where the trial court acquitted the accused because there were oversight. Same rape
case was charged against Alejandro. Victims are XXX and AAA. Sa trial ng case ni AAA, Alejandro was acquitted
because the records of XXX, who did not appear as witness, were in AAA’s records. The RTC acquitted Alejandro
because of this pero binawi yung judgment kasi nakita na nag-testify si AAA. SC HELD na hindi na pwede because
of finality of acquittal doctrine and magkakaroon ng double jeopardy. Are there any remedies?
A: File an administrative case against the judge. Pero sa case na to, there has been denial to due process on the part
of the prosecution dapat the court allowed the prosecution to appeal the acquittal the accused. Sa case na to, general
rule was applied, hindi exemption.

Important factors in Rule 122

 Section 11
 Where to appeal
 How to appeal
 What mode of appeal to use
RULE 123

RULE 123

Procedure in the Municipal Trial Courts

Section 1. Uniform Procedure. — The procedure to be observed in the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial 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 governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. (1a)

RULE 124

Procedure in the Court of Appeals

Section 10. Judgment not to be reversed or modified except for substantial error. — No
judgment shall be reversed or modified unless the Court of Appeals, 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 rights of the appellant. (10a)

VERY IMPORTANT SECTION 11

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 court, remand the case to
the Regional Trial Court for new trial or retrial, or dismiss the case. (11a)

 Reversed or modify the judgment

 Increase or reverse the penalty imposed by the trial court
 remand the case to the Regional Trial Court for new trial or retria
 dismiss the case

Section 12. Power to receive evidence — The Court of Appeals shall have the 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 original jurisdiction,

(b) involving claims for damages arising from provisional remedies, or

(c) where the court grants a new trial based only on the ground of newly-discovered
evidence. (12a)

It is up to the CA if they would still conduct hearings or just resolve the case based from the
records forwarded by the RTC.

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 quorum for the sessions of a division. The
unanimous vote of the three (3) Justices of a division shall be necessary for the pronouncement
of a judgment or final resolution, which shall be reached in consultation before the writing of the
opinion by a member of the division.

In the event that the three (3) Justices can not reach a unanimous vote, the Presiding Justice
shall direct the raffle 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 a
majority of such division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a judgment or final
resolution.

The designation of such additional Justices shall be 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, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment should be imposed in a case, the court, after discussion of the evidence and the
law involved, shall render judgment imposing the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment as the circumstances warrant. However, it shall refrain from entering the judgment
and forthwith certify the case and elevate the entire record thereof to the Supreme Court for
review. (13a)

Section 14. Motion for new trial. — At any time after the appeal from the lower court has been
perfected and before the judgment of the Court of Appeals 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)

Motion for new trial pwede din na ientertain ng CA and may conduct hearing based on newly discovered
evidence.

Q: What is a newly discovered evidence that can be used for a new trial in the RTC CA or SC.

A: Example DNA Result as long as it was discovered after conviction or while the case was on appeal. Then it can
be used as a motion for a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence.
MAY 10, 2023

RULE 125

Procedure in the Supreme Court

Section 1. Uniform procedure. — Unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, the
procedure in the Supreme Court in original and in appealed cases shall be the same as in the
Court of Appeals. (1a)

Section 2. Review of decisions of the Court of Appeals. — The procedure for the review by the
Supreme Court of decisions in criminal cases rendered by the Court of Appeals shall be the
same as in civil cases. (2a)

Section 3. Decision if opinion is equally divided. — When the Supreme Court en banc is equally
divided in opinion or the necessary majority cannot be had on whether to acquit the appellant,
the case shall again be deliberated upon and if no decision is reached after re-deliberation,
the judgment of conviction of the lower court shall be reversed and the accused acquitted.
(3a)

cases falling under jurisdiction of SC.

RA 5440 - Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. — The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction
over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; and original and exclusive
jurisdiction in petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the Court
of Appeals.

Cases that can be reviewed by SC.

 If there is an allegation of error of law committed by the lower court, said case will
be look upon by the purpose of determining on whether there is an error of law
committed by the lower court.

Q: Will the Supreme Court EN BANC would review the decision rendered by a division of the SC.

A: SC can be divided in division. What is important is that the decision rendered by a division should
secure a vote of atleast 3 justices. Decision of the division CANNOT BE APPEALED TO SC EN BANC,
otherwise, the party will not be able to obtain a favorable judgement from a division.

