Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 119

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty.

Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ATTY. TRANQUIL SALVADOR
FIRST SEMESTER AY 2005-2006

I. DEFINITIONS & PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS a. Inquisitorial  Prosecutions of crimes are wholly in the hands of
prosecuting officers and the court.
A. Definition  The procedure is characterized by SECRECY.
1. Concerned with the procedural steps through which a criminal case  Presence of accused before the magistrate is not a
passes, commencing with the initial investigation of a crime and requirement thus, magistrate can proceed with inquiry
concluding with the unconditional release of the offender. and judgment even in the absence of the accused.
2. A network of rules, which governs the procedural administration of  Judgment does not become final until it has been
criminal justice, that is, laws and courts rules (Black’s Law ratified and confirmed by the court of last resort (US vs.
Dictionary). Samio).
3. Method prescribed by law for the apprehension and prosecution of  During the Spanish period.
persons accused of any criminal offense and for their punishment b. Accusatorial  Requires all crimes except private offenses (must be
in case of conviction (Clark’s Criminal Procedure) commenced by the complainant of the offended party)
to be prosecuted by a public prosecutor
B. Sources  Accused has a right to be heard personally or by
1. Philippine Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 110 to Rule 127) of counsel
the Rules of Court (took effect on January 1, 1964). The Rules  Public trial, right of accused against self-incrimination is
were revised three more times. The latest took effect on guaranteed.
December 01, 2000).  Accused enjoys presumption of innocence; guilt must
2. 1987 Constitution under Article III (Bill of Rights) be proven beyond reasonable doubt
3. various acts passed by the legislature like BP Blg. 129  There is a right to appeal
4. Presidential decrees  Judgment does not require the imprimatur of the court
5. Executive Orders of last resort before t may attain finality.
6. Decisions of the Supreme Court  There should be moral certainty of guilt to defeat the
constitutional presumption of innocence (People vs.
Egot).
C. Criminal Law vs. Criminal Procedure c. Mixed  Contemplates of two contending parties before the
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure system court, which hears them impartially and renders
 Both relates to crimes  Both relates to crimes judgment only after trial (Queto vs Catolico).
 Substantive: it defines crimes,  Remedial: provides for the  Mix of the last two systems (ex. our law provides that
treats of their nature and method by which a person preliminary examination must be conducted by a judge
provides for the their punishment accused of a crime is arrested, before he issues a warrant of arrest which is an aspect
tried and punished of inquisitorial system while accused has a right to be
 Declares what acts are punishable  Provides how acts are punished. heard, which is an aspect of the accusatorial system)

D. Systems of Criminal Procedures Note: Courts proceeding in our Judicial Setup is accusatorial or adversarial and
Systems Definition not inquisitorial in nature. But there are opinions that our country subscribes
to the third system.
Vena V. Verga 1
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

C. When does jurisdiction attach


E. Construction of rule Jurisdiction attaches when law has given a tribunal capacity to
1. Rules will be liberally construed, enough to protect the substantial entertain the complaint against the person or thing sought to be
rights of the accused (section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court). charged or affected, and that such complaint has actually been
2. Rules of Court should not be interpreted as to sacrifice the preferred, and that such person or thing has been properly brought
substantial rights of the litigants at the altar of technicalities to the before the tribunal to answer the charge therein contained (Republic
consequent impairment of the sacred rules of justice (Alonzo vs. vs. Sunga).
Villamor).
D. Exercise of Jurisdiction
II. JURISDICTION The authority to decide a cast and not the decision therein is what makes up a
jurisdiction. Where the jurisdiction over the person and subject matter, the
decision of all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of the
A. Definition
jurisdiction (de Veyra vs. Avila).
1. Came from the Latin words “juris” and “dico” (I speak by the law)
which means “the power or the capacity given by the law to a
A court may act, first, without jurisdiction (makes the judgment void); and
court or tribunal to entertain, hear and determine controversies”
second, having power or jurisdiction, may exercise it wrongly (decision is
(People vs. Mariano)
wrong and must be reversed upon error); or third, irregularly (must be
2. The right to put the wheels of justice in motion and to proceed to
corrected by motion).
the final determination of a cause upon the pleading of evidence.
3. the power and authority to hear and determine matters in
E. Source
controversy according to established rules of law and to carry the
1. Jurisdiction must be conferred by:
sentence or judgment of the court into execution (Morando vs.
(1) Constitution
Rovira).
(2) Law in force at the time of the institution of the action
4. Vested in the courts, not in the judges. This when a complaint is
(People vs. Adolfo)
filed before one branch or judge (of the same court, ex. RTC)
2. Cannot be fixed by the will of the parties or diminished by the
jurisdiction does not attach to said branch or judge alone. Trial
omission or act of said parties
may be had or proceeding may continue by and before another
3. Apportionment of jurisdiction is vested in the legislature; may not
branch or judge.
be conferred on the court by the parties involved in the offense.
B. Distinguished from venue
F. Criminal Jurisdiction
The particular country or geographical area, which a court with
1. Definition: the power of the tribunal to hear and try a particular
jurisdiction may hear and determine a case; place of trial.
offense and impose the punishment for it (People vs. Mariano).
2. While a court has abstract jurisdiction to and decide criminal cases
Jurisdiction Venue
committed within its territorial jurisdiction, it cannot do so unless a
Treats the power of the court to Deals with locality, the place where
complaint or information has been filed in court.
decide the case on the merits the suit may be had
3. requisites
Substantive (defines and regulates Procedural (Prescribes methods of
(a) the offense is one which the court is by law authorized to take
rights or duties which gives rise to a enforcing rights or obtains redress for
cognizance of (JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER).
cause of action) their invasion)
(b) the offense must have been committed within its territorial
jurisdiction (JURISDICTION OVER TERRIRTORY).
In civil cases, venue can be waived or
(c) person charged with the offense must have been brought to
be a subject of agreement.
its presence for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his
In criminal actions, venue cannot be
voluntary submission to the court. (JURISDICTION OVER THE
waived or stipulated upon because it is
PERSON OF THE ACCUSED).
an element of jurisdiction.

Vena V. Verga 2
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

NOTE: It is a general rule that jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter Reason: The law considers pirates “hostes humani generis”. It is
of the action is a matter of law and may not be conferred by consent or committed not against any particular state but against all mankind
agreement of the parties (UY vs. CA) (People vs. Lol-Lo and Sarao)

G. Jurisdiction over continuing crimes 2.3 Where the offense is committed on a railroad train, in an aircraft
or in any other public or private vehicle while in the course of its
Note: For continuous crime to exist, there should be plurality of acts trip. The criminal actions may be instituted and tried in the court
performed separately during a period of time; unity of the penal provision of any municipality or territory where such vehicle passed during
infringed upon or violated and unity of criminal intent or purpose. This is such trip including the place of departure and arrival (Section 14,
means that two or more violations of the same penal provision are unite in one Rule 110).
and the same intent leading to the perpetuation of the same criminal purpose 2.4 Crime was committed on board a vessel in the course of its
(People vs. Zapata and Bondoc) voyage. Action may be tried in the proper court of the first power
of entry or any municipality or territory through which the vessel
GENERAL RULE: The accused in a continuing or transitory offense may be passed subject to the generally accepted principles of international
tried in any jurisdiction in which he is found (US vs. Cunanan). But the court law.
where the case was first filed acquires jurisdiction over the same to the 2.5 When the Supreme Court, in the interest of truth and impartial
exclusion of all other courts, provided it has custody of the accused or has first justice, transfers the place of trial from one place to another.
acquired jurisdiction over his person. (Article Xiii, Section 5(4))
2.6 In cases of written defamation (Act 4363)
H. Territorial Jurisdiction Criminal action will be filed in the CFI of the province or city where
1. Determined by the allegations in the information as to the situs of the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of
the crime and this determines, in the first instance, whether said the offended parties reside. If one of the parties is a public officer
court has jurisdiction to try this case. who office in the city of Manila, the action shall be filed in the CFI
GENERAL RULE: the offender must be prosecuted in the territory where the of Manila or where he holds office.
offense was committed.
2. Exceptions: I. Jurisdiction over person of the accused – acquired upon either his
2.1 Where the offense was committed under the exceptional apprehension with or without a warrant or his voluntary submission to
circumstance provided in Article 2 of the RPC (although committed the jurisdiction of the court (which may be effect by posting bail or
outside Philippine jurisdiction, these crimes are triable in Philippine filing a motion to quash.) But this may be waived.
courts):
2.1.1 should the crime be committed while on Philippine J. Criminal Jurisdiction: how determined
ship or airship Jurisdiction is determined by the fine and imprisonment prescribed by
2.1.2 should the crime consist of counterfeiting or forgery of law or extent of the penalty which the law imposes together with other
any coin or currency note of the Philippine Island or obligations on the basis of the facts as recited in the complaint or
obligations and securities issued by the Government information constitutive of the offense charged.
of the Philippines.
2.1.3 Should the accused be liable for acts connected with K. Apportionment of Jurisdiction
the introduction into these Island of the Obligations 1. Extent of jurisdiction is ascertained by:
and securities mentioned in the preceding number 1.1 Power conferred by express or implied provision of a statute
2.1.4 While being public officers or employees, should 1.2 Constitution (article VIII, Section 1 and 2): Congress shall have the
commit and offense in the exercise of their functions power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the various
2.1.5 Should commit any of the crimes against national court subject to the proviso that it may not deprive the SC of its
security and the law of nations jurisdiction over cases set forth in Article VIII section 5.
2.2 Cases of Piracy
2. Criminal Jurisdiction of courts
Vena V. Verga 3
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

(a) Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal trial Courts and Municipal


Circuit Trial Courts I. CASES
 Section 32 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980: except in
cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC L. General Principles
and Sandiganbayan, these courts shall exercise exclusive PEOPLE VS. MARIANO
jurisdiction over G.R. No L-40527 30 June 1976
(i) all violations of city and municipal ordinances
committed within their respective jurisdiction Facts: Hermogenes Marioano, a Liason officer by then incumbent municipal
(ii) offenses punishable with imprisonment of not mayor Nolasco of San Jose del Monte Bulacan, was authorized to receive from
exceeding 6 years irrespective of the amount of fine USAID for the use and benefit of the said municipality electric cables
and other accessory penalties. Provided that in measuring 150 ft and 250 feet and a cable power measuring 525 ft. with a
offenses involving damage to property through total value of $717.50. Instead of delivering the said materials to the mayor,
criminal negligence, they shall have original he appropriated the same to his personal use to the prejudice of the
jurisdiction municipality. The provincial Fiscal of Bulacan then filed an information for
(iii) offenses involving damage to property through Estafa against the accused with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. The
criminal negligence. accused filed a motion to quash on the ground contending that the court has
 Under PD 1606 as amended by RA 8249, MTC, MCTC, MeTC over no jurisdiction over him considering that the military commission had already
government officials and employees where the penalty is not more taken cognizance of the malversation case against Mayor Nolasco involving the
than 6 years and officers charged do not fall under the jurisdiction same subject matter. The judge granted the motion, hence this appeal.
of the Sandiganbayan (Salary grade 27 and above)
Note: Under RA 7691: fine is no longer a factor in determining jurisdiction. Issue: W/N the civil courts and military commissions exercise concurrent
(b) Regional trial Courts jurisdiction over the offenses of Estafa of goods allegedly committed by a
 Vested the exclusive jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the civilian.
exclusive original jurisdiction of any court tribunal or body with
penalty higher than 6 years, Decision: Jurisdiction is the basic foundation of judicial proceeding, which
 Court with general jurisdiction fundamentally means the power or capacity given by the law to court or
 Exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the first tribunal to entertain, hear and determine certain controversies. It is the
level courts in their respective territorial jurisdiction authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose the punishment for it.
(c) Family Courts – created under the Family courts Act of 1997
 Has exclusive jurisdiction over cases: The jurisdiction of courts is derived from the constitution and statutes in force
(i) Criminal cases where one or more of the accuse is at the time of the commencement of the action. Under the Judiciary Act of
below 18 but not less than 9. 1949, courts of First Instance shall have jurisdiction over all crimes in which
(ii) Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous the penalty provided by the law is imprisonment for more than six months, or
Drugs Act. a fine of more than two hundred pesos. The crime committed by Mariano is
(d) Court of Appeals punished by imprisonment from 4 months to two years. This falls under the
(e) Sandiganbayan original jurisdiction of courts of first instance.
 Exclusive jurisdictions over all cases involving
(i) Violations of the Anti-Graft and corrupt Practices Act, The rule is that the court which first take cognizance of the case acquires
RA 1379 and Chapter II, section 2 of Title VII of the jurisdiction thereof exclusive of the other applies only where both courts have
RPC where one or more principal accused are officials concurrent jurisdiction over particular case charged. The situation does not
occupying positions in the government (national and involve two tribunal vested with concurrent jurisdiction over a particular crime
Local officials with salary grade 27 or higher) so as to apply this rule. As specifically stated in General order no 49, which
 Appellate jurisdiction over accused whose position is lower than redefined the jurisdiction of military tribunals, the military commission, is not
salary grade 27. vested with jurisdiction over the crime of Estafa.
(f) Supreme Court
Vena V. Verga 4
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

by law to construct a railroad line from Paniqui to Tayug in the province of


Tarlac. After filing the complaint. The plaintiff, pending final determination of
UNITED STATES VS. JUEVES the action, took possession of and occupied the lands described in the
G.R. No. 6992 30 August 1912 complaint, building its line and putting the same in operation. On the 4 th of
October, plaintiff gave notice to the defendants that a motion would be made
Facts: On several instances several men entered towns, all within the to the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter, because as determined
jurisdiction of Ambos Camarines (which at the date of the commencement of by the plaintiff, the land sough to be condemned was situated in the Province
the action were already part of the province of Tayabas), robbing, kidnapping of Nueva Ecija instead of Province of Tarlac as alleged in the complaint.
and killing several persons. They were charged with the crime of brigandage
and their guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants’ Issue: W/N the CFI of Tarlac has jurisdiction over the case
counsel insists however that the court of Tayabas had no jurisdiction to try the
accused for the reason that the territory where the acts complained of were Decision: Section 55 and 56 of Act No 136 of the Philippine Commission confer
committed belonged to the Province of Ambos Camarines at the time of the jurisdiction upon the Courts of First Instance of these island with respect to
commission of the acts although it has been since transferred to the Province real estate stating that the jurisdiction of the CFI shall be of two kinds: Original
of Tayabas and that Section 3 of Act No 518 is invalid as opposed to the and Appellate. It was the intention of the Philippine commission to give to the
Philippine Bill. CFO the most perfect and complete jurisdiction possible over the subject
matters mentioned in connection therewith. There is no suggestion of
Issue: W/N a court has jurisdiction over crimes committed in a particular limitation. The jurisdiction is universal. So far as jurisdiction over subject
locality prior to the time such locality was included within the jurisdiction of matter is concerned, the CFI of one province may, if there is no objection by
such court any of the parties, take cognizance of an action in reference to real estate
located in another province,
Decision: the general rule is that jurisdiction of a court is determined by the
(1) geographical limits of the territory over which it presides, and (2) the Certain statues confer jurisdiction, others provide for the procedure by which
actions it is empowered to hear and decide. A court has inchoate right of that jurisdiction is made effective. The purpose of procedure is not to restrict
jurisdiction over all crimes committed within its jurisdiction, which is perfected the jurisdiction to the court but to give it effectiveness.
on the institution of the action. If however, it loses jurisdiction over a
particular action because its territorial limits are restricted prior to the The laying of venue is procedural rather than substantive. It relates to the
institution of the action, it also loses this inchoate right to jurisdiction in favor jurisdiction of the court over the person rather than the subject matter. They
of the court to which the territory is transferred since it is unnecessary to establish a relation, not between the court and the subject matter, but
prolong a court’s existence indefinitely after being legally abolished. between the plaintiff and the defendant.

The territory where the acts complained of in the case at bar were committed The Philippine Commission has in fullest phrase given the CFI unrestricted
having been transferred to the Province of Tayabas prior to the institution of jurisdiction over real estate in the Island by act no 136 and that jurisdiction
this action, the court of the that province where the units have been ought not to be held to be withdrawn except by virtue of an act equally express
transferred shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the case. The or so clearly inconsistent therewith as to amount of the same thing.
assumption of jurisdiction over crimes committed before jurisdiction was
conferred is not a violation of the ex post facto clause. Venue is not connected with jurisdiction over the subject matter. If the parties
consent thereto there is no legal reason why the CFI of Manila may not
The decision was affirmed. cognizance of and determine a controversy affecting the tile to or an interest in
real estate situated in another province. With the consent of the defendants,
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY VS. ATTORNEY-GENERAL express or implied, the venue may be laid and the action tried in any province
G.R. No. 6287 01 December 1991 selected by the plaintiff. Any one of the defendants who have lands lying in
another province may also choose the venue. In such case, the action as to all
Facts: Plaintiff filed an action for condemnation of certain real estate lands in the defendants not objecting would continue as to the objecting defendants.
the CFI of Tarlac. It is alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff is authorized
Vena V. Verga 5
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

The original question posed by the court was not answered.


The plaintiff having brought the action must submit itself to the jurisdiction of
the court. It took advantage of the situation itself created and took possession
of the land while the case is being litigated. It is estopped from alleging that VELUNTA vs. CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY
the court has no jurisdiction over it. G.R. No. L-71855 20 January 1988

Facts: Petitioner, a member of the Integrated National Police of Tacloban, was


EMILIO REYES VS. DIAZ directing traffic at around 6PM in the intersection of Burgos-Tarcela-Lucente
G.R. No. 48753 26 November 1941 Streets in Tacloban City when he apprehended one Romeo Lozano, a motorized
tricycle driver, for a traffic violation. An altercation ensued which resulted in
Facts: The protestee is questioning whether the protestant’s certificate of the death of the latter. His widow filed an administrative complaint with the
candidacy has been duly filed. Such will eventually determine whether the NAPOLCOM, which found petitioner guilty of less grave misconduct and
court has jurisdiction over the matter. The parties are in agreement that if suspended him for six months without pay.
indeed the protestee filed his candidacy, then the court has jurisdiction over
the case. Otherwise, the court will have to dismiss the case. They are Pending the case, Ramon’s widow also filed another case for homicide at the
therefore not questioning whether the trial court has jurisdiction according to Fiscal’s office in Tacloban. Finding prima facie evidence, the First Assistant City
the law. Fiscal recommended that the case be referred to the Tanodbayan which
endorsed the filling of the homicide case. The said case was referred to the
Issue: W/N the trial court has or has no authority to pass upon the validity of military authorities pursuant to PD 1850. The general court Martial was
the ballots adjudicated to the protestant, which have not been challenged by convened but petitioner assailed its jurisdiction over the case alleging that EO
the protestee in his counter protest. 1040 in relation to EO 1020 transferred jurisdiction over members of the PNP
to the NAPOLCOM.
Decision: It has been held that the word “jurisdiction” as used in the
contribution and in the statues means “jurisdiction as to the subject-matter Issue: W/N the General Court Martial has jurisdiction over the case.
only, unless an exception arises by reason of its employment in a broader
sense. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is the power to hear and determine Decision: Jurisdiction is the power with which courts are invested for
cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong and is administering justice fore hearing and deciding cases. Courts in the Philippines
conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court and defines its have no common law jurisdiction or power, but only those expressly conferred
powers. by the Constitution and statues and those necessarily implied to make the
express powers effective.
In order that the court may validly try and decide the case, it must have
jurisdiction over the subject matter and jurisdiction over the persons of the It is expressly stated under EO 1012 that it is only the operation supervision
parties. But in some instances, it is said that the court should also have and direction over all units of the Integrated National Police force stationed or
jurisdiction over the issue, meaning thereby that the issue being tried and assigned in the different cities and municipalities that was transferred from the
decided by the court within the issues raised in the pleadings. Philippine Constabulary to the city or municipal government concerned.
Likewise, EO 1040 transferred merely the exercise of administrative control
Jurisdiction over the issue is different from jurisdiction over the subject-matter. over all units of the Integrated National Police throughout the country to the
The latter being conferred by law and the former by the pleadings. Jurisdiction President. This is not the same as transferring of jurisdiction or authority of a
over the issue may be conferred by consent either express of implied of the court-martial to hear, try and decide a criminal proceeding against a police
parties. Although an issue is not duly pleaded, it may be validly be tried and officer.
decided if no timely objection is made thereto by the parties, this cannot be
done when jurisdiction over subject matter is involved. Jurisdiction over the When the case was filed in 1982, there can be no question that the respondent
issue is an exception of a principle that is involved in jurisdiction over the General Court Martial had jurisdiction. Since jurisdiction had properly been
persons of the parties. exercised from the start, it remains with the military court martial unless a law
expressly divests it of the jurisdiction. It is a rule that once jurisdiction is
Vena V. Verga 6
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

acquired, it remains until validly transferred by the proper authority according Salary Grade 27 or higher, exclusive original jurisdiction shall be vested in the
to law. proper RTC, MTC, MCTC or METC pursuant to BP Blg. 129.

It is not intended by the legislators to repeal PD 1850, thus, the court martial’s Consequently, it is the RTC which has jurisdiction over the offense charged
jurisdiction remains. since under Section 9 of RA 3019, the commission of any violation of said law
shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than Six years and One
UY VS. SANDIGANBAYAN month to FIFTEEN years. The indictment of the petitioner therefore cannot fall
G.R. No. 105965-70 09 August 1999 within the jurisdiction of the MTC, METC or MCTC.

Facts: Petitioner George Uy was the deputy comptroller of the Philippine Navy
designated to act on behalf of Captain Fernandez, the latter’s supervisor, on M. Jurisdiction determined by the position
matters relating the activities of the Fiscal Control Branch. Six informations for
Estafa through falsification of official documents and one information for SUBIDO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 (anti-graft and corrupt practices act) were G.R. 122631 20 January 1997
filed with the Sandiganbayan against the petitioner and 19 other accused for
alleged. The petitioner was said to have signed a P.O. stating that the unit Facts: Bayani Subido, then BID Commissioner and Rene Parina, then BID
received 1,000 pieces of seal rings when in fact, only 100 were ordered. The Special Agent conspired and caused the issuace of a warrant of arrest against
Sandiganbayan recommended that the infomations be withdrawn against some James Maksimuk. The accused knew hat Maksimuk’s deportation order was
of the accused after a comprehensive investigation. not yet final and executory pending a Motion for Reconsideration, resulting in
the detention of the latter which caused him undue injury. A case for arbitrary
Petitioner filed a motion to quash contending that it is the Court Martial and detention was filed against the accused with the Sandiganbayan. The
not the Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction over the offense charged or the petitioners filed a motion to quash contending that in view of the effectivity of
person of the accused. Petitioner further contends that RA 1850 which RA 7975, which is an act to Strengthen the Functional and Structural
provides for the jurisdiction of court martial should govern in this case. Organization of the Sandiganbayan, the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction
over the offense charged and the person of the accused. Said motion was
Issue: W/N the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject criminal cases denied, hence this petition.
or the person of the petitioner
Issue: W/N the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case at bar
Decision: The fundamental rule is that the jurisdiction of a court is determined
by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. Thus, Decision: The court dismissed the case. It is true that the crime committed no
Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the petitioner at the time of the filing longer falls within the purview of RA 7975. However, RA 7975 only took effect
of the informations and as now prescribed by law. RA 8249, the latest one year after the commission of the crime charged. It must be remembered
amendment of PD 1606 creating the Sandiganbayan provides that such will that for purposes of Section 4 of RA 1606 which provides that Sandiganbayan
have jurisdiction over violations of RA 3019 of members of the Philippines has exclusive jurisdiction over cases committed by public officer and
Army and air force colonels, naval captains and all officers of higher rank. employees in relation to their office, the reckoning point is the time of the
commission of the crime.
In the case at bar, while the petitioner is charged with violation of RA 3018, his
position as Lieutenant Commander of the Philippine Navy is a rank lower than Under PD 1606, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over persons who at the
“naval captains and all officers of higher rank”. It must be noted that both the time of the commission of the crime is occupying a position having a Salary
NATURE of the OFFENSE and the POSITION OCCUPIED BY THE ACCUSED are Grade 27 or higher. It is true that Parina held a position with a salary grade of
conditions SINE QUA NON before Sandiganbayan can validly take cognizance of less than “27”. However, he is being prosecuted as co-conspirator of the
the case. Thus, regular courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the person principal accused who held a position higher that grade “27” thus, section 4 of
of the accused as provided by the Sandiganbayan Law which states that “in PD 1606 which provides that “in cases where none of the principal accused are
case where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to occupying the position to salary grade 27 or higher, RTC, MTC, METC or MCTC
shall have exclusive jurisdiction” will apply.
Vena V. Verga 7
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

business and collect premiums in behalf of the corporation. She was required
It must be noted that before the enactment of RA 7975, what matters is not to make periodic reports and accounting of her transactions and remit premium
the kind of offense so long as it is alleged in the crime committed in relation to collections to the principal office of private responded located in the City of
the office of the public official, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction try and hear the Manila.
case. This has been cured by Section 4 of RA 7975 by limiting its jurisdiction
only to persons (principal accused) having a salary grade of “27”. This, being An audit was conducted on petitioner’s account which showed a shortage of
a curative statute, may be given retroactive effect. Php 300T. As a result, she was charged with Estafa before the RTC with
respondent Hon. Polo. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss which motion was
Petition was denied. denied by respondent Judge. The subsequent motion for reconsideration of
this order of denial was also denied.

CUYCO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN Petitioner contends that RTC in Manila has no jurisdiction because she is based
G.R. No 137017-18 08 February 2000 in Cebu City and the funds she allegedly misappropriated with collected in
Cebu City.
Facts: the Graft Investigation Officer found probable cause against Ramon
Cuyco for violation of Section 39 of RA 3019 as well as Section 3E of the same Issue: W/N the RTC in Manila has jurisdiction
act. Two informations were recommended against Cuyco and the other
respondents. The Ombudsman approved the recommendation and the Decision: The general rule that the denial of a motion to dismiss or to quash,
prosecution filed he information with the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner filed a being interlocutory in character cannot be questioned by certiorari and cannot
motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction contending that at the time of the be subject of appeal. However, this rule is subject to certain exceptions. The
commission of the offense in 1992, he was occupying the position of Director reason is that it would be unfair to require the defendant or accused to
II, Salary Grade 26, thus RTC has jurisdiction over the case. The prosecution undergo the ordeal and expense of a trial of the court had no jurisdiction over
did not oppose such action. The Sandiganbayan however denied the motion, the subject matter or offense or it is not the court of proper venue.
hence, this appeal.
It is a general rule that averments in the complaint or information characterize
Issue: W/N the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. the crime to be prosecuted and the court before which it must be tried.

Decision: The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over violation of Section 3a Section 110 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: In all criminal prosecution
and e of RA 3019 unless committed by public officials and employees the action shall be instituted and tried in the court or municipality or province
occupying position of regional director and higher with Salary Grade “27” and wherein the offense was committed or any of the essential elements thereof
higher. Petitioner admittedly occupied the position of Director II with salary took place.
Grade “26” under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989
thus, Sandiganbayan incurred serious error of jurisdiction entitling petitioner to The subject information charges the petitioner with Estafa committed during
the relief prayed. the period 1980 to June 1982 inclusive in the City of Manila. Clearly them.
From the allegations of the information the RTC of Manila has jurisdiction.
Petition was granted.
Besides, the crime of Estafa is a continuing crime, which may be prosecuted at
the place where any of he essential elements of the crime took place. The
N. Jurisdiction determined by the allegations of the complaint. petitioner clearly prejudiced private respondents in Manila and therefore, the
crime was committed here.
BUAYA VS. POLO
G.R. No. 75079 26 January 1989 Petition was dismissed.

Facts: Petitioner Solemnidad Buaya was an insurance agent of Country US VS. GALLEJOS
Bankers Insurance Corporation who was authorized to transact insurance G.R. No. 12739 08 December 1917
Vena V. Verga 8
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Facts: From November 1914 to October 1916 in the municipality of Cebu, the The Provincial Fiscal moved for the reconsideration of the order of dismissal,
accused Mariano Gallejos and complainant’s wife Benita Antioquia had illicit which was denied, hence this appeal.
relations and begot a child. The complainant filed a complaint against the two
of the Justice of Peace of the Municipality of Cebu. Mariano was arrested but Issue: W/N the court may dismiss a criminal case on the basis of an affidavit
Benita remained at large. Mariano was arraigned and was found guilty of of desistance executed by the offended party, but without the motion to
adultery. However, Mariano filed a motion to suspend the trial until his co- dismiss filed by the prosecuting fiscal.
defendant is arrested and brought to the court. The motion was denied.
Record shows that the complaint included both defendants. Decision: The filing of a complaint or information in the Court initiated a
criminal action. The Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case. When
Issue: W/N the court could proceed with the trial of Mariano even if Benita is after the filing of the complaint or information a warrant of arrest of the
not present. accused is issued by the trial court and the accused either voluntarily
submitted himself to the Court or was duly arrested, the court thereby
Decision: While the complaint for the crime of adultery must be presented acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
against both of the culprits and by the offended person, yet the law permits
separate trials for each. Not only is there no law requiring that they should be A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the
tried separately, but there is a positive provision of law permitting them, to be court which has the option to grant or deny the same. The rule therefore in
tried separately. Separate trials may be had: (1) when either of the parties this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in court any
request it; (b) when the government is satisfied that the man did not know disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the
that the woman was married; (c) when one of the parties has died before the accused rests in the sound discretion of the court. Although the fiscal retains
time of the trial; and (d) when one of the parties escaped the jurisdiction of the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the
the court and has not been arrested. case is already in court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court because
the determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and
Moreover, the law clearly provides that in furtherance of justice, the court may competence. The only qualification is that the action of the court must not
grant either of the parties the right and opportunity to adduce additional impair the substantial rights of the accused or the right of the People to due
evidence bearing upon the main issue in question. The question of jurisdiction process of law.
of the court is always a question of importance; and if the evidence is
necessary to prove the fact, as it is in all criminal cases, so far as the place of But to avoid similar situation, the court takes the view tat while Cespo doctrine
the commission of the crime is concerned, and the prosecution fails to prove has settled that the trial court is the sole judge on whether a criminal case
that fact, in the interest of justice the court may always admit additional should be dismissed, still, any move on the part of the complainant or offended
evidence. party to dismiss the criminal case even if without objection of the accuse,
should first be referred to the prosecuting fiscal for his own vie on the matter.
Sentence of lower court was affirmed. He is after all, in control of his prosecution of the case and he may have his
own reasons why the case should not be dismissed.
O. Jurisdiction acquired for the person of the accused.

REPUBLIC VS. SUNGA P. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by waiver


G.R. No. L-38634 20 June 1988
UNITED STATES VS. DE LA SANTA
Facts: The complainant Jose Dadis filed a case for the attempted homicide G.R. No. 3181 10 October 1907
against Ariston and Rafael Anadilla. While the case is pending, Jose Dadis filed
an affidavit of desistance and was no longer interested in the prosecution of Facts: The complainant Teofila Sevilla charges the defendant with the crime of
the case. Jose said that he had forgiven the accused and that his material seduction under a promise of marriage at the time when she was less than 21
witness could no longer be contracted the court then lifted the order of arrest, years of age. The complaint was filed by her father when she was already 24
cancelled the bail bond and ordered the release of the accused. years old. The court contends that the alleged seduction could only be
Vena V. Verga 9
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

instituted and maintained at her instance since she was already of legal age, and continued his trip to Malolos. The difference in the fare is 1 peso and 22
otherwise the trial court shall have no jurisdiction over the offense charged. cents. The ticket issued simulated that the tip was from Manila to Boacau and
the charge only 18 cents, rendering the said amount to the company while
Issue: W/N the court has jurisdiction over a complaint. appropriating the balance of the sum.

Decision: as provided by the RPC, complainant can institute criminal action The complaint was not able to precisely designate the place where the
against the defendant in cases of seduction should it be proven that she is falsification was committed not where the appropriation occurred.
already of the majority age. Although the parents and guardians are
mentioned disjunctively, still, the right to institute criminal proceedings in Issue: W/N the court of Tarlac has jurisdiction to try the case
cases of seduction is exclusively and successively reposed in these persons in
the order in which they are named so that no one of them has authority to Decision: The crime of Estafa was committed at the where his account was
proceed if there is any other person previously mentioned therein with legal rendered and the stub of the false ticket was turned it. In this case, the stubs
capacity to appear and institute action. and false tickets were turned in Tarlac. The court in Tarlac therefore has
jurisdiction since it is within this territory that the accused made use of the
Under the Civil code, a woman 23 years of age is already in the full possession document alleged to be false and where the falsification was committed.
of her civil rights, save only in certain exceptional cases expressly prescribed in
the code. The right to appear and prosecute or defend an action in the court is The fact that the CFI took jurisdiction of the offense charged, because in the
not one of these exceptions and, indeed, it is inherent to the full exercise of opinion of the court, the place of the commission of the crime was not clearly
civil rights. shown, is not an obstacle to the courts declaration itself to be without
jurisdiction as soon as the lack of jurisdiction appeared from the proceedings
Under the provision of the RPC, jurisdiction over the crime of seduction is subsequently had. Jurisdiction over criminal cases cannot be conferred by
expressly denied the trial court unless such jurisdiction be conferred by one of consent.
certain persons specified in the law, in this case, by the offended person
herself. This is important not only for the sufficiency of the complaint but goes The appeal was granted.
directly to the jurisdiction of the court over the crime. Lack of jurisdiction over
the subject-matter is fatal and subject to the objection at any stage of the R. Estopped by laches to bar attacks on jurisdiction
proceedings, either in court below or on appeal. Where the subject matter is
not within the jurisdiction, the court may dismiss the proceeding ex mero PEOPLE VS. REGULARIO
motu. G.R. No. 101451 23 March 23, 1993

Jurisdiction over subject matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred by the Facts: Accused together with several others murdered on Menardo Garcia in
sovereign authority, which organizes the court; it is given only by law and in Lucena. During arraignment, the appellants entered a plea of not guilty
the manner prescribed by law and an objection based on the lack of such however, before the prosecution rested its case, Regalario and his accomplice
jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties. Pabillar, changed their plea to guilty. After trial, all appellants were found
guilty of the offense charged. Appellant’s counsel filed a motion for
Judgment was reversed and the complaint was dismissed. reconsideration on the 14th day of the 15-day period for appeal, which was
denied, by the trial court. They then filed a notice of appeal, which was denied
Q. Jurisdiction not conferred by consent for having been filed out of time (10 days after the receipt of the first denial).

US VS. REYES Issue: W/N the court can still exercise jurisdiction over the case considering
G.R. No.472 28 April 1902 that the appeal was filed out of time.

Facts: the complaint charges the defendant with the crime of Estafa and Decision: The trial court was correct in rejecting appellant’s notice of appeal
falsification and alleges the former, being an employee of the Manila Dagupan since it was filed beyond the reglamentary period. However, as in People vs.
Railway issued a ticket to a passenger who was going from Manila to Caloocan Tamani, although the appeal of the accused was demonstrably filed out of
Vena V. Verga 10
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

time, to obviate the miscarriage of justice, the court nevertheless reviewed the
case and rendered judgment on the merits thereof in view of the fact that the DELA CRUZ vs. MOYA
filing of the appeal out of time was due to the inadvertence of the defense G.R. L-65192 27 April 1988
counsel. The same may also be granted in the present case adopting the
principle of estoppel by laches to bar attack on jurisdiction. Doctrine: Once jurisdiction is vested in the court, it is retained up the end of
the litigation.
TIJAM vs. SIBONGHANOY
G.R. No. L-21450 15 April 1968 Facts: Rodolfo de la Cruz is a member of the Armed Force of the Philippines
assigned to the Intelligence and Operation Section of the PC Company,
Facts: Spouses Serafin and Felicitas commenced a civil case against spouses together with other PC me, received a mission order to proceed to Davao for
Sibonghanoy to recover from them a sum of Php 1T+ with legal interest. A the purpose of verifying and apprehending persons who were engaged in illegal
writ of attachment was issued by the court against the defendants properties cockfighting which they complied with. The operators of the illegal cockfights,
but the same was soon dissolved. After trial, the court rendered judgment in including the deceased Eusebio Cabilto followed the soldiers on their way back
favor of the plaintiffs and after the same had become final and executory, the to the headquarters. Fighting ensued and in the scuffled, dela Cruz shot
court issued a writ of execution against the defendants. The writ being Cabilto.
unsatisfied, the plaintiffs moved for the issuance of writ of execution against
the Surety’s bond. Subsequently, the Surety moved to quash the writ on the The petitioner was charged with homicide in the CFI. Claiming that the crime
ground that the same was issued without summary hearing. This was denied for which he was chaged was committed in relation to the performance of his
by the RTC. Surety appealed in the CA, which was against denied. This time, duties, petitioner filed a motion to transfer the case to the military authorities
the surety just asked for an extension in order for them to file the motion for so he could be tried in a court martial. The motion was denied.
reconsideration. But instead of filing for a motion for reconsideration, it file a
motion to dismiss saying that by virtue of RA 296 which is the Judiciary Issue: W/M the civil courts have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
Reorganization Act of 1948, section 88 of t which placed within the original case at bar.
exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts all civil actions were the value of the
subject matter does not exceed Php 2,000.00 CFI therefore has no jurisdiction Decision: One of the essential requisites of a valid court proceeding is that the
over the case. The question of jurisdiction was filed by the Surety only 15 court hearing the case must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
years from the time the action was commence in the CFI. case. If the court is acting without jurisdiction, then the entire proceedings are
null and void. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the statute
Issue: W/N the case should be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. in the force at the time of the commencement of action.

Decision: After voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse The case was filed on August 2, 1979. On such date, by virtue of General
decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or Order No 59, military tribunals created under general order No. 8, exercised
power of the court. exclusive jurisdiction over all offenses committed by military personnel of the
AFP while in the performance of their duty provided that a certificate from the
The rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred upon the Secretary of National defense for the purpose of determining whether the
courts exclusive by law and as the lack of it affect the very authority of the curt offense was really committed while in the performance of a duty. This proviso
to take cognizance of the case, the objection may be raised at any stage of the does not in any way preclude the courts from making any finding as to whether
proceedings. However, considering the facts and circumstance of the present an offense is duty-connected. Nor doe it make the certificate a condition
cases, a party may be barred by laches from involving this plea for the first precedent for the exercise by either civilian courts or military tribunals of their
time on appeal for the purpose of annulling everything done in the case. A jurisdiction over offenses committed.
party cannot invoke a court’s jurisdiction and later on deny it to escape a
penalty. The fact that there was a mission order and that the victim was shot while
petitioner was executing the mission order compels the court to declare that
respondent court was without jurisdiction.
S. Adherence of Jurisdiction
Vena V. Verga 11
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Petition was granted. retains only cases where the accused are national and local officials classified
as Grade “27” and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification
PEOPLE VS. MAGALLANES Act of 1989. RA No 7975 cannot affect the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 118013-14 11 October 11, 1995 since jurisdiction once acquired is not affected by subsequent legislative
enactment placing jurisdiction in another tribunal. It remains with the court
Doctrine: Jurisdiction once acquired is not affected by subsequent legislative until the case is finally terminated. Hence, the Sandiganbayan or any other
enactment placing jurisdiction in another tribunal. It remains with the court courts cannot be divested of jurisdiction.
until the case is finally terminated. Sandiganbayan or the court as the case
may be cannot be divested of jurisdiction over cases filed before them by In the case at bar, Sandiganbayan has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the
reason RA 7975. They retain their jurisdiction until the end of litigation. subject criminal cases as the informations were filed before the RTC.
Assuming that the informations were filed with the said tribunal, the
Facts: The Dumancas spouses complained with the police saying that a certain Sandiganbayan can no longer proceed to hear the cases in view of the express
Rufino Gargar and Danilo Lumngyao swindled them. The accused together provision of Section 7 of RA 7975 that all criminal cases in which the trial has
with civilian agents arrested and abducted the swindling suspects and forced not yet begun in the Sandiganbayan shall be referred to the proper courts.
them to produce the money they got from the spouses. The two were found RTC was ordered to resume hearing the case.
dead a few days after. Two informations for kidnapping for ransom with
murder were filed with the RTC against members of the PNP and nine other UY VS. COURT OF APPEALS
civilians who confederated with each other for the purpose of extorting money G.R. No. 119000 28 July 1997
through kidnapping the two victims. Petitioner contends that the crime was
committed in the course of the performance of duties of the accused, thus, Facts: While Rosa Uy was helping her husband manage their lumber business,
Sandiganbayan should have jurisdiction by virtue of PD 1606. she and a friend, Consolacion agreed to form a partnership wherein the latter
will contribute additional capital as industrial partner for the expansion of
Issue: W/N the RTC of Bacolod or the Sandiganbayan that has jurisdiction Rosa’s lumber business. Various sums amounting to Php 500,000.00 were
over the two criminal cases for kidnapping for ransom with murder wherein claimed to have been given by Consolacion for the business, but no receipt was
some of the accused implicated as principals are members of the PNP. ever issued. The friendship of the two turned sour, thus, Consolacion
demanded the return of her investment but the checks issued by Rosa were all
Decision: At the time the informations in the said cases were filed, the law dishonored for insufficiency of funds.
governing the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan was section 4 of PD No 1060
which provided that the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction in all cases Consolaction filed a complaint for Estafa and for violation of BP 22. The Manila
involving public officers and employees who committed felonies in relation to RTC acquitted the petitioner of Estafa but convicted her of the charges under
their office, which must be alleged in the complaint. An offense is considered BP Blg. 22.
as committed in relation to the office if it cannot exist without the office or if
the office is the constituent element of the crime as defined in the statute. Petitioner contents that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the
offenses under BP 22 and assuming arguendo that she raised the matter of
It is a fundamental rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the jurisdiction only upon appeal, she cannot be estopped from questioning the
complaint or information. In the case at bar, the information in the court do jurisdiction
not indicate that the victims were killed in the course of the investigation.
What was alleged is that the accused, for the purpose of extracting or Issue: W/N the RTC of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the violations of the
exhorting a sum of money, abducted, kidnapped, detained and killed the two Bouncing checks Law.
victims. The allegation of “taking advantage of his position” incorporated in
the information is not enough to bring the offenses within the definition of Decision: Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the
“offenses committed in relation to public office”. court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly
committed therein by the accused. This it cannot take jurisdiction over a
The Sandiganbayan partly lost its exclusive original jurisdiction in cases person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside that of that limited
involving violation of RA 3019 as amended, RA No. 1379 and the RPC. It territory. Jurisdiction of the court over a criminal case is determined by the
Vena V. Verga 12
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

allegations in the complaint or information. Once it is shown, the court may against Jejomar Binay alleging that these were committed in 1997 during his
validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence adduced during incumbency as Mayor of Makati, then a municipality of Metro Manila. On June
the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court 13, 1995, after RA 7975, redefining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, took
should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. effect (May 16, 1995), Binay filed a motion to refer his cases to the “proper
court” for further proceedings, but was denied by the Sandiganbayan. As such
In the case at bar, the crimes of Estafa and violation of BP are two different he filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and Mandamus questioning the
offenses having different elements and necessarily, for the court to acquire jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan before the Supreme Court.
jurisdiction, each of the essential ingredients of each crime has to be satisfied. MAGSAYSAY CASE
The respondent court is wrong to conclude that inasmuch as the RTC of Manila Mario Magsaysay is the mayor of the Municipality of San Pascual,
acquired jurisdiction over the Estafa case then it also acquired jurisdiction over Batangas, all of his co-petitioners in this case are officials of the same
the violation of BP 22. municipality. On April 16, 1994, Victor Cusi, V-mayor of the same
municipality, charged petitioners with violation of RA3019 for overpaying
No proof has been offered that the checks were issued, delivered, dishonored Vicente de la Rosa (also petitioner herein) of TDR Construction for the
or knowledge of insufficiency of funds occurred in Manila, which are essential landscaping project of the San Pascual Central School. A resolution by Graft
elements necessary for the Manila Court to acquire jurisdiction. BP 22 on the Investigation Officer Alarilla recommended the filing of the information with the
other hand, as a continuing offense, may be tried in any jurisdiction where the Sandiganbayan. However, it was filed in the RTC of Batangas instead,
offense was in part committee. peculiarly the information was signed by the same Alarilla.
Subsequently, the Concerned Citizens of San Pascual, batangas, filed a
Petitioner also timely questioned the jurisdiction of the court complaint before the Ombudsman against the petitioners for the same
As provided by jurisprudence, we can see that even if a party fails to file a violation. Thereafter another information alleging the same offense was filed
motion to quash, he may still question the jurisdiction of the court later on. before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners moved to quash the information alleging
that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the case.
The general rule is that the jurisdiction of a court over a subject matter of the While the cases were pending, Congress enaceted RA8249, redefining
action is a matter of law and may not be conferred by consent or agreement of the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
the parties. The lack of jurisdiction of a court, may be raised at any stage of
the proceeding, even on appeal. Issue: W/N the Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over
criminal cases involving municipal mayors accused of violations of RA3019 and
However, this rule has been qualified in the case of Tijan vs, Sibonghanoy Art.220 of the RPC. Considering that:
wherein the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the court can be held to be barred
by laches. This case however cannot be applied in the case at bar since the 1. At the alleged commission of the crimes, municipal mayors were
accused is not guilty of laches. not classified as Grade 27

RTC of Manila has no jurisdiction over the case. To support this contention, they presented certifications saying that
the salary they received was below that of the salary received by a grade 27
officer. For Binay his salary was only P10, 793/month equivalent to Grade 22
Exceptions to the General Rule of Adherence to Jurisdiction and for Magsaysay P11, 828/month equivalent to Grade 25. They based this
on RA6758 (Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989).
BINAY vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
316 SCRA 65 01 October 1999 2. Municipal Mayors are not included in the enumeration in Sec.
4a(1) of Pd1606 as amended by RA 7975.
Facts: Petitioners invoke the rule in statcon: inclusion unius est exclusion alterius:
BINAY CASE what is not included in those enumerated is deemed exluded.
On Sept. 7, 1994, the office of the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan
one information for violation of art.220 of RPC (illegal use of public funds) and
2 for violation of RA3019 (anti-graft), which were amended on Sept 15, 1994,
Vena V. Verga 13
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

3. Congressional records reveal that the law did not intend municipal effect, it cannot be applied to a case that was pending prior to the
mayors to come under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the enactment of the statute.
Sandiganbayan To this effect, RA 7975 is retroactive. Effects of Section 7:
1. If trial of cases before the Sandigan has already begun as of the
approval of RA7975, then RA 7975 does not apply.
Decision: THE SANDIGANBAYAN HAS JURISDICTION. Where a statute 2. If trial of cases before the Sandigan has NOT begun as of the approval
changing the jurisdiction of a court has no retroactive effect, it cannot be of RA7975, then it applies.
applied to a case that was pending prior to the enactment of the statute. a. if by virtue of sec.4 of RA7975, the sandigan has jurisdiction
over the case, then the case shall be referred to the sandigan.
The Court does not subscribe to the manner by which petitioners classify b. If by virtue of sec.4 of RA7975, the sandigan has no
Grades. The Constitution states that in providing for the standardization of jurisdiction, then the case shall be referred to the regular
compensation of government officials and employees, Congress shall take into courts.
account the nature of the responsibilities pertaining to and the qualifications As the trial of Binay had not yet begun as of date of the approval of RA7975,
required of their positions, thus RA6758 provides that the Grade depends upon the Sandigan retains jurisdiction over the case.
the nature of one’s position relative to another position. It is the person’s
grade that determines the salary not the other way around. MORE ON MAGSAYSAY
Petitioners invoke the rule that jurisdiction of a court one it attaches
It is possible that a local gov’t official’s salary may be less than that prescribed cannot be ousted by subsequent event, although of such character which would
for his Grade since his salary also depends on the financial capability have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. They claim
of his respective government unit. Nevertheless, it is the law, which fixes the that the filing of the info in the Sandigan was a subsequent even which cannot
official’s grade. oust the RTC of its jurisdiction.This rule has no application here as the RTC had
no jurisdiction over the case in the first place. Furthermore, when the info was
RA 6758 instructs the Dept. of Budget and Management (DBM) to prepare an filed with the RTC RA7975 was already in effect, thus the need to be referred
Index of Occupation Services listing the Salary Grades of Gov’t officials. Both to the Sandigan.
the 1989 and 1997 version of said Index classifies municipal mayors Petitioners invoke that respondents are estopped from filing an info
under Grade 27, as such municipal mayors come within the original with the Sandigan considering that they had already filed another info alleging
and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. the same facts before the RTC. While the court in certain cases has ruled that
estoppel prevents a party from questioning the jurisdiction of the court that the
Resort to Statcon is not appropriate where the law is clear and unambiguous. party himself invoked, estoppel remains the exception and not the rule, the
The enumeration under section 4a(1) is not exclusive. rule being that jurisdiction is vested by law. Furthermore, the respondent in
this case is the State and estoppel is not applied to the State.
Again statcon does not apply where the law is clear.
SANCHEZ and MANAGAY vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
MORE ON BINAY 313 SCRA 723
Under sec.7 of RA 7975: upon effectivity of this Act, all criminal cases
in which trial has not begun in the Sandiganbayan shall be referred to the Facts: Petitioners are officers of the Phil. Army. Lt.Col. Lino Sanchez was
proper court. The proper import of this section is laid down in Bengzon v. Commanding Officer, 9th Post Engineer Detachment, Headquarters and
Inciong: Headquarters Support Group (HHSG), while Major Vicente Managay was G-4,
The rule is that where a court has already obtained and is HHSG. On June 16, 1993, court martial proceedings were initiated against
exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed them and Gaudencio Romualdez based on a report stating that there was a
the final determination of the cause is not affected by new legislation prima facie case against them for violation of Art. 95 of the articles of war for
placing jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal. The causing the wrongful release of Php 5,995,47 for payment of repair of G10
exception to the rule is where the stature expressly provided that it is office of the Phil. Army, equivalent to 88.55% completion of the work, when in
intended to operate to actions pending before its enactment. Where fact only 25% of the work had been completed to the damage of the
the statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has no retroactive government. The judge advocate of the Phil. Army referred the findings to the
Vena V. Verga 14
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

provincial Prosecutor of Rizal, recommending the filing of info with the Facts: Rosauro Sabino, Francisco Primoso and Romualdo Ramos were arrested
Sandiganbayan in Caloocan while Balbino Morales was arrested in Malabon, both municipalities
are beyond the limits of the city of Manila. They were convicted in the CFI of
On April 8, 1994, Sanchez was arraigned before the Gen. Court Martial No.2 Manila for the crime of Brigandage. Evidence, however, discloses that the
while Managay on July 1, 1994. They both pleaded not guilty. Meanwhile on offenses were committed in the Provinces of Bulacan and Rizal.
April 18, 1994, an info was filed against them before the Sandigan for violation
of RA 3019. Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the case before the Decision: When the record discloses that the crime as alleged in the complaint
Sandigan alleging that it has no jurisdiction over the case as the court martial was not committed in the province wherein the trial was had, and the accused
had acquired original and exclusive jurisdiction and that the acts complained of was not arrested in that province and defendant had not fled there from, the
before the court martial and the Sandigan are one and the same. Court of First Instance of that Province has no jurisdiction to impose sentence.
In such cases, of the court has reasonable ground to believe that the crime has
Decision: Although the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction at the time the charge been committed; the accused should be remanded to the court of proper
was filed, it lost its jurisdiction upon the enactment of RA 7975 because he falls jurisdiction for trial.
below the rank of full colonel and trial has not yet begun.
RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING vs. ISANI
LACSON vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 242 SCRA 158 06 March 1995
301 SCRA 298
Facts: In a complaint filed a few days after the effectivity of RA7691
Facts: see subsequent Lacson digests (expanding the jurisdiction of municipal and metropolitan trial courts) with the
Makati RTC, Lolita Encelan sought to recover from RCBC actual damages of
Decision: The amendment in RA no 8249 that in cases where none of the $5,000 or P137,675. RCBC moved for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction on
accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary grade “27” or higher, the ground that it is under the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) not the RTC, the
as prescribed in the said RA 6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned principal demand prayed for not being in excess of P200,000. Respondent RTC
above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper judge Isnani, instead of dismissing the complaint, transferred the entire
RTTC, MTC, MeTC, MTCT, as the case may be in pursuant to BP 129. The records of the case to the MTC.
previous law vests jurisdiction in the RTC where none of the principal accused
are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27. The term principal Decision: It has been held that where the court has no jurisdiction at the time
was deleted so that under the amendment, if an accomplice belongs to Salary of the filing of the complaint, instead of ordering the transfer, the court should
grade 27, then jurisdiction is with the Sandiganbayan even if none of the dismiss the case.
principals belong to a lower salary grade. The amendment was applied
retroactively.
REPUBLIC vs. ASUNCION
T. Action of the Court when determined that is had no jurisdiction 231 SCRA 211

1. Under its supervisory authority, the Supreme Court, even the Facts: Alexander Dionisio y Manio, member of the PNP, was assigned to the
Court of Appeals may properly refer the case to the court of Central Police District Command Station 2 in Novaliches, when he was
proper jurisdiction. dispatched to Dumalay Street to respond to a complaint that a person was
2. Courts of the 1st and 2nd level are without authority to order the creating trouble there. Dionioso proceeded to the place, where he
transfer. If the courts believe that it has no jurisdiction over the subsequently shot to death T/Sgt. Romeo Sadang. While trial for homicide was
subject matter, its jurisdiction is limited to simply dismissing the already in progress in the RTC of QC, the case was dismissed for refilling with
case. the Sandiganbayan on the ground that it is the Sandiganbayan which has
jurisdiction over the case. The private prosecutor moved for dismissal citing
US VS. MORALES the opinion of the Sec of the DOJ that crimes committed by PNP members are
6 Phil 403 not cognizable by the Sandiganbayan because they fall within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the regular courts as provided in RA 6975 and the
Vena V. Verga 15
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special court as stated in the 1973 Decision: Petitioner contends that jurisdiction over the case was fixed in the
constitution and as the 1987 constitution provides that the present anti-graft RTC as the Asuncion ruling is inapplicable, since here trial had already ended
court shall continue to function and exercise it jurisdiction. and the case was submitted for decision when the Asuncion ruling was
promulgated. A transfer of his case to the Sandiganbayan at this late state will
Decision: The Court sanctioned the transfer of cases from the RTC for lack of expose him to double jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
jurisdiction to the Sandiganbayan.
The RTC’s initial assumption of jurisdiction does not prevent it form
The court ruled that the Sandiganbayan is a regular court. While it is a special subsequently declaring itself to be without jurisdiction as it was found out in
court, it is a regular court within the context of RA 6975 because “it is a court the hearing that Cunanan had committed the offence while he was in the
normally functioning with continuity within the jurisdiction vested on it” and performance of his duties as policeman. He shot the victim in the course of
that the term regular courts is used in Sec. 46 of RA 6975 to distinguish the trying to restore local public order which had been breached by a fistfight
said courts form courts-martial for it seeks to divest the latter of such between the victim and 2 other individuals. The absence in the info of an
jurisdiction and mandates its transfers to the former pursuant to the policy of allegation that Cunanan committed the offense charged in relation to his office
the law to establish a police force national in scope and civilian in character. is immaterial and easily remedied. As the case had already been forwarded to
The Sandiganbayan is a regular court as stated in the Administrative Code of the Sandiganbayan, the said info may be amended at any time before
1987. arraignment before the Sandiganbayan, considering that such amendment
would not affect the juridical nature of the offense charge, it would not
However, for the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction it is necessary that the prejudice Cunanan’s substantive rights. There is no double jeopardy as the RTC
offenses were committed by public officers in relation to their office. In here, was without jurisdiction and the dismissal of the info by the RTC was not
there is no indication that the trouble-maker was the victim and that he was equivalent to acquittal, it simply reflected that the proceedings therein was
shot by Dionisio in the course of the latter’s mission. As such, the court terminated
directed the RTC of QC to conduct a preliminary hearing within 15 from receipt
of decision, to determine if the crime was committed in relation to public office.
If it be determined in the affirmative, the case shall be transferred to the LACSON vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Sandiganbayan as if the same were originally fined with it. Otherwise, the RTC G.R. No. 128096 20 January 1999
should proceed with the trial of the case and render judgment thereon.
Facts: Petitioner Lacson is assailing the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 7 of
RA No. 8249 – an act which further defines the jurisdiction of the
CUNANAN vs. ARCEO Sandiganbayan. Lacson was being held liable for the killing of the Kuratong
242 SCRA 88 Baleleng gang by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task
Group. It was contended that it was a rub-out and not a shoot-out which took
Facts: Accused, a PNP officer was on a mission at Candaba Pampanga. He place on the night of May 18, 1995.
went out of the police station after hearing a commotion and fired a warning
shot, with the intention of restoring peace and order which was disturbed and The PNP officers were originally absolved from any liability because of the
broken by the fight between the victim and Rogelio Agustin and alter between finding of the Blancaflor Commission that the incident was a legitimate police
the victim and one Pfc. Basa. An information for murder was filed against the operation. However, after a review of Ombudsman Villa, the findings were
accused. Petitioner now contents that he committed the offense charged in modified thus Lacson and 11 others were charged with murder. All of the
relation to his public office. RTC ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the case accused questioned the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan saying that the RTC
since the offense charged was done in the performance of petitioner’s official should take cognizance of the case at bar since by virtue of RA 7975, the
functions thus the judge dismissed the case. A month after, the decision was jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan was only to cases were the principal accused
modified stating that the same must be transmitted with the Sandiganbayan. is a public officer with salary Grade of “27”. It was contended that the highest
principal accused in the amended information has the rank of Chief Inspector
Issue: W/N the transfer was valid only, and none has the equivalent of SG 27.

