B.3.A.

DEATH OF OFFENDED PARTY

Death after filing the complaint would not deprive the court of the jurisdiction.
The State shall initiate the action on behalf of the offended party in case of his
death/incapacity and he has no known parents/grandparents/guardians.
In adultery/concubinage, death does not extinguish the criminal liability of accused.
B.3.C. PARDON BY OFFENDED PARTY
(1) In rape, seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness of a minor, the pardon will
be effective if given by both parents and the offended party;
(2) In seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness, express pardon by the offended
party, parents, grandparents or guardian will prevent prosecution

General rule: Pardon must be made before the filing of the criminal complaint in court.
Exception: In rape, where marriage between the offender and the offended party would
be effective as pardon even when the offender has already commenced serving his
sentence.
If there is more than one accused, the pardon must be extended to all offenders.
Pardon or desistance extinguishes civil liability.

General rule: The prosecution of a criminal case may not be enjoined by

prohibition/injunction [Domingo v. Sandiganbayan (1986)].
Exceptions:
Prosecution of criminal case is allowed if the following exists
(1) To afford protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
(2) Necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid multiplicity of actions;
(3) There is a prejudicial question which is sub judice;
(4) The acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;
(5) The prosecution is under an invalid law/ordinance/regulation;
(6) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
(7) The court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
(8) A case of persecution rather than prosecution;
(9) The charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance;

(10) There is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and MTQ on that ground
has been denied (Samson v. Guingona (2000));
(11) To prevent threatened and unlawful arrest of petitioners (Brocka v. Enrile (1990))

General rule: All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be

prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor [Section 5, Rule 110].
Exceptions:
The private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution
Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the approval of
the court.
(1) In case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor or
(2) In the event of lack of public prosecutors,

TEST OF SUFFICIENCY
(1) A complaint or information is sufficient if it states:
(2) The name of the accused;
(3) The designation of the offense given by the statute;

The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense;

(5) The name of the offended party;
(6) The approximate date of the commission of the offense; and
(7) The place where the offense was committed [Section 6, Rule 110].
An accused is deemed to have waived his right to assail the sufficiency of the
information when he voluntarily entered a plea when arraigned and participated in
the trial
General rule: The information must charge only one offense [Section
13, Rule 110].
Exception: Multiple offenses may be charged when the law prescribes
a single punishment for various offenses

KINDS OF AMENDMENT:

(1) Formal Amendment

merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in the
original information, and which, therefore adds nothing essential for conviction for the
crime charged [Gabionza v. CA (2001)]

Examples of Formal Amendment:

(a) New allegations which relate only to the range of penalty that the court might
impose in the event of conviction;
(b) One which does not charge another offense distinct from that already charged;
(c) Additional allegation which do not alter the prosecutions theory of the case so as to
surprise the accused or affect the form of defense he has
d) One which does not adversely affect any substantial right of the accused, such as his
right to invoke prescription.

(2) Substantial amendment

consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and
determinative of the juridisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of
form [Teehankee v. Madayag (1985)]
The test as to whether the amendment is merely formal is whether or not a defense
under the original information would be equally available after the
amendment and whether or not any evidence the accused might have would
be equally applicable in one form as in the other [People v. Degamo (2003)].

G.1. AMENDMENT IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE BEFORE PLEA

General rule: Amendment, formal or substantial, made before the accused enters his
plea may be done without leave of court.

Exception: If the amendment downgrades the nature of the

offense charged in, or excludes any accused from, the
complaint/information, it can be made only:

(1) Upon motion of the prosecutor

(2) With notice to the offended party and
(3) With leave of court.
The court is mandated to state its reasons in resolving the motion of the
prosecutor and to furnish all parties, especially the offended party, of
copies of its order (Sec. 14, Rule 110).

G.2. AMENDMENT AFTER PLEA AND DURING TRIAL

G.2.A. AS TO FORM
Amendment as to form can only be made under two conditions:
(1) Leave of court must be secured;
(2) It does not cause prejudice to the rights of the accused [Sec 14, Rule 110].

