Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 31

FUNDAMENTALS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

I. INTRODUCTION

Distinction between criminal procedure and criminal law- Criminal Procedure is the
method fixed by law for the apprehension and prosecution of one charged with a
criminal offense and for his punishment if found guilty whereas criminal law is that
branch of law which declares what acts are crimes and prescribes the punishment
thereof.

Criminal Action- is one by which the state prosecutes a person for an act or omission
punishable by law (Rule 1, Sec.3, Rules of Court).

Three system of criminal procedure-


a. Accusatorial- sham battle between parties ending in verdict by the
magistrate. Main features: right of citizens to formulate charges; right
of offender to confront accuser and right to public trial.
b. Inquisitorial- detection and prosecution of offender left to the initiative
of officials. Inquiry is secret where violence is used to extract
confession.
c. Mixed system- coordination of accusatorial and inquisitorial, which
prevails in our jurisdiction.

Bill of rights provisions as sources of some rules of criminal procedure- a. Article


III, Sections 1, 2(1), 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. 21, & 22 constitution.

Construction of the rules - as a penal statute, strictly construed, or liberally in favor of


accused.

As a rule procedural laws are retrospective. However, it is subject to the constitutional


limitation that no ex post facto law shall be passed with regard to criminal cases.

II. JURISDICTION

It is fundamental that the place where the crime was committed determines not only the
venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. In order for the courts to
acquire jurisdiction in criminal cases, the offense should have been committed or any of
its essential ingredients should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the
court. If the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed
somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.
(Evangelista vs. People, GRN 163267, May 5, 2010)

Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts:

a. Exclusive
1. All violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within respective
territorial jurisdiction;
2. All offenses punishable with imprisonment of not more than six (6) years
irrespective of the fine and regardless of other imposable accessory or
other penalties and the civil liability arising therefrom; provided, however,
that in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence,
they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction; (Sec. 32 of BP 129 as
amended by RA 7691) These include offenses not falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan where none of the

1
accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade “27” and
higher. (As amended by RA 7975 and 8249)
3. However, in cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine not
exceeding P4,000.00, the MTCs have jurisdiction. (Administrative Circular
No. 09-94 dated June 14, 1994)

b. Concurrent – none
c. Special – Application for bail in the absence of all RTC judges. (Sec. 35 of BP
129)

Summary Procedure
1. Traffic Violations;
2. Rental Law Violations;
3. Violations of city or municipal ordinances;
4. Violations of BP 22;
5. All other cases where penalty does not exceed 6 months and/or a fine of
P1,000.00; provided, that in offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence, this rule shall govern when the imposable
penalty does not exceed P10,000.00.

Regional Trial Courts


A. Original
I. Exclusive –
1. Criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or
body. (Sec. 20 of BP 129)
These include criminal cases where the penalty provided by law exceeds
six (6) years imprisonment irrespective of the fine.
In cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine, the RTC have
jurisdiction if the amount of the fine exceeds P4,000.00.
II. Appellate
All cases decided by lower courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions.

Family Courts
1. Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below 18 years of
age but over 15 years of age, or when one or more of the victims is a
minor at the time of the commission of the offense.
2. Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as
amended.
3. Violations of RA 7610.
4. Cases of domestic violence against women and children.

III. MAJOR STEPS IN THE PROSECUTION OF A CRIMINAL CASE

1. Affidavit of complaint filed by the offended party with the prosecutor’s office or
Municipal Trial Judge (MTJ).

2. Preliminary Investigation conducted by the public prosecutor for purpose of


determining probable cause. (Rule 112).

3. If investigating officer finds probable cause, an information is filed in Court,


otherwise the investigating officer dismisses the complaint (Rule 112, Sec. 4).

4. Arrest. (Rule 112, Sec. 6; Rule 113).

5. Bail. (Rule 114) When bail is a matter of right and when discretionary (Rule 114,
Secs.4 & 5).

2
6. Arraignment and plea. (Rule 116)

7. Pre-trial. (Rule 118)

8. Trial. (Rule 119)

9. Judgment. (Rule 120)

III-A PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES (Rule 110)

When criminal actions deemed instituted-


a. Where preliminary investigation is required, by filing complaint with
proper officer for the purpose of preliminary investigation.
b. For all other offenses, by filing the complaint or information directly with
the Municipal Trial courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, or Office of
the Prosecutor. In Metro Manila or chartered cities, file with the
prosecutor’s office unless otherwise provided by their charter. (Rule
110, Sec. 1).

When preliminary investigation required- Offenses where penalty is at least four (4)
years, two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to fine. (Sec.1, par. 2, Rule 112)

The filing of a criminal action either by complaint or information for preliminary


investigation or trial on the merit, interrupts the period of prescription of the offense
charged unless provided in special laws. (Francisco vs. CA, 122 SCRA 483). Under the
new rule, the provisions of Sec.1, Rule 110, is now applicable to case covered by the
Rule on summary Procedure. Thus, the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor’s
office in cases covered by the Rule on Summary procedure may now interrupt the
running of the prescriptive period in light of offenses which prescribes in two (2) months.
The new provision modifies the ruling in Zaldivia v. Reyes.

Complaint- Sworn written statement charging a person with an offense subscribed by


the offended party, or by law enforcer Sec. 3, Rule 110.

Information- Indictment subscribed by the prosecutor and filed in court. Sec. 4, Rule
110.

Requisites of complaint or information:


a. Name of accused (Sec. 7, Rule 110);
b. Designation of offense (Sec. 8, Rule 110);
c. Cause of accusation (Sec. 9, Rule 110);
d. Place of commission (Sec. 10, Rule
e. Date of commission (Sec. 11, Rule 110); and
f. Name of offended party (Sec. 12, Rule 110).

Duplicity of offense rule. – Only one offense shall be charged in one information or
complaint, otherwise quashable (Sec.13, Rule 110) Exception: When laws prescribe a
single punishment for various crimes, e.g. complex crime.

Who prosecutes criminal action (Sec.5, Rule 110)- All criminal actions shall be
prosecuted under the direction and control of the public 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 Prosecutor’s Office
or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the approval of the
court.

3
The mandate that all criminal actions, either commenced by a complaint or information
shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor, is founded on
the theory that a crime is a breach of the security and peace of the people at large, an
outrage against the very sovereignty of the State. (Baviera vs. Paglinawan, GRN
170602, 2/8/7)

The Court may enjoin the prosecution of offenses if, among others, the same is
necessary (a.) to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and
vindictive manner; or (b.) to afford adequate protection to constitutional rights. (Ladlad
vs. Velasco, 523 SCRA 318)

Instances where complaint of offended party required:


a. Adultery and concubinage. Both guilty parties to be included in the complaint.
Consent or pardon is available as defense. (People v. Infante, 57 Phil. 138).
Pardon must come before the institution of criminal action and shall be to both
offender. Pardon may be implied. (People v. Schneckenburger, 73 Phil 413)-prior
consent is good defense, as effective as subsequent consent. (People vs.
Tañada, 166 SCRA 360; People vs. Bugtong, 169 SCRA 797).
b. Seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness. Can be prosecuted
exclusively and successively by the following persons in this order:
(1) By the offended woman:
-if minor, she can file.
-if legal age and not incapacitated she alone can file (Bengaoras v.
Evangelista, 97 Phil 612).
-if minor and she refuses/fails to file, either of parents, grandparents or
guardian, in that successive order. (People v. Pastores, 40 SCRA 498;
People v. Bangalao, 94 Phil 354). Same rule if minor is incapacitated.
-State as parens patriae when offended party dies or incapacitated before
complaint was filed and she has no known parents, grandparents or
guardian.
Re parents, etc neither of those in the succeeding classes can file the complaint
if any of the preceding classes are present and not otherwise incapacitated (US
v. De La Santa, 9 Phil.22). Either parent may file with no preferential right.
(People v. Mariano, 124 SCRA 802; People v. De la Cruz, 27 Mar 74).

Rules on pardon in seduction, abduction, lasciviousness.