Vena V. Verga 16
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

While the motions for reconsideration were pending, RA 8249 was passed by
the Congress, which expands the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by deleting Issue: W/N the RTC has jurisdiction
the word “principal” from the phrase “principal accused” in Section 2 of RA
7975. The new law now expands the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to Decision: The CFI, Circuit Criminal Court and Juvenile and Domestic Relation’s
cover Lacson. Court shall have concurrent original jurisdiction over all cases involving
offenses punishable under RA 7691. Provided that in cities or provinces where
The amended information mere alleges that the offense charged was there are Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts, the said courts shall take
committed by the accused public officer in relation to his office. exclusive cognizance of cases where the offenders are under 16 years of age.

K. Criminal Jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts. (Section 20, Judiciary


Decision: The court ordered the transfer of the cases from Sandiganbayan for Reorganization Act of 1980 as amended by RA No. 7691)
lack of jurisdiction to the RTC which has exclusive jurisdiction over said cases.  Vested the exclusive jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of any court tribunal or body with
CUYCO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN penalty higher than 6 years.
G.R. 137017-18 08 February 2000  Court with general jurisdiction
 Exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the first
Decision: The court ordered the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the case for lack of level courts in their respective territorial jurisdiction
jurisdiction, but informed the Ombudsman that it may re-file the cases with the
court of proper jurisdiction, the RTC of Zamboanga City. L. Criminal Jurisdiction of Metropolitan and Municipal Trial Courts
1. Section 32 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 as
Concurring Decision (Davide): The case should be referred to the RTC instead Amended by Section 2 of RA 7691: except in cases falling within
of being dismissed. the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC and Sandiganbayan,
these courts shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over
J. Jurisdiction Over Dangerous Drugs Cases all violations of city and municipal ordinances committed within their respective
jurisdiction
MORALES vs. CA offenses punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding 6 years irrespective of
283 SCRA 211 12 December 1997 the amount of fine and other accessory penalties. Provided that in offenses
involving damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall have
Facts: Ernesto Morales y Cruz was charged in the RTC of Pasay with violation original jurisdiction
of Section 15 of the Dangerous Drugs Act involving only 0.4587 grams of offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence.
shabu, as such the imposable penalty would at most be only prision
correctional (6mos.1day-6 yrs). Morales moved to dismiss in light of the 2. Under PD 1606 as amended by RA 8249, MTC, MCTC, MeTC has
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, it is the Metropolitan Trial Court which jurisdiction over government officials and employees where the
has jurisdiction over the case. This was denied, so he filed with the Court of penalty is not more than 6 years and officers charged do not fall
Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. But the petition was dismissed under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (Salary grade 27 and
for lack of jurisdiction as the CA adjudges that only the Supreme court has above)
jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari questioning the jurisdiction Note: Under RA 7691: fine is no longer a factor in determining jurisdiction.
of an inferior court.
3. Guidelines for the implementation of RA 7691
The Supreme court held that the CA had jurisdiction in that the certiorari was 3.1 RTC no longer has original jurisdiction over offenses commute by public
an original action and does not relate to the appellate jurisdiction of the CA. offices and employees in relation to their office where the offense is
Under sec 9(1) of BP 129, the CA has concurrent original jurisdiction with the punishable by more than 4 years, 2 months up to 6 years.
SC pursuant to the constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1948, to issue writs of 3.2 Fine was already disregarded however, in cases where the only penalty is
certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus and quo warranto. These are fine, the amount thereof shall be determined by the jurisdiction of the
original actions not modes of appeals. court in accordance with the original provisions of Section 32(2)of BP 129.
Vena V. Verga 17
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

3.3 If Fine is more than Php 4,000, the RTC has jurisdiction including those
commute by public officers where amount of fine does not exceed Six Decision: Jurisdiction over the whole complex crime must logically be lodged
Thousand. 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
M. Special Jurisdiction of Courts (Section 35, Bp 129) complex crime must be prosecuted integrally as it were, and not split into its
Note: In the absence of RTC judges, the MTC, MCTC and MeTC may hear and component offenses and the latter made the subject of multiple information
decide petitioner for writ of habeas corpus or application for bail in criminal possible brought in different courts.
cases in the province or city where absent RTC judge sits.
P. Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (RA 8249 – An Act to Strengthen the
N. Jurisdiction over PNP by Regular Courts (Article 46, RA 6974) Functional and Structural Organization of the Sandiganbayan, Amending
1. Criminal cases involving PNP members shall be within exclusive PD 1606).
jurisdiction of the regular courts
2. Courts-martial appointed pursuant to PD 1850 shall continue to try Exclusive Jurisdiction
PC-INO members who were already arraigned in pursuant to 1.1 Violations of RA 3019 (anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act); Violations
Commonwealth Act No 408 (Article of War) as amended by EO of 1379 (Act declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State any property Found
178 or Manual for Courts-Martial to have been unlawfully Acquired by any Public Officer or Employee and
3. Criminal cases not yet arraigned when RA 6975 took effect will be Providing for the Proceeding Therefore) and Chapter II, Section 2, Title
transferred to the regular courts. VII Book II of the RPC (Article 210: Direct Bribery; Article 211: Indirect
(a) Regular Courts – civil courts Bribery and Article 212: Corruption of Public Officers), where one of the
(b) Courts Martial is not regular court (People vs. Asuncion) for they accused are officials occupying positions in the government
pertain to the executive department of the government and are whether in a permanent or interim capacity at the commission of
simply instrumentalities of the executive power. the offense:
(c) Purpose of law: remove jurisdiction over PNP members from 1.1.1. Officials of the executive branch occupying a salary grade of “27” and
courts marital that transfer it within the Philippine Judicial above as classified by the Compensation and Position Classification Act
System. of 1989.
 Phil army, air force colonels, naval captains and all officers of
O. Jurisdiction Over Complex Crimes higher rank
 PNP officials with position of Provincial director, senior
ALFREDO CUYOS y. TULOR vs. GARCIA superintendent and higher.
G.R. No. L-46934 15 April 1988  City, special and provincial Prosecutors
 Presidents, Directors, trustees of GOCC’s and SCU.
Facts: Alfredo Cuyos was charged before the Municipal court of San Fernando, 1.1.2 Members of Congress and officials classified as Grade “2”.
Pampanga, with homicide with multiple serious physical injuries and damage to 1.1.3 Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the
property through reckless imprudence. He was a driver of a cargo truck which constitution
had collided with a Volkswagen in a vehicular accident which resulted in the 1.1.4 Members of the constitutional commissions
death of 1 person and physical injuries to 4 others. He pleaded guilty at his 1.1.5 All other national and local offices with Salary Grade “27”.
arraignment but before trial could commence he moved to remand the case to
the RTC alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Municipal Court. He 1.2 Offenses and felonies whether simple or complexed with other crime
alleged that since under the RPC the fine for his crime would correspond to 3x committed by public offices (salary grade of 27 and above).
the amount of damages and as the estimated damages was Php 18,000, he
would be fine to up to P54,000. Under the Judiciary Act of 1948, Municipal 1.3 Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to EO 1 (Creation of PCGG), 2 (Ill-
Courts only had jurisdiction over cases punishable by a fine not exceeding Php gotten wealth of the Marcoses), 14 (Jurisdiction over cases involving Ill
6,000 and less than 6 years imprisonment. The Municipal judge denied the gotten wealth of the Marcoses) and 14-A (Amendment of EO 14) issued in
motion, hence this petition for Certiorari 1986.

Vena V. Verga 18
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

1.4 Private Individuals charged as co-principals, accomplice or accessories prision correctional or imprisonment for 6 years or a fine of Php 6,000.00); it is
with the public officers or employees including those employed in GOCCs. enough that they are committed by those public officials and employees
enumerated. However, it retains its exclusive original jurisdiction over civil and
criminal cases filed pursuant to EO 1, 2, 14 and 14-A
2. Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction over final judgments,
resolutions or orders of the RTC whether in the exercise of their own The PNP officers only has a Salary Grade of “18” therefore, Sandiganbayan has
original jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction no jurisdiction over the case.

3. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction (a) Jurisdiction over Public Officers


3.1 writs of mandamus, certiorari etc. arising from cases filed under
EO 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, provided that the jurisdiction over these SANCHEZ VS. DEMETRIOU
petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court. 227 SCRA 627 09 NOVEMBER 1993

PEOPLE VS. MAGALLANES Facts: The Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requested the filing of
249 SCRA 212 appropriated chareges against several persons including Mayor Antonio
Sanchez of Calauan, Lagauna, in connection with the rape-slay of Mary Eileen
Doctrine: Sandiganyan’s jurisdiction would depend on the Salary Grade of the Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez. Acting on this request, the Panel of
public officer involved provided that when a private individual is an accomplice, State Prosecutors of the Department of Justice conducted a preliminary
accessory or conspirator, the rule that “accessory follows principal” will be investigation. Subsequently, the prosecutors filed with the RTC of Calamba 7
applied. info against Sanchez and the other persons accused. However, to avoid
miscarriage of justice the venue of the seven cases was transferred to Pasig,
Facts: The Dumancas spouses complained with the police saying that a certain where they were raffled to Judge Harriet Demetriou.
Rufino Gargar and Danilo Lumngyao swindled them. The accused together
with civilian agents arrested and abducted the swindling suspects and forced Sachez now contends that the proceedings conducted by the DOJ are null and
them to produce the money they got from the spouses. The two were found void for want of jurisdiction, as such is vested in the Office of the Ombudsman
dead a few days after. Two informations for kidnapping for ransom with to conduct the investigation of all cases involving Public Officers. The Court,
murder were filed with the RTC against members of the PNP and nine other however, held that as in the case of Aguinaldo v. Dumagas, this authority is
civilians who confederated with each other for the purpose of extorting money not exclusive but rather a shared or concurrent authority in respect of the
through kidnapping the two victims. Petitioner contends that the crime was offense charged. In fact, other investigatory agencies of the government such
committed in the course of the performance of duties of the accused, thus, as the DOJ may conduct the investigation.
Sandiganbayan should have jurisdiction by virtue of PD 1606. Sanchez also contends that the case should come under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan as most of the accused are public officials.
Issue: W/N Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over the case at bar

Decision: At the time the informations were filed, the law governing the Decision: The court held that the crime of rape with homicide does not fall
jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan was section 4 of PD 1606, as amended by PD under paragraph 1 of PD1606 as amended by PD1861, which deals with the
1861. The Sandiganbayan partly lost its exclusive original jurisdiction in cases jurisdiction of the Sandigan in graft and corruption cases. Neither does it fall
involving violation of RA No. 3019 as amended, RA 1379 and Chapter II under paragraph 2 because it is not an offense committed in relation to the
Section 2, Title VII of the RPC. As consequences of these amendments, the office of the petitioner. There is no direct relation between the commission of
Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction is only retained in cases where the accused are the crime of rape with homicide and the petitioner’s office as municipal mayor
those enumerated in subsection A and generally national and local officials because public office is not an essential element of the crime charged. The
classified as Grade “27” and higher under the Compensation and Position offense can stand independently of the office. Moreover, it is not even alleged
Classification Act of 1989 9RA 6758). Its jurisdiction over other offenses or in the info that the commission of the crime charged was intimately connected
felonies committed by public officials and employees in relation to their office is with the performance of the petitioner’s official function. Thus, the case is
no longer determined by the prescribed penalty (that which is higher that triable by the regular courts and not the Sandiganbayan.
Vena V. Verga 19
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

PEOPLE VS. BARTOLOME


Prior to the amendment of RA 7975, jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan for 142 SCRA 464
felonies other than violation of R.A. No 3019 as amended, otherwise known as
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, RA 1379 and Chapter II, Section 2, Facts: The Sandiganbayan convicted Rolando Bartolome y Perez, Senior Labor
Title VII of the RPC, embrace all other offenses provided, the offense was Regulation Officer and Chief of the Labor Regulations Section of the Ministry of
committed in relation to public office and the prescribed penalty is more than Labor, and Elino Coronel y Santos, Labor Regulation Officer of the Ministry of
six years Labor, of the crime of Falsification of Official Document where they made it
appear in the Civil Service Personal Data Sheet of Bartolome that he had taken
and passed the Career Service with a rating of 73.5% in Manila and that he
UY VS. SANDIGANBAYAN was a 4th year AB student at FEU, when in truth, as both accused knew,
321 SCRA 77 August 1999 Bartolome had not taken the said exam nor was he a 4th year AB student in
FEU.
Facts: Petitioner George Uy was the deputy comptroller of the Philippine Navy
designated to act on behalf of Captain Fernandez, the latter’s supervisor, on Decision: The office must be a constituent element of the crime as defined in
matters relating the activities of the Fiscal Control Branch. Six informations for the statute. The test is whether the offense cannot exist without the office.
Estafa through falsification of official documents and one information for Falsification of an official document is not within the jurisdiction of the
violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 (anti-graft and corrupt practices act) were Sandiganbayan unless committed in relation the public office of the public
filed with the Sandiganbayan against the petitioner and 19 other accused for officer.
alleged. The petitioner was said to have signed a P.O. stating that the unit
received 1,000 pieces of seal rings when in fact, only 100 were ordered. The The information does not allege that there was an intimate connection between
Sandiganbayan recommended that the infomations be withdrawn against some the discharge of official duties and the offense, thus, it cannot be brought
of the accused after a comprehensive investigation. under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Petitioner filed a motion to quash contending that it is the Court Martial and Note: When is an offense said to have been committed in relation to
not the Sandiganbayan, which has jurisdiction over the offense charged or the office:
person of the accused. Petitioner further contends that RA 1850, which
provides for the jurisdiction of court martial should govern in this case. General Rule: offense may be considered as committed in relation to accused’s
office if the offense cannot exist without the office such that the office is a
Issue: W/N the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject criminal cases constituent element of the crime as defined and punished in RPC (People vs.
or the person of the petitioner Montilla).

Decision: In the case at bar, while the petitioner is charged with violation of Exception: Where the offense charged in the information is intimately
RA 3018, his position as Lieutenant Commander of the Philippine Navy is a connected with the respective offices of the accused and was perpetuated while
rank lower than “naval captains and all officers of higher rank”. It must be they were in the performance, through irregular or improper, of their official
noted Under the present law, both THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE AND THE functions and had no personal motive to commit the crime and would not have
POSITIONS occupied by the accused are the CONDITIONS SINE QUA NON committed it had they not held their public office and merely obeyed the
before the Sandiganbayan can validly take cognizance of the case. Thus, instruction of their superior office, the offense may be said to have been
regular courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the person of the accused committed in relation to their office (the victim in this case was killed whiled
as provided by the Sandiganbayan Law which states that “in case where none under custodial investigation in a police substation, murder was charged)
of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27 or (People vs. Montejo).
higher, exclusive original jurisdiction shall be vested in the proper RTC, MTC,
MCTC or METC pursuant to BP Blg. 129.

(b) Offense deemed committed in relation to public office

Vena V. Verga 20
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

PEOPLE VS. MAGALLANES fistfight between the victim and two other individuals, the killing was
249 SCRA 212 committed in relation to the accused’s public office.

Doctrine: It is a fundamental rule that jurisdiction is determined by the The transfer to Sandiganbayan was valid.
allegations in the complaint or information. In the case at bar, the information
in the court do not indicate that the victims were killed in the course of the LACSON VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
investigation. What was alleged is that the accused, for the purpose of 301 SCRA 298
extracting or exhorting a sum of money, abducted, kidnapped, detained and
killed the two victims. The allegation of “taking advantage of his position” Facts: Petitioner Lacson is assailing the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 7 of
incorporated in the information is not enough to bring the offenses within the RA No. 8249 – an act which further defines the jurisdiction of the
definition of “offenses committed in relation to public office”. In the case of Sandiganbayan. Lacson was being held liable for the killing of the Kuratong
Montilla vs. Hilario (murder was committee outside office house and for Baleleng gang by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task
personal or political motives), such an allegation was considered merely as an Group. It was contended that it was a rub-out and not a shoot-out which took
allegation of an aggravating circumstance, and not as one that qualifies the place on the night of May 18, 1995.
crime as having been committed in relation to public office
The PNP officers were originally absolved from any liability because of the
CUNANAN VS. ARCEO finding of the Blancaflor Commission that the incident was a legitimate police
242 SCRA 88 01 March 1995 operation. However, after a review of Ombudsman Villa, the findings were
modified thus Lacson and 11 others were charged with murder. All of the
Facts: accused, a PNP officer was on a mission at Candaba Pampanga. He accused questioned the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan saying that the RTC
went out of the police station after hearing a commotion and fired a warning should take cognizance of the case at bar since by virtue of RA 7975, the
shot, with the intention of restoring peace and order which was disturbed and jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan was only to cases were the principal accused
broken by the fight between the victim and Rogelio Agustin and alter between is a public officer with salary Grade of “27”. It was contended that the highest
the victim and one Pfc. Basa. An information for murder was filed against the principal accused in the amended information has the rank of Chief Inspector
accused. Petitioner now contents that he committed the offense charged in only, and none has the equivalent of SG 27.
relation to his public office. RTC ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the case
since the offense charged was done in the performance of petitioner’s official While the motions for reconsideration were pending, RA 8249 was passed by
functions thus the judge dismissed the case. A month after, the decision was the Congress, which expands the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by deleting
modified stating that the same must be transmitted with the Sandiganbayan. the word “principal” from the phrase “principal accused” in Section 2 of RA
7975. The new law now expands the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to
Issue: W/N the modified decision is correct considering that the absence of cover Lacson.
jurisdiction on the part of the RTC became apparent to the RTC only AFTER the
trail and submission of the case decision. The amended information mere alleges that the offense charged was
committed by the accused public officer in relation to his office.

Decision: Under PD 1602 as amended by PD 1861, there are two requisites for Issue: W/N such an allegation is enough
offenses to fall within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan: (1) the offence must have been committed by the accused Decision: For jurisdiction over crimes committed by public officers in relation
public officer in relation to his office and (b) the penalty prescribed for the to public office to fall within jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan – the intimate
offense must be higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) relation between the offense charged and the discharge of official duties must
years of a fine of Php 6,000.00. be alleged in the information. There must be specific factual averment of this
relation.
Where the killing committed by a PNP officer was committed while in the
course of trying to restore local public order, which had been breached by a Mere allegation that the crime was committed in relation to public office is not
what determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. What is controlling is
Vena V. Verga 21
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

the SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS in the information that would which conveyed the impression that such is not necessary. Hence the action of
indicate the close intimacy between the discharge of the accuser’s official the court to conduct a preliminary hearing to determine whether the crime
duties and the commission of the offense charged, in order to qualify the crime charged was committed by the respondents in relation to his office was valid.
as having been committed in relation to public office. Since it was proven that the act was done in relation to the accused’s office,
the validity of the transfer of the case to the Sandiganbayan cannot be refuted.
Where the information alleged that principal accused committed the crime in
relation to the public office, but no specific allegation of facts that the shooting For the purpose of determining jurisdiction, it is the allegations that shall
of the victim by said principal accused was intimately related to the discharge control and not the evidence presented by the prosecution at the trial.
of their official duties as police officer, or does not indicate that the aid accused
arrested and investigated the victim and then killed the latter while in their Note: The Asuncion case has not however departed from the rule that
custody. The offense charged in the subject criminal case is plain murder and jurisdiction is to be determined by the allegations of the complaint. On the
therefore, within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC, not the contrary, it stressed that the public officers or employees committed the crime
Sandiganbayan. in relation to their office must, however be alleged in the information for the
Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over the case The allegation is necessary
PEOPLE VS. CAWILING because of the unbending rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations
G.R. NO. 117970 28 JULY 1998 of the information.

Decision: In the absence of any allegations that the offense was committed in
relation to the office of the accused or was necessarily connected with the CUNANAN VS. ARCEO
discharge of their functions, the RTC not the Sandiganbayan, has jurisdiction to 242 SCRA 88 01 March 1995
hear and decide the case
Facts: The information for murder against Cunanan contained no averment
(c) Jurisdiction not determined by allegations that the offense charged was in relation to his public office, hence the court
proceeded to trial and after both parties presented evidence, the court
REPUBLIC VS. ASUNCION declared that the case must be refilled to the Sandiganbayan
231 SCRA 211 11 March 1994
Issue: W/N the refilling was valid
Facts: Alexander Manio, a member of the PNP assigned to the central Police
District Command in QC was dispatched by his commanding officer to Dumalay Decision: Jurisdiction over the offense charged is a matter that is conferred by
Street to respond to a complaint that a person was creating trouble there. law. Wherever the two requisites [(1) the offence must have been committed
Dionisio proceeded to that place, where he subsequently shot to death Sgt. by the accused public officer in relation to his office and (b) the penalty
Romeo Sadang. An information for the crime of homicide was filed against prescribed for the offense must be higher than prision correccional or
him. Responded judge, in view of the decision in Deloso vs. Domingo, which imprisonment for six (6) years of a fine of Php 6,000.00.] are present,
says that Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses committed by public jurisdiction is vested upon the Sandiganbayan. This is true even though the
officials when the penalty prescribed by law for the offense is higher than information originally filed before the RTC did not aver that the accused public
prision correccional, ordered the dismissal of the case and refilling with the officer committed the offense charged in relation to his office. In the absence
Sandiganbayan on the ground that the Sandiganbayan and not the RTC which in the old information filed before the RTC of an allegation that petitioner
has jurisdiction over the case. The original information did not disclose that Cunanan has committed the offense in relation to his office is IMMATERIAL
the offense of homicide charged was committed in relation to the office of the insofar as determination of the locus of jurisdiction is concerned.
accused.
DELOSO VS. DOMINGO
Issue: W/N the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case. 191 SCRA 545

Decision: The absence in an allegation that the crime was committed “in Facts: Governor Deloso of Zambales went to pre-wedding celebration when his
relation to his office” was due to the erroneous doctrine in Deloso vs. Domingo, car was allegedly ambushed. He was able to escape and later on learned that
Vena V. Verga 22
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

the ambushed were killed while his group suffered no casualties. Based AGUINALDO VS. DOMAGAS
however on the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, Delosos’s group was not 227 SCRA 627
ambushed but were the ones who ambushed the persons killed. Thus, the
military servicemen of the Governor’s security force were charged with murder Decision: The Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate and Prosecute
while the civilians were investigated by the Provincial Fiscal. The governor was Public Officers for any illegal act or omission is not exclusive but a shared
charged with multiple murder. concurrent authority in respect of the offense charged.

The governor now seeks to stop respondent Manuel Domingo, deputy NATIVIDAD VS. FELIX
Ombudsman of Luzon from conducting a preliminary investigation of the G.R. No. 111616 04 February 04 1994
charge against him of multiple murder contending that the ombudsman has no
jurisdiction over the case for the acts were not connected with the performance Doctrine: The Ombudsman’s primary power to investigate is dependent on the
of the governor’s duties. cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan. The Ombudsman’s primary jurisdiction is
dependent on the cases cognizable by the former. But the authority is
Issue: W/N the ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate the charge of concurrent with other similarly authorized agencies. However, the
multiple murder allegedly committed by the petitioner as provincial governor. Ombudsman may take over the investigation of such case at any stage from
ant investigative agency by the government. This is only directory.
Decision: Yes. The constitution empowers the ombudsman to investigate any
act or omission of any public official without any qualification that said act or Facts: Mrs. Lourdes Aquino wrote a letter to the PNP requesting them to
omission must have been committed or incurred in relation to his office. investigate the Municipal Mayor of Tarlac for the death of her husband Severino
Aquino. The PNP then requested the Tarlac Provincial Prosecutor to investigate
The Ombudsman Act of 1989 vests in the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction the petitioner for the death of the victim. Petitioner wrote to the secretary of
over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. A murder charged against the justice requesting the preliminary investigation be done in Manila, but this was
petitioner carries the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to denied. The petitioner then moved to remand his case for preliminary
death hence, it is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and the Ombudsman has investigation contending that respondent judge has no jurisdiction over the
primary jurisdiction to investigate it. case because it was the Ombudsman and not the provincial prosecutor who
has jurisdiction to conduct the investigation. Respondent judge denied the
The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offense committed by public officials petition.
when the penalty prescribed by law for the offense is higher than prision
correctional. The murder charged against the petitioner carries the penalty of Decision: In Deloso vs. Domingo, it was said that the Ombudsman has the
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death hence, it is cognizable by power to conduct preliminary investigation on any illegal act or omission of any
the Sandiganbayan, and the Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction to public official which is broad enough to encompass any crime committed by a
investigate it. public official. However, looking at the latest law on the Sandiganbayan,
Section 4 of said law provided that the Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive
The law does not require that the act or omission be related to or be connected jurisdiction in all cases involving: a) offenses or felonies by public officers and
with or arise from the performance of official duty. Since the law does not employees in relation to their office and b) penalty prescribed be higher than
distinguish, neither should the court distinguish. prison correctional or imprisonment for 6 years or fine of Php 6,000.00. In the
case at bar, the second requirement was met but the first is wanting.
Note: The doctrine in this case which provides that the when the penalty
prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional, the Sandiganbayan has Moreover, Deloso vs. Domingo has already been re-examined in the case of
jurisdiction, without stating the offense was committed in relation to the Aguinaldo vs. Domagas and Sanchez vs. Demetriou which both provided that
offender’s office is a MISTAKE. the authority of the Ombudsman is not an exclusive authority but rather a
shared or concurrent authority in respect of the offense charged. Accordingly,
(d) Distinguished from Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over Public the Ombudsman may take over the investigation of such case at any stage
Officers from any investigative agency of the Government. Also, a careful reading of
Section 15 of the Ombudsman act would give us an idea an idea that the
Vena V. Verga 23
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Ombudsman’s investigatory powers are but directory in nature. The petition


was dismissed for lack of merit. Under Section 2 of EO No. 14, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive and original
jurisdiction over all cases regarding the “funds, moneys, assets and properties
(e) Certiorari Jurisdiction (conferred by R.A. 7975). illegally acquired by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, civil or criminal,
(f) Public Officer charged as accomplice of private individual including incidents arising from such cases. The decision of the Sandiganbayan
is subject to review on certiorari exclusively by the Supreme Court.
TOTAAN VS. FELIX
G.R. No. 81847 07 August 1988 In the exercise if its functions, the PCGG is co-equal body with the RTC and co-
equal bodies have no power to control the other. The RTC and the CA have no
Decision: Section 4 of PD No. 1606 as amended by PD 1861 provides in part jurisdiction over the PCGG in the exercise of its powers under the applicable EO
that in case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices, or and section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution and, therefore, may not
accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in interfere with the restrain or set-aside the orders and actions of the PCGG
government owned or controlled corporations they shall be tried jointly with acting for and in behalf of said Commission.
said public officers and employees in ordinary courts. The rule is that
“accessory follows the principal”. Thus, if the public officer or employee is Petition was granted.
mere accomplice and the private individual as principal, the former shall be
tried jointly with the latter in the ordinary courts. The rationale is justified by PCGG VS. PEÑA
the absence of a provision in PD 1606 directing that all criminal cases involving G.R. NO. 77663 12 APRIL 1988
public officers and employees, without distinction, be tried by the
Sandiganbayan, even if the criminal involvement of the public officer is minor Facts: PCGG ordered the freezing of assets, effects, documents and records of
or subordinate. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is not meant to be all- two export garment manufacturing firms named American International
encompassing or broad. Corporation and De Soleil Apparel Manufacturing Corporation. Properties of
both companies were sequestered and placed under the custodia legis of
(g) Exclusive Jurisdiction over PCGG cases PCGG. On 1987, the officer in charge of said corporations withdrew Php
4000,000.00 fro the Metropolitan Bank for the salaries of the employees. After
OLAGUER vs. RTC some time, a case was instituted by the company’s Hong Kong investors
G.R. No. 81385 21 February 1989 against the Bank, PCGG and Commissioner Bautista who authorized Ms. Saludo
(the OIC) to revoke authorizations that were previously issued to the Hong
Facts: Petitioner Olaguer is questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC in the case Kong investors.
at bar. Sometime in 1977, Philippine Journalist Inc, publisher of several daily
periodicals, obtained a loan from Development Bank of the Philippines. Due to Respondent Judge issued ex-parte the questioned temporary restraining order
some financial difficulty, PJI requested the restructuring of the Loan with DBP. enjoining the bank, from releasing any funds of the companies without the
PJI defaulted in its obligations, thus DBP was able to control 67% of the stocks Signature of Yim Shing, one of the Hong Kong investors;
and voting rights of the corporation, which enabled Olaguer and four others to
sit in the board. Olaguer was elected president of the board and due to some The Commission filed this petition for dismissal of aforesaid decision since the
illegal acts done by him, private respondents filed for injunction and damages trial court has no jurisdiction over the case at bar.
in the RTC. Olaguer alleged that RTC has no jurisdiction over the case since
PJI was under the investigation of PCGG in connection with Marcos ill-gotten Issue: W/N the RTC has jurisdiction over the petitioner PCGG and properties
wealth. sequestered and placed in its cusotdia legis in the exercise of its powers under
EO 1, 2, and 14.
Issue W/N the PCGG has exclusive jurisdiction over the case. W/N courts can set aside order of the Commission.

Decision: There is no dispute that the PJI is under the sequestration by the Decision: The courts have no jurisdiction over the PCGG as vested in the
PCGG and that Civil case 0035 was filed in the Sandiganbayan wherein PJI was commission and holds that jurisdiction over all sequestration cases fall within
listed as among the corporation involved the Marcos ill-gotten wealth.
Vena V. Verga 24
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, subject to review The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction to annul the judgments of the RTC in a
exclusively by the Supreme Court. sequestration related case, such as a judgment of the RTC for the enforcement
of a foreign judgment involving property that has been lawfully sequestered.
The commission exercise quasi judicial functions. In the exercise of quasi
judicial functions, the commission is a co-equal body with RTC and “co-equal Petition was granted. The decision of the RTC was set aside.
bodies have no power to control the other.”

The creation of the PCGG is mandated by the people. Proclamation Number 3 (i) Jurisdiction over Military and PNP
specifically gives priority to the recovery of ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses
and their cronies and to protect the interest of the people through orders of  Republic Act. No. 7055 (An act Strengthening civilian supremacy over the
sequestration or freezing of assets or accounts. The corporations, being military by returning to the civil courts the jurisdiction over certain
subject of said sequestration proceedings comes within the jurisdiction of the offenses involving members of the AFP and other persons subject to
PCGG. military law and PNP).

(1) Offenses defined under RPC, special laws, local


government ordinance regardless of whether a civilian is
(h) Jurisdiction to Annul Judgments co-accused, victim or offended parties shall be tried in
proper civil court except if offense is service
PCGG VS. SANDIGANBAYAN connected which shall be tried by court martial
G.R. NO. 132738 23 FEBRUARY 2000 (2) The president of the Philippine may order or direct at any
time before arraignment that the proper civil court try
Facts: World Universal Trading and Investment Co (WUTIC) was registered in such a crime.
Panama but was not licensed to do business in the Philippines. The trial court
rendered judgment in favor of WUTIC enforcing a foreign judgment and UY VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
ordering another company, the Construction Development Corporation (CDC), 312 SCRA 77 August 1999
which is a company duly organized in the Philippines and under the
sequestration by the PCGG, to pay the former $2M. Facts: Petitioner George Uy was the deputy comptroller of the Philippine Navy
designated to act on behalf of Captain Fernandez, the latter’s supervisor, on
CDC filed with the trial court an appeal from the decision of the said decision. matters relating the activities of the Fiscal Control Branch. Six informations for
CA affirmed the decision. Estafa through falsification of official documents and one information for
violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 (anti-graft and corrupt practices act) were
PCGG contends that the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complain filed with the Sandiganbayan against the petitioner and 19 other accused for
and enforce a foreign judgment considering the case involved a sequestered alleged. The petitioner was said to have signed a P.O. stating that the unit
corporation. PCGG then filed with Sandiganbayan a petition to annul the RTC’s received 1,000 pieces of seal rings when in fact, only 100 were ordered. The
decision. Sandiganbayan dismissed the petition saying that it has no Sandiganbayan recommended that the infomations be withdrawn against some
jurisdiction to annul the judgment of the RTC since the case before the trial of the accused after a comprehensive investigation.
court was for enforcement of a foreign judgment and not for recover of ill-
gotten wealth. Petitioner filed a motion to quash contending that it is the Court Martial and
not the Sandiganbayan, which has jurisdiction over the offense charged or the
Issue: W/N the decision of Sandiganbayan was correct. person of the accused. Petitioner further contends that RA 1850, which
provides for the jurisdiction of court martial should govern in this case.
Decision: Pursuant to EO 14, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over
all PCGG cases involving ill-gotten wealth whether civil or criminal, and all Issue: W/N Court Martial has jurisdiction over the case
incidents arising from, incidental to, or related to such cases.

Vena V. Verga 25
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Decision: The law (RA 7055) does not include violations of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft authorities, it is retained up to the end of the proceeding against Colonel
Law) even if the act is service connected. Violations of RA 3019 falls under the Abadilla. It is a well settled rule that jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan or the RTC depending on the nature of the the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated.
position of the offender and not the court martial.
(a) No jurisdiction over civilians
Q. Jurisdiction of Military Court
OLAGUER VS. MILITARY COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ROLANDO 150 SCRA 144
N. ABADILLA
G.R. No. 79173 09 June 1988 Facts: Petitioners, all civilians, were all arrested by military authorities and
initially detained at Camp Crame and later on, Camp Bagong Diwa. They were
Facts: Abadilla was said to be one of the leaders of the unsuccessful mutiny by charged with subversion upon the recommendation of the respondent Judge
officers and enlisted men who seized and control of the radio-television Advocate General and the approval of the Minister of National defense. On
broadcasting facilities of the GMA-7 and Fort Bonifacio for the purpose of June 13 1980, the chief of staff created the Military commission no 34 to try
toppling the existing government. The Board of Officers investigating the the criminal cases filed against the petitioners. An amended charge was filed
matter recommended that the case of Colonel Abadilla be endorsed for pre-trial against petitioners stating that they tried to assassinate President Marcs,
and that charges be filed for violation of the Articles of War and the RPC. Enrile, attempted murder and proposal to commit rebellion among others.
Colonel Abadilla was at large when both investigations were conducted. Chief Petitioners now seek to enjoin the military tribunal from taking cognizance of
of staff Ramos issued general Orders No, 342 dropping herein petitioner form their case contending that said commissions have no jurisdiction to try civilians
the rolls of regular officers of the AFP. for offenses alleged to have been committed during the period of martial law.

Meanwhile a case for slight Physical injuries was filed against Abadilla with the Issue: W/N the military commission has jurisdiction over the petitioners for
Metropolitan Trial Court. When he was arrested, his wife and children filed for crimes allegedly committed during martial law.
a petition for habeas corpus.
Decision: the trial contemplated in the constitution is a trial by judicial
The counsel of Abadilla now contends that in as much as Abadilla was arrested process. Military tribunals are not courts within the Philippine judicial system.
after he had become a civilian, the charge sheets prepared against him by the Even during martial law, a military commission or tribunal cannot try and
military authorities are null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the person of exercise jurisdiction over civilians for offenses allegedly committed by the
the Colonel. petitioners, as long as civil courts are open and functioning.

Issue: W/N the military courts have jurisdiction over Abadilla after he was Military tribunals pertain to the Executive Department and are merely
dropper from the rolls. instrumentalities of the executive power. This is provided by the legislature to
the President to aid him in properly commanding the army, navy and enforcing
Decision: The fact that Colonel Abadilla was dropped from the rolls should not discipline therein. The power and duty of interpreting laws reside within the
lead to the conclusion that he is now beyond the jurisdiction of the military Judiciary and not with the executive branch.
authorities. If such a conclusion were to prevail, his very own refusal to clear
his name and protect his honor before his superior officers in the manner ABADILLA VS. RAMOS
prescribed for and expected from a ranking military officer would be his shield G.R. No. 79173 01 December 1987
against prosecution. His refusal to report for duty or to surrender when
ordered arrested, which led to his name being dropped from the roll of regular Facts: Abadilla was said to be one of the leaders of the unsuccessful mutiny by
officers of the military cannot thereby render him beyond the jurisdiction of the officers and enlisted men who seized and control of the radio-television
military courts for the offenses he committed while still in the military service. broadcasting facilities of the GMA-7 and Fort Bonifacio for the purpose of
toppling the existing government. The Board of Officers investigating the
The military authorities had jurisdiction over the person of Abadilla at the time matter recommended that the case of Colonel Abadilla be endorsed for pre-trial
of the alleged offenses. This jurisdiction having been vested in the military and that charges be filed for violation of the Articles of War and the RPC.
Vena V. Verga 26
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Colonel Abadilla was at large when both investigations were conducted. Chief
of staff Ramos issued general Orders No, 342 dropping herein petitioner form Decision: The court’s pronouncement in Cruz vs. Enrile nullifying the
the rolls of regular officers of the AFP. proceedings in military courts against civilian petitioners therein and ordering
the refilling of informations against them in civil courts may not affect the right
Meanwhile a case for slight Physical injuries was filed against Abadilla with the of persons who ere not parties in the case.
Metropolitan Trial Court. When he was arrested, his wife and children filed for
a petition for habeas corpus. Olaguer should, in principle, be applied prospectively only to future cases and
cases still on going or not yet final when the decision was promulgated.
The counsel of Abadilla now contends that in as much as Abadilla was arrested Hence, there should be no retroactive nullification of final judgments, whether
after he had become a civilian, the charge sheets prepared against him by the of conviction or acquittal, rendered by military courts against civilians before
military authorities are null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the promulgation of the Olaguer decision. Such final sentences should not be
the Colonel. disturbed by the state.

Issue: W/N the military courts have jurisdiction over Abadilla after he was Only in particular cases were the convicted person or the state shows that
dropper from the rolls. there was a serious denial of the constitutional rights of the accused, should
the nullity of the sentence be declared and retrial be ordered based on the
Decision: Any judgment rendered by military courts relating a civilian is null violation of the constitutional rights of the accused, and not on Olaguer
and void for lack of jurisdiction. However, months before Colonel Abadilla was doctrine. If a retrial is no longer possible, the accused should be released
dropper from the rolls of officers, the military authorities began the institution since the judgment against him is null on account of the violation of his
of proceedings against him. As of that time, he was certainly subject to constitutional rights and denial of due process.
military law.
Petition was granted.
TAN VS. BARRIOS
190 SCRA 18 OCTOBER 1990 (b) Jurisdiction acquired by reason of arrest does not apply to military
proceedings
Facts: On the basis of Proclamation No 1081, President Marcos authorized the
AFP Chief of Stage to create tribunals to try and decide cases of military
personnel and such other cases as may be referred to them. In General order
21, the military tribunals were vested with jurisdiction among others over IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ROLANDO
violations of the law on firearms, and other crimes which were directly related N. ABADILLA
to the quelling of rebellion. Later on, the jurisdiction was enlarged to include G.R. No. 79173 09 June 1988
crimes defined under the RPC.
Issue: W/N jurisdiction over a person is acquired not by mere filing of charge
The petitioners and twelve others were charged with murder through the use or by commencement of an investigation but by arrest of the defendant.
of unlicensed firearm. The military courts took cognizance of this case which
acquitted the petitioners while convicting the other. On May 22, 1987, the Decision: The rule that jurisdiction over a person is acquired by his arrest
court promulgated the Olaguer decision declaring that military commission and applied only to criminal proceedings instituted before the regular courts. It
tribunals have no jurisdiction over civilians. does not apply to proceeding under the military law. Thus, there is no merit to
the contention that since Abadilla was already civilian when he was arrested,
In 1988, the case was reopened for investigations by virtue of the courts’ the military tribunal has no jurisdiction over him.
decision in Cruz vs. Enrile. Without conducting investigation, Fiscal barrios filed
two informations (illegal possession and murder) against the petitioners. II. Other matters

Issue: W/N the fiscal has authority to re-file in the civil courts the criminal
actions against petitioner tried and acquitted by the Military commission.
Vena V. Verga 27
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

U. Under Section 26, Rule 114 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, Source
bail is not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular The present rule covers all offenses except those that may be provided in the
preliminary investigation charter of cities and other special laws.
V. In applications for bail however, the Accused must be in custody of the
law to be entitled to bail (Pico vs. Combong) Modes of instituting criminal action.
W. Custody how acquired: 1. May be commenced by any person presenting to a court a
1. By virtue of a warrant or warrantless arrest, or complaint. Where complaint has been already presented, no other
2. when he voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the further pleading on the part of prosecutor is necessary
court by surrendering to the proper authorities (Dinapol vs. 2. Commence by prosecutor by filing with the court an information
Baldado) (such information is the process which institutes the action and
prosecution proceeds upon it as People’s pleading)
X. The mere filing of an application for bail is not sufficient (Santiago vs.
3. When preliminary investigation is required (Section 1, Rule 112),
Vasquez). The application for admission to bail of a person against
criminal action must be instituted by first filing the corresponding
whom a criminal action has been filed, but who is still at large is
complaint with the proper officer for purposes of preliminary
premature (Guillermo vs. Reyes).
investigation.
Y. Exceptions when mere filing of motion sufficient (Paderanga vs. CA)
Note: Preliminary investigation is required. Except where the accused is under
1. House arrests
arrest (penalty for the offense must at least be for Four years, two months and
2. Hospital Arrests
one day, without regard to the fine).
3. Being confined to quarters or restricted in military camps
4. Where offense falls under the jurisdiction of the MTC, MCTC
F. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused by Arrest or Voluntary surrender
(penalty is less than 4 years, 2 months and 1 day), action may be
is not a condition for court to Grant Affirmative Relief (dismissal of the case)
instituted through a complaint or information filed directly with
(Allado vs. Diokno)
said courts or with the office of public prosecutor.
Note: Exception: In manila and other chartered cities where action is ALWAYS
commenced by a complaint filed in the officer of the prosecutor, unless the
RULE 110
charter provided otherwise.
Prosecution of Offenses
Meaning of “Proper Officer”
I. PROVISIONS AND NOTES Refers to officers authorized to conduct the required to conduct the requisite
preliminary investigation:
SECTION 1: Institution of criminal actions
1. provincial or city prosecutors and their assistants
Criminal actions shall be instituted as follows:
2. judges of the municipal trial courts, municipal circuit trial courts
(a) For offenses where a preliminary investigation is
3. national and regional state prosecutors
required pursuant to section 1 and Rule, by filing the
complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of 4. other officers authorized by the courts.
conducting the requisite preliminary investigation. Note: Their authority to conduct PI shall include all crimes cognizable by
(b) For all other offenses by filing a complaint or the proper curt in their respective jurisdiction
information directly with the municipal trial courts and
municipal circuit trial courts, or the complaint with Interruption of prescriptive period
office of the prosecutor. In Manila and other chartered 1. By filing the criminal action either by complaint or information for
cities, the complaint shall be filed with the office of the preliminary investigation or trial on the merit unless provided by
prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their charters. special laws.
The institution of criminal action shall interrupt the running of the 2. This true even if the court where the complaint or information is
period of prescription of the offenses charged unless otherwise filed cannot try the case on merits.
provided in special laws.