G.2.B. AS TO SUBSTANCE
recital of facts constituting the
Substantial matter in a complaint is the
offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the
court. All other matters are merely of form [Almeda v. Villaluz (1975)].
General rule: Amendment as to substance at this state of the case is
proscribed [People v. Zulueta (1951)].
Exception: Amendment may be allowed if it is beneficial to the accused [Ricarze
v. CA (2007)].

G.3. SUBSTITUTION
Substitution of a complaint or information may be substituted 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, provided the accused would not be placed in double
jeopardy

Amendment
Formal or substantial
changes
Can be effected without
leave of court
Only as to form, there is no
need for another PI and
retaking of plea
The amended information
refers to the same offense
charged in the original
information or to an offense
which is included in the
original charge; can invoke
double jeopardy
Substitution
Substantial changes
Must be with leave of court
Another PI is entailed and
accused has to plead anew
Involves a different offense
which does not include
those provided in the
original charge; cannot
invoke double jeopardy
[Teehankee v.
I. INTERVENTION OF OFFENDED PARTY

General rule: An offended party has the right to intervene in the prosecution of a crime,
where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action
[Sec. 16, Rule 110].
Note: This is still subject to the control of the prosecutor [Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines v.
People (2004)]
Exceptions:
(1) Where, from the nature of the crime and the law defining and punishing it, no civil
liability arises in favor of a private offended party (e.g. treason, rebellion,
espionage and contempt);
(2) Where, from the nature of the offense, the private offended party is entitled to civil
indemnity arising therefrom but he has waived the same or has expressly
reserved his right to institute a separate civil action or he has already
instituted such action;
(3) Offended party has already instituted action for civil claims.

A. RULE ON IMPLIED INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ACTION WITH

CRIMINAL ACTION
General rule: The civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged is deemed instituted with the criminal action.
Exception: The civil action is not deemed so instituted if the offended party:
(1) Waives the civil action;
(2) Institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action; or
(3) Reserves the right to institute it separately [Section 1,
Rule 111].
B. WHEN CIVIL ACTION MAY PROCEED INDEPENDENTLY
B.1. INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS
Under the Rules, only civil liability arising from the crime charged is deemed instituted.
Hence, the civil actions under the Civil Code, specifically Articles. 32, 33, 34, and 2176,
remain separate, distinct, and independent of any criminal prosecution although based
on the same act [Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines Inc. v. People (2004)].
B.2. RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO FILE CIVIL ACTION
The civil action may also proceed independently of the criminal action when
reservation to institute the civil action separately is made. The reservation shall be
made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances
affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation
[Section 1, Rule 111].

Instances where reservation to file the civil action separately

shall not be allowed:
(1) B.P. 22 cases [Sec. 1 [b], Rule 111]
(2) Cases cognizable bu the Sandiganbayan [P.D. 1606 as amended by R.A. 8249, Sec.
4]
(3) Tax cases [R.A. 9282, Sec. 7 [b][1]]

B.3. SEPARATE ACTION FILED BY THE ACCUSED

No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in
the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof
may be litigated in a separate civil action [Section 1, Rule 111].
C. WHEN SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION IS SUSPENDED
After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising
therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal
action [Section 2, Rule 111].
The civil action, which should be suspended after the institution of the criminal action,
is that arising from delict or crime.

D. EFFECT OF DEATH OF THE ACCUSED OR

CONVICT ON CIVIL ACTION
Upon the death of the accused or convict,
criminal liability is extinguished [Article 89, RPC].
As regards civil liability:
(1) When death occurs before the arraignment, the case
is dismissed without prejudice to filing of civil action against
estate of the deceased the offended part may file proper civil
action against the estate of the deceased.
(2) [Section 4, Rule 111];
death occurs after arraignment and
(2) When
during pendency of criminal action, it
extinguishes civil liability arising from the delict; but independent civil
actions and other civil liabilities from other source of obligation may
be continued.

