Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 119

Procedure 2002 Edition Trial

Rule 119
TRIAL

SECTION 1. Time to prepare for trial. After a plea of not guilty is

entered, the accused shall have at least fifteen (15) days to prepare for trial.
The trial shall commence within thirty (30) days from receipt of the pre-trial
order. (sec. 6, cir. 38-98)

SEC. 2. Continuous trial until terminated; postponements. Trial once

commenced shall continue from day to day as far as practicable until terminated.
It may be postponed for a reasonable period of time for good cause. (2a)
The court shall, after consultation with the prosecutor and defense counsel,
set the case for continuous trail on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar
at the earliest possible time so as to ensure speedy trial. In no case shall the
entire trial period exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the first day of
trial, except as otherwise authorized by the Supreme Court. (sec. 8, cir. 38-
98).
The time limitations provided under this section and the preceding section
shall not apply where special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court provide for
a shorter period of trial. (n)

After the accused is arraigned, there is a minimum of 15 days to prepared for the trial. And then
continuous trial until terminated. The trial period shall not exceed 180 days, taken from the Speedy
Trial Act and SC Circulars. They are now incorporated in the new rules.

There are many provisions here which are new in the sense that they are found in the rules for the
first time. However, even before the new rules took effect, they were considered as already existing
provisions because of the Speedy Trial Act and SC Circular 38-98. Ngayon, nandito na. So we will not
go over them one by one. I will just point them out.

The new provisions are Section 3 up to Section 10:

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 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.
(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

Lakas Atenista 159

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 119
Procedure 2002 Edition Trial

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 interestof the public and the accused in a speedy trial. (sec.
9, cir. 38-98)

SEC. 4. Factors for granting continuance. The following factors, among

others, shall be considered by a court in determining whether to grant a
continuance under section 3(f) of this Rule.
(a) Whether or not the failure to grant a continuance in the proceeding
would likely make a continuation of such proceeding impossible or result in a
miscarriage of justice; and
(b) Whether or not the case taken as a whole is so novel, unusual and
complex, due to the number of accused or the nature of the prosecution, or that
it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation within the periods of time
established therein.
In addition, no continuance under section 3(f) of this Rule shall be granted
because of congestion of the courts calendar or lack of diligent preparation or
failure to obtain available witnesses on the part of the prosecutor. (sec. 10,
cir. 38-98)

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
twelve-month period, the time limit shall be one hundred eighty (180) days from
notice of said order for new trial. (sec 11, cir. 38-98)

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. (sec. 7, cir. 38-98)

SEC. 7. Public attorneys duties where accused is imprisoned. If the

public attorney assigned to defend a person charged with a crime knows that he
latter is preventively detained, either because he is charged with a bailable
crime but has no means to post bail, or, is charged with a non-bailable crime,
or, is serving a term of imprisonment in any penal institution, it shall be his
duty to do the following:
(a) Shall promptly undertake to obtain the presence of the prisoner for
trial or cause a notice to be served on the person having custody of the
prisoner requiring such person to so advise the prisoner of his right and demand
trial.
(b) Upon receipt of that notice, the custodian of the prisoner shall
promptly advise the prisoner of the charge and of his right to demand trial. If
at anytime thereafter the prisoner informs his custodian that he demands such
trial, the latter shall cause notice to that effect to be sent promptly to the
public attorney.
(c) Upon receipt of such notice, the public attorney shall promptly seek to
obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial.
(d) When the custodian of the prisoner receives from the public attorney a
properly supported request for the availability of the prisoner for purpose of
trial, the prisoner shall be made available accordingly. (sec. 12, cir. 38-98)

SEC. 8. Sanctions. In any case in which private counsel for the accused,
the public attorney, or the prosecutor:
(a) Knowingly allows the case to be set for trial without disclosing that a
necessary witness would be unavailable for trial;
(b) Files a motion solely for delay which he knows is totally frivolous and
without merit;
(c) Makes a statement for the purpose of obtaining continuance which he
knows to be false and which is material to the granting of a continuance; or
(d) Willfully fails to proceed to trial without justification consistent
with the provisions hereof, the court may punish such counsel, attorney, or
prosecutor, as follows:
(1) By imposing on a counsel privately retained in connection with the
defense o fan accused, a fine not exceeding twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00);
(2) By imposing on any appointed counsel de oficio, public attorney, or
prosecutor a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00); and
(3) By denying any defense counsel or prosecutor the right to practice
before the court trying the case for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days.
The punishment provided for by this section shall be without prejudice to any

Lakas Atenista 160

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 119
Procedure 2002 Edition Trial

appropriate criminal action or other sanction authorized under these rules.

(sec. 13, cir. 38-98)

There is something here in Section 8 that I want to bring out mga kastigo, sanctions ba! Alam mo
ang kawawa dito, mga abogado eh fiscals, defense counsels, even the PAO lawyers if they are
responsible for delaying the trial of the criminal case.

Just imagine, P20,000 if it is the private defense lawyer. That is the maximum of course. Ang PAO
naman, P5,000 75% discount! Ma-suspend ka pa.

SEC. 9. Remedy where accused is not brought to trial within the time limit.
If the accused is not brought to trial within the time limit required by
Section 1(g), Rule 116 and Section 1, as extended by Section 6 of this rule, the
information may be dismissed on motion of the accused on the ground of denial of
his right to speedy trial. The accused shall have the burden of proving the
motion but the prosecution shall have the burden of going forward with the
evidence to establish the exclusion of time under section 3 of this rule. The
dismissal shall be subject to the rules on double jeopardy.
Failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial shall constitute
a waiver of the right to dismiss under this section. (sec. 14, cir. 38-98)

SEC. 10. Law on speedy trial not a bar to provision on speedy trial in the
Constitution. No provision of law on speedy trial and no rule implementing the
same shall be interpreted as a bar to any charge of denial of the right to
speedy trial guaranteed by section 14(2), article III, of the 1987 Constitution.
(sec. 15, cir. 38-98)

Take note of Section 9 and 10. Please correlate this on the rights of the accused to speedy trial as
mention in Section 1[h] of Rule 115 on the rights of the accused.