Vena V. Verga 28
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

3. Reason: The mistake of the prosecutor in filing a compliant should justify a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense still lies in
not operate to prejudice the interest of the state to prosecute the prosecuting officer.
criminal offenses. Note: If for any reason the fiscal failed to include the name of one or more
Note: This rule does not apply to violations of municipal ordinances and criminals in the information, such persons are not relieved of penal liability nor
special laws. escape penal liability just because it develops in the course of the trial that
Institution vs. Commencement there were other guilty participants in the crime (People vs. Catli).
Institution Commencement
By filing of complaint with Upon filing of criminal Corollary rule: The exercise of judgment and discretion of prosecuting officer
the appropriate officer for action in court may not be controlled by mandamus (Gonzales vs. Serrano) for where the law
preliminary investigation demands that all persons who appear responsible for an offense shall be
charged in the information, it also implies that those against whom no
sufficient evidence exist are not to be included in the charge; and the
SECTION 2: The complaint or information determination of whether or not there is, as against any person, sufficient
The complaint or information shall be in writing, in the name of the evidence of guilt to warrant his prosecution necessarily involves the exercise of
People of the Philippines against all persons who appear to be discretion by the prosecuting officer.
responsible for the offense involved.
4. Exceptions to the rule that fiscals cannot be compelled by
A. Necessity of formal accusation mandamus (subject to judicial review in proper cases)
This requirement cannot be waived because no criminal proceeding can be  Where from the evidence submitted and gathered by the prosecuting
brought or instituted until a formal charge is openly made against the accused officer a person appearing responsible for the commission of an offense is
by complaint or information. not included in the information (de Castro vs. Castaneda)
B. Form
1. Accusation must be in writing SECTION 3: Complaint defined
Vox emissa volat; litera scripta manet (the spoken word flies; written letter Complaint is sworn written statement charging a person with an offense
remains). subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer or other public officer
2. Accusation must be in the name of the people. charged with the enforcement of the law violated.
Irrespective of the mode by which the criminal proceeding is to be commenced,
the action must be under the name of the People, whose peace in legal theory A. Person authorized to file a complaint (exhaustive list)
has been breached. 1. The offended part
(a) Rationale: To prevent malicious or unfounded prosecutions by (a) Definition: person against whom or against whose property
private individuals (Chua-Burce vs. CA). the crime was committed.
(b) However, a criminal action instituted in the name of the (b) Rationale:
offended party or of a particular city, although erroneous, may (1) in principle, the declaration of the criminal liability carries
not be quashed for the defect is merely in form (City of Manila with it the declaration of the resulting civil obligation.
vs. Rizal) which may be cured at any stage of the trial (Ngo (2) There are crimes which cannot be prosecuted other than
Yao Tit vs. Sheriff of Manila) at the formal instance of the person injured.
Note: If there is a mistake in jurisdiction, the private complainant, who has (c) The right however, to file a criminal complaint is personal. It is
interest in the civil aspect of the case) may question jurisdiction. In doing so, abated upon complainants death and intransmissible to his
the action should not be in the name of the People but in his name (Bernando heirs.
vs. CA).
3. Accusation must be against all persons responsible for the offense 2. a peace officer
This is demanded by the sound public policy, which would deprive prosecuting Persons who are competent to file a criminal complaint (law enforcement,
officers to use their discretion in order to shield relatives and friends. agents of NBI etc.)
However, the matter of determining whether the evidence is sufficient to 3. a public officer charged with the enforcement of the law
violated.
Vena V. Verga 29
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Ex. Internal revenue agents, customs agents etc. (j) When acts of officer are without or in excess of authority
(k) To prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners.
B. Complaint may be filed with the court or the office of the fiscal.
Unlike an information, a complaint need not necessarily be filed with the court II. Juridical person cannot be impleaded in the accusation
and may therefore be laid before the City Fiscal for investigation. In cases of corporation, the officer through whim the corporation acts, answers
criminally for his acts.
C. Lack of oath is not a fatal defect

D. Filing of complaint does not require mediation of prosecutor. SECTION 4: Information defined
An information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense,
Thus, lack of mediation of prosecuting attorney is not a ground for dismissal of subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court.
complaint (Trinidad vs. Jarabe)
E. When complaint is not required. B. Complaint vs. Information
1. When the offense is one which cannot be prosecuted de oficio Both are written accusation of the commission of a criminal offense.
(must be brought at the instance of and upon complain expressly Difference:
filed by the offended party – those enumerated in Title XI, Book II Complainant Information
of RPC – adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction or acts of Signed by the offended party, any Signed by the fiscal or an authorized
lasciviousness, including defamation). peace officer or other public officer prosecuting officer.
2. when offense is private in nature charged with the enforcement of the
3. where it pertains those cases which need to be endorsed by law violated.
specific public officers (ex. those concerning immigration that is Sworn to by the person signing it Need not e under oath since the
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission on prosecuting officer filling it is
Immigration). charged with the special duty in
Note: the right to commence criminal prosecution is confined to regard thereto and is acting under
representatives of the government and persons injured; otherwise, it shall be the special responsibility of his oath
dismissed. of office.
May be filed either with the fiscal’s Always filed with the court.
F. General rule: Criminal Prosecutions cannot be enjoined office or the court
Public interest calls that writs of injunction or prohibition to restrain a criminal Note: where the accused underwent preliminary investigation pursuant to
prosecution are generally not available Section 1(d) of PD 911, the certification must be under oath.
Exceptions: when the writ is necessary: An information not properly signed cannot be cured by silence or even express
(a) For orderly administration of justice and to avoid multiplicity consent.
of suits C. Persons authorized to filed information
(b) When there is a prejudicial question 1. city or provincial prosecutor and their assistants
(c) To afford adequate protection to constitutional rights of the 2. duly appointed special prosecutors
accused 3. a lawyer appointed by the secretary of Justice (pursuant to
(d) Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or Section 1696 of the Revised Administrative Code).
regulation
(e) When double jeopardy SECTION 5: Who must prosecute criminal actions
(f) Where court has no jurisdiction over the offense All criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information
(g) Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public
(h) Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor,
lust for vengeance or in the event of lack of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor
(i) When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the prosecutor office or
and a motion to quash on the ground has been denied. the Regional state Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the
Vena V. Verga 30
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

approval of the court. Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal Rule: Where the information has already been filed in court, the court steps in
action, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up and takes control of the case until the same is finally disposed of, so that the
to the end of the trial even in the absence of a public prosecutor, fiscal has no more control over it.
unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn. Note: If court refuses to dismiss the case at the instance of the fiscal, the
least the fiscal can do is continue appearing for the prosecution and then turn
The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except over the presentation of evidence to another fiscal or a private prosecutor
upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse. The offended party subject to his supervision and control.
cannot institute criminal prosecution without including the guilty C. When prosecution may be controlled by a person other than the public
parties, if both are alive not, in any case, if the offended party has prosecutor
consented to the offense or pardoned the offenders. Private prosecutor, in case of heavy load, with authorization in writing by the
Chief of the Prosecution Office of the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute
The offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness shall the case subject to the approval of the prosecutor (may be withdrawn).
not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party
or her parents, grandparents or guardian, not, in any case, if the Note: There is no need for public prosecutor to give his authorization unless
offender has been expressly pardoned by any of them. If the offended the written authority requires it. The written authority must be clear especially
party denies or becomes incapacitated before she can file the when it covers plea bargaining, amendment of the information or the dismissal
complaint, and she has no known parents, grandparents, or guardian, of the case.
the state shall initiate the criminal action in her behalf.
However, the private prosecutor:
The offended party, even if a minor, has the right to initiate the 1. Is not entitled to be served with copies of the pleadings as a
prosecution of the offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of matter of right since a notice of the court to the fiscal is a notice
lasciviousness independently of her parents, grandparents, or to the prosecutor (Sese vs. Montesa). Note however that failure
guardians, unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so. Where to serve pleadings and orders upon government counsel renders
the offended party, who is a minor, fails to file the complaint, her the court orders issued upon such such petitions or motions of an
parents, grandparents, or guardian may file the same. The right to file accused as void.
the action granted to parents, grandparents, or guardians shall be 2. Cannot make a stand inconsistent with the state.
exclusive of all other persons and shall be exercised successively in 3. Cannot appeal from an order dismissing the case on motion of the
the order herein provided, except as stated in the preceding fiscal.
paragraph. 4. May not continue to take part in the proceeding after the death of
the offended party since the latter is the principal and the private
No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of any of the prosecutor, merely an agent.
offenses mentioned above shall be brought except at the instance of and upon
complaint filed by the offended party. D. Exclusive right of the Solicitor General to handle criminal cases in the
Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
The prosecution for violation of special laws be governed by the It is only the Solicitor general that is authorized to bring and defend action in
provisions thereof. behalf of the People of Republic of the Philippines once the case is brought
before the Supreme Court or CA in cases concerning:
A. General rule: all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by 1. writs of error
information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. 2. petition for review
The right of the offended party to institute the criminal prosecution or the 3. automatic appeal
commission of a public offense ceases upon the filing of the complaint in court, 4. special civil actions where the People of the Philippines
the fiscal taking charge of the prosecution of the suit in the name of the People
until the termination of the case. Exception: cases elevated in the Supreme Court by way of petition for review
B. Motion to dismiss case in court should be addressed to the discretion of against decisions or final orders of the Sandiganbayan, it is the Office of the
the trial court
Vena V. Verga 31
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Ombudsman through its Special Prosecutor, which shall represent the People of H. Prosecution of a private crime (enumerated in Title XI, Book II of RPC
the Philippines. and defamation) complexed with a public offense
Where one of the component is a private crime and the other a public offense,
E. Control of Prosecution and Control of Court the fiscal may initiate the proceeding de oficio.
Control by prosecution Control of Court once case is filed
Rationale: Since one of the component offenses is a public crime, the latter
 What case to file  Suspension of Arraignment should prevail, public interest being always paramount to private interest.
 Whom to prosecute  Reinvestigation
 Manner of prosecution  Prosecution by Fiscal Rules:
 Right of prosecution to withdraw  Downgrading Offense or dropping 1. No crime of adultery and concubinage shall be prosecuted except
information before arraignment of accused even before pea upon a complaint filed by the offended party. Offended spouse
even without notice and hearing  Dismissal cannot instituted criminal prosecution without including both the
guilty parties and if he/she consented or pardoned the offenders.
F. Limitations on Control of Court Note: bigamy is an offense against civil status, which may be prosecuted at
1. Prosecution entitled to notice and hearing the instance of the state.
2. Court must always result of petition for review 2. Crime of seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness shall not
3. Prosecution’[s stand to maintain prosecution should be respected be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended
by the court party, or her parents, grandparents or guardians (mandatory
4. Ultimate test of court’s independence is where fiscal files a motion requirement).
to dismiss or withdraw information 3. If the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before she
5. Court has authority to review Secretary’s recommendation and was able to file the complaint and she has no known parents,
reject it if there is grave abuse of discretion. grandparents or guardians, the state shall initiate the action in her
6. To reject or grant motion to dismiss court must make own behalf, pursuant to the doctrine of PARENS PATRIAE.
independent assessment of evidence 4. No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation
7. Judgment is void if there is no independent assessment and of a private crime can be brought except at the instance of and
finding of grave abuse of discretion. upon complaint by the offended party.
G. Intervention of the aggrieved party (a matter of right) 5. Defamation which consists in the imputation of a public crime (ex.
Rule: Aggrieved party may intervene because: Prostitution) can be prosecuted de oficio.
1. the declaration of the criminal liability carries with it the
declaration of resulting civil obligation and SECTION 6: Sufficiency of complaint or information
2. there are crimes which cannot be prosecuted other than at the A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the
formal instance of the person injured. designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions
Exception: complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; that
1. The accused pleaded guilty before the commencement of the trial approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the
2. Offended party waives the right to the civil action or expressly offense was committed.
reserves his right to institute it after the terminal of the criminal
action. When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them
3. Offense is one of those, which do not necessarily produce civil shall be included in the complaint or information.
liability.
Corollary Rule: The aggrieved party is prevented from dictating to the fiscal as I. Purpose of the rule
to the conduct of the case since government prosecution must always be under 1. to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation
the control of the fiscal (he may not appeal an order of dismissal by the court against him
entered upon motion of the fiscal since to permit him would be tantamount to 2. to notify the defendant of the criminal acts imputed to him so that
giving said party a right to control the criminal proceeding -- Gonzales vs. CFI). he can duly prepare his defense
B. Test of sufficiency
Vena V. Verga 32
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

The complaint or information must set out:


1. the names of the accused SECTION 8 Designation of offenses
2. the designation of the crime charged The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by
3. the acts complained of as constituting the crime in ordinary and the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its
concise language qualifying and aggravating circumstance. If there is no designation of the
4. the offense committed within the jurisdiction of the court offense, defense shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute
5. the name of the offended party punishing it.

Two criteria in measuring sufficiency: A. Rationale


1. whether the indictment contains the elements of the offense The accused has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
intended to be charged and sufficiently apprises the defendant of accusation to give him opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly
what he must be prepared to meet. (People vs. Purisima).
2. whether the records show with accuracy to what extent he may
plead a former acquittal or conviction (in case any proceedings are B. The designation of the offense is not mandatory
taken against him for a similar offense) The accusation is good so long as the facts are alleged and set out in
F. It is the number of acts charged and not counts that is controlling. such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to
know what is intended, and the court to pronounce judgment
G. Defects in the complaint
according to right.
General Rule: any defect in the accusation other than lack of jurisdiction may
be cured by good and sufficient evidence.
A complaint is sufficient if it describes the offense in the language of
the statue, if the statute contains all of the essential elements
Exception: Substantial defects cannot be cured by evidence for such would
constituting the particular offense.
jeopardize the accused’s right to be informed of the true nature of the offense
he is being charged with.
There is no law which requires that in order that an accused may be
convicted, the specific provision which penalizes the act charged be
SECTION 7: Name of the accused
mentioned in the information.
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
General Rule: Mere deficiency in form (erroneous classification of an
known. If his name cannot be ascertained, he must be described
act, mistake in caption of indictment etc) is not fatal and may be cured
under a fictitious name with a statement that his true name is
at any stage because it is the facts alleged therein that determines the
unknown.
nature of the crime.
If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed by him or
SECTION 9: Cause of accusation
appears in some other manner to the court, such true name shall be
The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the
inserted in the complaint or information and record.
qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and
concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in
A. Rationale
terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what
To make a specific identification of the person to whom the commission of an
offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
offense is being imputed and to preclude the possibility of having a wrong
circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.
person apprehended and brought to trial while in the meantime the real culprit
goes scot free.
A. Rationale
The constitution guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions, the
B. Error in name is not reversible as long as his identity is sufficiently
accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
established (People vs. Ramos). This defect is curable at any stage of the
against him.
proceeding.

Vena V. Verga 33
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

B. Clarity of allegations required (no need to follow the language of SECTION 10: Place of commission of the offense
the statute) The complaint or information is sufficient if it can be understood from its
1. to enable a person of common understanding to know what allegations that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients
offense is intended to be charged occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular
2. to enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. place where it was committed constitutes an essential element of the offense
charged or is necessary for its identification.
C. A complaint or information is not defective simply because it
contains irrelevant or evidentiary matters. A. Rationale
This provision serves double purpose:
D. Every element must be alleged. 1. Sufficiency of allegation informs the defendant of the
1. Matters of evidence as distinguished from the facts nature and cause of the accusation and
essential to the description of the offense need not be 2. Fixes the jurisdiction and venue.
averred. All that is required is that the offense charged be B. Allegation of specific place
set forth with particularity as will enable a person to It is not required, save in certain instances, that the complaint or
prepare his defense. information state with particularity the place where the crime was
2. Elements of the offense must be in the body of the committed. Requirement is satisfied when it was alleged that the
information offense occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court.
D. Allegations in complex crimes
Allegations contained therein do not necessarily have to charge a Exceptions:
complex crime as defined by law. It is sufficient that the information The place need be averred:
contains allegations, which state that one offense was a necessary 1. when the place of the commission of the offense
means to commit the other (People vs. Alagao) otherwise, the constitutes an essential element of the offense (ex. robbery
complaint or information charges two crimes or offenses independent in an inhabited house, public worship etc.)
from one another (Parulan vs. Rodas). 2. where the offense charged is the doing of an unlicensed act
E. Defect in complaint or information and the exact location is essential to individuate the
An accused person cannot be convicted of any offense, unless it is offense (ex. violation of a zoning ordinance)
charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried, or
necessarily included therein. Where the information does not state all SECTION 11: Date of commission of the offense
the essential facts and ingredients of the crime, the accusation cannot It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the
stand (Sugay vs. Pamaran). offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense.
F. Negative allegations and Exceptions The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as
Rule: If a statute exempts certain persons, or classes of persons from possible to the actual date of its commission.
liability, the complaint should show that the person charged does not
belong to the class (U.S. vs. Pompeya). A. General Rule
G. Defendant cannot be convicted of an offense graver than that When time is not an element of the offense, the precise time at
alleged or an offense of which he has not been informed no matter which the offense is charged to have been committed is not
how conclusive the evidence of guilt may be (People vs. Austria). material. However, this rule does not authorize the total omission
H. Allegations of aggravating and qualifying circumstances must be of a date or such an indefinite allegation.
alleged in the complaint or information otherwise, they cannot be Note: It is important that the act should be alleged as having been
properly appreciated (People vs. Gano). committed at some time before the filing of the complaint or
Note: While circumstances which were not specifically alleged in the information.
information may not aggravate the crime, insofar as the civil aspect of B. Exception
the case is concerned they may be considered to determine exemplary When time is a material ingredient of the offense charged, it becomes
damages in accordance with Article 2230 of the Civil Code. mandatory to allege the same with precision or particularity (ex.
offense is infanticide – killing of a child less than three days old).
Vena V. Verga 34
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Continuous crimes or delito continuado (a single crime


SECTION 12: Name of the offended party consisting of a series of acts arising from a single
The complaint or information must state the name and surname of the person intent.
against whom or against whose property the offense was committed, or any Crimes susceptible of being committed in various modes
appellation or nickname by which such person has been or is known. If there Crimes of which another offense is an ingredient.
is no better way of identifying him, he must be described under a fictitious
name. SECTION 14: Amendment or substitution
(a) In offense against property, if the name of the offended party is A complaint or information may be amended, in form or in substance, without
unknown, the property must be described with such particularity as to leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea
properly identify the offense charged. and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of
(b) If the true name of the person against whom or against whose court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the
property the offense was committed is thereafter disclosed or accused.
ascertained, the court must cause such true name to be inserted in
the complaint or information and the record. However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of the
(c) If the offended party is a juridical person, it is sufficient to state its offense charged in or excludes any accused from one complaint or information,
name, or any name or designation by which it is known or by which it can be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended
may be identified., without need of averring that it is a juridical person party and with leave of court. The court shall state its reasons in resolving the
or that it is organized in accordance with law. motion and copies of its order shall be furnished all parties, especially the
offended party.
General Rule
Name of the party should be alleged in the complaint especially in If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in
crimes against property where ownership must be alleged a matter charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original complainant or
essential to the description of the offense. This is also true in the information upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in
case of defamation cases. 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
SECTION 13: Duplicity of offenses appearance at the trial
A complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law
prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.
CASES
A. Definition
Duplicity is the joinder of two or more distinct and separate offense in LLENES VS. DICDICAN
the same count of an indictment or information. A complaint or G.R. No. 122275 31 July 1996
information is duplicitous if it charges two or more different offenses.
B. General rule: Complaint or information must charge only one Doctrine: The rule that filing of complaint with fiscal’s office interrupts
offense. the prescription of the offense charged also applies to cases filed with
C. Test of duplicity the Ombudsman for preliminary Investigation.
Test should not be depended upon the evidence presented at the trial
but upon the facts alleged in the information. Facts: On October 13, 1993, Vivian Ginete, then OIC of the Physical Education
Exceptions: and School Sports Division of the regional Office of region VII in Cebu (DECS)
the right under this provision may be waived when accused fails filed a complaint for grave an doral defamation with the deputy Ombudsmand
to object to the multiplicity of crimes. for the Visayas against Susan Llenes, an Education Supervisor II of the same
Complex crimes (a single act constitutes two or more grave or office.
less grave felonies)
Special complex crimes

Vena V. Verga 35
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

The information was filed with the MTC on 28 March 1994 upon Facts: PNB Vice President Domingo Ingco was charged on May 26, 1987 along
recommendation and approval of the investigation officer and the city with top officials of Cresta Monte Shipping Corporation by the PNB before the
prosecutor respectively. Presidential Blue Ribbon Committee for violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act). The matter was referred at once to the Ombudsman.
Petitioner filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the
offense of grave oral defamation prescribed in 6 months and that since the In 1977 and 1978, Ingco allegedly conspired with officials of Cresta for the
information was filed 6 months and days after the alleged commission, the immediate grant of loans amounting to $13.4M for the purchase of cargo
crime already prescribed. vessels under grossly disadvantageous terms and conditions prejudicial to the
PNB (e.i, loan approval without project feasibility, notwithstanding the adverse
Private respondent contends that Rule 110 of the Rules of court provides that comments of the credit department on this particular loan).
for offenses not subject to ther ile on summary procedure, the filing of the
complaint in MTC or MTCT interrupt the period of prescription of the offense An information was filed with the Sandiganbayan on 21 July 1993. Petitioners
charged. moved to quash the information on the ground of prescription but the same
was denied by the Sandiganbayan, hence this petition.
The motion to quash was denied by the MTC and said decision was affirmed by
the RTC, hence this petition. Issue: W/N the offense already prescribed

Issue: W/N the filing of a criminal complaint with the Ombudsman interrupts Decision: The prescription period for the offense allegedly committed by Ingco
the prescription period. is ten years. Although more than ten years have elapsed from the time of the
alleged commission of the offense on September 1977 and March 1978 to the
Decision: Yes. In the case of People vs. Olarte, it was said that the filing of the date of the filing of the information on 21 July 1993, the prescriptive period
complaint with the MTC even for purposes of preliminary investigation only has been effectively suspended by the filing of the complaint on 26 May 1987
suspends the running of the prescriptive period. This decision was further with the Ombudsman.
broadened by the case of Francisco vs. CA where the court reiterated that the
filing of the complaint in the fiscal’s office for preliminary investigation also Applying the case of Olarte and Francisco, the complaint filed on 26 May 1987
suspends the running of the prescriptive period. before the Ombudsman is deemed to have tolled the running of the
prescriptive period. Thus, the filing of the information on 21 July 1993 is
The constitution vests upon the ombudsman powers to initiate or conduct within the ten-year prescriptive period.
preliminary investigations in criminal cases filed against public officers or
employees. The Ombudsman-Visayas then has authority to conduct preliminary PEOPLE VS. REYES
investigation of the private respondent’s complaint against Llenes. The G.R. No. 74226-27 27 July 1989
rationale of the Olarte and Francisco cases must then be applied to the present
case. Since the complaint was filed on 12 October 1993, or barely 20 days Doctrine: Civil Law rules on prescription is applicable to criminal cases
from the commission of the crime charged, the filing of the information was
very well within the six moth prescriptive period. Facts: Spouses Julio Rizare and Patricia Pampo owned a parcel of land in Lipa
City. They were survived by their children, the accused Mizpah Reyes and the
The petition was dismissed. complaints Cristina Masikat, Julieta Vergara and Aurora Vda de Ebueza.

INGCO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN On June 1983, complainant discovered from the records of the Register of
G.R. No. 122584 23 May 1997 Deeds of Lipa City that the said property was already transferred to Mizpah
Reyes and that the signature of their parents in the sale was falsified. The NBI
Doctrine: The rule that filing of complaint with fiscal’s office interrupts found that the said signatures were forged. Consequently, two informations
the prescription of the offense charged also applies to cases filed with for falsification of public document and for making an untruthful statement of
the Ombudsman for preliminary Investigation. fact in the deed of sale were filed on 18 October 1984. The crime of
falsification prescribes in 10 years and commences to run “from the day on
Vena V. Verga 36
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

which the crime was discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their Issue: W/N the court has jurisdiction to try the case.
agents (Article 91, RPC).
Decision: It is not a jurisdictional defect and one which deprives the trial court
Before the arraignment, the accused filed a motion to quash on the ground of of its authority to try, convict, and pass sentence, that a criminal action is
prescription and non-compliance with the pre-conciliation requirement. The brought in the name of the city of Manila instead of the United States. That
trial court granted the same which was later on affirmed by the CA, hence this fact constitutes a mere defect or error curable at any stage of the action does
appeal. not deprive the court of the power to pronounce a valid judgment and impose
a valid sentence. Offenses committed in the Philippines are crimes against the
Issue: W/N the offense already prescribed people of the Philippines.

Decision: Where a notarial document recorded with the Registry of Deeds was DEL ROSARIO VS. VDA DE MERCADO
sought to be annulled, the court, interpreting the phrase “from the time of G.R. No L-25710 28 August 1969
discovery” found in the provisions of the civil code, ruled that in legal
contemplation, discovery must be reckoned to have taken place fro the time Doctrine: A widow may be considered an offended arty within the
the document was registered in the Register of Deeds, for the rules is that meaning of the applicable rule of court entitled to file a complaint for
REGISTRATION IS A NOTICE TO THE WHOLE WORLD. the murder of her husband.

The court will not hesitant to apply the rules of construction in civil cases in the Facts: Aquilino del Rosario, Jr and Aquilino Sr.. were confined on the municipal
interpretation of criminal statues of the factual and legal circumstances so jail in La Union as of July 11, 1965 until the filing of a petition for habeas
warrant especially if it is favorable to the accused. corpus. The former was detained based on a criminal complaint for murder
filed by the widow. Del Rosario contends that the complaint is null since the
In the case at bat, the deed of sale was registered on 26 May 1961. The widow was not authorized to file the same, she being merely the heir of the
criminal actions having been filed only on October 18, 1984, or more than ten offended party and not the offended party herself. Consequently, his warrant
years from May 26, 1961, the crime for which the accused was charged has of arrest is also void, hence his confinement should be declared as arbitrary
prescribed. and unlawful.
The lower court sustained the writ, hence this petition.
There was no error in the decision of the CA.
Issue: W/N a widow may be considered as an offended party
NGO YAO TIT AND CHIA ENG CHENG VS. SHERIFF OF MANILA
G.R. No. 9619 and 9620 28 March 1914
Decision: A widow may be considered an offended arty within the meaning of
Doctrine: A mere defect or error curable at any stage of the action the applicable rule of court entitled to file a complaint for the murder of her
does not deprive the court of the power to pronounce a valid judgment husband. The injury to the widow – loss of right and consortium and material
and impose a valid sentence. support – should be sufficient to consider her an offended party within the
meaning of the Rules of Court provision. A contrary holding is likely to be
Facts: Before the court is an application for the writ of habeas corpus. attended with deplorable consequences.
Petitioners were charged of visiting a house (A Chinese Club) where opium was
smoked in violation of Section 3 of Ordinance No. 152. The accused alleged PEOPLE VS. ARCILLA
that there was no crime committed since there was no evidence that they lived G.R. No. 116237 15 May 1996
in that place since they were employed by the club as clerk, cashier, collector
and cook. They also contend that the case should have been in the name of Doctrine: The absence of a prosecutor cannot be raised by an accused
the United States and not in the city of Manila. The action having been to invalidate the testimony of a state witness if he cannot prove
wrongly entitled, the court acquired no jurisdiction of the person or the subject personal prejudice.
matter of the action, makings its decision void.

Vena V. Verga 37
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Facts: The accused Fe Arcilla y Corejo and victim Antonio Arcillal were DIMATULAC VS. VILLON
married. Antonio developed an illicit affair with Lilia Lipio. During this 297 SCRA 679 (1998)
amorous union, Antonio and Lilia had two children. When Fe learned of this
infidelity, he went to Albay and looked for Antonio. A fight between them Facts: SPO3 Dimatulac was said to have spoken against Mayor Yabut thus, on
ensued which resulted in Fe stabbing Antonio with a fan knife which led to his November 3, 1995, the accused, led by the mayor went to Masantol,
death. The accused contends that she was merely protecting herself when she Pampanga for the purpose of killing the victim. Riding a truck, they first went
stabbed Antonio. Fe was charged with parricide before the RTC of Daraga, to the Municipal Hall and then to the house of Masantol’s mayor. Finally, they
Albay which found her guilty. The court did not give credence to the testimony cruised to Dimatulac’s place. When they got there, some of the accused
of the accused. positioned themselves around the house while the leader of the pack, the
mayor, stayed in the truck protected by the love of his bodyguard. Some of the
Issue: W/N the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Lilia Lipio accused went inside the house to ask Dimatulac to go down to apologize to the
despite the absence of a public prosecutor in the taking thereof mayor. Enticed by the invitation, Dimatulac went down. But as he descended,
he was shot by a certain Danny. His son Peter Paul was unsure who of the
Decision: The presence of a public prosecutor in th trial of crimnal cases is accused shot his father but he was sure it was someone from the party who
necessary to protect vital state interests at stae in the prosuction of crimes, went to their house. Before Dimatulac expired, he was able to point at the
foremost of which is its interest to vindicate the rule of law. As the party of Yabut as the ones responsible.
representative of the state, the public prosecutor has a right and duty to take
all steps to protect the rights of the people in the trial of the accused. It ought Judge David issued warrants of arrest for the accused after finding probable
to be self-evident that the right belongs to the public prosecutor and not to the cause that a crime of murder has been committed. However, even before the
accused. The absence of a prosecutor cannot therefore be raised by an accused was brought into the custody of the law, Pampanga Assistant
accused to invalidate the testimony of a state witness if she cannot prove Prosecutor Alfonso-Flores conducted a reinvestigation. In a resolution dated
personal prejudice as in the case at bar. January 1996, Flores found that the Yabuts and assailant Danny, excluding all
the other accused, were in conspiracy for the offense of homicide, and not
Decision of the trial court was affirmed. murder as concluded by Judge David. This finding was based on Flores’
conclusion that although there was treachery, the assailant did not consciously
SANCHEZ VS. DEMETRIOU adopt the position of the victim at the time he fired the shot. He also
227 SCRA 627 09 November 1993 recommended a bail of Php 20,000 for all the accused. An information for
homicide was filed by Flores against the accused.
Facts: See previous notes
Before the filing of the said information, Dimatulacs appealed the Flores’
Decision: As a general rule, the prosecutor cannot be compelled to include in resolution to the DOJ Secretary. Flores was given a copy of this appeal and yet
the information a person against whom he believes no sufficient evidence of he still filed the information. The Yabuts, contended that the pendency of the
guilt exists. While the prosecuting officer is required by law to charge all those appeal to the DOJ Secretary was not a ground to defer arraignment, and that
who, in his opinion, appear to be guilty, he nevertheless cannot be compelled the Dimatulacs should have filed the motion to defer with the office of the
to include in the information a person against whom he believes no sufficient Provincial Prosecutor or sought from the DOJ Secretary an order directing the
evidence exists. Provincial Prosecutor to defer the filing of the information in court. The
prosecution also filed a petition with the CA to enjoin Judge Roura of the RTC
The possible exception to this rule is where there is unmistakable showing if a from proceeding with the arraignment. Nevertheless, Roura voluntarily
grave abuse of discretion that will justify judicial intrusion into the precints of inhibited himself and was replaced by Judge Villon.
the executive. But in such a case, the proper remedy to call for such exception
is a petition for mandamus, not certiorari or prohibition. Moreover, before Despite the fact that an appeal in the DOJ was on-going, Justice Villon
resorting to this relief, the party seeking the inclusion of another person as a proceeded with the arraignment where the accused pleaded not guilty saying
co-accused in the same case must first avail itself of other adequate remedies that the Yabuts has a right to a speedy trial and that the petitioners did not
such as the filing of a motion for such inclusion. obtain conformity of the prosecutor before they filed the motion to defer the
proceedings considering that the case should but under the control of the
Vena V. Verga 38
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

prosecution. Justice Secretary Guingona resolved the appeal in favor of the


petitioners saying that the crime must be murder and not just homicide He DOJ order 223 recognized the right of both the offended parties and ten
basically said that the crime must be murder and not just homicide. With this accused to appeal from resolutions in preliminary investigations and
development, the Dimatulacs through an ex-parte manifestation called the reinvestigations.
attention of the RTC to the DOJ ruling. The Yabut’s opposed this, saying that
they would be placed in double jeopardy. Later, the DOJ Secretary set aside his PEOPLE VS. PINEDA
order to amend the information from homicide to murder as this was already 20 SCRA 748
rendered moot by the arraignment. RTC Judge Villon denied the motion to set
aside arraignment. Hence, this petition for Certiorari/Prohibition and Facts: Teofilo and Valeriana were asleep when guns were fired in rapid
Mandamus. successions from outside their house. Teofilo died instantly. After which, the
accused went inside the house of the couple killing three of their minor children
Issue: W/N the prosecutor was wrong in (1) opening a reinvestigation and wounding Valeriana. The accused Narbasa, Borres and Alindo were then
considering that even if the warrants of arrest were issued, the accused still indicted before the CFI of Lanao del Norte as principals in five cases (four for
were not brought under the custody and (2) filing the information for homicide murder and one for frustrated murder). Narbasa and Alindo moved for the
despite knowledge of the appeal to the Secretary of Justice. consolidation of the case into one since they said that the cast arose from the
same incident, which was motivated by one single impulse. Such motion was
W/N Judge Villon acted in excess of jurisdiction for denying the granted by the judge stating that since the crime stemmed from series of
motions to set aside the arraignment considering that the pendency of the continuing acts they should be treated as one crime. This decision was
appeal in the DOJ. questioned by the city fiscal saying that since more than one gun was used and
more than one shot was fired, killing more than one person.
Decision: Issue: W/N there should be only one information, either for the complex
crime of murder and frustrated murder or for the complex crime of robbery
YES. The reinvestigation was uncalled for since the accused were never with multiple homicide and frustrated homicide
brought into the custody of the law, notwithstanding the warrants of arrest
given by the MCTC. Although under the Rules of court (112) a prosecutor may W/N the decision of the judge should prevail considering that it
disagree with the findings of the judge, this difference in opinion must be clashed with that of the fiscal.
based on the evidence on record transmitted by the judge. It is also apparent
that Flores is biased, favoring the Yabuts since he allowed them to submit Decision: The prosecuting attorney, being the one charged with the
counter affidavits without first demanding their surrender. The Php 20,000 prosecution of offenses, should determine the information to be filed and
bond is clearly inappropriate considering that the crime charged was murder. cannot be controlled by the offended party. Although there was an affidavit
from the witnesses that the real intention of the accused was to commit
Moreover, despite knowledge of the appeal, Flores did not inform the RTC of robbery and that the acts consisting of murder were committed in pursuance to
the pending appeal in the DOJ thus, arraignment was not suspended. The the original intent which would bring the crime within the purview of complex
public prosecutor was also wrong in saying that he will no longer allow the crimes as provided in Section 48, it is within the power of the fiscal to
presence of the private prosecutors (lawyers of the offended party). Since the disregard such an affidavit.
offended parties never waived the civil action nor expressly reserved their right
to institute it separately from the criminal action, then they have the right to When various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate
intervene in the criminal case pursuant to Section 16 Rule 110 of the rules of and distinct crimes. This however, is not to discount the possibility of abuses
Court. on the part of the prosecutor.
YES. Although Judge Villon was not bound to wait for the DOJ resolution, he The question of instituting a criminal charge is one addressed to the sound
should have noticed that the offense committed was murder and not homicide. discretion of the investigating fiscal. The info he lodges in court must have to
The fact that he rushed the arraignment negates prudence on his party thus, be supported by facts brought about by an inquiry made by him. A clash of
he gravely abused his discretion. views bet the judge who did not investigate and the fiscal who did or between
Vena V. Verga 39
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

the fiscal and the offended party or the defendant, those of the fiscal’s should prosecutor can be compelled by mandamus if he abuses his discretion
normally prevail. This doctrine however, is subject to several exceptions, to and refuse include co-accused against whom there appears to be at
wit: least prima facie evidence. This, however, is available only if petitioner
shows that all remedies have been exhausted, such as motion filed
1. For orderly administration of justice; with the trial court for the indictment of person(s) excluded by the
2. Prevent the use of strong arm of the law in an oppressive and prosecutor. It does not appear that such a motion was filed by
vindictive manner; appellants
3. To avoid multiplicity of actions; and
4. To afford adequate protection to constitutional rights The Court agree that there was no conspiracy as there is no evidence that
Blademir and Ronilo had earlier come to an agreement to kill the victims.
PEOPLE VS. DEVARAS
228 SCRA 482 (1993) “From bantay-bayan, they turned into bantay-salakay in an incomprehensible
Digest by: Tim David rampage that needlessly wasted 2 innocent lives. Was it the liquor in their
brain that urged them to kill, or was it simple, inexplicable wickedness? The
FACTS: A pedicab driver and his passenger were attacked without provocation answer lies in the dark recesses of their minds, and of their prison cells”
by two men who hacked them to death and later threw their bodies over the
bridge with the help of another. They were subsequently accused of murder Decision of Trial Court affirmed.
alleging that they committed the offense in conspiracy and with treachery and
abuse of superior strength. PEOPLE V. NAZARENO,
260 SCRA 256 (1996)
The principal witness, Raul Animos, claimed that at about 7:00 in the evening,
the appellants were drinking tuba with him and thereafter joined him in his Facts: Romulo Bunye II hailed “stainless” tricycle to drive him to Molina St..
duty as bantay-bayan. While making the rounds at Daguitan bridge, they saw Unknown to him, two men who were waiting outside his house and hailed
a zigzagging pedicab approach. When it was halfway the bridge, Blademir who another tricycle to follow him. Bunye then alighted at the corner of T. Molina
was then carrying a bolo suddenly attacked the driver. At the same time, and Mendiola Streets in Alabang, Muntinlupa and crossed the street. Shortly
Ronilo attacked the passenger with his bolo. Pablo did not participate in the after, the other tricycle arrived and stopped in front of “stainless” tricycle
slaying but later helped in throwing the bodies over the bridge. Raul himself carrying Bunye. One of the men jumped out the tricycle and shot Bunye at the
was ordered to help and, although initially hesitated, had to comply because he back of the head. When Bunye fell face down, two more shots were fired, one
was threatened with death. The abandoned pedicab was reported, curiously from the assailant and another from the other accused, all directed at Bunye’s
enough, to the 3 accused who went to see the barangay captain. Upon noticing head.
the blood on the back of Raul’s shirt, brgy. chairman notified the police.
Blademir and Ronilo were sentenced reclusion perpetua while Pablo was The incident was witnessed by the two tricycle drivers who executed a sworn
convicted as an accessory. affidavit and another passenger.

Note: Did not identify the assignment of errors. Those in ( ) are most probably The accused Ramil Regala, Narciso Nazareno, Orlando “Boy” Hular, and Manuel
the errors raised Laureaga were all arrested. The first two were identified by the tricycle drivers
in the police line-up.
COURT:
1. (The offense should be homicide only without the attendance of treachery) Regala executed affidavits admitting participation in the slaying of Bunye
Evidence clearly shows Bladimer and Ronilo suddenly attacked their unarmed however, claimed that a certain Hular paid him Php 30,000 to kill the
victims with bolos, thereby insuring commission without risks to themselves victimthat they had been hired by Hular to kill the victim.However, Regala and
Hular who both claims being tortured recanted their earlier admission of the
2. (Raul Animos should likewise have been charged) crime.
The determination of the person to be prosecuted on the basis of
evidence rests primarily with the prosecutor. As an exception, the
Vena V. Verga 40
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Hular and Larureaga were acquitted for lack of evidence against them. The complaint was also sufficient for it stated the name of the defendants; the
Nazareno and Regala however, were found guilty. designation of the offense by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of
as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate
Issue: W/N the arrest without warrant was illegal. time of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was
committed which is in absolute compliance with Section 5, Rule 110.
W/N the non-inclusion of the supplier of the guns would nullify the proceeding.
Petition was dismissed.
Decision: NO. Nazareno and Regala waived objections based on the alleged
irregularity of their arrest, considering that they pleaded not guilty and
participated in the trial. Any defect in their arrest must be deemed cured when PEOPLE VS. BULAONG
they voluntary submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. For the legality of an G.R. No. 37386, 106 SCRA 344 (July 31, 1981)
arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused .
Consequently, if objections based on this ground are waived, the fact that the One afternoon, Delena Segapo, 14, and her sister, Nena, 8 (both Bilaans), left
arrest was illegal is not a sufficient cause for setting aside an otherwise valid their house at Barrio Landan, Polomolok, South Cotabato, to perform an errand
judgment. for their father. After walking, they boarded a passenger jeepney and arrived
in the public market of General Santos City at 6pm. They were going to collect
NO. The manner by which prosecutions of a case is handled is within the an account from Tamigo. But, Claudio Bulaong, a 35-year-old married man
sound discretion of the prosecutor and the non-inclusion of other guilty parties with five children, pointed his gun at the two sisters and forcibly took them to
is irrelevant to the case against the accused. the New Bay View Hotel in the city where Bulaong raped Delena 8 times at the
sight of her sister and with death threats. The sisters knew him since he
Judgment of RTC which found Nazareno and Regala Guilty was affirmed administered his family lands in Barrio Landan where many Bilaans resided

The following day, they went to his parents' bungalow in Barrio Landan which
DONIO-TEVES vs. VAMENTA JR. was then unoccupied. They were locked in a room guarded by Fonso Laurecio,
133 SCRA 616 (1984) a houseboy armed with a gun. Bulaong raped Delena in that place. Meanwhile,
Nena was able to escape through the ceiling. She told her parents what
Facts: Petitioner Milagros Donio Teves questions the criminal proceeding happened who was accompanied by Rudy Ante, a barrio councilor, to
initiated against her by her husband for the crime of Adultery. The complaint accompany him to Bulaong's house. They were able to retrieve Delena who
was filed by Julian Teves, the petitioner’s husband stating that on the months was found to be raped by an examination of the city health officer.
of My 1980 to December, his wife has been having sexual intercourse with a
certain Manuel Moreno. Milagros filed a motion to quash on the contention A complaint for forcible abduction with rape, signed by Delena and Dalama,
that the court has no jurisdiction over her case since there was an absence of a was filed in the city court against Bulaong. The judge interrogated the sisters.
valid complaint. Bulaong and Laurecio surrendered voluntarily and waived the preliminary
investigation. The city fiscal filed in the Court of First Instance an information
Issue: W/N there was an invalid complaint. for forcible abduction with rape against Bulaong and Laurecio where the two
pleaded not guilty.
Decision: NO. adultery, being a private offense, cannot be prosecuted except
upon a complaint filed by the offenses spouse who cannot institute the criminal Claudio Bulaong was convicted of eight complex crimes of forcible abduction
prosecution without including both the guilty spouses, if they are both alive, with rape. Alfonso Laurecio was convicted as an accomplice. Both were
not in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders. The law sentenced to pay indemnities to Delena Segapo. Bulaong alleged in his appeal
leaves it to the option of the aggrieved spouse to seek judicial redress for the that the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case because the
affront committed by the erring spouse. The complaint filed by the offended information was fatally defective for the information should have been signed
spouse was the one necessary to start the required preliminary investigation by the girl and not by her father.
by the fiscal’s office.
Issue: W/N Bulaong committed 8 counts of forcible abduction with rape.
Vena V. Verga 41
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

W/N the information was defective Issue: W/N the letter-complaint filed by the offended party is a valid
complaint as required by Article 344 of RPC and Sec. 4, Rule 110 of the rules of
Court.
Decision: Bulaong who abducted the victim and had sexual intercourse with her
for several days is not guilty of separate offenses but of a continuing offense of Held: It was a valid complaint. The Supreme Court held that the rule of
abduction with rape. “complaint-filed-in-court” enunciated in the case of People vs. Santos was
already modified by Valdepeñas vs. People which held that the provisions of
In this case, the complaint for abduction with rape against Bulaong was filed in Art. 344 of RPC do not determine or confer the jurisdiction of the courts over
the city court by the offended girl and her father. That complaint was sworn to offenses enumerated therein since the same is already governed by the
before the city judge which was the basis of the preliminary examination. The Judiciary Act of 1948. The required complaint is only a condition precedent to
judge examined the witnesses under oath. The examination was reduced to the exercise by the proper authorities of the power to prosecute the guilty
writing in the form of searching questions and answers. On the basis of that parties. The letter-complaint filed by the offended party contained all the
examination, a warrant of arrest was issued. elements of a valid complaint required by Sec. 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of
Court. Thus the said letter-complaint is a valid complained as required by
The accused waived in writing the second stage of the preliminary Article 344 of RPC and Sec. 4, Rule 110 of the rules of Court.
investigation. In such a case, the fiscal is not called upon to conduct another
preliminary investigation. He could file an information on the basis of the
preliminary investigation conducted by the inferior court because the
prosecution of the offense is under his direction and control. He could not have PEOPLE vs. DIMAPILIS
certified that he held a preliminary investigation because the preliminary 300 SCRA 282 (1998)
examination was actually conducted by the city court and the second stage of
the preliminary investigation was waived by the accused. Facts: Sharon Degala, 11 years old alleged in her complaint affidavit that
sometime in September, 1994, February 1996 and May 1996, the exact dates
In cases involving crimes against chastity, the prosecution may be conducted already unknown to her, she was forced by the common law spouse of her
by the fiscal on the basis of the complaint filed in the inferior court. There is mother, using a knife, to undress. Thereafter, she was raped by the said man
no need to file an information. Thus, the Rules of Court does not require that on five different occasions while her mother was gambling. She told her
the offended girl in a crime against chastity should sign the information filed by mother about the incidents but here mother merely dismissed them as
the fiscal. “lambing”. She then went to her grandmother who took her to the NBI for
medico-legal examination. It was found that indeed, she was raped on several
PEOPLE VS. TAÑADA times.
166 SCRA 361 (1988)
Digest by: Don Dieta It was the contention of the petitioner that informations filed against him were
defective for failing to allege the specific dates of commission of the three
Facts: cunts of rape.
An information was filed charging one Romulo Postrero of rape in the CFI of
Cebu. A sworn letter-complaint for rape filed by Victoria Capillan was attached Issue: W/N the informations were defective.
to the said information. Capillan alleged that Romulo Postrero induced her to
consume a bottle of seven-up that caused her to feel drowsy and weak and Decision: Section 11 of Rule 110 provides that it is not necessary to state in
that Potrero then brought her to Queen Hotel where Postrero raped her. the complaint or information the precise time at which the offense was
However, accused’s motion to dismiss the information was granted by the committed except when the time is material ingredient of the offense. In the
judge on the ground that the court did not acquired jurisdiction over the case at bar, the time of commission is not a material ingredient of the offense.
offense charged since the information filed by the judge is not a complaint The dates provided in the information already suffice if the acts complained of
signed by the offended party as required by Article 344 of RPC and Sec. 4, Rule area led to have taken place “as near to the actual date at which the offenses
110 of the rules of Court. are committed as the information will permit.”

Vena V. Verga 42
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

The decision was affirmed with modifications since the fact the accused is the HELD: the acts committed by Panlilio is not violative of the Act 1760 or any
common law spouse of the mother, which should have qualified the offense provisions thereof. There was neither importation nor transfer of the said
was not alleged in the complaint. carabaos. The law nowhere makes it a penal offense to refuse to comply with
its sections, nor is it phrased as a [penal statute. Nowhere in the law states
PEOPLE VS. NARVAES that it is prohibited or unlawful to violate the orders of the Bureau of Agri nor is
59 Phil. 738 (1934) there any punishment provided for violation of such orders.

Facts: Petitioner and victim had a heated altercation when the later told the The acts of Panlilio is a violation of Atr 581 par 2 of the RPC. The fact that the
former that he should be ashamed of himself for still threshing palay despite information charged a violation of Act 1760 does not prevent the court from
the fact that all others were already plowing the land. The accused said that finding the accused guilty of the RPC. It is not a violation of his right to be
he was embarrassed by said statement of the victim. A fight ensued with the informed of the charges against him because the allegations required under Act
petitioner stabbing the victim with a penknife. It was the contention of the 1760 include those required under Art 581. The accused could have defended
petitioner that the information and the trial proceeded against him was void for himself in no different manner if he had been expressly charged with a
he was Pedro Naravaes, and not Primo Narvaes as stated in the complaint. violation of Art 581.

Issue: W/N the mistake in name is fatal.


