LECTURE ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (intro – Rule
the Inquisitorial System and Adversarial System.
116)
[A] MEANING AND CONCEPT OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1. What is criminal procedure?
It is the method prescribed by law for the apprehension and
prosecution of persons accused of a criminal offense, and for
their punishment in case of conviction.
It deals with the procedural steps through which a criminal case
passes, from investigation of the crime, apprehension of the
suspect, his prosecution in court as an accused and the rendition of
judgment.
2. Systems of criminal procedure.
 Inquisitorial system
 Accusatorial / Adversarial system
 Mixed system
Note: In Queto v. Catolico, 31 SCRA 52, the S.C. ruled that as
a general rule, a court proceeding in the Philippine judicial set-up
is accusatorial or adversarial, not inquisitorial. It contemplates
two (2) contending parties (Accuser v. Accused; Prosecution v.
Defense before the court which hears them impartially and
receives their evidence, and renders judgment only after trial.
Note: There is a gradual shift to a mixture or combination of
Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC), Section 7 provides:
"Sec. 7. Examination of the witness on his judicial affidavit. – The
adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine the witness
on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same.
The party who presents the witness may also examine him as on
re-direct. In every case, the court shall take active part in
examining the witness to determine his credibility as well as the
truth of his testimony and to elicit the answers that it needs for
resolving the issues."
A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC, which took effect on May 1, 2014,
providing for Guidelines For Decongesting Holding Jails By
Enforcing The Rights Of Accused Persons To Bail And To Speedy
Trial, contains provisions on bail in non-bailable offenses, in
Section 6 thereof. The provisions read:
Sec. 6. Bail in offenses punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment. – a) The hearing of the accused’s motion for bail
in offenses punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment shall be summary, with the prosecution hearing the
burden of showing that the evidence of guilt is strong. The accused
may at his option, if he wants the court to consider his evidence as
well, submit in support of his motion the affidavits of his witnesses
attesting to his innocence.
1
 b) At the hearing of the accused’s motion for bail, the prosecution 4. Requisites for a valid exercise of criminal jurisdiction.
shall present its witnesses with the option of examining them on
direct or adopting the affidavits they executed during the To validly exercise its criminal jurisdiction:
preliminary investigation as their direct testimonies.
The Court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter or
c) THE COURT SHALL EXAMINE THE WITNESSES ON THEIR DIRECT nature of the offense;
TESTIMONIES OR AFFIDAVITS TO ASCERTAIN IF THE EVIDENCE OF
a) It must have jurisdiction over the territory where the
GUILT OF THE ACCUSED IS STRONG. THE COURT’S QUESTIONS NEED
NOT FOLLOW ANY PARTICULAR ORDER AND MAY SHIFT FROM ONE
offense was committed;
WITNESS TO ANOTHER. The court shall then allow counsels from b) It must acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused,
both sides to examine the witnesses as well. The court shall
either by his arrest or voluntary surrender / appearance.
afterwards hear the oral arguments of the parties on whether or not
the evidence of guilt is strong. 5. Determination of jurisdiction over subject matter/nature of the
offense.

a) Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the

[B] PRINCIPLES CONCERNING CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
offense is conferred by law and the constitution.
1. Jurisdiction in general, defined. – It is the authority to hear, try
b) The nature of the subject matter or nature of the offense is
and decide a case.
in turn determined by the allegations in the complaint or
2. Criminal jurisdiction, defined. – It is the authority to hear, try information.
and decide a particular criminal case.
6. Jurisdiction over the person; how acquired.
3. Elements of criminal jurisdiction.
It is acquired upon arrest of the accused or his voluntary
a) Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the appearance. (See Miranda v. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377)
offense; and

b) Jurisdiction over the territory where the offense was

committed.

2
[C] JURISDICTION OF COURTS THAT TRY CRIMINAL CASES Rule on Summary Procedure:

1. FIRST LEVEL COURTS (MTC) (Section 32, B.P. 129, as amended
by R.A. 7691)
It shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over the following:
a. Violations of city and municipal ordinances committed
within their respective territorial jurisdiction;
b. Offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six
(6) years, regardless of the fine and other imposable accessory
penalties;
c. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence as defined in Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code;
-and-
d. Offenses where the penalty prescribed by law is only a fine
and the fine does not exceed P4,000.00.
Note: Excepted from the enumeration are cases falling under
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC and the
Sandiganbayan.
Ex: Libel and Election Offenses are punishable with
imprisonment of not more than six (6) years, but are under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC.
Cases under the MTC that are governed by the
a. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
b. Violations of the Rental Law;
c. Violations of city and municipal ordinances;
d. Criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law is
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months and/or a fine
not exceeding One Thousand Pesos (P1,000);
e. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence where the penalty is fine not exceeding
P10,000;
f. Violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (The Bouncing Checks
Law)
2. SECOND LEVEL COURT (RTC) (Section 20, B.P. 129, as amended
by R.A. 7691)
It shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal
cases not falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal or body.
3. FAMILY COURT (Section 5, R.A. 8369)
It has exclusive original jurisdiction over the following:

3
 a. Offenses where a minor is involved whether as offender
or offended party. However, under R.A. 9344, or the Juvenile
Justice Act, one who is fifteen (15) years and below is
exempt from criminal liability.
b. Cases against minor under the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A.
7610)
c. Violations of the Anti-Child Abuse Law (R.A. 7610)
d. Cases of domestic violence against women and children.
4. COURT OF TAX APPEALS (section 7, R.A. 9282)
It has exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses involving
Violation of the National Internal Revenue Code, Tariff and
Customs Code as well as any law, rule or regulation being
administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and
Bureau of Customs, with a claim for taxes and fees against the
accused in the amount of not less than P1 Million.
5. SANDIGANBAYAN (Section 4, P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A.
8249; further amended by R.A. 10660)
a) Violation of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act),
R.A. 1379 (Unexplained Wealth Law) and Articles 210 (Direct
Bribery), 211 (Indirect Bribery) and 212 (Corruption of Public
Officials) of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the
principle accused is are public officers occupying, at the time of
the commission of the offense, whether in a permanent, acting or
interim capacity, any of the positions enumerated in Section 4, P.D.
1606, as amended by R.A. 8249:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the
positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as
Grade '27' and higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically
including:
"(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of
the sangguniang panlalawigan and provincial treasurers,
assessors, engineers and other provincial department
heads;
"(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the
sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors
engineers and other city department heads;
"(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the
position of consul and higher;
"(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval
captains, and all officers of higher rank;
"(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while
occupying the position of provincial director and those
holding the rank of senior superintendent or higher;
4
 "(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their
assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the
Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
"(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
government-owned or -controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions or foundations;
(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as
Grade '27‘ and up under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989;
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions,
without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and
(5) All other national and local officials classified as
Grade'27'and higher under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989.
b) Other offenses, whether simple or complexed with other
crimes, committed by a public officer occupying any of the
positions referred to in par. (a), at the time of the commission
of the offense, in relation to office, including Violation of R.A.
No. 7080 or the law on Plunder. (It must be a public
officer-related offense as defined in Barriga v. Sandiganbayan,
457 SCRA 301); and
c) Criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with
Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A issued in 1986 by Pres.
Corazon Aquino (for the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth of the
Marcoses and their cronies).
d) All cases committed by public officers and private persons
who are in conspiracy with such public officers under Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9160, as amended, otherwise known as the
Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2011.
Note: Amendment introduced by R.A. 10660 which took
effect on May 5, 2015:
“Provided, That the Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction where the information: (a) does not allege any
damage to the government or any bribery; or (b) alleges damage to the
government or bribery arising from the same or closely related
transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00).
“Subject to the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, the cases
falling under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court under this
section shall be tried in a judicial region other than where the official
holds office.”
“In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions
corresponding to Salary Grade ’27’ or higher, as prescribed in the said
Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned above,
exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper
regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and
5
municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their
respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as
amended."

Sec. 5. Transitory Provision. – This Act shall apply to all cases

pending in the Sandiganbayan over which trial has not begun;
Provided, That: (a) Section 2, amending Section 4 of Presidential
Decree No. 1606, as amended, on “Jurisdiction”; and (b) Section 3,
amending Section 5 of the Presidential Decree No. 1606, as
amended on “Proceedings, How Conducted; Decision by Majority
Vote” shall apply to cases arising from offenses committed after the
effectivity of this Act.”

6
RULE 110: PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
1. Modes of instituting criminal actions (Sec. 1)
a) Note distinction between complaint (Sec. 3) and
information (Sec. 4)
Sec. 3. Complaint defined. – A complaint is a sworn
written statement charging a person with an offense,
subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or
other public officer charged with the enforcement of the
law violated.
Sec. 4. Information defined. – An information is an
accusation in writing charging a person with an offense,
subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court.
Section 1. Institution of criminal actions. Criminal actions
shall be instituted as follows:
(a) For offenses where a preliminary investigation is
required pursuant to section 1 of Rule 112, by filing the
complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of
conducting the requisite preliminary investigation.
(b) For all other offenses, by filing the complaint or
information directly with the Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, or the complaint with the
office of the prosecutor. In Manila and other chartered cities,
the complaint shall be filed with the office of the
prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their charters.
The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the
running period of prescription of the offense charged
unless otherwise provided in special laws.
2. Who must prosecute criminal actions (Sec. 5)
“Sec. 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. – All criminal
actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be
prosecuted under the direction and control of the
prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of the public
prosecutor or in the event of lack of public prosecutors,
the private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the
Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State
Prosecution to prosecute the case subject to the approval
of the Court. Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal
action, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute
the case up to the end of the trial even in the absence of a
public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or
otherwise withdrawn.”©
A private prosecutor, in representation of the
offended party who is seeking to recover civil liability in
the criminal action, may intervene. However, the private
7
 prosecutor shall be under the direction and control of
the public prosecutor.
No private prosecutor is allowed if there is no claim
for civil liability in the criminal action.
The intervention of the offended party in the criminal
action, through a private prosecutor, is allowed only if
there is a claim for civil liability in a civil action being tried
jointly with the criminal action.
3. Duplicity of offense (Sec. 13)
There is duplicity if two (2) or more offenses are
charged in a single complaint or information, unless the
offenses charged carry only one (1) penalty like in
complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC).
If there is duplicity, accused may file a motion to
quash (Sec. 3(f), Rule 117); otherwise, he will be tried for
the two (2) or more offenses charged in one (1) complaint
or information, and convicted of the offenses charged if
proven guilty (Sec. 3, Rule 120)
4. Amendment or substitution (Sec. 14)
Amendment, both formal and substantial, is allowed
as a matter of right before the accused enters a plea.
Prosecution need not ask for leave of court.
The exception is if the amendment before plea will
downgrade the charge or exclude an accused from the
charge. Leave of court is required.
After plea, only formal amendment is allowed and
leave of court is required.
Substitution is different. That is the remedy of the
prosecution if it is discovered before judgment that there
has been a mistake in charging the proper offense, and
the accused cannot be convicted of the charge or any
offense included therein. So the filing of the new
information charging the proper offense will not
constitute double jeopardy (Sec. 14 in relation to Sec. 19,
Rule 119)
5. Venue of criminal actions (Sec. 15)
In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. The criminal
action must be instituted and tried at the proper venue;
otherwise, the court trying the case does so without
jurisdiction.
8
 Sec. 15. Place where action is to be instituted. –
(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or
territory where the offense was committed or where any of
its essential ingredients occurred.
(b) Where an offense is committed in a train, aircraft, or
other public or private vehicle in the course of its trip, the
criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of
any municipality or territory where such train, aircraft or other
vehicle passed during its trip, including the place of its
departure and arrival.
(c) Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in
the course of its voyage, the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried IN THE COURT OF THE FIRST PORT
OF ENTRY OR OF ANY MUNICIPALITY OR TERRITORY
WHERE THE VESSEL PASSED DURING SUCH VOYAGE,
SUBJECT TO THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW.
(d) Crimes committed outside the Philippines but
punishable under Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code shall
be cognizable by THE COURT WHERE THE CRIMINAL
ACTION IS FIRST FILED.
The exception is when the Supreme Court orders a
change of venue or place of trial, pursuant to Section 5,
paragraph (4) of Article VIII (8) of the 1987 Constitution
which provides:
“Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers:
xxx.
xxx.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.”
NOTE: Section 15(a), Rule 110 mentions the “court of the
municipality or territory where the offense was committed
OR WHERE ANY OF ITS ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OCCURRED.
“
The second part refers to transitory and continuing offenses.
A transitory offense is where the acts material or
essential to the crime occur in different places.
Ex: Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check.
A continuing offense is one where the material acts or
essential ingredients occur in one place, yet by reason of
the nature of the offense, the violation of law is deemed
continuing. The offense is considered consummated in one
place, but is deemed continuing.
Ex: Kidnapping with Serious Illegal Detention
9
NOTE: Section 15(d), Rule 110 refers to crimes committed 4. While being public officers or employees, should
outside the Philippines but punishable under Article 2 of the commit an offense in the exercise of their functions;
Revised Penal Code. or
It says that it shall be cognizable by the court where the 5. Should commit any of the crimes against national
criminal action is first filed. security and the law of nations, defined in Title One
of Book Two of this Code.
Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code reads:
Art. 2. Application of its provisions. – Except as provided
in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the
provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within
the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its
interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of
its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine
ship or airship.
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency
note of the Philippine Islands or obligations or
securities issued by the Government of the Philippine
Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into these islands of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the preceding number;