SEC. 11. Order of trial. The trial shall proceed in the following order:
(a) The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge and, in the
proper case, the civil liability.
(b) The accused may present evidence to prove his defense and damages, if
any, arising, from the issuance of a provisional remedy in the case.
(c) The prosecution and the defense may, in that order, present rebuttal and
sur-rebuttal evidence unless the court, in furtherance of justice, permits them
to present additional evidence bearing upon the main issue.
(d) Upon admission of evidence of the parties, the case shall be deemed
submitted for decision unless the court directs them to argue orally or to
submit written memoranda.
(e) When the accused admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or
information but interposes a lawful defense, the order of trial may be modified.
(3a)

The order of the trial in the criminal case is almost the same pattern as in civil cases.

Q: Who presents evidence first?

A: The prosecution. Under Section 11 [a], The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the
charge and, in the proper case, the civil liability. So you prove the charge and the civil liability.

Q: Ano yung in the proper case?

A: That is because if the civil liability has already been reserved, ah wala na forget evidence of
civil liability where there is already reservation. Pero kung hindi, then it is deemed instituted with the
criminal case.

Under paragraph [b], provisional remedies are allowed in criminal cases, like attachments, etc. in
the same way if the civil action is deem instituted, the offended party can ask a preliminary attachment
of the property under Rule 127.

Paragraph [e] refers to trial in reverse. The best example is when the accused raises self-defense.
The burden of proof is automatically shifted to the accused. But this should be included during the pre-
trial as provided under Rule 118, Section 1 [e]:

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

Lakas Atenista 161

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 119
Procedure 2002 Edition Trial

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:
x x x x x x x
(e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but
interposes a lawful defense;
x x x x x x x

Q: Is there such a thing as deposition-taking in criminal cases?

A: YES, under Section 12:

SEC. 12. Application for examination of witness for accused before trial.
When the accused has been held to answer for an offense, he may, upon motion
with notice to the other parties, have witnesses conditionally examined in his
behalf. The motion shall state: (a) the name and residence of the witness; (b)
the substance of his testimony; and (c) that the witness is sick or infirm as to
afford reasonable ground for believing that the will not be able to attend the
trial, or resides more than one hundred (100) kilometers from the place of trial
and has no means to attend the same, or that other similar circumstances exist
that would make him unavailable or prevent him from attending the trial. The
motion shall be supported by an affidavit of the accused and such other evidence
as the court may require. (4a)

Q: How is deposition in criminal cases being done?

A: Read Section 13:

SEC. 13. Examination of defense witness; how made. If the court is

satisfied that the examination of a witness for the accused is necessary, an
order shall be made directing that the witness be examined at a specific date,
time and place and that a copy of the order be served on the prosecutor at least
three (3) days before the scheduled examination. The examination shall be taken
before a judge, or, if not practicable, a member of the Bar in good standing so
designated by the judge in the order, or if the order be made by a court of
superior jurisdiction, before an inferior court to be designated therein. The
examination shall proceed notwithstanding the absence of the prosecutor provided
he was duly notified of the hearing. A written record of the testimony shall be
taken. (5a)

The grounds are almost identical. This is deposition actually. Only, it is called conditional
examination. That is the term used here.

Take note, connect this with Section 1[f], Rule 115 rights of the accused. Section 12 is an exception
to the right to confront and cross-examine because you cannot insist during the trial to confront and
cross-examine the witness under Rule 115 Section 1[f] when we was already examined under Section
12.

Q: Is the remedy of deposition-taking also available to the prosecution?

A: YES, under Section 15:

SEC. 15. Examination of witness for the prosecution. When it is

satisfactorily appears that a witness for the prosecution is too sick or infirm
to appear at the trial as directed by the court, of has to leave the Philippines
with no definite date of returning, he may forthwith be conditionally examined
before the court where the case is pending. Such examination, in the presence of
the accused, or in his absence after reasonable notice to attend the examination
has been served on him, shall be conducted in the same manner as an examination
at the trial. Failure or refusal of the accused to attend the examination at the
trial. Failure or refusal of the accused to attend the examination after notice
shall be considered a waiver. The statement taken may be admitted in behalf of
or against the accused. (7a)

Let us try to compare Section 13 (defense) and Section 15 (prosecution): Lets go to the defense
witness under Section 13:

Q: Before whom will the examination of the witness be taken?

A: It DEPENDS before the judge, or if not practicable, a member of the bar in good standing
designated by the judge in the order.

Lakas Atenista 162

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 119
Procedure 2002 Edition Trial

Now, you compare that with Section 15. In Section 15, you will notice: he may forthwith be
conditionally examined before the court where the case is pending. Unlike in Section 13 before the judge,
or if not practicable, a member of the bar in good standing it is more lenient no?

Q: What is the reason why the law is more generous to the defense witness?
A: According to one case through Justice Feria, this is because the government has the resources to
get he testimony of its witnesses. Pero ang defense may have a hard time lalo na kapag pobre.

SEC. 14. Bail to secure appearance of material witness. When the court is
satisfied, upon proof of oath, that a material witness will not testify when
required, it may, upon motion of either party, order the witness to post bail in
such sum as may be deemed proper. Upon refusal to post bail, the court shall
commit him to prison until he complies or is legally discharged after his
testimony has been taken. (6a)

It seems that the prosecution here is under the mercy of his witnesses. Meaning, kung ayaw ng
testigo, wala kang magawa. But under Section 14, you can ask the court to order the witness to post
bail. And if he refuses to post bail, he can be arrested. This is an instance where a witness can be jailed
ahead of the accused.