Pero there are certain cases na pumapayag and En Banc sa case ni Estelito Mendoza

RULE 126

Search and Seizure

See – AM 21-06-08-SC – Rules on the use of body worn cameras in the execution of warrants

REASON OF ISSUANCE:

During the time of PD30, a judge in manila issued several search warrants on whole sale
application by one agency against activist in manila and Bacolod.

Because of his intention to track down the activist, the PNP applied more than 30 search
warrants from one judge. Implementation of search warrants, the rights of the persons named
in the search warrant were blatantly violated by law enforcement officers.

In order to prevent the repetition of this whole sale issuance of search warrants, the court issued
this administrative matter.

RULE 3 SECTION 1.

 Multiple warrant applications based on the same evidence – ground for

denial.
 If already issued – ground for quashal of the warrants
In most book AM 99-20-09-SC this is no longer applicable.

Former Rule: Executive judge and Vice-Executive judges of the RTC of Manila and Quezon City
can issue search warrants which can be enforced anywhere in the country for as long as it
involve heinous crimes, illegal gambling, dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms

LATEST RULE: Executive judge or in his absence, the Vice-executive judge of the RTC could act
on an application for the issuance of a search warrant which could be implemented outside his
territorial jurisdiction but within the judicial region if there is a compelling reason stated in the
application and the same involves crimes stated in section 2: heinous crimes, illegal gambling,
dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms, anti money laundering act

Courts are grouped into judicial regions. Baguio is within 1 judicial region including Ilocos,
pangasinan, la union, abra, Benguet, mt. province.

Q: Ex. Police enforcement officers in La Trinidad would apply in baguio court from the executive
judge of the RTC for an offense involving a violation of RA 9165 (drugs case) illegal possession of
drugs.

They apply for the issuance of search warrants for seizing shabu from the residence of a well
known politician in La Trinidad Benguet

Can the Executive judge of baguio act on that application, where that search warrant will be
implemented not within the territorial jurisdiction of Baguio but within its judicial region?

A: Yes as long as the law enforcement officers were able to state a compelling reason why they
applied for the issuance of a search warrant instead in la Trinidad kung may sarili naman silang
court there.

Q: what can be a compelling reason for the police officers to justify their application?

A: Example, subject of the warrant is a politician who has many connections. So baka may mag-
tip sa politician. Eh di wala na, useless na yung search nila kasi wala na silang masesearch kasi
malinis na yung place.

Q: Can a copy of the search warrant be requested?

A: Yung sagot is: Time is of the essence. Application and then issuance ng search warrant. Ang
makakaalam lang is yung applicant.

NOTE: ITO NA YUNG PREVAILING. Sa ibang reviewer old rules pa din nakalagay, hindi pa yung
bago, wala na yung pwedeng implement any where in the country except if what is involve is
special commercial courts, intellectual property rights or cyber warrants
Aside from the requirements listed in the rules, include these additional requirements. That the order must also
include a directive to the law enforcement officers who would implement the search warrant to use at

 least one body worn camera and

 one alternative recording device
 or minimum of atleast 2 devices

Like in the execution of a warrant of arrest, after the police officers have complied with the KNOCK AND
ANNOUNCE RULE,

 They should also inform the occupants of the place that they are using body worn cameras
and they will be recording the conduct of the implementation of the search warrant.
IF THE POLICE OFFICERS DID NOT USE BODY WORN CAMERAS OR ALTERNATIVE
RECORDINGS DEVICE WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE GROUND:

 The evidence obtained by them would be inadmissible

 Useless yung mga seize na evidence.
Q: REMEDY OF AN ACCUSED FOR THE NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULE

A: File a Motion to suppress evidence, if it can be shown that the police officers did not comply with the rule.
Evidence will be excluded in the admissibility of evidence

Whenever the police officers would file a complaint involving the execution of a search warrant if they were able
to seize a contra band as a result of the search.

 One of the documents that they need to submit is an affidavit of search executed by the
police officer who was using or wearing the body worn camera during that time.
 Recording will also be submitted.

RECORDINGS – under the rules, it cannot be viewed without the consent of the accused unless somebody died
during the operation

 Recording can be viewed upon the request of the prosecution

 But for it to be used for the proceeding of the accused, it must be done with his consent
 If accused remained to be silent, recording may be used against him.
DIFFERENCE WITH THE EFFECTS OF NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULE WHEN IT COMES TO THE
EXECUTION OF A SEARCH WARRANT OR WARRANT OF ARREST.

With respect to the implementation of a search warrant, wala masyadong problema kahit iview yung mga recording.