10
RULE 111: PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
1. Distinction between criminal liability and civil liability;
criminal action and civil action.
Once the criminal action is instituted, the civil action to
recover civil liability arising from the crime (based on Art. 100
of the RPC) shall be deemed instituted with the criminal
action. They shall be tried and decided jointly.
Exception is when the offended party waives the civil
action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes
the civil action prior to the criminal action.
Not deemed instituted is the civil action based on the
so-called independent civil actions (Articles 32, 33, 34 and
2176 of the Civil Code).
a) See Articles 100, 104, 105, 106 and 107 of Revised
Penal Code
b) See Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 and 2177 of the Civil
Code
c) See Sections 1 and 2, Rule 133 of Rules on Evidence
2. Separation of criminal and civil actions; suspension (Sec. 2)
When the institution of a separate civil action to recover
civil liability arising from the crime (based on Art. 100 of the
RPC) is reserved, it cannot be instituted after the
commencement of the criminal action, until there is entry of
final judgment in the criminal action.
If the civil action is filed ahead of the criminal action, once
that criminal action is filed, the civil action shall be suspended
whatever be the stage of the proceedings, provided there is no
judgment on the merits yet. So if there is already a judgment
on the merits in the civil action (final or on appeal), it will no
longer be suspended.
Rather than being suspended, the civil action (if there is
no judgment on the merits yet), may be consolidated and tried
jointly with the criminal action, provided that such
consolidation shall be upon motion of the offended party (not
the accused) and before the court handling the criminal
action.
11
3. a) See Rules on extinction of penal action/liability and civil resolution of such issue determines whether or not the
actions/liability. criminal action may proceed."
(Articles 89, 94, 112, 113 and 344 of the Revised Penal
Code; Also Article 36 on Pardon)
(Article 1231 of Civil Code of Extinguishment of Civil
Obligations)

4. Effect of death of the accused (Sec. 4)

Death of the accused extinguishes criminal liability. The
civil liability based on the crime is also extinguished provided
the death occurs before final judgment (see Art. 89(1), RPC).
Civil liability based on any of the independent civil actions
is not extinguished by death of the accused. It may be pursued
following proper substitution of the heirs, legal
representatives or estate of the decedent.

5. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question (Sec. 7)

"Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question. – The elements
of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil
action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the
issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the

12
RULE 112: PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
1. Preliminary investigation defined; when required. (Sec. 1)
a) Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to
determine whether there is reasonable ground to engender a
well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the
respondent (person under investigation) probably committed
that crime, and should be held for trial.
What is to be determined is whether there is probable
cause that the respondent should be held for trial and
therefore file the case against him as accused in court.
Probable cause means, among others, that there is reasonable
probability that the respondent committed the crime.
b) Inquest is an informal and summary investigation
conducted by a public prosecutor in a criminal case 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 person should remain under
custody and correspondingly be charged in court.
The purpose is to determine whether there is probable
cause to hold for trial the person arrested and detained
without a warrant of arrest. So, it is the determination of
whether there is probable cause in warrantless arrest cases.
The procedure is summary and informal (see New Rule on
Inquest).
c) Judicial determination of probable cause is conducted
by the judge within ten (10) days from the filing of a complaint
or information to determine whether there is ground to hold
the accused (the person charged in court by the filing of the
complaint or information) for trial and therefore issue a
warrant of arrest.
The judge is required only to evaluate the resolution of
the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. If the judge
determines that there is no probable cause to hold the
accused for trial, he can dismiss the complaint or information.
If he is in doubt, he may require the prosecutor to submit
additional evidence and thereafter conduct a determination of
probable cause (see Sec. 5(a), Rule 112)
2. Officers who conduct preliminary investigation (Sec. 2)
3. Procedure of preliminary investigation (Sec. 3)
4. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review (Sec. 4)
The third paragraph of Section 4, Rule 112 reads:
“Sec. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review. –
xxx.
13
xxx. order if the accused has already been arrested pursuant to a
warrant issued by the judge who conducted the preliminary
No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an
investigation or when the complaint or information was filed
investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or
pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the
approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state
existence of probable cause, the judge may order the
prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy.”
prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days
If the information is filed “without the prior written authority from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within
or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint of information.
prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy”, under Section 3(d),
MEANING OF PROBABLE CAUSE
Rule 117 of the Rules.
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts
“Sec. 3. Grounds. – The accused may move to quash the
and circumstances as would lead to a reasonable and prudent
complaint or information on any of the following grounds:
man to believe that a crime has been committed, and that the
xxx. person under investigation or who has been charged in court
probably committed that crime and should be held for trial.
xxx.
In Cruz v. Gonzales, et al., G.R. No. 173844, April 11, 2012,
(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority
the Supreme Court explained:
to do so.”
"A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence
that more likely than not a crime has been committed and
5. Judicial determination of probable cause (Sec. 5) there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the
accused. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence
Sec. 5. When warrant of arrest may issue. – (a) By the Regional
of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of
Trial Court. – Within ten (10) days from the filing of the
guilt. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect
complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate
to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt. The term does
the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence.
not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import
He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record
absolute certainty. IT IS MERELY BASED ON OPINION AND
clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable
REASONABLE BELIEF. PROBABLE CAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN
cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment

14
 INQUIRY INTO WHETHER THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO
PROCURE A CONVICTION."
In Senator Jinggoy Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R.
Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court
declared:
"In the Philippines, there are four instances in the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure where probable cause is needed to be
established:
(1) In Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 112: By the investigating officer,
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. A preliminary investigation is required before the filing of
a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty
prescribed by law is at least four years, two months and one
day without regard to the fine;
(2) In Sections 6 and 9 of Rule 112: By the judge, to determine
whether a warrant of arrest or a commitment order, if the
accused has already been arrested, shall be issued and that
there is necessity of placing the respondent under immediate
custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice;
(3) In Section 5(b) of Rule 113: By a peace officer or a private
person making a warrantless arrest 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 committed it; and
(4) In Section 4 of Rule 126: By the judge, to determine whether
a search warrant shall be issued, and only upon probable cause
in connection with one specific offense to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the
Philippines.
In all these instances, the evidence necessary to establish
probable cause is based only on the likelihood, or probability,
of guilt. Justice Brion, in the recent case of Unilever
Philippines, Inc. v. Tan (Unilever), stated:
The determination of probable cause needs only to rest on
evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been
committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was
committed by the accused. It need not be based on clear and
convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing
absolute certainty of guilt. WHAT IS MERELY REQUIRED IS
"PROBABILITY OF GUILT". Its determination, too, does not call
for the application of rules or standards of proof that a
judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits."
6. When preliminary investigation may be dispensed with
(Sec. 6)
Section 1, Rule 112, second paragraph tells us when a
preliminary investigation is required to be conducted.
15
 Sec. 1. Preliminary investigation defined; when required. xxx. After the filing of the complaint or information in court without
a preliminary investigation, the accused may, within five (5)
xxx.
days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary
Except as provided in section 6 of this Rule, a preliminary investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his
investigation IS REQUIRED TO BE CONDUCTED BEFORE THE defense as provided in this Rule.”
FILING OF A COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION FOR AN OFFENSE
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code reads:
WHERE THE PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW IS AT LEAST FOUR (4)
YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY WITHOUT REGARD “ART. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the
TO THE FINE.” proper judicial authorities. – The penalties provided in the next
preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or
Section 6, Rule 112 provides:
employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground
Sec. 6. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. – and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial
When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving authorities within the period of twelve (12) hours, for crimes or
an offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent;
complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by
need of such investigation provided an inquest has been correctional penalties, or their equivalent and thirty-six (36)
conducted in accordance with existing rules. In the absence or hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital
unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be penalties, or their equivalent.
filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly with the
In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the
proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party
cause of his detention and shall be allowed, upon his request,
or arresting officer or person.
to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or
Before the complaint or information is filed, the person counsel.”
arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation in accordance
with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the
presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may
apply for bail and the investigation must be terminated within
fifteen (15) days from its interception.