-if offended woman is of age and not incapacitated, only she can pardon
(Regalado).
-if minor, with sufficient discretion, she can pardon accused if she has no
parents. But state may step in as parens patriae.
-Parents, etc., in that order, cannot pardon without conformity of the minor
(Regalado).
-Pardon in SAA must be express (RPC Art. 344) vs. Cases: People v.
Llarde, 125 SCRA 11; People v. Tanada, 166 SCRA 364; Donio Teves v.
Vamenta, 133 SCRA 12; Van Dorn v. Domillo, 139 SCRA 140; Pilapil v.
Ibay-Somera, 174 SCRA 662.

_______________________
N.B. R.A. 8353- Rape is now crime against person.

c. Defamation-Complaint of offended party required. The Defamation must consist


of imputation of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, acts of

4
lasciviousness. (Rule 110, Sec. 5, par. 5, People v. Orcullo, 111 SCRA 609;
People v. Hong Ding Chu, 33 SCRA 199; Magila v. Lantin, 30 SCRA 82).

Offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense where the
civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule
111- (Sec. 16, Rule 110).

But still prosecution by private counsel of offended party shall be under the direction
and control of prosecutor.

Venue. (Rule 110, Sec. 15): Criminal Actions shall be instituted and tried as follows:
a. In the municipality or territory where offense was committed or where any of its
essential ingredients occurred.
b. Crime committed on board a train, aircraft, or other vehicle, private or public in
course of trip. Any municipality or territory it passed during the trip, including
place of departure and arrival.
c. On board a vessel in course of voyage. Court of first port of entry or municipality
or territory where vessel passed subject to international law.
d. If committed outside the Philippines but punishable under Art. 2, RPC, shall be
cognizable by court where criminal action is first filed.
e.g. Committed on board Philippine vessel; forge Phil. currency; crimes against
national security.

III-B PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION (Rule 111)

Rule: Civil Action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is
deemed instituted with the filing of the criminal action. (Sec. 1, par. 1, Rule 111)
Exception:
1. Waiver by the offended party of the civil action ;
2. Reservation of the right to institute the civil action separately, or
3. Institution of civil action by the offended party prior to the criminal action
(Ibid.).

Time to make reservation- Before the prosecution starts presenting evidences and
under circumstances affording offended party reasonable opportunity to make such
reservation. (Sec. 1, par. 2, Rule 111)

Effect on separate civil action upon a commencement of criminal action:

1. After commencement of criminal action, the separate civil action arising


therefrom cannot be instituted until entry of judgment in the criminal
action. (Sec.2, par.1, Rule 111);
2. If civil action is earlier filed, the subsequent filing of criminal action shall
suspend the civil action in whatever stage it may be found before
judgment. Suspension lasts until the final judgment in the criminal action.
Option: Complainant/Offended party may move to consolidate the civil
with the criminal action, to be tried and decide jointly. Evidence adduced in
the civil is automatically reproduced in the criminal action without
prejudice to the right to cross-examine and present additional evidence.
(Sec.2, par.2, Rule 111).
3. If reservation made by offended party, the civil cannot be instituted until
final judgment.
4. If waiver, with more reason that the civil action cannot be instituted.

When civil action may proceed independently. (Sec. 3, Rule 111).- In cases provided in
Articles 32 (violation of civil rights), 33 (defamation, fraud, physical injuries), 34 (refusal
of police to render aid), 2176 (quasi-delict), civil code).Known as “independent civil

5
actions”. Here the civil action may proceed independently regardless of Sec. 2, Rule 111
(on suspension of civil action)

Grounds for suspension of criminal action (Sec. 6, Rule 111)


Prejudicial Question (Sec. 6, Rule 111). - questions based on a fact distinct and
separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the
guilt or innocence of the accused (Ras v. Rasul, 100 SCRA 125). Thus, the
existence of a prejudicial question in a civil case is alleged in the criminal case to
cause the suspension of the latter pending final determination of the former (Yap
vs. Paras, 30 Jan 1992). There must be a motion filed. (Quiambao vs. Osorio,
158 SCRA 674).

The determination of whether the proceedings may be suspended on the basis of


a prejudicial question rests on whether the facts and issues raised in the
pleadings in the civil case are so related with the issues raised in the criminal
case such that the resolution of the issues in the civil case would also determine
the judgment in the criminal case. (De Zuzuarregui v. Villanueva, GRN 183788,
April 5, 2010)

Example:
W is married to H.
W contracts another marriage with X.
H subsequently files a complaint for bigamy against W.
W files annulment of marriage against X on the ground of duress.

Ruling: For a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal as to


cause the suspension of latter the following requisites must be present:
1. The civil action previously instituted involves an issue intimately related to
the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and;
2. The resolution of such issue raised in the civil determines the guilt or
innocence of the accused. Thus, accused should establish that her
consent to the second marriage was indeed obtained by X through force
and intimidation, if so W’s acts of entering into the second marriage would
be involuntary and there can be no conviction for the crime of bigamy
(Prado v. People, 133 SCRA 602) Note, however, if the first marriage is
sought to be annulled on the same ground of duress, the first marriage is
not a prejudicial question (Landicho vs. Relona, 22 SCRA 731).

Time to file petition for suspension on prejudicial question. -During preliminary


investigation or at the trial, or at anytime before the prosecution rests, to be filed in the
same criminal action. (Sec. 6, Rule 111). (Yap v. Paras, 30 Jan 1992). No motu proprio
suspension.

Death of accused before arraignment, case is dismissed without prejudice to any civil
action filed against his estate (Ibid, par.4). Death of accused after arraignment and
pendency of criminal action arising from the delict extinguishes the criminal and civil
liability (Sec. 4, par 1, Rule 111). Independent civil actions instituted under Sec. 3, Rule
111, thereafter filed to enforce liability arising from other sources of obligation may be
continued against the estate/legal representative after substitution (Sec. 4, par., Ibid).
Death of an accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability
but only the civil liability ex delicto. So the civil liability which is not based on criminal
___________________
N.B The term “reservation” found in former Rule deleted in present Rule 111, Sec. 3
Independent civil action

liability and does not arise from the offense survives notwithstanding the death of the
accused and this may be pursued through a separate civil action. The separate civil

6
action would not by then have prescribed because the statute of limitations on the civil
liability is interrupted during the pendency of a criminal case which the civil case is
instituted. (ABS CBN vs. Ombudsman, 569 SCRA 59 [2008])

Recovery against the employer of the accused solely to subsidiary liabilities.

Judgment in civil action absolving defendant not bar to a criminal action against him for
same act or omission subject of the civil action (Sec. 5, Rule 111).

Filing fee: actual damages, no filing fee. But payment of filing fee for moral, nominal,
temperate or exemplary damages specified in the information shall be paid upon filing
thereof in Court; If such damages are claimed without specifying amount, filing fees
constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding such damages (Sec. 1, pars. 3, 4 & 5).

Counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint not allowed. Litigate the same in a


separate civil action (Sec. 1-b, Rule 111).

B.P. 22 cases: (Rule 111, Sec. 1-b) criminal action deemed to include corresponding
civil action. No reservation to file separate civil action is allowed. Payment of filing fee is
based on the amount of check. Other damages, same rule applies as in Sec. 1, par. 3,
Rule 111.

If separate civil action has been filed ahead of the criminal action, same rule on
consolidation as in Sec. 2, Rule 111, upon application with the latter court. (Sec. 1, last
par., Rule 111).

Provisional Remedies in Criminal Cases: The provisional remedies in civil actions,


insofar as they are applicable, may be availed of in connection with the civil action
deemed instituted with the criminal action. (See Rule 127 on Provisional remedies in
criminal cases, page 31 of this work).

IV. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION (RULE 112)

Definition- Proceeding to determine whether a crime has been committed and


respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial (Sec. 1, Rule 112);
(Sistoza v. Disierto, 03 Sept. 2002.)

