GROUP 4 – LEGAL FORMS

TOPICS:

1. Petition for Review DOJ CIR 7-Rule 3, 2000 Joy Fuentes

2. Information Ferlyn Cammas

3. Motion to quash information Patrick James Tan

4. Petition for Bail Wilson Abaten

5. Demurrer to Evidence Pink Pearl Amdengan

6. Comment Mhay Ann Rivamonte

I. Petition for Review DOJ CIR 7-Rule 3, 2000

Petition for Review

Only resolutions of the Chief State prosecutor or/ Regional State

prosecutor or city prosecutor dismissing a criminal complaint may be the subject
of a Petition for Review to the Secretary of Justice as otherwise provided.
A petition from the resolution of a Provincial/City Prosecutor where the
penalty prescribed for in the offense charge does not exceed prision correcional,
regardless of the imposable fine, shall be made to the Regional State Prosecutor
who shall resolve the petition with finality. Such petitions shall also be govern by
the rules.
The provision of the preceding paragraph on the finality of the resolution of
the Regional State Prosecutor notwithstanding, the Secretary of Justice may, in
the interprest of justice and pursuant to his residual authority of the supervision
and control over the prosecutors of the Department of Justice, order the
automatic review by his office of the resolution of the regional State Prosecutors
in the cases appealed to the latter.

Period to file

The petition must be filled within the period of fifteen (15) days from the receipt of
the questioned resolution by the party or his counsel. The Period shall be interrupted
only by the filing of a motion for reconsideration within ten (10) days from the receipt of
the resolution and shall continue to run from the time the resolution denying the motion
shall have been received by the movant or his counsel

Petition shall contain the Following:

The petition shall be verified by the petitioner and shall contain the following:
1. Date of receipt of the questioned resolution; date of filing of the mot)n for
reconsideration; if any; and date of receipt of the resolution on the motion for
reconsideration;
2. Names and addresses of the parties;
3. The Investigation Slip Number or I.S. No. and/or criminal case number and
the title of the case;
4. The venue of the preliminary investigation;
 5. A clear and concise statement of the facts, the assignment of errors, and the
legal basis of the petition;
6. In case of a finding of probable cause, that petitioner has filed in court a
motion to defer further proceedings; and
7. Proof of service of a copy of the petition to the adverse party or his counsel
and the prosecutor either by personal delivery or registered mail evidenced by
the registry receipts and affidavit of mailing.

The petitioner shall append to his petition copies of the material and pertinent
affidavits/sworn statements (including their translations, if any, duly certified by the
city/provincial prosecutor) and evidence submitted in the preliminary investigation by
both parties and the questioned resolution. The prosecutor concerned shall immediately
inform the Department or the Regional State Prosecutor of the action of the court on the
motion to defer further proceedings. If the accused is arraigned during the pendency of
the petition, the prosecutor concerned shall likewise immediately inform the Department
or the Regional Stat& Prosecutor of such arraignment.

Cases not subject to review

No petition may be allowed from a resolution of the Chief State
Prosecutor/Regional State Prosecutor/Provincial or City Prosecutor finding probable
cause except upon showing of manifest error or grave abuse of discretion. Either
complainant/offended party or respondent/accused may file a petition. Notwithstanding
the showing of manifest error or grave abuse of discretion no petition shall be
entertained where the accused had already been arraigned. Once arraigned, the
petition shall be dismissed motu proprio by the Secretary of Justice.

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
Office of the Secretary
Padre Faura St., Ermita, Manila

CERSEI LANNISTER,
Petitioner,

-versus-
I.S. No. XV-08-INV-17-1234

For:
ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR ARYA STARK
And JON SNOW
Respondent RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
RESULTING IN DAMAGE TO
PROPERTY

x-------------------------------------------x
PETITION FOR REVIEW
Petitioner, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges that:
 NATURE OF THE CASE
This is a petition for review pursuant to the Resolution issued by Assistant
Prosecutor Arya Stark of the Office of City Prosecutor of Baguio City finding probable
cause for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In Damage To Property against petitioner Jon
Snow.