(3) When death occurs during pendency of appeal

extinguishes criminal liability and the civil liability based thereon
[People v. Ayochok (2010)]. Civil liability based solely on the criminal action is
the one that is extinguished.
Independent civil actions instituted under Articles 32, 33,
34 and 2176, Civil Code, or those instituted to enforce
liability arising from other sources of obligation may be
continued against the estate or legal representative of the
accused after proper substitution or against his estate.
As regards the parties in the civil action, the heirs of the accused may be substituted
without requiring the appointment of an executor/administrator. The court may appoint
guardian ad litem for the minors.
The court shall order the legal representatives to appear and
be substituted within 30 days from notice.

E. PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
E.1. ELEMENTS

A prejudicial question is that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a

logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which
pertains to another tribunal.

Elements of a prejudicial question:

(1) The previously instituted civil action involves an
issue similar or intimately related to the issue
raised in the subsequent criminal action; and
(2) The resolution of such issue determines whether or
not the criminal action may proceed [Sec. 7, Rule 111].
A civil action may be considered prejudicial when the following concur:
(1) The civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based;
(2) In the resolution of the issue/s raised in the civil action, the guilt/innocence of the
accused would necessarily be determined;
(3) Jurisdiction to try the action is lodged in another tribunal [Magestrado v. People
(2009)];
(4) The action is instituted prior to the institution of the criminal action [Pimentel v.
Pimentel (2010)].
Ratio: The rule seeks to avoid two conflicting decisions in the
civil case and in the criminal case [Sy Thiong Siou vs Sy Chim (2009)].

E.2. EFFECT
General rule: Where both a civil and a criminal case arising
from the same facts are filed in court, the criminal case
takes precedence [Section 2, Rule 111].
Exception: If there exists a prejudicial question which should
be resolved first before an action could be taken in the
criminal case.

F. RULE ON FILING FEES IN CIVIL ACTION DEEMED INSTITUTED

WITH THE CRIMINAL ACTION

Filing fees apply when damages are being claimed by the offended party, to
be paid upon filing of the criminal action.

General rule: The actual damages claimed or recovered by the offended party are not
included in the computation of the filing fees [Section 1, Rule 111]. Unless required by
the rules example in BP 22 the filing fees shall be paid based on the amount of check
and must be paid in full.
And in estafa cases.

When the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the complaint or
information filed in court, then the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the
offended party upon the filing thereof in court for trial.
In any other case (i.e., when the amount of damages is not so alleged in the complaint
or information filed in court), the corresponding filing fees need not be paid and shall
simply constitute a first lien on the judgment, except on an award for actual damages

Filing fees shall be paid by the offended party when he

seeks for the enforcement of civil liability by way of
moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages.
 IV. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

A. NATURE OF RIGHT
A.1. DEFINITION
It is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether
there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded
belief that a crime has been committed and the
respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be
held for trial [Section 1, Rule 112].
Preliminary Investigation is merely inquisitorial, and it is often the only means of
discovering the persons who may reasonably be charged with a crime, to enable the
prosecutor to prepare his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the
merits and does not place the persons against whom it is taken in jeopardy.

It is an executive, not a judicial function

A.4. WHEN RIGHT DEEMED WAIVED

(1) Express waiver or by silence [Herrera, Remedial Law, Vol. IV (2007)];

(2) Failure to invoke it during arraignment [People v. De Asis (1993)]; and
(3) Consenting to be arraigned and entering a plea of not guilty without invoking the
right to PI [People v. Bulosan (1988)].

The waiver, whether express or implied, must be in a clear and unequivocal manner
[Herrera (2007)].
The right cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
 C. WHO MAY CONDUCT DETERMINATION OF
EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE
Probable cause means the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite
the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the
prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was
prosecuted.
In general, the following may conduct the determination of existence of probable
cause:
(1) Provincial/city prosecutors and their assistants;
(2) National and regional state prosecutors;
(3) Other officers as may be authorized by law [Sec. 2, Rule 112, as amended by AM
05-8-26-SC].