But actually the truth is in most cases, prosecution witnesses do not appear not because ayaw but
because takot! They are afraid of what will happen like the accused might harass them. And the law
knows that. That is why there is also another alternative RA 6981, The Witness Protection Program
which took effect last April of 1991. You read that so you will have an idea.

SEC. 16. Trial of several accused. When two or more accused are jointly
charged with an offense, they shall be tried jointly unless the court, in its
discretion and upon motion of the prosecutor or any accused, orders separate
trial for one or more accused. (8a)

Remember that there can be a joint trial of two or more criminal cases if they arose of the same
incident like Judee fired her AK-47 and killed two or more people one after the other. But you cannot
file one information because that will be duplicitous. There must be one information for every one
homicide and then you move for a joint trial.

Q: Now, how do you compare this rule with civil cases?

A: In civil cases, when there is a common question of fact or law involving two or more parties,
there is such a thing as filing only one complaint joinder of causes of action or parties. But in criminal
cases, that is not allowed. Consolidation in criminal cases in only for the purpose of joint trial lang and
you cannot have one information charging more than one offense.

DISCHARGE OF AN ACCUSED TO BE STATE WITNESS

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

persons are jointly charged with the commission of any offense, upon motion of
the prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or more of the
accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses for
the state when, after requiring the prosecution to present evidence and the
sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the
discharge, the court is satisfied that:
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose
discharge is requested;
(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution
of the offense committed, except the testimony of said accused;
(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its
material points;
(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving
moral turpitude.
Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part
of the trial. If the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as
state witness, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence. (9a)

SEC. 18. Discharge of accused operates as acquittal. The order indicated

in the preceding section shall amount to an acquittal of the discharged accused

Lakas Atenista 163

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 119
Procedure 2002 Edition Trial

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. (10a)

Lets take Section 17 and Section 18 together. Discharge of an accused to be state witness means that
you will convert an accused to become Hudas, save his neck but hang them all!

Under Section 18, once the witness is discharged under Section 17, he is now CONSIDERED
ACQUITTED and there is no way for him to be brought back in the case EXCEPT when he changes his
mind and ayaw na niyang mag-testify. That is the only exception.

Q: What are the requirements before a witness can be discharged?

A: Section 17 enumerates the requirements.

SAID ACCUSED DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE MOST GUILTY.

Lets comment on some of the requirements. One of the most important requirements for the
discharge of an accused is the fourth one Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty. Based
from what I read from time to time, even lawyers have been commenting on this. It seems they are
misquoting this eh, like 2 days ago, a lawyer said that we must discharge the accused because he is the
least guilty.

That is not what the law says! What the law says is, HE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE MOST
GUILTY. And it is not the same with HE IS THE LEAST GUILTY.

EXAMPLE: Mortz, Pao and Jet. Mortz principal; Pao accomplice; Jet accessory. Pag-sinabi mong
the least guilty, hindi mo puwedeng gamitin si Pao. Si Jet dapat ang gamitin mo because he is the least
guilty. [Tsk! tsk! Ginamit si Jet. Ginamit!] PERO, pag-sinabi mong he does not appear to be the most guilty, you can
use Pao, although there is somebody to be less guilty. Basta ang importante, hindi si Mortz. So, there is
a difference between the two phrases.

Q: What do you mean by the phrase does not appear to be the most guilty?
A: There are cases:

PEOPLE vs. OCIMAR

August 17, 1992

FACTS: This case involved a hold-upping incident, committed in a bus in Manila while
traveling in the North Express Way. There were four (4) hold-uppers who rode in the bus.
When they reach a certain point, they stood up and pulled to their guns and robbed the
passengers. And they placed themselves strategically: One of them stood behind the driver,
o, wag kang kikilos, drive ka lang. Yung iba namang dito. Kanya-kanyang silang role eh. The
others were the ones who divested the passengers, mga pitaka ninyo, relo lahat!
Now, there was one passenger there who was a military man wearing civilian clothes
and may baril siya. So he wanted to fight back but one of them saw him. Pag-bunot niya,
inunahan siya! So accused A shot that passenger. Accused D naman saw A shoot the
victim. And of course all of them were charged with Robbery with Homicide in conspiracy
- the act of one is the act of all.
The prosecution wants to utilize D the one who is behind the driver as state witness.
The other accused objected claiming conspiracy we are all co-principal the act of one is
the act of all. So why do you say you are not the most guilty? Pare-pareho lang tayo. Same
penalty.

ISSUE: Will accused D be qualified under the phrase does not appear to be the most
guilty?

HELD: YES. When you say he does not appear to be the most guilty, you do not apply the
rule on conspiracy. But you apply the rule on individual acts. In reality, who is more guilty?
The one who really shot the victim or the one who is just behind the driver? The reality is,

Lakas Atenista 164

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 119
Procedure 2002 Edition Trial

the most guilty is the one who shot, although for purposes of the RPC both of you are co-
principal. So, you look at it that way. Do not apply the principle of the act-of-the-one-is-the-
act-of-all. You consider the most guilty in terms of the participation.
By most guilty means the highest degree of culpability in terms of participation in the
commission of the offense and not the severity of the penalty imposed. While all the accused
maybe given the same penalty but by reason of culpability one may be least guilty if we take
into account his degree of participation in the perpetuation of the offense.

Q: Generally, when the fiscal, after criminal investigation, believes that one of them can be a state
witness, therefore he will not include his name in the information. Is it allowed?
A: NO, you have to include him first before he can be a state witness. Let the court decide whether
he will be a state witness or not. You cannot discharge on your own. Remember under the Rules, the
prosecutor is bound to file the information against ALL those who appear to be responsible including
this guy who you want to use as state witness. But when you reach the court, you file a motion to
discharge and let the court who will do it.

And under the New Rules, there must be a HEARING to determine whether there should be
discharge or not. Thats why the rule said, the trial court must require the prosecution to present evidence
and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge. So, there must
be an affidavit and there must be a hearing.