16
RULE 113: ARREST
1. Definition of arrest (Sec. 1)
"Sec. 1. Definition of 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."
- So arrest means that a person is TAKEN INTO CUSTODY.
- The purpose is to make him answer for the commission
of an offense.
If one is arrested, he is placed in custody of the law.
In Miranda v. Tuliao (486 SCRA 377), the Supreme Court
explained that being in custody of the law signifies restraint on
the person, who is thereby deprived of his own will and
liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will of the law.
Custody of the law is literally custody over the body of the
accused. It includes, but is not limited to, detention.
In Miranda v. Tuliao (486 SCRA 377), the Supreme Court
also explained the difference between Custody of the Law and
Jurisdiction Over the Person:
“Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon
the application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication
of other reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere
application therefor constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack
of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Custody of the
law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender,
while jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired
upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. One can be under the
custody of the law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the
court over his person, such as when a person arrested by virtue
of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the
warrant. On the other hand, one can be subject to the
jurisdiction of the court over his person, and yet not be in the
custody of the law, such as when an accused escapes custody
after his trial has commenced. Being in the custody of the law
signifies restraint on the person, who is thereby deprived of his
own will and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will
of the law. Custody of the law is literally custody over the body
of the accused. It includes, but is not limited to, detention.”
2. How is Arrest made?
Section 2, Rule 113 tells us how arrest is made:
“SEC. 2. Arrest; how made. – An arrest is made by an actual
restraint of a person to be arrested, or by his submission to the
custody of the person making the arrest.
No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an
arrest. The person arrested shall not be subject to a greater
restraint than is necessary for his detention. (2a)”
So, Arrest is made by:
17
 A) Actual restraint of a person to be arrested; or
B) Submission of the person to be arrested to the custody
of the person making the arrest.
A. Meaning of Actual Restraint Of The Person To Be Arrested
Supreme Court explains that for an arrest to be
deemed effected by actual restraint of the person to be
arrested, the following must concur:
A) An act must have been performed by the person
making the arrest with the intent to effect the arrest
and must have been so understood by the person
arrested; and
B) On the part of the person arrested, it is sufficient that
he understands that he is within the power and control
of the person making the arrest, and SUBMITS AS A
CONSEQUENCE.
- If he is not within the power and control of the person
making the arrest, there is no actual restraint.
- The person to be arrested should become conscious of the
restraint on his liberty.
B. Now, a person to be arrested is deemed to have submitted
himself to the custody of the person making the arrest, when
he VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERS or ALLOWS HIMSELF TO BE
PLACED WITHIN THE POWER AND CONTROL OF THE PERSON
MAKING THE ARREST.
3. Section 2, second paragraph of Rule 113 also says that:
“No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an
arrest. The person to be arrested shall not be subject to a
greater restraint than is necessary for his detention.”
- The person making the arrest may be held criminally liable if
he uses UNNECCESARY FORCE or VIOLENCE in making an
arrest, especially if injury or even death results. (U.S. v.
Mendoza, 2 Phil. 109)
- However, the person making the arrest is allowed to use
necessary force.
Force necessary:
(a) to overcome resistance
(b) to prevent escape
(c) to secure and detain the person to be arrested
(d) to recapture the subject if he escapes.
(e) to protect himself from bodily harm.
18
- What is necessary or unnecessary is to be considered on a
case to case basis.
U.S. v. Mojica, 42 Phil. 784
Supreme Court explained that a police officer making an
arrest is not required to give the subject ATTACKING HIM an
opportunity for a fair and equal struggle.
If the person to be arrested is a notorious criminal,
notoriety supplies the basis for a redoubled official alertness
and vigilance.
- Superior force may be employed to protect one from bodily
harm.
- But of course, the superior force must still fall within the
ambit of necessary force under the circumstances.
WARRANT OF ARREST
I. A warrant of arrest is a legal process issued by a judge or
magistrate, directed to a peace officer or some other person
named therein, commanding him to arrest a person named in
it who is accused of an offense.
For a valid arrest, there must generally be a warrant of
arrest.
The exception is in the instances of valid warrantless
arrest.
II. Who issues a warrant of arrest? What is the basis for its
issuance? When is it issued?
The answers are found in Section 5(a), Rule 112 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure for the RTC Judges; Sec. 5
(b) for the MTC Judges.
It is issued by a judge after a judicial determination of the
existence of probable cause made within ten (10) days after
the filing in court of the complaint or information.
Section 5(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure reads:
SEC. 5. When warrant of arrest may issue. (a) By the Regional
Trial Court. – Within ten (10) days from the filing of the
complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate
the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence.
He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record
clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable
cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment
order if the accused has already been arrested pursuant to a
warrant issued by the judge who conducted the preliminary
investigation or when the complaint or information was filed
pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the
existence of probable cause, the judge may order the
prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days
from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within
thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint of information.
19
 (b) By the Municipal Trial Court. – When required pursuant to
the second paragraph of section of this Rule, the preliminary
investigation of cases falling under the original jurisdiction of
the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court shall be
conducted by the prosecutor. The procedure for the issuance of
a warrant of arrest by the judge shall be governed by paragraph
(a) of this section. (As amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC.)
(c) When warrant of arrest not necessary. – A warrant of arrest
shall not issue if the accused is already under detention
pursuant to a warrant issued by the municipal trial court in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, or if the
complaint or information was filed pursuant to Section 6 of this
Rule or is for an offense penalized by fine only. The court shall
them proceed in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. (6a) (As
amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC.)
WHY THE NEED FOR A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF
PROBABLE CAUSE BEFORE A WARRANT OF ARREST MAY BE
ISSUED?
ANS: Required under Section 2, Article III of the 1987
Constitution on the Bill of Rights.
“Sec. 2. xxx no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce.”
VALID WARRANTLESS ARREST. (Meaning valid arrest even
without a warrant of arrest).
There are actually six (6) instances where arrest without a
warrant is valid. The first (3) are found in Section 5, Rule 113 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure; the fourth (4th) is
provided for in Section 13, Rule 113; and the fifth (5th) and
sixth (6th) are provided for in Section 23 of Rule 114 (on Bail)
INSTANCES OF VALID WARRANTLESS ARREST
(A) “Sec. 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.
20
(B) “Sec. 13. Arrest after escape or rescue. - If a person This is known as arrest IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO. Arrest of
lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, any person may the person caught in the act of the commission of the offense.
immediately pursue or retake him without a warrant at any
In the case of People v. Molina (352 SCRA 174), the
time and in any place within the Philippines.”
Supreme Court held that to constitute a valid arrest “in
(C) “Sec. 23. Arrest of accused out on bail. – For the flagrante delicto” under Section 5(a), of Rule 113, the
purpose of surrendering the accused, the bondsmen may following requisites must concur:
arrest him or, upon written authority endorsed on a certified
1. the person to be arrested must commit an overt act
copy of the undertaking, cause him to be arrested by a police
indicating that he has just committed, is actually
officer or any other person of suitable age and discretion.
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without
2. such overt act is done IN THE PRESENCE OF or
the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to depart from the
WITHIN THE VIEW OF THE ARRESTING OFFICER
Philippines without permission of the court where the case is
pending”. NOTE: THERE IS REALLY NO PROBLEM IF THE OVERT ACT IS
DONE IN THE VERY PRESENCE and WITHIN THE VIEW OF THE
NOTE: Very clear from the three (3) instances provided for
ARRESTING OFFICER. For then, we can say that he has personal
in Sec. 5 of Rule 113 and in the instance provided for in Sec. 13
knowledge of facts and circumstances justifying the arrest IN
of Rule 113 as well as those provided for in Sec. 23 of Rule 114
FLAGRANTE DELICTO.
that the WARRANTLESS ARREST may be made by a peace
officer or a private person. The problem is if the OVERT ACT is being done in his
presence but NOT WITHIN THE VIEW OF THE PERSON MAKING
Focus on the first instance of warrantless arrest under
THE ARREST.
Section 5(a), Rule 113
Illustrative Cases
“When, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PERSON MAKING THE
ARREST, the person to be arrested HAS COMMITTED, IS A) PEOPLE V. ARUTA, 288 SCRA 627
ACTUALLY COMMITTING, or IS ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT AN
Accused, after alighting from a bus and carrying a bag,
OFFICE.”
was pointed to by an informant to the police as the probably