PEOPLE VS. AMBRAY
Decision: In the at bar, the mistake in the name was not fatal since the only GR 127177, 303 SCRA 697 (Feb 25, 1999)
difference relates to the name of the father (Pedro’s name was Lucio while
Primo’s father was Leoncio). This, according to the court has no consequence Melanie Hernandez, an 11 year old, is the daughter of Vinia Hernandez, the
to the case at bar. Furthermore, when the appellant was arraigned under the common law spouse of the accused Romeo Ambray. They, including Melanie’s
name of Pedro Narvaes, which is the name appearing in the information, he half brother Robin and 3 other children, rented a single room with one bed with
entered the plea of not guilty under such name. Thus, it is already too late to the children sleeping on the floor. Her mother leaves the house before dawn
question the discrepancy in the name. everyday and goes to the Pasig market. One day at around 2am, she woke up
when the accused carried her to the bed. She tried to shout but her mouth was
Petition was dismissed. quickly covered. The accused then sexually abused her. She fell asleep still
feeling the pain. When she woke up, she left to pick up the laundry from her
US VS. PANLILIO grandmother’s place. Unable to locate her mother to reveal her ordeal, she
No. 9876, 28 Phil 608 (Dec 8, 1914) went to her Aunt Vilma Perez who accompanied her to the police, They went to
their house where Melanie pointed to Ambray as her rapist. The medico-legal
On or about 2 Feb 1913, all of the carabaos of Adriano Panlilio were ordered examination revealed that she had lacerations in her vagina but with no trace
quarantined in a corral in Masamat, Mexico, Pampanga by a duly authorized of sperm cells. Ambray denied the allegations alleging that he could not have
agent of the Dept of Agriculture after having been exposed to rinderpest, a raped her because the slightest movement could awaken his other children and
dangerous and contagious disease. On said date, Panlilio, who being authorized that it was just false charges because Vilma wanted to end their common law
and the quarantine still in effect, ordered said carabaos taken from the corral relationship because he is a gambler. Others also testified that Melanie tells her
and drove them from one place to another for the purpose of working them in ordeal to others while laughing, The TC found Ambray guilty of rape with a
the hacienda. An information was filed charging Panlilio of violation of sec 6 Act penalty of death.
No 1760. it was amended but it failed to specify the particular law violated. The
accused alleged that the facts alleged in the information do not constitute a ISSUES: WON the testimony of the complainant is credible and the defense not
violation of said law. credible
WON the statutory rape was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUES: WON Panlilio committed a violation of Act 1760.
WON Panliklio counld be convicted of violation of Art 581(2) RPC even if it was HELD: The testimony of the victim was a truthful account of what transpired
not alleged in the information. during the incident. It is impossible for her to concoct such a story since she
allowed her private parts to be examined and publicly expose her sexual
Vena V. Verga 43
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

abuse. The denial of the accused is unsubstantiated and cannot be given committed by a father against her daughter, the former’s moral ascendancy
greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of Melanie. Rape is no respecter and influence over the latter may substitute for actual physical violence and
of time and place. It is not impossible for the members of the family to be in intimidation. The accused charged with rape cannot be convicted of qualified
deep slumber when the assault was being committed. seduction under the same information. Rape and qualified seduction are not
identical offenses. Lastly, the victim is 16 years old which qualifies rape.
However, the penalty should have been reclusion perpetua. The special However, the prosecution failed to present her birth certificate. In this case,
qualifying circumstance that the accused is the common law spouse of the age is vital and essential and should be proved. Hence, the accused is liable
victim’s mother was not alleged in the information. Such failure is fatal and only of simple rape with a penalty of reclusion perpetua.
bars conviction of its qualified form which is punishable with death. qualifying
circumstances must be pleaded.
AGBAYANI VS. SAYO
PEOPLE VS. JAVIER No. L-47880, 89 SCRA 699 (Apr 30, 1979)
GR 126096, 311 SCRA 122 (July 26, 1999)
Conrado Mahinan was the manager of the Cagayan branch of the GSIS in
Julia Ratunil, a minor of 16 years of age, was held and pulled by his father, Cauayan, Isabela. Wilson Agbayani, Carmel Bautista, Pablo PAscula and Renato
Amado Sandrias Javier, by means of force, into the conjugal room while her Dugay were his subordinates. The affidavits of Pascual and Bautista were
mother was out doing laundry work. She was boxed and hit in the stomach signed at Cauayan, the latter’s letter asking for Mahinan’s dismissal.
which resulted in her being unconscious after she refused and shouted for help. Agbayani’s unusual incident report was subscribed and sworn to before a
The accused then raped her. When she woke up, she had no panties and she Manila notary with evidence to support malversation and falsification against
felt pain in her private parts. The incident took place at around 1pm at Zone 5 Mahinan. The documents depicted Mahinan as an incorrigible managerial misfit,
Baikingan, CDO. It maws again repeated twice in Nov and Dec 1994. When she despoiler of public office, spendthrift ofGSIS funds, invetereate gambler,
can no longer bear the pain, she confessed to her grandmother and with chronic falsifier and an unreformed ex-convict. Mahinan then field a complaint
mother, they reported the matter to the police and filed 3 separate complaints for written defamation against his subordinates with the fiscal at Bayombong,
of rape against the accused. The examination of the NBI revealed that she was Nueva Vizcaya. Two days later, he was terminated by the Board of Trustees of
raped and pregnant. Meanwhile, he was charged with illegal possession of GSIS but was reinstated on appeal to the CSC. The provincial fiscal filed an
firearms and was sentenced accordingly. The accused pleaded not guilty and information for libel against the four in the CFI of Nueva Vizcaya. The 4
alleged that he was working as a mason during those times and that the accused filed a motion to quash on the ground that the said court has no
damages were engineered by his mother-in-law who despises him for being a jurisdiction over the case because MAhinan was a public officer holding office at
drunkard and that Julia was an errant daughter who at age 14, started Cauayan when the alleged libel was committed and that the fiscal of N. V. had
attending dances and acquired sweethearts. The RTC found him guilty of rape no authority to conduct preliminary investigation and to file the information.
and qualified seduction and sentenced him to death and an indeterminate The court denied it on the ground that he was not a public officer since the
sentence of prision correcional minimum to prision mayor maximum. Accused insurance business of GSIS is not an inherently governmental function. Hence,
appealed. his residence in Bayambang, N. V. would be the criterion for determining the
venue.
ISSUES: WON the alibis of the accused can hold.
WON he was found guilty and sentenced accordingly. ISSUES: WON Mahinan is a public officer.
WON the CFI of N. V. has jurisdiction over the case.
HELD: The alibis of the accused cannot hold. It is highly inconceivable that
complainant would impute a crime so serious as rapeee against her own father. HELD: Mahinan is a public officer. As GSIS branch manager, he is
She cannot be faulted for her delay in reporting the rape and it does not unquestionably a public officer.
undermine the charges where it is grounded on the death threats of the
accused. Further, the place where he supposedly was is merely 200 meters The proper venue of Mahinan’s criminal action for written defamation is the CFI
from his house, a distance which could be covered by a 5min walk. For alibis to of Isabela since as a GSIS branch manager, he was a PO stationed at Cauayan
serve as a basis for acquittal, it must be established with clear and convincing and the alleged libel was committed when he was in the public service. The
evidence. The requisites of time and place must be strictly met. In rape preliminary investigation should have been conducted by the provincial fiscal of
Vena V. Verga 44
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Isabela or municipal judge of Ilagan, the provincial capital, or by the CFI of the The 32 Amended Informations aver that the offenses were committed on
same province. It could have also been filed in the CFI of the province or in the the same period of time, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988. The strong
city court where the libel was printed and first published. probability even exists that the approval of the application or the legalization of
the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of the pen, as when the
The information is defective or deficient because it does not show that the CFI approval was embodied in the same document. Hence, the said informations
of N. V. where it was filed has jurisdiction to entertain the criminal action for should be consolidated.
written defamation and that the provincial fiscal of that province had the
authority to conduct the preliminary investigation. CRESPO VS. MOGUL
No L-53373, 151 SCRA 462 (June 30, 1987)
SANTIAGO VS. GARCHITORENA
G.R. No. 109266, 228 SCRA 214 (Dec. 2, 1993) Asst Fiscal Proceso de Gala, with the approval of the provincial fiscal, filed an
information for estafa against Mario Crespo in the circuit criminal court of
Petitioner was charged in the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) Lucena City. The accused filed a motion to defer arraignment on the ground
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, when she allegedly favored that there was a pending petition for review with the Sec of Justice. The judge
"unqualified" aliens with the benefits of the Alien Legalization Program. denied it but deferred the arraignment. Upon petition, the CA restrained the
judge from proceeding with the arraignment until the DOJ has resolved the
Petitioner filed with the Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition, to petition for review. The Justice Undersecretary directed the fiscal to move for
enjoin the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with the Criminal Case on the the dismissal of the information for insufficiency of evidence but the judge
ground that said case was intended solely to harass her as she was then a denied it. The CA issued a TRO but later lifted it. Hence, this appeal.
presidential candidate. She filed a motion for inhibition of Presiding Justice
Garchitorena which the SC granted and directed to reset the arraignment ISSUE: WON the TC may refuse to grant the motion to dismiss and proceed
pending resolution of the inhibition of Garchitorena and the bill of particulars. with the trial of the case despite a motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal upon
The SB denied the motion for disqualification. The SB admitted the 32 order of the Sec of Justice.
informations and the arraignment was set. Hence, the filing of the instant
petition. HELD: Once an information is filed in court, the court’s prior permission must
be secured if the fiscal wants to reinvestigate the case. Whether the accused
ISSUE: WON petitioner’s case is a continuous crime warranting the filing of a had been arraigned or not and whether it was due to a reinvestigation by the
single information and not 32 separate informations. fiscal or a review by the Justice Secretary whereby a motion to dismiss was
submitted to the court, the court in the exercise of its discretion may grant the
motion or deny it and require that the trial on the merits proceed for the
HELD: We find that, technically, there was only one crime that was committed proper determination of the case. In this regard, the fiscal should continue to
in petitioner's case, and hence, there should only be one information to be file appear in the case although he may turn over the presentation of evidence to
against her. The 32 Amended Informations charge what is known as delito the private prosecutor but still under his discretion and control.
continuado or "continuous crime."
PEOPLE VS. PANLILIO
For delito continuado to exist there should be a plurality of acts performed GR 113519-20 255 SCRA 503 (Mar 29, 1996)
during a period of time; unity of penal provision violated; and unity of criminal
intent or purpose, which means that two or more violations of the same penal At about 11:40am, Leah Marie Jordan, a 10 year old student, was waiting for
provisions are united in one and same instant or resolution leading to the her younger sister outside of St. Jude School in Malinta, Valenzuela. Then,
perpetration Danilo Panlilio approached her and inquired of a certain Aling Rosa. She replied
that she did not know her. Danilo then suddenly poked a knife, concealed
In the case at bench, the original information charged petitioner with inside a hat, at the right side of the neck and handed her a cigarette pack with
a note and ordered her to give it to Aling Rosa. Then, they walked, with the
performing a single criminal act — that of her approving the application for
legalization of aliens not qualified under the law to enjoy such privilege. knife still at her neck. They boarded a jeepney where he forcibly took her
earrings. They were the only passengers on board. Upon reaching Navotas,
Vena V. Verga 45
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

they alighted and he dragged her to a vacant lot where he let her chose • Both Yabut Transit Line and Freeway Tires Supply were doing business
between rape and death. She then struggled and ran. She saw policemen and in Bulacan, while the bank was located in Caloocan city.
shouted for help. Danilo ran but the police caught up with him and both were • The checks bounced because of insufficient funds, hence, the accused
brought to the Navotas police station. Her parents arrived and brought her to were charged with estafa. (B.P. Blg. 22 Bouncing Checks Law took
the Valenzuela police station where they filed a complaint against the accused. effect only on April 18,1979)
The accused alleged that the RTC of Valenzuela where the case was being • Respondents filed a motion “to quash the information on two grounds:
heard has no jurisdiction over the case since the robbery was not perpetrated (1) the facts recited do not constitute an offense because the checks
in Navotas. were issued in payment of pre-existing obligation; and (2) the venue
was improperly laid” because the information was filed in Bulacan, but
ISSUE: WON the Valenzuela RTC has jurisdiction. the damage was done in Caloocan City.

HELD: Where an offense is committed on a railroad train, aircraft or in any RELEVANT ISSUE: W/N the information was filed at the proper venue (Bulacan)?
other public or private vehicle while in the course of its trip, the criminal action COURT RULING: Yes.
may be instituted and tried in the court any municipality where such train,
aircraft or other vehicle passed during such trip, including the place of RATIO: (PONENTE: MARTIN, J.)
departure and arrival. In the case at bar, it would seem that the prosecution “Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check under Art. 315¶2(d) of
failed to establish the precise place where the highway robbery was supposedly the RPC may be a transitory or continuing offense. Its basic element of deceit
committed other than Navotas. Hence, the Valenzuela RTC had no jurisdiction and damage may independently arise in separate places. In the even of such
over the offense. occurrence, the institution of the criminal action in either place is legally
allowed. Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court1 provides: ‘In all
Leah Marie did not know the place/s where their vehicle passed, the exact criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the Court of the
place where they boarded the jeep and the exact place where Panlilio took her municipality or province wherein the offence was committed or any one of the
earrings. Panlilio was however correctly found guilty of kidnapping. essential ingredients thereof took place.’ x x x The estafa charged in the two
informations involved in the case before Us appears to be transitory and
PEOPLE VS. YABUT continuing in nature. Deceit has taken place in Malolos, Bulacan, while the
76 SCRA 624 damage in Caloocan City, where the checks were dishonored by the drawee
Digest by: Bong Malibiran banks there. Jurisdiction can, therefore, be entertained by either the Malolos
court or the Caloocan court.
KEYWORDS: Yabut Transit Line; Freeway Tires Supply; Malolos Bulacan/Caloocan
BRIEF: Respondent issued a check in Malolos, Bulacan, drawn against Merchants SECONDARY ISSUE:
Banking Corporation in Caloocan City where it was dishonored for lack of “Ad interim, We hold that the facts charged in the information against
funds. Continuing offense. private respondents, contrary to their claim, constitute estafa x x x. In
considering a motion to quash based on the ground ‘that the facts charged do
FACTS: (CHARACTERS: Cecilia Que Yabut, Treasurer of Yabut Transit Line; not constitute an offense,’ the point of resolution is whether the facts alleged,
Geminiano Yabut,Jr., President of Yabut Transit Line  Respondent; Alician P. if hypothetically admitted, would meet the essential elements of the offense as
Andan, owner and operator of Freeway Tires Supply and Freeway Caltex defined in the law. The facts alleged in the criminal charge should be taken as
Station  Complainant; 1970s, Decision Promulgated April 29, 1977) they are.”
• Sometime February 1975, Cecilia Yabut and husband Geminiano
Yabut, Jr., treasurer and president of Yabut Transit Line respectively,
issued checks in favor of Freeway Tires Supply, drawn against PEREZ VS. HAGONOY RURAL BANK, INC.
Merchants Banking Corporation. GR 126210, 327 SCRA 588 (Mar 9, 2000)
o The amounts of the checks were P6,568.94 and P37,206.00 as
payments for “articles and merchandise delivered to and
received by accussed” (2 informations)
1
Now Section 15(a) of Rule 110.
Vena V. Verga 46
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc. owns Hagonoy Money Shop employing Cristina Perez them only 79% of the total amount due to them. In its answer, DPWH
as OIC, Cashier and Teller, Alberto Fabian as bookkeeper, Cristina Medina and contends that NIC is not entitled to the amount claimed since according to the
Milagros Martin as solicitors/field managers. The Laya, Manabat, Salgado and fact-finding committee of the former, the contract between them and the latter
Company, an independent management, consultancy and accounting firm, was void. It was said that NIC started the work even before the contract was
conducted an audit of the financial affairs of the money shop. It found awarded to them. It was clear therefore that the contract was awarded
anomalies in more or less 28 saving accounts consisting of withdrawals without public bidding and through connivance with some DPWH officials.
amounting to Php 879,7270.08, which were recorded in the subsidiary ledgers
but not in the passbooks. The signatures in the slips were forged. Respondent DPWH later on filed a case at the Office of the Tanod Bayan (Estafa through
then filed an affidavit –complaint for estafa against the said employees and 2 falsification of public documents)and a case in the Malabon RTC to recover the
outsiders, Susan Jordan and Brigida Mangahas. Finding prima facie evidence, sum already paid to the NIC. In addition, petitioner Republic then filed, also
the Acting provincial prosecutor filed the corresponding information with the before the Malabon trial court a motion to consolidate the civil case (filed by
Malolos RTC. The charges against Jordan and Mangahas were dismissed. Upon NIC) and the case in the Sandiganbayan arguing that the civil case for
appeal to the DOJ, the Sec of Justice ordered the prosecutor to cause the collection and the criminal cases arose from the same incidents and involve the
dismissal of the information against Perez for insufficiency of evidence. The same facts. The CA ruled that the Sandiganbayan does not have any
judge granted the motion to dismiss on the basis of the secretary’s jurisdiction over collection of sum of money since the latter not involving
recommendation and that private respondent had no legal personality to recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged. Hence this appeal.
question the said dismissal.
Issue: W/N the CA erred in not ordering the consolidation of the Civil case
ISSUES: WON the judge correctly dismissed the charges against Perez. filed with the RTC and the criminal case that was filed with the Sandiganbayan.
WON private respondent has personality to question the said dismissal.
Decision: No. Consolidation is a matter of discretion of the court. It becomes
HELD: the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion when he granted the a matter of right only when the cases sought to be consolidated involve similar
motion to dismiss the criminal charges against Perez on the basis solely of the question of fact and law provided certain requirements are met. The purpose
recommendation of the Justice Secretary. The judge did not make an of consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of suits, prevent delay, clear congested
independent evaluation /assessment of the merits of the case. His reliance on dockets, etc. Such consolidation cannot be ordered in this case since: 1) the
the recommendation of the Secretary was an abdication of the court’s duty and Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the collection case and 2) the Rules of
jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case. court do not allow the filing of a counterclaim or a 3 rd party complaint in a
criminal case.
Private respondent, as private complainant, has legal personality to assail the
dismissal of the criminal case against Perez. Respondent retains the right to An essential requisite of consolidation is that the court must have jurisdiction
bring a special civil action in his own name in criminal proceedings before the over all the cases consolidated before it. Since Sandiganbayan has no
courts of law. It follows that it could move for a reconsideration of the order of jurisdiction over collection case, the same cannot be consolidated with the
the trial court dismissing the charges against Perez. criminal cases even if these cases involve similar question of fact and law.

A counter claim in a criminal case must be litigated separately to avoid


RULE 111 complication and confusion in the resolution of the criminal cases. This is the
CASES rationale of Section 1 Rule 111. This same rationale applies to NIC’s collection
case against the petitioner and DPWH. NIC’s case must be litigated separately
REPUBLIC VS. CA to avoid confusion in resolving the criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan.
403 SCRA 403 (2003)
FRANCO VS. IAC
Facts: Private Respondent Navotas Industrial Corporation (NIC) was awarded GR 71137, 178 SCRA 331 (Oct 5, 1989)
one of the dredging contract by DPWH worth Php 195M to be completed within
a year. NIC filed a complaint against the Republic through the DPWH Facts: At around 730pm, Macario Yuro, driver of Franco bus, swerved to the
maintaining that they accomplished 95% of the work and yet DPWH has paid left to avoid a truck with a trailer parked along the cemented pavement of
Vena V. Verga 47
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Macarthur Highway in Capas, Tarlac, and collided with an incoming Isuzu Mini then filed a motion for subsidiary execution with neither notice of hearing nor
Bus driven by Magdaleno Lugue. The mini bus was a total wreck while the notice to the petitioner. The trial court issued the writ and the sheriff went to
Franco bus was also damaged but not as severe. The two drivers died instantly petitioner’s residence to enforce it but petitioner filed a motion to recall the
along with two other passengers of the mini bus, Romeo Bue and Fernando writ for lack of prior notice and the employer’s liability had yet to be
Chuay. The registered owner of the mini bus, wife of victim Chuay and wife of established.
driver Lugue filed an action for damages through reckless imprudence before
the CFI of Angeles City against Mr and Mrs Federico Franco, the owners and ISSUE: W/N the subsidiary liability could be enforced against the petitioner.
operators of the Franco Transportation Company. The defendants alleged that
they exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of all of their HELD: It is a measure of due process to the employer that a hearing be set to
employees which however was rejected by the trial court when it held that the prove the subsidiary liability of the petitioner. The employer must be given his
act of the Franco bus driver is a case of criminal negligence resulting in a civil full day in court.
obligation. On appeal, the IAC found Yuro guilty of reckless or criminal
imprudence resulting in the subsidiary liability of the owners. The IAC The employer must be afforded due process by holding a hearing to determine
increased the award of damages. his liability on the basis of the conditions required by law, namely: (a) the
existence of an employer-employee relationship; (b) that the employer is
ISSUES: W/N Franco, as Employer, is liable for the acts dome by his driver. engaged in some kind of agency; (c) that the employee is adjudged guilty of
the wrongful act and found to have committed the offense in the discharge of
W/N the IAC may increase the damages in favor of respondent his duties (not necessarily any offense he may committee; and (d) that said
Chuay and Lugue who did not appeal the said decision. employee is insolvent. All of these were not afforded to the petitioner.

HELD: Under Art 103 RPC, before the employer’s liability may be proceeded The orders of the CA should be set aside and the case remanded for further
against, it is imperative that there should be a criminal action whereby the trial.
employee’s criminal negligence on delict and the corresponding liability
therefore are proved. In the case at bar, no criminal action was instituted NAGUIAT VS. IAC
because the driver who is primarily liable died. Petitioner’s subsidiary liability G.R. No. 73836, 164 SCRA 505 (August 18, 1988)
cannot stand since it is merely secondary to the employee’s primary liability.
However, under Art 2176 and 2180, NCC, petitioner’s liability is based on culpa Facts: Timog Silangan Development Corporation is engaged in the business of
aquiliana which holds employer primarily liable for tortuous acts of its developing and selling subdivision lots in Timog Park in Angeles City, with
employees subject to the defense of the exercise of a good father of a family in Manuel P. Lazatin as its President. Petitioner Antolin T. Naguiat purchased, on
the selection and supervision of its employees. In the case at bar, appellants installment basis, 4 lots from TSDC, Lots Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16, of Block 26
were not able to establish the said defense. Hence, petitioners are liable for the of Timog Park, each with 300 square meters with a price of P60.00 per square
said damages pursuant to their primary liability under the NCC. The IAC erred meter. Petitioner made a down payment of P7,200.00 which is 10% of the total
in increasing the amount of damages in favor of Chuay and Lugue, neither of price of P72,000.00.
whom appealed.
The Contract to Sell between them stipulated a two-year period within which to
YONAHA VS. CA pay. Naguiat fully paid the price of Lot 16, after which, the title was issued. He
GR 112346, 255 SCRA 397 (Mar 29, 1996) again paid the balance of the 3 other lots. Then, petitioner demanded that the
titles thereof be issued but TSDC refused on the ground that the balance was
Facts: At about 11:45am in Lapu-Lapu City, the accused Elmer Ouano is not yet fully paid and non-compliance with the stipulations in the contract that
driving a Toyota Tamaraw registered in the name of Raul Cabahug and owned constructions on the lots be finished within 6 months and that petitioner failed
by EK SEA Products when he unlawfully maneuvered his vehicle in a reckless to make constructions as to other lots. Petitioner was not entitled to the 10%
manner, bumping Hector Cañete which resulted to the victim’s reqath due to rebate (since he was not able to finish building within 6 months), hence, the
multiple severe traumatic. The accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced previous payments did not amount to full payment.
accordingly. Thereafter, a writ of execution was issued for the satisfaction of
the monetary award but the accused was unable to pay for it. Respondents
Vena V. Verga 48
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Petitioner then filed a complaint for specific performance with damages, with feet. Later Bunag jr brought her to his grandmother’s house in Pamplona, Las
the RTC of Angeles City, praying for the delivery of the TCTs and damages. He Piñas, Metro Manila, where they lived together as husband and wife for 21
also filed with the City Fiscal of Angeles City a criminal complaint against days. Bunag, Jr. and Zenaida filed their respective applications for a marriage
respondent Lazatin, for violation of PD No. 957, Section 25, which states that license but the former withdrew the same. Bunag jr left her and never
the owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot upon full payment. returned. He also promised to marry her but did not fulfill it. A complaint for
Thereafter, information was filed against Lazatin. Petitioner filed a motion to damages for alleged breach of promise to marry was filed by Zenaida Cirilo
consolidate the Civil Case and Criminal Case, which the court granted. against petitioner Conrado Bunag, Jr. and his father, Conrado Bunag, Sr.
However, the CA reversed the decision on the consolidation issue, praying for damages. Bunag, Sr. was absolved from any and all liability.
Respondent appealed decision absolving Bunag, Sr. from civil liability in the
ISSUE: W/N the cases may be consolidated. case. Bunag, Jr. field this appeal alleging that court failed to take into
consideration the alleged fact that he and private respondent had agreed to
marry.
HELD: Civil Actions that may be consolidated under Section 3(a) of Rule 111 is
one for civil liability arising from the criminal offense or of ex-delicto and not ISSUE: W/N the dismissal of the criminal case carries with it extinction of the
ex contracto or one that is base on a contract to sell. In the case at bar, the civil case.
civil action filed by the petitioner was for specific performance with damages.
The main relief sought in the latter case, i.e., the delivery of the certificates of HELD: A person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. In other
title to the lots which petitioner had allegedly fully paid for, was grounded on words, criminal liability will give rise to civil liability ex delicto only if the same
the Contract to Sell between the petitioner and the private respondent. Hence felonious act results in damage or injury to another, and is the direct and
the civil action filed by the petitioner was for the enforcement of an obligation proximate cause thereof. Hence, extinction of the penal action does not carry
arising from a contract, or ex contractu and not one for the recovery of civil with it extinction of civil liability, unless the extinction proceeds from a
liability arising from an offense; hence, the law invoked by the petitioner is declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did
inapplicable. not exist.

But, as held in Canos v. Peralta, the consolidation of a criminal action with a In the case at bar, the dismissal of the complaint for forcible abduction with
civil action arising not ex delicto, may still be done, based upon the express rape was by mere resolution of the fiscal at the preliminary investigation stage.
authority of Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court (actions involving a There is no declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil
common question of law or fact – court may order a joint hearing). In the case case might arise did not exist. Consequently, the dismissal did not in any way
at bar, the nature of the issues involved, at least, the factual issues in the civil affect the right of herein private respondent to institute a civil action arising
and criminal actions are almost identical. The evidence would virtually be the from the offense because such preliminary dismissal of the penal action did not
same. carry with it the extinction of the civil action.

Hence, petitioner's counsel may act as counsel for the plaintiff in the civil case VILLEGAS VS. CA
and private prosecutor in the criminal case which will be conducive to the early G.R. No. 82562, 271 SCRA 148 (April 11, 1997)
termination of the two (2) cases, and will redound to the benefit and
convenience of the parties; as well as to the speedy administration of justice. Facts: Assemblyman Antonio V. Raquiza filed a libel suit against Manila Mayor
Antonio J. Villegas, who publicly imputed to him acts in violation of the Anti-
Case may be consolidated not y virtue of the provision of Section 3, Rule 111 Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in a public statement, a radio-TV interview and
but y virtue of Section 1, Rule 31. a public statement prior to his appearance before the Senate Committee on
Public Works. The Committee observed that the allegations in the complaint
BUNAG VS. CA were based on the uncorroborated testimony of a certain Pedro U. Fernandez,
G.R. No. 101749, 211 SCRA 440 (July 10, 1992) whose credibility turned out to be highly questionable.

Facts: One afternoon Conrado Bunag, Jr. brought Zenaida Cirilo, his 26 years
old sweetheart, to a motel where he deflowered her as his companion held her
Vena V. Verga 49
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

After the investigation, Raquiza was cleared of all charges by the Committee. Facts: Teofilo Gelacio, then vice mayor of San Francisco Agusan del Sur filed a
Then, an information for libel was filed by the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila complaint against Paredes, then provincial governor and Mansueto Honrada for
with the then CFI of Manila against Villegas who denied the charge. After losing alleged conspiracy in making it appear by falsifying public documents that
in the 1971 elections, Villegas left for the US where he stayed until his death. arraignment has been held in a case involving Paredes when in fact, no
Nevertheless, trial proceeded on absentia. The court dismissed the criminal arraignment was done. An information was filed by the Sandiganbayan against
aspect of the case and ordered that Raquiza be paid damages by the heirs of the Paredes and his accomplice. An administrative case for falsification was
Villegas. The CA affirmed the lower court. Hence, this appeal by Villegas’ heirs. also filed with the trial court by Gelacio against Mansueto, the clerk of court
who made the certifications. The second case was dismissed for insufficiency
ISSUE: W/N the death of Villegas before final judgment extinguished his civil of the evidence. But the Graft Investigation found probable cause to proceed
liability. against the defendants. Paredes now contends that the case in the
Sandiganbayan should also be dismissed invoking the ruling in the case of
Maceda vs. Vasquez that only the regular courts has the power to oversee
HELD: The survival of the civil liability depends on whether the same can be court personnel’s compliance with laws and take the appropriate administrative
predicated on sources of obligations other than delict. The death of the accused action against them for their failure to do so.
pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the
civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed. Issue: W/N the case in the Sandiganbayan should also be dismissed since the
Corollarily, his claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of administrative case was also dismissed.
(the) accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation
other than delict. Where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery Decision: It has been held that one thing is administrative, quite another is the
therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action criminal liability. The determination of the administrative liability for
against the executor or administrator of the estate of the accused, depending falsification of public documents is in no way conclusive of his lack of criminal
on the source of obligation. liability. The dismissal of the administrative case does not necessarily bar the
filing of a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts, which were the
In the case, the source of Villegas' civil liability is the felonious act of libel he subject of the administrative complaint.
allegedly committed. Yet, this act could also be deemed a quasi-delict within
the purview of Article 33 in relation to Article 1157 of the Civil Code thus, civil
liability may still be enforced (Bayotas Doctrine). The Bayotas doctrine makes
enforcement of a deceased accused’s civil liability dependent on two factors: RULE 112
that it be pursued by filing a separate civil action and that it be made subject CASES
to section 1 of rule 111.
RULE 112 CASES
In the case at bar, the civil action was deemed instituted with the criminal.
There was no waiver of the civil action and no reservation of the right to PANGANDAMAN VS. CASAR
institute the same, nor was it instituted prior to the criminal action. Hence, the No. L-71782, 159 SCRA 599 (Apr 14, 1988)
court should have dismissed both actions against Villegas which dismissal will
not, however, bar Raquiza as the private offended party from pursuing his Facts: On 27 July 1985, a shooting incident occurred in Pantao, Masiu, Lanao
claim for damages against the executor or administrator of the former's estate, del Sur, leaving at least five persons dead and two wounded. The next day,
notwithstanding the fact that he did not reserve the right to institute a civil Atty. Mangurun Batuampar, representing the widow of one of the victims, filed
separate civil action based on Article 33 of the Civil Code. a letter-complaint with the Provincial Fiscal at Marawi City, asking for a "full
blast preliminary investigation" of the incident and the filing of the affidavits.
The Provincial Fiscal indorsed it to the respondent Judge. However, no case
PAREDES VS. SANDIGANBAYAN was presented until 10 August 1985, when a criminal complaint for multiple
252 SCRA 641 (1996) murder was filed by P.C. Sgt. Jose L. Laruan. The judge examined personally
all 3 witnesses reducing to writing the questions witnesses and answers.
Thereafter, the Judge approved the complaint and issued the corresponding
Vena V. Verga 50
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

warrant of arrest against the 14 petitioners and 50 John Does. Atty. Batuampar WEBB VS. DE LEON
filed an ex-parte MR to recall the warrant and to conduct a thorough PI on the GR 12134, 247 SCRA 652 (Aug 23, 1995)
ground that the judge’s initial investigation was hasty and with no searching
questions, which the judge denied. Petitioners alleged that the judge could not Facts: On 19 June 1994, the NBI filed a letter-complaint with the DOJ charging
have determined probable cause against the 64 accused since the MTC is open petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian, Antonio Lejano and six others of
only from 8am to 1pm. They further alleged that the judge disregarded the the crime of rape with homicide. The DOJ formed a panel of prosecutors
fiscal who had taken cognizance of the case and about to conduct its own PI headed by Asst. Chief Prosecutor Jovencio Zuno to conduct the preliminary
and that the warrant violates the constitution requiring that such warrants investigation on the killing on 30 June 1991 of Carmela Vizconde, her mother
should particularly describe the persons or things to be seized. Hence the Estrellita and her sister Anne Marie Jennifer in BF Homes, Parañaque.
present petition.
In the PI, the NBI submitted sworn statements of Jessica Alfaro, 2 former
Issue: W/N the judge had the power to issue warrant of arrest without housemaids of the Webb family, 2 of the Vizconde maids, a security guard, and
completing the PI. a car engineer. An autopsy report was also submitted confirming the presence
of spermatozoa on Carmela. Before submitting his counter-affidavit, Hubert
Decision: In PI, a judge of an inferior court must observe the proceeding filed a motion for production of evidences and documents with the DOJ which
prescribed in Sec 3, Rule 112, 1985 Rules of Court. Pi consists of two phases. was granted and the NBI reproduced it. However, the original statement of
The first phase consists of an ex-parte inquiry into the sufficiency of the Alfaro was lost but they were able to get a copy from Atty Mercader, Jr. Hubert
complaint and the affidavits and other documents offered in support thereof. failed to get a copy of the FBI report. Hubert claimed that he was in the US at
And it ends with the determination by the Judge either: (1) that there is no the time of the crime which was corroborated by evidences and testimonies.
ground to continue with the inquiry, in which case he dismisses the complaint The same was done by other accused.
and transmits the order of dismissal, together with the records of the case, to
the provincial fiscal; or (2) that the complaint and the supporting documents The DOJ found probable cause and recommended the filing of an information
show sufficient cause to continue with the inquiry and this ushers in the second for rape with homicide against the petitioners with the Parañaque RTC which
phase. was eventually presided by Judge Amelita Tolentino who issued the arrest
warrants. The accused voluntarily surrendered, but in their present petition,
This second phase is designed to give the respondent notice of the complaint, they contend that the judge abused their discretion when they failed to
access to the complainant's evidence and an opportunity to submit counter- conduct a PI before issuing the warrant.
affidavits and supporting documents. At this stage also, the Judge may conduct
a hearing and propound to the parties and their witnesses questions on ISSUE: W/N the judge should conduct its own PI before issuing a warrant of
matters that, in his view, need to be clarified. The second phase concludes with arrest.
the Judge rendering his resolution, either for dismissal of the complaint or W/N there is probable cause for the crime of rape with homicide.
holding the respondent for trial, which shall be transmitted, together with the W/N the warrant has been properly issued.
record, to the provincial fiscal for appropriate action.
HELD: The investigating fiscal finds probable cause to hold respondent for trial.
Such procedure must be followed before the filing of the complaint in the RTC. He shall prepare the resolution and the information. In determining probable
Otherwise, there is a denial of due process. In the case, no information has yet cause, facts and circumstances are weighed without resorting to technical rules
been filed with the RTC. There is no pretense that the PI has been completed of evidences, but rather based on common sense. Probable cause are the facts
and the judge does not intend to undertake the 2 nd phase. In this situation, it and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
cannot be said that he has failed to observe the procedure. Completion of the believe that an offense has been committed and was committed by the
entire procedure of the PI is not required before a warrant of arrest may be suspects. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidences of guilt. In
issued. The rule authorizes the MTC to order such arrest even before the the case, the DOJ panel did not abuse its discretion when it found probable
completion of the PI if said court is satisfied that a probable cause exists. cause against the petitioners. It correctly adjudged that enough evidences had
Hence, the warrants were validly issued. been adduced to establish cause and clarificatory hearing was unnecessary
since PI is not part of trial.

Vena V. Verga 51
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine personally the manner to prevent material damage to the constitutional rights of the accused
probability, not the certainty of guilt of an accused. The DOJ‘s report satisfied and guarantees of freedom and fair play. Courts should give credence, in the
both judges that there is probable cause to issue such warrants. They do not absence of clear showing of arbitrariness, to the finding and determination of
conduct a hearing to determine the existence of probable cause. They just PC by the prosecutors in the PI, who are vested with quasi-judicial discretion in
personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor finding probable the discharge of said function. Hence, the state prosecutor did not abuse its
cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidences. The fiscal need not call discretion in finding PC against Dr Aguilar. The court directed his inclusion in
the wirnesses for clarificatory questioning if the evidence on hand already the information and the continuance of the case.
yields probable cause. The fact that it took respondent judges a few hours to
review and affirm the probable cause determination of the DOJ panel does not GO VS. CA
mean that they made no personal evaluation of the evidences of the case. GR 101837, 206 SCRA 138 (Feb. 11, 1992)

DRILON VS. CA AND DR. AGUILA Facts: Rolito Go’s car nearly collided with the car of Eldon Maguan when the
GR 115825, 258 SCRA 280 (July 5, 1996) latter entered a one-way street in San Juan, MM. Go went to Maguan and shot
him, and then he left. A security guard saw the plate number of Go’s car which
Facts: Godofredo Añonuevo was shot in the back by Manolo Ramos and was the police verified that it was registered to Elsa And Go. The police also
then brought to a hospital for treatment of head injuries. Later, he was again retrieved an empty shell and a round of live ammunition for a 9mm pistol. The
shot and treated after being confronted by Marcia Reyes regarding his police also obtained a facsimile of Go’s credit card which it used in a bakeshop
revelation of her indebtedness secret. After which, he was taken to a poultry before the incident and a positive verification by the security guard. The police
farm in Conception where was shot and subsequently brought to the Batangas conducted a manhunt. Go surrendered and was positively identified by the
Regional Hospital where Dr. Aguila (which was said to be an accomplice) witnesses. A complaint for frustrated homicide was then filed with the office of
refused to treat him. Añonuevo gave 3 statements to narrate the whole crime. the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. Go executed a waiver of Art 125 of the RPC
His counsel then requested petitioner DOJ Secretary Drilon to order the to avail of a PI be Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio. Maguan died before the
transfer of the PI from Batangas to the office of the State Prosecutor at the information could be filed. The prosecutor filed instead an information for
DOJ which was granted. State Prosecutor Reynaldo Lugtu conducted a PI and murder with the RTC, wherein the prosecutor certified that there was no PI
found a prima facie case for Kidnapping with frustrated murder against Ramos, since Go did not waive Art 125. Counsel for petitioner then filed an omnibus
Agapito Reyes, Marca Reyes, Egay Perez, Ariel Hubilla, Dr Aguilar and motion for immediate release and proper PI alleging that no PI was conducted
Adoracion Moraleja. An information was then filed with the Batangas City RTC. and the warrantless arrest was unlawful. Go’s petition for bail was approved
Subsequebtly, a petition for review and reinvestigation was denied by DOJ and his release was ordered. The prosecutor filed a motion for leave to conduct
USEC and DOJ Secretary. The case was reassigned and re-raffled to the Manila PI and to suspend proceedings in the court which was granted. However, the
RTC. judge recalled the bail, PI, and immediate release and set aside the case for
arraignment. Petitioner was admitted at the Rizal Provincial Jail. Petitioner was
Dr. Aguila sought prohibition with TRO and preliminary injunction to set aside arraigned and hearings were conducted. Go then filed a petition for habeas
the resolution of Lugtu with the CA which was granted. Unaware that the raffle corpus in the CA which was issued. The CA also denied the deferment of the
had already been conducted, the accused filed a motion to hold in abeyance arraignment and his other motions. Hence, this petition for review.
the issuance of a warrant of arrest and to defer the raffle with the Manila RTC.
Not knowing of the said motion, the Manila RTC issued the order of arrest. The ISSUE: W/N the warrantless arrest was lawful.
CA enjoined the RTC from proceeding with the case. CA likewise excluded Dr W/N petitioner effectively waived his right to PI.
Aguilar from the information having found no probable cause against him.
DECISION: Go’s arrest took place 6 days after the shooting. The arresting
ISSUE: W/N the criminal prosecution can be restrained upon the claim of officers had no personal knowledge of the facts indicating that petitioner was
accused Dr. Aguila that there is no prima facie case against him. the gunman. The information upon which the police acted had been derived
from statements of eyewitnesses. It is clear that there was no lawful
HELD: the purpose of the PI is to establish PC, which implies probability of guilt warrantless arrest of petitioner. Since he had not been arrested, he was also
and requires more that bare suspicion but less than evidence which would not entitled to be released forthwith subject only to his appearing at the PI.
justify conviction. PC should be determined in a summary but scrupulous The prosecutor should have conducted the PI upon the filing of the complaint
Vena V. Verga 52
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

for frustrated homicide by the police since he should have been accorded with Special Prosecutor for violation of RA 3019 while the second was filed with the
such right without any conditions. PCGG which was later endorsed to the Ombudsman. PCGG filed an information
with the Sandiganbayan after conducting a preliminary investigation. The OSP
The court held that petitioner did not waive his right to PI. Such right is a likewise filed information for estafa through falsification of public documents
substantive right. To deny him of such right would deprive him of his right to with the Sandiganbayan. The OSP earlier denied the motion to dismiss by
due process. PI is waived when the accused fails to invoke it before or at the petitioner. Sandiganbayan consolidated the two cases but remanded the same
time of entering a plea at arraignment. In the case, Go insisted on his right to to the Ombudsman for reinvestigation. During the preliminary investigation,
PI before his arraignment. He even asked for bail in one motion. Hence, we petitioner submitted counter-affidavits and documents. The prosecutor
cannot reasonably imply waiver of PI. recommended the withdrawal of the information but the Ombudsman ordered
the prosecution to proceed. Petitioner filed an omnibus motion to quash the
information and for the Ombudsman to conduct further proceedings but the
CRESPO VS. MOGUL same was denied. Hence, this petition.
No L-53373, 151 SCRA 462 (June 30, 1987)
Issue: W/N the Ombudsman should dismiss the information on the
Facts: Asst Fiscal Proceso de Gala, with the approval of the provincial fiscal, recommendation of the prosecutor.
filed an information for estafa against Mario Crespo in the circuit criminal court W/N the records of the preliminary investigation should be reproduced.
of Lucena City. The accused filed a motion to defer arraignment on the ground
that there was a pending petition for review with the Sec of Justice. The judge Held: It is discretionary upon the Ombudsman if he will rely mainly on the
denied it but deferred the arraignment. Upon petition, the CA restrained the findings of fact of the investigating prosecutor in making a review of the
judge from proceeding with the arraignment until the DOJ has resolved the latter’s report and recommendation as the Ombudsman can very well make his
petition for review. The Justice Undersecretary directed the fiscal to move for own findings of fact. The Ombudsman does not conduct another investigation
the dismissal of the information for insufficiency of evidence but the judge but merely determines the propriety and correctness of the recommendation of
denied it. The CA issued a TRO but later lifted it. Hence, this appeal. the investigating prosecutor that is, whether or not probable cause exist.
Hence, the courts should not interfere in the exercise of the Ombudsman’s
ISSUE: W/N the TC may refuse to grant the motion to dismiss and proceed discretionary power. The fact that the information filed by the ombudsman
with the trial of the case despite a motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal upon consists only of two paragraphs is not sufficient to impute arbitrariness on his
order of the Sec of Justice. part, absent a clear showing that he abused his discretion.

HELD: Once an information is filed in court, the court’s prior permission must The court is not tasked to review in detail the evidence submitted duing the
be secured if the fiscal wants to reinvestigate the case. Whether the accused preliminary investigation. The lim case wherein it was held that if a judge
had been arraigned or not and whether it was due to a reinvestigation by the relies entirely on the certification of the prosecutor , he or se has not
fiscal or a review by the Justice Secretary whereby a motion to dismiss was personally determined probable cause, is not applicable in the case at bar. It
submitted to the court, the court in the exercise of its discretion may grant the is sufficient that the judge evaluates the report and supporting documents
motion or deny it and require that the trial on the merits proceed for the submitted by the prosecutin in determining probable cause.
proper determination of the case. In this regard, the fiscal should continue to
appear in the case although he may turn over the presentation of evidence to There is no reason to deny the reproduction of the records of the preliminary
the private prosecutor but still under his discretion and control. investigation since there was good cause on the part of the accused for the
reason that he may prepare for his defense.

CRUZ, JR. VS. PEOPLE DOLALAS vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN


GR 110436, 233 SCRA 439 (June 27, 1994) G.R. No. 118808, 265 SCRA 819 (December 24, 1996)

Facts: GSIS filed 2 separate complaints against Roman Cruz, Jr., then Facts: Judge Ana Maria I. Dolalas, Evelyn K. Obido and Wilberto B. Carriedo —
President and General-Manager of GSIS and President of the Manila Hotel, for Presiding Judge, Clerk of Court and Clerk II, respectively of MCTC of
violation of Sec 3(e) of RA 3019. The first was filed with the Office of the Kabasalan, Zamboanga del Sur, were administratively charged by respondent
Vena V. Verga 53
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Benjamin Villarante, Jr. for "miscarriage of justice, dishonesty, gross neglect of murder and asked the CHR to conduct an investigation. The Ombudsman
duty, unnecessary delay in the administration of justice and for failure to directed petitioner Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs Casaclang to
prosecute Criminal Case no. 5881 for an unreasonable length of time in the monitor the investigations by the CHR, Senate and PNP. Casaclang requested
Ombudsman-Mindanao. documents relative to the shootout from these bodies and agencies. SPO2
Corazon de la Cruz testified and corroborated the statements of de los Reyes.
The letter-complaint was due to a criminal case of alarms and scandals filed He then created a panel of investigators which recommended the conduct of a
against respondent by a police officer. Respondent alleged that after preliminary investigation after being furnished with documents and transcripts
submitting his counter-affidavit with the court, there has been no pre- of the Senate’s proceedings and the “After Operations Report” from PNP. He
conference, arraignment or pre-trial held or conducted by the judge. He further ordered petitioners to submit counter-affidavits and evidences but the latter
alleged that it was maliciously filed by P/Sgt. Salutillo in connivance with neither complied nor moved for reconsideration. Instead, they questioned the
petitioner judge in order to discourage the former from instituting a criminal preliminary investigation without the required preliminary evaluation in their
complaint against said police officer's men for abuse of authority and police respective petitions with the SC, which ordered both parties to comment.
brutality with physical injury. The case was delayed due to the failure to However, Acting Ombudsman Villa ordered petitioner to file their counter-
prosecute within a reasonable time. The Graft Investigation Officer I of the affidavits, which caused petitioner to cite him in contempt. Villa likewise took
Ombudsman directed petitioners to comment and denied the latter’s motion for the petition from Casaclang who suspended the same pending resolution of the
reconsideration. Hence the petition before this Court. petition by the SC. Hence, this petition.

Issue: W/N the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over petitioners for purposes of Issue: WN the Ombudsman of the OSP has jurisdiction over the complaint.
investigation and prosecution. W/N the Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs may conduct PI.

Decision: This Court agrees with petitioner-judge. The complaint against Decision: Petitioners, who are PNP officers, are civilian personnel of the
petitioner-judge before the Office of the Ombudsman is basically administrative government. The Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs is not prohibited from
in nature. In essence, petitioner-judge is being charged with having violated performing other functions or duties affecting non-military personnel. The
Rule 1.02, Canon 1 and Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Ombudsman may refer cases involving non-military personnel for investigation
by the Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs. Hence, there is no irregularity
It must be borne in mind that the resolution of the administrative charge of attending the referral by the Acting Ombudsman of the case to Casaclang who
unduly delaying the disposition of the said criminal case involves the in turn created a panel of investigators.
determination of whether, in resolving the alarms and scandals case,
petitioner-judge acted in accordance with the guidelines provided in the Rules Casaclang did not set the case for PI without the preliminary evaluation
of Court and in the Administrative Circulars in pursuance of the ideals required. In the case, Casaclang issued the questioned order after the panel of
embodied in the Code of Judicial Conduct. Such is clearly an administrative investigators submitted its evaluation report. The conduct of such evaluation
matter. Unquestionably, this Court is mandated of the 1987 Constitution to involves the exercise of discretion which has not been abused in the case.
assume under section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution to assume
administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. Hence, Through RA 6770, the OSP was made an organic component of the Office of
the ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the case at bar. the Ombudsman. The ombudsman was granted with the power to investigate
public officers and employees over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
The OSP is also authorized to conduct PI over criminal cases within the
ACOP VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan under the supervision and control and upon
GR 120422, 248 SCRA 566 (Sep 27, 1995) the authority of the Ombudsman.

Facts: On 18 May 1995, 11 suspected members of the Kuratong Baleleng were


killed in a shootout by the NCR Command, Traffic Management Command, OCAMPO, IV vs. OMBUDSMAN
PACC, CPDC and Criminal Investigation Command. Later, SPO2 Eduardo de los G.R. Nos. 103446-47, 225 SCRA 725 (August 30, 1993)
Reyes of the Central Intelligence Command exposed that there was no
shootout. Then, the relatives of the slain suspects accused the policemen of
Vena V. Verga 54
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Facts: Governor Mariano Ocampo III and his son, petitioner Mariano Ocampo
IV, were charged with violation of Sec. 3 (h) of Republic Act. No. 3019 in two
(2) separate informations filed before the Sandiganbayan. Mariano Ocampo III, RODRIGUEZ VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
then Tarlac Governor and President-Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the GR 61355, 120 SCRA 659 (Feb 18, 1983)
Lingkod Tarlac Foundation, Inc. (LTFI), connived with Ocampo IV in loaning
P5,476,031.00 and P7,000,000.00 out of the National Aid for Local Facts: On 24 Jan 1964, Maximo Rodriguez was the provincial fiscal of Misamis
Government Funds (NALGF) of Tarlac to the IMCOR, now the New Territory Oriental when he was designated as Ex-officio Register of Deeds of Misamis
Manufacturing, Inc., a private corporation where Ocampo IV is an incorporator Oriental and CDO City upon the register of the former Register of Deeds. Later,
and stockholder, under terms and conditions grossly disadvantageous to the respondent Digno Roa filed an affidavit complaint before the fiscal of CDO
government the same being interest-free, without collateral, and without, a charging Rodriguez of estafa, falsification and usurpation of public functions. A
definite date of repayment. subpoena was issued to petitioner who submitted his counter-affidavit. State
Prosecutor Lilia Lopez, who assisted the fiscal conducted a PI. Two months
Ocampo IV filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion for reinvestigation which later, he resigned from the service. Then, Lopez found probable cause against
was granted. After the reinvestigation, Special Prosecutors Roger C. Berbano, petitioner with Isidro Udang and Josefa Ebora Pacardo. Before her resolution
Sr. and Rodolfo F. Reynoso of the OSP found that Ocampo IV did not connive could be approved by the DOJ, the office of the Tanodbayan was created to
with his father, Gov. Ocampo III. The special prosecutors then recommended which the entire records of the case were transferred. The Tanodbayan
that the informations against them be dismissed and withdrawn. However, the prosecutor Francisco Rabanes set the case for PI but later dismissed the case
Ombudsman disapproved the recommendation. Hence, this petition. for lack of PC by just considering the records and counter-affidavit submitted
by petitioner. The Tanodbayan legal officer however recommended the setting
Issue: WON the Ombudsman abused its discretion in proceeding with the case aside of the resolution and the filing of an information for violation of RA 3019.
despite the recommendation of dismissal by the special prosecutor. A team of special prosecutors conducted the PI upon the recommendation of
the Tanodbayan prosecution and investigation office. The subpoena was served
Decision: Criminal prosecutions may not be restrained, either through a upon petitioner’s wife since the former was in Catarman Northern Samar
preliminary or final injunction or, a writ of prohibition, except in some hospital attending to his sick mother and proceeding directly to Manila for an
instances. Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the fiscal or the appearance before the CA. The PI was conducted in the presence of petitioner’s
Ombudsman to determine the specificity and adequacy of the averments of the law partner and son, Rufus Rodriguez, but petitioner denied them as his
offense charged. He may dismiss the complaint forthwith if he finds it to be representative since he was unaware of such PI. Consequently, an information
insufficient in form or substance or if he otherwise finds no ground to continue for violation of RA 3019 was filed before the SB. Petitioner’s motion to quash
with the inquiry; or he may proceed with the investigation of the complaint is, was denied. Hence, this petition.
in his view, in due and proper form.
Issue: W/N PD 1606 creating the Tanodbayan is an ex-post facto law.
The petition failed to show a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the W/N the PI was properly conducted.
Ombudsman, whose act of disapproving the recommendation of the special
prosecutors to dismiss the informations filed is not whimsical or capricious. Decision: The Sandiganbayan is a national court stationed in Manila the fact
Neither is it tainted with vindictiveness or arbitrariness. He disapproved the that an accused is placed to defraying greater expenses because the SB holds
recommendation of the special prosecutors because he sincerely believed that courts in Manila only does not work PD 1606 which created it an ex post facto
there is sufficient evidence to indict both accused. law. It is not disputed that a subpoena was sent to petitioner as received by his
wife and that he was represented by his law partner and son who actively
It should however be reiterated that, while it is the Ombudsman who has the participated in the proceedings. Even if he denied their representation, it
full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in the appears that petitioner had submitted a memorandum to the Tanodbayan and
Sandiganbayan, once the case has been filed with said court, it is the had ventilated his arguments at a hearing before the latter. Thus, petitioner
Sandiganbayan, and no longer the Ombudsman, which has full control of the had ample opportunity to be heard and was in fact heard. Further, PD 911
case so much so that the informations may not be dismissed without the authorizes the holding of an ex parte PI. If respondent does not appear, the PI
approval of the said court. may proceed without him. Hence, the PI was properly conducted.

Vena V. Verga 55
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Within what period must a warrant of arrest be served?


