Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 31

1.

Hearing of application for bail in offenses punishable by capital offense


NOTE: RA 9346, Section 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment or life imprisonment

Conviction
This refers to conviction by the trial court, which has not become final, as the accused still has the right to appeal. After conviction by the trial court, the accused convicted of a capital offense is no longer entitled to bail, and can only be released when the conviction is reversed by the appellate court. [Section 13, Article III, Const.] Prosecution has burden of proof At the hearing of an application for bail filed by a person in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the prosecution has the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong. EVIDENCE OF GUILT in the Constitution and the Rules refers to a finding of innocence or culpability, regardless of the modifying circumstances. Regarding Minors Charged with a Capital Offense If the person charged with a capital offense is admittedly a minor, which would entitle him, if convicted, to a penalty next lower than that prescribed by law, he is entitled to bail regardless of whether the evidence of guilt is strong. The reason for this is that one who faces a probable death sentence has a particularly strong temptation to flee. This reason does not hold where the accused has been established without objection to be minor who by law cannot be sentenced to death. Duty of judge to conduct hearing Where the prosecution agrees with the accuseds application for bail or foregoes the introduction of evidence, the court must nonetheless set the application for hearing. It is mandatory for the judge to conduct a hearing and ask searching and clarificatory questions for the purpose of determining the existence of strong evidence against the accused; and the order, after such hearing, should make a finding that the evidence against the accused is strong [Gacal v. Judge Infante (2011)].\\

NOTE: Read page 334 of Criminal Procedure Book by Riano!!!

2. Forms of bail
Corporate surety this bail is furnished by a corporation. Under the rules of court, any domestic foreign corporation which is licensed as a surety and authorized to act as such, may provide bail by a bond subscribed jointly by the accused and an officer of the corporation duly authorized by the board of directors (Sec.10, Rule 114, Rules of Court) Property bond
Sec. 11. Property bond, how posted. A property bond is an undertaking constituted as lien on the real property given as security for the amount of the bail. Within ten (10) days after the approval of the bond, the accused shall cause the annotation of the lien on the certificate of title on file with the Registry of Deeds if the land is registered, or if unregistered, in the Registration Book on the space provided therefore, in the Registry of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies, and on the corresponding tax declaration in the office of the provincial, city and municipal assessor concerned. Within the same period, the accused shall submit to the court his compliance and his failure to do so shall be sufficient cause for the cancellation of the property bond and his re-arrest and detention. Sec. 12. Qualifications of sureties in property bond. The qualifications of sureties in a property bond shall be as follows: (a) Each must be a resident owner of real estate within the Philippines;

(b) Where there is only one surety, his real estate must be worth at least the amount of undertaking; (c) If there are two or more sureties, each may justify in an amount less than that expressed in the undertaking but the aggregate of the justified sums must be equivalent to the whole amount of the bail demanded. 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. Sec. 13. Justification of sureties. Every surety shall justify by affidavit taken before the judge that he possesses the qualification prescribed in the preceding section. He shall describe the property given as security, stating the nature of his title, its encumbrances, the number and amount of other bails entered into by him and still undischarged, and his other liabilities. The court may examine the sureties upon oath concerning their sufficiency in such manner as it may deem proper. No bail shall be approved unless the surety is qualified.

Cash deposit bail may also be in the form of a cash deposit


Sec. 14. Deposit of cash as bail. The accused or any person acting in his behalf may deposit in cash with the nearest collector of internal revenue or provincial, city, or municipal treasurer the amount of bail fixed by the court, or recommended by the prosecutor who investigated or filed the case. Upon submission of a proper certificate of deposit and a written undertaking showing compliance with the requirements of section 2 of this Rule, the accused shall be discharged from custody. The money deposited shall be considered as bail and applied to the payment of fine and costs while the excess, if any, shall be returned to the accused or to whoever made the deposit. Note: only the collector of internal revenue, city or provincial, city/municipal treasurer is authorized to receive a deposit of cash bail. Judge is not one of those authorized to receive nor should kept deposit of cash deposit in his own residence or office

Recognizance an obligation of record entered into before some court or magistrate duly authorized to take it, with the condition to do some particular act, the most usual condition in criminal cases being the appearance of the accused for trial.
Sec. 15. Recognizance. Whenever allowed by law or these Rules, the court may release a person in custody on his own recognizance or that of a responsible person. Sec. 16. Bail, when not required; reduced bail or recognizance. No bail shall be required when the law or these Rules so provide. When a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than 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 penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment. A person in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the principal penalty prescribed for the offense charged, without application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying circumstance, shall be released on a reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at the discretion of the court. NOTE: Release on recongnizance may be ordered by the court in the ff. cases: a. when the offense charge is for violation of an ordinance , a light felony, or a criminal offense , those imposable penalty of which does not exceed 6 months imprisonment and/or Php 2,000 fine under the circumstances provided in RA No.6036 b. where a person has been in custody for a period equal or more than the minimum of the imposable principal penalty, without the application of Intermediate Sentence law or any modifying circumstance, in which case, the court may allow his release on his own recognizance or on a reduced bail at the discretion of the court (Sec. 16, Rule 114, Rules of Court) c. where the accused applied for probation , pending the finality of judgment but no bail was filed or the accused is incapable of filing one (PD 968, Sec.7 ; Sec.24, Rule 114) d. in case of a youthful offender held for physical and mental examination, trial , or appeal, if he is unable to furnish bail and under the circumstances envisaged in PD 603, as amended. e. In summary procedure, when the accused has been arrested for failure to appear when required. His release shall be either on bail or on recognizance by a responsible citizen acceptable to the court (Sec.16,1991 Rev. Rule on Summary Procedure)

3. Denial of bail
Bail is not allowed in the following cases: a. A person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the state of the criminal prosecution. (Sec.7, Rule 114) b. No bail shall be allowed after a judgment of conviction has become final (Sec.24, Rule 114)
The rule is that no bail shall be 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 is incapable of filing one, the court may allow his release on recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of the community. (Sec.24, Rule 114)

c.

Bail shall not be allowed after the accused has commenced to serve sentence. (Sec.24, Rule 114)

NOTE: Q: For bail to be denied, what are the requirements? A: Under the law: 1. the evidence of guilt is strong; 2. the crime is punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment; 3. [based on jurisprudence] if the accused is convicted in all probability the penalty will also be death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Remedy when bail denied: File a petition for certiorari if the trial court committed grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the said order (People vs. Gomez, 325 SCRA 61) 4.