TAKE NOTE: In the execution of a warrant of arrest, failure to comply with one of the rules, warrant of arrest was
served, police officer serving the warrant of arrest was not wearing a body worn camera, or any other recording
device,

Q: If he was able to seized something like a contraband as incident to a lawful arrest, would that evidence be
inadmissible?

A: SC held No. it shall not render the arrest unlawful or the evidence obtained inadmissible. Facts surrounding the
arrest may be proved by the testimonies of the other arresting officers, the person arrested, and other witnesses to
the arrest.

Pag sa search warrant inadmissible provided that the non-compliance is without any valid reason. No reasonable
or justifiable ground.

Rights to be secured in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. One of the most cherished rights.

The protection afforded by the Constitution is reinforced by the fact that we are also a signatory of the
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS AND THE UNIVERSAL
DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Basis of the rule on search and seizure is Section 2 of Bill of Rights.

RULE 126 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE

The term “search” in relation to searches and seizures is an examination of a man’s dwelling or
his other premises, or an examination to the man himself with the purpose of discovering
property which is considered as contraband, illegal, or stolen or which can be used as an
evidence to prove his guilt in the prosecution of a criminal offense that which he was
charged.

On the other hand, “seizure” is the physical taking of the property subject of a valid search into the custody of the
law.

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS:

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
 PROTECTION FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES. Meaning pwedeng maging subjected to a reasoble
search.

Requisite:

 Probable cause to be personally determined by the judge after examination under oath
 And yung katuloy ng constitutional basis, lower part.

SEARCH WARRANT DEFINED. – A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the
People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding
him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court. (Section
1.)

An ordinary information, ganun din itsura ng search warrant

A search warrant is not a criminal action nor represent the commencement of a criminal prosecution

It is a special criminal process.

Q: If an accused would file a motion to quash the search warrant and the law enforcement officers who implemented
the search warrant would file its comment without the conformity of the prosecutor,

A: Okay lang. Because it is not a criminal action which would require the conformity of a public prosecutor

Implementation of a search warrant does not always result to the seizure or confiscation of a contraband. Minsan
walang nakukuha or ibang item not listed in the search warrant.

If not in PLAIN VIEW, seized item is inadmissible to evidence.

Ang search warrant is for drugs, pero and nakuha is Granada which is not in plain view,

The police officers cannot file an action for the possession of explosives
NATURE OF APPLICATION:

1. It is not a criminal action nor does it represent the commencement of a criminal prosecution

2. It is a legal process which has been likened to a writ of discovery employed by the state to
procure relevant evidence of a crime.

3. It is a police weapon issued under the police power. (United Laboratories Inc vs Isip., 461 S
574)

4. It is not a proceeding against a person but is solely for the discovery and to get possession of
personal property
Reason why not a proceeding against person : Because there are instances when the police
officers have implemented a warrant without really knowing the owner of the place (ie
bodega, bahay, office) where the shabu is kept
PWEDE yun.

Q: IF THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE NAME APPEARING IN THE SEARCH WARRANT , is it fatal, can you
order the quashal of the search warrant?
A: No.The puspose of the warrant is to seized the items listed in the warrant.
What is important is the place to be search has been particularly described as well as the
things to be seize.

5. It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in nature, and made necessary because of
public necessity.

6.An application for SW is heard ex parte. It is neither trial nor part of the trial. Action on these
applications must be expedited for time is of the

7. The power to issue SW is exclusively vested w/ trial judges in the exercise of their judicial
functions

8. An application for a search warrant is a "special criminal process," rather than a criminal
action: Accordingly, we sustain the CA’s ruling that the conformity of the public prosecutor is
not necessary before an aggrieved party moves for reconsideration of an order granting a
motion to quash search warrants.

(Yu vs PP, G.R. No. 161106 January 13, 2014) – case where the SC made mention that the
conformity of the prosecution is not necessary before an aggrieved party can move for a
reconsidereation of an order granting a motion quash SW.
WHERE TO FILE APPLICATION: (Sec. 2.) An application for search warrant shall be filed with the
following:

(a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed.
If search is to be conducted in Agoo, then file a search warrant in Agoo.

(b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, (this refers to other cases not listed under
the rules of body worn cameras)

1) any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of
the commission of the crime is known, or

(2) any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced.

(3) However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be
made in the court where the criminal action is pending.

Kahit hindi nakalista yung crime sa information.