RULE 113 There is no time period. A warrant of arrest is valid until the arrest is effected
ARREST or until it is lifted. The head of the officer to whom the warrant was delivered
must cause it to be executed within 10 days from its receipt and the officer to
Section 1. Definition of arrest. – Arrest is the taking of a person into whom it is assigned for execution must make a report to the judge who issued
custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission it within 10 days from the expiration of the period. If he fails to execute it, he
of an offense. should state the reasons therefore

What is arrest? Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. – A peace officer or a
Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that hey may be bound to private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
answer for the commission of an offense (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable
Sec. 2. Arrest; how made. – An arrest is made by an actual restraint of
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
a person to be arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the
circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
person making the arrest.
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final
Note: No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an
judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
arrest. The person arrested shall not be subject to a greater restraint
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
than is necessary for his detention.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest
How is an arrest made?
police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with
Arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by his
section 7 of Rule 112.
submission to the custody of the person making the arrest

Sec. 3. Duty of arresting officer. – It shall be the duty of the officer When is an arrest without warrant lawful?
executing the warrant to arrest the accused and deliver him to the A peace officer or private person may arrest without warrant:
nearest police station or jail without unnecessary delay. 1. when in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is about to commit an offense
What does it mean when jurisprudence says that the officer, in making the 2. when an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause
arrest, must “stand his ground”? based on personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the
It means that the officer may use such force as is reasonably necessary to person to be arrested has committed it
effect the arrest 3. when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
What is the duty of the arresting officer who arrests a person? temporarily confined while his case is pending or has escaped while
He must deliver the person immediately to the nearest jail or police station being transferred from one confinement to another

Sec. 4. Execution of warrant. – The head of the office to whom the Note: the phrase “just been committed” is used to hinder the abuse of
warrant of arrest was delivered for execution shall cause the warrant law enforcers
to be executed within ten (10) days from its receipt. Within ten (10)
days after the expiration of the period, the officer to whom it was Personal Knowledge:
assigned for execution shall make a report to the judge who issued the 1. facts based on information
warrant. In case of his failure to execute the warrant, he shall state 2. facts based on Reasonable Grounds of Suspicion Rule
the reason therefore. 3. of the death of victim and facts indicating that accused was the
assailant

Vena V. Verga 56
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

NOTE: Sec. 8. Method of arrest by officer without warrant. – When making an


1. Sec 5(a) – in flagrante delicto arrest without a warrant, the officer shall inform the person to be
• Knowledge must be at the time of, not after, arrest arrested of his authority and the cause of the arrest, unless the latter
• Personal knowledge is required is either engaged in the commission of an offense, is pursued
2. Sec 5(b) – hot pursuit arrest immediately after its commission, has escaped, flees, or forcibly
• Elements resists before the officer has opportunity to so inform him, or when
2.1 Offense have been committed the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.
2.2 Offense has just been committed
2.3 Probable cause based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances Duty of the arresting officer to inform the accused of:
that persons to be arrested committed it
2.3.1 Personal knowledge of facts based on information allowed
• the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of
arrest, if any
2.3.2 Personal knowledge of facts based on reasonable grounds of
suspicion rule is not the rule • his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and
any statement he might make could be used against him
Buy Bust operation • right to communicate with his lawyer, a relative or anyone he
• It is a form of entrapment which has been repeatedly accepted to be a chooses by the most expedient means
valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. The
violator is court in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting • arresting officer must see to it that this is accomplished.
the operation are not only authorized but duty bound to apprehend the • No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the
violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested or by any
used in the commission of the crime person on his behalf or appointed by the court upon petition
• “objective test”  demands that the detail so the purported either of the detainee himself or by anyone in his behalf
transaction must clearly and adequately shown: the initial contact
between the poser-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the
• Right of counsel may be waived but the waiver shall NOT be
valid unless made with the assistance of counsel
promise of payment of the consideration until the consummation of the
sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale • RA 7438 adds
• buy-bust must be continuous o The accused must be informed in a language he
i. buy bust operation and search rejected for NOT being understands
continuous

Sec. 6. Time of making arrest. – An arrest may be made on any day


and at any time of the day or night. People vs. Mahinay – updating the Miranda case
1. Stating rights must be made in a language known and understood by
accused
Sec. 7. Method of arrest by officer by virtue of warrant.
2. Right to be assisted by a lawyer
– When making an arrest by virtue of a warrant, the officer shall
3. If indigent, a lawyer will be provided
inform the person to be arrested of the cause of the arrest and the fact
4. Right to remain silent
that a warrant has been issued for his arrest, except when he flees or
5. Informed that no custodial investigation in any manner may be
forcibly resists before the officer has opportunity to so inform him, or
conducted without presence of accused’s counsel
when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest. The officer
6. At any time, he has the right to communicate or confer by the most
need not have the warrant in his possession at the time of the arrest
expedient means with his lawyer, any immediate family member,
but after the arrest, if the person arrested so requires, the warrant
medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by him or by any one from
shall be shown to him as soon as practicable.
his immediate family or by his counsel
7. Right to waive rights; in writing, voluntary, knowingly and intelligently

Vena V. Verga 57
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

8. With the presence of counsel (this right was made effective on April Sec. 14. Right of attorney or relative to visit person arrested. – Any
26, 1983) member of the Philippine Bar shall, at the request of the person
9. May indicate in any manner at any time or stage of the process that he arrested or of another acting in his behalf, have the right to visit and
does not wish to be questioned – interrogation must cease confer privately with such person in the jail or any other place of
10. Waiver of right does not bar accused from invoking it at any time custody at any hour of the day or night. Subject to reasonable
11. Name if the arresting officer regulations, a relative of the person arrested can also exercise the
12. Charge and reason for arrest same right.
13. Inadmissible evidence
• It is only the solicited confession that would be inadmissible.
Warrrantless search/arrest are valid and admissible QUESTION

A police officer was chasing a person who had just committed an offense. The
Sec. 9. Method of arrest by private person. – When making an arrest, a person went inside a house, so the police officer followed. Inside the house,
private person shall inform the person to be arrested of the intention the police officer saw drugs lying around. Can he confiscate the drugs? Can he
to arrest him and the case of the arrest, unless the latter is either use them as evidence?
engaged in the commission of an offense, is pursued immediately after Yes. The plain view doctrine is applicable in this case because there was a prior
its commission, or has escaped, flees, or forcibly resists before the valid intrusion, the police officer inadvertently discovered the evidence, he had
person making the arrest has opportunity to so inform him, or when a right to be there, and the evidence was immediately apparent
the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.
What if the officer merely peaks through the window of the house and sees the
drugs – can he confiscate then> can he use them as evidence?
Sec. 10. Officer may summon assistance. – An officer making a lawful
He can confiscate them without prejudice to his liability for violation of
arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to
domicile. He cannot use them as evidence because the seizure cannot be
assist him in effecting the arrest. Every person so summoned by an
justified under the plain view doctrine, there being no previous valid intrusion
officer shall assist him in effecting the arrest when he can render such
assistance without detriment to himself.
When should an arrest be made?
It can be made on any day at any time of the day and night
Sec. 11. Right of officer to break into building or enclosure. – An
officer, in order to make an arrest either by virtue of a warrant, or Can an officer arrest a person against whom a warrant has been issued even if
without a warrant as provided in section 5, may break into any he does not have the warrant with him?
building or enclosure where the person to be arrested is or is Yes, but after the arrest, if the person arrested requires, it must be shown to
reasonably believed to be, if he is refused admittance thereto, after him as soon as practicable.
announcing his authority and purpose.

Sec. 12. Right to break out from building or enclosure. – Whenever an


officer has entered the building or enclosure in accordance with the RULE 126
preceding section, he may break out therefrom when necessary to SEARCH AND SEIZURE
liberate himself.
Section 1. Search warrant defined. – A search warrant is an order in
writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a
Sec. 13. Arrest after escape or rescue. – If a person lawfully arrested judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for
escapes or is rescued, any person may immediately pursue or retake personal property described therein and bring it before the court.
him without a warrant at any time and in any place within the
Philippines. SEARCH WARRANT VS. WARRANT OF ARREST
SEARCH WARRANT WARRANT OF ARREST
Vena V. Verga 58
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

The applicant must show: The applicant must show: However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the
1. that the items sought are in fact 1. probable cause that an offense has application shall only be made in the court where the criminal
sizeable by virtue of being been committed; and action is pending.
connected with criminal activity; 2. that the person to be arrested
and committed it Where should the application for search warrant be filed?
2. that the items will be found in the As a general rule, it should be filed with the court within whose territorial
place to be searched. jurisdiction the crime was committed. But for compelling reasons, it can be
The judge must conduct a personal, The judge need not conduct a personal filed with the court within whose judicial region the offense was committed or
searching examination of the applicant and his where the warrant is to be served.
examination of the applicant and his witnesses. He may rely on the affidavits But, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application for a search
witnesses of the witnesses and the warrant can only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending.
recommendation of the prosecutor.
Sec. 3. Personal property to be seized. – A search warrant may be
issued for the search and seizure of personal property:
What is a search warrant? (a) Subject of the offense;
It is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, (b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or
signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search (c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.
for personal property described therein and bring it before the court.
Subject Of A Search Warrant: Personal Property, Which Is:
Why are the requirements for the issuance of a search warrant more 1. subject of the offense,
stringent than the 2. stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense, or
requirements for the issuance of a warrant of arrest? 3. used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.
The violation of the right to privacy produces a humiliating effect which cannot
be rectified anymore. This is why there is no other justification for a search,
Sec. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. – A search warrant shall
except a warrant. On the other hand, in a warrant of arrest, the person to be
not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific
arrested can always post bail to prevent the deprivation of liberty.
offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witness he may
Note: A search warrant requires strict compliance with the
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
Constitution
things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.

Sec. 5. Examination of complainant; record. – The judge must, before


Sec. 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. – An issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching
application for search warrant shall be filed with the following: questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and
(a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the
committed. affidavits submitted.

(b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court Requisites for issuing a search warrant
within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the 1. There must be probable cause
place of the commission of the crime is known, or any court 2. Which must be determined personally by the judge
within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced. 3. upon personal examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and
his witnesses in the form of probing and searching questions and answers on
facts personally known to them
4. the probable cause must be in connection with one specific offense
Vena V. Verga 59
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

5. particularly describing the place to be searched and the items to be seized 2. violating rule on searches and seizures is actionable under the
6. the sworn statements together with the affidavits of the witnesses must be Civil Code because a man’s house is his castle
attached to the record.
• personal knowledge is required so he can be liable for perjury
• there must be a hearing to determine probable cause
1. not merely Yes or No answers
When is the affidavit or testimony of the witness said to be based on 2. cannot be base d merely on reliable information
personal knowledge? • search warrant is severable, and those items not particularly described
The test is whether perjury could be charged against the witness. may be cut off without destroying the whole warrant

Is it necessary that the person named in the search warrant be the What is a “scatter shot warrant”?
owner of the things to be seized? It is a warrant of arrest that is issued for more than one offense. It is void,
No. Ownership is of no consequence. What is relevant is that the property is since the law requires that a warrant
connected to an offense. of arrest should only be issued in connection with one specific offense.

What are the requisites of the personal examination that the judge
A warrant was issued for the seizure of drugs connected with
must conduct before issuing the search warrant?
“violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law.” Is the warrant valid?
The judge must:
The warrant is valid. Although there are many ways of violating the
1. examine the witnesses personally;
Dangerous Drugs Law, it is not a scatter shot warrant since it is in
2. under oath;
connection with only one penal law.
3. and reduced to writing in the form of probing and searching questions and
answers.

What is the meaning of probable cause?


Sec. 6. Issuance and form of search warrant. – If the judge is satisfied
Probable cause for a search is such facts and circumstances which could lead a
of the existence of facts upon which the application is based or that
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
there is probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall issue the
committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in
warrant, which must be substantially in the form prescribed by these
the place sought to be searched.
Rules.
What is the meaning of personal knowledge?
Probable cause must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the Sec. 7. Right to break door or window to effect search. – The officer, if
complainant or witnesses he may produce and not based on mere heresay. refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice
of his purpose and authority, may break open any outer or inner door
What is the meaning of probing and searching questions and answers? or window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to
The examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary or pro execute the warrant to liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding
forma, not merely answerable by yes or no. him when unlawfully detained therein.

Sec. 8. Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of


Can you issue the warrant by claiming that the priest saw it? two witnesses. – No search of a house, room, or any other premises
No. because personal knowledge refers to personal knowledge of the applicant shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or
for search warrant, and/or his witnesses, not of the facts merely reported by a any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses
person whom one considers to be reliable. of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.

• the abode is sacred Note: the 2 witnesses rule applies if there is no other occupant of the
1. once transgressed, cannot restore the transgressed right home
Vena V. Verga 60
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

him. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has been
Sec. 9. Time of making search. – The warrant must direct that it be complied with.
served in the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the property is
on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a (c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the
direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or custodian of the log book on search warrants who shall enter therein
night. the date of the return, the result, and other actions of the judge.

General Rule: time of making the search is at the day time A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court.
Exceptions:
1. if there are emergencies 1. property will be in custodia legis
2. property is on the person or place to be searched 2. items in the search warrant will be the only items to be seized
• except: if malum prohibitum
Sec. 10. Validity of search warrant. – A search warrant shall be valid 3. particular description of: to avoid abuses
for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter, it shall be void. • place to be searched
• things to be seized
Note: unlike a warrant of arrest, which is valid until served but the 4. if there’s an error in the warrant, they should go to the court
officer must make a report after 10 days to have it corrected
5. Anything not included in the warrant cannot be seized EXCEPT
if it is mala prohibita, in which case, the seizure can be justified under
Sec. 11. Receipt for the property seized. – The officer seizing the
the plain view doctrine. Even if the object was related to the crime,
property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to
but it is not mentioned in the warrant nor is it mala prohibita, it still
the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and
cannot be seized.
seizure were made, or in the absence of such occupant, must, in the
6. person need not be named; may be named John Doe as
presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion
long as described with particularity or with descriptio personae
residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in the place in which he
found the seized property.
QUESTIONS
1. inventory must be signed by 2 witnesses
What should the police officer or court do to things seized illegally?
2. a peace officer cannot ask the accused to sign if there are
Anything seized illegally must be returned to the owner unless it is mala
no 2 witnesses because that would violate the right against
prohibita. In this case, it should be kept in custodia legis.
self-incrimination
When should the search warrant be executed?
Sec. 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and If possible, it should be executed during the daytime. But in certain cases, such
proceedings thereon. – (a) The officer must forthwith deliver the as when the things to be seized are mobile or are in the person of the accused,
property seized to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a it can be served during nighttime.
true inventory thereof duly verified under oath.
For how long is the search warrant valid?
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing It is valid for 10 days, after which the peace officer should make a return to
judge shall ascertain if the return has been made, and if none, shall the judge who issued it. If the peace officer does not make a return, the judge
summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him should summon him and require him to explain why no return was made. If the
to explain why no return was made. If the return has been made, the return was made, the judge should determine if the peace officer issued a
judge shall ascertain whether section 11 of this Rule has been receipt to the occupant of the premises from which the things were taken.
complied with and shall require that the property seized be delivered to seized.

Vena V. Verga 61
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

If the warrant was executed even before the expiration of the ten-day
period, can the peace officer use the warrant again before it expires?
No. If the purpose for which it was issued has already been carried out, the • if detected through smell, not case of plain view but
warrant cannot be used anymore. probable cause (decided case)
The exception is if the search was not finished within one day, the warrant can • if detected by canines - as if police themselves have
still be used the next day, provided that it is still within the 10-day period. smelled it
• if police chases a person, accidentally hits a jar,
Sec. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. – A person lawfully where drugs pour out – not plain view
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may have been used or constitute proof in the
• if mall – private place, you waive your right against
unreasonable searches and seizures
commission of an offense without a search warrant.

Sec. 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence;


Warrantless Searches and Seizures:
where to file. – A motion to quash a search warrant and/or to suppress
1. incidental to lawful arrest
evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and acted upon only by the
• search must be contemporaneous and within immediate court where the action has been instituted. If no criminal action has
vicinity/control of the person arrested been instituted, the motion may be filed in and resolved by the court
2. consented search that issued search warrant. However, if such court failed to resolve the
• conditions: motion and a criminal case is subsequently filed in another court, the
a. right exists motion shall be resolved by the latter court.
b. person making the consent knows that he has the right
c. in spite of knowledge of the right, he voluntarily and I. SUMMARY
intelligently gives consent 1. The Constitution does not prohibit all kinds of searches and seizures. It
3. search of moving vehicles only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
• search must be cursory i.e., don’t make a thorough search; 2. A search and seizure is unreasonable if it is made without a warrant,
just to have a look not to open trunks or the warrant was invalidly issued.
4. customs 3. A search and seizure without a warrant is still reasonable if conducted
5. checkpoints under the following circumstances:
6. RA requiring inspections or body checks in airports a. Incident to a lawful arrest
7. stop-and-frisk i. It must be made AFTER the arrest. The objective is to
8. emergency make sure that the life of the peace officer will not be
9. enforcement of health and sanitary laws or ordinances endangered.
ii. It must be contemporaneous with the arrest in both
time and place.
Plain View Doctrine b. Search of moving vehicles
1. valid intrusion c. Consent searches
2. item must be visible – seen without any further search; e.g. in i. Only the person whose right may be violated can give
a transparent bag the consent; it is a personal right.
ii. The requisites are:
3. inadvertent discovery 1. The person has knowledge of his right against
the search;
e.g. police chasing a person, sees a box, takes a peak and sees drugs 2. He freely gives his consent in spite of such
• can be seized because malum prohibitum but cannot knowledge.
d. Objects in plain view
be introduced as evidence because not in plain view
Vena V. Verga 62
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

i. Requisites: unreasonable force shall be used in making an arrest, and the person arrested
1. There must have been a prior valid intrusion, shall not be subject to any greater restraint than is necessary for his detention.
and the officer must have had a right to be at A peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal liability if he uses
the place searched at the time of the search; unnecessary force or violence in making an arrest. Although it is true that
2. The evidence was inadvertently discovered; Anselmo is a notorious criminal, but such does not constitute any justification
3. The evidence must be immediately apparent; for killing the man when in effecting his arrest, he offers no resistance or in
4. There was no need for further search. fact asleep.
e. Customs searches
f. Stop and Frisk/ Exigent circumstances
g. Emergency
GALANG vs. CA
324 SCRA 139 (2000)

CASES: Facts: The victim, Carlos Oro, coming from his birthday celebration, went
home drunk. At around 8:00 in the evening, he figured in an altercation with
PEOPLE VS. OANIS AND GALANTA one Jojo Marcelo. The altercation reached the appellant who together with a
74 Phil. 256 22 July 1943 policeman proceeded to the place. Upon seeing Carlos, appellant drew his gun
and pointed it at the victim. The victim said that he will not fight back.
Thereafter, appellant grab the right arm of Carlos and forced him to kneel on
Facts: Captain Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector at Cabanatuan the ground with his right hand behind his back still being held by the appellant.
received from Mayor Guido a telegram stating that a certain Anselmo Balagtas, It was in that position that appellant pumped 2 bullets into Carlos’ which
an escaped convict, was living with a ertain Irene in Cabantauan. Monsod caused his death.
immediately ordered the arrest of Balagtas, dead or alive, should he offer
resistance or aggression. The accused Chief of Police Oanis and the Appellant claims self defense.
constabulary soldier Galanta were sent out to arrest Balagtas. The accused
arrived at the house of Irene who was supposedly the paramour of Balagtas. Issue: W/N the appellant should be held guilty as charged.
When they were there, they saw a certain person who resembled Balagtas in
all his bodily appearance sleeping on a bamboo bed but facing the other Decision: Generally, the burden lies upon the prosecution to [rove the guilt of
direction. The accused, without going around the house, started firing at the the accused. However, if the accused admits killing the victim and pleads self-
man. They found out later on that the man was not really Balagtas. They defense, the burden of evidence is shifted to him to prove such claim. Galang
tried to invoke the justifying circumstance of having acted in fulfillment of a was unsuccessful in proving his claim because the physical evidence supports
duty. otherwise.

In support of their theory of non-liability by reason of honest mistake of fact, Granting form the sale of argument that unlawful aggression was attendant at
the two relied on the case of U.S. vs. Ah Chong were a cook accidentally the initial stage, the same ceased when Carlos dropped his gun. The threat to
wounded a friend who was playing a trick on the latter. appellant’s life is no longer attendant.

Issue: W/N the two accused should be held liable. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine-qua non for the justifying circumstance
of self-defense. There can be no self-defense complete or incomplete unless
Decision: Yes. Although an officer in making a lawful arrest is justified in the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the person defending
using such force as is reasonable necessary to secure and detain the offender, himself.
overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes, and
protect himself from bodily harm, yet he is never justified in using unnecessary Policemen are bound by their duty to protect life, liberty and property. As their
force or in treating him with wanton violence or in resorting to dangerous position gives them great deal of advantage. A police officer is not justified in
means when the arrest could be affected otherwise. No unnecessary or using unnecessary force in enforcing arrest or in treating with wanton violence
Vena V. Verga 63
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

the arrested person or in resorting to dangerous means when the arrest could UMIL vs. RAMOS
be affect otherwise. G.R. No. 81567 09 July 1990

UNITED STATES VS. MOJICA Facts: These are eight (8) petitions for habeas corpus filed before the Court.
42 SCRA 784 (1922) In Umil v. Ramos, the CAPCOM received information about a member of the
NPA Sparrow Unit being treated for gunshot would at the St. Agnes Hospital.
Facts: Artemio Mojica is a policeman in the city of Manila. On the evening of Upon verification, it was found out that the wounded person is Rolando Dural,
December 13 1920, a constabulary soldier and a woman were arrested inside a member of the NPA liquidation Squad, responsible for the killing of 2 capcom
the Walled City by the police, which caused considerable irritation among soldiers the day before. As such Dural was transferred to the Regional Medical
constabulary troops stationed at Santa Lucia Barracks. The constabulary Services of the CAPCOM, where he was positively identified by eyewitnesses as
soldiers, Armed with rifles and bayonet, convinced that Mojica was with the the gunman who killed the 2 Capcom soldiers. The arrest without warrant was
men who arrested their fellow soldier, threatened the appellant with death if he assailed in that Dural was not arrested while in the act of shooting, nor just
will not produce the arrested soldier and woman. The arrival of the patrol after the commission of the offense. Dural was arrested for being a member of
wagon saved Mojica. The following day, the constabulary men returned. the NPA, an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing
Mojica, after calling for reinforcement, ran into a restaurant to avoid altercation offense, the arrest of Dural without warrant is justified as it can be said that he
with the soldiers. When the reinforcement arrived. He re-appeared. However, was committing an offense when arrested.
the victim and his two other companions resisted arrest. The deceased
Macasinag struck the appellant with his club. When he was about to stab In Roque v. De villa, Rogelio Ramos y Ibanes, a member of the NPA who had
Mojica, the latter drew a shot inflicting a wound from which Macasinag died a surrendered, confessed that the house occupied by Renato Constantino was
few days later. being used as a safehouse of National United Front Commission of the CPP-
NPA, as such the house was put on military surveillance and a subsequent
The appellant contends that it was self defense. search warrant was issued. Firearms, ammunition, radio and other
communication equipment were seized. Constantino then admitted that he
Issue: W/N the appellant should be held liable for the death of Macasinag. was a staff member of the executive committed of the NUFC. On the evening
of the same day, Wilfredo Buenaobra arrived at the house of Constantino.
Decision: No. The appellant killed the victim in self-defense. The revised When accosted, he admitted that he is a regular member of the CPP-NPA and
penal code provides that anyone who acts in self-defense of his person shall be was to deliver letters to the other members of the group. Found in
exempt from criminal liability. Provided that the following circumstances Buenaobra’s possession was a piece of paper containing a jumbled phone
concur: number of Florida Roque, Sister of Amelia Roque alias Ka Nelia, at 69
1. Unlawful aggression Geronimo St, Caloocan. Acting on the leads provided as to the whereabouts of
2. Reasonable necessity for the means employed to prevent or repel it. Amelia Roque, military agents went to the place the next day. After seeking
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending permission to search the place, which was granted, they conducted a search in
himself. the presence of the occupants of the house and the brgy. Capt. Of the place.
There was unlawful aggression on Macasinag’s part. A police officer, in the They found ledgers, journals, vouchers, subversive documents, as well as live
performance of his duty, must STAND HIS GROUND and cannot, like private ammunitions. Amelia admitted ownership of the articles. Their arrests without
individual, take refuge in flight; his duty requires him to overcome his warrants were justified in that as members of the NUFC-CPP, they committed
opponent. It was the deceased who attacked the appellant. He had the best subversion, which being a continuing offense, they were arrested while
reason to believe that his life was in imminent danger. committing an offense.

It may be argued that the appellant should have used his club instead but a In Anonuevo V. Ramos, Domingo Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple arrived of the
policeman’s club is not very effective weapon against a drawn knife and a house of Renato Constantino, which was still under surveillance by the military.
police officer is not required to afford a person attacking him the opportunity The military agents noticed bulging objects on their waist lines. When frisked,
for a fair an equal struggle. the agent found them to be loaded guns, for which the two did not possess
license to carry. They were later identified as Ka Ted and Ka Totoy of the CPP,
by their comrades who had already surrendered to the military. Their arrest
Vena V. Verga 64
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

without warrant is also justified because they were carrying unlicensed


firearms and ammunitions in their person why they were apprehended.
UMIL vs. RAMOS
In Ocaya V, Aguirre, police officers, armed with a search warrant were MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 03 October 1991
searching a house believed to be occupied by Benito Tiamson, head of the CPP-
NPA. In the course of the search, Vicky Ocaya arrived in a car driven by Danny Facts: The petitioners seek a reconsideration of the court’s decision
Rivera. Subversive documents and several rounds of ammunition were found upholding the validity of the warrantless arrest of the suspected NPA
in the car of Ocaya and so they were brought to the police headquarters. Vicky members.
Ocaya was arrested in flagrante delicto so that her arrest without warrant is
justified, since she had with her unlicensed ammunition when arrested. Decision: The court stressed that mere suspicion that one is a NPA member is
not a valid ground for the arrest without warrant. However, the court found no
In Espiritu v. Lim, Petitioner, who is the General Secretary of the merit to the motion for reconsideration. It was stressed that the writ of habeas
Pinagkaisahang Samahan ng Tsuper at Operators nationwide, claims that at corpus being applied for by the petitioners exists as a speedy and effective
about 5 am of 23 Nov. 1998, while he was sleeping in his home, he was remedy to relieve the persons from unlawful restraint. However, there is no
awakened by his sister who told him that a group of persons wanted to hire his unlawful arrest in this case. Again, as a general rule, no peace officer has the
jeepney. When he went down, he was immediately put under arrest. When he power or authority to arrest anyone without a warrant of arrest except in those
asked for the warrant, none was presented. The respondents claim that the cases expressly authorize by law specifically by Section 5 Rule 113 of the Rules
petitioner was lawfully arrested without a warrant since when arrested he had of court which provide that:
in fact just committed a crime in that in the afternoon of 22 Nov, 1998, during A peace officer or a private person may without a warrant, arrest a person:
a press conference at the National Press club he urged drivers and operators to
go on a nationwide strike, which is tantamount to inciting to sedition. (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
Policemen waited for petitioner outside the National Press Club in order to committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
investigate him, but he gave them the slip. Police finally caught up with him (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
on 23 November and thus, he was invited after which an information was filed knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
against him.
In Nazareno v. Station Commander, in the morning of December 4, In the case of Rolando Dural, Dural was committing an offense when arrested
1988, Romulo Bunye II was killed by a group of men near Mendiola. One of because he was arrested for being a member of a new people’s army, an
the suspects was Ramil Regala who was arrested by the police on 28 December outlawed organization, where membership is penalized and for subversion,
1988. Upon questioning, REgala pointed to Nazareno as one of his companion. which like rebellion is a continuing offense. Dural did not cease to be a
As such, police officers, without warrant, picked up Nazareno and brought him subversive simply because he was at the time of the arrest confined in St.
to the police headquarters. As held in People v. Ancheta, the obligation of an Agnes. Nor can it be said that Dural’s arrest was grounded on mere suspicion
agent of authority to make an arrest by reason of a crime, does not by the arresting officers of his membership in the CPP-NPA. His arrest was
presuppose as a necessary requisite for the fulfillment thereof, the indubitable based on a probable cause as supported by actual facts. Dural’s arrest falls
existence of a crime. For the detention to be perfectly legal, it is sufficient that under paragraph B of Rule which requires 2 conditions for valid arrest without
the agent making the arrest has reasonably sufficient grounds to believe the warrant: 1) that the person to be arrested has just committed an offense and
existence of an act having the characteristics of a crime and that the same 2) that the arresting peace officer or private person has personal knowledge of
grounds exist to believe that the person sought to be detained participated facts indicating that the person to be arrested is the one who committed the
therein. offense. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of
actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be
Issue: W/N the arrest without warrant is legal. arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual facts
such as in this case: 1) the day before, or on 31 January 1988, two (2)
Decision: Yes. In all these petitions, the record shows that the persons in CAPCOM soldiers were actually killed by five (5) "sparrows" including Dural, 2)
whose behalf these petitions for habeas corpus have been filed, had freshly a wounded person listed in the hospital records as "Ronnie Javellon" was
committed or were actually committing an offense when apprehended so that actually then being treated in St. Agnes Hospital for a gunshot wound and 3)
their arrest without a warrant were clearly justified. "Ronnie Javellon" and his address entered in the hospital records were fictitious
Vena V. Verga 65
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

and the wounded man was in reality Rolando Dural.. These requisites were MALACAT vs. CA
complied with in the UMIL case. G.R. No 123595 12 December 1997

As to the condition that "probable cause" must also be coupled with acts done DOCTRINE: There can be no valid flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest
in good faith by the officers who make the arrest, the Court notes that the preceding the search in light of the lack of personal knowledge on the part of
peace officers who arrested Dural are deemed to have conducted the same in the police officer that a crime had just been committed, was being committed
good faith, considering that law enforcers are presumed to regularly perform or was going to be committed.
their official duties. Dural was also promptly placed under the judicial custody.
The search was neither within the allowable scope of a stop of frisk for such is
In the case of Amelia Roque and Wilfredo Buenaobra, Domingo Anonuevo and limited to protective search of outer clothing for weapons. While in a stop and
Ramon Casiple and Vicky Ocaya their arrests, without warrant, are also frisk, probable cause is not required, it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion
justified. They were searched pursuant to search warrants issued by a court of or hunch will not validate a stop and frisk. A genuine reason must exist in light
law and were found with unlicensed firearms, explosives and/or ammunition in of the police officer’s experience and surrounding conditions.
their persons. They were, therefore, caught inflagrante delicto which justified
their outright arrests without warrant, under Sec. 5(a), Rule 113, Rules of
Court. Facts: Petitioner Sammy Malacat y Pandar was charged with violating Section
3 of PD No. 1866 which codified laws on illegal/unlawful acquisition and
It is to be noted in the above cases (Roque, Buenaobra, Anonuevo, Casiple and disposition of ammunition and explosives. During the trial on the merits, the
Ocaya) that the reason which compelled the military agents to make the prosecution presented police officers as witnesses. Rodolfo Yu, the arresting
arrests without warrant was the information given to the military authorities officer and Josefino Serapio, the investigating officer testified that on 27
that two (2) safehouses (one occupied by Renato Constantino and the other by August 1990 at about 6:30 PM, in response to bomb threats reported seven
Benito Tiarnzon) were being used by the CPP/NPA for their operations, with days earlier, he was on foot patrol wit three other police officers, all in uniform,
information as to their exact location mid the names of Renato Constantino and along Quezon Boulevard, in Quiapo near the Mercury Drug store in Plaza
Benito Tiamzon as residents. Also, there were several circumstances which Miranda. They chanced upon two groups of Muslim looking men posted at
confirmed the belief of the military agents: first: search warrant was duly opposite sides of the corner of Quezon Boulevard. It was said that the men
issued to effect the search of the Constantino safehouse; second: found in the were acting suspiciously with their eyes moving very fast. Yu positioned
safehouse was a person named Renato Constantino, who admitted that he was themselves and observed both groups for about thirty minutes. When the
a ranking member of the CPP, and found in his possession were unlicensed police approached one group, they all ran in different directions. As policemen
firearms and communications equipment; third: at the time of their arrests, in gave chase, Yu caught and apprehended the petitioner. Yu found
their possession were unlicensed firearms, ammunitions and/or subversive fragmentation grenade tucked inside petitioner’s “front waist line”. Yu’s
documents, and they admitted ownership thereof as well as their membership companion apprehended one Abdul Casan from whom a caliber revolver was
in the CPP/NPA. And then, shortly after their arrests, they were positively recovered. Yu added that he conducted the foot patrol due to a report that a
identified by their former comrades in the organization as CPP/NPA members. group of Muslims was going to explode a grenade somewhere in Plaza Miranda.
Yu also recognized the petitioner as the previous Saturday, 25 August 1990,
An arrest is therefore in the nature of an administrative measure. The power to likewise in Plaza Miranda, he say petitioner and two others detonate a grenade.
arrest without warrant is without limitation as long as the requirements of The attempt was aborted when Yu and other policemen chased petition and his
Section 5, Rule 113 are met. This rule is founded on an overwhelming public companions. He also admitted that petitioner and Casan were merely standing
interest in peace and order in our communities. on the corner of Quezon Blvd. When he saw them on 27 August.
It was the contention of them petitioner that he merely went to Plaza Miranda
As in the case of Nazareno, the court held that the arrests of Espiritu and to catch a breath of fresh air when policemen arrived and ordered all males to
Nazareno were based on probable cause and supported by factual stand aside. The police searched petitioner and two other men but found
circumstances. nothing in their possession.
Trial court ruled that the warrantless search was akin to a stop and frisk where
Petition was denied. a warrant and seizure can be made without necessarily being preceded by an

Vena V. Verga 66
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

arrest and whose purpose is either to maintain status quo while police seeks to In the case at bar, stop and frisk was invalid for: 1) there are doubts as to Yu’s
obtain more information. claim that the petitioner was member of the group which attempted to bomb
plaza Miranda, 2) there was nothing in petitioner’s behavior or conduct which
Issue: W/N there was a valid search. could have reasonable elicited even mere suspicion other than that his eyes
were moving fast which is hardly recognizable considering that it was already
Decision: NO. There are serious doubts surrounding the story of the police 6:30PM, and 3) there were no bulges to even indicate the hidden weapon
officer. For one, the grenade that was supposedly found in Malacat’s inside the front waistline.
possession was not identified in court. Second, if indeed the petitioner had a The challenged decision was set aside.
grenade with him and that two days earlier he was in a group about to
detonate an explosive at Plaza Miranda, and Yu and fellow officers chased but
failed to arrest them, then considering that Yu and his companions were in PEOPLE vs. MENGOTE
uniform, and therefore easily cognizable as police officers, it was unnatural G.R. No. 87059 22 June 1992
that petitioner simply stood there in proximity to the police officers.
Facts: Rogelio Mengote was convicted of illegal possession of firearms on the
The search was invalid. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides that strength mainly of the stolen pistol found on his person at the moment of his
arrest without warrant is lawful if a police officer or private person, arrest a warrantless search. On August 8, 1987, the western police district received a
person: call from an informer that there were two suspicious looking persons at the
(a) when in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is corner of Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard in Tondo. A surveillance team of
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (in plainclothesmen was then dispatched. The officers observed two men looking
flagrante delicto) from side to side, one of whom was holding his abdomen. The police
(b) when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal approached them and identified themselves, the two men tried to run away but
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has to no avail. They were then searched and on Mengote a .38 caliber Smith and
committed it (hot pursuit arrest) Wesson revolver with 6 live bullets was found. They were turned over to the
(c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped. police headquarters. It was found that the gun was owned by a certain
Rigoberto Danganan who identified the gun as among the articles stolen from
Valid warrantless searches are limited to: 1) customs searches; 2) search of him during the robbery of his house in Malabon. Accused assails the
moving vehicles; 3) seizure of evidence in plain view: 4) consent searches; 5) admissibility of the revolver in evidence because of its warrantless seizure.
a search incidental to a lawful arrest and 6) stop and frisk. The trial court Solicitor General contends that Mengote’s acts created a reasonable suspicion
validated the warrantless search as a stop and frisk. It was noted that the trial on the part of the arresting officers and induced in them the belief that an
court confused the concept of stop and frisk and of a search incidental to a offense had been committed.
lawful arrest. In the latter, a precedent arrest determines the validity of the
incidental search. In this instance, the law requires that there must first be a Issue: W/N the search and seizure as well as the arrest was lawful.
lawful arrest before search can be made.
Decision: The requirements for a warrantless arrest were not satisfied in this
In the present case, there can be no valid flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest instance. At the time of the arrest, Mengote was merely looking from side to
preceding the search in light of the lack of personal knowledge on the part of side and holding his abdomen. There was apparently no offense that had just
Yu that a crime had just been committed, was being committed or was going been committed or was being actually committed or at least being attempted
to be committed. by Mengote in their presence for what offense could have been committed by
such unsinister acts. Mengote was arrested at 11:30 AM and in a crowded
The search was neither within the allowable scope of a stop of frisk for such is street shortly after alighting from a passenger jeep with his companion. He
limited to protective search of outer clothing for weapons. While in a stop and was not skulking in the shadows nor was any clandestine about his being on
frisk, probable cause is not required, it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion the street at that busy hour. Moreover,
or hunch will not validate a stop and frisk. A genuine reason must exist in light
of the police officer’s experience and surrounding conditions. In the recent case of People vs. Malmstedt, the Court sustained the warrantless
arrest of the accused because there was a bulge in his waist that excited the
Vena V. Verga 67
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

suspicion of the arresting officer and, upon inspection, turned out to be a


pouch containing hashish. This case is different because there was nothing to Issue: W/N the arrest and the search were valid.
support the arresting officers' suspicions other than Mengote's darting eyes
and his hand on his abdomen. By no stretch of the imagination could it have Decision: No. The trial court justified the warrantless arrest saying that at the
been inferred from these acts that an offense had just been committed, or was time of the arrest, the accused is committing a crime and therefore, the search
actually being committed, or was at least being attempted in their presence. was also valid as being incidental to a lawful arrest. However, the Supreme
Court held that the police had no personal knowledge of the fact that indeed
Par. 5(b) is no less applicable because its no less stringent requirements have Burgos was committing a crime when he was arrested. Whatever knowledge
also not been satisfied. The prosecution has not shown that at the time of they possessed was merely furnished by the informant. At the time of the
Mengote's arrest an offense had in fact just been committed and that the appellant’s arrest, he was plowing his field and was not even in possession of
arresting officers had personal knowledge of facts indicating that Mengote had any forearm or subversive document. There is also no compelling reason for
committed it. All they had was hearsay information from the telephone caller, the police not to apply for a warrant of arrest or a search warrant. Under
and about a crime that had yet to be committed. The arresting officers had no Section 6(a0 of Rule 112, the officer arresting a person who ahs just
personal knowledge of facts indicating that Mengote had committed an offense. committed, is committing or is about to commit an offense must have personal
All they had was hearsay information from the phone caller. As the arrest was knowledge of that fact. The offense must also be committed in his presence or
illegal, the search incidental to it is likewise illegal and the item seized is not within his view. Considering that the firearm and the subversive documents
admissible in evidence. were found in violation of the right of Burgos, they cannot be admitted in
court. Conviction of the lower court was reversed.
As for the illegal possession of the firearm found on Mengote's person, the
policemen discovered this only after he had been searched and the PEOPLE vs. AMINNUDIN
investigation conducted later revealed that he was not its owners nor was he 163 SCRA 402 (1988)
licensed to possess it. As in the case of Burgos, it was reiterated that the
officer making the arrest must have personal knowledge of the ground Facts: Accused appellant claims that his business was selling watches. He was
therefore. Such personal knowledge is lacing in the case at bar. arrested on June 25, 1984 shortly after disembarking from MV Wilcon 9.
Based on the testimony of the police, they received a reliable tip two days
The arrest and the search being unlawful, the pistol cannot be admitted as before of a drug operation allegedly headed by the accused. He was already
evidence. identified by name and the police knew exactly the date of his arrival. When
Aminnudin descended from the plank, he was immediately arrested after an
Decision was reversed. informer had pointed to him. His bag was found to contain three kilos of
marijuana leaves.
PEOPLE vs. BURGOS
144 SCRA 1 (1986) Issue: W/N the arrest was valid.

DOCTRINE: Arrest without warrant is lawful when persons who have Decision: No. There was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a
committed, are actually committing, or attempting to commit an judge after personal determination by him of the existence of probable cause.
offense in presence of arresting officer. In such cases, there can be no Contrary to the contention of the government, the appellant was not caught in
illegal detention. Rule allowing arrest without warrant is strictly flagrante delicto nor was a crime about o be committed or had just been
construed. On the other hand, the usual cause of arbitrary detention is committed to justify the warrantless search under Rule 113 of the Rules of
arrest without warrant. Court. There was expedience to support the authorities’ contention. They had
at least 2 days to procure the warrant. The authorities knew exactly the name
Facts: Ruben Burgos appeals to the court to reverse the ruling of the Lower of the accused and the date of his arrival thus it would have been easy for
court finding him guilty of illegal possession of firearms. Evidence shows that them to persuade the judge that probable cause existed. Yet they did nothing.
by virtue of intelligent information obtained by the constabulary stationed in
Digos Davao, Burgos was arrested and his house searched without warrant for The present case cannot be categorized as a buy bust operation either since
being an NPA member and committing subversive acts. the culprit was not caught red handed. The accused was not committing any
Vena V. Verga 68
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

crime when he was arrested. It was the authorities that determined probable
cause in this case and not the judge. Mere information or tip is not enough. Decision: No. The arrests of petitioners was based on probable cause
determined after close surveillance for 3 months during which their activities
Accused was acquitted. were monitored. The existence of probable cause justified the arrest and the
seizure of articles, which were then seized as incident to a lawful arrest, and
thus, admissible in evidence.
PEOPLE vs. YUMANG
222 SCRA 119 (1993) Records show that formal deportation charges have been filed against them, as
undesirable aliens, on 4 March 1988. Warrants of arrest were issued against
Facts: On February 25, 1990, an informer reported to Kalookan Police that them on 7 March 1988. A hearing was conducted by a Board of Special
accused appellant Gilberto Yumang was selling marijuana along Buklod ng Inquiry. The restraint against their persons, therefore, has become legal.
Nayon st. in Kalookan. They immediately planned a buy bust operation. When
the team headed to the place, Garcia, approached Yuman and asked to buy That petitioners were not caught in the act does not make their arrest illegal.
marijuana cigarettes. Yuman handed him three sticks and unfolded them Petitioners were found with boys in their respective rooms, the ones with John
exposing the marijuana leaves inside. Garcia immediately arrested Yumang. Sherman naked. Under those circumstances, the agents had reasonable
The three sticks were marked by Garcia with his initials and submitted for ground to believe that petitioners had committed pedophilia defined as psycho-
examination. sexual pervasion involving children. Further, the issuance of warrants of
arrests by the CID commissioner, did not order petitioners to appear and show
Issue: W/N there was a valid search. cause why they should be deported. They were issued for violation of the
immigration act and before that deportation proceedings had already been
Decision: A buy bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace commenced against them.
officers to catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto. The idea to commit the
crime originates from the accused and nobody induces him to commit the Arrest is a step preliminary to the deportation of the aliens who had violated
offense. The buy bust operation was formed to test the veracity of the tip. the condition of their stay in this country. deportation proceedings do not
Having caught the culprit red-handed, the peace officers are authorized to constitute a criminal action. The order of deportation is not a punishment, it
apprehend the accused. It ahs not been shown that the officers had ulterior being merely the return to his country of an alien who has broken the
motive that prompted them to verify the false claim. The decision finding the conditions upon which he could continue to reside within our borders
appellant guilty was affirmed.
The requirement of probable cause, to be determined by a judge, does not
HARVEY vs. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO extend to this case for probable cause had already been shown to exist before
G.R. L-82544 28 June 1988 the warrants of arrest were issued. Petition was dismissed.

Facts: Andrew Harvey and John Sherman are both American nationals while
Adriaan Van Den Elshout is a Dutch citizen. They were residing in Pagsanjan, RULE 114
Laguna where they were apprehended by agents of the Commission on BAIL
Immigration and Deportation. On March 07 1988, Warrants of Arrest were
issued by respondent against petitioners for violation of the Immigration Act
and the Revised Administrative Code. Seized during their arrests were rolls of
photo negatives and photos of suspected child prostitutes shown in salacious I. Provisions and Notes
poses as well as boys and girls engaged in the sexual act. Deportation
proceedings were then instituted against them and warrants of arrest were Section 1. Bail defined. – Bail is the security given for the release of a
subsequently issued. Petitioners contend that the arrests, searches and person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to
seizures were unlawful as the CID agents did not have valid warrants. guarantee his appearance before any court as required under the
conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of
Issue: W/N the arrest, search and seizure were invalid. corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance.
Vena V. Verga 69
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

A. Definition of Bail transferred except upon order of the court or when he is admitted to
bail.
Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law,
furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any Section 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception. – All persons in custody
court as required. shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties,
or released on recognizance as prescribed by law or this Rule (a)
B. Forms of Bail before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal
1. corporate surety Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial
2. property bond Court, and (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial court of an
3. cash deposit offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
4. recognizance imprisonment.

C. Recognizance is an obligation of record, entered into before a court or A. Bail as a matter of right
magistrate duly authorized to take it, with the condition to do some
particular act, the most usual condition in criminal cases being the • MTC: bail is a matter of right before or after conviction, regardless of the
appearance of the accused for trial.
offense.
• RTC: bail is a matter of right before conviction, except for offenses
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life sentence and the evidence
Section 2. Conditions of the bail; requirements. – All kinds of bail are of guilt is strong, in which case it is discretionary. After conviction, bail is
subject to the following conditions: a matter of discretion regardless of the offense. The application for bail
may be filed and acted upon by the trial court as long as the original
(a) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and unless record of the case has not been transmitted to the appellate court.
cancelled, shall remain in force at all stages of the case until However, if the decision of the trial court changed the nature of the
promulgation of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, irrespective offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application should be addressed
of whether the case was originally filed in or appealed to it; and resolved by the appellate court.
(b) The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever
required by the court of these Rules; Section 5. Bail, when discretionary. – Upon conviction by the Regional
(c) The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua,
justification and despite due notice shall be deemed a waiver of his or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The application
right to be present thereat. In such case, the trial may proceed in for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing
absentia; and of a notice of appeal, provided it has not transmitted the original
(d) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for record to the appellate court. However, if the decision of the trial court
execution of the final judgment. conviction the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-
bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and
The original papers shall state the full name and address of the resolved by the appellate court.
accused, the amount of the undertaking and the conditions required by
this section. Photographs (passport size) taken within the last six (6)
Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to
months showing the face, left and right profiles of the accused must be
continue on provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal
attached to the bail.
under the same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman.

Section 3. No release or transfer except on court order or bail. – No


If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six
person under detention by legal process shall be released or
(6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be

Vena V. Verga 70
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the 5. That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the
accuse, of the following or other similar circumstances: pendency of the appeal.

(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or Section 6. Capital offense defined. – A capital offense is an offense
has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of which, under the law existing at the time of its commission and of the
reiteration; application for admission to bail, may be punished with death.
(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded
sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without valid Section 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion
justification; perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. – No person charged with
(c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
conditional pardon; imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is
(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight strong, regardless of the state of the criminal prosecution.
if released on bail; or
(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during
the pendency of the appeal. Section 8. Burden of proof in bail application. – At the hearing of an
application for bail filed by a person who is in custody for the
The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, commission of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or
review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court after notice to the life imprisonment, the prosecution has the burden of showing that
adverse party in either case. evidence of guilt is strong. The evidence presented during the bail
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment greater than 6 years, hearing shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial but,
the prosecution may move for denial or cancellation of the bail of the accused, upon motion of either party, the court may recall any witness for
with notice to the accused, upon showing of the following circumstances: additional examination unless the latter is dead, outside the
Philippines, or otherwise unable to testify.
1. He is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has
committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteracion. A. When is bail hearing required
Art. 14(9) RPC A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime,
shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
Bail hearing is mandatory when bail is a matter of discretion. It is incumbent
embraced in the same title of this Code. upon the prosecution to show that the evidence of guilt is strong. Even if the
2
A person, after having convicted by final judgment, shall commit a new felony
prosecution is absent or refuses to present evidence, the court cannot grant
before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same bail without conducting a hearing. The court must first be convinced that the
3
The offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law
evidence does not warrant the denial of bail.
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty
4
The offender has already served out sentence for prior offenses. Section 9. Amount of bail; guidelines. – The judge who issued the
warrant or granted the application shall fix a reasonable amount of
2. The he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded bail considering primarily, but not limited to, the following factors:
sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without valid
justification. (a) Financial liability of the accused to give bail;
(b) Nature and circumstance of the offense;
3. That he committed the offense while on probation, parole or (c) Penalty for the offense charged;
conditional pardon (d) Character and reputation of the accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;
4. That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if (f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;
released on bail; or (g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bail;
Vena V. Verga 71
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

(i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when Section 13. Justification of sureties. – Every surety shall justify by
arrested; and affidavit taken before the judge that he possesses the qualification
(j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail. prescribed in the preceding section. He shall describe the property
Excessive bail shall not be required. given as security, stating the nature of his title, its encumbrances, the
number and amount of other bails entered into by him and still
Section 10. Corporate surety. – Any domestic or foreign corporation, undischarged, and his other liabilities. The court may examine the
licensed as a surety in accordance with law and currently authorized sureties upon oath concerning their sufficiency in such manner as it
to act as such, may provide bail by a bond subscribed jointly by the may deem proper. No bail shall be approved unless the surety is
accused and an officer of the corporation duly authorized by its board qualified.
of directors.
Section 14. Deposit of cash as bail. – The accused or any person acting
Section 11. Property bond, how posted. – A property bond is an in his behalf may deposit in cash with the nearest collector of internal
undertaking constituted as lien on the real property given as security revenue or provincial, city, or municipal treasurer the amount of bail
for the amount of the bail. Within ten (10) days after the approval of fixed by the court, or recommended by the prosecutor who
the bond, the accused shall cause the annotation of the lien on the investigated or filed the case. Upon submission of a proper certificate
certificate of title on file with the Registry of Deeds if the land is of deposit and a written undertaking showing compliance with the
registered, or if unregistered, in the Registration Book on the space requirements of section 2 of this Rule, the accused shall be discharged
provided therefore, in the Registry of Deeds for the province or city from custody. The money deposited shall be considered as bail and
where the land lies, and on the corresponding tax declaration in the applied to the payment of fine and costs while the excess, if any, shall
office of the provincial, city and municipal assessor concerned. be returned to the accused or to whoever made the deposit.

Within the same period, the accused shall submit to the court his Section 15. Recognizance. – Whenever allowed by law or these Rules,
compliance and his failure to do so shall be sufficient cause for the the court may release a person in custody on his own recognizance or
cancellation of the property bond and his re-arrest and detention. that of a responsible person.

Section 12. Qualifications of sureties in property bond. – The Section 16. Bail, when not required; reduced bail or recognizance. – No
qualifications of sureties in a property bond shall be as follows: bail shall be required when the law or these Rules so provide.

(a) Each must be a resident owner of real estate within the When a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than
Philippines; the possible maximum imprisonment prescribed for the offense
charged, he shall be released immediately, without prejudice to the
continuation of the trial or the proceedings on appeal. If the maximum
(b) Where there is only one surety, his real estate must be worth at penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall
least the amount of undertaking; be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment.