Jumping of bail
Also known as skipping bail to fail to appear for a court proceeding after posting bail, usually as a result of an attempt to flee the jurisdiction of the court. Even if an accused jumps bail 100 times you cannot deny him bail for as long as the crime is not punishable by perpetua to death. However, by jumping bail, an accused is deemed to waive his right to appeal; IF THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE ACCUSED WOULD JUMP BAIL, WHAT CAN THE COURT DO? 1. Increase the amount of the bail 2. Require periodic reports of the accused to court 3. Warn the accused that should he jump bail, the trial may proceed in absentia

5. Conditions of bail
Sec. 2. Conditions of the bail; requirements. All kinds of bail are subject to the following conditions: (a) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and unless cancelled, shall remain in force at all stages of the case until promulgation of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, irrespective of whether the case was originally filed in or appealed to it; (b) The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever required by the court of these Rules; (c) The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification and despite due notice shall be deemed a waiver of his right to be present thereat. In such case, the trial may proceed in absentia; and

(d) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution of the final judgment. The original papers shall state the full name and address of the accused, the amount of the undertaking and the conditions required by this section. Photographs (passport size) taken within the last six (6) months showing the face, left and right profiles of the accused must be attached to the bail.

6. Guideline in fixing the amount of bail


1. The basic rule in fixing the amount of bail is that excessive bail shall not be required (Sec.13, Art.3, Bill of Rights) In fixing bail, the amount should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused when such presence is required but no higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose. Another principle to consider is the good of the public as well as the rights of the accused. The inability of the accused to secure bail in a certain amount is not solely to be considered and this fact does not by itself make bail excessive. When an accused has no means to bail himself out, any amount fixed, no matter how small would fall in the category of excessive bail (Villasenor vs. Abano, 21 SCRA 312) 2. The judge who issued the warrant or who granted the application for bail shall fix a reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not limited to , the following factors: (a) Financial liability of the accused to give bail; (b) Nature and circumstance of the offense; (c) Penalty for the offense charged; (d) Character and reputation of the accused; (e) Age and health of the accused; (f) Weight of the evidence against the accused; (g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial; (h) Forfeiture of other bail (i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and (j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail. (Section 9, Rule 114) The existence of high degree of probability that the defendant will abscond confers upon the court no greater discretion than to increase the bond to such amount as would reasonably tend to assure the presence of the defendant provision that excessive bail shall not be required (San Miguel vs. Maceda, 520 SCRA 205)

3.

7. Cancellation of bail
1. Cancellation by application of the bondsmen Bail may be cancelled upon application of the bondsmen, with due notice to the prosecutor, the bail may be cancelled upon (Sec.22,Rule 114): a. surrender of the accused or b. proof of his death. Automatic Cancellation the bail may also be deemed automatically cancelled upon (Sec.22, Rule 114): a. acquittal of the accused, b. dismissal of the case, or c. execution of the judgment of conviction.

2.

3.

Section 5 of Rule 114 allows the cancellation of bail where the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accuse, of the following or other similar circumstances: (a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration; (b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification; (c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon; (d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or (e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal. The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court after notice to the adverse party in either case.

8. Period for order of new trial


Sec. 5. Time limit following an order for new trial. If the accused is to be tried again pursuant to an order for a new trial, the trial shall commence within thirty (30) days from notice of the order, provided that if the period becomes impractical due to unavailability of witnesses and other factors, the court may extend but not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days. For the second twelvemonth period, the time limit shall be one hundred eighty (180) days from notice of said order for new trial. Sec. 6. Extended time limit. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1(g), Rule 116 and the preceding section 1, for the first twelve-calendar-month period following its effectivity on September 15, 1998, the time limit with respect to the period from arraignment to trial imposed by said provision shall be one hundred eighty (180) days. For the second twelve-month period, the time limit shall be one hundred twenty (120) days, and for the third twelve-month period, the time limit shall be eighty (80) days. WHEN SHOULD THE TRIAL COMMENCE AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF ORDER FOR NEW TRIAL?

period becomes impractical due to unavailability of witnesses and other factors, the court may extend it

HOW SHOULD THE SECOND 12-MONTH PERIOD BE COUNTED IN CASE OF A NEW TRIAL?

HOW LONG SHOULD THE TIME LIMIT BE?

-month period, the time limit shall be 120 days -month period, the time limit shall be 80 days

9. Discharge of accused operates as acquittal; Effects


Sec. 18. Discharge of accused operates as acquittal. The order indicated in the preceding section shall amount to an acquittal of the discharged accused and shall be a bar to future prosecution for the same offense, unless the accused fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance with his sworn statement constituting the basis for his discharge. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE DISCHARGE? 1. Evidence in support of the discharge forms part of the trial. But if the court denies the motion to discharge, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible as evidence 2. Discharge of the accused operates as an ACQUITTAL and bar to further prosecution for the same offense, except if he fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance with his sworn statement constituting the basis of the discharge. In this case, he can be prosecuted again and his admission can be used against him. WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN HE FAILS OR REFUSES TO TESTIFY IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS SWORN STATEMENT? al changes in his testimony that would naturally affect the proceedings and would be prejudicial to the prosecution of the offense charged WHAT IF IN THE SWORN STATEMENT OF X, HE MENTIONED ONLY THAT 3 OF HIS COMPANIONS WERE IN CONSPIRACY WITH EACH OTHER. DURING HIS TESTIMONY, HE TESTIFIED THAT ALL 10 OF HIS COMPANIONS WERE IN CONSPIRACY. IS THIS PROPER? Yes

statement

against the accused WHAT HAPPENS IF THE COURT IMPROPERLY OR ERRONEOUSLY DISCHARGES AN ACCUSED AS STATE WITNESS, AS WHEN FOR EXAMPLE, THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE? The improper discharge will not render inadmissible his testimony nor detract from his competency as a witness because the acquittal becomes ineffective only if he fails or refuses to testify

WHAT IF AFTER AN ACCUSED HAS BEEN DISCHARGED TO BECOME A STATE WITNESS, IT WAS FOUND OUT DURING THE TRIAL THAT THE FACTS HE ATTESTED TO IN HIS SWORN STATEMENT WERE ALL LIES? DOES THE COURT HAVE ANY RECOURSE IF THERE WAS A WRONGFUL DISCHARGE?

acquittal and is a bar for further prosecution for the same offense. First, the grounds mentioned in the rule as exceptions to the general rule are exclusive in character. The discharge will not be a bar to further prosecution and not amount to acquittal is when the accused refuses or fails to testify in accordance with his sworn statement. Second, what the rules require is ABSOLUTE NECESSITY and not ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. Third, what transpired was an error of judgment on the part of the court. If the court has a recourse, it would be to detain the discharged accused, following Section 19 of this Rule, and file a case against him but not for the same offense but for perjury WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE ORIGINAL INFORMATION UNDER WHICH AN ACCUSED WAS DISCHARGED IS LATER AMENDED? discharge under the original information is just as binding upon the subsequent amended information, since the amended information is just a continuation of the original MUST THE ACCUSED TO BE DISCHARGED FIRST BE CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION? No.