Nature: Statutory right. (Go v. CA, 11 Feb 92). May be waived (Doromal v.
Sandiganbayan, 177 SCRA 354). However, in Ladlad vs. Velasco, the Court
characterized the right to a preliminary investigation as not “a mere formal or technical
right” but a “substantive” one, forming part of due process in criminal justice. This
especially holds true where the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua
and may be non-bailable for those accused as principals. (523 SCRA 318 [2007])

When preliminary investigation is required- Where penalty is at least four (4) years,
two (2) months and one (1) day without regard of fine. (Sec. 1, Par. 2, Rule 112).
Below this penalty, preliminary investigation is not required.

Officer authorized to conduct preliminary investigation:


a. Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;
b. National and Regional State Prosecutors; and
c. Other Officers by law e.g. COMELEC, Ombudsman.

Judges are no longer authorized to conduct preliminary investigation.

7
The determination of probable cause for the filing of information in court is an executive
function, one that properly pertains at the first instance to the public prosecutor and,
ultimately to the Secretary of Justice, who may direct the filing of the corresponding
information or move for the dismissal of the case. Ultimately, whether or not a complaint
will be dismissed is dependent on the sound discretion of the Secretary of Justice. and
unless made with grave abuse of discretion, findings of the Secretary of Justice are not
subject to review. (Reyes vs. Pearlbank Securities, Inc. GRN 171435, 7/30/2008).

The rule is that as far as crimes cognizable by the Sandiganbayan are concerned, the
determination of probable cause during the preliminary investigation is a function that
belongs to the Office of the Ombudsman. As a rule, courts should not interfere with the
Ombudsman’s investigatory power, exercised through the Ombudsman Prosecutors,
and the authority to determine the presence or absence of probable cause, except when
the finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. in such case, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court. When the Ombudsman does not take essential facts into
consideration in the determination of probable cause, there is abuse of discretion.
(Collantes vs. Marcelo, GRN 167006-07, 8/14/2007).

Procedure (Sec. 3, Rule 112):


a. Filing of complaint with investigating officer:
i. If investigating officer finds no ground to continue investigation-
DISMISS within 10 days from filing; but
ii. Otherwise he issues subpoena
b. Filing of counter-affidavit by respondent and his witnesses within 10 days from
receipt of subpoena;
c. Filing of motion to dismiss, in lieu of counter-affidavit is prohibited (Sec. 3-C,
Rule 112).
d. Investigating Officer may set a hearing within 10 days from filing of counter-
affidavit. Parties no right to examine or cross-examine, but may submit to investigating
prosecutor questions asked to the witnesses. Hearing to be terminated within 5 days.
e. Resolution within 10 days after investigation (Sec. 3, Rule 112).
i. If no probable cause, he recommends dismissal.
ii. If investigating prosecutor finds cause to hold respondent for trial,
he shall prepare resolution and corresponding information.

In both instances, resolution shall be forwarded to the Provincial or City


Prosecutor/provincial prosecutor/ombudsman/ and shall act on the
resolution within 10 days from receipt and immediately inform the
parties of such action. (Sec. 4, Rule 112).

If investigating prosecutor’s recommendation is dismissal but disapproved


by provincial/city prosecutor, etc., the latter may by himself file the
information or direct another assistant to do so without conducting another
preliminary investigation.

Review by the Secretary of Justice of the resolution of the provincial or city


prosecutor or chief state prosecutor; may reverse the resolution without
conducting another preliminary investigation. Same rule with the office of
the ombudsman (Sec. 4, last par., Rule 112).

f. Filing of information in Court. Prior written authority or approval of the provincial


or city prosecutor/chief state prosecutor is required for such filing (Sec. 4, par. 3, Rule
112). Attach affidavits and counter-affidavits and other supporting evidence including
resolution (Sec. 8, Rule 112).

8
DOJ resolution regarding probable cause in a preliminary investigation is reviewable by
CA on certiorari under Rule 65. (Levi Strauss [Phils], Inc. vs. Lim, 573 SCRA 25,
[2008]).

Once an information is filed in court, the court may review the DOJ’s finding on the
existence or non-existence of probable cause. ( Baltazar vs. Chua, GRN 177583, 2-27-
2009; cf. Sec. 5, Rule 112).

Inquest (Sec. 7, Rule 112)- Lawful arrest without warrant involving offenses which
require preliminary investigation, information may be filed by the prosecutor directly in
court without need of such investigation based on the complaint of the offended party or
peace officer. But before the information/complaint is filed, the person arrested may ask
for a preliminary investigation but he must sign a waiver of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal
Code in the presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail
and the preliminary investigation must be terminated within 15 days (Sec. 7, par 2, Rule
112).

After information/complaint is filed without preliminary investigation pursuant to inquest


proceeding, accused within 5 days from learning of its filing may ask for preliminary
investigation.

Unavailability of inquest prosecutor, complaint may be filed by the offended party or


peace officer directly with the proper court based on the affidavit of offended party or
arresting officer. (Sec. 7, Ibid.).

In cases not requiring preliminary investigation (i.e. penalty is below 4 years, 2 mos., &
1 day) nor covered by the rule on Summary Procedure, if complaint filed with the
Prosecutor follow the procedure under Section 3 (a) of Rule 112, thus, the prosecution
may either immediately dismiss or file the information in court.

Procedure to be followed by MTC in resolving a complaint for an offense not


requiring a preliminary investigation: Under Section 9 of rule 112, Rules of Court the
MTC judge should first resolve whether there is a probable cause against the
respondents. If he finds no probable cause against the respondents, he shall dismiss
the complaint, but he may require the submission of additional evidence and if he still
finds no probable cause despite the submission of additional evidence, he shall dismiss
the complaint; and if he finds probable cause then the MTC judge shall issue warrant of
arrest. (Victoria Milling Co. vs. Padilla, 567 SCRA 438)

Where the joint affidavit of the arresting officers states that a person was arrested
without warrant for Inciting to Sedition, the inquest prosecutor could only conduct an
inquest for said crime and no other – when another group of prosecutors subject the
same arrested person to a second inquest proceeding for Rebellion, they overstep their
authority rendering the second inquest void. (Ladlad vs. Velasco, supra)

Record of preliminary investigation does not form part of record of the case. But court
may order production of the record, motu proprio or on motion, when necessary in the
resolution of the case or incident therein. May also be introduced in evidence. (Sec. 8-b,
Rule 112).

Absence of preliminary investigation does not impair validity of information (Villaflor v.


Gogon, 16 Jan 2001; Yusap v. Sandigan, 22 Feb 2001).

When warrant of arrest may issue:

9
By RTC- After filing of information, if judge finds probable cause, he issues
warrant of arrest. If he finds no probable, he may immediately dismiss the
case. But in case of doubt as to existence of probable cause he may order
prosecutor to present additional evidence within 5 days from notice (Sec. 5,
Ibid).

In determining probable cause for issuance of warrant under this Rule, judge
may rely on resolution of investigating prosecutor and its supporting evidence.

Section 5 (a) of Rule 112 provides: “The judge shall personally evaluate the
resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. xxx If he finds
probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest. (Soliven vs. Makasiar,
supra; Ho vs. People, supra)

By MTC- When preliminary investigation was conducted by the prosecutor


and information was thereafter filed, MTC may issue warrant. Same
procedure as in RTC under Sec. 5 (a), Rule 112. (Sec. 5 (b), ibid).

Commitment Order – Issued by court, In lieu of warrant of arrest if accused has


already been arrested pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued (Sec. 6, ibid).

When a warrant not necessary- where penalty is fine; information was filed pursuant
to an inquest; already detained due to previous warrant. (Sec. 5 (c), ibid).

a. Procedure in cases not requiring preliminary investigation nor covered by


the Rule on Summary Procedure-

a. If filed with prosecutor, procedure in section 3 (a) of Rule 112 shall


be observed. The prosecutor shall act on the complaint based on
the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the
complainant within 10 days from its filing (Sec. 8 (a), Rule 112).
Respondent not required to submit counter-affidavit.
b. If filed with MTC Judge, procedure in section 3 (a) of rule 112 shall
be observed. (1) If within 10 days after the filing of the complaint or
information, the judge finds no probable cause after evaluating the
evidence, or after personally examining in writing and under oath
the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching
questions and answers, he shall dismiss the same. The judge may,
however, require the submission of additional evidence, within 10
days from notice, to determine further the existence of probable
cause. If the judge still finds no probable cause despite the
additional evidence, he shall within 10 days from its submission or
expiration of said period dismiss the case. If the judge finds
probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest or a commitment
order if the accused had already been arrested, and hold him for
trial. However, if the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for
placing the accused under custody, he may issue summons instead
of a warrant of arrest. (Sec. 8 (b), Rule 112)

V. INFORMATION

10
If upon conclusion of preliminary investigation investigating officer finds probable cause
to hold accused responsible for trial, the prosecutor files the information in court.