In the 1985 Rules, there was no need of a hearing. No need for the prosecution to present evidence.
Normally the fiscal will just file a motion that we would like to use this witness and the court will
discharge. Now, hindi na pwede yan because in most cases in the past, a person is discharge and it
turns out that he is the most guilty. To avoid that possibility, there is now need to present affidavit, etc.
and there must be a hearing. The court will require presentation of evidence and it will decide whether
or not to discharge.

Now, sabi ng court in the hearing for the discharge of the accused, There is no need to discharge him.
Motion to discharge, denied! So sabi ng accused, Kawawa na ako nito because I already admitted the crime in
my affidavit! Tapos, hindi pala ako qualified! [nak ng pating naman o!]. What will happened to you now? You
Look at the last paragraph of Section 17:

Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part

of the trial. If the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as
state witness, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.

So that is fair enough because the affidavit which is practically an admission of his participation,
then if he is not discharged, do not use it against him. It is inadmissible as evidence against him. The
leading case in this issue is the 1993 case of

PEOPLE vs. CA AND INSPECTOR JOE PRING

223 SCRA 475

FACTS: Pring was involved in kidnapping and one policeman testified against him
Nonilo Arile. There was a motion to discharge Arile to testify against Pring. Then the
prosecution gave the defense the affidavit of Arile. Based on that, the court ordered the
discharge of Arile. Pring questioned the procedure. This is the first case where the SC
applied this rule on hearing on the discharge of an accused. Sabi ni Pring, Where is the
hearing? Prosecution: Yon palang motion to discharge na binigay namin sa inyo? Pring: Ah,
hindi naman hearing yun! Hearing means, ilagay mo si Arile sa witness stand subject to
cross-examination because even under Section 17, evidence adduced to support the
discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. Meaning, the state witness will not
testify again. So what is contemplated here is personal testimony and not the affidavit.

ISSUE: Is the argument of Pring correct?

Lakas Atenista 165

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 119
Procedure 2002 Edition Trial

HELD: NO. Hearing means, you have the opportunity to read what he will say and the
opportunity to object. Yan ang ibig sabihin ng hearing. Hindi kailangan na he will be
questioned personally in court. That satisfies the requirement of hearing.
Hence, in resolving the issue in this petition, the proper question we should address is:
Was there a failure to observe the spirit and intent of Section 17, Rule 119 in the case at bar?
We rule in the NEGATIVE. The prosecution has submitted the sworn statement of accused
Nonilo Arile and its evidence showing that the conditions for discharge have been met.
Neither can it be denied that the defense was able to oppose the motion to discharge Nonilo
Arile. With both litigants able to present their side, the lack of actual hearing was not fatal
enough to undermine the court's ability to determine whether the conditions prescribed
under Section 17, Rule 119 were satisfied.

So there is already substantial compliance with the hearing. And that was the first case interpreting
this new provision after the 1985 Rules. But for the merits, later na-acquit man si Pring ba which is a
different issue. Yung dito, discharge lang ang issue eh. On the merits, he was acquitted. But after one
year from his acquittal, pinatay naman siya ng ABB. Sabi nila (ABB), kung nakaligtas ka sa court, sa
amin hindi ka makaligtas. Thats what happened there.

Q: Normally, when is an accused discharged?

A: He is discharged before he testifies. You will use him. Thats why he is going to be discharged.
However, in the 1992 case of

ROSALES vs. COURT OF APPEALS

215 SCRA 102

FACTS: The prosecution wants to use an accused as a witness and he was willing. Sabi
ng prosecution, We will file a motion to discharge you to be state witness. The accused
said, Hwag! Hwag!.. if you will do that patay ako! Patayin talaga nila ako. They will not
allow me to testify. But still the prosecution used him. He took a stand and he pointed to
all his companions. So he testified first bago nag-file ng motion to discharge ang
prosecution.

ISSUE: Is that correct? Can the testimony come ahead before the discharge?

HELD: YES because of the peculiar fact his life is in danger eh. Anyway according to
the law, should the discharge be made, is should be made by the prosecution before resting
its case (Section 17). In the case at bar, at that moment, the prosecution has not rested its
case. So puwede.
While it is the usual practice of the prosecution to present the accused who turns state
witness only after his discharge, the trial court may nevertheless sanction his discharge after
his testimony if circumstances so warrant. In the case before Us, the imminent risk to his life
justified the deviation from the normal course of procedure as a measure to protect him
while at the same time ensuring his undaunted cooperation with the prosecution. Indeed, as
is explicit from the Rule, as long as the motion for discharge of an accused to be utilized as a
state witness is filed before the prosecution rests, the trial court should, if warranted, grant
it.

Q: What happens if an accused who is the most guilty is erroneously discharged ang mga naiwan,
yung mga pipitsugin? Is the erroneous discharge valid? Is he deemed acquitted?
A: The SC said YES. Even if there is a mistake, he is now acquitted once he is discharged. His
testimony is admissible. In the case of

BOGO-MEDELLIN CO. vs. JUDGE PEDRO SON

209 SCRA 329 (May 27, 1992)

Lakas Atenista 166

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 119
Procedure 2002 Edition Trial

HELD: Any witting or unwitting error of the prosecution in asking for the discharge
of an accused and of the trial court in granting the petition for discharge, so long as no
question of jurisdiction is involved, would not deprive the discharged accused of the
acquittal that is specified in Section 10 of Rule 119 and of the constitutional guarantee
against double jeopardy. It is also relevant to note that the improper or mistaken discharge
of an accused would not affect his competency as a witness or render inadmissible his
testimony.

Q: Lets go back to Evidence. He is the most guilty. His discharge was wrong. Is his testimony
admissible?
A: YES, because he can perceive and perceiving and he can make known his perception to others.
That is the only qualification. There is no violation of marital disqualification or attorney-client
confidentiality, etc. Wala man! So you go back to Evidence. The testimony of the witness is qualified
although it might be polluted and he did it to save his game that is not enough to make his testimony
inadmissible.