Ex. Crime is robbery. Ninakawan na grocery. Hindi kasama sa nakalisa. If they receive an
information that the stolen goods were stored in the house of Mr. X, inBaguio, and X is a high
ranking police officer in Baguio, instead of applying a search warrant in Baguio, they opted to
apply to la Trinidad in order for the leakage of the search warrant. Pwede to.

If the case is already filed in court, the SW can only be applied before the court where the
case is pending.

Ex. Accused was apprehended after selling 1kg of shabu. They came to know that the
accused is storing shabu in his residence. Can they barge in his residence to confiscate the
shabu?
A: No. They need to apply for a SW.
Kahit yung buy bust operation is nangyari sa labas ng bahay ng accused, they cannot enter
his house because it is outside the immediate control of the accused. Hindi justified under a
valid warrantless search
A.M. No. 99-20-09-SC , Jan 25, 00 – in cases involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling,
dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms.

In the interest of an effective administration of Justice and pursuant to the powers vested in
the Supreme Court by the Constitution, the following are authorized to act on all applications
for search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, dangerous drugs and illegal
possession of firearms:

The Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of the Regional Trial Courts, Manila and
Quezon City, filed by the Philippine National Police (PNP), the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI), The Presidential Anti-Organized Crime task Force (PAOC-TF) and the Reaction Against
Crime Task Force (REACT-TF) with the Regional Trial Courts of Manila and Quezon City.

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

Only the personal property described in the search warrant may be seized by the authorities
except if that property is in plain view.

Laud vs Pp
Facts:
PNP, through Police Senior Superintendent Roberto Fajardo, applied with the Manila-RTC for a
warrant to search three caves located inside the Laud Compound in Purok 3, Barangay Ma-a,
Davao City, where the alleged remains of the victims summarily executed by the so-called
"Davao Death Squad" may be found. In support of the application, a certain Ernesto Avasola
was presented to the RTC and testified therein that he personally witnessed the killing of six
persons in December 2005. Judge William Simon Peralta, acting as Vice Executive Judge of
the Manila-RTC, found probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, and thus, issued
Search Warrant No. 09- 14407 which was later enforced by the elements of the PNP-Criminal
Investigation and Detection Group. The search of the Laud Compound caves yielded positive
results for the presence of human remains. Herein petitioner, retired SPO4 Bienvenido Laud,
filed an Urgent Motion to Quash and to Suppress Illegally Seized Evidence premised on the
ground that, among others, the Manila-RTC had no jurisdiction to issue Search Warrant which
was to be enforced in Davao City. Manila-RTC granted the motion. The People filed a petition
for certiorari which the CA granted. Laud moved for reconsideration, but was later denied.
Hence, this petition.

New rule: No need for a compelling reason as long as it involves heinous crimes, illegal
gambling, drugs, illgal possession of fire arms
ISSUE:
Personal property seized – what is seized here is human remains, hindi dapat maging subject
ng search warrant because it is not a personal property

HELD:
SC held that "Personal property" in the foregoing context actually refers to the thing’s mobility,
and not to its capacity to be owned or alienated by a particular person.

Considering that human remains can generally be transported from place toplace, and
considering further that they qualify under the phrase "subject of the offense" given that they
prove the crime’s corpus delicti, it follows that they may be valid subjects of a search warrant
under the above-cited criminal procedure provision.

the description points to no other than the things that bear a direct relation to the offense
committed i.e., of Murder.

Subject of the offense: Human remains

REQUISITES FOR ISSUING SEARCH WARRANT. (Sec. 4.)

1. There must be probable cause in connection with one specific offense;

If there are two or more offenses listed in the SW – SCATTER – SHOT WARRANT

SCATTER – SHOT WARRANT – a search warrant which was issued for more than one offense.

Ex. Police officer applied for a search warrant for the seizing undetermined qty of shabu
and explosives in the residence of XXX.

Court must issue 2 SW. 1 for the seizure of shabu; 2 is the confiscation of explosives because
it is covered by 2 different laws.

2. The presence of PB is to be determined personally by the judge;

The judge should personally examine, personally ask searching questions to the applicant
and the witnesses he may produce.

Kapag issuance ng warrant of arrest, judge can just review the resolution and supporting
documents forwarded by the prosecution to the court. No need to ask questions to the
complainants.

Different sa SW. 126 - sect.5

Judge is required to make probing questions make inquiries determined from the
applicants and witnesses how did they learn that the person was keeping contravand in
his residence. KAilangan based on personal knowledge. If from informant, hearsay. Police
must have conducted surveillance.
3. The determination of PB by the judge must be made after an examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witness he may produce;
4. The warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be
seized
Q: what is the importance of this?
A; In order to prevent the police officer from exercising their discretion to decide on their own
what placed to be searched and what thing to be seized.