PARTIES
1. Herein respondent,ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR ARYA STARK of the
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF BAGUIO CITY,with address at
ground flr. Justice Hall, Upper Abanao Street, Baguio, 2600 Benguet issued a
resolution dated March 8, 2018 pursuant to the complaint filed by private
respondentJON SNOWof No. 12 Trancoville, Baguio city for for RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE RESULTING IN DAMAGE TO PROPERTYdocketed under IS
NO. XV-08-INV-17-1234against petitionerCERSEI LANNISTERof No. 29
Quirino hill, Bagio city.

TIMELINESS OF PETITION
2. On March 9,2018 petitioner received a copy of the Resolution under IS NO.
XV-08-INV-17-1234 issued by the Office of the City Prosecutor of City of
Baguio City. Certified true copy of the Resolution isattached hereto as Annex
“A”.

3. On March 20, 2018 or within the 15 day period from the receipt of the
decisionAnnex “A”, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the said
Resolution. On April 10, 2018, the Office of the City Prosecutor denied the
said motion for reconsideration, copy of the denial was received by petitioner
on April 12, 2018. Certified true copy of the order denying the motion for
reconsideration isattached hereto as Annex “B”.
4. The instant petition is filed within the 15 days from receipt on April 14, 2018 of
the order denying motion for reconsideration.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND MATTERS INVOLVED

5. That on April 5, 2017 at about 3:30PM at Governors Pack road, Baguio City,
particularly across the Lion’s Club. The parties were driving towards UP drive.
6. The complainant Jon Snow alleged that he was driving ahead of the
respondent and he saw through is side mirror that respondent tried to
overtake him. The complainant tried to avoid an incoming vehicle coming
from the opposite direction thus, bumping the back left side of his vehicle.
7. The respondent petitioner CerseiLannister alleged that she was driving slowly
at the time of the accident. She saw the complainant collided with the right
side portion of her vehicle. She also alleged that the complainant tried to
squeeze in and overtake him on the right side that resulted the collision.
8. Public Respondent Stark issued a resolution dated April 8, 2018 stating that
there is sufficient ground to believe that probable cause exists against
Petitioner for committing Reckless Imprudence under Article 365of the
Revised Penal Code.
9. On March 20, 2018 petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration before the
Office of the City Prosecutor, seeking the Resolution based on the ground
that the evidence presented in the complaint affidavit was insufficient to find
probable cause for the issuance of Information for the crime of Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property. The said resolution was
received by the counsel for petitioner on April 12, 2018.
 ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
10. With due respect to the Honorable City Prosecutor, the undersigned counsel
believes that:

1. PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION

AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING
THE ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS FINDING PROBABLE CAUSE
AGAINST PETITIONER FOR RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING IN
DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. NOT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME
ARE PRESENT.

DISCUSSION
I.
PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE ASSAILED
RESOLUTIONS FINDING PROBABLE CAUSE FOR RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
RESULTING IN DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. NOT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE
CRIME ARE PRESENT

a. The Revised penal code enumerated the elements of a crime of Reckless

Imprudence resulting to Damage to property to wit:(1) that the offender does or
fails to do an act; (2) that the doing or the failure to do that act is voluntary; (3)
that it be without malice; (4) that material damage results from the reckless
imprudence; and (5) that there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the
offender, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of
intelligence, physical condition, and other circumstances regarding persons, time
and place
b. Pieces of evidence provided therein fails to establish all of the elements of the
Reckless Imprudence Without a doubt, the respondent prosecutor could not have
found probable cause that could warrant the institution of a criminal complaint
against petitioner for Reckless Impudence Resulting to Damage to Property.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays as follows:
1. That the petition be given due course;
2. That after due examination of the evidence presented, the Honorable City
Prosecutor set aside the questioned Resolution against the petitioner for
Reckless Impudence resulting in Damage to Property.
3. Petitioner further prays for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable in the
premises.