Note: Private offenses cannot be prosecuted de officio.

Information is subscribed by prosecutor and filed in court; whereas, complaint is


subscribed by offended party and filed for purposes of preliminary investigation. (Sec. 3
& 4, Rule 110).

Aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information, otherwise cannot be


taken into account in the imposition of penalty (Sec. 8 & 9, Rule 110; Pp. vs. Muñoz;
310 SCRA 168; Pp. vs. Mauricio, 8 Feb 2001).

The rule is that a variance between the allegation in the information and proof adduced
during trial shall be fatal to the criminal case if it is material and prejudicial to the
accused so much so that it affects his substantial rights. (Palana vs. Pp., 534 SCRA
296)

Bill of particulars- motion filed by accused asking for details in the allegations in the
information to enable him to properly plead and prepare for trial. To be filed before
arraignment. (Sec. 9, Rule 117).

Court Action on bill of particulars- Court may order prosecutor to amend information
if court believes that accused is not sufficiently informed of the crime charged. (People
vs. Guttierez, 91 Phil, 877).

Amendment or substitution of information- Sec. 14, Rule 110


a. Before arraignment- even without leave both in form or substance.
b. After arraignment- with leave, only formal amendment if can be done
without causing prejudice to rights of accused.
c. Amendment before plea- to downgrade offense or exclude any
accused from information, only upon motion by prosecutor and notice
to offended party (Dimatulac vs. J. Millon, 297 SCRA 67)
d. Mistake in charging proper offense, at anytime before judgment court
shall dismiss original complaint or information only upon filing of a new
one charging the proper offense, provided no double jeopardy.
(Sec.14, last par. Rule 110). But accused shall not be discharged if
there appears good cause to detain him. In such case the court shall
commit accused to answer for the proper offense and dismiss the
original case upon filing of the proper information. (Rule 119, Sec. 19).
Bail may also be required. (Rule 110, Sec. 14, last par.)
e. Not constitute offense – amendment to correct defect. Failure to
amend; court may order dismissal. (Sec. 4, Rule 117; Sec. 19, Rule
119)) Plea to a lesser offense no amendment of information. (Sec. 2
Rule 116);

MOTION TO QUASH (Rule 117) Definition- Motion to quash is the proper way of
objecting to information or complaint for insufficiency or defects apparent in the face of
information. When to file: At anytime before accused pleads (Sec. 1, Rule 117). Failure
to move to quash before arraignment /plea deemed waiver of any of the grounds for

_____________
N.B. Variance between information and proof; c.f. Rule on amendment to conform with evidence .

11
objection (Sec. 9, ibid). Exception: May still be filed after arraignment on the following
grounds: (a) failure to charge offense; (b) lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged;
(c) extinction of offense or penalty; and (d) double jeopardy (Sec. 9, ibid). Remedy if
motion denied: The remedy of an accused from the denial of his motion to quash is for
him to go to trial on the merits, and if an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal
therefrom in the manner authorized by law. (Soriano vs. Casanova, 486 SCRA 431
[2006]).

Grounds for motion to quash:


a. charge not constitute offense.
b. Lack of jurisdiction.
c. no authority to file information.
d. Information not conform substantially to prescribed form
e. Duplicity of offense
f. Extinction of criminal action or liability
g. Averments constitute legal excuse or justification
h. Double jeopardy.

Sufficiency of information test- As a general prerequisite, a motion to quash on the


ground that the information does not constitute the offense charged or any offense for
that matter, should be resolved on the basis of the allegations whose truth and veracity
are hypothetically committed and on additional facts admitted or not denied by the
prosecution. (Laurel vs. Abrogar, 483 SCRA 243 [2006]); Timoner v. People, 123 SCRA
830; Curable by amendment (Sec. 4, Rule 117) Pp. vs. Santiago, 43 Phil 120; Pp. vs.
Supnad, 7 SCRA 603; Pp. vs. Crisostomo, 26 Phil 775; U.S. vs. Alabot, 38 Phil 698, Pp.
vs. Topino, 35 Phil. 901; Bernardo v. Pp., 129 SCRA 365; Alimagno v. Pp, 120 SCRA
699.

Jurisdictional Test- Abalos vs. Pp., 17 Sept. 2002; Buaya v. Polo, 169 SCRA 471; Pp.
vs. Lagon, 185 SCRA 442; Gimenez vs. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 1: P. v. Umbrero, 196
SCRA 821; But lack of jurisdiction over the person of accused may be waived by
pleading to the information as he is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction
of the court (Regalado). Situs of crime determines jurisdiction (Colminares vs. Villa, 29
May 1970). Jurisdiction over crime is conferred by law. Jurisdiction over accused
acquired by appearance, voluntary or involuntary or by virtue of warrant. Territorial
jurisdiction or venue is determined by allegations in complaint/information. Motu Proprio
dismissal if ground is lack of jurisdiction (Pp. vs. Nitafar, 312 SCRA 424.)

Venue: Internet Libel: The Supreme Court in ruling that the RTC had not acquired
jurisdiction over the case stated that the venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions such
that the place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the
action but constitutes an essential element of jurisdiction. The venue of libel cases
where the complainant is a private individual is limited to only either of two places,
namely: 1. where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the
offense; or 2. where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published. The
[Amended] Information in the present case opted to lay the venue by availing of the
second. Thus, it stated that the offending article “was first published and accessed by
the private complainant in Makati City.” In other words, it considered the phrase to be
equivalent to the requisite allegation of printing and first publication. (Bonifacio v. RTC of
Makati, GRN 184800, May 5, 2010).

No authority to file information- Mead vs. Argel, 115 SCRA 256, P. vs. Manila, 60 Phil
372; P. v. Penesa, 81 Phil. 398. e.g. Private crimes where complaint of offended party is
required; where Ombudsman or election attorney are the authorized officer to file
information.

12
Not conform substantially to prescribed form- But curable by amendment (Sec. 4,
Rule 114; P. vs. Santiago, 43 Phil 120). Deemed waived if no motion to quash (Sec. 9,
Rule 117).

Duplicity of offense.- Only one offense shall be charged in one information or


complaint, otherwise quashable (Sec.13, Rule 110) Exception: When laws prescribe a
single punishment for various crimes, e.g. complex crime. Ponce Enrile v. Amin, 189
SCRA 573; Tangan v. People, 155 SCRA 435; Ko Bu Lin v. CA, 118 SCRA 573; May be
waived by not moving to quash. Abalos vs. Pp., 17 Sept 2002; Pp. vs. Plaza, 7 SCRA
617-amendments; Case: It is clear from evidence on record that the 3 crimes of murder
did not result from a single act but from several individual and distinct acts. Deeply
rooted is the doctrine that when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts
constitute separate and distinct crimes. Since there was only one information filed
against accused-appellants, the Court observes that there is duplicity of the offenses
charged in said information. This is a ground for a motion to quash as 3 separate acts of
murder were charged in the information. Nonetheless, the failure of accused-appellant
to interpose an objection on this ground constitutes waiver. (Pp. vs. Elarcosa, GRN
186539, June 29, 2010).

Extinction of criminal action or liability- Art. 89 R.P.C.: (a) death of convict (b) service
of sentence (c) amnesty (d) absolute pardon (e) prescription of crime (f) prescription of
penalty (g) marriage of offender with offended party.

Death during trial, dismiss case. Death after rendition of final sentence, criminal liability
extinguished but not pecuniary penalties and civil damages which shall be paid out of
the estate.