C.1. PROSECUTOR
The executive determination of probable cause is one made during the PI. It is a
function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is given a broad range of
discretion to determine whether probable cause exists for
purposes of indictment(charging a crime). Such finding will not
be disturbed by the court unless there is finding of grave abuse of discretion.
C.2. COURT
The judicial determination of probable cause is one made by the judge to ascertain
warrant of arrest should be issued against
whether a
the accused.
Note: RTC judges have no power to conduct PI; and MTC judges cannot conduct PI
anymore after AM 05-8-26-SC eliminated judges of the MTC and MCTC from those
authorized to conduct a PI effective October 3, 2005.
 INQUEST

An inquest is an informal and summary investigation conducted

by a public prosecutor in criminal cases involving persons
arrested and detained without the benefit of a warrant of arrest
issued by the court for the purpose of determining whether or
not said persons should remain under custody and
correspondingly be charged in court [DOJ-NPS Manual].
General rule: PI is required to be conducted before a complaint/ information is filed for
an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day,
without regard to the fine [Sec. 1, Rule 112]
Exception: When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant
involving an offense that requires a PI, a complaint/information may be
filed without conducting the PI if the necessary inquest is conducted.

However, before the complaint or information is filed, the person

arrested may ask for a PI, but he must sign a waiver of the
provisions of Article 125, RPC in the presence of his counsel.
Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the
investigation must be terminated within 15 days from its inception
(Section
An inquest is considered commenced upon receipt by the Inquest Officer from
the law enforcement authorities of the complaint/referral documents which
should include:
(1) Affidavit of arrest, investigation report, statement of the complainant and
witnesses, all of which must be subscribed and sworn to before him;
(2) Other supporting evidence gathered by the police in the course of the latter's
investigation of the criminal incident involving the arrested or detained person.

It must be terminated within the period prescribed under the provisions of

Article 125, RPC. Thus, if after the inquest proceedings:
(1) There is no probable cause, the case is dismissed;
(2) The accused wants a PI and is willing to waive Article 125, a preliminary
investigation conducted;
(3) The arrest was without warrant, but there possibly is PC, the accused is released for
regular PI;
(4) There is PC and the arrest was valid, an information is filed.

V. ARREST
Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer
for the commission of an offense [Section 1, Rule 113].
A. IMMUNITY
A.1. PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, while Congress is in session
and for offenses punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment are immune to
arrest [Section 11, Article VI, Constitution].
A.2. DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
Ambassadors and ministers of foreign countries and their duly registered domestics
subject to the principle of reciprocity are immune to arrest (RA 75).
Note: Diplomatic immunity is not limited to immunity from arrest only.

B. HOW MADE
By an actual restraint of a person to be arrested;
By his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest [Section 2, 1st par.,
Rule 113

General rule: No peace officer or person has the power or

authority to arrest anyone without a warrant except in those
cases expressly authorized by law [Umil v. Ramos (1991)].
Exceptions:
(1) In flagrante delicto [Section 5(a), Rule 113];
(2) Hot pursuit arrest [Section 5(b), Rule 113];
(3) Arrest of escaped prisoner [Section 5(c),, Rule 113];
(4) Other lawful warrantless arrests:
(a) Where a person who has been lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued [Section 13,
Rule 113]; any person may immediately pursue or retake him without a warrant at any
time and in any place within the Philippines;
(b) By the bondsman, for the purpose of surrendering the accused [Section 23, Rule
114];
(c) Where the accused who is released on bail attempts to leave the country without
permission of the court where the case is pending [Section 23, Rule 114].

C.1. IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO

A peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person when the
person to be arrested:
(1) Has committed;
(2) Is actually committing; or
(3) Is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the peace officer or private
person who arrested him [Section 5(a), Rule 113].

Requisites:
(1) The person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
(2) Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer
[Zalameda v. People (2009); People v. Laguio (2007)].

In his presence means:

(1) He sees the offense, even though at a distance;
(2) He hears the disturbances created by the offense and proceeds at once to the
scene; or
(3) Offense is continuing or has been consummated at the time arrest is made [People
v. Evaristo (1992)].