City of Baguio, April 14, 2018

PETYR BAELISH
IBP No. 080808/05 January 2016/Baguio City
PTR No. 012987/08 January 2016/Bguio City
Attorney’s Roll No. 88888
MCLE Compliance No. IV-000088, 29 January 2016

VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATION OF NON FORUM SHOPPING

I, CERSEI LANNISTER, of legal age and a resident of No. 29 Quirino hill, Bagio
city, under oath declare that:
 1. I am the petitioner in the above- entitled case;
2. I have caused the preparation of this petition;
3. I have read it and its contents are true and correct of my personal
knowledge and/or based on authentic records.
4. I have not earlier commenced a similar petition for the same cause
with any other court, tribunal or quasi- judicial agency; no such petition
is pending with any court, tribunal or quasi- judicial agency and if I
should learn that asimilar petition has been filed or is pending with any
other court, tribunal or quasi- judicial agency, I hereby undertake to
notify this Honorable Court within five (5) days from such notice.

(sgd.)CERSEI LANNISTER

JURAT
SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me, this 13thof May 2013 in the City of
Baguio by C ERSEI LANNISTER with Driver’s License No. M26-49-080829
issued on 19 January 2013 at Manila.
Doc. No. 1; Notary Public
Page No. 2; Commission Serial No. 888
Book No. 1; Roll of Attorney 88888
Series of 2013. IBP No. 000088/05 Jan2013/Muntinlupa
PTR No. 012987/08 Jan2013/Muntinlupa

Copy furnished:

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

3rdFloor, TS Rau Business Centre Alabang Road,
Muntilupa City

ATTY. RENATO SANTOS

8th Floor, Casimiro Corporate Center
Alabang Hills Towers
Alabang Road, Muntinlupa City.

II. INFORMATION

Information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense

subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court. (Sec. 4, Rule 110 Rules
of Court)
Information is not required to be sworn to under oath unlike a complaint
because the prosecutor filing the information is already acting under the oath
of his office.
 Like a complaint, information is filed in the name of the People of the
Philippines against all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense
charged. (Sec. 2, Rule 110 ROC)

Sufficiency of Information
Complaint or information is deemed sufficient if it contains the following:
a. The name of the accused (if the offense is committed by more than one
person, all of them shall be included in the information).
b. The designation of the offense given by statute
c. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense.
d. The name of the offended party
e. The approximate date of the commission of the offense; and
f. The place where the offense was committed.
(Sec. 6, Rule 110 ROC)

Test of Sufficiency

 It must validly charged and offense and it depends on the material facts
alleged in the information which establish the essential elements of the
offense charged.
 The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption
or the preamble of the information but by the actual recital of facts in the
information.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 2
Baguio City

THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff CRIM. CASE NO. 45856
-versus- FOR
FRUSTATED HOMICIDE
MICHAEL ANGELO
Accused
x----------------------------------x

INFORMATION
 The undersigned accuses MICHAEL ANGELO of the crime of
FRUSTATED HOMICIDE, committed as follows:
That on or about the 3rd day of December 2017, in the City of Baguio,
Philippines. And within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack and stab one DONA TELO with the use of knife, thereby
inflicting upon the latter incised wound right upper quadrant, which wound and
injury could have caused his death were it not for the timely medical
attendance extended to him, thus performing all the acts of execution which
could have produced the crime of Homicide as a consequence but which
nevertheless did not produce it by reason of cause independent of the will of
the accused.
CONTRARY TO LAW
Baguio City, Philippines, December 4, 2017

LEO NARDO
Assistant City Prosecutor
Roll of Attorneys No. 12345
MCLE Compliance No. VI-1632; 12/09/16

APPROVED:

RA PHAEL
City Prosecutor
Roll of Attorneys No. 54321
MCLE Compliance No. 6651

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that as shown by the records the undersigned, an authorized

officer, that there is a reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed
and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused was informed of the
complaint and of the evidence submitted against her and was given an opportunity to
submit controverting evidence.