(c) If there are two or more sureties, each may justify in an amount A person in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum
less than that expressed in the undertaking but the aggregate of the of the principal penalty prescribed for the offense charged, without
justified sums must be equivalent to the whole amount of the bail application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying
demanded. circumstance, shall be released on a reduced bail or on his own
recognizance, at the discretion of the court.
In all cases, every surety must be worth the amount specified in his
own undertaking over and above all just debts, obligations and properties
exempt from execution. Section. 17. Bail, where filed. – (a) Bail in the amount fixed may be
Vena V. Verga 72
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

filed with the court where the case is pending, or in the absence or Section 21. Forfeiture of bail. – When the presence of the accused is
unavailability of the judge thereof, with any regional trial judge, required by the court or these Rules, his bondsmen shall be notified to
metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial produce him before the court on a given date and time. If the accused
judge in the province, city or municipality. If the accused is arrested in fails to appear in person as required, his bail shall be declared
a province, city, or municipality other than where the case is pending, forfeited and the bondsmen given thirty (30) days within which to
bail may also be filed with any regional trial court of said place, of if no produce their principal and to show why no judgment should be
judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal rendered against them for the amount of their bail. Within the said
trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge therein. period, the bondsmen must:

(b) Where the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the accused (a) produce the body of their principal or give the reason for his non-
seeks to be released on recognizance, the application may only be filed production; and
in the court where the case is pending, whether on preliminary (b) explain why the accused did not appear before the court when first
investigation, trial, or appeal. required to do so.
Failing in these two requisites, a judgment shall be rendered against
Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for the bondsmen, jointly and severally, for the amount of the bail. The
bail with any court in the province, city, or municipality where he is court shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the liability of the
held. bondsmen, unless the accused has been surrendered or is acquitted.

Section 18. Notice of application to prosecutor. – In the application for Section 22. Cancellation of bail. – Upon application of the bondsmen,
bail under section 8 of this Rule, the court must give reasonable notice with due notice to the prosecutor, the bail may be cancelled upon
of the hearing to the prosecutor or require him to submit his surrender of the accused or proof of his death.
recommendation.
The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon acquittal of the
Section 19. Release on bail. – The accused must be discharged upon accused, dismissal of the case, or execution of the judgment of
approval of the bail by the judge with whom it was filed in accordance conviction.
with section 17 of this Rule.
In all instances, the cancellation shall be without prejudice to any
When bail is filed with a court other than where the case is pending, liability on the bail.
the judge who accepted the bail shall forward it, together with the
order of release and other supporting papers, to the court where the Section 23. Arrest of accused out on bail. – For the purpose of
case is pending, which may, for good reason, require a different one to surrendering the accused, the bondsmen may arrest him or, upon
be filed. written authority endorsed on a certified copy of the undertaking,
cause him to be arrested by a police officer or any other person of
Section. 20. Increase or reduction of bail. – After the accused is suitable age and discretion.
admitted to bail, the court may, upon good cause, either increase or
reduce its amount. When increased, the accused may be committed to An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the necessity
custody if he does not give bail in the increased amount within a of a warrant if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without
reasonable period. An accused held to answer a criminal charge, who permission of the court where the case is pending.
is released without bail upon filing of the complaint or information,
may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings and whenever a
strong showing of guilt appears to the court, be required to give bail in Section 24. No bail after final judgment; exception. – No bail shall be
the amount fixed, or in lieu thereof, committed to custody. allowed after a judgment of conviction has become final. If before
such finality, the accused applies for probation, he may be allowed
temporary liberty under his bail. When no bail was filed or the accused
Vena V. Verga 73
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

is incapable of filing one, the court may allow his release on The order should contain a summary of the evidence presented and the reason
recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of the for the denial, otherwise it shall be void. This is in order to safeguard the
community. In no case shall bail be allowed after the accused has constitutional right to presumption of innocence and also because there is a
commenced to serve sentence. need for clear grounds before a person can be denied of his liberty.

Section 25. Court supervision of detainees. – The court shall exercise Remedy of the court when there is possibility that a person will jump bail:
supervision over all persons in custody for the purpose of eliminating 1. Increase the amount of bail
unnecessary detention. The executive judges of the Regional Trial 2. Require periodic reports of the accused to court
Courts shall conduct monthly personal inspections of provincial, city, 3. Warn him that the trial may proceed in absentia
and municipal jails and the prisoners within their respective
jurisdictions. They shall ascertain the number of detainees, inquire on Duties of the trial judge in case an application for bail is filed:
their proper accommodation and health and examine the condition of
the jail facilities. They shall order the segregation of sexes and of 1. Notify the prosecutor of the hearing or require him to submit his
minors from adults, ensure the observance of the right of detainees to recommendation
confer privately with counsel, and strive to eliminate conditions 2. Conduct a hearing
inimical to the detainees. 3. Decide whether the evidence of guilt is strong based on the summary
of evidence of the prosecution
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon
In cities and municipalities to be specified by the Supreme Court, the the approval of the bailbond. If evidence of guilt is strong, the petition
municipal trial judges or municipal circuit trial judges shall conduct should be denied.
monthly personal inspections of the municipal jails in their respective
municipalities and submit a report to the executive judge of the Guidelines in setting the amount of bail:
Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction therein.
1. Financial ability of the accused
A monthly report of such visitation shall be submitted by the executive 2. Nature and circumstances of the offense
judges to the Court Administrator which shall state the total number of 3. Penalty for the offense
detainees, the names of those held for more than thirty (30) days, the 4. Character and reputation of the accused
duration of detention, the crime charged, the status of the case, the 5. Age and health of the accused
cause for detention, and other pertinent information. 6. Weight of evidence against the accused
7. Probability of the accused appearing at the trial
Section 26. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or 8. Forfeiture of other bail
irregular preliminary investigation. – An application for or admission 9. The fact that he was a fugitive from the law when arrested
to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his 10. Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail
arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefore, or from assailing
the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary Where should bail be filed:
investigation of the charge against him, provided that he raises them
before entering his plea. The court shall resolve the matter as early as It may be filed with the court where the case is pending. In the absence of the
practicable but not later than the start of the trial of the case. judge thereof, bail may be filed with any RTC or MTC judge in the province,
city, or municipality. If the accused is arrested in a province, city, or
municipality other than where the case is pending, bail may also be filed with
and RTC of said place, or if no judge is available, with any MTC judge therein.

QUESTIONS: But where bail is a matter of discretion or where the accused seeks to be
What is required of the judge who denies an application for bail? released on recognizance, bail may only be filed in the court where the case is
pending.
Vena V. Verga 74
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

2. Nature and circumstance of the offense


Any person in custody who is not yet charged may apply for bail with any court 3. Penalty for the offense
in the province, city or municipality where he is held. 4. Character and reputation of the accused
5. Age and health of the accused
Remedy of the accused if he is denied bail: 6. Weight of evidence against him
7. Probability of his appearance in trail
He should file a special civil action in the CA, not the SC within 60 days. 8. Forfeiture of their bonds by him
9. If the accused is a fugitive from justice when arrested
10. Pendency of other cases where he is also under bail.
II. Connection to Constitutional Law Provisions and Cases
SULE vs. BITENG
SECTION 13: ALL PERSON, EXCCEPT THOSE CHARGED WITH OFFENSES
PUNISHABLE BY RECLUSION PERPETUA WHEN EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS In hearings for bail, what should be considered is the prima facie evidence and
STRONG SHALL BEFORE CONVICTION BE BAILABLE BY SUFFICIENT SURETIES not the penalty. In capital offenses, bail would be granted only if the evidence
OR RELEASED ON RECOGNIZANCE AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW. THE RIGHT of guilt were not strong.
TO BAIL SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED WVWN WHEN THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS IS SUSPENDED. EXCESSIVE BAIL SHALL NOT BE PADERANGA vs. CA
REQUIRED.
One who is under the custody of the law either when he has been arrested or
has surrendered to the jurisdiction of the court has a constitutional right to bail
A. RIGHT TO BAIL CHIN vs. GUSTILO
LAVIDES vs. CA Even if bail is a matter of right, there is still a need to give notice to the fiscal
for him to attend the hearing for bail.
Bail should be given before arraignment. Arraignment should not be made a
condition to bail. B. WAIVER OF THE RIGHT
PEOPLE vs. GAKO JR. PEOPLE vs. JUDGE DONATO
Judge did not hold hearing, merely based his decision to grant bail from a Accused charged with rebellion.
medical certificate 9 months old.
Compromise agreement is a valid waiver to the right to bail
Bail is a matter of right with respect to persons charged with penalty of
reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death, when evidence is strong. PEOPLE vs. MAPALAO
Before a bail is granted, a hearing must be conducted in order to determine
whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong or not. An accused who escapes from confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign
country, loses his standing in court, and unless he surrenders or submits
YAP vs. CA himself to the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waives any right
Imposing bail in excessive amount could render meaningless the right to bail. to seek relief from the Court.
Setting the bail in the amount of the civil liability is excessive.
C. EXCESSIVE BAIL
FACTORS TO CONSIDERED IN SETTING THE AMOUNT OF BAIL (MAGSUCANG
vs. BALGOS) DE LA CAMARA vs. ENAGE
1. Financial ability of the accused

Vena V. Verga 75
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Where the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by requiring account. In 2000, Chavit Singson publicly accused President Estrada and his
a sum that is excessive. A bail of one million is clearly excessive. family members and friends of engaging in several illegal activities which
triggered the filing with the Office of the Ombudsman several criminal
CHU vs. DOLALOS complaints against the petitioner, Joseph Estrada and his son.

Circular No. 8 which provides that bail should be set at Php 1000 for every On April 4, 2001, Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan Informations
year taking into consideration the maximum penalty for the offense is against the former president, one of which, for plunder. No bail was
instructive not only to fiscals and their assistants but to the members of the recommended for the provisional release of all the accused including the
bench as well. petitioner. The case was raffled to a special division which was subsequently
created by the Supreme Court. On 25 April 2001, Sandiganbayan issued a
D. PERSONS NOT ENTITLED TO BAIL resolution finding probable cause to justify the issuance of warrants of arrest
for the accused. Arraignment was set on 27 January 2001. In the meantime,
COMENDADOR vs. de VILLA petitioner filed with Sandiganbayan an Urgent Petition for bail, which was set
for hearing on May 4, 2001. Petitioner’s co-accused Jinggoy Estrada filed a
A soldier under court martial does not enjoy the right to bail because of the motion alleging that he was entitle to bail as a matter of right.
different disciplinary structure of the military as well as their capability of
causing havoc and chaos. During the hearing on May 4, 2001 on petitioner’s Urgent Petition for Bail, the
prosecution moved for the resetting of the arraignment of the accused earlier
PEOPLE vs. NITCHA than the June 27 schedule. However, Sandiganbayan denied the motion of the
prosecution and issued an order declaring that the petition for bail can and
If an accused who is charged with a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua is should be heard BEFORE petitioner’s arraignment on 27 June. On June 1,
convicted by the trial courts and sentenced to suffer such a penalty, bail is Sandiganbayan issued a resolution requiring the attendance of petitioner as
neither a matter of right on the part of the accused nor a matter of discretion well as all the other accused during the hearing on the petitioner for bail
on the part of the court. Bail must not be granted to accused during the considering that under Section 8, Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of Court,
pendency of his appeal because his conviction clearly imports that the evidence whatever evidence adduced during the hearing shall be considered
of his guilt of the offense charged is strong. automatically reproduced at the trial.

GOVERNMENT OF US vs. PURGANAN The people insist that arraignment is necessary before bail hearings may be
commenced because it is only upon arraignment that the issues are joined.
Right to bail is not applicable in extradition proceedings. Constitutional bail is The people further stress the it is only when an accused pleads not guilty may
available only in criminal proceedings. Extradition, being sui generis and not a he filed a petition for bail and if he pleads guilty, then there would be no need
criminal proceeding, the accused therefore has no inherent right to bail. The for him to file said petition. It is also the contention of the people that it is
following are exceptions to this rule: only during arraignment that the accused is informed of the precise charge
(1) applicant is not flight risk against him. He must then be arraign first prior to bail hearings to prevent
(2) there exists a special humanitarian reason. him from late on assailing the validity of the bail hearings on the ground that
he was not properly informed of the charge considering that under section 8 of
III. Case Rule 114, evidence presented during bail hearings are reproduce in the trial.
Arraignment before bail hearings also diminished the possibility of accused’s
SERAPIO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN flight since trial in absentia may be had only if an accused escapes after he has
396 SCRA 443 been arraigned.

Facts: Petitioner Edward Serapio was a member of the Board of Trustees an


the legal counsel of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation. Sometime 2000,
petitioner received on its behalf a donation in the amount of Php 200M through However, the bail hearing again did not proceed because the petitioner filed
Chavit Singson. Petitioner received he donation worth the Foundation’s with the information a motion to quash the amended information on the
Vena V. Verga 76
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

grounds that as against him, the amended information does not allege a death may also be heard even before an accused is arraigned. Sandiganbayan
combination of series of over or criminal acts constitutive of plunder. therefore committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
According to the prosecution, the motion to quash the amended information jurisdiction in ordering the arraignment of petitioner before proceeding with the
was antithetical to his petition for bail. hearing of his petition for bail.

Petitioner also prays for the issuance of habeas corpus. (b) Court dins no inconsistency exists between an application of an accused for
bail and his filing of a motion to quash. Bail, is the security given for the
Issues: release of the person in custody of the law. A motion to quash on the other
(a) W/N petitioner should first be arraigned before hearings of his hand is a mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal complain
petition for bail may be conducted. filed against him for insufficiency on its fact in posit of law. These tow relied
(b) W/N petitioner may file a motion to quash the amended have objectives which are not necessarily antithetical to each other. However,
Information during the pendency of his petition for bail. it is true that if a motion to quash a criminal complaint or information on the
(c) W/N a joint hearing of petition for bail for all the accused is ground that the same does not charge any offense is granted and the case is
mandatory dismissed and the accused is ordered released, the petition for bail of an
(d) W/N petitioner should instead be released through a writ of accused may become moot and academic.
habeas corpus.
Decision: (c) Petitioner argues that a joint bail hearing would negate his right to have his
petition for bail resolved in a summary proceeding since said hearing might be
(a) Although the petitioner was already arraigned, no plea has yet been converted into a full blown trial. Prosecution on the other hand claims that
entered thereby rendering the issue of whether an arraignment is necessary joint hearings will save the court form having to hear the same witnesses and
before the conduct of bail hearings in the petitioner’s case moot. Nonetheless, the parties from presenting the same evidences. There is no provision in the
the court held that arraignment of an accused is not a pre-requisite to the Rules of Court governing the hearings of two or more petitioner for bail filed by
conduct of hearings on his petition for bail. A person is allowed to petition for different accused or that a petition for bail of an accused be heard
bail as soon as he is deprived of his of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or simultaneously with the trial of the case against the other accused. The matter
voluntary surrender. should be addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. In the exercise
of its discretion, the Sandiganbayan must take into account not only the
In Lavides vs. CA, the court ruled that in cases where it is authorized, bail convenience of the sate, including the prosecution but also that of the
should be granted before arraignment otherwise the accused may be precluded petitioner and the witnesses.
from filing a motion to quash. However, this pronouncement should not be
taken to mean that the hearing on a petition for bail should at all times In the case of Ocampo vs. Bernabe, the court ruled that in a petition or bail
precede arraignment, because the rule is that a person deprived of his liberty hearing, the court is to conduct only a summary hearing, meaning such brief
by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender may apply for bail as soon as he and speedy method of receiving and considering the evidence of guilt as is
is deprived of liberty even before a complaint or information is filed against practicable and consistent with the purpose of the hearing which is early to
him. The case of Lavides must be understood in light of the fact that the determine the weight of evidence for purposes of bail. The court does not try
accused in said case filed a petition for bail as well as a motion to quash. the merits or enter into the inquiry as to the weight that ought to be given to
Hence, in that case, the court held that to condition the grant of bail to an the evidence against the accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome of the
accused on his arraignment would be to place him in a position where he had trial or on what further such evidence as has reference to substantial matters.
to choose between filing a motion to quash and thus delay his petition for bail In the case at bar, the case against former President Estrada is an entirely
and forgoing the filing of the motion to quash so that he can be arraign at once different matter. For, with the participation of the former president in the
ad therefore be released on bail. Such would undermine the constitutional hearing of petitioner’s petition for bail, the proceeding assumes completely
right of the accused. different dimension. The proceeding will no longer be summary since the
proceedings will be full blown which is antithetical to the nature of a bail
When a bail is matter of right, an accused may apply for and be granted bail hearing. The joinder of the petitioner’s bail will be prejudicial to the petitioner
even prior to arraignment. The Lavides case also implies that an application as it will unduly delay the determination of the issue of the right of petitioner
for bail in a case involving an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua to to obtain provisional liberty and seek relief from his court. The Sandiganbayn
Vena V. Verga 77
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

again committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering a simultaneous


hearing of petitioner’s petition for bail with the trial of the case against former B. Exceptions to the constitutional presumption of innocence:
president.
• Presumptions – If there is a reasonable connection between the
(d) In the case at bar, bail is not matter of rights since the accused is charged fact presumed and the fact ultimately proven from such fact
with a capital offense, but discretionary upon the court. Under Section 8 of a. When an accountable public officer fails to account for funds
rule 114, there must be a showing that the evidence of guilt against a person or property that should be in his custody, he is presumed to be guilty
charged with a capital offense is not strong for the court to grant him bail., of malversation;
thus, upon an application for bail, by the person charged with a capital b. Persons in possession of recently stolen goods are presumed
offense, a hearing must be conducted where the prosecution has the burden of guilty of the offense in connection with the goods.
showing that the evidence of guilt against an accused is strong. When the
evidence of guilt is strong, bail becomes a matter of right, which is not so in • Self-Defense – One who invokes self-defense is presumed guilty.
the case at bar. The burden of proving the elements of self-defense (unlawful aggression,
reasonable necessity of the means used to prevent or repel it; lack of
In exceptional cases, habeas corpus may be granted ny the courts even when sufficient provocation on the part of the one defending himself) belongs to
the person concerned is detained pursuant to a valid arrest or his voluntary the accused.
surrender. The writ may be issued where the deprivation of liberty while
initially valid under the lad had not later become invalid. However, there is no C. Definition of reverse trial
basis fir the issuance of the writ in the case at bar. The general rule is that the
writ does not lie where the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in Usually, the prosecution first presents its evidence to establish the guilt of the
the custody of an officer under process issued by a court which had jurisdiction accused. But a reverse trial happens if the accused admits the killing but
to issued the same applied, because petitioner is under detention pursuant to claims self-defense. He must first establish the elements of self-defense in
the order of arrest. Petitioner in fact voluntarily surrendered himself to the order to overturn the presumption that he was guilty of the offense.
authorities.
(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him.
RULE 115
RIGHTS OF ACCUSED
(c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage
of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the
I. Codal Provision and Notes judgment. The accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial
pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is
Section 1. Rights of accused at trial. – In all criminal prosecutions, the specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification. The
accused shall be entitled to the following rights: absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which
he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present
thereat. When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed
(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond to have waived his right to be present on all subsequent trial dates
reasonable doubt. until custody over him is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be
allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the
A. Definition of right of presumption of innocence: court that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of
counsel.
The right means that the presumption must be overcome by evidence of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. Guilt beyond reasonable doubt means that there is
moral certainty as to the guilt of the accused. Conviction should be based on A. Requisites of a valid trial in absentia
the strength of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense. The
significance of this is that accusation is not synonymous with guilt.
Vena V. Verga 78
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

1. The accused has already been arraigned; For practical reasons: The accused is likely to commit perjury if he were
2. He has been duly notified of the trial compelled to testify against himself.
3. His failure to appear at the trial is unjustifiable.
Persons who may invoke the right against self-incrimination, and time when
• Right to be present at the trial be waived except in the following they an invoke the right.
situations, where the presence of the accused at the trial is required:
1. An ordinary witness may invoke the right, but he may only do so as
1. Arraignment; each incriminating question is asked.
2. During promulgation of judgment, except if it is for a light offense;
3. When the presence of the accused at the trial is necessary for 2. The accused himself may invoke the right, and unlike the ordinary
purposes of identification, unless he admits beforehand that he is the witness, he may altogether refuse to take the witness stand and refuse
same person charged. to answer any and all questions.

But, once the accused waives his right and chooses to testify in his
own behalf, he may be cross-examined on matters covered in his
(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-
direct examination. He cannot refuse to answer questions during
examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence
cross-examination by claiming that the answer that he will give could
shall not in any manner prejudice him.
incriminate him for the crime with which he was charged.

Note: A testimony of a witness who testifies on his own behalf but refuses to However, if the question during cross-examination relates to a crime
be subjected to cross-examination will not be given weight. It will not have different from that with which he was charged, he can still invoke the
probative value because the prosecution was not given a chance to test the right and refuse to answer.
credibility of the testimony through cross-examination.
Note: It would depend whether or not an accused or witness can invoke the
(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against right against self-incrimination if he is asked about past criminality. If he can
himself. still be prosecuted for it, questions about past criminal liability are still covered
by the protection of the right against self-incrimination. But if he cannot be
prosecuted for it anymore, he cannot invoke the right.
Scope of the right against self-incrimination
Rights of the accused in the matter of testifying or producing evidence
The right against self-incrimination covers testimonial compulsion only and the
Before the case is filed in Court but after he has been taken into custody or
compulsion to produce incriminating documents, papers, and chattels. It does
otherwise deprived of his liberty
not cover the compulsion to produce real or physical evidence using the body
of the accused.
the right to be informed of
his right to remain silent and to counsel
Exception to the right against self-incrimination
the right not to be subjected to force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which vitiate free will
The right cannot be invoked when the State has the right to inspect documents
the right to have evidence obtained in violation of these rights
under its police power, such as documents of corporations.
rejected
Rationale for protecting the right against self-incrimination
After the case is filed in court
For humanitarian reasons: To prevent the State, with all its coercive
to refuse to be a witness
powers, from extracting testimony that may convict the accused.
not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal

Vena V. Verga 79
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

to testify in his own behalf subject to cross-examination by the Definition of right of confrontation
prosecution
while testifying, to refuse to answer a specific question which It means that the accused can only be tried using those witnesses that meet
tends to incriminate his for some crime other than that for him face to face at the trial who give testimony in his presence, with the
which he is being prosecuted. opportunity to cross-examine them.

Immunity statutes Reasons for the right

The immunity statutes are classified into two: 1. To allow the court to observe the demeanor of the witness while
1. Use immunity statutes -- prohibits testifying.
the use of a witness’ compelled testimony and its fruits in any 2. To give the accused the opportunity to cross-examine the witness in
manner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness. order to test their recollection and credibility.
(Therefore, the witness can still be prosecuted, but the compelled
testimony cannot be used against him.) Note: the right of confrontation can be waived either expressly or impliedly. It
2. Transactional immunity statutes -- is waived impliedly when an accused waives his right to be present at the trial.
grants immunity to the witness from prosecution for an offense to The right of confrontation may also be waived by conduct amounting to a
which his compelled testimony relates. (The witness cannot be renunciation of the right to cross-examine. When the party was given an
prosecuted at all.) Examples are state witnesses and those who opportunity to confront and cross-examine an opposing witness but failed to
furnish information about violations of the Internal Revenue Code, take advantage of it for reasons attributable to himself alone, he is deemed to
even if they themselves offered bribes to the public official. have waived the right.

Effect of the refusal of the accused to refuse to testify in his behalf C. Effect when testimony of a witness who dies or becomes unavailable

As a general rule, the silence of the accused should not prejudice him. If the other party had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness before he
died or became unavailable, the testimony may be used as evidence.
However, in the following cases, an unfavorable inference is drawn from the However, if the other party did not even have the opportunity to cross-
failure of the accused to testify: examine before the subsequent death or unavailability of the witness, the
testimony will have no probative value. (An opportunity to cross-examine is all
1. If the prosecution has already established a prima facie case, the that is necessary in order to allow the use of the testimony of the witness.
accused must present proof to overturn the evidence of the There need not be an actual cross-examination, as long as there was an
prosecution. opportunity to do so.)
2. If the defense of the accused is alibi and he does not testify, the
inference is that the alibi is not believable.
(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of
witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf.
Note: DNA testing is not covered by the right against self-incrimination
A. Definition of right to compulsory process
(f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the It is the right of the accused to have a subpoena and/or a subpoena duces
trial. Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a tecum issued in his behalf in order to compel the attendance of witnesses and
witness who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be found the production of other evidence.
in the Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify, given in
another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the Note: if a witness refuses to testify and his testimony is required, the court
same parties and subject matter, the adverse party having the should order the witness to give bail or even order his arrest, if necessary.
opportunity to cross-examine him. Failure to obey a subpoena amounts to contempt of court.

Vena V. Verga 80
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

B. Available only if: • The right to speedy trial is violated when there are unjustified
postponements of the trial, and a long period of time is allowed to
(1) witness is really material elapse without the case being tried for no justifiable reason.
(2) he is guilty of no neglect in previously obtained the
attendance of said witness • right to a public trial means that anyone interested in observing the
(3) The witness will be available at the time desired manner that a judge conducts the proceedings in his courtroom may
(4) No similar evidence could be obtained do so. The trial should be public in order to prevent abuses that may
be committed by the court to the prejudice of the defendant.
Note: Trial in absentia is only allowed after arraignment, accused duly notified Moreover, the accused is entitled to the moral support of his friends
of the trial and absence is unjustified and relatives.

• The court may bar the public in certain cases, such as when the
(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial. evidence to be presented may be offensive to decency or public
morals, or in rape cases, where the purpose of some persons in
attending is merely to ogle at the parties.
A. Definition of the right to speedy trial
• There is no violation of the right to a public trial if trial is held in the
The right means that the trial should be conducted according to the law of
chambers of the judge since the public is not excluded from attending
criminal procedure and the rules and regulations, free from vexations,
the trial.
capricious, and oppressive delays.

C. Speedy Trial Act and Circular 38-98 • To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must be allegations
and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that
According to the Speedy Trial Act and Circular 38-98, arraignment and pre-trial they might be, by the barrage of publicity.
if the accused pleads not guilty should be held within 30 days from the date
the court acquires jurisdiction of the person of the accused. In no case shall (i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by
the entire period exceed 180 days from the first day of trial, except as law.
otherwise authorized by the Court Administrator.
Note:
D. Remedy of an accused whose right to speedy trial is violated • The right to appeal is a statutory right and not a fundamental one,
except in the case of the minimum appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court granted by the Constitution. Anyone who seeks to
1. File a motion to dismiss on the ground of violation of his right to exercise the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of
speedy trial. (For purposes of double jeopardy, this has the same the rules.
effect as an acquittal.) This must be done prior to trial, or else, it is
• it can be waived expressly or impliedly.
deemed a waiver of the right to dismiss.
• When the accused flees after the case has been submitted to the
2. File for mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information.
court for decision, he will be deemed to have waived his right to
3. If he is restrained of his liberty, file for habeas corpus.
appeal from the judgment rendered against him.
4. Ask for the trial of the case.
II. Constitutional Law Notes
Note:
• The limitation is that the State should not be deprived of its day in Rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions
court. The right of the State/the prosecution to due process should be
respected. 1. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond
reasonable doubt;
Vena V. Verga 81
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

2. To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;


3. To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of Right to counsel during custodial investigation and the right to counsel during
the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of judgment; the trial
4. To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-
examination on matters covered by direct examination; Right to counsel during custodial Right to counsel during the trial
5. To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself; investigation
6. To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial; The right to counsel can only be The right to counsel means the right
7. To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of waived in writing AND with the to effective counsel.
witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf; assistance of counsel.
8. To have a speedy, impartial, and public trial; The counsel required in custodial
9. To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law. investigation is competent and
independent counsel, preferably of his
Two aspects of due process: own (the suspect’s) choice.
The requirement is stricter during Trial is in public thus, the danger
1. Substantive due process – this refers to the intrinsic validity of the law custodial investigation because of does not exist. During trial the
2. Procedural due process – one that hears before it condemns, proceeds danger that confessions will be purpose of counsel is not so much to
upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial and based on the extracted against the will of the protect him from being forced to
evidence presented therein. defendant confess but to defend the accused

• There is no need for trial-type proceedings in order to satisfy due


process. What is important is that there was an opportunity to be • Right to counsel afforded during trial because it is embraced in the
heard. Notice and hearing are the minimum requirements of due right to be heard.
process.
• The right to counsel may be invoked at any stage of the
Requirements of procedural due process (in general): proceedings, even on appeal. However, it can also be waived. The
accused is deemed to have waived his right to counsel when he voluntarily
1. There must be an impartial and competent court with judicial power to submits himself to the jurisdiction of the Court and proceeds with his
hear and determine the matter before it; defense.
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant
or over the property subject of the proceeding; But in US v. Escalante and People v. Nang Kay, the Court held that the
3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard; defendant cannot raise the question of his right to have an attorney for the
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing. first time on appeal. If the question is not raised in the trial court, the
prosecution may go to trial. The question will not be considered in the
Requirements of procedural due process (in criminal cases) appellate court for the first time when the accused fails to raise it in the
lower court.
1. The accused must have been heard by a court of competent
jurisdiction; • The duty to appoint counsel-do-oficio is mandatory only up to arraignment.
2. He must have been proceeded against under orderly processes of the
• As a rule, the mistake of counsel binds the client. Therefore, the client
law;
cannot question a decision on the ground that counsel was an idiot.
3. He may be punished only after inquiry and investigation;
However, an exception to this is if counsel misrepresents himself as a
4. There must be notice to the accused;
lawyer, and he turns out to be a fake lawyer. In this case, the accused is
5. The accused must be given an opportunity to be heard;
entitled to a new trial because his right to be represented by a member of
6. Judgment must be rendered within the authority of a constitutional
the bar was violated. He was thus denied of his right to counsel and to
law.
due process.

Vena V. Verga 82
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

• The right of choice must be reasonably exercised. The accused cannot filed a petition for change of venue with the SC, however, on the date set for
insist on counsel that he cannot afford, one who is not a member of the the hearing of the petitioner’s urgent motion to suspend the proceedings in the
bar, or one who declines for a valid reason, such as conflict of interest. trial court due to the pendency of the petition for change of venue, he also
Also, the right of the accused to choose counsel is subject to the right of failed to appear.
the state to due process and to speedy and adequate justice.
Even the counsel of the petitioner admitted that he lost contact with his client
• The accused can defend himself in person only if the court is convinced when the latter went abroad. Hence, the trial court cannot be faulted for
that he can properly protect his rights even without the assistance of rendering its decision on the basis solely of the evidence presented in the
counsel. prosecution.

PEOPLE VS. ORTEGA


III. Cases 276 SCRA 166 (1997)

SIQUOIN VS. PEOPLE Facts: The victim Masangkay, Romeo Ortega, and several others were in a
171 SCRA 223 (1989) drinking spree when Masangkay excused himself in order to answer the call of
nature. Benjamin Ortega followed him. Thereafter, the witnesses heard
Facts: Isabela Mayor Manuel Siquoin was charged with falsification of public shouts of help coming from Masangkay. One of the witnesses, Quitlong
document for signing a false document appointing Jesusa Carreon to the testified that when he reached the scene of the crime, he saw Benjamin,
position of clerk in the office of he Municipal Secretary and stating that such profusely stabbing Masangkay. Several others went to fetch Benjamin’s father.
position exists and with available funds when in fact, there was no such Romeo Ortega went to the scene in order to pacify his brother. Quitlong
position nor available funds allocated from the budget. Carreon filed the further testified that he saw Ortega, Masangkay and their brother in law Garcia
complaint when she did not receive her salaries for several months. The trial lift the victim and throw his body inside a well. The three then threw heavy
court found the petitioner guilty of falsification of public documents, which was stones at the body to prevent it for resurfacing.
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, hence, this appeal. It was the contention of
the accused that he was deprived of due process when the trial proceeded in hi The defendants however contend that Masangkay was the first one who
absence despite a pending petition for change of venue which he filed with the attacked Ortega and that the latter was merely defending himself against the
Supreme Court. former.

Issue: W/N there was deprivation of due process. Garcia on the other hand contends that Masangkay was already dead when he
assisted Ortega, hence, he should only be liable as an accessory.
Decision: Petitioner was afforded with due process when the trial court, in
view of the absence of petitioner, granted continuances to enable the defense Issue: W/N Ortega is guilty of mere homicide.
to present its evidence although the prosecution had rested its case already. It W/N Garcia should be acquitted.
is a basic postulate in aw that what is repugnant to due process is not lack of
previous notice but absolute lack of opportunity to be heard. If an accused has Decision: Ortega should be liable for homicide only and not murder. The court
been heard in a court of competent jurisdiction and proceeded against under noted that the victim Masangkay six-footer while Ortega was only five feet and
the orderly processes of law, and only published after inquiry and investigation, five inches tall. The accused and the victim were already grappling when
upon notice to him, with an opportunity to be heard, and a judgment awarded Quitlong arrived. Nothing in the testimony or circumstances can be interpreted
within the authority of a constitutional law, then he has had due process of as abuse of superior strength, hence, Ortega is liable only for homicide.
law.
With regards Garcia, it is true that Garcia merely assisted in concealing the
There was no denial of due process when an accused was afforded the chance body of the victim. But the autopsy conducted by the NBI showed that tie
to present evidence on his behalf but due to his repeated, unjustifiable failure victim at the time he was thrown to the well, a still alive, and that he died of
to appear at the hearings, the trial court ordered the case to be deemed drowning as evidenced by the muddy particles in the stomach and air tract of
submitted upon the evidence presented by the prosecution. It is true that he the victim. The drowning was the direct, natural, and logical consequence of
Vena V. Verga 83
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

the felony that Appellant Garcia had intended to commit. However, in spite of view of the requirements of due process to ensure a fair and impartial trial. In
the evidence showing that appellant Garcia would be held liable as principal in the case, petitioner was denied due process. He was not informed of the
the crime of homicide. There are two obstacles barring his conviction, even as accusation against him via an arraignment. The case is remanded for trial with
an accessory. the observance of due process starting with an arraignment.

The information accused appellant Garcia of attacking, assaulting and stabbing MARCOS VS. RUIZ
repeatedly with appointed weapon on the different parts of the body of 213 SCRA 177 (1992)
Masangkay. The prosecution’s evidence shows that Garcia has nothing to do
with the stabbing which was solely perpetuated by Ortega, an accused cannot Facts: After the preliminary investigation, the Acting Asst City Fiscal Lopena
be convicted of an offense, unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or filed two informations with the Bohol RTC against Bienvenido Marcos for
information. Constitutionally, he has a right to be informed of the nature and violating BP 22 when he delivered to Fulgencio Oculam two checks in the
cause of the accusation against him. To convict him of an offense other than amount of P3,000 each in payment for assorted pieces of jewelry taken by
charged in the complaint or information would be a violation of this petitioner’s wife Anacleta Marcos knowing that he did not have sufficient funds.
constitutional right. Petitioner posted a surety bond for his temporary liberty. The arraignment was
reset due to the withdrawal of petitioner’s lawyer. However, petitioner settled
In all criminal proceedings, the accused shall be presumed innocent until his obligation with the offended party who executed an Affidavit of Desistance.
proven guilty. He shall have the right to be informed and cause of the Fiscal Lopena filed a Motion to Dismiss in lieu of the desistance.
accusation again him, to have a speedy trial, impartial, to meet witness face to
face. Two cases were filed. In one of the cases, neither petitioner nor his counsel
appeared in the hearing, but the court received a telegram from petitioner’s
Also, Garcia can enjoy the exemption provided for in Article 19 and 20 of the wife that petitioner was indisposed. The arraignment was then rescheduled
civil code being the brother in law of the principal Ortega. Thus, he must be without any objections. In the arraignment, petitioner together with his counsel
acquitted. pleaded not guilty they were notified in open court of the trial of the case. But,
both did not appear during the trial. The court then forfeited the bond of
petitioner, accepted the evidence of the prosecution and submitted the case for
BORJA VS MENDOZA decision.
77 SCRA 422 (1977)
Thereafter, the court received a motion from petitioner via registered mail for
Facts: Manuel Borja was accused of slight physical injuries. The city court of the resetting of the case. The counsel alleged that they believed that the
Cebu proceeded the trial in absentia due to his failure to appear in the hearing hearing would not proceed due to the desistance of the offended party and the
and Borja without being arraigned. The court found him guilty. The CFI Motion to Dismiss filed by the Fiscal Lopena. Both motion as well as the Motion
affirmed it without any notice to petitioner and without requiring him to submit for Reconsideration were denied. Both motions did not contain a notice of
his memorandum. Petitioner contended that the failure to arraign him violates hearing to the Prosecuting Fiscal. A notice of promulgation of sentence was
his right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him and then sent to the parties in the two cases. Hence, this petition.
his right to be heard and counsel. The Solicitor-General agreed that the
procedural defect would render void the city court decision. Issue:
W/N petitioner was denied the right to confront the witnesses of the
Issue: W/N petitioner was denied due process. prosecution and to be heard.

Decision: Arraignment is an indispensable means for bringing the accused into W/N the judge erred in forfeiting the bond.
court and informing him of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
The accused should also be given the right to be heard by himself and counsel. Decision: The judge abused his discretion when he ordered the forfeiture of the
After arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the bond despite the absence of the accused. Due notice should be given to the
accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is bondsman to produce the accused before the court but there is no showing
unjustified. Further, the absence of arraignment can be invoked at anytime in that such was complied with.
Vena V. Verga 84
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Issue: W/N the court lost its jurisdiction when the prisoner escaped from
The accused is required to personally enter his plea. In the case, this did not detention.
happen. Hence, there was no valid arraignment in one of the criminal cases.
Decision: The lowered acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused-
The motion for resetting was a mere scrap of paper because it did not contain private respondent when he appeared during the arraignment and pleaded not
a notice of hearing to the Prosecution which is a violation of Section 5, rule 115 guilty to the crime charged. In criminal cases, jurisdiction over the person of
of the Rules of Court. Without such notice, it is not even a motion for it does the accused is acquired either by his arrest for voluntary appearance in court.
not comply with the rules and should not have been received by the clerk. Such voluntary appearance is accomplished by appearing for arraignment as
what accused respondent did in this case. Jurisdiction, once acquired is no lost
The judge abused his discretion when he considered one of the criminal case upon the instance of parties but continues until the case is terminated.
because there was no valid arraignment. He thus disregarded Sec 2c of Rule
114 and Sec 1c of Rule 115, which merely consider the accused’s non- Where the accused appears at the arraignment and pleads not guilty to the
appearance during the trial -- in this case, April 8-- as a waiver if his right to crime charged, jurisdiction is acquired by the court over his person and this
be present for trial and not for the succeeding trial dates. continues until termination of the case, notwithstanding his escape from the
custody of law.
The absence of the accused without notice shall be considered a waiver of his
right to be present on that trial. When an accused under custody had been A valid trial in absentia has the following requisite: (1) that there has been an
notified of the date of the trial and escapes, he shall be deemed to have arraignment; (2) that the accused has been notified; and (3) that he fails to
waived his right to be present on said date and on all subsequent trial dates appear and hi failure to do so is unjustified.
until custody is regained. The respondent was validly arraigned and he escaped. The lower court
therefore correctly proceeded with the reception of the evidence of the
GIMENEZ vs. NAZARENO prosecution and the other accused in the absence of the private respondent.
160 SCRA 1 (1988) But it erred when it suspended the proceedings as to private respondent and
rendered a decision as to the other accused only.
Facts: Private respondent Teodoro de la Vega and 5 others were charged with
the crime of murder. On August 22, 1973, all the accused were arraigned and Upon termination of the trial in absentia, the court has the duty to rule upon
each of them pleaded not guilty. Following the arraignment. The respondent the evidence presented in court. The court need not wait for the one who
Nazareno set the hearing of the case the following month. But before the escaped to finally decide to appear. The contention of the judge that the right
scheduled date of hearing, de la Vega escaped detention and failed to appear of the accused to be presumed innocent will be violated if a judgment is
in court. The fiscals filed a motion to continue hearing the case and de la Vega rendered as to him I untenable. He is still presumed innocent. A judgment of
be tried in absentia. conviction must still be based upon the evidence presented in court.
Therefore, no violation of due process since the accused was given the
The lower court proceeded with the trial of the case but gave the respondent opportunity to be heard.
the opportunity to take the witness stand the moment he shows up in court. By the failure of the accused to appear, he waived his rights to cross examine
and to present evidence on his behalf. Such rights are personal right but may
The lower court rendered a decision dismissing the case against the five be waived.
accused while holding in abeyance the proceedings against the private
respondent. There was valid trial in absentia in this case. The judge should have proceeded
with the decision.
Petitioners filed a Motion for reconsideration questioning the above-mentioned
decision, hence this petitioner. It was the contention of the respondent court SAYSON vs. PEOPLE
that jurisdiction over private respondent de la Vega was lost when he escaped 166 SCRA 680 (1988)
and that his right to cross-examine and present evidence must not be denied
him once jurisdiction over is person is reacquired. Facts: Petitioner was charged with the crime of Estafa through Falsification of
a Commercial Document. Sayson, who was known as “Fiscal Perez” was
Vena V. Verga 85
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

introduced to Anselmo Aguiling, secretary of Ernesto Rufino of Mever Films. He


then presented a Bank of America check in the amount of $2,250.00 payable Moreover, petitioner’ plea that it was incumbent upon the trial court to appoint
to the order of Atty. Perez to be exchanged for Pesos. Mever Films readily a counsel de officio for him is utterly without merit. The duty of the court to
prepared a checking the amount of Php 14,850.00. appoint a counsel de officio is mandatory only at the time of the arraignment.
This is no longer so where the accused has proceeded with the arraignment
Sayson then went to Banco Filipino where he opened an account, using the and the trial with a counsel of his choice but when the time for the
check given by Mever as deposit. The check (dollar) turned out to be one of presentation of the evidence for the defense, he appears by himself alone and
the drafts surreptitiously taken from a shipment to Bank of America. Mever the absence of the counsel is inexcusable.
ordered to stop payment and Sayson was charged with Estafa.
The petitioner’s failure to appear with counsel of his choice at the time of the
Appellant raised the issue of due process alleging denial of his right to be heard hearing of the case, notwithstanding repeated postponement and warning that
and to present evidences. It turned out that after arraignment and the failure to do so would be deemed a waiver of his right to present his evidence
prosecution was able to present evidence, the defense postponed the case and the case would be deemed submitted for decision upon the evidence
several times. At the hearing on December 09, 1974, when the defense was presented by the prosecution.
scheduled to present evidences, only the petitioner appeared. He said that his
counsel had another case in a different court. In the morning of the said day PEOPLE VS. MAQUEDA
the lawyer of Sayson sent a telegram to the court requesting cancellation of 242 SCRA 565 (1995)
the hearing because he was sick. The court denied the motion for
postponement and the case was considered submitted for decision without Facts: Maqueda was one of the accused in the slaying of Horace William
petitioner’s evidence. The trial court rendered judgment finding the accused Barker, a World Bank consultant and battery of his wife, Teresita. The spouses
guilty as charged contending that the petitioner waived his right to be heard by were living at Tuba Benguet. In the morning of 27 August 1991, Richard
counsel and to present evidence. Severino, the spouses’ former houseboy, entered the house of the spouses and
tried to strangle one of the maids. The commotion woke up Teresita. When
Issue: W/N there was a waiver on the part of the appellant. she went down and saw Severino and another unknown person, the former
house boy beat her up. According to the two househelps, they heard William
Decision: No. While the accused has the right to be heard by himself and begging the two accused to stop beating his wife. When the two had courage
counsel and to present evidence for his defense by direct constitutional grant, to go out from their hiding room, they asked for help. When they returned to
such right is not except form the rule on waiver as log as the waiver is not the house with the authorities, they saw the dead body of William. The
contrary to law. authorities rushed Teresita to the hospital where she was comatose for two
days. Authorities concluded that the main motive of the accused was to rob
In the case at bar, there was a valid waiver. First of all, the petitioner’s motion the victims.
was not seasonably filed as the three-day notice required by the rules of court
was not complied with. Moreover, it was not accompanied by an affidavit nor a Two other witnesses testified that they saw the two accused. One of the
medical certificate to support the allege illness of counsel contrary to Rule 22, witnesses said that one of the accused had an amputated hand. This, together
Section 5 of the rules of court which mandates that postponement on the with the other descriptions given by the other witnesses fit the accused Hector
ground of illness may be granted if it appears upon affidavit that the character Maqueda alias “putol”
of his illness is such as to render his non-attendance excusable.
Maqueda contends that on the day of the crime, he was in Quezon City working
The conflicting stories advanced by the petitioner and his counsel only indicate in a polvoron factory. Records show that after being informed of his rights,
the lack of good cause for the postponement. Maqueda signed a “Sinumpaang Salaysay” wherein he narrated his
participation in the crime at the Barker house. Maqueda also filed a motion to
Two circumstances that should be taken into account in granting a motion for Grant Bail stating that he was willing to be a state witness. Prosecutor Zarate
postponement: the reasonableness of the postponement and the merits of the asked the Maqueda whether he was in the company of Salvamante. Upon
case of the movant. Both circumstances were not presented by the petitioner giving an affirmative answer, the prosecutor denied the motion. The owner of
thus, there can be no abuse of discretion on the part of the court. the factory contended that it was impossible for Maqueda to have worked in his
Vena V. Verga 86
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

shop when it was only on 30 August when he opened his shop. The trial court ISSUE: W/N petitioner was deprived of due process.
admitted the statement of the accused although it was taken without the
assistance of counsel because it was of the opinion that since an information DECISION: Due process does not always and in all situations require a trial-
had already been filed in court against him and he was arrested pursuant to a type proceeding. The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable
warrant of arrest issued by the court, the statement was not therefore, taken opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of
during custodial investigation. his defense. “To be heard” does not only mean verbal agreements in court.
One may also be heard through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard,
Issue: W/N the statement of Maqueda should be admitted either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of
procedural due process. Hence, petitioner cannot allege lack of due process
Decision: the exercise of the rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be since he was given ample time to explain why he should not be held in
informed under Section 12 (1) Article III of the Constitution are not confined to contempt of court and suspended from the practice of law in all the four
that prior to the filing of a criminal complaint or information but are available questioned resolutions.
at the stage when a person is “under investigation for the commission of an
offense”.

The court did recognize that once a criminal complaint or information has been
filed in court and the accused is thereafter arrested by virtue of warrant of RULE 116
arrest, he must be delivered to the nearest police station or jail and the ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
arresting officer must make a return of the warrant to the issuing judge
(Section 3 and 4 Rule 113) and since the court has already acquired
jurisdiction over his person, it would be improper for any public officer or law
I. Provisions and Notes
enforcement agency to investigate him in connection with the commission of
the offense for which he was charged. If nevertheless, he is subjected to such
investigation, then Section 12(1) Article III of the Constitution and the Section 1. Arraignment and plea; how made. - (a) The accused must be
jurisprudence thereon must be faithfully complied with. arraigned before the court where the complaint or information was
filed or assigned for trial. The arraignment shall be made in open court
MUTUC VS CA by the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused with a copy of the
190 SCRA 43 (1990) complaint or information, reading the same in the language or dialect
known to him, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty.
FACTS: The 4th division of the CA promulgated a resolution fixing the amount of The prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than those named
the bond for the provisional release of Fortunato Medina pending his appeal in the complaint or information.
before the said court. The appellee filed a MR. The Solicitor-General filed an
opposition in Manila which was actually received in Baguio City when the 4 th (b) The accused must be present at the arraignment and must
division was holding session there. The MR was denied. But, before the CA personally enter his plea. Both arraignment and plea shall be made of
could act on his MR, a news article attributed to Atty Amelito Mutuc, counsel of record, but failure to do so shall not affect the validity of the
record of appellee, appeared in the Manila Times wherein Mutuc hit the Appeals proceedings.
Court ruling in denying Medina’s release without posting bail since he is a
pauper and that his detention is illegal as found by the lower court. In the said
(c) When the accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea,
news item, Mutuc advised Medina to escape from confinement. The Solicitor-
a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him.
General inquired if Mutuc did really made such advice and the latter affirmed
and further said that he is willing to be imprisoned and disbarred. The 4 th
division required Mutuc several times to show cause why he should not be (d) When the accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory
dealt with for contempt but to no avail. Mutuc sought the inhibition of the evidence, his plea shall be deemed withdrawn and a plea of not guilty
members of the division but was denied. Hence, this petition. shall be entered for him.

Vena V. Verga 87
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

(e) When the accused is under preventive detention, his case shall
be raffled and its records transmitted to the judge to whom the case However, in the following cases, the accused should be arraigned with a
was raffled within three (3) days from the filing of the information or shorter period:
complaint. The accused shall be arraigned within ten (10) days from
the date of the raffle. The pre-trial conference of his case shall be held 1. Where the complainant is about to depart from the Philippines with no
within ten (10) days after arraignment. definite date of return, the accused should be arraigned without delay
and his trial should commence within 3 days from arraignment.
(f) The private offended party shall be required to appear at the
arraignment for purposes of plea bargaining, determination of civil 2. The trial of cases under the Child Abuse Act requires that the trial
liability, and other matters requiring his presence. In case of failure of should be commenced within 3 days from arraignment.
the offended party to appear despite due notice, the court may allow
the accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is 3. When the accused is under preventive detention, his case shall be
necessarily included in the offense charged with the conformity of the raffled and its records transmitted to the judge to whom the case was
trial prosecutor alone. raffled within 3 days from the filing of the information or complaint.
The accused shall be arraigned within 10 days from the date of the
raffle.
(g) Unless a shorter period is provided by special law or Supreme
Court circular, the arraignment shall be held within thirty (30) days • The lawyer of the accused cannot enter a plea for him. The accused must
from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the personally enter his plea.
accused. The time of the pendency of a motion to quash or for a bill or
particulars or other causes justifying suspension of the arraignment B. Importance of arraignment:
shall be excluded in computing the period.
Arraignment is the means for bringing the accused into court and informing
A. How and when arraignment is made him of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. During
• The accused must be arraigned before the court where the complaint was arraignment, he is made fully aware of possible loss of freedom or life. He is
filed or assigned for trial. informed why the prosecuting arm of the State is mobilized against him. It is
• It is made: necessary in order to fix the identity of the accused, to inform him of the
charge, and to give him an opportunity to plead.
1. in open court
2. by the judge or clerk C. Duplicitousness of information
3. by furnishing the accused with a copy of the complaint or information The judge has no obligation to point out the duplicitousness or any other defect
4. reading it in the language or dialect known to him, and in an information during arraignment. The obligation to move to quash a
5. asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. defective information belongs to the accused, whose failure to do so
constitutes a waiver of the right to object.
• The accused must be present at the arraignment and must personally
enter his plea. D. Defects: when a person is tried without being arraigned first
• If the accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea, a plea of not The failure of the court to arraign a person before trial was conducted does not
guilty shall be entered for him. prejudice his rights since he was able to present evidence and cross-examine
• If the accused pleads guilty and establishes self-defense, the court should the witnesses of the prosecution during trial. The error was cured by the
withdraw the plea and enter a plea of not guilty. subsequent arraignment.
• The general rule is that the accused should be arraigned within 30 days
from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the E. Presumption that there was an arraignment
accused. The time of the pendency of a motion to quash or for a bill of
particulars or other causes justifying suspension of the arraignment shall In view of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, it
be excluded in computing the period. can be presumed that a person accused of a crime was arraigned, in the
Vena V. Verga 88
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

absence of proof to the contrary. However, the presumption of regularity is A. Plead guilty to a lesser offense
not applied when the penalty imposed is death. When the life of a person is at At arraignment, the accused may plead guilty to a lesser offense, which is
stake, the court cannot presume that there was an arraignment; it has to be necessarily included in the offense charged, provided that the offended party
sure that there was one. and the prosecutor give their consent.