The following are instances of this type of arrest without warrant:

(1) An arrest made after an entrapment does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is
considered a valid warrantless arrest pursuant to Section 5(a), Rule 113 [Teodicio v. CA
(2004)]. This is different from instigation, which means luring the accused into a crime
that he, otherwise, had no intention to commit, in order to prosecute him, and leads to
acquittal [People v. Dansico (2011)].
(2) When a person is caught in flagrante as a result of the buy-bust operation, the
policemen are not only authorized but are also under obligation to apprehend the drug
pusher even without a warrant of arrest [People v. de Lara (1994)].

C.2. HOT PURSUIT ARREST

A peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person

when an offense has just been committed and the officer or private person
has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it [Section 5(b),
Rule 113].

Requisites:
(1) An offense has just been committed. There must be a large measure of immediacy
between the time the offense was committed and the time of the arrest. If there was an
appreciable lapse of time between the arrest and the commission of the crime, a
warrant of arrest must be secured [People v. del Rosario (1999); People v. Agojo
(2009)]; and
(2) The person making the arrest has probable cause to believe, based on personal
knowledge of facts, that the person to be arrested has committed it.

Probable cause must be based on personal knowledge which means an actual belief or
reasonable grounds of suspicion [Abelita III v. Doria (2009)]
Note: Where a warrantless arrest is made under the in flagrante and hot pursuit
exceptions, the person arrested without a warrant shall forthwith arrested delivered to
the nearest police station or jail [Section 5, 2nd par., Rule 113].
C.3. ARREST OF ESCAPED PRISONER
A peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person when the
person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped [Section 5(c), Rule 113]:
(1) From a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
temporarily confined while his case is pending; or
(2) While being transferred from one confinement to another.

Escapee may be immediately pursued or re-arrested without a warrant at any time and
in any place within the Philippines [Section 13, Rule 113].
Ratio: At the time of arrest, the escapee is in continuous commission of a crime (i.e.,
evasion of service of sentence).

D.2. BY OFFICER WITHOUT WARRANT

General rule: The officer shall inform the person to be arrested of:
(1) His authority; and
(2) The cause of the arrest (Sec. 8, Rule 113).

Exceptions:
(1) When the person to be arrested is engaged in the commission of the offense;
(2) When he is pursued immediately after its commission;
(3) When he has escaped, flees or forcibly resists before the officer has the opportunity
to so inform him; or
(4) When the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.

REQUISITES OF A VALID WARRANT OF ARREST

E.1. ESSENTIAL REQUISITES
The warrant must:
(1) Be issued upon probable cause determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce; and
(2) Particularly describe the person to be arrested [Section 2, Article III, Constitution]

Fiscal
Executive determination of
PC
Determination of PC to hold
a person for trial
Whether or not there is
reasonable ground to
believe that the accused is
guilty of the offense charged
and should be held for trial
Judge
Judicial determination of PC
Determination of PC to issue
a warrant of arrest
Whether or not a warrant of
arrest should be issued

VI. BAIL
A. NATURE
A.1. DEFINITION
Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the
law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance
before any court as required under conditions hereinafter specified
[Section 1, Rule 114].
A.2. PURPOSE
(1) To relieve an accused from imprisonment until his conviction and yet secure his
appearance at the trial [People v. Hon. Donato (2011)];
(2) To honor the presumption of innocence until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable
doubt [Section 14, Article III, Constitution]; and
(3) To enable him to prepare his defense without being subject to punishment prior to
conviction [Cortes v. Judge Catral (1997)].
RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS
PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE

ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM

RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AND DEFEND IN PERSON AND BY COUNSEL

AT EVERY STATE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

RIGHT TO COUNSEL

RIGHT TO TESTIFY AS WITNESS IN HIS BEHALF

RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION

RIGHT TO COMPULSORY PROCESS

RIGHT TO SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL AND PUBLIC TRIAL

RIGHT TO APPEAL

RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS

 VIII. ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
A. ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA; HOW MADE

This is the stage where the accused is formally

informed of the charge against him by reading
before him the information/complaint and asking him
whether he pleads guilty or not guilty [Section 1(a), Rule 116].
It is the stage where the issues are joined and without which the proceedings cannot
advance further or, if held, will otherwise be void. [Borja v. Mendoza (1977)].