CAN THE OTHER CONSPIRATORS BE SOLELY CONVICTED ON THE BASIS OF THE DISCHARGED STATE WITNESS? must be other evidence to support his testimony

caution

wever, the testimony of a co-conspirator, even if uncorroborated, will be considered sufficient if given in a straightforward manner and it contains details which couldnt have been a result of deliberate afterthought.

10. Provisional Dismissal


Sec. 8. Provisional dismissal. A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except with the express consent of the accused and with notice to the offended party. The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any amount, or both, shall become permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case

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 without the case having been revived. WHAT IS THE TIME-BAR RULE? BECOME FINAL? WHEN DOES A PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL

> The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 6 years or a fine of any amount shall become permanent after one year without the case having been revived > For offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 years, the provisional dismissal shall become permanent after 2 years without the case having been revived. > After the provisional dismissal becomes final, the accused cannot be prosecuted anymore WHEN CAN A CASE BE PROVISIONALLY DISMISSED? > A case can only be dismissed provisionally if the accused expressly consents, such consent given in writing or viva voce. > It must be positive, direct, unequivocal consent requiring no inference or implication to supply its meaning > The mere inaction or silence of the accused to a provisional dismissal of the case or his failure to object to a provisional dismissal doesnt amount to express consent. WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS FOR SECTION 8 OF THE RULES OF COURT TO APPLY? WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES LAID DOWN BY PEOPLE V. LACSON? 1. The prosecution, with the express conformity of the accused or the latters counsel moves for a provisional dismissal of the case; or both the prosecution or accused move for a provisional dismissal of the case 2. The offended party is notified of the motion for a provisional dismissal of the case 3. The court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing the case provisionally 4. The public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of provisional dismissal of the case WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN THE TIME BAR RULE WILL NOT APPLY? > Provisional dismissal will not become permanent, even after one year or two years depending on the offenses nature HOW CAN A CASE BE REVIVED? 1. Re-filing the information or filing of a new information for the same offense necessarily included therein without need of a new preliminary investigation unless the original witnesses of the prosecution or some of them may have recanted their testimonies or may no longer be available and new witnesses for the State have emerged 2. A new preliminary investigation is also required if aside from the original accused, other persons are charged under a new criminal complaint for the same offense or necessarily included therein 3. Under a new criminal complaint, the criminal liability of the accused is upgraded from that of an accessory to that of a principal 4. Under a new criminal complaint, the charge has been upgraded

11. Bill of Particulars


Sec. 9. Bill of particulars. The accused may, before arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead and prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and the details desired.

WHAT IS A BILL OF PARTICULARS? > It is a more specific allegation

> A defendant in a criminal case who believes that he is not sufficiently informed of the crime with which he is charged and is not in a position to defend himself properly and adequately could move for a bill of particulars or specifications WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A BILL OF PARTICULARS? > It is to allow the accused to prepare for his defense

WHEN CAN AN ACCUSED MOVE FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS? > > The accused must move for a bill of particulars before arraignment Otherwise, the right is deemed waived

WHAT SHOULD BE CONTAINED IN THE MOTION FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS? > It should specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and the details desired

12. WHAT IS PLEA BARGAINING?


> It is the disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the prosecution and the accused > The accused and the prosecutor in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval > It usually involves the defendants pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one o r some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the graver charge > It is encouraged because it leads to prompt and final disposition of most criminal cases. It shortens the time between charge and disposition and enhances whatever may be the rehabilitative prospects of the guilty when they are ultimately imprisoned WHEN IS PLEA BARGAINING NOT ALLOWED? > It is not allowed under the Dangerous Drugs Act where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. WHAT IF THERE IS A PLEA BARGAINING ARRIVED AT? 1. Issue an order which contains the plea bargaining arrived at;

2. Proceed to receive evidence on the civil aspect of the case; and

3. Render and promulgate judgment of conviction, including the civil liability or damages duly established by the evidence. WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE WAS NO PLEA BARGAINING AGREEMENT? WHAT WOULD THE COURT DO? 1. Adopt the minutes of preliminary conference as part of the pre-trial proceedings, confirm markings of exhibits or substituted photocopies and admissions on the genuineness and due execution of documents and list object and testimonial evidence; 2. Scrutinize every allegation of the information and the statements in the affidavits and other documents which form part of the record of the preliminary investigation and other documents identified and marked as exhibits in determining farther admissions of facts, documents and in particular as to the following: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. The identity of the accused; Court's territorial jurisdiction relative to the offense/s charged; Qualification of expert witness/es; Amount of damages; Genuineness and due execution of documents; The cause of death or injury, in proper cases; Adoption of any evidence presented during the preliminary investigation;

h. Disclosure of defenses of alibi, insanity, self-defense, exercise of public authority and justifying or exempting circumstances; and i. 3. Such other matters that would limit the facts in issue.

Define factual and legal issues;

4. Ask parties to agree on the specific trial dates and adhere to the flow chart determined by the court which shall contain the time frames for the different stages of the proceeding up to promulgation of decision and use the time frame for each stage in setting the trial dates; 5. Require the parties to submit to the Branch COC the names, addresses and contact numbers of witnesses that need to be summoned by subpoena; and 6. Consider modification of order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense.

13. Pre-trial and Pre-trial Conference


Section 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. In all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the court shall, after arraignment and within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a shorter period is provided for in special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court, order a pre-trial conference to consider the following: (a) plea bargaining;

(b) stipulation of facts (c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties; (d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; (e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense; and (f) such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects of the case. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A PRE-TRIAL? > The purpose is to expedite proceedings

WHEN IS PRE-TRIAL REQUIRED? > Pre-trial is mandatory in all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, RTC, MTC and MCTC

WHEN SHOULD IT BE CONDUCTED? > After arraignment, and within 30 days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused > An exception to the rule is when the accused is under preventive detention. The case shall be raffled within 3 days. Arraignment shall be done within 10 days after the raffle. Ten days thereafter, the pre-trial. WHAT SHOULD THE ORDER FOR PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE CONTAIN? 1. The presence of the accused and more importantly the offended party, for purposes of plea bargaining and determination of civil liability. Remember that plea bargaining isnt allowed in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 2. Referring the matter for preliminary conference to the clerk of court.

3. Warning that evidence not offered during preliminary conference shall be inadmissible except if because of good cause and under the discretion of the court WHO SHOULD PRESIDE IN A PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE? > Clerk of court will preside the preliminary conference

WHAT SHOULD THE CLERK OF COURT DO IN PRESIDING OVER THE PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE? 1. The clerk of court is given a vital role in the speedy disposition of cases 2. He shall serve as the mediator or arbitrator between the accused and offended party for the two parties to reach a settlement as to the civil liability of the accused 3. 4. 5. He shall serve as mediator between the parties with regard plea bargaining He shall serve as mediator in the stipulation of facts between the accused and offended party He shall oversee the introduction and marking of documentary evidence

6. 7.