21
the drug courier from Benguet. Accused was arrested and
search of the bag yielded bricks of marijuana.
Arrest and search were illegal according to the Supreme
Court.
(B) PEOPLE V. AMINUDIN, 163 SCRA 402
There was a tip that a courier on board a vessel bound
Manila from Iloilo City was carrying drugs. Informer even gave
name of courier.
Illegal according to the S.C., there was time to get search
warrant.
(C) POSADAS V. COURT OF APPEALS, 88 SCRA 288
- accused was carrying a buri bag and acting suspiciously.
- police officers approached, identified themselves but the
accused tried to flee
- police recovered firearms and explosives in the buri bag.
- ARREST ILLEGAL. He was not committing any crime.
(D) PEOPLE V. MENGOTE, 210 SCRA 174
- police received telephone call about three suspiciously
looking persons at North Bay Boulevard in Tondo
- police responded
- saw three men – one holding his abdomen and looking from
side to side repeatedly. Acting suspiciously.
- police surrounded them and conducted a search.
- found an unlicensed firearm on the one holding his
abdomen.
ILLEGAL – He was not committing a crime.
The person making the arrest, or the officer, makes the
arrest because of strong suspicion or so called “RELIABLE
INFORMATION”.
In the same case of People v. Molina, the Supreme Court
explained that “RELIABLE INFORMATION” alone, in the
absence of any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in
the presence of and within the view of the arresting officer is
not sufficient.
The Supreme Court explains that to justify the arrest the
reliable information must be coupled with “probable cause”
based on personal knowledge on the part of the person
making the arrest of facts and circumstances.
NOTE: To justify arrest without a warrant, it is not enough that
a crime is actually committed in his presence, HE MUST BE
PERSONALLY AWARE OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.
22
 It is the absence of “probable cause”, the Supreme Court,
in a number of cases, had declared INVALID arrests supposedly
made in flagrante delicto.
In PEOPLE V. ARUTA, 288 SCRA 627, the Supreme Court
explained why there is a need for probable cause in
warrantless arrest:
“Before a search warrant can be issued, it must be shown by
substantial evidence that the items sought are in fact seizable
by virtue of being connected with criminal activity, and that the
items will be found in the place to be searched. In searches and
seizures effected without a warrant, it is necessary for probable
cause to be present. Absent any probable cause, the article(s)
seized could not be admitted and used as evidence against the
person arrested. Probable cause, in these cases, must only be
based on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime
has been committed or is about to be committed.”
THE MIRANDA RIGHTS
Article III, Section 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution on the Bill of
Rights provides:
“Section 12(1). Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of
his right to remain silent and to have a competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.”
The situation contemplated in Section 12(1) of Article
III is custodial investigation.
Custodial investigation is defined by the Supreme
Court in People v. Marra, 236 SCRA 565:
"Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated
by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken
into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of
action in any significant way.
It is after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry
into an unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular
suspect who is taken into custody, and the police carries
out a process of interrogation that lends itself to eliciting
incriminating statements."
NOTE: IMPT.: Under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7438, approved
on April 27, 1992, entitled “AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS
OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING
DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, IN PROVIDING
PENALTIES THEREOF”, an arresting officer is mandated to
inform the person arrested, in a language known and
understood by him, of his right to remain silent and his right to
counsel, etc. (Sec. 2 (b))
23
 Failure to do so is punishable by imprisonment of not less
than 8 year more than 10 years and/or a fine of P6,000.00.
(Sec. 4(a), R.A. 7438)
5. RIGHT TO BREAK INTO BUILDING OR ENCLOSURE (Sec. 11,
Rule 113)
Section 11, Rule 113 provides:
“SEC. 11. Right to officer to break into building or enclosure.
- An officer, in order to make an arrest either by virtue of a
warrant, or without a warrant as provided in section 5, may
break into any building or enclosure where the person to be
arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if he is refused
admittance thereto, after announcing his authority and
purpose.”
REQUISITES:
(1) The one making the arrest is a peace officer;
(2) Arrest being made is either by virtue of a warrant of
arrest OR without a warrant;
(3) The person to be arrested is in the building or
enclosure; OR IS REASONABLY BELIEVED TO BE IN THE
BUILDING or ENCLOSURE,
(4) The peace officer has announced his authority and
purpose;
(5) The peace officer is refused admittance into the
building or enclosure.
Break in means destroying a lock, door, window and
whatever is necessary to enable him to enter the building or
enclosure.
IF HE IS TRAPPED, SEC. 12 provided that he has the right to
break out.
“Sec. 12. Right to break out from building or enclosure. -
Whenever an officer has entered the building or enclosure in
accordance with the preceding section, he may break out
therefrom when necessary to liberate himself.”
RULE ON BREAK IN / BREAK OUT APPLIES TO ARREST BEING
MADE BY AN OFFICER / PEACE OFFICER
In People v. Barut (89 SCRA 14), the Supreme Court said
that a peace officer is a person charged with the preservation
of peace, law and order, who has the duty to investigate
crimes and bring criminal offenders to justice.
(see also 825, 826, 831 and 848 of the Revised
Administrative Code)
A Peace Officer is a law enforcement agent; a guardian of
the peace; a member of the police force. (Burton’s Legal
Dictionary)
Diff. from Person in Authority / Agent of Person in Authority:
24
 A person in authority is one “directly vested with
jurisdiction”. By “directly vested with jurisdiction” is meant the
power and authority to govern and execute the laws.

25
RULE 114: BAIL
1. Definition of bail (Sec. 1)
"Sec. 1. Bail defined. – 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 the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may
be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash
deposit, or recognizance."
The one applying for bail must be in custody of the law.
There must be a restraint on his person. He is deprived of his
liberty. Otherwise, any application for bail cannot be acted
upon.
Recognizance as a form of bail is defined in R.A. 10389, or
the "Recognizance Act of 2012"
“Sec. 3. Recognizance Defined. – Recognizance is a mode of
securing the release of any person in custody or detention for the
commission of an offense who is unable to post bail due to abject
poverty. The court where the case of such person has been filed
shall allow the release of the accused on recognizance as provided
herein, to the custody of a qualified member of the barangay, city or
municipality where the accused resides.”
2. Conditions of bail (Sec. 2)
3. Bail, as a matter of right (Sec. 4)
4. Bail, when discretionary (Sec. 5)
5. Definition of Capital offense (Sec. 6, Rule 114)
“Sec. 6. Capital offense defined. – A capital offense is an offense
which, under the law existing at the time of its commission and
of the application for admission to bail, may be punished with
death.”
Note: See Rep. Act No. 9346, “An Act Prohibiting The
Imposition Of Death Penalty In The Philippines”, approved
June 24, 2006
6. Bail in a capital offense or an offense punishable by
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
Article III, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution provides:
“Sec. 13. 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.”
26
 The Rules of Court, in Rule 114, Sections 7 and 8 provides: (c) Penalty for the offense charged;

“Sec. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. – No person
charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to
bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of
the criminal prosecution.”
“Sec. 8. Burden of proof in bail application. – At the hearing of
an application for bail filed by a person who is in custody for
the commission of an offense punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment, the prosecution has the burden
of showing that evidence of guilt is strong. The evidence
presented during the bail hearing shall be considered
automatically reproduced at the trial but, upon motion of
either party, the court may recall any witness for additional
examination unless the latter is dead, outside the Philippines,
8. No bail after final judgment, exception (Sec. 24)
or otherwise unable to testify.”
7. Guidelines in fixing bail; who fixes the amount (Sec. 9)
Sec. 9. Amount of bail; guidelines. – The judge who issued the
warrant or granted the application shall fix a reasonable amount
of bail considering primarily, but not limited to, the following
factors:
(d) Character and reputation of the accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;
(f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;
(g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bail;
(i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when
arrested; and
(j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.
Excessive bail shall not be required. (9a)
Sec. 24. No bail after final judgment; exception. – No bail shall be
allowed after a judgment of conviction has become final. If before
such finality, the accused applies for probation, he may be allowed
temporary liberty under his bail. When no bail was filed or the
accused is incapable of filing one, the court may allow his release
on recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of the
community. In no case shall bail be allowed after the accused has
commenced to serve sentence.

(a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;

(b) Nature and circumstances of the offense;

27
9. Bail not bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of
preliminary investigation, etc. (Sec. 26)
a) See People v. Tan, 634 SCRA 773
“Sec. 26. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or
irregular preliminary investigation. – An application for or
admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the
validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued
therefor, or from assailing the regularity or questioning the
absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge against him,
provided that he raises them before entering his plea. The court
shall resolve the matter as early as practicable but not later than
the start of the trial of the case.”