PLEA
Pertains to the matter which the accused, on his arraignment,
alleges in answer to the charge against him.
A.1. DUTY OF THE COURT BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT
The court shall:
(1) Inform the accused of his right to counsel;
(2) Ask him if he desires to have one; and
(3) Must assign a counsel de oficio to defend him, unless the accused:
(a) Is allowed to defend himself in person; or
(b) Has employed a counsel of his choice [Section 6, Rule 116].

Before arraignment and plea, the accused may avail of any

of the following:
(1) Bill of particulars to enable him to properly plead and prepare for trial;
(2) Suspension of arraignment; upon motion, he may ask for suspension of
arraignment to pursue a petition for review before the DOJ Secretary under Sec. 11,
Rule 116, for a period of suspension shall not exceed 60 days from filing of petition
with the reviewing office;
(3) Motion to quash the complaint or information on any of the grounds under
Section 3, Rule 117 in relation to Sec. 1, Rule 117;
(4) Challenge the validity of the arrest or legality of the warrant or assail the
regularity or question the absence of preliminary investigation of the charge.

If the accused does not question the legality of the

arrest or search, this objection is deemed waived.
 A.2.
PROCEDURE OF
The Court shall issue an order
ARRAIGNMENT directing the public
prosecutor to submit the
record of the PI to the branch
COC clerk of court for the latter to
attach the same to the record of the
case.

The court shall inform the accused of

his right to counsel and ask him if he
desires to have one. Unless the
accused is allowed to defend himself in
person or has employed counsel of his
choice, the court must assign a counsel
de oficio to defend him.

(1)If the accused plead not

guilty, either:
(a) He raises an affirmative
defense, that is, he admits the
charge but raises exempting or
justifying circumstances, in which
case the order of trial is reversed;
(b) He raises a negative defense,
that is, he denies the charge, in
which case regular trial proceeds;
(2) If the accused pleads
guilty:
(a) For a non-capital offense, the court
will promulgate a judgment of
conviction;
(b) For a capital offense, the
prosecution is still required to prove
guilt beyond reasonable doubt;
(3)If the accused
does not enter any
plea, a plea of not
guilty is entered by
the court.
A.2.B. WHEN HELD
General rule: The
accused should be arraigned within 30 days
from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over his
person.
Exceptions: When the law provides for another period, arraignment should be held
within said period, as in the following cases:
(1) When an accused is under preventive detention, his case should be raffled within 3
days from filing and accused shall be arraigned within 10 days from receipt by the
judge of the records of the case [RA 8493 (Speedy Trial Act)];
(2) Where the complainant is about to depart from the Philippines with no definite date
of return, the accused should be arraigned without delay [RA 4908].

Presence of the offended party:

The private offended party shall be required to appear in the arraignment for the
purpose of:
(1) Plea bargaining;
(2) Determination of civil liability; and
(3) Other matters requiring his presence

In case of failure of the offended party to appear despite due notice, the court may
allow the accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily
included in the

AFTER TRIAL HAS BEGUN

After the prosecution has rested its case, a change of plea to a lesser offense may be
granted by the judge, with the approval of the prosecutor and the offended party if the
prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused for
the crime charged.

The plea must be clear, definite and

unconditional. It must be based on a free and
informed judgment.

At any time before judgment of conviction becomes final, the court may permit an
improvident plea of guilty to be withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not guilty.
The withdrawal of a plea of guilty is not a matter of right of the accused but of sound
discretion of the trial court
Moreover, at this point, there is a presumption that the plea was made voluntarily

G. GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OF ARRAIGNMENT

G.1. UNSOUND MENTAL CONDITION OF THE ACCUSED AT THE TIME OF THE
ARRAIGNMENT
G.2. EXISTENCE OF PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
Rationale: A prejudicial question would be determinative of guilt or innocence.
It may be raised during PI. If the information is filed in court, it may be raised as
ground to suspend the arraignment.
G.3. PENDENCY OF PETITION FOR REVIEW
When the accused filed a petition for review of the
resolution of the prosecutor with the DOJ or the Office of
the President, the accused may file a motion to suspend
the arraignment and secure a ruling on his petition for
review within 60 days from the filing of the petition (DOJ
Circ. No. 70).
Rationale: This is to observe judicial courtesy and avoid legal complications in case the
resolution would be different from the offense for which the accused was arraigned,
especially if it would upgrade the offense.
If petition for review is not resolved within 60 days, court may insist on the
arraignment.
With the arraignment of the accused, the DOJ Secretary can no longer entertain the
appeal or petition for review because petitioner had already waived or abandoned the
same. [Gandarosa v. Flores (2007)].
G.4 OTHER PENDING INCIDENTS
Such as:
(1) Motion to quash
(2) Motion for inhibition; and
(3) Motion for Bill of particulars

I
X. MOTION TO QUASH
Form and content
The motion must:
(1) Be in writing;
(2) Be signed by the accused/his counsel; and
(3) Distinctly specify the factual and legal grounds [Section 2, Rule 117].

A. WHEN FILED
General Rule: At any time before entering his plea, the accused may move to quash
the complaint or information [

Motion to quash Demurrer to evidence

Filed before entering plea Filed after the prosecution has rested
its case

Does not go into the merits of the case Based upon the inadequacy of the
evidence adduced by the prosecution

Grounds are stated in Rule 117 Ground is insufficiency of evidence to

convict
Requisites to successfully invoke double jeopardy
(1) A first jeopardy must have attached;
(2) The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
(3) The second jeopardy must be for the same offense or the second offense necessarily
includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information, or is
an attempt to commit the same or a frustration thereof

PRETRIAL
Pre-trial is mandatory in all criminal cases. Its main objective is to achieve an
expeditious resolution of the case.
Coverage
The court shall order pre-trial in all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan,
RTC and MTC or MTCC or MCTC or MeTC.
Period

General rule: The court shall order a pre-trial conference after arraignment and within
30 days from the time the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

Exception: A shorter period may be provided by special laws or SC circulars.

Things considered
(1) Plea bargaining; It is the process in criminal procedure whereby the accused,
offended party, and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the
case subject to court approval
(2) Stipulation of facts;
(3) Marking for identification of evidence;
(4) Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
(5) Modification of the order of trial if accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful
defense (reverse trial);
(6) Other matters that will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the civil and criminal
aspects of the case (Section 1, Rule 118).

Role of the judge

During the pre-trial, the judge shall be the one to ask questions on issues raised therein
and all questions must be directed to him to avoid hostilities
Pre-trial agreement
Form
(1) Must be in writing;
(2) Signed by the accused;
(3) Signed by his counsel,

If this is not followed, the admissions cannot be used against the accused (i.e.,
inadmissible in evidence). The constitutional right to present evidence is waived
expressly.
General rule: Court approval is required.

Pre-trial order
Issuance
The pre-trial order is:
(1) Issued by the court;
(2) Within 10 days after the pre-trial (AM 03-1-09-SC).

Judgment of acquittal based on pre-trial despite disputed documents and issues of fact
amounts to grave error and renders the judgment void [People v. Santiago (1989)].
Content
(1) Actions taken;
(2) Facts stipulated;
(3) Evidence marked;
(4) Admissions made;
(5) The number of witnesses to be presented; and
(6) The schedule of trial [Section 4, Rule 118].

Note: Nos. 4 to 6 are added by AM 03-1-09-SC to the requirements under Section 4,

Rule 118.

XI. TRIAL
Instances when presence of accused is required by law
General rule: The presence of the accused during the trial may be waived.
Exception: The presence of the accused during the trial is required by law for purposes
of identification.
General rule :Exception to the exception: The presence of the accused is no longer
required when he unqualifiedly admits in open court after arraignment that he is the
person named as defendant in the case on trial

Trial in absentia
Requisites:
(1) Accused has been arraigned;
(2) He was duly notified of trial;
(3) His failure to appear is unjustified.