Q: One thing more, who can discharge the witness?

A: The court where the very case is pending. Thats the rule the court where the case is pending.

BAR QUESTION: What happens when an accused is discharged, and after he is discharged, sabi ng
prosecution, Teka muna nagkamali ako, di pala kita kailangan. Balik ka! Can it be done?
A: Sabi ng SC, NO, acquitted na yan! The only reason for him to come back is, he is asked to testify
pero ayaw niya. Prosecution: But I dont need him. SC: that is your fault because first, why did you ask
for his discharge? So once he is discharged, he is deemed acquitted whether you use him or do not use
him. The only way for him to come back is, you want to use him but he does not want to testify because
he is double-crossing the Government.

Lets go further. There is another law, about this witness. You try to compare this principle with the
provision of RA 6981 The Witness Protection Act. Under RA 6981, the fiscal would not even include
you in the charge anymore, for as long as the DOJ will say that he is qualified, he is covered by the
Witness Protection Program. Under the law, the fiscal should not include him anymore.
Unlike in criminal procedure kailangan isali ka muna bago ka i-discharge. Sa RA 6981 naman, hindi
ka na kasali. That is why the constitutionality of the law was challenged in the case of

WEBB vs. DE LEON

August 23, 1995

FACTS: State witness Alfaro admitted that she was with them. She admitted kasama
siyang nagpunta sa bahay ng mga Vizconde. And then she was placed in the Witness
Protection Program and was used against Hubert Webb. And according to Webb, the
provision of the Witness Protection Act which authorizes the DOJ to place somebody in
the Witness Protection Program, and once he certifies that she is covered, the fiscal is no
longer allowed to file a case against her (state witness) is violative of the judicial
prerogative to discharge a witness because you jumping the gun on the court.
According to Webb, it should be the court that will discharge and not the DOJ. The law
is not valid because it is an encroachment of a judicial prerogative. It is an intrusion for it is
only the court which has the power under the rules on criminal procedure to discharge an
accused as state witness.

ISSUE #1: Is Webbs argument valid?

HELD: Webbs argument lacks appeal for it lies on the faulty assumption that the
decision whom to prosecute is a judicial function, the sole prerogative of courts and beyond
executive and legislative interference. In truth, the prosecution of crimes appertains to the
executive department of government whose principal power and responsibility is to see that
our laws are faithfully executed. A necessary component of this power to execute our laws
is the right to prosecute their violators. The right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with a
wide range of discretion the discretion of whether, what and whom to charge, the
exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are best appreciated by

Lakas Atenista 167

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 119
Procedure 2002 Edition Trial

prosecutors. We thus hold that it is not constitutionally impermissible for Congress to enact
R.A. No. 6981 vesting in the Department of Justice the power to determine who can qualify
as a witness in the program and who shall be granted immunity from prosecution.

ISSUE #2: How do you reconcile this ruling with the rule that only the court has the
power to discharge?
HELD: Simple! In the Witness Protection Program, the accused is NOT even accused in
any case yet. Wala pa! But once he is accused, you need the consent of the court to
discharge, that is kapag kasali na! Pero kung hindi pa kasali, there is no need for the courts
consent to decide because that is an executive function.

ISSUE #3: And why is the courts consent necessary once the accused is charged in
court?
HELD: This is because the court has already acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
accused. So the SC said, Section 17 of Rule 119 does not support the proposition that the
power to choose who shall be a state witness is an inherent judicial prerogative. Under this
provision the court is given the power to discharge as state witness only because it has
already acquired jurisdiction over the crime and the accused. The discharge of an accused is
part of the exercise of jurisdiction but is not a recognition of an inherent judicial function.

ISSUE #4: Is it wise for Congress to enact this law? Why will Congress enact this kind of
law that will determine that the witness will not be included in the information?
HELD: YES. It is a wise legislation. Moreover, the Rules of Court have never been
interpreted to be beyond change by legislation designed to improve the administration of
our justice system. The Witness Protection Act is one of the much sought penal reform laws
to help government in its uphill fight against crime, one certain cause of which is the
reticence of witnesses to testify.

SEC. 19. When mistake has been made in charging the proper offense. When
it becomes manifest at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in
charging the proper offense and the accused cannot be convicted of the offense
charged or any other offense necessarily included therein, the accused shall not
be discharged if there appears good cause to detain him. In such case, the court
shall commit the accused to answer for the proper offense and dismiss the
original case upon the filing of the proper information. (11a)

You co-relate Section 19 with the last paragraph of Section 14, Rule 110:

If it appears at anytime before judgment that a mistake has been made in

charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or
information upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in
accordance with section 19, Rule 119, provided the accused shall not be placed
in double jeopardy. The court may require the witnesses to give bail for their
appearance at the trial.

So the same no? The accused shall be discharge because of a wrong information upon filing of the
correct one. So Section 14 of Rule 110 and Section 19 of Rule 119 talk of the same thing.

QUESTION: how will you distinguish the two provisions? Kung tingnan mo mukang pareho eh.
But for academic purposes, there are differences made by Justice Regalado in the 1994 case of GALVEZ
VS. CA (237 SCRA 685) Alam mo itong si Regalado, siya din ang nag-distinguish ng amendment and
substitution of information under Rule 110 which was asked in the bar and thoroughly discussed in the
case of TEEHANKEE VS. MADAYAG. In the case of Galvez naman, gi-distinguish naman niya ang
Section 14 Rule 110 and Section 19 Rule 119.

Q: Distinguish Section 14 of Rule 110 and Section 19 of Rule 119.