May mga lugar na walang house number. Example. Looking for the house of Mr. X
Q: How would they particularly describe the place to be searched?
A: SC held to provide a valid description.

Q: how will the police be able to identify the placed to be searched, if the information stated
“House of Mr. X located in the Dizon compound” is this valid?
A: Yes, it is a valid description. it can be identified by the fact that they are searching for the
house of Mr. X in the Dizon compound

Q: what if the house where is houses different families or rooms, occupied by different families.
A: The room to be search must be particularly described. Kung apartment – Apartment
occupied by Mr. X, or the left room located at the 2nd floor of the house consisting of 3 floors
found at 1 rimando, baguio city.
IMPORTANTE na ILAGAY: “… being occupied by Mr.X”

SC held that the description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the
warrant can with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended to be searched
and distinguished from the other place in the community.

What is important is that the officer who served the warrant knows precisely the placed
intended to be searched. But the place to be searched must have the same address and
description appearing in the search warrant. Wala dapat discrepancy.

Q: What do police officers do para walang duda and place intended to be searched.
A; Aside from the application, they would normally attach a plan or drawing showing the
exact location of the place.

Q: Pano sa mga squatters area na dikit dikit yung bahay?

A: May mga landmark. Example. The house painted with green, behind the sari sari store
named mura dito. Ang may kasama pang drawing nila kung saan yung location.

Q: Court issued a SW for the police officers to searched the particular house of Mr. X. Pero
duplex tapos magkatabi, when the police officers arrived at the place, they realized that the
SW has the wrong house Unit. (Ex. Unit 1 and 2)

They intended to search unit 2, pero sa SW nakalagay Unit 1.

Can they search unit 2?

A: No. They cannot do that. Because the search particularly and specifically described in the
SW that the place subject of search is Unit 1.

What if may connecting door, can they enter Unit 2?

NO.
They cannot alter, expound, modify the place to be search from that of described in the SW.

PURPOSE: to prevent police officers in exercising their discretion. Otherwise, they can use it as
a justification in searching a different house from that described in the SW.

In a case decided by the SC, the place is particularly described even if what is stated is the
name ng subject nila. Ex. The room occupied by XXX, the house of XXX, the house rented by
XXX.

PARTICULARITY OF THE THING TO BE SEIZED

Q: Ex. What appears in the SW the police officers would be seizing drug paraphernalia not
particularly describing it. Would that suffice?

A: No need for the SW to enumerate the drug paraphernalia to be confiscated. Police officers
know that it is being used by drug users. Madalas to, foil, tong, burner, lighter or anything used
to consume, ingest, inject drugs, can qualify as drug paraphernalia.

What is important is for the SW to describe the things to be seized when the description therein
is as specific as the circumstances ordinarily allow. When the description expresses a
conclusion of fact, not of law, by which the police officer may be guided in making the
search or when the things described are limited to those which bears direct relation to the
offense for which the warrant is being issued.

Ex. Violation of Sec. 12 of 9165. Kahit anong paraphernalia, it has a direct relation to the
offense of said violation

UNSpecified amount of shabu nakalagay sa infor. Pwede? YES.

5. it shall include an order requiring the use of at least one body worn camera and one
alternative recording or device or a minimum of 2 devices or such number as necessary to
capture and record the relevant incidents during its execution.
Must issue this directive

6. it must not have been issued more than 10 days prior to the search made pursuant thereto.
Lapse of 10 days. SW will become void.
Unlike a warrant of arrest has no expiration date. It is valid until the person was arrested.

HOW THE EXAMINATION SHALL BE CONDUCTED BY THE JUDGE: (Sec. 5.)

1) the examination must be personally conducted by the judge;
2) the examination must be in the form of searching questions and answers
3) the complainant and the witnesses shall be examined on those facts personally known to
them;
4) the statements must be in writing and under oath
5) the ss of the complainant and the witnesses, together with the affidavits submitted shall be
attached to the records

Although the hearing is ex parte, everything will be recorded. Be placed in writing and be part
of the records.
If the court is satisfied to issue the SW,

Section 6. Issuance and form of search warrant. — If the judge is satisfied of the existence of
facts upon which the application is based or that there is probable cause to believe that they
exist, he shall issue the warrant, which must be substantially in the form prescribed by these Rules.
(5a)

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF SW

1. Present and read the SW to the occupants
2. Notify the lawful occupants of the premises to be searched that the execution of the
SW is being recorded and that they are conducting a search pursuant to a warrant
issued by a court.