LEO NARDO
Assistant City Prosecutor

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this Dec. 4, 2017 in the City of

Baguio, Philippines.
III. MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

 It is a mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal complaint or

information for insufficiency on its face in point of law.
 It is a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the information.
 It should be based on a defect in the information which is evident on its fact.
 If the motion is sustained, the court may order another information to be filed
except when it is quashed on the ground of extinction of criminal liability or
double jeopardy.
 It is an omnibus motion because all objections available at the time the
motion is filed should be invoked otherwise it shall be deemed a waiver of
such objections.

Forms and Contents

A. The motion shall be in writing

B. The motion shall be signed by the accused or his counsel; and
C. The motion shall distinctly specify the factual and legal grounds thereof.
(Sec. 2, Rule 117, ROC)

Note:
The motion to quash may be made at any time before the accused enters
his plea (Sec. 1, Rule 117, Rules of Court)

Grounds for Motion to Quash

a. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;

b. That the court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
c. Court has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
d. Officer who filed the information had no authority to do so
e. It does not conform substantially to the prescribed form
f. That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment
for various offenses is prescribed by law.
g. Criminal action or liability has been extinguished
h. It contains averments which of true would constitute a legal excuse or
justification;
i. The accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense
charged or the case against him was dismissed or terminated without his
express consent. (Sec. 3, Rule 117, Rules of Court)

Note:

Under the OCA Circular No. 101-2017 or the Revised Guidelines for
Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases, motion to quash information when the
ground is not one of those stated in Sec. 3 Rule 117 is a prohibited motion which
shall be denied outright before arraignment without need of comment or
opposition.
CAP-TIB-PRA-PLUS

• CAPTION

• TITLE

• INTRODUCTION

• BODY

• PRAYER/RELIEFS

• ATTORNEY/COUNSEL

• PLUS: NOTICE OF HEARING

EXPLANATION

COPY FURNISHED

PROOF OF SERVICE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

BRANCH 50

QUEZON CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

CRIMINAL CASE No. Q-10-56789

- versus – Violation of Section 5, Article II Republic Act No. 9165

(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)

BIG BERT,

Accused

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

Accused BIG BERT, by counsel, respectfully moves for the quashal of the
Information dated 20 August 2010 issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Little John on the
following ground:
 PREFATORY STATEMENT

Commenting on the possible abuses that are prone to occur in a buy-bust

operation the Supreme Court held in the case of People vs. Ambih:

“While buy-bust operation is a recognized means of entrapment for the

apprehension of drug pushers, it does not always commend itself as the most reliable
way to go after violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act as it is susceptible to mistake as
well as to harassment, extortion and abuse.”Accused is no drug pusher. The only reason
he is now in the custody of the police is because he was illegally arrested for reason he
still cannot comprehend. Accused thus respectfully moves for the Quashal of the
Information dated 20 August 2010 issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Little John, on the
following ground:

THE COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION

OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED AS THE ARREST WAS ILLEGAL.

1. In the present case, the prosecution asserts that the warrantless arrest of the
accused Big Bert was the result of a validly conducted buy-bust operation. They likewise
claim that the arrest was performed after the accused had been duly informed of his
constitutional rights.

2. Contrary to the claim of the apprehending police officers that the warrantless
arrest was the result of a valid buy-bust operation, no actual buy-bust operation did in
fact take place.

3. The accused then recounts that the PDEA operatives then escorted him and his
companion Peter Pan to a Red Toyota Revo, which then brought them to Camp
Karingal. The accused and Peter Pan were not informed of their rights upon their arrest,
as well as what offense they were being charged with.

4. The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures
is an inviolable right protected by the Constitution. As such no person may be validly
arrested without the benefit of a warrant of arrest, except in the specific instances
provided by law. Any warrantless arrest done outside the specific instances provided by
law are thus deemed to be contrary to law and illegal.