Note: The accused is not entitled to know in advance the names of all of the After arraignment BUT BEFORE TRIAL, the accused may still be allowed to
prosecution witnesses. The success of the prosecution might be endangered if plead guilty to a lesser offense, after he withdraws his plea of not guilty. In
this right were granted to the accused. The witnesses might be subjected to such a case, the complaint or information need not be amended.
pressure or coercion. The right time for the accused to know their identities is
when they take the witness stand. The prosecution may call at the trial When the penalty imposable for the offense is at least 6 years and 1 day or a
witnesses other than those named in the complaint or information. fine exceeding P12,000, the prosecutor must first submit his recommendation
to the City or Provincial Prosecutor or to the Chief State Prosecutor for
F. When a person pleads guilty approval. If the recommendation is approved, the trial prosecutor may then
When an accused pleads guilty, it does not necessarily follow that he will be consent to the plea of guilty to a lesser offense.
convicted. Additional evidence independent of the guilty plea may be
considered by the judge to ensure that the plea of guilt was intelligently made.
The totality of evidence should determine whether the accused should be
convicted or acquitted. Section 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. – When the
accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching
inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of
his plea and shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise
Question: X was charged with murder and entered a plea of guilty. He was
degree of culpability. The accused may present evidence in his behalf.
later allowed to testify in order to prove the mitigating circumstance of
incomplete self-defense. At the trial, he presented evidence to prove that he
acted in complete self-defense. The court acquitted him. Later, X was again A. Court’s action when the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense
charged with physical injuries. X invoked double jeopardy. Can X be
prosecuted again for physical injuries? The court should:

X can again be prosecuted for physical injuries. There was no double jeopardy. 1. conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full
In order for double jeopardy to attach, there must have been a valid plea to comprehension of the consequences of the plea.
the first offense. In this case, the presentation by X of evidence to prove
complete self-defense had the effect of vacating his plea of guilt. When the 2. require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt and the
plea of guilt was vacated, the court should have ordered him to plead again, or precise degree of culpability of the accused for the purpose of
at least should have directed that a new plea of not guilty be entered for him. imposing the proper penalty.
Because the court did not do this, at the time of the acquittal, there was
actually no standing plea for X. Since there was no valid plea, there can be no 3. ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his behalf and
double jeopardy. allow him to do so if he desires.

Section 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. – At arraignment, the accused, Note: A plea of guilty results in the admission of all the material facts in the
with the consent of the offended party and prosecutor, may be allowed by the complaint or information, including the aggravating circumstances. Because of
trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the this, the court should only accept a clear, definite, and unconditional plea of
offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be guilty.
allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not
guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary. Plea of guilty be considered a mitigating circumstance if made before the
prosecution starts to present evidence
Vena V. Verga 89
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Section 5. Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty.– At any time before the


B. Meaning of “Searching inquiry” judgment of conviction becomes final, the court may permit an improvident
plea of guilty to be withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not guilty.
In all cases, the judge must convince himself: (1) that the accused is entering
the plea of guilty voluntarily and intelligently; and (2) that he is truly guilty Note:
and that there exists a rational basis for a finding of guilt based on his
• The withdrawal of the plea of guilty is not a matter of strict right to the
testimony.
accused but is within the discretion of the court. The reason for this is that
trial has already commenced; withdrawal of the plea will change the theory
In addition, the judge must inform the accused of the exact length of
of the case and will put all of the past proceedings to waste. Therefore, it
imprisonment and the certainty that he will serve it at the national penitentiary
may only be withdrawn with permission of the court.
or a penal colony. The judge must dispel any false notion that the accused
• Moreover, there is a presumption that the plea was made voluntarily. The
may have that he will get off lightly because of his plea of guilt.
court must decide whether the consent of the accused was, in fact, vitiated
when he entered his plea.
Questions: • A qualified plea (ex. the accuse says “hindi ko sinasadya”) is equivalent to
A. Is it mandatory for the prosecution to present proof of aggravating a plea of not guilty. In order to be valid, the plea of guilty must be
circumstances? unconditional
Yes. It is mandatory in order to establish the precise degree of culpability and
the imposable penalty. Otherwise, there is an improvident plea of guilty.
Section 6. Duty of court to inform accused of his right to counsel. – Before
B. Can a court validly convict an accused based on an imprudent plea of arraignment, the court shall inform the accused of his right to counsel and ask
guilty? him if he desires to have one. Unless the accused is allowed to defend himself
Yes. If there is adequate evidence of the guilt of the accused independent of in person or has employed counsel of his choice, the court must assign a
the improvident plea of guilty, the court may still convict the accused. The counsel de officio to defend him.
conviction will be set aside only if the plea of guilt is the sole basis of the
judgment.
A. Action of the court when a defendant appears without an attorney during
Section 4. Plea of guilty to non-capital offense; reception of evidence, arraignment:
discretionary. – When the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital The court has a four-fold duty:
offense, the court may receive evidence from the parties to determine
the penalty to be imposed. 1. It must inform the defendant that he has a right to an attorney before
being arraigned;
Note: 2. After informing him, the court must ask the defendant if he desires to
• Court’s action when the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense: The have the aid of an attorney;
court may receive evidence from the parties to determine the penalty to be 3. If he desires and is unable to employ an attorney, the court must
imposed. Unlike in a plea of guilty to a capital offense, the reception of assign an attorney de oficio to defend him;
evidence in this case is not mandatory. It is merely discretionary on the 4. If the accused desires to procure an attorney of his own, the court
court. must grant him a reasonable time therefor.
• Generally, a plea of guilty cannot be attacked if it is made voluntarily and
intelligently. It can only be attacked if it was induced by threats, B. Reason for this four-fold duty: The right to be heard would be of little avail
misrepresentation, or bribes. When the consensual character of the plea is if it does not include the right to be heard by counsel.
called into question or when it is shown that the defendant was not fully
apprised of its consequences, the plea can be challenged. C. Effect of the failure of the court to comply with these duties: It is a
violation of due process.

Vena V. Verga 90
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Section 7. Appointment of counsel de officio. – The court, considering But during trial, there is no such duty. The accused must ask for a lawyer,
the gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the questions that may or else, the right is deemed waived. He can even defend himself
arise, shall appoint as counsel de officio such members of the bar in personally.
good standing who, by reason of their experience and ability, can
competently defend the accused. But in localities where such members • An accused be validly represented by a non-lawyer at the trial. If the
of the bar are not available, the court may appoint any person, accused knowingly engaged the services of the non-lawyer, he is bound by
resident of the province and of good repute for probity and ability, to the non-lawyer’s actions. But if he did not know that he was being
defend the accused. represented by a non-lawyer, the judgment is void because of the
misrepresentation.
A. Definition of counsel de oficio
C. Duties of the pubic attorney if the accused assigned to him is imprisoned
Counsel de oficio is counsel appointed by the court to represent and defend the
accused in case he cannot afford to employ one himself. The court, 1. He shall promptly undertake to obtain the presence of the prisoner for
considering the gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the questions that trial, or cause a notice to be served on the person having custody of
may arise shall appoint as counsel de oficio: the prisoner, requiring such person to advise the prisoner of his right
to demand trial.
1. such members of the bar in good standing
2. who by reason of their experience and ability, can competently defend 2. Upon receipt of that notice, the person having custody of the prisoner
the accused. shall promptly advise the prisoner of the charge and of his right to
demand trial. It at anytime thereafter, the prisoner informs his
But, in localities where such members of the bar are not available, the court custodian that he demands such trial, the latter shall cause notice to
may appoint any person who is: that effect to be sent promptly to the public attorney.

1. a resident of the province 3. Upon receipt of such notice, the public attorney shall promptly seek to
2. and of good repute for probity and ability to defend the accused. obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial.

B. Difference between the duty of the court to appoint counsel de oficio 4. When the person having custody of the prisoner receives from the
during arraignment and during trial public attorney a properly supported request for the availability of the
During arraignment, the court has the affirmative duty to inform the accused prisoner for purposes of the trial, the prisoner shall be made available
of his right to counsel and to provide him with one in case he cannot afford it. accordingly.
The court must act on its own volition, unless the right is waived by the
accused.
Section 8. Time for counsel de officio to prepare for arraignment. – Whenever
a counsel de office is appointed by the court to defend the accused at the
On the other hand, during trial, it is the accused who must assert his right to
arraignment, he shall be given a reasonable time to consult with the accused
counsel. The court will not act unless the accused invokes his rights.
as to his plea before proceeding with the arraignment.
Note:
• A non-lawyer cannot represent the accused during arraignment. During Section 9. Bill of particulars. – The accused may, before arraignment, move for
arraignment, it is the obligation of the court to ensure that the accused is a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead and prepare for trial. The
represented by a lawyer because it is the first time when the accused is motion shall specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and the
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. This is a details desired.
task which only a lawyer can do.
A. Definition of bill of particulars

Vena V. Verga 91
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

• It is a more specific allegation. A defendant in a criminal case who him and to plead intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order his
believes or feels that he is not sufficiently informed of the crime with which mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for such purpose;
he is charged and not in a position to defend himself properly and
adequately could move for a bill or particulars or specifications. (b) There exists a prejudicial question; and

B. What it should contain and purpose


(c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either
the Department of Justice, or the Office of the President; provided, that the
• Its purpose is to allow the accused to prepare for his defense.
period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of
• The accused must move for a bill of particulars before arraignment.
the petition with the reviewing office.
Otherwise, the right is deemed waived
• It should specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and
the details desired. A. Grounds for suspending arraignment

1. If the accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental


Section 10. Production or inspection of material evidence in possession of
condition, which renders him unable to fully understand the charge
prosecution. – Upon motion of the accused showing good cause and with
against him and to plead intelligently thereto. The court should order
notice to the parties, the court, in order to prevent surprise, suppression, or
his mental examination and his confinement, if necessary.
alteration, may order the prosecution to produce and permit the inspection and
copying or photographing of any written statement given by the complainant
2. If there exists a prejudicial question.
and other witnesses in any investigation of the offense conducted by the
prosecution or other investigating officers, as well as any designated
3. If a petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending
documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, object, or tangible
either at the DOJ or the Office of the President. However, the period
things not otherwise privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material
of suspension shall not exceed 60 days counted from the filing of the
to any matter involved in the case and which are in the possession or under
petition for review.
the control of the prosecution, police, or other law investigating agencies.
B. Test to determine whether the insanity of the accused should warrant the
A. Right to modes of discovery suspension of the proceedings

• It is the right of the accused to move for the production or inspection or The test is whether the accused will have a fair trial with the assistance of
material evidence in the possession of the prosecution. It authorizes the counsel, in spite of his insanity. Not every aberration of the mind or exhibition
defense to inspect, copy, or photograph any evidence of the prosecution in of mental deficiency is sufficient to justify suspension.
its possession after obtaining permission of the court.
• The purpose is to prevent surprise to the accused and the suppression or II. Cases
alteration of evidence.
• It is available during preliminary investigation in order to protect his
MAGSUCANG VS. BALGOS
constitutional right to life, liberty, and property. (Webb v. de Leon)
398 SCRA 158 (2003)

Facts: Pepito Lim, owner of Ace Fishing Corporation, filed a complaint for
Section 11. Suspension of arraignment. – Upon motion by the proper party,
qualified theft against complainant’s daughter, Rosalie Magsucang, for
the arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases:
misappropriating P11,200 with grave abuse of confidence. The respondent
judge who conducted the PI issued a warrant of arrest and set the bail at
(a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition P30,000. Rosalie was arrested but complainant posted bail for his daughter.
which effectively renders him unable to fully understand the charge against Later, more cases for qualified theft were filed by Lim. After PI, warrants of

Vena V. Verga 92
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

arrest were issued and bail set at P24,000. Complainant had no money to post informed that as a result of his plea of guilt, he admitted all the facts alleged in
bail. the information which were already read and translated to him.

Complainant faults judge for the irregularities in the PI when the judge The judge rendered a decision finding Roberto guilty and sentencing the
administered the oath to Lim and having sent Rosalie to prison without penalty of death.
hearing, and for requiring excessive bail. A letter-complaint was referred to the
Office of the Court Administrator. The judge maintained that he followed the Roberto appealed the Supreme Court contending that the lower court erred in
procedure in filing criminal complaints. He further said that he found probable convicting him of the crime of murder despite hi improvident plea of guilty, in
cause to hold her liable for 8 counts of qualified theft. The Court Administrator violation of Section 3, Rule 116 of the rules of court.
found the judge innocent of the charges except as to the excessive bail.

Issue: W/N the court erred in accepting the plea of guilty without conducting
Issue: W/N the judge abused his discretion in granting excessive bail. searching inquiries as provided for in Section 3, Rule 116.

Decision: The charges on bias and partiality were not substantiated by the
complainant. They were mere allegations, which were not supported by Decision: Section 3 of rule 116 provides that when the accused enters a plea
evidence to prove that the judge overstepped the parameters of his of guilty to a capital offense the trial court is mandated to: (1) conduct a
prerogative. searching inquiry into the voluntaries thereof; (2) require the prosecution to
present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of
his culpability and (3) ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his
A judge enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his function behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. This procedure is mandatory and a
unless overcome by convincing evidence to the contrary. judge who fails to observe with fealty the said rule commits grave abuse of
discretion.
The judge did grant excessive bail. The judge failed to consider that Rosalie is
illiterate, the daughter of a poor fisherman and has very limited financial ability In the case at bar, it was proven that the accused did not even know how to
to post bail. In fixing bail at P24,000, it is clear that he disregarded the read or write. The trial court failed to explain to the accused the nature of the
guidelines provided in the Rules of Court. The excessive bail only means that crime of murder nor even asked his reasons for changing his plea. No
her provisional liberty would be beyond her reach. searching questions were asked, thus the judge abused his discretion.
Nonetheless, as held in the case of People vs. Jabien. Where the trial court
PEOPLE vs. OSTIA receives evidence to determine precisely whether or not the accused has erred
398 SCRA 132 (2003) in admitting his guilt, such plea loses its significance. However, even without
considering the plea, he may still be convicted if there is adequate evidence on
Facts: Roberto Ostia was convicted of murder for the slaying of a four-year- record on which to predicate his conviction. Such is true in the case at bar.
old child. According to a witness, he saw Robert, with the victim Beverly, Roberto was convicted by the SC but modified the penalty.
perched on his right shoulder walking towards the direction of the poblacion.
When the child failed to return home, her parents asked the assistance of the PEOPLE vs. SOLAMILLO
authorities. The body of Beverly was found in a grassy area. According to the 404 SCRA 210 (2003)
medico-legal report, the child was raped and that her death was due to
hemorrhage. Facts: Solamillo and three others were convicted for the crime of robbery with
homicide for the slaying of Alexander Guiroy, the proprietor of Liberty Bakery
During the arraignment, Roberto pleaded not guilty to the charge of rape with and Grocery, with whom the three worked as employees. The victim suffered
homicide. Upon talking to his counsel de officio, he agreed to plead guilty to 21 hack wounds. It was also found that around Php 20,000.00 was stolen by
murder, which was a lesser offense. The accused was re-arraigned and the accused together with the victim’s wallet and watch.
pleaded guilty to the crime of murder. He was assisted by his counsel and the
information was read and translated to him in the waray dialect. He was also
Vena V. Verga 93
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

After the decision was rendered by the court convicting all the accused, Julian Issue: W/N there was violation of rights on the part of the appellants.
Solamillo appealed to the court sating that the court erred in disregarding his
tacit withdrawal of his guilty plea during arraignment. He claims that
policeman Bayabos threatened to kill him if he will pleat not guilty. Decision: None: The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation may not be waived. However, it is a different matter when it was
Issue: W/N the plea should be disregarded. the accused themselves who refused to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation. It was established that the accused refused to be arraigned,
Decision: No. Section 5 of rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure thus, it was not the court’s fault that no arraignment was held.
provides that at nay time before the judgment of conviction becomes final;, the
court may permit an improvident plea of guilty to be withdrawn and be The records show that the proceedings were not hastily conducted. While the
substituted by a plea of not guilty. proceedings might have been of short duration than usual, they were
nevertheless conducted with due regard to the right of each party to due
There is nothing in the records to show that Julian filed a motion to withdraw process. The trial court should even be commended for conducting a speedy
his plea of guilty or that he, in any manner manifested unequivocally that he trial, which should be the rule, rather than the exception.
was withdrawing his plea. His statement during the trial that he was
threatened by Bayabos, is not a positive and categorical declaration that What is the prime consideration is not the speed by which the trial was
appellant Julian was withdrawing his plea of guilty. Without any unequivocal conducted but the matter by which the procedural and substantial requirement
act on his part, the trial court could not assume the he was withdrawing his were complied with. The records show that these requirements were
original plea. adequately met.

Even assuming that Julian made an improvident plea of guilty and


subsequently withdrew it, such fact does not operate to automatically
exculpate him from criminal liability. Convictions based on an improvident plea PEOPLE vs. MAMARION
of guilty are set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If the 412 SCRA 438 (2003)
trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused, the
conviction must be sustained because then it is predicated not merely on the Facts: Mamarion and several others were convicted of kidnapping with ransom
guilty plea of the accused but on evidence proving his commission of the for the kidnapping of Roberta Cokin, a wealthy business woman in Bacolod
offense charged. city. Roberta was kidnapped by the group after she attended a cockfight. A
ransom of two-million was asked of her sister. However, the recovery
Whether or not the plea of guilty was improvident. Is inconsequential for the operation of the NBI failed. They were only able to recover the 2M but not
simple reason that his conviction was based on other evidence proving his Roberta. Roberta was then found dead in a shallow grave.
culpability for the offense charged.
One of the accused Gale became the state witness and was allowed to plea on
PEOPLE VS. DY a lesser offense. The accused Mamarion questions the decision of the court
395 SCRA 256 (2003) allowing Gale to plead guilty to a lesser offense (slight illegal detention) in
consideration of testifying as a prosecution witness.
Facts: The accused Bryan Dy and Giovani Bernardino filed separate motions
of reconsideration questioning the decision of the lower court finding them Issue: W/N the court erred in allowing Gale plead to a lesser offense.
guilty of rape and acts of lasciviousness. Bernardino contends that they were
not accorded their right to a fair, unbiased resolution of the preliminary Decision: No. Gale was validly discharged as a state witness. Gale was allowed
investigation. He also questions the speedy manner by which the trial was to change his plea pursuant to the then prevailing Section 2 Rule 116 of the
conducted and the lack of arraignment stating that the right to be arraigned is Rules of court. As stated in the said rule, the accused with the consent of the
not among the rights that are susceptible to waiver or estoppel. Thus the lack offended part and the fiscal may be allowed by the trail court to plead guilty to
of arraignment cannot be deemed cured by their participation in the trial. a lesser offense, regardless of whether or not it is necessarily included in the
crime charges or is cognizable by a curt of lesser jurisdiction.
Vena V. Verga 94
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

quash since it goes into the very competence of the court to pass upon
It is immaterial that said plea was not made during the pre-trial stage or that it the case.
was made only after the prosecution already presented several witnesses.
Section 3. Grounds. – The accused may move to quash the complaint
Plea-bargaining in criminal cases is a process whereby the accused and the or information on any of the following grounds:
prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to
court approval. Ordinarily, plea-bargaining is made during the pre-trail stage
of the criminal proceeding. However, the law still permits the accused 1. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
sufficient opportunity to change his plea thereafter. 2. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense
charged;
Such a situation is addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the court. The 3. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of
court did not err in allowing Gale to plead to a lesser offense since his the accused;
testimony is crucial to the case at bar. 4. That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;
5. That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;
6. That more than one offense is charged except when a single
RULE 117 punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law (duplicitous);
MOTION TO QUASH 7. That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
8. That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal
excuse or justification;
9. That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the
offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise
I. Provisions and Notes terminated without his express consent. (double jeopardy)

Note:
Section 1. Time to move to quash. – At any time before entering his • Matters of defense are generally not a ground for a motion to
plea, the accused may move to quash the complaint or information. quash. They should be presented at the trial.
• Denial of due process is not one of the grounds for a motion to
quash.
Section. 2. Form and contents. – The motion to quash shall be in • A motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
writing, signed by the accused or his counsel and shall distinctly
person of the accused must be based only on this ground. If other
specify its factual and legal grounds. The court shall consider no grounds are included, there is a waiver, and the accused is deemed
ground other than those stated in the motion, except lack of
to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
jurisdiction over the offense charged.
A. Meaning of the statement that “a motion to quash hypothetically
A. Form required for a motion to quash admits allegations of fact in the information”.

1. It must be in writing.
It means that the accused argues that assuming that the facts charged are
2. It must be signed by the accused or his counsel. true, the information should still be dismissed based on the ground invoked by
3. It must specify its factual and legal grounds.
the defendant. Therefore, since the defendant assumes that the facts in the
information are true, only these facts should be taken into account when the
Note: A court generally, cannot dismiss the case based on grounds
court resolves the motion to quash. Other facts, such as matters of defense,
that are not alleged in the motion to quash. The court cannot consider which are not in the information should not be considered. Exceptions to this
any ground other than those stated in the motion to quash. The
rule are when the grounds invoked to quash the information are extinction of
exception is lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. If this is the criminal liability, prescription, and former jeopardy. In these cases, additional
ground for dismissing the case, it need not be alleged in the motion to
facts are allowed.
Vena V. Verga 95
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

B. Effect of an information that was signed by an unauthorized person


Question
It is a VALID information signed by a competent officer which, among other
requisites, confers jurisdiction over the person of the accused and the subject A. While the case for adultery was being tried, X died. What happens to the
matter of the accusation. Thus, an infirmity in the information such as lack of criminal liability of X and Y?
authority of the officer signing it cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence,
express consent, or even amendment. The criminal liability of X is extinguished. The criminal liability of Y
subsists. The death of one of several accused will not be a cause for
dismissal of the criminal action as against the other accused.
C. Defendant enters his plea before filing a motion to quash
B. What is the effect of the death of the offended party on the criminal liability
of the accused?
By entering his plea before filing the motion to quash, the defendant
waives FORMAL objections to the complaint or information. Where the offense charged in a criminal complaint or information is
one against the state, involving peace and order, the death of the
But if the ground for the motion is any of the following, there is no offended party before final conviction of the defendant will not abate
waiver. The ground may be raised at any stage of the proceeding: the prosecution. Neither does the death of the offended party in
private crimes abate the prosecution.
1. failure to charge an offense
2. lack of jurisdiction over the offense
3. extinction of criminal liability
4. double jeopardy F. Distinctions between pardon and amnesty

D. Extinction of criminal liability AMNESTY PARDON


TYPE OF OFFENSE Political offenses Infractions of the
Under Article 89 of the RPC, criminal liability is extinguished by: peace (common
crimes)
1. death of the convict, and as to pecuniary penalties, liability BENEFICIARY Classes of persons An individual
therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender CONCURRENCE OF Necessary Not necessary
occurs before final judgment; CONGRESS
2. service of sentence; ACCEPTANCE Beneficiary need not Need for distinct acts
3. amnesty; accept of acceptance on the
4. absolute pardon; part of the pardonee
5. prescription of the crime; JUDICIAL NOTICE Courts take judicial Courts do not take
6. prescription of the penalty; notice because it is a judicial notice because
7. marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of public act it is a private act of
the RPC. the President.
Therefore, it must be
E. Partial extinction of criminal liability proved in court.
EFFECT Abolishes the offense Relieves the offender
1. Conditional pardon (looks backward) from the
2. Commutation of sentence consequences of the
3. For good conduct, allowances which the culprit may earn while offense (looks
he is serving his sentence forward)
WHEN IT MAY BE Before or after Only after conviction

Vena V. Verga 96
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

GRANTED prosecution by final judgment Punishable by arresto mayor 5 years


Libel or other similar offenses 2 years
G. Effect of absolute pardon upon criminal liability Oral defamation and slander 6 months
Absolute pardon blots out the crime. It removes all disabilities by deed
resulting from the conviction, such as the political rights of the Light offenses 2 months
accused.

H. Effect of pardon by the offended party upon criminal liability Note: The accused can still raise prescription as a defense even after
As a general rule, pardon by the offended party does not extinguish conviction. The defense cannot be waived. This is because the
criminal liability. Only civil liability is extinguished by express waiver criminal action is totally extinguished by the expiration of the
of the offended party. prescriptive period. The State thereby loses or waives its right to
prosecute and punish it.
However, pardon granted before the institution of the criminal
proceedings in cases of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, The proper action for the court is to exercise its jurisdiction and to
and acts of lasciviousness shall extinguish criminal liability. decide the case upon the merits, holding the action to have prescribed
and absolving the defendant. The court should not inhibit itself
I. Effect of marriage of the offender with the offended party in because it does not lose jurisdiction over the subject matter or the
private crimes person of the accused by prescription.
It shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already
imposed. This applies even to co-principals, accomplices, and L. Effect of prescription of the offense on the civil liability of the
accessories. accused
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction
However, where multiple rape is committed, marriage of the offended of the civil action to enforce civil liability arising from the offense
party with one defendant extinguishes the latter’s liability and that of charged, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final
his accessories or accomplices for a single crime of rape cannot extend judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not
to the other acts of rape. exist.

Note: If the offender in rape is the legal husband of the offended party M. Courts action if the accused moves to quash the complaint or
the subsequent forgiveness by the wife shall extinguish the criminal information on grounds that can be cured by amendment
action or the penalty. But the penalty shall not be abated if the (duplicitous)
marriage is void ab initio.
The court should order that the amendment be made.
J. Prescription a ground for a motion to quash
This is meant to exhort the prosecution not to delay; otherwise, they N. Courts action if the accused moves to quash on the ground that the
will lose the right to prosecute. It is also meant to secure the best facts charged do not constitute an offense
evidence that can be obtained. The court should give the prosecution the opportunity to correct the
defect by amendment. If the prosecution fails to make the
K. Prescriptive periods of crimes amendment, or if, after it makes the amendment, the complaint or
information still suffers from the same defect, the court should
OFFENSE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD grant/sustain the motion to quash.
Punishable by death, 20 years
reclusion perpetua, or O. Effect if a motion to quash is sustained
reclusion temporal
Punishable by other afflictive 10 years
penalties
Vena V. Verga 97
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

The court may order that another complaint or information be filed 2. Court of competent jurisdiction
against the accused for the same offense, except if the ground for 3. Arraignment
sustaining the motion to quash is either: 4. Valid plea
5. The defendant was acquitted, convicted, or the case was
1. extinguishment of the criminal liability of the accused, or dismissed without his express consent.
2. double jeopardy.
Note: For purposes of double jeopardy, a complaint or information is
The grant of a motion to quash on these two grounds is a bar to valid if it can support a judgment of conviction. It the complaint or
another prosecution for the same offense. information is not valid, it would violate the right of the accused to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. If he
If the order is made, the accused, if in custody, shall not be discharged is convicted under this complaint or information, the conviction is null
unless admitted to bail. and void. If the conviction is null and void, there can be no first
jeopardy.
If no order is made, or if no new information was filed within the time
specified by the court, the accused, if in custody, shall be discharged. Questions:

P. Remedy of the accused if the court denies his motion to quash A. A crime was committed in Batangas but case was filed in Mindoro. When
the prosecution realized that the complaint should have been filed in
The accused cannot appeal an order overruling his motion to quash. Batangas, it filed the case in Batangas. Can the accused invoke double
This is because an order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory; it jeopardy?
does not dispose of the case upon its merits. The accused should go to No. The court in Mindoro had no jurisdiction; therefore, the accused
trial and raise it as an error on appeal later. was in no danger of being placed in jeopardy. The first jeopardy did
not validly attach.
Q. Two kinds of jeopardy

1. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. B. X was charged with theft. On the day of the trial, the prosecution could
not go to trial because important witnesses were unable to appear.
2. When an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction Counsel for the accused moved to dismiss the case. The court dismissed
or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another the case provisionally. Subsequently, X was charged with theft again. Can
prosecution for the same act. X invoke double jeopardy?

• Requisites for the accused to raise the defense of double jeopardy No. The case was dismissed upon motion of counsel for the accused,
so it was not dismissed without his express consent. Moreover, the
To raise the defense of double jeopardy, the following requisites must dismissal was only provisional, which is not a valid termination of the
be present: first jeopardy. In order to validly terminate the first jeopardy, the
dismissal must have been unconditional.
1. a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second;
2. the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; C. X was charged with qualified theft. X moved to dismiss on the ground of
3. the second jeopardy must be for the same offense or the second insufficiency of the information. The case was dismissed. Subsequently,
offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the prosecution filed a corrected information. Can X plead double
the first information, or is an attempt or a frustration thereof. jeopardy?

• Requisites for the first jeopardy to attach No. The first jeopardy did not attach because the first information was
not valid.
1. Valid complaint or information
Vena V. Verga 98
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

D. The estafa case against X was dismissed, but the dismissal contained a original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one charging
reservation of the right to file another action. Can another estafa case be the proper offense.
filed against X without placing him in double jeopardy?
H. X was charged with homicide. On the first day of trial, the prosecution
Yes. To raise the defense of double jeopardy, the firs jeopardy must failed to appear. The court dismissed the case on the ground of violation
have been validly terminated. This means that there must have been of the right of the accused to speedy trial. X was later charged with
either a conviction or an acquittal, or an unconditional dismissal of the murder. Can X invoke double jeopardy?
case. A provisional dismissal, such as this one, does not validly
terminate the first jeopardy.
No. The first jeopardy was not validly terminated. The judge who
Note, however, that in the second kind of jeopardy (one act punished dismissed the case on the ground of violation of the right of X to
by a law and an ordinance), the first jeopardy can only be terminated speedy trial committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the
either by conviction or acquittal, and not by dismissal of the case case after the prosecution failed to appear once. This is not a valid
without the express consent of the accused. dismissal because it deprives the prosecution of due process. When
the judge gravely abuses his discretion in dismissing a case, the
E. X was charged with theft. During the trial, the prosecution was able to dismissal is not valid. Therefore, X cannot invoke double jeopardy.
prove estafa. X was acquitted of theft. Can X be prosecuted for estafa
later without placing him in double jeopardy?
R. Requisites for a valid substitution of a complaint or information
Yes. For jeopardy to attach, the basis is the crime charged in the
complaint or information, and not the one proved at the trial. In this 1. No judgment has been rendered;
case, the crime charged in the first information was theft. X was 2. The accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged or any
therefore placed in jeopardy of being convicted of theft. Since estafa other offense necessarily included in the offense charged;
is not an offense which is included or necessarily includes theft, X can 3. The accused will not be placed in double jeopardy.
still be prosecuted for estafa without placing him in double jeopardy.

S. Dismissal and acquittal.


F. X was charged with slight physical injuries. On his motion, the case was
dismissed during the trial. Another case for assault upon a person in Dismissal Acquittal
authority was filed against him. Can X invoke double jeopardy? Dismissal does not decide the case on the Acquittal is always based
merits, nor does it determine that the on the merits.
No. The first jeopardy was not terminated through either conviction, accused is not guilty
acquittal, or dismissal without the express consent of X. The first case Dismissals terminate the proceedings, The accused is acquitted
was dismissed upon motion of X himself. Therefore, he cannot invoke either because the court is not a court of because the evidence
double jeopardy. competent jurisdiction or the evidence does not show his guilt
does not show that the offense was beyond reasonable doubt.
G. X was charged with theft. During trial, the evidence showed that the committed within the territorial
offense committed was actually estafa. What should the judge do? jurisdiction of the court, or the complaint
or information is not valid or sufficient in
The judge should order the substitution of the complaint for theft with form and substance.
a new one charging estafa. Upon filing of the substituted complaint,
the judge should dismiss the original complaint.
T. When dismissal equivalent to acquittal
A dismissal upon motion of the accused or his counsel negates the
If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been
application of double jeopardy because the motion of the accused
made in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the amounts to express consent, EXCEPT:
Vena V. Verga 99
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

The prosecutor then filed an information against X for murder. Can X


1. if the ground is insufficiency of evidence of the prosecution invoke double jeopardy?
(demurrer to evidence), or
2. denial of the right to speedy trial. No. X has not yet been arraigned under the first information.
Therefore, the first jeopardy did not attach. A nolle prosequi or
In these two cases, even upon motion of the accused, the dismissal dismissal entered before the accused is placed on trial and before he
amounts to an acquittal and would bar a second jeopardy. pleads is not equivalent to an acquittal and does not bar a subsequent
prosecution for the same offense.
But if the accused moves to dismiss on the following grounds, he can
still be prosecuted for the same offense because he is deemed to have B. If the accused fails to object to the motion to dismiss the case filed by the
waived his right against a second jeopardy: prosecution, is he deemed to have consented to the dismissal? Can he still
invoke double jeopardy?
1. Lack of jurisdiction (Because if you move to dismiss on the No. Silence does not mean consent to the dismissal. If the accused
ground of lack of jurisdiction, it means that you could not have fails to object or acquiesces to the dismissal of the case, he can still
been validly convicted by that court. You are later estopped invoke double jeopardy, since the dismissal was still without his
from claiming that you were in danger of conviction). express consent. He is deemed to have waived his right against
2. Insufficiency of complaint or information (Same reason. You double jeopardy if he expressly consents to the dismissal.
could not have been validly convicted under that defective
information, so you are estopped from claiming that there was C. X was charged with murder. The prosecution moved to dismiss the case.
a first jeopardy). Counsel for X wrote the words “No objection” at the bottom of the motion to
dismiss and signed it. Can X invoke double jeopardy later on?
U. The conditions when dismissal or termination will not place the No. X is deemed to have expressly consented to the dismissal of the
accused in double jeopardy are: case when his counsel wrote “No objection at the bottom of the motion
to dismiss. Since the case was dismissed with his express consent, X
1. The dismissal must be sought by the defendant personally or cannot invoke double jeopardy.
through his counsel; and
2. Such dismissal must not be on the merits and must not D. X was charged with murder. After the prosecution presented its evidence, X
necessarily amount to an acquittal. filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove
that the crime was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
V. There was no double jeopardy in case before the prosecution could The court dismissed the case. The prosecution appealed. Can X invoke double
finish presenting its evidence, the accused filed a demurrer to jeopardy?
evidence and the court granted the motion and dismissed the case No. X cannot invoke double jeopardy. The dismissal was upon his own
on the ground of insufficiency of evidence of the prosecution. The motion, so it was with his express consent. Since the dismissal was
reason for this is that the court exceeded its jurisdiction in with his express consent, he is deemed to have waived his right
dismissing the case even before the prosecution could finish against double jeopardy. The only time when a dismissal, even upon
presenting evidence. It denied the prosecution of its right to due motion of the accuse, will bar a second jeopardy is if it is based either
process. Because of this, the dismissal is null and void and cannot on insufficiency of evidence or denial of the right of the accused to
constitute a proper basis for a claim of double jeopardy. speedy trial. These are not the grounds invoked by X, so he cannot
claim double jeopardy.

Double Jeopardy Hypothetical Questions E. X was charged with homicide. X moved to dismiss on the ground that the
court had no jurisdiction. Believing that it had no jurisdiction, the judge
A. The prosecutor filed an information against X for homicide. Before X could dismissed the case. Since the court, in fact, had jurisdiction over the case, the
be arraigned, the prosecutor withdrew the information, without notice to X. prosecution filed another case in the same court. Can X invoke double
jeopardy?
Vena V. Verga 100
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

firearms, brigandage and illegal possession of firearms, consented


No. X is estopped from claiming that he was in danger of being abduction and qualified seduction.
convicted during the first case, since he had himself earlier alleged
that the court had no jurisdiction. But take note of the following:

F. X was charged with homicide. The court, believing that it had no Possession of a shotgun and a revolver by the same person at the
jurisdiction, motu propio dismissed the case. The prosecution appealed, same time is only one act of possession, so there is only one violation
claiming that the court, in fact, had jurisdiction. Can X invoke double of the law.
jeopardy?
Conviction for smoking opium bars prosecution for illegal possession of
Yes. When the trial court has jurisdiction but mistakenly dismisses the the pipe. He cannot smoke the opium without the pipe.
complaint or information on the ground of lack of it, and the dismissal
was not at the request of the accused, the dismissal is not appealable Theft of 13 cows at the same time and in the same place is only one
because it will place the accused in double jeopardy. act of theft.

G. X was charged with rape. X moved to dismiss on the ground that the Conviction for less serious physical injuries bars prosecution for
complaint was insufficient because it did not allege lewd designs. The court assault upon a person in authority.
dismissed the case. Later, another case for rape was filed against X. Can X
invoke double jeopardy? Reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and serious or
less serious physical injuries is only one offense. If it is slight physical
No. Like the previous problem, X is estopped from claiming that he injuries, it can be broken down into two offenses, since a light offense
could have been convicted under the first complaint. He himself cannot be complexed.
moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint was insufficient.
He cannot change his position and now claim that he was in danger of J. X installed a jumper cable which allowed him to reduce his electricity bill.
being convicted under that complaint. He was prosecuted for violating a municipal ordinance against
unauthorized installation of the device. He was convicted. Can he still be
H. X was charged with murder, along with three other people. X was prosecuted for theft?
discharged as a state witness. Can X be prosecuted again for the same No. Under the second type of jeopardy, when an act is punished by a
offense? law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under once will bar a
prosecution under the other. (But remember, that there has to be
It depends. As a general rule, an order discharging an accused as a either conviction or acquittal. Dismissal without the express consent
state witness amounts to an acquittal, and he is barred from being of the accused is not sufficient).
prosecuted again for the same offense. However, if he fails or refuses
to testify against his co-accused in accordance with his sworn
statement constituting the basis for the discharge, he can be W. Exceptions to double jeopardy
prosecuted again.
The conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution
I. Can a person accused of estafa be charged with violation of BP22 without for an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the
placing him in double jeopardy? former complaint or information under any of the following
Yes. Where two different laws define two crimes, prior jeopardy as to circumstances:
one of the is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other although both
offenses arise from the same facts, if each crime involves some 1. the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising
important act which is not an essential element of the other. Other from the same act or omission constituting the former charge;
examples: Illegal recruitment and estafa, illegal fishing and illegal
possession of explosives, alarm and scandal and illegal discharge of
Vena V. Verga 101
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

2. the facts constituting the graver charge became known or were Note: As a general rule, the dismissal or termination of the case after
discovered only after a plea was entered in the former complaint arraignment and plea of the defendant to a valid information shall be a
or information; bar to another prosecution for the same offense, an attempt or
3. the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent frustration thereof, or one included or which includes the previous
of the prosecutor and the offended party except if the offended offense. The exceptions are:
party fails to appear at the arraignment.
1. if the dismissal of the first case was made upon motion or with
X. Doctrine of supervening fact the express consent of the defendant, unless the grounds are
If, after the first prosecution, a new fact supervenes on which the insufficiency of evidence or denial of the right to speedy trial;
defendant may be held liable, altering the character of the crime and 2. if the dismissal is not an acquittal or based upon consideration
giving rise to a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to of the evidence or of the merits of the case; and
be in second jeopardy if indicted for the new offense. 3. the question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely
legal so that should the dismissal be found incorrect, the case
Double Jeopardy Hypothetical questions would have to be remanded to the court of origin for further
proceedings to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
A. X was charged with frustrated homicide. There was nothing to indicated
that the victim was going to die. X was arraigned. Before trial, the victim Y. Effect of the appeal by the accused
dies. Can X be charged with homicide?
It depends. If the death of the victim can be traced to the acts of X, If the accused appeals, he waives his right against double jeopardy.
and the victim did not contribute to his death with his negligence, X The case is thrown wide open for review and a penalty higher than
can be charged with homicide. This is a supervening fact. But if the that of the original conviction could be imposed upon him.
act of X was not the proximate cause of death, he cannot be charged
with homicide. Z. Action of the accused do if the court denies the motion to quash on
the ground of double jeopardy
B. X was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and was
acquitted. The heirs of the victim appealed the civil aspect of the He should plead not guilty and reiterate his defense of former
judgment. X claims that the appeal will place him in double jeopardy. Is X jeopardy. In case of conviction, he should appeal from the judgment,
correct? on the ground of double jeopardy.
No. There was no second jeopardy. What was elevated on appeal was
the civil aspect of the case, not the criminal aspect. The extinction of
criminal liability whether by prescription or by the bar of double Section 4. Amendment of complaint or information. – If the motion to
jeopardy does not carry with it the extinction of civil liability arising quash is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or information
from the offense charged. which can be cured by amendment, the court shall order that an
amendment be made.
C. X was charged with murder and was acquitted. Can the prosecution
appeal the acquittal? If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an
No. The prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal, since it would place offense, the prosecution shall be given by the court an opportunity to
the accused in double jeopardy. correct the defect by amendment. The motion shall be granted if the
prosecution fails to make the amendment, or the complaint or
Even if the decision of acquittal was erroneous, the prosecution still information still suffers from the same defect despite the amendment.
cannot appeal the decision. It would still place the accused in double
jeopardy.
Section 5. Effect of sustaining the motion to quash. – If the motion to
quash is sustained, the court may order that another complaint or
information be filed except as provided in section 6 of this rule. If the

Vena V. Verga 102


Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

order is made, the accused, if in custody, shall not be discharged In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused satisfies or serves in
unless admitted to bail. If no order is made or if having been made, no whole or in part the judgment, he shall be credited with the same in
new information is filed within the time specified in the order or within the event of conviction for the graver offense.
such further time as the court may allow for good cause, the accused,
if in custody, shall be discharged unless he is also in custody of Section 8. Provisional dismissal. – A case shall not be provisionally
another charge. dismissed except with the express consent of the accused and with
notice to the offended party.
Section 6. Order sustaining the motion to quash not a bar to another
prosecution; exception. – An order sustaining the motion to quash is The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not
not a bar to another prosecution for the same offense unless the exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any amount, or both, shall become
motion was based on the grounds specified in section 3 (g) and (i) of permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case
this Rule. having been revived. With respect to offenses punishable by
imprisonment of more than six (6) years, their provisional dismissal
shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order
Section 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. – When an without the case having been revived.
accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a
court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information Note:
or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
• A case can only be dismissed provisionally if the accused expressly
conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the
consents, and with notice to the offended party. Provisional
conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall
dismissal does not place the accused in double jeopardy. But, ff
be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any
the accused objects to the provisional dismissal, a revival of the
attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense
case would place him in double jeopardy.
which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense
• The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment
charged in the former complaint or information.
exceeding 6 years or a fine of any amount shall become permanent
after 1 year without the case having been revived.
However, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another • For offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 years, the
prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense provisional dismissal shall become permanent after 2 years
charged in the former complaint or information under any of the without the case having been revived.
following instances:
After the provisional dismissal becomes final, the accused cannot
(a) the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from be prosecuted anymore.
the same act or omission constituting the former charge;

(b) the facts constituting the graver charge became known or were Section 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefore.
discovered only after a plea was entered in the former complaint or – The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash
information; or before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did
not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion,
shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except those based on the
(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the
grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of
consent of the prosecutor and of the offended party except as provided
this Rule.
in section 1(f) of Rule 116.

II. Constitutional Law Notes


Vena V. Verga 103
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

(2) erroneous judgment that has attained finality


(3) dismissed on prescription
(4) dismissal was due to violation o the
SECTION 21 NO PERSON SHALL BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OR
defendant’s right to speedy trial
PUNISHMENT FOR THE SAME OFFENSE. IF AN ACT IS PUNISHED BY
Note: Acquittal, the case was decided based on merits but the
LAW AND AN ORDINANCE, CONVICTION OR ACQUITTAL UNDER
prosecution was not able to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
EITHER SHALL CONSTITUTE A BAR TO ANOTHER PROSECUTION FOR
Dismissal is based on the allegation of the court’s jurisdiction, or any
THE SAME ACT.
other ground that does not decide the merits of the issue.
(b) Final Conviction
(1) appeal period expires
• Jeopardy means danger (2) service of sentence has been totally or
• Requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy: partially served
1) FIRST JEOPARDY MUST ATTACHED PRIOR TO THE SECOND (3) express waiver in writting
(a) upon a valid information or indictment (4) applied for probation
(1) complaint (c) dismissal of the case based on the merits – lack of evidence
(2) information 3) SECOND JEOPARDY MUST BE FOR THE SAME OFFENSE
Note: both substance and form must be valid: (a) identical
(1) substance – when the complain adequately informed the (b) when it is an attempt or frustration of the other
accused of the nature and cause of the accusations which (c) when it is necessarily included in the first offense or when it
means that: includes the first offense
1.1 the essential facts are alleged (d) subject to the doctrine of supervening fact/event
1.2 the legal description of the offense is alleged  One may be charged for the same act if it constitutes at least two
1.3 in ordinary and concise language different offenses under two statutes or two ordinances as provided by
(2) form the elements of committing the crime. Conviction or acquittal in one
Note: if defective, the remedy is to quash the information will serve as a bar to prosecution under the other. This does not apply
to continuing crimes.
(b) there must be a competent court with jurisdiction to hear and  DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING FACT – where after the first prosecution,
decide the case (geographical – proper place; and a new fact supervenes, for which the defendant is responsible, which
jurisdictional – has jurisdiction over the crime aspects) together with the existing facts, changes the character of the offense,
Note: if filed in improper court, remedy is dismissal such constitutes a new and distinct offense – and the accused cannot
(c) After arraignment – without this, the court has no jurisdiction be said to be in double jeopardy if indicted for the new offense.
over the body of the accused RATIONALE: the rule of identity of offense does not apply when the second
(d) After a valid plea – there must be no withdrawal of original offense was not in existence at the time of the first prosecution –for the simple
plea. reason that in such case, there is no possibility of convicting the accused
(1) the accused must know enough about the during the first prosecution for yet inexistent second offense.
cause and nature of the offense charged
against him/her
(2) if the guilty plea is entered, the court cannot A. ATTACHMENT OF JEOPARDY
summarily convict the accused on the basis of
evidence to prove mitigating circumstance, to PEOPLE vs. YLAGAN
do so would deprive the state of due process – Arraignment and plea constitute the final step in the commencement of
first jeopardy does not attach. jeopardy. It is at the arraignment and plea that issues are joined. Jeopardy
2) FIRST JEOPARDY MUST HAVE TERMINATED attaches (a) upon a good indictment, (b) before competent court, (c) after
(a) upon acquittal arraignment, (d) after plea.
(1) failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt
Vena V. Verga 104
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

PEOPLE vs. BALISACAN substantial rights of the accused or the right of the People to due process of
The nature of Balicasacan’s evidence amounted to withdrawal of his plea of law.
guilty, and since no new plea was entered, there was no jeopardy, which the
acquittal could terminate. The decision of the judge based on his belief that arraignment which was
immediately followed by the dismissal of the case would forever be foreclosed,
CINCO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN on the ground of double jeopardy, any reopening of the case, is void.
Petitioners apprehension that they might be put in JEOPARDY of being charged
with informations or crimes other than the crime imputed is baseless. No DELA ROSA vs. CA
DOUBLE JEOPARDY as they have not yet pleaded to the offense. A preliminary Double jeopardy cannot apply in the instant case. The requisites that must
investigation is not a trial for which double jeopardy attaches. It is merely occur for legal jeopardy to attach are: (a) a valid complaint or information; (b)
inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering the persons who may a court of competent jurisdiction; (c) the accused has pleaded to the charge;
be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the fiscal to prepare his and (d) the accused has been convicted or acquitted or the case dismissed or
complaint or information. terminated without the express consent of the accused. The fourth requisite is
lacking. The dismissal of the case was upon the motion of the petitioner as
NAVALLO vs. SANDIGAN BAYAN shown by the records.
P.D. 1606 is explicit and clear. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the
case of petitioner. PEOPLE vs. CAWALINGAAppellants were never arraigned, they never
When all elements are present, a second prosecution for (a) same offense, pleaded before the Judge Advocate General’s Office, there was no trial,
or (b) an attempt to commit the said offense, or (c) a frustration of the said and no judgment on the merits had been rendered. Therefore, first
offense, or (d) any offense which necessarily includes, or is necessarily jeopardy never attached.
included in the first offense charged, can rightly be barred.
In the case at bench, the RTC was devoid of jurisdiction when it conducted
an arraignment of the accused, which by then had already been conferred on CUDIA vs. CA
the Sandiganbayan. Moreover, neither did the case there terminate with (cure for defective jurisdiction and filing of info; valid complaint)
conviction or acquittal nor was it dismissed.
There is no breach of the constitutional prohibition against double
CUNANAN vs. ARCEO jeopardy for the reason that the absence of the authority of the city
(murder; transfer to Sandiganbayan before RTC made a decision) prosecutor.
The dismissal of the Information by the RTC was not equivalent to, and
did not operate as an acquittal of petitioner of that offense. The
“dismissal” (later deleted by the RTC) had simply reflected the fact PEOPLE vs. MAQUILING
that the proceedings before the RTC were terminated, the RTC having An appeal or a petition for review of a judgment of acquittal is barred
ascertained that it had not jurisdiction to try the case at all. No double by the rule on double jeopardy.
jeopardy when case transferred to Sandiganbayan after trial but
before decision was rendered at the RTC. RTC had no jurisdiction, B. TERMINATION OF JEOPARDY
therefore accused was not in jeopardy.
BULALONG vs. PEOPLE
PEOPLE vs. MONTESA It is the conviction, acquittal of the accused or dismissal or termination of the
Once a criminal complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition case that bars further prosecution for the same offense or any attempt to
(dismissal or conviction), rests in the sound discretion of the court. While the commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily
prosecutor retains the discretion and control of the prosecution of the case, he includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former
cannot impose his opinion on the court. Accordingly, a motion to dismiss the complaint or information.
case filed by the prosecutor after a reinvestigation should be addressed to the
discretion of the court. The action of the court must not, however, impair the BUSTAMANTE vs. MACEREN

Vena V. Verga 105


Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

As a general rule, where the defendant has executed or entered upon the 4) a valid plea entered by him
execution of a valid sentence, the court cannot, even during the 15-day period, The acquittal or conviction of the accused, or the dismissal or termination of
set aside and render a new sentence. the case against him without his express consent
Two exceptions to the foregoing rule:
A judgment of conviction may only be modified or set aside before it has 1. insufficiency of charge against the accused
become final or appeal has been perfected. A judgment becomes final when no 2. unreasonable delay in the proceedings (violation of rt. To speedy
appeal is filed or the defendant has totally or partially satisfied the sentence. disposition of trial)

PEOPLE vs. OBSTANSIA PEOPLE vs. ROMERO


The application of the sister doctrines of waiver and estoppel requires two sine There can be no double jeopardy where dismissal was granted on the ground
qua non conditions: first, the dismissal must be sought or induced by the of denial of the right to a speedy trial. The dismissal in this case was with the
defendant personally or through his counsel; and second, such dismissal must consent of the accused.
not be on the merits and must not necessarily amount to an acquittal.
Indubitably, the case at bar falls squarely within the periphery of the said PEOPLE vs. PABLO
doctrines, which have been preserved unimpaired in the corpus of our When dismissal constitutes abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisprudence. Hence, the accused cannot plead double jeopardy. jurisdiction, the dismissal is invalid and is therefore no bat to reinstatement of
the case.
RIVERA vs. PEOPLE
Verbal dismissal is not final until written and signed by the judge C. RULE ON SUPERVENING ACTS

PEOPLE vs. BELLAFLOR MELO vs. PEOPLE


Protection against double jeopardy is not available where the dismissal of the The rule for the identity if offenses do not apply when the second offense was
case was effected at the instance of the accused. not in existence at the time of the first prosecution. Where after the fist
prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the defendant for which the
MERCIALES vs. CA defendant is responsible, which changes the character of the offense and
The acquittal of the accused by the court a quo was done without due regard to together with the facts existing at the time, constitute a new and distinct
due process of law, the same is null and void. It is as if there is no acquittal at offense, the accused cannot be said to be in double jeopardy of indicted for the
all, and the same cannot constitute a claim for double jeopardy. new offense.