He shall see that the evidence is genuine and duly executed He shall oversee the conference if there will be any waiver to objections over admissibility of evidence

8. In case the accused gives a lawful defense, he will indicate that there would be a modification of the order of trial N.B 1. A preliminary conference precedes a pre-trial. It is officiated by the clerk of court. plays a vital role in the speedy disposition of cases. The clerk of court

2. Often times, there would be no pre-trial anymore but the trial would commence and the judge would issue the decision for the disposition of the case. 3. The pre-trial conference is conducted for the expeditious disposition of the case. What happens in the conference is more than what meets the eye. 4. There is now an amendment in the new rules providing for the parties to talk with each other absent their lawyers. Lawyers often times are stumbling blocks in the speedy disposition of cases. 5. In the pre-trial and preliminary conference, there is narrowing of conflict between the parties. In furtherance of this, the judge is sanctioned to allow the number of witnesses to be presented, limit the trial days, etc. 6. Remember that any evidence not presented or marked during the pre-trial conference shall not be admitted during the trial. This is done to make the presentation of evidence mandatory for the parties to the case. Additional evidence shall only be allowed if there is good cause and for furtherance of justice 7. Evidence is genuine and duly executedin relation to notarial law when the lawyer admits to the genuineness and due execution of the documentary evidence presented. 8. The preliminary conference is to minimize the things to be discussed during the pre-trial conference that would be conducted by the judge. After the pre-trial conference, a pre-trial order shall be issued. This will serve as the bible for the rest of the proceedings. 9. See the Revised Rules on Pre-trial issued during August 2004.

WHEN WILL THE JUDGE PRESIDE? > During the pre-trial

14. Demurrer to Evidence


Sec. 23. Demurrer to evidence. After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court. If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution.

The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically state its grounds and shall be filed within a non-extendible period of five (5) days after the prosecution rests its case. The prosecution may oppose the motion within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from its receipt. If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice. The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to evidence within a similar period from its receipt. The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment. AFTER THE PROSECUTION RESTS ITS CASE, WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS OF THE ACCUSED? THE ACCUSED MAY DO THE FOLLOWING: 1. 2. File a demurrer to evidence with leave or without leave of court Adduce his evidence unless he waives the same

WHAT IS A DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE?

of the evidence of the prosecution o dismiss under the Rules of Court takes place of a demurrer, which pleading raised questions of law as to sufficiency of the pleading apparent on the face thereof rt a question as to the sufficiency of the facts alleged therein to constitute a cause of action WHAT ARE THE WAYS BY WHICH A CASE MAY BE DISMISSED ON THE INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION? BASIS OF

1. The court may dismiss the case on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the right to be heard 2. Upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court

THE PROSECUTION RESTS ITS CASE. THE COURT THINKS THAT THERE IS INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED. WHAT DOES IT NEED TO DO IN CASE IT WISHES TO DISMISS THE CASE?

WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN THE PROSECUTION WOULD BE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE COURT DISMISSES THE CASE?

failure to adduce enough evidence to support its case HOW DO YOU FILE A DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE?

to evidence, stating in such motion his grounds for such which to oppose the motion

grant of leave of court its receipt of the demurrer WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF FILING THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE WITH LEAVE OF COURT?

to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may still adduce evidence on his behalf WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF FILING THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT? without leave of court, the accused is deemed to have waived his right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on basis of the evidence of the prosecution scretionary on the court

THE ACCUSED FILED A DEMURRER OF EVIDENCE WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT. THE DEMURRER OF EVIDENCE IS DENIED. IS THERE ABSOLUTE WAIVER OF PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE BY THE COURT?

denied, is a waiver of presentation of evidence

no waiver to present evidence. insufficiency of evidence.

As the prosecution hasnt finished presenting its evidence, there is still

WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF THE DEMURRER IS GRANTED AND THE ACCUSED IS ACQUITTED?

act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.

accused and acquitting him but also on the civil liability of the accused to the private offended party, said judgment on its civil case would be a nullity for violation of the rights of the accused to due process. WHAT IS THE REMEDY OF THE ACCUSED IF THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE IS DENIED? here can be no appeal or certiorari on the denial of the demurrer to evidence, since it is an interlocutory order which doesnt pass judgment on the merits of the case n his behalf not only on the criminal aspect but also on the civil aspect of the case

15. DOUBLE JEOPARY


Definition Of Double Jeopardy Sec. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. When an 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 or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information. However, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint or information under any of the following instances: (a) the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or omission constituting the former charge; (b) the facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered only after a plea was entered in the former complaint or information; or (c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the prosecutor and of the offended party except as provided in section 1(f) of Rule 116. In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused satisfies or serves in whole or in part the judgment, he shall be credited with the same in the event of conviction for the graver offense. WHAT IS JEOPARDY AND WHAT IS THE RULE ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY? > Jeopardy is the peril in which a person is placed when he is regularly charged with a crime before a tribunal properly organized and competent to try him > The rule on double jeopardy means that when a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminate either by conviction or acquittal, or in any other manner without the consent of the accused, the latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense WHAT ARE THE 2 KINDS OF JEOPARDY? 1. That no person shall be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense 2. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR THE ACCUSED TO RAISE THE DEFENSE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY? 1. A first jeopardy must have validly attached prior to the second

2. The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated 3. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense or the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information or is an attempt to commit the offense or a frustration thereof

WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR THE FIRST JEOPARDY TO ATTACH? 1. There is a valid complaint or information 2. 3. Court of competent jurisdiction Arraignment

4. Plea 5. The defendant is acquitted, convicted, or the case was dismissed or terminated without his express consent N.B: The judgment should not only be final and executory but also be promulgated before there could be a valid jeopardy. IS THERE AN EXCEPTION TO THE FOREGOING RULE? > There are two exceptions to the foregoing rule, and double jeopardy may attach even if the dismissal of the case was with the consent of the accused 1. If there is insufficiency of evidence to support the charge against him, and

2. Where there has been an unreasonable delay in the proceedings, in violation of the accuseds right to speedy trial A CRIME WAS COMMITTED IN MAKATI. THE CASE WAS FILED IN PASAY. WHEN THE PROSECUTION REALIZED THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED IN MAKATI, IT FILED THE CASE IN MAKATI. CAN THE ACCUSED INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY? > > No, the court in Pasay has no jurisdiction, therefore, the accused was in no danger of being placed in jeopardy The first jeopardy didnt validly attach

FOR PURPOSES OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY, WHEN IS A COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION VALID? > A complaint or information is valid if it can support a judgment of conviction

> If the complaint or information is not valid, it would violate the right of the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him > If he is convicted under this complaint or information, the conviction is null and void and hence there is no first jeopardy X WAS CHARGED WITH QUALIFIED THEFT. X MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND OF INSUFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION. THE CASE WAS DISMISSED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PROSECUTION FILED A CORRECTED INFORMATION. CAN X PLEAD DOUBLE JEOPARDY? > No, the first jeopardy didnt attach because the first information was not valid