5. The law as it presently stands, enumerates the instances when a warrant without
warrant is valid in Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, to wit:

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private

person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person
to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.
 The enumeration contained in section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court being
exclusive, any arrest without warrant done outside of those specified in therein
are deemed illegal.

6. The accused Big Bert could not have been caught committing the crime in the
presence of his arresting officers, as he did not in fact sell any illegal drugs. Nor could
the PDEA claim that they had personal knowledge that a crime had been committed and
that the accused had in fact committed it. As such, the accused may move for the
quashal of the information or complaint filed against him/her as provided in the Rules of
Court.

7. Thus considering that the only means, by which the court acquires jurisdiction
over the person of an accused is either by his/her arrest or voluntary appearance, the
effect of an illegal arrest absent the voluntary appearance of the accused is that the
court does not acquire jurisdiction over his/her person.

There is no recourse left other than to quash the present information, as the court
has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, considering the manifest illegality of the arrest of the

accused Big Bert on 20 July 2010 and the consequent absence of jurisdiction by the
court over the person of the accused, it is respectfully prayed that the Information for
Violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as “The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002” , issued by Assistant City Prosecutor
Little John on 20 August 2010 against the accused be quashed.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

City of Manila for Quezon City, 17 September 2010.

Atty. Patrick James Tan

Counsel for Accused
No. 16 Brgy. Sto.Tomas City of Candon
Roll of Attorneys No. 12345
PTR No. 1234567; 01-05-2010; Candon City
IBP No. 234567; 01-05-2010; Candon City
MCLE Compliance NO. 723568-July 4, 2018

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
Quezon City, Branch 100

THE HONORABLE ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR

Office of the City Prosecutor
Hall of Justice, Quezon City

Greetings:
 Please take notice that the foregoing Motion will be submitted for the Court’s
consideration and resolution on 24 September 2010 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter
as matter and counsel may be heard.

Atty. Patrick James Tan

COPY FURNISHED:
THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT
Regional Trial Court National Capital Judicial Region
Quezon City, Branch 100

THE HONORABLE ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR

Office of the City Prosecutor
Hall of Justice, Quezon City

EXPLANATION

A copy of the foregoing Motion to Quash Information was filed and served
upon the prosecution and Clerk of Court via registered mail on grounds of proximity of
the offices of counsels, practicability and time constraints.

Atty. Patrick James Tan

PROOF OF SERVICE

IV. PETITION FOR BAIL

Nature

 Bail is the security required by the court and given by the accused to ensure that
the accused appear before the proper court at the scheduled time and place to
answer the charges brought against him.
 It is awarded to the accused to honor the presumption of innocence until his guilt
is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and to enable him to prepare his defense
without being subject to punishment prior to conviction (Cortes vs. Catral, 279
SCRA 1.
 Its main purpose is to relieve an accused from the rigors of imprisonment until
his conviction and secure his appearance at the trial (Paderanga vs. CA, 247
SCRA 741).
 All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall before conviction, be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law.
The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required (Sec. 13, Art.
III, The Constitution).
WHEN A MATTER OF RIGHT; EXCEPTIONS

(1) All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with
sufficient sureties, or released on recognizance as prescribed by law or this Rule

(a) before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and

(b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment (Sec. 4, Rule 114).

Bail is a matter of right before final conviction, but the rule is not absolute.

The exception is when a person is charged with a capital offense when the
evidence of guilt is strong, or when the offense for which on is charged is
punishable by reclusion perpetua.

The exception to this rule, however, is even if a person is charged with a

capital offense where the evidence of guilt is strong, if the accused has
failing health, hence, for humanitarian reasons, he may be admitted to
bail, but that is discretionary on the part of the court (De La Ramos vs.
People‘s Court, 77 Phil. 461; Catiis vs. CA, 487 SCRA 71).

WHEN A MATTER OF DISCRETION

(1) Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary.

(2)Where the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the accused seeks to be

released on recognizance, the application may only be filed in the court where the
case is pending, whether on preliminary investigation, trial, or on appeal (Sec.
17[a]).