Only in exceptional cases that these may be forego.

 If his safety is in danger of being jeopardized or the evidence is about to
be destroyed.

During the implementation of SW – police must be in uniform.

KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE RULE” – an officer should knock, introduce himself and announce his
purpose and only in exceptional cases may he forego the same like when his safety is in
danger of being jeopardized or when evidence is about to be destroyed.

Q: The search warrant in the house of TEVES where a clearing activity was done before the
search was done. Pinaalis muna lahat ng tao.
A: Not allowed. The witness to search rule must be followed.
Pwdeng I invoke nung occupant na nagtanim ebidensya.
Dapat isang searcher lang para masundan mo
REQUIREMENTS DURING IMPLEMENTATION OF SW:
1. The conduct of the search should be done in the presence of any of the following: (This is
the WITNESS-TO-SEARCH RULE)
i) lawful occupant of the place to be searched, or
ii) any member of his family; or
iii) in their absence, in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age or discretion
residing in the same locality.

NOTE: Officers conducting search without the said requisite could be held liable for violating
Article 130 of the Revised Penal Code that is (Searching Domicile without Witnesses).

2. Only personal property described in the warrant shall be seized except contraband articles
in plain view.
- Objects, articles or papers not described in the warrant but on plain view of the executing
officer may be seized by him. However, the seizure by the officer of objects/articles/papers not
described in the warrant cannot be presumed as plain view.

REQUIREMENTS AFTER THE SEARCH:

1. The officer seizing the property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same
to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and seizure were made,
or in the absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of at least two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in the place in which
he found the seized property. (Sec. 11.)

 Ilista mo yung mga items seized and leave a copy to the occupant

2. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and proceedings thereon. –. (Sec.
12.)

(a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued 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 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 of this Rule has been complied with and shall require that
the property seized be delivered to him. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has
been complied with.

(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of 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 constitute contempt of court.
1. GENERAL WARRANT - is a search warrant which vaguely describes and does not particularize
the personal properties to be seized or it did not contain the name of the defendant, nor any
description or designation by which he could be known and identified as the person against
whom it was issued.

2. JOHN DOE/ JOHN ROE WARRANT - is a warrant for the apprehension of a person whose true
name is unknown. > Generally, this kind of warrants are void because it violates the
constitutional provision which requires that warrants of arrests should particularly describe the
person or persons to be arrested. (PP vs Veloso, G.R. No. L-23051 October 20, 1925)

> But if there is sufficient description (descriptio personae) to identify the person to be arrested,
the warrant is valid.

I -The warrant was valid although issued against John Doe only where it was shown that
he was described as occupying and in control of a building at a specified address. (PP vs
Veloso, 48 Phil 169)

3. SCATTER – SHOT WARRANT – a search warrant which was issued for more than one offense.

4. ONE-SPECIFIC-OFFENSE RULE - one search warrant shall only be issued for one specific
purpose, that is one single warrant for one single offense committed
- intended to prevent the issuance of scatter shot warrants, or those which are issued for more
than one specific offense.

5. PARTICULARITY OF PLACE
- The long-standing rule is that a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the
officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended
and distinguish it from other places in the community. Any designation or description known to
the locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry leads the
officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement.
- Moreover, in the determination of whether a search warrant describes the premises to be
searched with sufficient particularity, it has been held that the executing officer's prior
knowledge as to the place intended in the warrant is relevant. This would seem to be
especially true where the executing officer is the affiant on whose affidavit the warrant had
been issued, and when he knows that the judge who issued the warrant intended the
compound described in the affidavit.

6. PARTICULARITY OF THINGS

A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when
a) the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow; b) or when the
description expresses a conclusion of fact not of law by which the warrant officer may be
guided in making the search and seizure;
c) or when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense
for which the warrant is being issued.
The evident purposes and intent of this requirement are:

a) to limit the things to be seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search
warrant;

b) to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they shall seize;
c) to the end that ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ may not be made;
d) that abuses may not be committed