X WAS CHARGED WITH THEFT. DURING THE TRIAL, THE PROSECUTION WAS ABLE TO PROVE ESTAFA. X WAS ACQUITTED OF THEFT. CAN X BE PROSECUTED FOR ESTAFA LATER WITHOUT PLACING HIM IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY? > Yes

> For jeopardy to attach, the basis is the crime charged in the complaint or information, and the one proved at the trial > In this case, the crime charged in the first information was theft. X was therefore placed in jeopardy of being convicted of theft. Since estafa is not an offense which is included or necessarily includes theft, X can still be prosecuted for estafa without placing him in double jeopardy THE ESTAFA CASE AGAINST C WAS DISMISSED BUT THE DISMISSAL CONTAINED A RESERVATION OF THE RIGHT TO FILE ANOTHER ACTION. CAN ANOTHER ESTAFA CASE BE FILED AGAINST X WITHOUT PLACING HIM IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY? > > Yes To raise the defense of double jeopardy, the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated

> This means that there must have been either a conviction or acquittal, or an unconditional dismissal of the case > A provisional dismissal, such as this one, doesnt validly terminate the first jeopardy

NOTE: in the second kind of jeopardy, the first jeopardy can validly only be terminated either by conviction or acquittal and not by the dismissal of the case without the express consent of the accused. X WAS CHARGED WITH THEFT. ON THE DAY OF THE TRIUAL, THE PROSECUTOR AND THE WITNESSES FAILED TO APPEAR. COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED MOVED TO DISMISS THE CASE. THE COURT DISMISSED THE CASE PROVISIONALLY. SUBSEQUENTLY X WAS CHARGED WITH THEFT AGAIN. CAN X INVOKE JEOPARDY? > No, the case was dismissed upon motion of counsel for the accused, so it wasnt dismissed without the express consent > > Moreover, the dismissal was only provisional, which is not a valid termination of the first jeopardy In order to validly terminate the jeopardy, the dismissal must have been unconditional

X WAS CHARGED WITH SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES. ON HIS MOTION, THE CASE WAS DISMISSED DURING TRIAL. ANOTHER CASE FOR ASSAULT UPON A PERSON IN AUTHORITY WAS FILED AGAINST HIM. CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY? > No, the first jeopardy wasnt terminated through either conviction, acquittal, or dismissal without the express consent of X > > The first case was dismissed upon the motion of X himself Therefore, he cannot invoke double jeopardy

X WAS CHARGED WITH THEFT. DURING TRIAL, THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT THE OFFENSE COMMITTED WAS ACTUALLY ESTAFA. WHAT SHOULD THE JUDGE DO? > The judge should order the substitution of the complaint for theft with a new one charging estafa

> Upon filing of the substituted complaint, the judge should dismiss the original complaint. If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, the

court shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR A VALID SUBSTITUTION OF A COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION? 1. No judgment has been rendered

2. The accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged or any other offense necessarily included in the offense charged 3. The accused will not be placed in double jeopardy X WAS CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE. ON THE FIRST DAY OF TRIAL, THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO APPEAR. THE COURT DISMISSED THE CASE ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO SPEEDY TRIAL. X WAS LATER CHARGED WITH MURDER. CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY? > No, the first jeopardy was not validly terminated

> The judge who has not dismissed the case on the ground of violation of the right of X to speedy trial committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case after the prosecution failed to appear once > > This is not a valid dismissal because it deprives the prosecution of due process When the judge gravely abuses the discretion in dismissing a case, the dismissal is not valid Therefore, X cannot invoke double jeopardy DISTINGUISH ACQUITTAL AND DISMISSAL > Acquittal is a discharge after a trial, or an attempt to have one, upon the merits. It is always on the merits. The accused is acquitted because the evidence doesnt show his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. > On the other hand, dismissal is when the case is terminated otherwise upon the merits thereof, as when the dismissal is based on the allegation that the court has no jurisdiction, either upon the subject matter or the territory, or that the complaint or information is not valid or sufficient, or upon any ground that doesn t decide the merits of the issue as to whether the accused is or isnt guilty of the offense charged WHEN IS A DISMISSAL OF THE CASE, EVEN WITH EXPRESS CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED, EQUIVALENT TO AN ACQUITTAL, WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE A BAR TO A SECOND JEOPARDY? > For a dismissal to be a bar under double jeopardy, it must have the effect of acquittal

> As a general rule, dismissal upon motion of the accused or his counsel negates the application of double jeopardy because the motion of the accused amounts to an express consent > However, such a dismissal even with the express consent of the accused may constitute a bar to double jeopardy in the following cases 1. Where there is insufficiency of evidence given by the prosecution to support the charge against him

2. Where there has been an unreasonable delay in the proceedings, in violation of the accuseds right to speedy trial

>

Consequently, the dismissal amounts to an acquittal and would bar a second jeopardy in the cases below

1. Where the dismissal is based on a demurrer to evidence filed by the accused after the prosecution has rested, which has the effect of a judgment on the merits and operates as an acquittal 2. Where the dismissal is made, also on motion of the accused, because of the denial of his right to a speedy trial, which is in effect a failure to prosecute WHAT IS MEANT BY NOLLE PROSEQUI? > IS IT THE SAME AS AN ACQUITTAL?

It is the discontinuance of a criminal procedure by the prosecuting officer, with the consent of the owner

> A nolle prosequi or dismissal entered before the accused is placed on trial and before he is called on to plead is not equivalent to an acquittal and doesnt bar a subsequent prosecution for the same offense > It is not a final disposition of the case

> Rather it partakes of the nature of a non-suit or discontinuance in a civil suit and leaves the matter in the same condition in which it was before the commencement of the prosecution MAY THE COURT DISMISS THE CASE ON MOTION NOLLE PROSEQUI? > The trial court may dismiss a case on a motion nolle prosequi if the accused is not brought to trial within the prescribed time and is deprived of his right to speedy trial or disposition of the case on account of unreasonable or capricious delay caused by the prosecution > People v. Espidol doctrine

WHY IS THERE A REQUIREMENT FOR IT TO BE CAPRICIOUS AND UNREASONABLE? > > There are some delays of the prosecution which are not capricious and unreasonable It may be caused by some other valid reasons prejudicial question, new evidence or witnesses, etc.