A: For academic purposes, the following are the distinctions:

1. Rule 119 is the rule specifically governing the trial stage; whereas
Rule 110 provides the procedural governance for the prosecution of offenses;

Lakas Atenista 168

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 119
Procedure 2002 Edition Trial

2. Rule 119 is more directly and principally directed to the trial court to invest it with the
requisite authority to direct by itself the dismissal and re-filing of the informations
therein contemplated; whereas
Rule 110 is directed to the prosecutor who can and should institute remedial measures for
the dismissal of the original information and the re-filing of the correct one, otherwise he
would be recreant to his duties;

3. In Rule 119, evidence is necessarily being presented, hence the trial court is now in a better
position to conclude that manifestly the accused cannot be convicted of the offense
charged or of one that it necessarily includes; whereas
In Rule 110, since no evidence has been presented at that stage, the error would appear or be
discoverable from a review of the records of the preliminary investigation; and

4. In Rule 119, the permissible stage for effecting that substitution is at any time before
judgment; whereas
In Rule 110, it is sufficient that it appearsthat a mistake has been made in charging the
proper offense which situation contemplates a longer time span, inclusive of the
period from the filing of the information up to and before trial.

So after I read the case of Galvez, I said Regalado has a very sharp mind. Masyadong matalas and
utak ba! A very small distinction, makita niya eh. And it takes pain to analyze. That is the product of a
sharp mind. But no wonder because pag-kuha niya ng bar, 96.70% gud ang average niyan! He is the
highest for the record. Sabi nila si Marcos. Yes, but that is not official. Istorya lang yun. Si Marcos nag
oral examination before the SC pero binabaan ang average. But on record, it is Regalado who is the
highest in the bar. Nobody has beaten that. Makita ninyo man ba sa decisions niya. Masyadong
matalas, very sharp!

SEC. 20. Appointment of acting prosecutor. When a prosecutor, his

assistant or deputy is disqualified to act due to any of the grounds stated in
section 1 of Rule 137 or for any other reason, the judge or the prosecutor shall
communicate with the Secretary of Justice in order that the latter may appoint
an acting prosecutor. (12a)

SEC. 21. Exclusion of the public. The judge may, motu proprio, exclude the
public from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced during the trial is
offensive to decency or public morals. He may also, on motion of the accused,
exclude the public from the trial except court personnel and the counsel of the
parties. (13a)

Section 21 is an exception to the rule found in Rule 115 about the right of the accused to a public
trial. There are some exceptions to that right. And under Section 21:

1. the court may, moto propio, exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence to be
produced during the trial is offensive to decency or public morals. Normally this applies in trial
for the crime of rape or in crimes against chastity, where the nature of the evidence is such that
the public may want to go there because they only want to listen to these sadiscious details of
the testimony. The public can be excluded. Only the lawyers, the parties are allowed inside.
Yaan!

2. on motion of the accused, the court may exclude the public. That is his right to speedy trial.
Kung ayaw niya, e di okey lang!

Aside from the two exceptions, the other grounds where the public can be excluded, based on
American Jurisprudence are:
1. To prevent disorder;
2. To prevent embarrassment to a witness;
3. To limit attendance to seating capacity.

Lakas Atenista 169

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 119
Procedure 2002 Edition Trial

This is the very issue now. Ive been reading current newspaper reports that everybody is
anticipating that the case against Erap will be filed in the Sandiganbayan. The DOJ wants everything to
be televised all over again. They are filing a petition before the Supreme Court. There is a standing
order of the Supreme Court prohibiting it. It should not be televised because of what happened in the
Aquino libel case [Aquino vs. Beltran]. Because of that, ayaw na ng SC na i-televised. It becomes a
sarswela show ba! rather than an a public trial.

Now, they want to justify it on the ground that this involves public interest so the SC should relax
the rules. I cannot anticipate how the SC will resolve the matter because everybody has gotten used to
the impeachment trial so everybody wants to hear what is happening, especially if the person involved
is Erap. Such a standing memorandum was not applied to the impeachment trial because it was not a
judicial trial but a political trial. It is the Senate which controls the rules, not the courts. This is the
difference. But this case is before the Sandiganbayan which is a different story.

Because definitely many people would like to go there but how do you get a seat them all in the
Sandiganbayan? You will have to exclude hundreds, if not thousands and allow only the entry of a
few. But if it is televised, then everybody can watch again.

SEC. 22. Consolidation of trials of related offenses. Charges for offenses

founded on the same facts or forming part of a series of offenses of similar
character may be tried jointly at the discretion of the court. (14a)

Do not confuse this consolidation here in Rule 119 with the consolidation in Rule 111.

In Rule 111, you are consolidating the criminal case and the civil case the civil case which is
brought separately will be consolidated with the criminal case. Here in Rule 119, you are
consolidating two or more criminal cases which are identical, founded on the same facts or forming
part of the same series of offense of similar character. This is similar to consolidation in Rule 31 on civil
cases.

But in civil cases, we can allow related cases to be filed together eh joinder of parties, which is not
allowed in criminal cases. The only practice allowed in criminal cases is consolidation. But there could
be no such thing as joinder of accused in one information.

Lets go to Section 23 on Demurrer one of the most important provisions in Rule 119.

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. (15a)
The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall
specifically state its grounds and shall be filed within a non-extendible period
of five (5) days after the prosecution rests its case. The prosecution may
oppose the motion within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from its
receipt.
If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to
evidence within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice. The
prosecution may oppose the demurrer to evidence within a similar period from its
receipt.
The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence
or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before
judgment. (n)

Demurrer is a motion to dismiss. After the prosecution has rested its case, based on the order of trial,
the accused now presents his case. But sabi ng accused, Well, I will present evidence on the
assumption that the prosecution has proven prima facie the crime and my guilt. [meaning the
presumption of innocence has already been disputively rebutted ba!]. But suppose the prosecution has
not proven the facts or not proven the crime or my guilt, why will I present evidence? Why will I

Lakas Atenista 170

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 119
Procedure 2002 Edition Trial

prove my innocence when Im still presumed innocent? Yaan! Yan ang demurrer. The same thing in
civil cases why will you prove your defense when the plaintiff failed to prove his cause of action? So
instead of presenting evidence, he will file a demurrer. Actually its a motion to dismiss.