7. “ KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE RULE” – an officer should knock, introduce himself and announce
his purpose and only in exceptional cases may he forego the same like when his safety is in
danger of being jeopardized or when evidence is about to be destroyed.
--in the enforcement of the search warrant, officers implementing it must remember the
“Knock and Announce Principle”. They must announce their presence, identify themselves to
the accused or to the person who was given the authority to allow the officers search the
premises, show the warrant to be implemented, and explain to them said warrant in a
language or dialect known and understood by them.
The officer has the right to break door or window to effect search, if after executing the
“knock and announce principle”, he was refused admittance thereto (Section 7).
The only person who can assail SW is the person impaired. Not by 3rd parties
Kapag wala pang nafile na kaso, file a motion to quash before the court who issued the SW

If case was already filed, file the motion to quash the before the court where the information
has been filed.
MAY 15, 2023

What is being filed is motion to quash and or suppress evidence

If the court finds the SW to be valid but the seizure of the items presented to the court is not
valid, the court may grant the motion

Instances when a search is valid even in the absence of a SW

1. Offender was caught in the act of committing the crime , police will search him to
procure evidence

Q: Accused was caught in flagrante delicto. He was searched after the arrest, but
nagmamadali sila so pagdating sa presinto, accused was subjected to a second search,
there they seized marijuana. is that admissible in evidence, will that fall under search incidental
to a lawful arrest?
A: Reason police officers are allowed to search people who were validly arrested is to protect
the arresting officers from being harmed by the person arrested who might be armed with a
concealed weapon.
Second, to prevent him from destroying evidence within his reach.
Sometimes, search may be contemporaneous from the arrest, minsan sabay. What is
important is for the police officers from the very start has a valid reason to arrest the accused
wthout a warrant.

The person arrested has with him a bag. Can they search the bag? Yes.
 If onboard a motor vehicle and sold shabu to a police officer, after his arrest, the motor
vehicle can be searched because it is whithin his immediate control

Accused was arrested in front of his house, main door was open, can police officer search he
sala of the house. NO. they need to secure a SW.

But if right beside the door is a table and the accused was standing beside the table during
the transaction with the police, can they search the table. Yes. Because the accused can
possibly reached a weapon placed inside that table that can harm the arresting officers .

It is part of the State’s police power to protect law enforcers from injury that may be inflicted
to them by the person lawfully arrested and to prevent from destroying the evidence to prove
the offense.

Q: He was placed at the place of arrest. Brought to the police station and was searched for
the second time were they recovered marijuana. Is it admissible in evidence.
A: SC held – no. the police station is already outside the scope or parameter within the
accused reach or immediate control for dangerous weapon or anything that may have been
used in the commission of the offense. Hindi pwede ang succeeding searches. It defeats the
purpose.

Other reason, is to prevent the police officer from abusing their authority.

PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE.

Q: Police officers were armed with a SW, for the purpose of searching shabu. While looking
inside the cabinet of X, they were able to find there a box and found inside an unlicensed
firearm, can the accused be charged with illegal possession of firearm

A; No.
1. Prior justification of intrusion, - because police has a SW
Or in a position from which he can view a particular area – i.e., checkpoint

Nung nagcheck point, nakita sa loob ng sasakyan may baril in plain view, they are in
the position to view the baril without the need to search for it.

Also applicable in hot pursuit. X while running, umangat damit ni accused and nakita
na may baril. Plain view doctrine

2. In short hindi sinasadya.

Remember the requisites of Inadvertence Element – meaning the police officers may
not know in advance the location of evidence and the discovery is not anticipated.

3. Immediately apparent to the officer – the incriminating character of the object must be
immediately apparent. With the sensory perceptions of the police officers, they could
immediately identify that the particular object is a contraband or an evidence for the
crime.
Shape, picture, color, and character can be connected to a criminal activity. Ex. Baril.
Kung covered ng cloth or newspaper pero it follows the shape of the baril, is the
incriminating character of the baril apparent? Can it be connected to a criminal
activity even if it is covered? Does this fall under the evidence in plain view?
A: It can be seized but prayer against the accused for illegal possession of firearm
cannot be filed in court because the evidence was not recovered in plain view.

In pp. vs Musada?
Sc held that if the plastic bag or container clearly displayed its contents whether by its
disctinctive configuration its transparency or otherwise the contents are obvious to an
observer, then evidence in plain view can be applied.

Ex. Firearm is covered by cloth. Sa pulis, there is no doubt na baril yun. No doubt. Can it
be seized as evidence in plain view?
A; Yes.

Q: is it limited to sense of sight?

A: No. It is important for the police to identify the contents of the plastic bag, i.e.
marijuana. pero kung sealed to prevent its smell. It cannot be justified as seizure of
evidence in plain view.
Marijuana in bricks covered by newspaper
SC held, that the seizure of marijuana under plain view is not valid because the contents of the
newspaper cannot be determined to be marijuana without the officers opening the
newspaper.