Ratio: This is to speed up disposition of cases

 JUDGMENT
B.1.c. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof
The defendant can be convicted only
General rule:

of the crime with which he is charged.

Ratio: He has the right to be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is
charged before he is put on trial [People v. Guevarra (1989)].
However, minor variance between the information and the evidence:
(1) Does not alter the nature of the offense;
(2) Does not determine or qualify the crime or penalty;
(3) Cannot be ground for acquittal.

Exception: He can be convicted of an offense proved provided it is included in the

charge, or of an offense charged which is included in that which is proved [Section 4,
Rule 120].
(1) The accused can be convicted of an offense only when it is both charged and
proven.
(2) The mere fact that the evidence presented would indicate that a lesser offense
outside the courts jurisdiction was committed does not deprive the court of its
jurisdiction, which had vested in it under the allegations in the information.

Exception to the exception: Where there are facts that supervened after the filing of the
information which change the nature of the offense.
When an offense includes or is included in another
(1) The offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the
essential elements/ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint/information,
constitute the latter.
(2) An offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved when the essential
ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter [Section
5, Rule 120].
(3) The effect is that the accused may be convicted of:
(4) The offense proved which is included in the offense charged; or
(5) The offense charged which is included in the offense proved [Section 4, Rule 120].

The right to be informed of the charges has not been violated because where an
accused is charged with a specific crime, he is duly informed also of lesser
crimes/offenses included therein [People v. Villamar (1998)].
Where a complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to support the charge as to
one of the component offenses, the accused can be convicted of the one which is
proven.

In case of acquittal
The judgment of conviction shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution
absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused
failed to prove his guilt beyond
or merely
reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment shall determine if the act
or omission complained from which the civil liability might arise did not exist [Sec. 2,
Rule 120].
Acquittal means a finding of not guilty
based on the merits, either:
(1) Because the evidence does not show that his guilt is beyond reasonable doubt; or
(2) Upon motion of the accused, after the prosecution rested its case, on the ground
that the evidence fails to show beyond doubt that accused is guilty.

Reasonable doubt is doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an

inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest upon the certainty of guilt.

Acquittal based on failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt does not
extinguish the civil liability arising from his acts, since the civil liability arose
not from a crime but from the damage caused by such acts, which can be proven
by a lower quantum of evidence. Thus, it does not bar a separate civil action based on
quasi-delict [Lontoc v. MD Transit (1988)].
The court may hold the accused civilly liable even when it acquits him. Acquittal
extinguishes civil liability only when the judgment includes a declaration that the facts
from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. Thus:
(1) The court may nonetheless hold the accused civilly liable in favor of the offended
party, or it may deny the award of civil damages expressly or impliedly by being silent
on the matter.
(2) The losing party may appeal the ruling on the civil liability, as in any other ordinary
appeal, in his name and not in the name of the People.

Promulgation of judgment; instances of promulgation of judgment in absentia

Promulgation
Promulgation is the official proclamation or
announcement of a judgment or order.
Requisites:
(1) There must be a judge or judges legally appointed or elected and actually acting
either de jure or de facto, and
(2) The said judgment must be duly signed and promulgated during the incumbency of
the judge who signed it [Miguel v Municipal Trial Court (1986)].

(3) The judgment or sentence does not become a judgment or sentence in law until it is:
(4) Read and announced to the defendant; or
(5) Has become a part of the record of the court [US v. CFI of Manila (1913)]

XIII. NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION

Grounds for new trial
Errors of law or irregularities
The court shall grant a new trial when errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the
substantial rights of the accused have been committed during the trial.
General rule: Errors of the defense counsel in the conduct of the trial is neither an error
of law nor an irregularity.
Exception: They become an error of law or irregularity when acquittal would, in all
probability, have followed the introduction of certain testimony which was not
submitted at the trial under improper or injudicious advice of incompetent counsel of
the accused.
XIV. Appeal
Effect of an appeal
An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review and it
becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct an error as may be found in the
appealed judgment WON it is made the subject of assignment of errors