WHEN A CASE IS DISMISSED UPON MOTION OF THE ACCUSED, MAY HE STILL BE PROSECUTED FOR THE SAME OFFENSE? > While there have been conflicting rulings of the SC, the prevailing doctrine is that the accused can still be prosecuted for the same offense if he moves to dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, or insufficiency of complaint or information because he is deemed to have waived his right against a second jeopardy, or that he is estopped from maintaining that the court had no jurisdiction or that the complaint wasnt sufficient WHEN WILL DISMISSAL OR TERMINATION OF THE FIRST CASE NOT BAR A SECOND JEOPARDY? 1. The dismissal must be sought by the defendant personally or through his counsel 2. Such dismissal must not be on the merits and must not necessarily amount to an acquittal

BEFORE THE PROSECUTION COULD FINISH PRESENTING EVIDENCE, THE ACCUSED FILED A DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE. THE COURT GRANTED THE MOTION AND DISMISSED THE CASE ON THE GROUND OF INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION. CAN THE ACCUSED BE PROSECUTED FOR THE SAME OFFENSE AGAIN? > Yes. There was no double

jeopardy because the court has exceeded its jurisdiction in dismissing the case even before the prosecution could finish presenting evidence > It denied the prosecution of its right to due process. Because of this, the dismissal is null and void and cannot constitute a proper basis for a claim of double jeopardy THE PROSECUTOR FILED AN INFORMATION AGAINST X FOR HOMICIDE. BEFORE X COULD BE ARRAIGNED, THE PROSECUTOR WITHDREW THE INFORMATION WITHOUT NOTICE TO X. THE PROSECUTOR THEN FILED AN INFORMATION AGAINST X FOR MURDER. CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY? > No, there was no arraignment yet under the first information

> Therefore, the first jeopardy did nt attach. The withdrawal or dismissal of the case before arraignment is not a bar to the filing of a new information for the same offense. > There is no double jeopardy where there is yet no arraignment

> A nolle prosequi or dismissal entered before the accused is placed on trial and before he pleads is not equivalent to an acquittal and doesnt bar a subsequent prosecution for the same offense IF THE ACCUSED FAILS TO OBJECT TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE FILED BY THE PROSECUTION, IS HE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE DISMISSAL? CAN HE STILL INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY? > No, silence doesnt mean consent to the dismissal

> If the accused fails to object or acquiesces to the dismissal of the case, he can still invoke double jeopardy, since the dismissal was still without his express consent. > He is deemed to have waived his right against double jeopardy if he expressly consents to the dismissal

X WAS CHARGED WITH MURDER. THE PROSECUTION MOVED TO DISMISS THE CASE. 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? > No, X is deemed to have expressly consented to the dismissal of the cas e when his counsel wrote no objection at the bottom of the motion to dismiss > Since the case was dismissed with his express consent, X cannot invoke double jeopardy

X WAS CHARGED WITH MURDER. AFTER THE PROSECUTION PRESENTED ITS EVIDENCE, X 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. THE COURT DISMISSED THE CASE. THE PROSECUTION APPEALED? CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY? > > > No, X cannot invoke double jeopardy The dismissal was upon his own motion so it was with his express consent Since the dismissal was with his express consent, he is deemed to have waived his right against double jeopardy

> The only time when a dismissal, even with the express consent of the accused, will bar a double jeopardy is if it is based either on insufficiency of evidence or denial of the right to speedy trial > These are not grounds invoked by X so he cannot claim double jeopardy

X WAS CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE. X MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT THE COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION. BELIEVING IT HAD NO JURISDICTION, THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE CASE. SINCE THE COURT, IN FACT, HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE, THE PROSECUTION FILED ANOTHER CASE IN THE SAME COURT. CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY? > No, X is estopped from claiming that he was in danger of being convicted during the first case, since he had himself earlier alleged that the court had no jurisdiction X WAS CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE. THE COURT, BELIEVED IT HAD NO JURISDICTION, MOTU PROPIO DISMISSED THE CASE. THE PROSECUTION APPEALED, CLAIMING THAT THE COURT, IN FACT HAD JURISDICTION. CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY? > Yes, when the trial court has jurisdiction but mistakenly dismisses the complaint or information on the ground of lack of it, the dismissal wasnt at the request of the accused, the dismissal is not appealable because it will place the accused in double jeopardy X WAS CHARGED WITH RAPE. X MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE LEWD DESIGNS. THE COURT DISMISSED THE CASE. LATER, ANOTHER CASE FOR RAPE WAS FILED AGAINST X. CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY? > > No, X is estopped from claiming that he could have been convicted under the first complaint He himself moved for the dismissal on the ground that the complaint was insufficient

> He cannot change his position and now claim that he was in danger of being convicted under the complaint X WAS CHARGED WITH MURDER, ALONG WITH THREE OTHER PEOPLE. X WAS DISCHARGED AS A STATE WITNESS. CAN X BE PROSECUTED AGAIN FOR THE SAME OFFENSE? > It depends

> As a general rule, an order discharging an accused as state witness amounts to an acquittal, and he is barred from being 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 prosecuted again CAN A PERSON ACCUSED OF ESTAFA BE CHARGED WITH VIOLATION OF BP22 WITHOUT PLACING HIM IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY? > Yes. Even if the same transaction is involved, the same act may violate two or more provisions of criminal law and the prosecution under one will not bar the prosecution under another

> Where 2 different laws defines 2 crimes, prior jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other, although both offenses arise from the same facts, if each crime involves some important act which is not an essential element of the other X INSTALLED A JUMPER CABLE WHICH ALLOWED HIM TO REDUCE HIS ELECTRICITY BILL. HE WAS PROSECUTED AND SUBSEQUENTLY CONVICTED FOR A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED INSTALLATION OF A DEVICE. CAN HE STILL BE PROSECUTED FOR THEFT? > No, under the second type of jeopardy, when an act is punished by law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under one will bar a prosecution under the other > The constitutional protection against double jeopardy is available as long as the acts which constitute or have given rise to the first offense under a municipal ordinance are the same acts which constitute or have given rise to the offense charged under the statute WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY? WHEN CAN THE ACCUSED BE CHARGED WITH A SECOND OFFENSE WHICH NECESSARILY INCLUDES THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE FORMER COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION? > The conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint or information under any of the following circumstances: o The graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or omission constituting the former charge o The facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered only after a plea was entered in the former complaint or information o The plea of guilty to a lesser offense was made without the consent of the prosecutor or offended party except if the offended party fails to appear at arraignment WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING EVENT? > Where after the first prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the defendant is responsible, which changes the character of the offense and, together with the facts existing at the time, constitutes a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the second offense. X WAS CHARGED WITH FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE. THERE WAS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE VICTIM WAS GOING TO DIE. X WAS ARRAIGNED. BEFORE TRIAL, THE VICTIM DIED. CAN X BE CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE? > It depends.