Cases: Dono v. Vamneta, 133 SCRA 616; Service of sentence- Art. 39, R.P.C.; Pardon;
344 R.P.C. Pp. v. Lualhati, 171 SCRA 277; Baleto v. P., 124 Phil. 868 – Pardon should
be before institution of criminal action. (P. vs. Avila, 192 SCRA 751). Amnesty- Vera vs.
Pp., 75 SCRA 152; P. vs. Vera. 182 SCRA 800. Prescription- Article 91 of the RPC
states that the period for prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the
crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. (Presidential
Ad Hoc Fact-finding Committee vs. Ombudsman, 484 SCRA 16 [2006]) No extension of
prescription if falls on holiday (Yapdiangco v. Buencamino, 122 SCRA 713).

Legal Excuse or justification (Sec. 3-h, Rule 117)- e.g. performance of duty (Art. 11 &
12, R.P.C) Averments should be in the information.

Double jeopardy (Sec. 7, Rule 117)


Requisites:
1. valid information/complaint;
2. filed with court of competent jurisdiction;
3. accused arraigned;
4. court convicts or acquits accused, or case dismissed/terminated
without his express consent;
5. thereafter, another case is filed against accused for the same
offense charged, or attempt or frustration to commit the same. Or for
any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in
the offense charged in the former information/complaint. In such
case the conviction/acquittal/dismissal of the 1 st case shall be a bar
to the 2nd case.

Exception: (1.) Where there has been deprivation of due process and when there is a
finding of a mistrial; or (2.) Where there has been a grave abuse of discretion under
exceptional circumstances. (Pp. vs. CA, GRN 159261, February 21, 2007)

13
It is basic that appeal in criminal cases throws the whole records of the case wide open
for review by the appellate court that is why an appeal from a judgment of acquittal
necessarily puts the accused in double jeopardy. (Pp. vs. Laguio, Jr., GRN 128587,
March 16, 2007)

Failure of defendant to object to dismissal not waiver. Double jeopardy attached (P. vs.
Ylagan, 58 Phil. 85). “No objection” signed by defense counsel is equivalent to consent
no double jeopardy.

Court dismissed the case “without prejudice”, no objection from defense. No double
jeopardy. (Jaca v. Blanco, 86 Phil. 452).

Case was dismissed due to defective complaint. Double jeopardy attaches. (Esguerra
vs. De la Costa, 66 Phil. 134).

Erroneous dismissal on ground of lack of jurisdiction with consent of the accused. No


double jeopardy (P. vs.Salico,84 Phil 722).

Void Judgment. No double jeopardy (P. vs. Gomez, 20 SCRA 293; Araula, 111 SCRA
305).

Phrase “otherwise terminated”- refers only to dismissal or other termination, not a


conviction or acquittal (Pp. vs. Labatole, 57 O.G. 6743; U.S. vs. Bernardo, 19 Phil 266).
e.g. demurrer to evidence.

Mere filing of 2 informations charging the same offense does not yet afford the claim of
double jeopardy. (Bulaong vs. Pp., 17 SCRA 746; Buscayno vs. Mil. Commission, 109
SCRA 273)

Instances where conviction of accused is not a bar to another prosecution for an offense
which necessarily includes the offense charged, in the former complaint or information:
a. graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act
or omission constituting the former charge (Sec. 7-[a], Rule 117); (Melo v.
People, 85 Phil 766; Pp. v. Buling, 107 Phil. 712; Pp. vs. City Court, 121
SCRA 637).
b. Facts constituting the graver charge became known or discovered only after
plea was entered in the former information (sec. 7-[b], Rule 117; Melo, Buling
& Pp. vs. City Court cases, supra)
c. Plea of guilty to lesser offense was made not with consent of prosecutor or
offended party, conviction not bar except as provided in Sec. 1 (f), Rule 116.
(re: failure of offended party to appear despite notice). Sentence served in
whole or in part shall be credited in the event of conviction for the graver
offense. (sec. 7, last par., Rule 117)
d. Effect of sustaining motion to quash- not a bar to another prosecution for the
same offense unless based on: (1) Sec. 3 (g), extinction of criminal liability
and (2) Sec. 3 [i] jeopardy. (Sec. 6, Rule 117). Thus, If the court grants the
motion to quash on grounds other than extinction or jeopardy, the court may
order that another information be filed and if accused is in custody he shall
not be discharged unless admitted to bail. If no order is made, or no new
information filed within time specified in the order, accused if in custody shall
be discharged unless in custody for another charge. (Sec. 5, Ibid).

Provisional dismissal- only with consent of accused with notice to offended party.
When permanent dismissal? 1 year after order if penalty not exceeds 6 years or a fine
____________
Annotation on D.J.- 17 SCRA 494

14
of any amount; 2 years if penalty is more than 6 years without case having seen
revived. (Sec. 8, Rule 117).

VI. ARREST (RULE 113)

Definition- Sec. 1, Rule 113. Taking to custody to answer for commission of offense.

Duty of arresting officer- Sec. 3, Rule 113, deliver to nearest station/jail without delay.
Miranda doctrine applicable (People v. Cendana, 190 SCRA 538; P. v. Lacap, 171
SCRA 147; People vs. Galit, 135 SCRA 465; Morales v. Enrile, 121 SCRA).

The principle that the accused is precluded from questioning the legality of his arrest
after arraignment is true only if he voluntarily enters his plea and participates during
trial, without previously invoking his objectives thereto. (Borlongan vs. Pena, GRN
143591, 11-23-07).

Execution of warrant- Within 10 days from receipt. Within 10 days after expiration of
period, officer to make a report to the judge (Sec. 4, Rule 113). Unlike search warrant,
the 10 day period stated here is not lifetime or period of enforceability of warrant of
arrest unless specifically provided in the warrant; the same remains enforceable until
executed, recalled or quashed (Manangan v. CFI, 189 SCRA 217) Objection to legality
of the warrant must be made before plea. (People. vs. Givera, 18 Jan 2001).

Lawful arrest without warrant- (1.) arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; (2.) arrest of
suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the arresting officer, there is probable
cause that said suspect was the author of a crime which had just been committed;(3.)
arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or temporarily
confined while his case is pending. (Sec. 5, Rule 113). Cases: Ocaya v. Aguirre, 187
SCRA 325; Nazareno v. Malmstedt. 198 SCRA 401; People v. Claudio, 160 SCRA 646;
People v. Aminudin, 163 SCRA 402; People vs. Burgos, 144 SCRA 11; Umil v. Ramos,
202 SCRA 263; Go v. CA, 206 SCRA 138; The grounds of suspicion are reasonable
when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the
person to be arrested is probably guilty committing the offense is based on actual facts,
i.e. supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable
cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be
founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers
making the arrest. (Pp. vs. Mariacos, GRN 1886114, June 16, 2010). It is settled that an
arrest made after an entrapment operation does not require a warrant. (Pp. vs. Bohol,
560 SCRA 232 [2008]) A buy-bust operation is just a form of an in flagrante arrest
sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which police authorities may
rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of RA no. 9165 in support of the PDEA. A
buy bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA. (Pp. vs.
Roa, GRN 186134, May 6, 2010).

An accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he fails to raise the
issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground, which
should be made before arraignment. In this case, the irregularity of the accused’s arrest
was raised only in his appeal before the Court of Appeals. This is not allowed
considering that he was already properly arraigned and even actively participated in the
proceedings. He is therefore deemed to have waived this alleged defect when he
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. (Pp. vs. Amper, GRN 172708, May 5,
2010)

“Probable cause to believe based on his personal knowledge of facts.” (Sec. 5-a, Rule
113; People vs. Doria, 22 Jan 99)

15
Arrest may be made any day and anytime of day or night (Sec. 6, Rule 114 ). Arresting
officer to inform cause of arrest, unless there is resistance before opportunity to inform
or flees or imperil arrest (Sec. 7 & 8, ibid). Officer may summon assistance to aid him in
arrest.

“Citizen’s arrest” (Sec. 9, ibid).