Now of course, it is now emphasized in paragraph 1 that a demurrer may be filed with or without
leave of court. Leave of court means before your demurrer, you file muna a motion for permission to file
the demurrer. The court grants permission, you file the demurrer. You can still file the demurrer even
without the permission of the court. If you file demurrer with or without leave and it is granted, then
you have no problem because the accused will be acquitted.

The problem is, if your demurrer is denied. Meaning, the court says that there is sufficient evidence
to prove at least the guilt of the accused. If the demurrer was filed with prior leave of court and it is
subsequently denied, the accused is allowed to present evidence to prove his defense.

But if you filed the demurrer without prior leave of court and the demurrer is denied, then you are
already convicted because the accused has forfeited his right to present evidence. It is practically
equivalent to a waiver of his right to present evidence. So conviction automatically follows. This is
what the rules say.

What is the rationale behind this? The 1997 case of

PEOPLE vs. TURINGAN

282 SCRA 424

HELD: The rationale for the rule is that when the accused moves for dismissal on
the ground of insufficiency of the prosecution evidence, he does so in the belief that said
evidence is insufficient to convict and, therefore, any need for him to present any
evidence is negated. It is said that an accused cannot be allowed to wager on the
outcome of judicial proceedings by espousing inconsistent viewpoints whenever
dictated by convenience. The purpose behind the rule is also to avoid the dilatory
practice of filing motions for dismissal as a demurrer to the evidence of the prosecution
and, after denial thereof, the defense would then claim the right to present its evidence.

So, there is an inconsistency in saying that the prosecutions evidence is not sufficient, and yet when
it is denied, OK, I will present evidence. Ahh di puwede yan! And many defense counsels in the past
have filed demurrer just to delay the presentation of evidence when there is no chance for said
demurrer to be granted.

BERNARDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

278 SCRA 782

HELD: The power to grant leave to the accused to file a demurrer is addressed to the
sound discretion of the trial court. The purpose is to determine whether the accused in filing
his demurrer is merely stalling the proceedings. [Is he really serious or is only delaying the
proceedings?] Judicial action to grant prior leave to file demurrer to evidence is
discretionary upon the trial court. But to allow the accused to present evidence after he was
denied prior leave to file demurrer is not discretionary.[Meaning, when you file a
demurrer without prior leave, you assume the risk eh because once your demurrer is
denied, you no longer have a chance to present evidence.]
Once prior leave is denied and the accused still files his demurrer to evidence or
motion to dismiss, the court no longer has discretion to allow the accused to present
evidence. The only recourse left for the court is to decide the case on the basis of the
evidence presented by the prosecution. And, unless there is grave abuse thereof amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the trial court's denial of prior leave to file demurrer to
evidence or motion to dismiss may not be disturbed. However, any judgment of conviction
by a trial court may still be elevated by the accused to the appellate court. [You cannot
question the order of denial of prior leave, this is discretionary but you can appeal the
judgment of conviction itself.]

Lakas Atenista 171

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 119
Procedure 2002 Edition Trial

BAR QUESTION: How do you distinguish the rule on demurrer of evidence in civil cases with the
rule of demurrer in criminal cases?
A: The following are the distinctions:

1. In civil cases when the demurrer is denied, the defendant will now present his evidence to
prove his defense because the defendant does not waive his right to present in the event
the demurrer is denied; whereas
In criminal cases, if the demurrer of the accused is denied the accused is no longer allowed to
present evidence if he had no prior leave;

2. In civil cases, if the defendants demurrer is granted and the case is dismissed and the
plaintiff appeals to the appellate court and on appeal the court reverses the order of
dismissal, the appellate court renders judgment immediately against the defendant.
Goodbye! talo na ang defendant. There is no more remanding; whereas
In criminal cases, if the demurrer is granted, there is no more appeal by the prosecution
because the accused has already been acquitted. Otherwise, there will be a case of
double jeopardy;

3. In civil cases, the court cannot on its own initiative, dismiss the case after the plaintiff rests
without any demurrer by the defendant. There is no such thing as motu propio demurrer;
whereas
In criminal cases, the court may dismiss the action on its own initiative after giving the
prosecution the chance to present its evidence.

Demurrer used to composed only of two paragraphs. Under the new rules, there are three (3) new
additional paragraphs. The additional provisions are:

The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall

specifically state its grounds and shall be filed within a non-extendible period
of five (5) days after the prosecution rests its case. The prosecution may
oppose the motion within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from its
receipt.
If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to
evidence within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice. The
prosecution may oppose the demurrer to evidence within a similar period from its
receipt.
The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence
or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before
judgment. (n)

These deadlines were not found before. If you want to file leave, pag-rest, 5 days lang, you file a
motion for leave. The prosecution may oppose the leave of within 5 days. After the court grants leave,
you file the demurrer within 10 days lang. The obvious purpose here is not to delay the trial.

When the court denies the motion for leave or the demurrer itself, as a rule, it is not reviewable.
You cannot review it. The remedy is to go to trial and if you are convicted, appeal on the judgment of
conviction. But as a general rule, when a demurrer is denied, you cannot go on certiorari. Im not
saying that this is 100% but there are some instances when the court, based on equity, allows it.

Take note that when you file a leave of court to file a demurrer, the accused must specifically state
the grounds.

The 1985 Rules just says you get prior leave. This is what I noticed here among trial courts: after the
prosecution rests, sometimes the defense counsel will say, Your honor, we will file a demurrer. May we
ask for leave of court to file the demurrer? And I noticed that the courts will say Alright, leave granted, file
your demurrer. Parang naging automatic ba! Pag-hingi mo ng leave, bigay kaagad!