> If the death of the victim can be traced to the acts of X, and the victim didnt contribute to his death with his negligence, X can be charged with homicide > > This is a supervening fact But if the act of X wasnt the proximate cause of death, he cannot be charged with homicide

X WAS CHARGED WITH RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO HOMICIDE AND WAS ACQUITTED. THE HEIRS OF THE VICTIM APPEALED THE CIVIL ASPECT OF THE JUDGMENT. X CLAIMS THAT THE APPEAL WILL PLACE HIM IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY. IS X CORRECT? > 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 a prescription or by the bar of double jeopardy doesnt carry with it the extinction of civil liability arising from the offense charged X IN A CRIMINAL CASE WAS SENTENCED AND REQUIRED TO PAY CIVIL LIABILITY. THE OFFENDED PARTY APPEAL THE CIVIL LIABILITY? > > Yes, if there would be appeal for a criminal case, it must pertain solely on the civil liability. An appeal with regard the criminal aspect would violate the accuseds right against double jeopardy. CAN

> The reason why the offended party can appeal the civil aspect is that double jeopardy only attaches to the criminal aspect and not the civil aspect. The victim or offended party in the criminal case is the State while in its civil aspect, the private offended party. X WAS CHARGED WITH MURDER AND WAS ACQUITTED. CAN THE PROSECUTION APPEAL THE ACQUITTAL? > No, the prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal, since it would place the accused in double jeopardy.

> A judgment of acquittal in criminal proceedings is final and unappealable whether it happens at the trial court level or before the Court of Appeals > Even if the decision of acquittal was erroneous, the prosecution cannot still appeal the decision as it would put the accused in double jeopardy. A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IS FINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE WHETHER IT HAPPENS AT THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL OR BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS WHEN CAN THE PROSECUTION APPEAL DESPITE THE DISMISSAL OR TERMINATION OF THE CASE? > As a general rule, the dismissal or termination of the case after arraignment and plea of the defendant to a valid information shall be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense, an attempt or frustration thereof, or one which necessarily includes or is included in the previous offense. > However, the prosecution may appeal the order of dismissal in the following instances:

1. If the dismissal of the first case was made upon motion or with the express consent of the defendant, unless the grounds are insufficiency of evidence or denial of the right to speedy trial 2. If the dismissal is not an acquittal or based upon consideration of the evidence or of the merits of the case,

3. And the question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely legal so that should the dismissal be found incorrect, the case would have to be remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE APPEAL OF THE ACCUSED? > If the accused appeals, he waives his right against double jeopardy

> The case is thrown wide open for review and a penalty higher than that of the original conviction could be imposed upon him WHAT SHOULD THE ACCUSED DO IF THE COURT DENIES THE MOTION TO QUASH ON THE GROUND OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY? > > He should plea not guilty and reiterate his defense of former jeopardy In case of conviction, he should appeal from the judgment on the ground of double jeopardy

CAN AN ACCUSED RAISE THE DEFENSE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS? > No, jeopardy doesnt attach. proceedings. Remember the requisites for jeopardy. Jeopardy only attaches in criminal

16. SUSPENSION OF ARRAIGNMENT (extended period)


Suspension of Arraignment Sec. 11. Suspension of arraignment. Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases: (a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effectively renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order his mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for such purpose; (b) There exists a prejudicial question; and (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 period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office. WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS FOR SUSPENDING ARRAIGNMENT? 1. The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effectively renders him unable to fully understand he charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order his mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for such purpose; 2. There exists a prejudicial question; and 3. 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 period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office. WHAT IS THE TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE INSANITY OF THE WARRANT THE SUSPENSION OF PROCEEDINGS? ACCUSED SHOULD

> The test is whether the accused will have a fair trial with the assistance of counsel, in spite of his insanity

>

Not every aberration of the mind or exhibition of mental deficiency is sufficient to justify suspension

17. PLEA OF GUILTY


Plea Of Guilty To Capital Offense Sec. 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 degree of culpability. The accused may present evidence in his behalf. WHAT SHOULD THE COURT DO WHEN THE ACCUSED PLEADS GUILTY TO A CAPITAL OFFENSE? > 1. When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court should Conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the plea

2. Require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt and the precise degree of culpability of the accused for the purpose of imposing the proper penalty 3. Ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires

> Mandatory for the court to conduct the searching inquiry otherwise, there would be an improvident plea Plea Of Guilty To A Lesser Offense Sec. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the offended party and prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary. WHAT SHOULD BE DONE IF THERE IS A PLEA TO A LESSER OFFENSE? WHEN CAN THE ACCUSED PLEAD GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE? > During arraignment 1. 2. 3. 4. Offended party and prosecutor must be present Lesser offense must necessarily be included in the original offense charged Offended party and prosecutor must consent to such plea If offended party is absent despite due notice, the court may allow accused to plead to a lesser offense

> After arraignment and before trial 1. Withdraw the plea of not guilty

2. Private offended party and prosecutor must give consent to the plea to lesser offense 3. If private offended party is absent despite due notice, court may allow accused to plea to lesser offense

4.

Enter plea for the lesser offense

> When the penalty imposable for the offense is at least 6 years and 1 day or a fine exceeding P12000, the prosecutor must first submit his recommendation to the City or Provincial or the Chief State Prosecutor for approval. If the recommendation is approved, the trial prosecutor may then consent to the plea of guilty to a lesser offense. Plea Of Guilty To Non Capital Offense Sec. 4. Plea of guilty to non-capital offense; reception of evidence, discretionary. When the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense, the court may receive evidence from the parties to determine the penalty to be imposed. WHAT SHOULD THE COURT DO WHEN THE ACCUSED PLEADS GUILTY TO A NON-CAPITAL OFFENSE? > > > The court may receive evidence from the parties to determine the penalty to be imposed Unlike in a plea of guilty to a capital offense, the reception of evidence in this case is not mandatory It is merely discretionary on the court

PLEA OF NOT GUILTY The following are instances comprising a not guilty plea: (a) When the accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea, a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him. (b) When the accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence, his plea shall be deemed withdrawn and a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him. (c) silence of accused
COURT: What do you sayGuilty or Not guilty? ACCUSED: No comment. I do not want to say anything. A: Under paragraph [c], a plea of "Not guilty" will be entered, or conditional plea, because a plea must be absolute and unconditional.

18. PERIODS THAT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH TRIAL MUST COMMENCE
Sec. 3. Exclusions. - The following periods of delay shall be excluded in computing the time within which trial must commence: (a) Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the accused, including but not limited to the following: (1) Delay resulting from an examination of the physical and mental condition of the accused; (2) Delay resulting from proceedings with respect to other criminal charges against the accused; (3) Delay resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders;

(4) Delay resulting from pre-trial proceedings; provided, that the delay does not exceed thirty (30) days; (5) Delay resulting from orders of of cases or transfer from other courts; inhibition, or proceedings relating to change of venue

(6) Delay resulting from a finding of existence of a prejudicial question; and (7) Delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty (30) days, during which any proceeding concerning the accused is actually under advisement. (b) Any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of an essential witness. For purposes of this subparagraph, an essential witness shall be considered absent when his whereabouts are unknown or his whereabouts cannot be determined by due diligence. He shall be considered unavailable whenever his whereabouts are known but his presence for trial cannot be obtained by due diligence. (c) Any period of delay resulting from the mental incompetence or physical inability of the accused to stand trial. (d) If the information is dismissed upon motion of the prosecution and thereafter a charge is filed against the accused for the same offense, any period of delay from the date the charge was dismissed to the date the time limitation would commence to run as to the subsequent charge had there been no previous charge. (e) A reasonable period of delay when the accused is joined for trial with a co-accused over whom the court has not acquired jurisdiction, or, as to whom the time for trial has not run and no motion for separate trial has been granted. (f) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any court motu proprio, or on motion of either the accused or his counsel, or the prosecution, if the court granted the continuance on the basis of its findings set forth in the order that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the accused in a speedy trial. WHAT ARE THE PERIODS THAT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH TRIAL MUST COMMENCE? 1. 2. Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the accused. Any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of an essential witness.