Pero kung nagdahilan sila na kasi naamoy nila, pwede pa.

Q: SW containes – undetermined quantity of shabu. Pero during search, may narecover silang
marijuana, explosive, etc. pwede bang kasuhan ng additional cases si accused?
A: NO. unless the seizure of said items is in plain view. Pero confiscated yung mga item seized
in favor of the government.

Stop and Frisk is used when dealing with rapidly unfolding criminal situations when there is no
time to secure a search warrant.
Remember: when police officers justify stop and frisk. Yung nasa NOTE

Kailangan more than 1 suspicious circumstance.

Kogaed Case
Was there valid search and seizure.
SC held na wala and marijuana cannot be admissible in evidence
Isang single circumstance lang ang meron – which is yung may nag tip. Stop and frisk is not
justified.

Police officers should not have adopt the suspicion of a 3rd person and theyshould have used
their own senses, observe facts that would lead them to believe that the particular person is
committing an offense.

Si Kogaed kasi is a psassenger carrying a bag and traveling on board a jeepney. Yung driver
yung nagturo. Police officer did not found suspicious conduct.

Crizaldi vs Pp.
Police conducted surveillance after receiving a report that Intang was selling drugs to tricycle
drivers and saw them getting inand out of the house of intang.

One of the tricycle drivers is crizaldi. Nakita siya na lumabas sa bahay ni intang. They chased
him, stop him, and ask him to alight his tricycle. He obliged. But that time he was holding a
matchbox. He was ask to open it and inside was a marijuana. He was charged of the offense.

Police officers tried to justify the arrest under stop and frisk.
SC held that accused did not execute any overt manifestation that he is committing an
offense. The police officers had no idea what he did in the house of intang. He did not tried to
evade the pulis. there are no reason that give the police officers a reasonable degree of
suspicion that the particular person is committing an offense. Acquitted.

Comersyante vs Pp case?

2 person standing. One hand over something to another pulis spotted them and charged
them with prohibited sale of drugs.
SC held. 2 persons standing and handing something to another cannot in any way be
considered a criminal act. Pulis cannot rely on a single circumstance

Manalili

Pulis is conducting surveillance sa cemetery kasi pugad daw ng mga addict. Petitioner was
walking when the pulis found him na mapula yung mata. Walking unsteadily. The man tried to
evade the pulis, pulis approached him and identified themselves as police officers, dinala sa
station.
Issue is if the stop and frisk was followed?
Yes. Because such suspicious behavior looks someone who looks under the influence of drug
Reasonable. There are more than 1 suspicious act. Pulis is part of anti narcotics kaya kaya
nilang mag identify or not kunghigh on drugs. And they found out na he has in his possession
marijuana.
Search of a moving vehicle. The target is the vehicle or its content and not a specific person

Vehicle is used to transport illegal items

Limited to visual inspection
Pulis are not allowed to open the car nor ask the passenger to alight the vehicle and be
conducted a body search.

Reason for routing check for this. It is impractical to secure a warrant kasi a vehicle can quickly
move out the locality of jurisdiction before they can secure a SW

Allowed yung search na to kasi it is within the police power of the government

Road side questioning of a motorist pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not fall under
custodial interrogation nor can it be considered as a formal arrest.
Because of the questioning, the expectation of the motorist and the length of time the
procedure is conducted.

So pinara ka, for a traffic violation. You are not arrested.

Kung flagged down because of traffic violation, it is merely temporary and brief.

CHECKPOINTS are allowed in exceptional circumstances under alert situations or the life or
safety of the people is in great peril or there is a need to arrest a criminal or fugitive from
justice.

EXTENSIVE SEARCH IS ALLOWED IF THE PULIS HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE BELIEVES THAT THE VEHICLE
CONTAINS AN ITEM WHICH IS BY LAW SUBJECT TO SEIZURE
OR IT CONTAINS CONTRABAND OR USED TO TRANSPORT ILLEGAL ARTICLES THEN THE VEHICLES
CAN BE SUBJECTED TO EXTENSIVE SEARCH.
If the pulis ask you to open yourbag and sumunod ka and may nakita silang drugs,
You could say na it is not a consented warrantless search because you were forced to open
your bag. It was not intelligently or voluntarily made.
Mere passive conformity in intimidating or coercive circumstances is not consent within the
constitutional guarantee.
You were afraid kaya ka sumunod.