28
RULE 115: RIGHTS OF ACCUSED AT THE TRIAL
1. Rights of the accused (Sec. 1)
a) See also Section 14, pars. (1) and (2) and Sections 16
and 17, Article III, 1987 Constitution
1) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
2) To be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him.
3) To be present and defend in person and by
counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from
arraignment to promulgation of the judgment.
4) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but
subject to cross-examination on matters covered by
direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner
prejudice him.
5) To be exempt from being compelled to be a
witness against himself.
6) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses
against him at the trial.
7) To have compulsory process issued to secure the
attendance of witnesses and production of other
evidence in his behalf.
8) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.
9) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner
prescribed by law.
RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL DISTINGUISHED FROM THE RIGHT TO
SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
The Right To Speedy Trial is provided for in Section 14(2),
Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Said Section 14 provides:
“Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right
to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a
speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face
to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his
behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he
has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.”
WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL?
The right means that the trial should be conduct
ed according to the law of criminal procedure and the rules
29
and regulations and it should be free from vexatious, 4. Ask for the trial of the case and move to dismiss
capricious and oppressive delays.
WHAT IS THE LIMITATION ON THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO
WITHIN HOW MANY DAYS SHOULD THE TRIAL BE A SPEEDY TRIAL?
COMPLETED?
> The limitation is that the State shouldn't be deprived of its
In no case shall the entire period exceed 180 days from day in court
the first day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by law or
> The right of the State and the prosecution to due process
the Rules.
should be respected
WHAT FACTORS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING
THE PROSECUTION AND THE COMPLAINANT FAIL TO ATTEND
WHETHERTHE ACCUSED HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS
THE FIRST HEARING. THE COURT POSTPONES THE HEARING
RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL AND SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF HIS
TO ANOTHER DATE. IS THERE A VIOLATION TO THE RIGHT TO
CASE?
SPEEDY TRIAL?
1. Length of delay
> No, the right to speedy trial is violated when there are
2. Reason for the delay
unjustified postponements of the trial and a long period of
3. The defendant’s assertion of his right
time is allowed to elapse without the case being tried for no
4. Prejudice to the defendant
unjustifiable reason.
WHAT ARE THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THE ACCUSED
The Right To Speedy Disposition Of Cases is provided in
WHOSE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL HAS BEEN VIOLATED?
Section 16, Article III of the Bill of Rights. Said Section 16
1. Motion to dismiss on the ground of violation of reads:
right to speedy trial. This has the same effect as an
“Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to speedy disposition
acquittal for purposes of double jeopardy. of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative
2. File for mandamus to compel a dismissal of the bodies.”
information
3. If he is restrained of his liberty, file for habeas corpus