(3)The discretion lies in the determination of whether the evidence of guilt is strong. If
it is determined that it is not strong, then bail is a matter of right. There is no more
discretion of the court in denying the bail, the moment there is a determination that
the evidence of guilt is not strong.

BAIL HEARING MANDATORY

A hearing in an application for bail is absolutely indispensable before a judge can

properly determine whether the prosecution‘s evidence is weak or strong. In
receiving evidence on bail, while a court is not required to try the merits of the case,
he must nevertheless conduct a summary hearing which is ―such brief and speedy
method of receiving and considering the evidence of guilt as is practicable and
consistent with the purpose of the hearing which is to determine the weight of the
evidence for purposes of the bail (In re complaint against Judge Elma, AM RTJ-94-
1183, Feb. 8, 1994).

A judge should not hear a petition for bail in capital offenses on the same day that
the petition was filed. He should give the prosecution a reasonable time within which
to oppose the same. Neither is he supposed to grant bail solely on the belief that the
accused will not flee during the pendency of the case by reason of the fact that he
had even voluntarily surrendered to the authorities.
 Voluntary surrender is merely a mitigating circumstance in decreasing the penalty
that may eventually be imposed upon the accused in case of conviction but is not a
ground for granting bail to an accused charged with a capital offense (Sule vs. Judge
Bitgeng, 60 SCAD 341,April 18, 1995).

Republic of the Philippines

First Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court
Branch XX, Baguio City

PETITION FOR BAIL

COMES NOW Defendant John Snow, by the undersigned counsel and unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully states:

That the Defendant is in custody for the alleged commission of an offense

punishable by (life imprisonment / reclusion perpetua);

That no bail has been recommended for his temporary release, on the
assumption that the evidence of guilt is strong;

That the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong is on the prosecution,
and unless this fact is satisfactorily shown, the defendant is entitled to bail as a
matter of right.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, upon prior notice and hearing, it is respectfully prayed

that the Defendant Tyrion Lannister be admitted to bail in such amount as this
Honorable Court may fix.

Baguio City, Philippines,

April 14, 2018

(COUNSEL)

(NOTICE OF HEARING)

(EXPLANATION)

COPY FURNISHED:

V. DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

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

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

If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to

evidence within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice. The
prosecution may oppose the demurrer to evidence within a similar period from its
receipt.

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

AFTER THE PROSECUTION RESTS ITS CASE, WHAT ARE THE

OPTIONS OF THE ACCUSED?
1. File a demurrer to evidence with leave or without leave of court
2. Adduce his evidence unless he waives the same

WHAT IS A DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE?

It is a motion to dismiss the case filed by the defense after the
prosecution rests on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence of the
prosecution
It has been said that a motion to dismiss under the Rules of Court takes place
of a demurrer, which pleading raised questions of law as to sufficiency of the
pleading apparent on the face thereof
In the same manner as a demurrer, a motion to dismiss presents squarely
before the court a question as to the sufficiency of the facts alleged therein to
constitute a cause of action

WHAT ARE THE WAYS BY WHICH A CASE MAY BE DISMISSED ON

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

THE PROSECUTION RESTS ITS CASE. THE COURT THINKS THAT

THERE IS INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED. WHAT DOES IT
NEED TO DO IN CASE IT WISHES TO DISMISS THE CASE?
 The court may dismiss the case on its own initiative after giving the
prosecution the right to be heard

WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN THE PROSECUTION WOULD BE GIVEN THE

RIGHT TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE COURT DISMISSES THE CASE?
The prosecution is given the chance to explain itself of
circumstances that may have lead to its failure to adduce enough evidence to
support its case

HOW DO YOU FILE A DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE?