Bondsman may arrest for purpose of surrendering accused (Sec.23, Rule 113).

VII- BAIL (RULE 114).

Definition- Security given for a person in custody of the law to guarantee his
appearance before any court as required. (Sec. 1, Rule 114, Santos v. Regen, 247
SCRA 85).

When as a matter of right (Sec. 4, Ibid):


a. Before conviction by the RTC of offenses not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment;
b. Before or after conviction by the first level courts;

When discretionary (Sec. 5, Rule 114)- Upon conviction by RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. If accused is recidivist,
quasi-recidivist, habitual delinquent, in reiteration, or escaped under probation or risk of
flight, and penalty imposed by RTC exceeds six (6) years bail shall be denied, or if
issued shall be cancelled.

Death or reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment not bailable- qualified by “if evidence of
guilt is strong” (Sec. 7, Rule 114) otherwise stated, accused may nevertheless be
admitted to bail if evidence of guilt is weak. Thus, upon application for bail, the burden is
upon the prosecution to show that evidence of guilt is strong. (Sec. 8, Rule 114). Notice
to prosecutor and hearing is required (Sec. 19, Ibid; Narciso vs. Sta. Romana, 12 Mar
2000). Even if prosecutor has no objection still hearing is required (Manalo vs. Narisma,
31 Jan 1996).

“Recognizance”- Accused may be released on his own recognizance or that of a


responsible person without posting bail when allowed by law or these rules. (Sec. 16,
Ibid) e.g. slight offenses; accused in custody for equal or more than prescribed penalty;

Where to file bail (Sec. 17, Rule 114)-


a. Court where case is pending, or in unavailability of the judge, any RTC or MTC in
the province, city, or municipality. If arrested in a place other than where case is
pending, bail may be filed with the RTC of said place, or if no RTC judge
available; then with any MTC Judge therein.
b. Where grant of bail is a matter of discretion (e.g. RTC convicted; capital offense),
or recognizance application shall be filed only in court where case is pending
whether on trial or on appeal.
c. If not yet charged in court, but in custody, apply for bail in place where he is held.
d. Under Sec. 5, Rule 114, if decision of RTC changes offense from nonbailable to
bailable, bail application can only be filed with the appellate court.

Q. Accused was convicted by the RTC of homicide. A penalty of reclusion temporal was
imposed. Accused is a detention prisoner. Accused filed notice of appeal. Accused
wants to post bail. With what court shall accused apply for bail? A. The facts do not
state whether the original records of the case is still with the trial court. Thus, if the
original records had already been transmitted to the appellate court, bail shall be filed
with the appellate court. However, if the original record is still with the trial court, bail

16
shall be filed with said court notwithstanding the notice of appeal filed by accused (Sec.
5, Rule 114).
Q. Accused was charged with kidnapping punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
The RTC convicted accused of slight, illegal detention and imposed the penalty of
prision mayor. Simultaneous with the filing of notice of appeal, accused applied for bail
with the RTC while the original record was still with said court. The judge refused to
grant bail. Is the RTC Judge correct in refusing to grant bail? A. Yes. According to the
Rules if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the
offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application can be filed with and resolved by
the appellate court. In the case at bar the application for bail should be filed with the
appellate court. (Sec. 5, Rule 114).

Reduction of bail- only after accused is admitted to bail and upon good cause (Sec.
20, Rule 114). Note, in reduction of bail no notice to prosecution required. Judge to
consider guidelines in Sec. 9 (Ibid), e.g. penalty imposable, financial ability, reputation,
etc. Increase of bail, same rule as in reduction. Accused may be committed to custody if
amount as increased is not posted. (Sec. 20, Ibid).

If accused released without bail, but subsequently during trial evidence of guilt appears
strong to the court, bail may be required. (Sec. 20, Rule 114).

Forfeiture of bail- When accused required to appear in court and fails to do so

Procedure (Sec. 21, Rule 114):


1. Court to declare the bail forfeited;
2. Bondsman notified of such forfeiture and given thirty (30) days to
produce accused and show cause why no judgment against the
bond shall be rendered.
3. If bondsman fails to produce accused and show cause, judgment
shall be rendered against the bond. Court has no authority to
reduce or mitigate liability of bondsman, unless accused
surrendered or acquitted. (Sec. 21, Ibid).

Order of forfeiture of bail bond vs. Judgment on the bond. An order of forfeiture of
the bail bond is conditional and interlocutory, there being something more to be done
such as the production of the accused within 30 days. This process is also called
confiscation of bond. An order of forfeiture is interlocutory and merely requires appellant
“to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against it for the amount of the
bond.” Such order is different from a judgment on the bond which is issued if the
accused was not produced within 30-day period. The judgment on the bond is the one
that ultimately determines the liability of the surety, and when it becomes final,
execution may issue at once. (Mendoza vs. Alarma, GRN 151970, 5/7/2008)

Cancellation of bail- Upon surrender of accused or proof of his death, bail is cancelled.
Notice to prosecution required. But cancellation is without prejudice to the liability on the
bail. (Sec. 22, Rule 114).Automatic cancellation upon acquittal, dismissal, or execution
of judgment of conviction (Sec. 22, Ibid).

Bondsman authorized to arrest accused for the purpose of surrendering him. (Sec. 23,
Rule 114).

Accused if released on bail may be re-arrested even without warrant if he attempts to


depart from the Phil without permission of court where case is pending (Sec. 23, 2 nd
par., Rule 114).

No bail after final judgment-Exception: (a.) if accused applies for probation; (b.) If no bail
was filed, and accused applies for probation, he may be released on recognizance of a

17
responsible member of community. (Sec. 24, Rule 114). Bail absolutely not allowed after
accused has commenced to serve sentence. (Ibid).

Posting of bail not deemed waiver of illegal arrest, or irregularity or lack of preliminary
investigation provided raised before entering plea. Court to resolve not later that start of
trial (Sec. 26, Rule 114). The principle that the accused is precluded from questioning
the legality of the arrest after arraignment is true only if he voluntarily enters his plea
and participates during trial without previously invoking his objections thereto.
(Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña, GRN 143591, May 5, 2010)

While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an extraditee,
however, there is no provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, a right
to due process under the Constitution. (Gov’t. of Hongkong Special Administrative
Region vs. Olalia, Jr., GRN 153675, 4/19/2007)

VIII. ARRAIGNMENT and PLEA (Rule 116)

Definition- Arraignment is the reading of the information to the accused asking him in
open court whether or not he is guilty of what is charged against him.

Purpose- To comply with the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the
charge against him (Const. Art. III, Sec. 14-2; Rule 115, Sec. 1-b) and make a provident
plea. Plea is the matter which accused, on his arraignment, alleges in answer to the
charge against him. A plea of not guilty joins the issue in a criminal case (14 Am. Jur,
943).

Arraignment is mandatory- Failure to arraign accused is fatal. (U.S. v. Palisoc, 4 Phil


204). But irregularity in arraignment is waived for failure to object thereto in the trial (P.
vs. Atienza, 86 Phil. 576).

Accused must be arraigned before the court where information is filed (Sec. 1-A, Rule
116).

Accused must be present and personally enter his plea. (Sec. 1-b, Ibid).

When accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea, a plea of not guilty shall be
entered for him (Sec. 1-C, Rule 116, n).

When accused pleads guilty but present exculpatory evidence, his plea shall be
withdrawn and a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him (Sec. 1-d, Ibid. n; P. v.
Commendador, 100 SCRA 155; P. v. Logarto 196 SCRA 611).

Private offended party required to appear at arraignment for purposes of plea


bargaining and determination of civil liability. Sec. 1-f, ibid., n).

Plea of guilty to lesser offense – “lesser offense” must be necessarily included in the
offense charged. Consent of offended party and prosecutor required (Sec. 2, ibid).
Offended party’s failure to appear despite notice, court may allow accused to enter a
plea of guilty to a lesser offense. (Sec. 1-f, ibid).

Note: old rule, plea to lesser offense allowed even if not necessarily included in offense
charged. New rule, “lesser offense” must be necessarily included in the offenses
charged.