POSO vs. MEJIARES PEOPLE vs. BULING


Lowering of the penalty to qualify the accused for probation, the authorization Where the exact nature of the injury could have been discovered, but was not,
for temporary liberty on recognizance and finally the grant of probation, the because of the incompetence of the physician, the subsequent discovery of the
orders of the respondent judge arising from these proceedings do not real extent of the injury would not be supervening fact which could warrant the
constitute res judicata or even double jeopardy. Melo doctrine.

PEOPLE vs. ALBERTO D. SAME OFFENSES


No double jeopardy has attached when order made by the trial court was not
valid. PEOPLE vs. TIOZON
Double jeopardy can be invoked only if the offenses committed are the same
CONRADA vs. PEOPLE and identical. Offenses committed arising from the same set of facts but
General rule: following requisites must be present for double jeopardy to defined in 2 different laws or provisions of the same law, where the elements
attach: of one of the offenses are not essential elements of the other, prior jeopardy as
1) a valid indictment to one of them does not bar the prosecution.
2) before a court of competent jurisdiction
3) the arraignment of the accused GONZALEZ vs. CA
Vena V. Verga 106
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Rape and qualified seduction are not identical offenses. While the two felonies F. PARTIES
have one common element, i.e. carnal knowledge of a woman, they
significantly vary in all other respects. METROBANK vs. MERIDIANO
That there is no indication that the trial was a sham, a review and consequent
PEOPLE vs. MANUGAS setting aside of TC’s decision amounts to double jeopardy
A person who violates any of the provisions under Article 13(b) and Article 34
of the Labor Code can be charged and convicted separately of illegal G. ORDINANCE AND STATUTE
recruitment and estafa [RPC, Art 315, 2(a)] because illegal recruitment is a
malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for PEOPLE vs. RELOVA
a conviction while estafa is a malum in se where criminal intent of the accused When the offenses charged are penalized either by different section of the
is necessary for a conviction. same statue or by different statutes the important inquiry relates to the
PEOPLE vs. QUIJADA identity of the offenses charged. When the offense is charged under a
In the present case, they are separate offenses, the first punished under the municipal ordinance while the other is penalized by a statute. The critical
RPC and the second under a special law. inquiry is to the identity f the acts which the accused is said to have
When the offenses charged are penalized by different sections of the same committed. If the acts are the same.
statute or by different statutes, the important inquiry relates to the identity of
offenses charged. The elements of illegal possession of firearm in its
aggravated form are different from the elements of homicide or murder; these RULE 118
crimes are defined and penalized under different laws and the former is malum PRE-TRIAL
prohibitum while the latter are mala in se. No violation of the constitutional bar
against double jeopardy
Section 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. – In all criminal
cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court,
PEOPLE vs. BALLABARE
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial
Homicide/murder committed through use of unlicensed firearm is punished in
Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the court shall, after
the aggravated form of illegal possession of firearm under PD 1866 but
arraignment and within thirty (30) days from the date the court
People v. Quijada states that the person can be guilty of 2 separate offenses
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a shorter
(under RPC and PD 1866 sec.1 par.2)
period is provided for in special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court,
order a pre-trial conference to consider the following:
PEOPLE vs. SALEY
Conviction for various offenses under the Labor Code does not bar the
punishment of the offender for estafa in RPC. (a) plea bargaining;
(b) stipulation of facts;
E. NO APPEAL FROM ACQUITTAL (c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties;
(d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
SAN VICENTE vs. PEOPLE (e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge
The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion of but interposes a lawful defense; and
the trial court, and its ruling on the matter will be respected absent any grave (f) such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the
abuse of discretion. A grant of demurrer is effectively an acquittal and any criminal and civil aspects of the case.
further prosecution of the accused would violate the Constitutional prohibition
on double jeopardy. This is an exception to the rule that the dismissal of a Note:
criminal case made with the express consent of the accused or upon his own • Pre-trial is mandatory in all criminal cases cognizable by the
motion bars a plea of double jeopardy. They call this the “Finality of Acquittal Sandiganbayan, RTC, MTCs and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
Rule”. • It should be conducted after arraignment and within 30 days from the date
the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
Vena V. Verga 107
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

• The following things are considered during a pre-trial:


The pre-trial order binds the parties, limits the trial to matters not
1. plea bargaining disposed of, and controls the course of the action during the trial,
2. stipulation of facts unless modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice.
3. marking for identification of evidence of the parties
4. waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence Definition of Plea Bargaining
5. modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the
charge but interposes a lawful defense It is the disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the
6. other matters that will promote a fair and expeditious trial of prosecution and the accused. It is encouraged because it leads to
the criminal and civil aspects of the case prompt and final disposition of most criminal cases. It shortens the
time between charge and disposition and enhances whatever may be
Section 2. Pre-trial agreement. – All agreements or admissions made the rehabilitative prospects of the guilty when they are ultimately
or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing imprisoned.
and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be
used against the accused. The agreements covering the matters It is not allowed under the Dangerous Drugs Act where the imposable
referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be approved by the court. penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.

Note: Any agreement or admission entered into during the pre-trial


conference should be: FULE VS CA
162 SCRA 446 (1988)
1. in writing
2. Signed by the accused FACTS: The accused Manolo Fule was an agent of the Towers Assurance
3. Signed by counsel Corporation on or before 21 January 1981 drawn in favor of Roy Nadera in
4. Otherwise, it cannot be used against the accused. remittance of collection but the same was dishonored because the account was
already closed. At the hearing, petitioner waived the right to present evidence
and in lieu thereof, submitted a Memorandum affirming the stipulated facts.
The trial court convicted him of violation of the BP22 on the basis of the facts
Section 3. Non-appearance at pre-trial conference. – If the counsel for
stipulated by both parties in the pre-trial conference. The CA affirmed the
the accused or the prosecutor does not appear at the pre-trial
decision. Hence, this petition.
conference and does not offer an acceptable excuse for his lack of
cooperation, the court may impose proper sanctions or penalties.
ISSUE: W/N the lack of signature of the accused and his counsel in the
stipulation of facts during the pre-trial conference is admissible in evidence.
Section 4. Pre-trial order. – After the pre-trial conference, the court
shall issue an order reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated, and DECISION: Rule 118, Section 4 is mandatory because of the use of the word
evidence marked. Such order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to “shall.” The omission of the signature of the accused and his counsel renders
matters not disposed of, and control the course f the action during the the Stipulation of facts inadmissible in evidence. The fact that the lawyer
trial, unless modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice. confirmed the stipulation of facts in the memorandum did not cure the defect
because Rule 118 requires the signature of both the accused and his counsel.
A. Definition of a pre-trial order What the prosecution should have done was to present evidence to prove the
It is an order issued by the court after the pre-trial conference crime. Without said evidences, the guilt f the accused cannot be established.
containing: Hence, the CA decision is set aside and the case remanded for further trial.

1. a recital of the actions taken, PEOPLE VS HERNANDEZ


2. the facts stipulated, and 260 SCRA 25 (1996)
3. the evidence marked.
Vena V. Verga 108
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

FACTS: The accused Cristina Hernandez, the general manager of the Phil-Thai bargaining and stipulation of facts. The CA dismissed the MR on the ground
Association, Inc. in Ermita, Manila, recruited 14 people to work in Taipeh that the reinstatement of the case will place the accused in double jeopardy.
without the required license or authority from the POEA. She asked for Hence, this petition.
placement and passport fees which the complainants gave in installments.
After receiving the full amount, they were not able to leave for Taipeh despite ISSUE: W/N the absence of the witnesses in the pre-trial is a ground for
the assurance of the accused. They demanded the return of their money but to dismissal.
no avail. The accused was then charged with the crime of illegal recruitment in
large scale. She pleaded not guilty in the arraignment and trial on the merits DECISION: The absence during pre-trial of any witnesses for the prosecution
endued. The trial court found her guilty of the said crime. Hence, this petition. listed in the information, whether or not said witnesses is the offended party or
the complaining witness, is not a valid ground for the dismissal of a criminal
ISSUE: W/N the agreement or admission during the trial should be reduced case. Even the presence of the accused is not required unless directed by the
into writing and signed by the accused and his counsel, and should be allowed trial court. It is enough that the accused is represented by his counsel.
in the trial.
Even if none of the witnesses appeared, the trial should proceed since the
DECISION: No, the admission during the trial need not be in writing and public prosecutor appeared for the State. Hence, the trial court acted without
signed. A stipulation of facts in criminal cases is now expressly sanctioned by jurisdiction when it dismissed the case. However, the witnesses may be cited in
law pursuant to Rule 118. A stipulation of facts by the prosecution and defense contempt of court if their absence was unjustified.
counsel during trial in open court is automatically reduced into writing in the
transcript of proceedings of the court. The signature of the accused is RULE 119
unnecessary because his lawyer has authority to make admissions by CASES
pleadings, whether oral or written, and such are conclusive unless withdrawn.
For this purpose, the counsel acts as agent of the accused and the acts of the PEOPLE VS CHAVES
former binds the latter. The stipulation of facts should be allowed during the 397 SCRA 228 (2003)
trial to expedite the trial by dispensing with the presentation of evidence on
matters that the accused is willing to admit. FACTS: Informations for Multiple Murder for the killing of the Bucag family
were filed against eight accused. Only Felipe Galarion was tried and convicted.
It is evident in the case that the prosecution and the defense counsel Two years later, an amended information was filed impleading Felizardo Roxas
stipulated that the accused is neither licensed nor authorized by the POEA to as a co-accused. He engaged the services of Atty Miguel Paderanga. In the
recruit overseas workers and that this fact may be confirmed by the preliminary investigation, he implicated the lawyer as the mastermind. An
representative of the POEA should he take the witness stand. amended information was again filed. In the trial, the prosecution presented
Roxas as its first witness which Paderanga objected to. The court sustained the
PEOPLE VS TAC-AN objection in a hearing for the discharge as a state witness on the ground that it
398 SCRA 373 (2003) will violate his right to self-incrimination and that Roxas must first be
discharged as a state witness. Further, only the sworn statement of Roxas may
FACTS: The accused Mario Austria was the OIC Provincial Warden of the be admitted as evidence. The OSG filed a petition or certiorari which was
Batangas Provincial Jail when he took advantage of his position in falsifying a denied by the CA. Hence, this petition for review.
Memorandum Receipt for Equipment Semi-Expendable and Non-Expendable
Property, a public document of the said office, by stating that a Colt pistol with ISSUE: W/N the prosecution may present the testimony of Roxas as a hostile
40 rounds of ammunitions is a provincial government property issued to a witness.
civilian agent in connection with the performance of his official duties.
DECISION: The accused cannot be made a hostile witness for the prosecution,
Only three of the 14 witnesses were notified of the arraignment and pre-trial for to do so would compel him to be a witness against himself. However, he
but none of them appeared. Upon motion of the accused and objection of the may testify against a co-defendant where he has agreed to do so, with full
public prosecutor, the trial court dismissed the case on the ground that knowledge of his right and the consequences of his acts. It is not necessary
witnesses should be present during the trial to participate in the plea that the court discharges him first as state witness. According to Rule 119,
Vena V. Verga 109
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

Section 17, the trial court may direct the accused to be discharged with their never faltered in her narration of the essential elements of the subject offense,
consent after requiring the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn whether before the investigating judge or prosecutor, or the trial judge.
statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the
discharge. There is no distinction as to what evidence the prosecution may LUCES VS PEOPLE
present. In addition to the sworn statement, other evidences may be presented 395 SCRA 524 (2003)
to determine the existence of the conditions of the discharge. There is no
indication that the testimony of the accused may be excluded. However, it is FACTS: Dante Reginio, Nelson Magbanua and Clemente dela Gracia were on
still premature for private respondent to raise this question in the instant their way to the house of Didoy Elican when the accused Joel Luces collared
petition. Hence, the petition is granted. Dela Gracia and stabbed him in the chest which caused his death shortly
thereafter. The place was illuminated by a street light. Reginio and Magbanua
SANTOS VS PEOPLE executed sworn statements identifying the accused as the culprit. In the cross
395 SCRA 507 (2003) examination, an affidavit of desistance of Reginio was submitted but its
existence was denied by him. Meanwhile, Magbanua was presented as hostile
FACTS: Complainant 18 year old Transuelo de Jesus was about to buy a witness for the defense and executed an affidavit of desistance stating that the
mosquito coil in the store of Marina Ablaza when she was grabbed by the culprit was not Luces and might be other persons. The accused pleaded not
accused Virgilio Santos and pulled her to a vacant lot. He covered her mouth, guilty in the arraignment. However, the trial court still found the accused guilty
embraced, kissed, touched her private parts and poked the victim’s vagina with of homicide, which was affirmed by the CA. Hence, this petition for review.
his penis while holding a bladed weapon and threatening to kill her. The
accused left when her mother called her. The next morning, she told the ISSUE: W/N the affidavits of desistance should be considered by the court.
incident to her mother. They then filed a complaint with the barangay
chairman, MTC and the Provincial Prosecutor but the same was dismissed. DECISION: The affidavits of desistance relied upon by the petitioner as a
They appealed to the Justice Secretary who ordered the prosecutor to file a means to exculpate himself from criminal liability was sufficiently impeached by
criminal complaint against the accused for attempted rape. The trial court the testimonial evidence of the very same persons who allegedly executed the
found the accused guilty. Later, the accused filed a motion for new trial or same. Reginio declared that the signature found therein was not his, while
reconsideration attaching sworn statements of desistance of Transuelo and Magbanua merely signed it out of pity for petitioner’s wife. As between the
witness Emeteria de Jesus. However, the court still found him guilty, which affidavits of desistance and the sworn testimonies of the witnesses before the
decision was affirmed by the CA. Hence, this appeal. court, the latter should prevail. An affidavit of desistance obtained as an
afterthought and through intimidation or undue pressure attains no probative
ISSUE: W/N the affidavit of desistance by a witness after conviction of the value in light of the affiant’s testimony to the contrary.
accused may be a ground for the dismissal of the case.
Further, the testimony of the notary public whose only participation was to
DECISION: An affidavit of desistance made by a witness after conviction of the administer the oath to the persons who signed the affidavits and who did not
accused is not reliable and deserves only scant attention. The affidavits of ascertain if the persons who appeared before her and represented themselves
desistance filed by the private complainant and her witnesses were executed as the affiants were indeed the same persons cannot outweigh the testimony
12 days after the promulgation of judgment of conviction and are clearly mere of said persons denying the veracity of said affidavit.
afterthoughts. Hence, they cannot have the effect of negating a previous
credible declaration. SALAZAR VS PEOPLE
411 SCRA 598 (2003)
Not all kinds of discrepancies and inconsistencies in testimonies have the effect
of discrediting a witness. In the case at bar, the discrepancies and FACTS: An information for estafa was filed against Anamer Salazar and Nena
inconsistencies refer to the time and place when the private complainant met Jaucian Timario with the Legazpi RTC which alleged that the two conspired in
and told her mother-in-law about the incident. These are mere collateral that the latter issued a check in favor of J. Y. Brothers Marketing Corporation
matters inconsequential in the determination of the criminal liability of the and the former endorsed and negotiated it as payment for the 300 cavans of
accused. More important is the spontaneous, categorical and straightforward rice obtained from the J. Y Brothers knowing that the same had no sufficient
testimony of the private complainant on the violation against her person. She funds. The check was dishonored and the accused refused to pay despite
Vena V. Verga 110
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

demands to the prejudice of J. Y Brothers. After the prosecutor rested its case, that the reinstatement of the case will place the accused in double jeopardy.
petitioner filed a Demurrer to Evidence with Leave of Court on the ground that Hence, this petition.
she could not be charged since she is merely an indorser and only the issuer is
punished by the law; that there was no evidence of conspiracy; and that the ISSUE: W/N the trial of the case should continue.
dishonored check was replaced by a second one, which is a novation of the first
transaction. Moreover, the dishonor of the second check was a result of Drawn DECISION: The accused is entitled to a speedy trial. The accused cannot use
against uncollected deposit which means that there are sufficient funds but is the absence of the witnesses as a ground for violation of his right to a speedy
restricted since the check was not yet cleared. The trial court acquitted trial. Even if none of the witnesses appeared, the trial should proceed since the
petitioner of the crime but ordered her to remit the amount to the complainant. public prosecutor appeared for the State and the case may not be dismissed on
Conspiracy was also not proved. Petitioner then filed a MR of the civil aspect the ground that no witnesses appeared before the court.
with a plea that he be allowed to present evidence that she was not civilly
liable. PEOPLE VS TEE
395 SCRA 419 (2003)
ISSUE: W/N the Demurrer to Evidence may be granted.
FACTS: Prosecution witness Danilo Abratique, a taxi driver, was hired by
DECISION: If demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted by the court, appellant Modesto Tee to transport boxes of blue seal cigarettes which were in
the accused has the right to adduce evidence in the civil aspect of the case fact marijuana to the rented house owned by Albert Ballesteros. Ballesteros
unless the court also declares that the act or omission from which the civil asked for its removal. Abratique was again hired to transport the contraband to
liability may arise did not exist. a room in his grandmother’s house which was managed by his aunt. Bothered
by the nature of the goods, Abratique’s aunt, Nazarea Abreau, confided the
In the case, petitioner was charged with estafa. The civil action arising from matter to her daughter Alice who disclosed the same to his brother-in-law who
the delict was impliedly instituted since there was no waiver by the private was an NBI agent. The NBI and PNP NARCOM conducted a joint operation. With
offended party of the civil liability nor a reservation of the criminal action. The permission of Nazarea, they entered the room, searched the premises and
petitioner was granted leave of court to file a demurrer on its finding that the found therein 4 boxes and 13 sacks of marijuana totaling 336.93 kilograms.
liability of the petitioner was not criminal but only civil. However, the court Later in the evening, the NBI special agent and Abratique as witness applied
rendered judgment on the civil aspect of the case and ordered the petitioner to for a search warrant from Judge Reyes at his residence. When the Clerk of
pay for her purchases from the complainant even before the petitioner could Court arrived, the judge questioned them and then issued a warrant to search
adduce evidence thereon. Patently, therefore, the petitioner was denied her the house of appellant for marijuana in Baguio. The agents served the warrant
right to due process. to the appellant himself. They were able to seize 26 boxes and a sack of dried
marijuana in the water tank, garage, and store room of the residence with the
PEOPLE VS TAC-AN presence of appellant, members of his family, barangay officials and the
398 SCRA 373 (2003) media. Appellant alleged that the evidences were illegally acquired, hence,
inadmissible. Further, the search warrant was too general and did not follow
FACTS: The accused Mario Austria was the OIC Provincial Warden of the the constitutional requirements for the issuance of a search warrant. The trial
Batangas Provincial Jail when he took advantage of his position in falsifying a court held that the evidence was illegally obtained hence, inadmissible. The TC
Memorandum Receipt for Equipment Semi-Expendable and Non-Expendable acquitted him of the charge but convicted him illegal possession of marijuana.
Property, a public document of the said office, by stating that a Colt pistol with Hence, this automatic review.
40 rounds of ammunitions is a provincial government property issued to a
civilian agent in connection with the performance of his official duties. ISSUE: W/N the absence of the prosecution witness violated appellant’s right
to a speedy trial.
Only three of the 14 witnesses were notified of the arraignment and pre-trial
but none of them appeared. Upon motion of the accused and objection of the DECISION: There is no showing that the prosecution capriciously caused the
public prosecutor, the trial court dismissed the case on the ground that absences of the prosecution witness Abratique which totaled 20 hearing days
witnesses should be present during the trial to participate in the plea so as to vex or oppress appellant and deny him his rights. Abratique repeatedly
bargaining and stipulation of facts. The CA dismissed the MR on the ground failed to show up for the taking of his testimony. The prosecution even prayed
Vena V. Verga 111
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

for the court’s order for Abratique’s arrest to compel his attendance. The PEOPLE VS BON
prosecution tried to get the NBI to produce him but to no avail. Eventually, the 396 SCRA 506 (2003)
trial court ordered the prosecution to waive its right to present Abratique and
rest its case. The delay of 20 hearing days is not an unreasonable length of FACTS: Maricris Bonode, then 6 years old, is staying at their house along with
time. Further, Modesto Tee did not object to the inability of the prosecution to the accused Nemesio Bon, a brother of her mother Violeta. One afternoon,
produce its witnesses. Appellant could have moved to require the witness to Violeta saw the accused lying on top of her daughter. The accused was wearing
post bail, or to hold him in contempt. It is too late for the appellant to invoke pants while Maricris was wearing sando and shorts. Violeta inquired but
now his right to a speedy trial. In the absence of a showing that delays were Maricris cried. She learned from her youngest daughter that accused sexually
unreasonable and capricious, the State should not be deprived of a reasonable abused Maricris by poking her private part. Instead of confronting the accused,
opportunity of prosecuting an accused. Hence, appellant’s right to a speedy they transferred to Quezon Province. When Violeta learned that the accused
trial was not violated. was in jail for acts of lasciviousness, she revealed to her husband that the
accused molested their daughter. The PNP Medico-Legal Officer examined the
PEOPLE VS GAVINO victim and found that she is not anymore a virgin but there were no external
399 SCRA 285 (2003) signs of violence. An information for rape was then filed against the accused.
Trial on the merits ensued. The trial court found the accused guilty of rape and
FACTS: Wenna Gavino, a nine- year old minor, was ordered by appellant to sentenced him to death. Hence, this automatic review.
sleep beside him. Her brothers slept in the living room while her mother was
out on a teaching job. At about midnight, appellant hit her thrice and made her ISSUE: W/N the accused could be convicted of acts of lasciviousness on an
lie on the bed with her back against him. He inserted his fingers into her organ information charging rape.
before penetrating her. Appellant left her in pain and threatened to kill her if
she disclosed the same. The sexual assaults continued until Wenna was 15. DECISION: Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353, interpreting the
She was again raped. She then decided to tell her science teacher that insertion of one’s finger into the genitals of another as rape through sexual
appellant was beating her up but did not disclosed the sexual abuses. She was assault does not apply at the case at bar. The governing law during the
brought to the DSWD where she finally disclosed her ordeal. She executed a commission of the crime was Article 335 of the RPC, as amended by RA 7659,
statement to the police and had a medical examination. After the filing of the where insertion of one’s finger into the genitals of another does not amount to
rape charges, Wenna’s mother and two others fetched her and proceeded to rape. Nevertheless, the accused is not completely without liability. Although
Atty Demecillo where she signed a document which was an affidavit of the information charged the crime of rape, the accused can be convicted of
desistance. She was prevented to read its contents. Later, she went to the NBI acts of lasciviousness because it is included in rape and all the elements for the
and executed an affidavit of retraction deposing that she signed the desistance said crime were established. The judgment is then modified such that the
under duress. The defense presented several witnesses. After trial, the court accused is found guilty of acts of lasciviousness.
found him guilty of qualified rape and sentenced him to death. Hence, this
automatic review. PEOPLE VS HAMTON
395 SCRA 156 (2003)
ISSUE: W/N the affidavit of desistance was valid.
FACTS: Spouses Teofilo and Leonida Garcia were the sole distributors of Singer
DECISION: The prosecution duly established that Wenna signed Affidavit of Sewing Machines under the business name Garmer Industrial Machines. One
retraction under duress. Her relatives accosted her in school while she was morning, Jun Notarte and Reynold Yambot, both armed entered their office and
under the custody of the DSWD and took her to Agusan to sign the said announced a hold-up. After emptying the drawer of cash, they took Teofilo into
affidavit. Its content was not explained to Wenna nor was she given a chance a light gray Mitsubishi Lancer where Arnold Lopez and Arthur Pangilinan were
to read it. She was forced to sign the affidavit as she was threatened that she waiting. Teofilo was blindfolded in the back seat. His abductors took his gold
could not return to Cagayan de Oro city if she refused. ring, bracelet necklace, and cash. When he was led out of the office, Leonida
arrived and saw her husband. He approached the car and asked the abductors.
RULE 120 The appellant hit her instead on the nose with a gun. The car sped away. He
CASES was transferred into a trimobile where he was taken into room with no
windows and his left wrist chained into an iron grill. The appellant Adan Manalo
Vena V. Verga 112
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

called Leonida asking for 10 million pesos as ransom. After several calls and front of the accused who was then standing when the latter shot the former.
negotiations, the abductors agreed to a P1,200,000 ransom. They told her to The trial court promulgated its decision on 31 August 1994, but amended the
bring the money at the Magallanes flyover before 4pm, open the hood to make same on 5 September 1994. Both contained the same dispositive portion.
it appear that the pajero has engine trouble. Appellant would then stop beside Petitioner claimed that the amended decision was promulgated on 16
her car and after identifying himself as Adan, she should hand over the ransom September 1994 after he had perfected his appeal. The CA affirmed the lower
to him. However, she coordinated with the PACC under Col. Michael Ray court’s amended decision. Hence, this petition for certiorari.
Aquino who instructed her to go on with the pay-off and wear a green dress.
The pay-off took place. After assuring that they would drop him and give him ISSUE: W/N the amended decision was validly done by the trial court.
P300 for his taxi fare, they noticed a white Nissan Sentra pursuing them. When
they reached the intersection of Guadix and ADB Avenues, the abductors fired DECISION: A comparison of the decision and amended decision of the trial
at the PACC agents. Notarte escaped but Pangilinan and Yambot were court readily shows that no substantial variance exists. The trial court merely
captured. Teofilo was rescued and the ransom money and the unlicensed made more clear which side presented which witness, but the contents of their
firearms were recovered. Antonio Hamton was separately apprehended testimonies remained the same. As stated, the dispositive portions are
because he negotiated with Leonida for the ransom at the same time with the identical, and the same is consistent with the rest of both the decision and the
true abductors. He was able to extort P50,000 from her. amended decision. It can, therefore, be concluded that no prejudice resulted to
any party from the amendment, and that it referred only to insubstantial
An information for kidnapping and ransom was filed against the abductors. matters. The same is clearly well within the inherent powers of courts to
Later, a second information for illegal possession of firearms was filed. They amend and control their processes and orders to make them conformable to
pleaded not guilty but the court found them guilty of kidnapping for ransom law and justice. Furthermore, there is no showing that the records had been
and serious illegal detention and illegal possession of firearms. Hamton was forwarded to the CA at the time said amendment was effected.
found guilty of robbery. The appellants appealed alleging that the prosecution
failed to established conspiracy and that they were in physical and constructive PEOPLE VS ROMERO
possession of the firearms. 399 SCRA 386 (2003)

ISSUE: W/N the judgment was valid. FACTS: After drinking tuba in his house, Rodolfo Moreno and Augusto Ruba
went to the house of the brother of the appellant to drink beer and gin. Later,
DECISION: The fact that the judge who penned the decision was not the same the two left and while in the national road, they saw appellant Paquito Romero
one who had heard the testimonies of all the witnesses is not a compelling in a squatting position because the place was illuminated by a fluorescent light
reason to jettison the findings of the court a quo. This circumstance does not two meters away. As Ruba passed, appellant stood and struck him with an air
ipso facto render the judgment erroneous, more so when it appears to be fully pump at the back of the head. Moreno ran. He related the incident to Ruba’s
supported by the evidence on record. While a judge in such a situation has no father. When they returned to the scene and brought him to the hospital, the
way to test the credibility of all the witnesses, since he did not have the unique victim’s sister Corazon Junsay said the name of Paquito with whom the victim
opportunity of observing their demeanor and behavior under oath, the trail replied with a clenched fist. The investigating officer went to the hospital and
court’s findings are nonetheless binding on this court when these are ably asked the victim the identity of the appellant. The victim replied that it was
supported by the evidence on record. Unless there is a clear showing of grave Paquito Romero. The questions and answers were reduced into writing and was
abuse of discretion, the validity of a decision is not necessarily impaired by the thumbmarked by the victim and signed by the doctor and the victim’s sister as
fact that its ponente only took over from a colleague who had earlier presided witnesses. An information for murder was then filed against the appellant. The
at the trial. parties agreed that the appellant would enter a plea of guilty to a lesser
offense of homicide. The court issued an order that the prosecution accepted
UNIDAD VS CA the plea under the conditions that there would be no modifying circumstances,
399 SCRA 27 (2003) reimbursement of expenses and civil indemnity and recommendation of the
penalty of prision mayor. Before the court rendered a decision, the prosecution
FACTS: Petitioner Reynaldo Criste Unidad, the Chief Operations Officer of the moved for the re-opening of the case on the ground that appellant violated the
WPD was charged with homicide in an information filed before the court. conditions when he refused to pay the victim’s father. The court granted it and
Testimonies and evidences revealed that the victim was kneeling or sitting in commenced with the trial. Appellant however filed a motion to dismiss on the
Vena V. Verga 113
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

ground of double jeopardy which was denied and later convicted the accused of ISSUE: W/N the motion for reinvestigation may be granted on the ground of
murder. Hence, this appeal. newly discovered evidence.

ISSUE: W/N there was already a judgment when the court issued the order DECISION: Taduyo’s affidavit is not newly discovered evidence. It could have
granting the lesser plea. easily been produced during the investigation of the case. There was no
showing of Taduyo’s non-availability at the time of the investigation or the
DECISION: The trial court was correct in holding that there was no double absence of the correspondence between the Mayor and IDC. Also, assuming
jeopardy in the case considering that it was terminated as a result of that said affidavit could not have been reasonably produced during the
appellant’s acquittal, conviction or dismissal. The order approving the guilty investigation still it can not qualify as newly discovered evidence because it
plea to homicide, with conditions, was not a judgment of conviction. The was not material to the issue. It merely stated the letter request. There was no
dispositive portion of the said order which in part reads “Wherefore, in view of allegation that he actually saw or had personal knowledge of the repairs by
the foregoing, this case is deemed submitted for decision” clearly shows that petitioners through Caroline Construction. Hence, the Sandiganbayan correctly
the trial court still had to render a decision on the criminal and civil liabilities of dismissed the motion for reinvestigation.
the appellant. The said order merely approved the agreement between the
parties on the new plea to a lesser offense by the appellant and the conditions PEOPLE VS DATU
attached to it. The trial court neither sentenced the accused nor made any 397 SCRA 695 (2003)
ruling on the civil indemnity in favor of the heirs of the victim.
FACTS: Appellant Romeo Datu is engaged in selling hardware and construction
RULE 121 materials in Aurora, Isabela which is also the line of business of the victim
CASES Antonio Chan in Burgos, Isabela. Datu sold an Isuzu dump truck to Chan for
P480,000, the latter issuing 4 postdated checks as payment. Three of the
AMARILLO VS SANDIGANBAYAN checks were encashed but Chan stopped payment for the fourth check to
396 SCRA 434 (2003) accommodate Amadeo Yap for unpaid lumber which Datu bought from Yap.
Datu confronted Chan about the dishonored check and refused to entertain
FACTS: Petitioners who are all officials of the DPWH Aurora Engineering District Chan’s explanation. He hurled threats against Chan’s employees. He employed
together with Carolina Querijero, a private contractor were charged with several persons including Batuelo and witness Madayag whom he promised to
falsification of public documents. They simulated a contract for the repair of the pay P10,000. The assailants boarded a white Mitsubishi L-300 van, went to
Pugo and Dyos bridges which were damaged by flashfloods. In the preliminary Chan’s compound and hid. When Chan came out, they rushed to him. Chan
investigation, the investigator considered the certifications of the Bgy was able to struck Madayag with a wood in the forehead. Batuelo sprayed tear
chairperson and kagawad, social welfare officer and the Municipal agriculturist. gas on Chan until he was finally subdued. One of the assailants tied a rope
The certificates in effect averred that no repair was made and that the around the victim’s neck and hung him in the basement of the house. Susan,
flashfloods occurred on Dec. 24, 1995. Petitioner Querijero submitted a the victim’s wife, stood up from her sleep, saw the appellants and her
photocopy of the letter of the request of the mayor to utilize the crane and husband, shouted for help and then collapsed. The appellants left. After his
boom of Industrial Development Corporation and a letter of the IDC General wound healed, Madayag returned to Datu to collect the balance of P9,000 but
Manager granting the said request. Finding sufficient ground, an information his sister told him that 3 men were looking for him. He then decided to disclose
for estafa through falsification of official documents was filed with the the crime to his wife and then to his wife’s second cousin, Sgt. Flordelito
Sandiganbayan. The information was amended to cure some defects such as Sabuyas who arranged a meeting with his camp’s provost marshal, Col.
the non-inclusion of the phrase “committing the offense in relation to office. Hernani Acosta. Madayag agreed to execute a statement implicating the
Petitioners filed a motion for leave of court to file a motion for reinvestigation appellants in exchange for the forgiveness of Susan. The appellants raised the
on the ground of newly discovered evidence consisting of an affidavit of the defense of denial and alibi. An information for murder was then filed. As
administrative officer of IDC that the mayor requested IDC for the utilization of directed by the court, the information was amended to include Madayag as one
its equipments for the repair of the bridges. The Sandiganbayan denied the of the accused. Later, Madayag was discharged as a state witness. The
motion. Hence, this petition. appellants were convicted as charged. The appellants filed a motion for new
trial/mistrial on the ground that witness Sgt. Sabuyas executed an affidavit of
retraction that Susan and Madayag framed up the appellants which motion was
Vena V. Verga 114
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

denied. Another motion for new trial was filed in light of an affidavit by upon to render such judgment as the law and justice dictate whether favorable
Roosevelt Salvador that Madayag was physically manhandled to testify for the or unfavorable to him, and whether they are assigned as errors or not. Such an
prosecution, which motion was again denied. Hence, this automatic review. appeal confers upon the appellate court full jurisdiction and renders it
competent to examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from,
ISSUE: W/N the motion for new trial may be granted on the ground of newly increase the penalty and cite the proper provision of the penal law.
discovered evidence.
The identity of the accused was clearly and positively established not only by
DECISION: The affidavit of Salvador declaring that he and other military men Salvador Galvez, Jr., who knew the accused for many years, but also by the
including Sabuyas abducted, manhandled and physically abused Madayag to prosecution witness Rodney Albito, who was not known to have any
admit complicity in the killing of Chan, and as a state witness, to implicate misunderstanding or grudge against him. This finding of the trial court is
appellant Datu. Salvador further said that Madayag agreed to cooperate after binding and conclusive on the appellate court unless some facts of weight and
Susan offered him a reasonable financial package for his testimony. Such substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.
statement after the trial was finished is evidence which appellants could not
have secured during the trial such that it must be considered as newly The Court agrees with the trial court that the killing of David Galvez was
discovered evidence that may be presented in a new trial. As a rule, attended by treachery because it was established that there was a sudden
recantations are regarded with disfavor as it can be easily secured from a poor attack without provocation on Galvez who was squatting on one side of the
and ignorant witness for monetary consideration. However, since the penalty road with his head bent down. Galvez was not in a position to defend himself.
imposed is death, the testimony of Sabuyas is worthy of note and key to the On the other hand, the trial court erred in finding that the attack on Salvador
solution of the case. There should be no of shadow of doubt in the case that was not treacherous. The sudden and unexpected attack without provocation
may vitiate the result. Every piece of pertinent evidence must be adduced on Salvador, who was just talking to Henry Hualde in front of his store, showed
before the trial court. Hence, the new trial may be granted and the case that treachery attended the shooting. He could not defend himself from such
remanded for further proceedings. assault. True, the victim was able to fire back at his assailant. However, he
was able to do so only after he was mortally wounded by the treacherous
RULE 122 attack made by the accused. His recovery due to the timely medical
CASES intervention does not diminish the treacherous character of the attack. Hence,
the accused is guilty of murder, qualified by treachery, for the killing of David
PEOPLE VS PINUELA Galvez. He also guilty of frustrated murder for the near fatal shooting of
396 SCRA 561 (2003) Salvador Galvez, considering that the same was attended by treachery.

FACTS: One morning, Salvador Galvez was talking to Henry Hualde in front of PEOPLE VS MANLUCTAO
his store. David Galvez and Rodney Albito were cleaning their trisikad while 404 SCRA 580 (2003)
Victor Penasales was a nearby water vendor. Suddenly, the accused alighted
from a trisikad and shot David at the head. He then fired 5 times at Salvador FACTS: Marcelina Manluctao was then 13 years old when she was first raped
hitting him in the abdomen and right thigh. Salvador fired back but missed. by her father, Romeo Manluctao. The rape took place when the appellant
Both were taken to the hospital but only Salvador survived. Two informations ordered her siblings to go out and told her to go to her room. In her room, the
for frustrated murder and murder were filed against the accused. The two appellant kissed her, touched her private parts, inserted his penis and did a
cases were jointly tried. The trial court convicted him of murder and frustrated push and pull movements. She cried and resisted but she could not do
homicide. Hence, this appeal. anything because she was threatened by a knife. This was repeated three more
times but Marcelina did not give any details or particulars on the third incident.
ISSUE: W/N the appellate court may correct errors in the judgment of the Appellant was charged with 4 counts of rape in separate charge sheets. He
lower court on appeal. pleaded guilty to all 4 charges with the assistance of a counsel de officio. The
defense admitted the minority of the victim, the child of the victim, his
DECISION: When an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he paternity and his identity. Only the prosecution presented its evidences. The
waives his constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the trial court convicted the appellant in all four cases with death as penalty in
whole case open for to the review of the appellate court, which is then called each of them. Hence, this automatic review.
Vena V. Verga 115
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

the OSG had filed the Brief for appellee. However, the Court had required
ISSUE: W/N the appellate court may correct errors in the judgment of the appellant to file his reply brief. It could therefore be said that the appellant had
lower court on appeal. not yet completed the process of filing briefs when he moved to withdraw his
appeal, a situation which may call for a more liberal rule. Appellant is a hardly
DECISION: An appeal or automatic appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the illiterate functionally and of very low socio-economic standing as a mere
whole case open for review, and it is the duty of the reviewing court to correct bangus fry catcher. In making his appeal, he is actually wagering his life as
errors as it may find in the lower court’s judgment, regardless of whether it is against his sentence below. Regardless of his reasons, it is within his rights to
assigned as an error or not. seek such withdrawal. Hence, in the interest of justice and in the exercise of
sound discretion of the court, the withdrawal of the appeal may be granted. He
The Court agrees with the trial court that complainant’s testimony alone is will thus remain in custody and serve the sentence imposed upon him by the
sufficient in the conviction of appellant. The crying of the victim on the witness lower court.
stand is evidence of the truth of the rape charges, for the display of such
emotions indicates the pain that she feels as she recounts the details of her NAYA VS ABING
sordid experience. 398 SCRA 364 (2003)

In the third incident of rape, the victim did not provide details, but the FACTS: Orlando Naya, as seller, and Abraham and Guillerma Abing, as buyers,
elements of rape on that incident have been sufficiently established. However, entered into a contract to sell two parcels of land for P60,000 payable in
both the qualifying circumstances of age of the victim and her relationship with monthly installments of P1,015.74 for five years after paying a downpayment
the accused were not alleged in the information. Such failure is fatal and bars of P20,000. Naya bound himself to execute a deed of sale and deliver the title
conviction of the accused in its qualified form which is punishable by death. free from encumbrances and liens upon full payment of the price. Naya paid
Hence, he could only be convicted of simple rape with the penalty of reclusion P2,000 a month even in excess of the amount agreed upon. Unknown to Abing,
perpetua, not death. Naya sold his lots including the disputed lots to William Po for P200,000, Naya
represented that he is the owner of the same. Abing continued remitting
PEOPLE VS PARADEZA payments to which Naya issued the corresponding receipts until the spouses
397 SCRA 151 (2003) had paid P54,000. Naya consented to the construction of a fence and a house
or warehouse by Abing. The spouses bought hollow blocks worth P40,000.
FACTS: One evening, Lailani Gayas was at their house in Zambales with her However, hey were evicted from the property by Po and the hollow blocks
younger brother who was watching TV. She was about to go out of their house remained unused. Subsequently, the spouse learned of the second sale. An
when she was grabbed by Romeo Paradeza back into the house. He laid her in information for estafa was then filed against Naya after a preliminary
a bamboo bed, undressed her, took out a knife, fondled her breasts, and had investigation. After the prosecution had presented its evidence, the court set
carnal knowledge with her while covering her mouth. After satiating his lust, he the case for continuation for Naya to present its evidence. However, his
went home. Gayas, who was 26 years old but has the mental ability of a 6 or 7 counsel failed to appear. The court then issued an order that the accused had
year old child, told her mother and grandmother about the incident. She was waived his right to adduce evidences. The court convicted him of estafa which
examined and was found to be mentally retarded. He was then charged with was affirmed by the CA. Hence, this appeal.
rape. He pleaded not guilty with the assistance of a counsel de parte. The trial
court convicted him of the crime charged. Appellant filed a notice of appeal. ISSUE: W/N the appellate court may correct errors in judgment whether
Both the appellant and appellee filed their briefs. However, the Public assigned or not.
Attorney’s Office filed a motion to withdraw appeal.
DECISION: An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for
ISSUE: W/N the court may grant the motion to withdraw the appeal filed by review and the appellate court is mandated to correct any error in the appealed
the appellant. judgment whether this is assigned as an error or has not assigned as error the
issue of whether or not under the information petitioner was charged with and
DECISION: The withdrawal of an appeal is a matter of right before the filing of may be convicted of estafa under Article 316(2) of the RPC.
the appellee’s brief. After that, withdrawal may be allowed in the discretion of
the court. The appellant’s motion to withdraw his appeal was made only after
Vena V. Verga 116
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

There was no allegation in the information that petitioner expressly maintained his story and did not waiver even when he was subjected to
represented in the sale of the subject property to Po that the said property was rigorous probing during the cross-examination.
free from any encumbrance. Irrefragably, petitioner was not charged with
estafa under Art 316(2). Hence, the trial court committed error in finding him RULE 124
guilty of estafa and the CA likewise erred in affirming the same. CASES
Notwithstanding his acquittal, he is nevertheless liable to the spouses Abing to
return the purchase price and reimburse the amount of the hollow blocks. VITTO VS CA
404 SCRA 307 (2003)
PEOPLE VS SUBE
401 SCRA 169 (2003) FACTS: Fredelito Vitto, Vic Pizarro and Danilo Pajaron were charged with
homicide under an information filed with the RTC. The court convicted all the
FACTS: Julio Solis and his brother Nicanor were resting inside their house accused. They appealed to the CA but remained at large for failure to post bail
which was illuminated by a double rechargeable lamp. Later, Julio heard shouts on appeal. The CA required them to explain why their appeal should not be
that Bobot, also Julio, will be killed. He saw Lastide Sube, Rolando Menzon, abandoned in view of their failure to submit themselves to the proper
Felizardo Ontog, Benedicto Acala and Dino Ayala outside carrying flashlights authorities. Petitioner, through counsel, explained that he was not aware that
and bladed weapons. He tried to rouse Nicanor but the latter was ill and could he should surrender. His counsel requested an additional period to contact the
not get up. He ran out and hid behind some trees 5 meters away from the accused in Mindoro, to submit him to the jurisdiction of the CA and to file the
house. He saw the five accused enter the house and hit his brother with his appellant’s brief. However, the accused did not appear and the brief was not
father’s airgun. Then, he saw the five accused came out with Nicanor’s hands filed. The court then dismissed the appeal. Petitioner filed a motion for leave of
bound with a nylon cord. Thereafter, he reported the incident to his father and court to file appellant’s brief, which motion was denied on the ground that the
to the police. They went to the house of Sube but they were refused. They dismissal of the appeal has already become final and executory. Hence, this
returned to the crime scene but found no body. A few days later, Sube was petition.
turned over by Col Obillo to the Antipolo Police HQ. Sube disclosed the incident
and where Nicanor was buried. Menzon was also arrested. An information was ISSUE: W/N the CA may dismiss the appeal for abandonment, failure to
then filed against Sube and Menzon and the other accused. The trial court prosecute and failure to file appellant’s brief.
convicted Sube, Menzon and Ontog for the murder of Nicanor and archived
with respect to Ayala and Acala. Hence, this appeal. DECISION: Petitioner, through counsel, asked for an extension within which to
submit himself and to file the appellant’s brief. However, petitioner failed to
ISSUE: W/N the accused Ontog may withdraw his appeal and thereafter be comply which is fatal to his appeal. The CA considered his appeal as having
benefited from the modification of the trial court’s judgment. been abandoned and consequently dismissed the same. The motion for leave
W/N the findings of the trial court are binding on the appellate court. to file appellant’s brief filed two months after the finality of the dismissal of the
appeal was correctly denied. His insolent refusal to submit himself to the
DECISION: Ontog indicated his desire to withdraw his appeal. The request was jurisdiction of the court cannot be countenanced.
treated as a motion to the same effect and granted. Hence, Ontog’s appeal was
dismissed in a Resolution. However, in light of the fact that we have seen fit to He should have informed his lawyer of his whereabouts and in the same
modify the trial court’s judgment in a manner that is favorable to the accused- manner, his lawyer should have acquainted him regarding the proceedings in
appellants, then such modification should apply to Ontog as well. the CA.

As a general rule, the findings of the trial court on matters of credibility are RULE 126
binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or CASES
circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked,
misapprehended or misinterpreted. In the case at bar, the trial court gave PEOPLE VS SARAP
more credence to the testimony of Julio over the combined testimonies of the 399 SCRA 503 (2003)
appellants. Julio’s testimony was straightforward and convincing. He gave a
chilling account of the incident and positively identified the five accused. He
Vena V. Verga 117
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

FACTS: SPO4 Guarino and PO2 Navida, armed with a search warrant, raided wrapped in a newspaper and placed in a plastic bag and a black bullet pouch
the house of Conrado Ricaforte at Rizal St, Poblacion, Banga, Aklan due to the containing 6 ammunition, al of which were found under the bed of Simbahon
reported sale of marijuana by its occupants. The occupants were apprehended and Mangulabnan. The police found a pencil case containing shabu and
for illegal possession of marijuana and were detained in Banga police station. ammunition in the room of Morgia. They also found a red and black synthetic
In the investigation, the police learned that a certain Melly and Roger were the case containing shabu, sniffing paraphernalias such as improvised burner,
suppliers and will be back later. One day, the caretaker of the house told the tooter, scissors, aluminum foil, plastic sachets with residue, and empty plastic
police that two strangers were looking for the occupants of the house. The sachets in the living room. An inventory receipt was issued and signed by
police arrived and saw Melly Sarap and Roger Amar. Upon seeing them, Sarap Simbahon. The three were arrested and brought to the precinct for
threw her black canvass bag which Roger picked up. Guarino seized Sarap and investigation. Separate informations were filed against against the three for
grabbed her green plastic bag which upon inspection, contained 2 blocks of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act and illegal possession of firearms. The
marijuana. Navida pursued and arrested Amar. An information was filed charges against Mangulabnan were dismissed upon motion of the prosecution.
charging the appellants with sale of prohibited drugs. The court acquitted Amar The court acquitted Morgia but convicted Simbahon.
and convicted Sarap of the crime charged. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: W/N the search conducted prior to the arraignment of the appellant
ISSUE: W/N the warrantless search and arrest was illegal. was valid.

DECISION: The Banga police officers were not armed with a warrant of arrest. DECISION: The case should be dismissed on the ground of manifest violations
Sarap cannot be said to be committing a crime. Neither was she about to of the constitutional right of the accused against illegal search and seizure.
commit one nor had she just committed a crime. She was merely walking in While appellant may be deemed to have waived his right to question the
the alley near the house of Ricaforte. Guarino would not have apprehended her legality of the search warrant and the admissibility of the evidence seized for
were it not for Iguiz’s identification. The Banga police could have secured a failure to raise his objections at the opportune time, however, the record
search warrant when the house occupants disclosed that a certain Melly and shows serious defects in the search warrant itself which rend the same null and
Roger would be back. The persons intended to be searched were particularized void. The caption, as well as the body of the search warrant, shows that it was
and the thing to be seized specified. The time was also ascertained although it issued for more than one offense, for violation of the DDA and illegal
was uncertain when they would arrive. These particulars would have provided possession of firearms. Further, the warrant failed to describe the place to be
sufficient grounds to secure a search warrant. Instead, the police acted only searched with sufficient particularity. The search warrant issued by the court
upon the information of the caretaker. They cannot dispense with a warrant on merely referred to appellant’s residence as premises without specifying its
the basis of urgency since they have 24 hours to do so. They had prior address. Furthermore, the seized marijuana was not mentioned in the search
knowledge of Sarap’s alleged activities. Hence, the police could not effect a warrant. The seizure by the police conducting the search of articles not
warrantless search and seizure since there was no probable cause and Sarap described therein was beyond the parameters of their authority under the
was not lawfully arrested. search warrant. Hence, the search was illegal and Simbahon should be
acquitted of the crime charged.
The instant case does not also fall within the purview of the plain view doctrine
because the marijuana contained in the green plastic bag was not visible and PEOPLE VS TEE
not apparent. That the search disclosed marijuana confirming the police’s initial 395 SCRA 419 (2003)
information and suspicion did not cure its patent illegality. Thus, Sarap is
acquitted. FACTS: see rule 119

PEOPLE VS SIMBAHON ISSUE: W/N the search warrant satisfied the constitutional requirement.
401 SCRA 94 (2003)
DECISION: The thing sized is a property of a specific character, marijuana, an
FACTS: One early morning, the police, with the bgy chairman and the media, illicit drug. A further description would be unnecessary and ordinarily
served a search warrant upon Danilo Simbahon, Maricar Morgia and Charito impossible, except as to such character, the place, and circumstances. The
Mangulabnan at their residence in Sampaloc, Manila. With slight resistance, the description “illegally n possession of undetermined quantity of dried marijuana
police gained entry. Their search yielded a brick of dried flowering tops leaves and shabu and sets of paraphernalia” particularizes the things to be
Vena V. Verga 118
Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

seized. The search warrant has satisfied the constitutional requirements on The NBI submitted a detailed sketch of the premises prepared by Abratique
particularity of description. ensuring that there would be no mistake. The executing officer, can with
reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it
Further, it was not disputed that Judge Reyes personally examined NBI Special from other places in the community. Hence, the description of the place was
Agent Investigator II Lising, the applicant for the search warrant as well as his sufficient.
witness, Danilo Abratique, who personally saw and handled the marijuana. The
non-attachment of the depositions of the two is not fatally defective as long as Hence, the search warrant complied with the constitutional requirements.
there is evidence on record showing what testimony was presented and that
such was never raised by appellant.

Vena V. Verga 119