Within 5 days after the prosecution rests, the accused should file a motion for
leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence, stating in such motion his grounds
for such
The prosecution shall have 5 days within which to oppose the motion
If the motion is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to evidence
within 10 days from notice of grant of leave of court
The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to evidence within 10 days from its
receipt of the demurrer

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF FILING THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

WITH LEAVE OF COURT?
The effect of its filing is that if the court grants the demurrer, the case will be
dismissed
If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court,
the accused may still adduce evidence on his behalf

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF FILING THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT?
If the court denies the demurrer to evidence which was filed without
leave of court, the accused is deemed to have waived his right to present
evidence and submits the case for judgment on basis of the evidence of the
prosecution
This is because demurrer to evidence is not a matter of right but is discretionary
on the court
Permission of the court has to be obtained before it is filed, otherwise
the accused loses certain rights

THE ACCUSED FILED A DEMURRER OF EVIDENCE WITHOUT LEAVE

OF COURT. THE DEMURRER OF EVIDENCE IS DENIED. IS THERE
ABSOLUTE WAIVER OF PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE BY THE
COURT?
No
The general rule is that filing of a demurrer of evidence without leave of
court, which is subsequently denied, is a waiver of presentation of evidence
 Nonetheless, if the demurrer of evidence is filed before the prosecution
rests its case, there would be no waiver to present evidence. As the
prosecution hasn’t finished presenting its
evidence, there is still insufficiency of evidence.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF THE DEMURRER IS GRANTED AND THE

ACCUSED IS ACQUITTED?
The accused has the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case
unless the court declares that the act or omission from which the civil liability may
arise did not exist.
If the trial court issues an order or renders judgment not only granting
the demurrer to evidence of the accused and acquitting him but also on the
civil liability of the accused to the private offended party, said judgment on its
civil case would be a nullity for violation of the rights of the accused to due
process.

WHAT IS THE REMEDY OF THE ACCUSED IF THE DEMURRER TO

EVIDENCE IS DENIED?
As a general rule, there can be no appeal or certiorari on the denial of
the demurrer to evidence, since it is an interlocutory order which doesn’t
pass judgment on the merits of the case
In such instance, the accused has the right to adduce evidence on his behalf
not only on the criminal aspect but also on the civil aspect of the case

VI. COMMENT

Sample

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Third Judicial Region
Branch 1
Tarlac City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

– versus – CRIM. CASE NO. 218-2012

For: Slight Physical Injuries

JADE PASCUAL Y CASTRO &

JESSIE PASCUAL Y CASTRO,
Accused.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
 COMMENT/OPPOSITION
TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
DATED AUGUST 26, 2015

ACCUSED JADE&JESSIE C. PASCUAL, by and through the undersigned counsel, to this

Honorable Court, most respectfully submit the foregoing comment/opposition and in support
thereof, allege and state, that:

1. The Honorable Court correctly dismissed the complaint on June 19, 2012 on
the valid grounds, that: the parties were both residents of Barangay
Matatalaib, Tarlac City at the time the alleged offense was committed and
the case falls under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and as such, it
should have been referred to the Lupon of Barangay Matatalaib pursuant to
P.D. 1508[ KatarungangPambarangay], a copy of the certification issued by
the Barangay Chairman of Barangay Matatalaib to the effect that JAIME SEE,
the complainant is a resident thereat dated May 27, 2012 is attached hereto as
ANNEX “1”and the copy of the private complainant’s Medical Certificate in
which he stated his address to be Sitio Manga, Matatalaib, Tarlac City is
attached hereto as ANNEX “2” and both documents are made part of this
comment;

2. The same court properly dismissed the same case on August 14, 2014 on the
ground that the complainant took an unreasonable length of time to refer
the case to the Lupon of Barangay Matatalaib, Tarlac City;

3. More importantly, Branch II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, Tarlac

City dismissed the same complaint on the ground that the offenses prescribed
having been filed only in September, 2012 or more than four months after the
incident happened on May 6, 2012, a copy of the order of the court dated
February 12. 2012 is attached hereto as ANNEX “3” and made part of this
comment;

4. The private complainant elevated the above order through a PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and in a RESOLUTION
dated February 13, 2015, rendered by HON. LILY C. DE VERA-VALLO, the
Presiding Judge of Branch 64, Regional Trial Court, Tarlac City, it ruled
among others: x xx“ On the second issue: Whether or not the Crime of
Threat prescribes in two[2] months after the commission of the act
complained of.