After arraignment but before trial, accused may be allowed to plead guilty to lesser
offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of information is
necessary (Sec. 2, Rule 116).

18
Period of arraignment- Unless a shorter period is provided by special law or
Supreme Court circular, arraignment shall be held within 30 days from date court
requires jurisdiction over the person of accused. Time of pendency of a motion to quash
or bill of particulars, or other cause justifying suspension of arraignment shall be
excluded in computing the period (Sec. 1-g, ibid, n.) But if accused is under preventive
detention, his case shall be raffled and records transmitted to judge where case was
raffled within 3 days from raffle of information. Accused shall thereafter be arraigned
within 10 days from date of raffle. Pre-trial shall be held within 10 days after
arraignment. (Sec 1-e, ibid, n).

Plea of guilty to capital offense- Prosecution still required to prove guilt of accused
and precise degree of culpability. Court to conduct searching inquiry into the
voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea. (Sec. 3, Rule
116). Reception of evidence is mandatory. (Pp. vs. Benavidez, 17 Sept. 2002).

Plea of guilty to non-capital offense – Court may receive evidence to determine


penalty to be imposed (Sec. 4, ibid). Reception of evidence is discretionary.

Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty-At anytime before judgment of conviction


becomes final. (Sec. 5, ibid).

Duty of court to inform accused of his right to counsel before arraignment, unless
accused is allowed to defend himself in person or has employed counsel of his choice.

Suspension of arraignment- Grounds:

(a.) accused unsound mental condition- court to order mental examination;


(b.) existence of prejudicial question. (Ras. Vs. Rasul, 100 SCRA 125; see notes at
page 6 of this work).
(c.) Petition for review of resolution of prosecutor with the Dept. of Justice, or office of
the President, but suspension not to exceed 60 days from filing of petition. (Sec. 11,
Rule 116).

Right to counsel-The duty of the court to appoint counsel de officio if accused has no
legal counsel of choice and desires to employ one is mandatory only at the time of
arraignment . However, this right is no longer available where accused has proceeded
with arraignment and trial with his counsel of choice, hence, if upon presentation of
defense evidence accused appears by himself alone and absence of accused’s
counsel is inexcusable, trial court not duty bound to appoint a counsel de officio to
assist him in his defense. (R.J.Francisco, 2nd ed., citing Sayson v. People, 166 SCRA
680); P. v. Angco, 103 Phil 33; People vs. Ranis, 12 Sept 2002; P. vs. Solis, 128 SCRA
218; Telan v. CA 202 SCRA 534).

Production or inspection of material evidence in possession of prosecution- May be


availed of after arraignment and thereafter. Also those in possession of police or other
law investigating agencies. (Sec.10, ibid). Note: production or inspection is not provided
in case of defense evidence.

Objection to warrantless arrest and illegal seizure must be made before plea, otherwise
deemed waived (People vs. Baccag, 12 Sept 2002).

_________________
N.B. When habeas corpus as remedy when prisoner is detained without bail although offense is
bailable (Regalado); Illegal confinement/detention; deprivation of constitutional right resulting in
restraint of a person; sentence is void yet detained (Hardon vs. Dir. Of Prisons, 81 Phil. 741).

19
X. PRE-TRIAL (Rule 118)

Mandatory in criminal case.-Court to schedule pre-trial within 30 days from date court
acquires jurisdiction over the person of accused, unless shorter period is allowed by
special law or S.C. circular. (Sec.1, rule 118).

Purpose- to expedite trial.

Matters considered at pre-trial (Sec.2, Rule 118).


(a.) plea bargaining;
(b.) stipulation of facts;
(c.)marking of evidence;
(d.) waiver of objection to admissibility of evidence;
(e.) modification of order of trial (n); and
(f.) such maters as will promote fair and expeditious trial of the
criminal and civil aspects of the case (n)

Pre-trial agreements or admissions shall be reduced in writing and signed by the


accused and counsel, otherwise cannot be used against the accused. Court approval is
mandatory, otherwise inadmissible in evidence. (Sec. 2, ibid; Fule v. CA, 162 SCRA
446).

Pre-trial order shall issue after pre-trial conference reciting actions taken, facts
stipulated, and evidence marked. Such order shall control the course of the action
unless modified by the court to prevent manifest justice (Sec. 4, Ibid).

Non-appearance of defense in counsel or prosecutor at the pre-trial with no acceptable


excuse, court may impose proper sanctions or penalties (Sec. 3, Rule 118, n).

XI. TRIAL (Rule 119)

Time to prepare for trial- at least 15 days after arraignment. Trial shall commence
within 30 days from receipt of pre-trial order (Sec. 1, Rule 119, n).

Continuous trial – as far as practicable. May be postponed for reasonable period of


time for good cause. (Sec. 2, ibid) Entire trial period not to exceed 180 days from 1 st day
of trial, except as otherwise authorized by Supreme Court (Sec. 2, par. 2, ibid; n).

Delay in trial proceeding allowed by the rules-Sections 3, 4 and 5, Rule 119 delays
resulting from other proceedings with respect to the criminal action; case is unusual,
novel or complex.

Duties of public attorney where prisoner is preventively detained- (Sec. 7, ibid.)


Advise prisoner of their rights; promptly seek to obtain request for availability of the
prisoner for trial.

Sanctions against private counsel, public attorney or prosecutor (Sec. 8, rule


119):
a. allowing case to be set for trial without disclosing that a necessary
witness would be unavailable for trial;
b. files frivolous motion for delay;
c. false statement to obtain continuance;
d. willfully fails to proceed with trial without justification.
Fine not exceeding P20, 000.00 on public counsel. P5,000.00 if de
oficio, public attorney or prosecutor the right to practice before the
court trying the case but no exceeding 30 days without prejudice to
appropriate criminal action or other sanctions (Sec. 18, ibid).

20
Remedies where accused not brought to trial within the time limit: Information may
be dismissed on motion of the accused on the ground of denial of his right to speedy
trial. Defense has to prove its motion. Dismissal subject to rules on double jeopardy.
Failure to move for dismissal prior to trial constitutes waiver of right to dismiss under this
section. (Sec. 9, Ibid).

Order of trial (Sec. 11, Rule 119):


a. prosecution to present evidence.
b. defense to present evidence.
c. rebuttal by prosecution. In furtherance of justice prosecution may be
allowed to present additional evidence.
d. sur-rebuttal by defense; also may present additional evidence.
e. upon admission of evidence by court deemed submitted for decision;
court may direct oral arguments or submit memoranda.
f. order of trial may be modified if accused admits offense charged but
interposes a lawful defense (Sec. 11, Ibid; Dayawaon vs, Garfin, 05 Sept
02)

At start, duty of prosecution to prove corpus delict; Thus, the burden of proof is on the
prosecution (U.S. v. De Guzman, 31 Phil. 494; P. v. Tuazon, 198 SCRA 368).

Not necessary for prosecution to present all its witnesses (U.S. v. Gonzales, 22 Phil.
325).Prosecution may call even if not named in the information (Sec. 1, Rule 116,
Villacorta v. Villarosa).

If prosecutor not present during prosecution evidence court shall not dismiss the case
but proceed with reception of defense evidence (Pp. vs. Marapao, 85 Phil 822).

*Trial Judge may take part in interrogating witness. Judges are not mere referees in
boxing bout; they should have as much interest as counsel in the orderly and
expeditious presentation of evidence, calling attention of counsels to points at issue
overlooked, directing them to ask questions clarifying ambiguous remarks of witness
(Ventura v. Yatco, 105 Phil. 287; Pp. v. Cantindihan, 97 SCRA 196).

Parties or court may recall witnesses who already testified (Pp. vs. Oliveros, 29 Nov
1948).