Lakas Atenista 172

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 119
Procedure 2002 Edition Trial

I was watching that and I do not seem to agree with that kind of set-up and I had the opportunity
once in a criminal case where I was the private prosecutor where after we rested, the defense, in open
court said, Your honor, we would like to ask permission for demurrer. And the court said,
Granted!. I said Your honor, this is not the correct procedure because he doesnt even say what are
his grounds for demurrer. The court should not grant the permission immediately without those
grounds. To my mind, when you file a motion for leave, you must state the grounds to give the court
a synopsis or an idea of what you are going to raise so that the court will be attracted to grant. The
reason behind this leave is to put a stop to the old practice. The old practice was of granting demurrer
immediately and in most cases the demurrer is really without merit. This is why this was placed in the
Rules of Court so that the court will weigh whether ano ba? Pagbigyan ko ba ito o hindi? Otherwise,
we would be going back to the old system.

And the judge told me, Your arguments are sound, but the trouble is there is nothing in the rules
which support you so, well just grant leave. Wala din. Of course, there was a leave, there was a
demurrer, and I opposed and it was denied. But ang issue ko, Ive been harping on that point for so
long. You cannot just say leave, you must tell the court what you will raise. Give us an idea so that the
court will be convinced to grant leave. If the court will deny the leave, you file it at your own risk.

Now, the 2000 Rules states, The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall
specifically state its grounds. Hindi na puwede yung we intend to file a demurrer, may we ask for
leave without stating the grounds. At least, sabi ko, I have been correct all along in advocating this.
So when I read this in the new rules, I said, Ay salamat! Tama pala ako all along! Once you know the
philosophy of the law, hindi ka man mawala ba! You can always argue from that point.

SEC. 24. Reopening. At any time before finality of the judgment of

conviction, the judge may, motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either
case, reopen the proceedings to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The proceedings
shall be terminated within thirty (30) days from the order granting it. (n)

Section 24 is a new provision. The judge may motu propio or upon motion reopen the proceedings.

Actually, reopening of trial is a remedy which is recognized but not found in the rules. Even the
rules on civil procedure, there are motions for new trials but you cannot find a rule for the re-opening
of trial. But the SC has always recognized that there is such a remedy.

EXAMPLE: I will rest my case, the trial is finished and the next step is the decision. But after you
rest, you have additional evidence discovered for the first time and therefore could not have been
presented beforehand.

Q: What will you do? Will you file a motion for new trial based on the newly discovered evidence?
A: NO, you cannot wala pang decision! Motion for new trial based on new evidence is proper
only after a decision has been made and the same is not yet final and executory.

Q: In the example, wala pang decision eh. What is the proper remedy?
A: The correct remedy is motion to reopen the trial because there is no judgment yet.

Q: On what grounds?
A: Justice and equity. This is the only ground for re-opening because there is no specific ground.

Q: Now can the court on its own, re-open a trial, civil or criminal?
A: YES. This has happened several times. The case has already been submitted for trial, this
happened to me several years ago. The court said before the court renders a decision, the court would
like to conduct an ocular inspection and re-enactment of the alleged crime in the place where the crime
was committed. Motu propio, the court ordered the re-enactment. This is an instance of re-opening the
trial. This is allowed because this is an inherent power of the court, if it really wants to find out the
truth. You cannot find any provision in the rules regulating that kind of remedy. This is allowed
without any specific rule except justice and equity.

Lakas Atenista 173

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 119
Procedure 2002 Edition Trial

For the first time, reopening of trial in a criminal case is now found in Section 24 of the 2000 Rules.
But there is something wrong here. In reopening of trial, you do it before the case is decided. Dito
naman, you do it at any time before the finality of the judgment of conviction. Anong klase ito?! How can
this be? There is already a judgment of conviction and then, you reopen?? I think the correct motion is a
new trial.

I remember when Galvez was here to lecture on the Rules on Criminal Procedure. He said that
somebody in the Supreme Court nakialam dito eh. The original draft was anytime before judgment there
can be re-opening upon motu propio or motion. But when the new rules came out, it said at any time before
finality of the judgment of conviction. dinagdagan ba! The person who changed it must have thought
the committee had erred but the change made it even worse. Thats why the committee wrote a letter to
the SC to amend this mistake.

Now, there are some special laws that are related to the subject of trial and they are considered as
part and parcel of the criminal procedure. I am referring to RA 4908, RA 6033, RA 6034 and RA 6035.
RAs 6033, 6034 and 6035 are also known as the Laurel Laws because the author of these laws is Senator
Laurel in the 70s.

RA 4908 AN ACT REQUIRING JUDGES OF COURTS TO SPEEDILY TRY CRIMINAL CASES

WHEREIN THE OFFENDED PARTY IS A PERSON ABOUT TO DEPART FROM THE
PHILIPPINES WITH NO DEFINITE DATE OF RETURN

RA 6033 AN ACT REQUIRING COURTS TO GIVE PREFERENCE TO CRIMINAL CASES

WHERE THE PARTY OR PARTIES INVOLVE ARE INDIGENTS

RA 6034 AN ACT PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER ALLOWANCES FOR

INDIGENT LITIGANTS.

RA 6035 AN ACT REQUIRING STENOGRAPHERS TO GIVE FREE TRANSCRIPT OF NOTES

TO INDIGENT AND LOW INCOME LITIGANTS AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR
THE VIOLATION THEREOF

So that takes care of Rule 119.

editor-in-chief: mortmort editors: jayceebelle balite j-j torres michael peloton maying dadula jessamyn
agustin lyle santos paul ryan ongkingco dynn gutierrez maya quitain riezl locsin patrick tabar
maritess gonzales maricel culpable kenneth leyva jenny namoc ferdinand vido melissa suarez
rayda sullano rucel cayetano rod quiachon hannah examen myra montecalvo genie salvaa grace
salesa leo gillesania gemma betonio jenny aquiatan michael pito karen de leon elma tormon
judee uy pao angeles jet pascua contributing editors: babang baldoza marlo masangkay

Lakas Atenista 174