The office of the City Prosecutor, Tarlac City filed two[2]

separate informations for Slight Physical Injuries and threats, the
public respondent considered the same as light offense, the
imposable penalty of which is arrestomenor or a fine not exceeding
to hundred pesos[ P200.00].

What determines the nature of the crime charged are the

allegations in the body of the information, not the caption. As
copies of the information of the acts constitutive of the crime
charged, this court has to rely on the allegations of the private
complainant in his counter-affidavit. In Paragraph 3 thereof, it was
stated to wit:
 3. A few minutes later, we were surprised when
respondent Jade Pascual came back and approached us.
Shockingly, respondent Jade instantly and without
hesitation pointed a gun at me which I can not remember
what kind of gun in particular,

while his gun was pointed at me he even

uttered in a rage manner “ SINO ANG PINAGMAMALAKI
MO?!!!. Feeling frightened, I immediately grabbed my son
and went home;

From the foregoing, the acts complained of is constitutive

of other light threats under Article 285,
Par. 1 which is light offense that prescribes in two[2] months under
Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, a copy of the resolution is
attached hereto as ANNEX “4” and made part of this comment;

5. The above resolution of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 64,

Tarlac was not appealed by the private complainant, had
become final and executory and resolved with finality that
the offenses charged in these cases prescribed; thus, absolving
both accused of their criminal liabilities. Both accused, thus,
invoked their right against double jeopardy as guaranteed by
law and the Philippine Constitution;
6. Obviously, all the grounds which the above courts anchored theirorders and
resolution inrepeatedly dismissing these cases were all imputable to the
private complainant;

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Courtthat

the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION filed by the Petitioner be DENIED for utter lack of merit
in law and fact.

Bamban for Tarlac City, October 28, 2015

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

DIZON&KADATAR LAW OFFICE

Counsel for both accused
Km. 101, McArthur Highway, Brgy. Anupul
Bamban, Tarlac 2317, Philippines
By:

GUILLERMO C. KADATAR
Roll No. 43479
PTR No. 2080418, 01-29-15, Baguio-Benguet v
IBP Lifetime Member No. 05251, Baguio-Benguet Chapter
MCLE Compliance Certificate No. IV-0000207
Contact No. 0915-219-0604
Copy furnished:

ATTY. JOHN PAUL G. COLAGO

CCTD LAW OFFICES
Suites 402 and 409 Far East Asia Building
No. 416 Marquina Cor. DasmarinasSts.
Binondo, Manila

MR. JAIME SEE

Sitio Manga, Barangay Matatalaib
Tarlac City

EXPLANATION

Copies of this comment are being served and filed by Registered Mail
to the counsel for the private complainant and to the Honorable Court due
to the distance of the office of the counsel for bothaccused and that of the
private complainant’s counsel and the court and further due to lack of
personnel to effect personal service of the same to the addressees. Thank
you.

GUILLERMO C. KADATAR
 BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS

RJ MICRO LENDING ADMIN. CASE NO. BAG 14-17

CORPORATION,
Complainant,

- versus –

JENNIFER F. FRONDA,

Respondent.

x--------------------x

ORDER

TO:

RJ MICRO LENDING CORPORATION

P. Ramos St., Poblacion West,

Asingan, Pangasinan

JENNIFER F. FRONDA JENNIFER F. FRONDA

Rosales North Central School 123 San Antonio St.,

Rosales District I, Pangasinan Rosales, Pangasinan

Division II
G R E E T I N G S:

On December 20, 2016, we received a Motion for Reconsideration from the respondent,
with copy furnished to the complainant. The latter is given ten (10) days from receipt of this
order to give comment thereto.

Baguio City, December 20, 2016

CRESENTE LUMEREZ JR.

Hearing Officer