30
 The Constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases
applies to cases before judicial, quasi-judicial and
administrative bodies. It applies to civil, criminal and
administrative cases.
Inordinate delay, or excessive delay, in the termination of
preliminary investigation results in violation of the
Constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.
Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, 701 SCRA 188
FACTS: On November 3, 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman
for the Visayas received a letter-complaint dated November
7, 2001 from People’s Graftwatch, requesting for an
investigation of the anomalous purchase of medical and
agricultural equipment for the Province of Negros Occidental
in the amount of P20,000,000.00 which allegedly happened a
month before Provincial Governor Rafael Coscolluela stepped
down from office.
Acting on the letter complaint, the Case Building Team of
the Office of the Ombudsman conducted its investigation,
resulting to the issuance of a Final Evaluation Report dated
April 16, 2002 which upgraded the complaint into a criminal
case against petitioners (accused before Sandiganbayan).
Consequently, the petitioners filed their counter-affidavits.
On March 27, 2003, the assigned Graft Investigation
Officer Butch Cañares prepared a Resolution dated March 27,
2003 finding probable cause against the petitioners for
Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and recommended the
filing on the corresponding information. On even date, the
Information was prepared and signed by Cañares and
submitted to Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Primo C.
Miro. Miro recommended the approval of the Information on
June 5, 2003. However, the final approval of Acting
Ombudsman Orlando C. Casimiro came only on May 21, 2009
and on June 19, 2009, the Information was filed before the
Sandiganbayan.
RULING: A person’s right to the speedy disposition of his case
is guaranteed under Section 16, Article III of the 1987
Philippine Constitution which provides:
SEC. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition
of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative
bodies.
This constitutional right is not limited to the accused in
criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, be
it civil or administrative in nature, as well as all proceedings,
either judicial or quasi-judicial. In this accord, any party to a
case may demand expeditious action to all officials who are
tasked with the administration of justice.
31
xxx. In the determination of whether the defendant has been
denied his right to a speedy disposition of a case, the following
factors may be considered and balanced: (1) the length of
delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the assertion or
failure to assert such right by the accused; and (4) the
prejudice caused by the delay.
Examining the incidents in the present case, the Court
holds that petitioners’ right to a speedy disposition of their
criminal case had been violated.
First, it is observed that the preliminary investigation
proceedings took a protracted amount of time to complete.
(NOTE: The letter-complaint was received on November 9,
2001. It was upgraded to a criminal case on April 16, 2002
and the respondents submitted their counter-affidavits.
A Resolution finding probable cause was issued on March
27, 2003. Information was prepared and recommended for
approval on June 5, 2003. However, approved only on May 21,
2009 and Information was filed on June 19, 2009).
There is no complete resolution of a case under
preliminary investigation until the Ombudsman approves the
investigating officer’s recommendation to either file an
Information with the SB or to dismiss the complaint.
Therefore, in the case at bar, the preliminary investigation
proceedings against the petitioners were not terminated upon
Cañares’ preparation of the March 27, 2003 Resolution and
Information but rather, only at the time Casimiro finally
approved the same for filing with the SB. In this regard, the
proceedings were terminated only on May 21, 2009, or
almost eight (8) years after the filing of the complaint.
Second, the above-discussed delay in the Ombudsman’s
resolution of the case largely remains unjustified.
xxx.
xxx. barring any extraordinary complication, such as the
degree of difficulty of the questions involved in the case or any
event external thereto that effectively stymied its normal work
activity – any of which have not been adequately proven by
the prosecution in the case at bar – there appears to be no
justifiable basis as to why the Office of the Ombudsman could
not have earlier resolved the preliminary investigation
proceedings against the petitioners.
Third, the Court deems that petitioners cannot be faulted
for their alleged failure to assert their right to speedy
disposition of cases.
Records show that they could not have urged the speedy
resolution of their case because they were unaware that the
investigation against them was still on-going. They were only
informed of the March 27, 2003 Resolution and Information
against them only after the lapse of six (6) long years, or when
32
they received a copy of the latter after its filing with the SB on
June 19, 2009.26 In this regard, they could have reasonably
assumed that the proceedings against them have already been
terminated. This serves as a plausible reason as to why
petitioners never followed-up on the case altogether.
Fourth, the Court finally recognizes the prejudice caused
to the petitioners by the lengthy delay in the proceedings
against them.
Thus, in view of the unjustified length of time miring the
Office of the Ombudsman’s resolution of the case as well as
the concomitant prejudice that the delay in this case has
caused, it is undeniable that petitioners’ constitutional right
to due process and speedy disposition of cases had been
violated.
DISMISSAL EQUIVALENT TO ACQUITTAL
Dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of violation of
the Right To Speedy Trial as well as Right To Speedy Disposition
Of Cases is equivalent to an ACQUITTAL.
In Villa v. Escalona, et al., G.R. No. 155101, Feb. 1, 2012
and People v. Judge Hernandez, the Supreme Court reiterated
that a dismissal on the ground of denial of the accused’s right
to speedy trial will have the effect of an acquittal.
In Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, it was held that
dismissal of the criminal case based on violation of the right to
speedy disposition of cases is akin to dismissal based on denial
of the right to speedy trial.
FINALITY OF ACQUITTAL RULE
A Judgment of Acquittal becomes final immediately upon
promulgation and cannot be recalled for correction or
amendment because of the doctrine that nobody may be
twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. This
is known as the “finality of acquittal rule”. It is final and
executory upon its promulgation. (People v. Tirso Velasco, 340
SCRA 207)
In Bonsubre v. Yerro, et al., G.R. No. 205952, Feb. 11,
2015, the Supreme Court ruled:
“In a long line of cases, we have held that a dismissal on the
ground of the denial of the accused’s right to a speedy trial
will have the effect of acquittal that would bar further
prosecution of the accused for the same offense. Thus, we
have held that where after such dismissal the prosecution
moved for the reconsideration of the order of dismissal and
the court re-set the case for trial, the accused can successfully
claim double jeopardy as the said order was actually an
acquittal, was final and cannot be reconsidered. x x x.”
33
 In People v. Hernando, 108 SCRA 121, the Supreme Court
explained:
“Notwithstanding, the error committed can no longer be
rectified under the cardinal rule on double jeopardy. The
judgment of acquittal in favor of an accused necessarily ends
the case in which he is prosecuted and the same cannot be
appealed nor reopened because of the doctrine that nobody
may be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense.
Respondents have been formally acquitted by respondent
Court, albeit erroneously. That judgment of acquittal is a
final verdict. Errors or irregularities, which do not render the
proceedings a nullity, will not defeat a plea of antrefois
acquit.”
The aforementioned doctrinal pronouncements were
reiterated in the fairly recent case of Chiok v. People, G.R.
No. 179814, Dec. 7, 2015
“In order to give life to the rule on double jeopardy, our rules
on criminal proceedings require that a judgment of acquittal,
whether ordered by the trial or the appellate court, is final,
unappealable, and immediately executory upon its
promulgation. This is referred to as the “finality-of-acquittal”
rule.”
REMEDY OF THE PROSECUTION IS THE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION
OF CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65
The special civil action of certiorari is a remedy to correct
an error of jurisdiction, including grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction. It is not a remedy to correct
an error of judgment which is the function of an appeal or
motion for reconsideration.
Hence, if an order dismissing a criminal case on the
ground of violation of the Right to Speedy Trial or Speedy
Disposition of Cases is arbitrary, whimsical or capricious,
issued with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of
jurisdiction, it may be assailed in a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65.
In Villa v. Escalona, the Supreme Court clarified:
“As we have previously discussed, however, where the
dismissal of the case is capricious, certiorari lies. The rule on
double jeopardy is not triggered when a petition challenges
the validity of the order of dismissal instead of the correctness
thereof. Rather, grave abuse of discretion amounts to lack of
jurisdiction, and lack of jurisdiction prevents double jeopardy
from attaching.”
34
RULE 116: ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
1. How accused is arraigned (Sec. 1)
(Note: Rule of Procedure in Quezon City)
2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense (Sec. 2)
a) See People v. Villarama, 210 SCRA 246 (Before trial or
presentation of evidence); People v. Balisacan, 17 SCRA
1119 (imposition of penalty)
3. Plea of guilty to a capital offense; reception of evidence
mandatory (Sec. 3)
4. Plea of guilty to a non-capital offense (Sec. 4)
5. Withdrawal of improvident plea (Sec. 5)
6. Duty of court to inform accused of his right to counsel
(Sec. 6)
7. Appointment of counsel de oficio (Sec. 7)
8. Time for counsel de oficio to prepare for arraignment (Sec.
8)
9. Bill of particulars (Sec. 9)
10. Production or inspection of material evidence in
possession of the prosecution (Sec. 10)
Sec. 10. Production or inspection of material evidence in
possession of prosecution. – Upon motion of the accused
showing good cause and with notice to the parties, the court, in
order to prevent surprise, suppression, or alteration, may order
the prosecution to produce and permit the inspection and
copying or photographing of any written statement given by the
complainant and other witnesses in any investigation of the
offense conducted by the prosecution or other investigating
officers, as well as any designated documents, papers, books,
accounts, letters, photographs, objects, or tangible things not
otherwise privileged, which constitute or contain evidence
material to any matter involved in the case and which are in the
possession of under the control of the prosecution, police, or
other law investigating agencies.
35
 Rule 27, Section 1 provides:

“Sec. 1. Motion for production or inspection; order. Upon

motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the court in
which an action is pending may (a) order any party to produce
and permit the inspection and copying and photographing, by
or on behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents,
papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or
tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or contain
evidence material to any matter involved in the action and
which are in his possession, custody or control; or (b) order any
party to permit entry upon designated land or other property in
his possession or control for the purpose of inspecting,
measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any
designated relevant object or operation thereon. The order
shall specify the time, place and manner of making the
inspection and taking copies and photographs, and may
prescribe such terms and conditions as are just.”

11. Suspension of arraignment (Sec. 11)

36