3. Any period of delay resulting from the mental incompetence or physical inability of the accused to stand trial. 4. If the information is dismissed upon motion of the prosecution and thereafter a charge is filed against the accused for the same offense, any period of delay from the date the charge was dismissed to the date the time limitation would commence to run as to the subsequent charge had there been no previous charge. 5. A reasonable period of delay when the accused is joined for trial with a co-accused over whom the court has not acquired jurisdiction, or, as to whom the time for trial has not run and no motion for separate trial has been granted. 6. Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any court motu proprio, or on motion of either the accused or his counsel, or the prosecution, if the court granted the continuance on the basis of its findings set

forth in the order that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the accused in a speedy trial. WHAT ARE EXAMPLES OF OTHER PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING THE ACCUSED WHICH SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COMPUTATION OF TIME? 1. 2. 3. 4. Delay resulting from an examination of the physical and mental condition of the accused; Delay resulting from proceedings with respect to other criminal charges against the accused; Delay resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders; Delay resulting from pre-trial proceedings; provided, that the delay does not exceed thirty (30) days;

5. Delay resulting from orders of inhibition, or proceedings relating to change of venue of cases or transfer from other courts; 6. Delay resulting from a finding of existence of a prejudicial question; and

7. Delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty (30) days, during which any proceeding concerning the accused is actually under advisement (careful consideration).

RULE 117 - MOTION TO QUASH


Section 1. Time to move to quash. At any time before entering his plea, the accused may move to quash the complaint or information. WHEN CAN THE ACCUSED FILE A MOTION TO QUASH? > At any time before entering the plea, the accused may move to quash the complaint or information

AN INFORMATION WAS FILED AGAINST X. X FILED A MOTION TO QUASH AS THE FACTS IN THE INFORMATION DIDNT CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE. THIS WAS FILED TOGETHER WITH AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL. IS THIS VALID? > Yes. There is no inconsistency that exists between an application of an accused for bail and his filing of a motion to quash. Sec. 2. Form and contents. The motion to quash shall be in writing, signed by the accused or his counsel and shall distinctly specify its factual and legal grounds. The court shall consider no ground other than those stated in the motion, except lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. WHAT IS THE FORM REQUIRED FOR A MOTION TO QUASH? 1. 2. 3. It must be in writing It must be signed by the accused or his counsel It must specify its factual and legal grounds

Sec. 3. Grounds. The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds: (a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;

(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; (c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused; (d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; (e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; (f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law; (g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; (h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and (i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS THAT THE ACCUSED MAY INVOKE TO QUASH A COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION? 1. That the facts charged dont constitute an offense 2. That the court trying the case doesnt have jurisdiction over the offense 3. That the court trying the case doesnt have jurisdiction over the accused 4. That the officer who filed the information didnt have authority to do so 5. That it doesnt conform substantially to the form subscribed

6. That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law 7. That criminal liability or action 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 has been dismissed or otherwise terminated without the consent of the accused CAN THE COURT DISMISS THE CASE BASED ON GROUNDS THAT ARE NOT ALLEGED IN THE MOTION TO QUASH? > The general rule is no, the court cannot consider any ground other than those stated in the motion to quash.

> The exception is the lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. If this is the ground for dismissing the case, it need not be alleged in the motion to quash since it goes into the very competence of the court to pass upon the case. X FILED A MOTION TO QUASH AN INFORMATION ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS IN THE US WHEN THE CRIME CHARGED WAS COMMITTED. SHOULD THE MOTION BE GRANTED? > The motion should be denied

> >

The accused is already making a defense Matters of defense are generally not a ground for a motion to quash they should be presented at the trial

WHAT IS MEANT BY THE STATEMENT THAT A MOTION TO QUASH HYPOTHETICALLY ADMITS ALLEGATIONS OF FACT IN THE INFORMATION? > It means that the accused argues that assuming that the facts charged are true, the information should still be dismissed based on the ground invoked by the defendant. > Therefore, since the defendant assumes that the facts in the information are true, only these facts should be taken into account and the court resolves the motion to quash. Other facts, such as matters of defenses, which are not in the information should not be considered > The exceptions to the rule are when the grounds invoked to quash the information are extinction of criminal liability, prescription, and former jeopardy. In these cases, additional facts are allowed. CAN THE ACCUSED MOVE TO QUASH ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS DENIED DUE PROCESS? > No, denial of due process is not one of the grounds for a motion to quash

WHAT IS THE TEST TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF A MOTION TO QUASH ON THE GROUND THAT THE FACTS AVERRED IN THE INFORMATION DONT AMOUNT TO AN OFFENSE? > The test is whether the facts alleged would establish the essential elements of the crime as defined by law, and in this examination, matters aliunde are not considered X FILED A MOTION TO QUASH ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: THAT THE COURT LACKED JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED AND THAT THE COMPLAINT CHARGED MORE THAN ONE OFFENSE. CAN THE COURT GRANT THE MOTION ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF JURISDICTION? > In the past, the answer would have been no since the SC ruled in several cases then that the motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be based only on this ground. If other grounds are included, there is waiver, and the accused is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. > The new rule, based on the decisions of the SC on Section 20 of Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the inclusion of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in a motion to dismiss shall not be considered as a voluntary appearance. WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF AN INFORMATION THAT WAS SIGNED BY AN UNAUTHORIZED PERSON? > A valid information must be signed by a competent officer, which, among other requisites, confers jurisdiction over the person of the accused and the subject matter of the accusation > Thus, an infirmity in the information such as the lack of authority of the officer signing it cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, express consent, or even amendment. It is an invalid information and cannot be the basis of criminal proceedings. > A motion to quash would prosper

WHAT HAPPENS IF THE DEFENDANT ENTERS HIS PLEA BEFORE FILING A MOTION TO QUASH? > By entering his plea before filing the motion to quash, the defendant waives the formal objectives to the complaint or information > But if the ground for the motion is any of the following below, there is no waiver. The following grounds may be raised at any stage of the proceeding: 1. 2. 3. 4. > Failure to charge an offense Lack of jurisdiction over the offense Extinction of criminal liability Double jeopardy Note: if it is a formal objection, it is deemed waived upon plea