Modification of order of trial.-where accused invokes self-defense; burden of proof is


shifted on him to show legitimate self-defense. (Manaban vs. CA, 494 SCRA 503
[2006]; People vs. Beltran, Jr., 503 SCRA 715 [2006])

Accused has right to secure attendance of his witnesses. Thus, if defense witness is
sick/infirm or resides 100 km. from place of trial and no means to attend or under similar
circumstances. Accused may apply for examination of witness before trial. (Sec. 12,
Rule 119 of Rule 111). Likewise, where witness is about to depart from the Phil.
Examination of defense witness before trial; How made- court order shall specify
time and place copy furnished prosecutor. Examination taken before any judge or if not
practicable any member of bar so designated by judge in his order. Examination
proceeds notwithstanding absence of prosecutor provided notified. Testimony to be
recorded (Sec. 13, ibid). But conditional examination of witness under this rule not
admissible if witness is present in court or available. (Elago v. People, 84 Phil. 643).

Examination of witness for prosecution before trial: Grounds: (1) sick or infirm; or
(2) has to depart from the Phil with no definite date of returning.(Sec. 15, Rule 119).
Note that the place of examination is before the court where the case is pending in

21
contrast with Sec. 12, Rule 119. Absence of accused despite notice considered waiver.
(Sec. 15, ibid).

Bail to secure appearance of material witness may be required: If court is satisfied


that a material witness will not testify when required. If witness refuses to post bail, court
to commit him to prison until he complies. Motion to require bail may be filed by either
party. (Sec. 14, Rule 119, Sec. 14, par. 3, Rule 110).

Trial of several accused-is joint, unless court in its discretion or upon motion orders
separate trial (Sec. 16, ibid).

Requisites for the discharge of accused to be state witness- (Sec. 17, Rule 119).
a. there is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose
discharge is requested;
b. no other direct evidence, except said testimony (not merely corroborative);
c. testimony can be substantially corroborated in its material
points;
d. said accused does not appear most guilty;
e. said accused not been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.

Rationale of the rule - is not to let a crime committed be so unpunished; purpose is to


secure conviction of the more or most guilty and the greatest number among the
accused permitted to be convicted for the offense they committed (Lugtu vs. Pp., 183
SCRA 388; Pp. vs. CA, 131 SCRA 107; Sandigan vs. Paredes, 16 July 1997; People vs.
Reyes, 22 OCT 1992)

Testimony can be substantially corroborated in its material points (Pp. vs. Mandangan,
52 Phil. 62).

Accused not most guilty- the candid admission of accused of his participation in a
crime is a guaranty that if he will testify and he will do so truthfully. Individuals candid
enough to admit their guilt are expected to testify truthfully (Lugtu case, Supra; Pp. vs.
Bayona, 108 Phil 107).

Moral turpitude- anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principle or good morals,
e.g. illegal marriage, abduction with consent, estafa, attempted bribery, forgery,
extortion, theft, adultery, arson, tax evasion, trespass to dwelling, libel, seduction under
promise to marry, blackmail, smuggling opium. (C.J.S)

When availed- motion to discharge shall be filed before prosecution rests upon motion
of prosecution (Sec. 17, par. 1, Rule 119).

Discretion of court to determine whether conditions prescribed by the rule exists (Lugtu
case, supra). Prosecution has no authority to determine that the conditions prescribed
by the rule “on discharge” exist. (Pp. vs. CA, 131 SCRA 107; Pp. vs. Tabayoyong. 104
SCRA 724; Pp. vs. CA. 124 SCRA 338).

Evidence adduced in support of the discharge automatically form part of trial. (Sec. 17,
last par., Rule 119). Thus, no need to reoffer.

If motion to discharge as state witness is denied his sworn statement shall be


inadmissible in evidence (Sec. 17, last par. Ibid).

Discharge of accused as state witness operates as acquittal, unless accused fails or


refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance with his sworn statement basis
of his discharge (Sec. 18, ibid).

22
Erroneous improper discharge of state witness as where the conditions prescribed by
Sec. 17, Rule 119 have not been complied with may not affect the legal consequences
of such discharge (Pp. vs. Mendiola, 46 O.G 3629); will not also affect the testimony of
the liberated co-defendant nor his competency. (Pp. vs. Verceles, 10 Sept 2002; Pp. vs.
Bacha, 104 Phil 136; U.S. vs. Alabot, 38 Phil 698).

Order of discharge even if erroneous cannot be recalled by court. The only instance is
when he subsequently fails to testify against the accused in accordance with his sworn
statement (Bogo-Medellin Milling v. Son, 27 May 1992). Objection thereto must be
raised before discharge is ordered. (Gan vs. Galing, 27 Nov 1987).

Witness sought to be discharged must be included first in the information.

When mistake has been made in charging the proper offense: Accused shall not be
discharged if there appears good cause to detain him. In such a case, the court shall
commit the accused to answer for the proper offense and dismiss the original case upon
the filing of the proper information. (Section 19, Rule 119)

Exclusion of the public at the trial.- Grounds:


1. evidence to be presented during trial is offensive to decency, or public morals;
or
2. on motion of the accused.

Consolidation of trials of related offenses: offenses founded on the same facts or


forming part of a series of offenses of similar character may be tried jointly at the
discretion of the court.

Purpose: attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to the party litigants,

Demurrer to evidence: After prosecution rests, case may be dismissed on the ground
of insufficiency of evidence: (a.) by the court on its own initiative after giving the
prosecution the opportunity to be heard; or (b.) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the
accused with or without leave of court.

Demurrer to evidence filed without leave of court: if court denies the demurrer to
evidence, accused waives the right to present evidence; case deemed submitted for
decision.

Demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court: accused may adduce evidence in his
defense. When filed: within 10 days from notice by the court that the motion for leave of
court to file demurrer to evidence was granted. Prosecution may oppose said motion
within a non-extendible within a similar period from its receipt.

Motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall be filed within non-
extendible period of 5 days after the prosecution rest its case. Prosecution may oppose
said motion within a non-extendible period of 5 days from its receipt.

Order granting accused’s demurrer should make pronouncement on his civil liability.
(Dayap vs. Sendiong, GRN 177960,1-29-09).

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

It is settled that the appellate court may review dismissal order of trial courts granting an
accused’s demurrer to evidence. This may be done via the special civil action of
certiorari under Rule 65 based on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. (Pp. vs. Laguio, Jr., supra)

23
Reopening of the case: Anytime before finality of the judgment of conviction, judge
may motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either case, reopen the proceedings
to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Proceedings shall be terminated within 30 days from
the order granting it.

XII (Rule 120) JUDGMENT

Definition: Adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty of the
offense charged and the imposition on him of the proper penalty and civil liability, if any.
Requirements:
a. written in the official language;
b. personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him;
c. contains clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts and the law
upon which it is based;
d. filed with the clerk of court.

Judgment must include civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or omission
to be recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is any, unless the
enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil action has been reserved or waived.
If Acquittal: 1. whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the
guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In
either case: judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability
might arise did not exist.

When confronted with circumstances that would support a reasonable doubt in favor of
the accused, then acquittal or the least liability is in order. (Pp. vs. Sitco, GRN 178202,
May 14, 2010).

See also: Sec. 14, Art VIII of the 1987 Phil. Constitution

Art. VIII, section 15 (1) of the 1987 Phil. Constitution mandates lower court judges to
decide a case within the reglementary period of 90 days. Rules prescribing the time
within which certain acts must be done are indispensable to prevent needless delays in
the orderly and speedy disposition of cases. Thus, the 90-day period is mandatory. (Re:
Cases submitted for decision before Hon. Andoy, A,M. No. 09-9-163-MTC, May 6,
2010).

Judgment for two or more offenses: when accused fails to object to


information/complaint charging two or more offenses, the court may convict him of as
many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each
offense, setting out separately the findings of fact and law in each offense.

Accused may object to information/complaint charging two or more offense by filing a


motion to quash on the ground of duplicity before entering his plea.

Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof: offense as charged is


included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, accused shall be convicted of
the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged
which is included in the offense proved. (Sec. 4, Rule 120)

An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential
elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information,
constitute the latter. (Sec. 5, Rule 120)

24
An offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential
ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter. (ibid).
e.g. Acts of lasciviousness to unjust vexation when lewd design not proven.

Promulgation of judgment: Judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of


the accused and any judge of the court in which it was rendered, However, if the
conviction is for a light offense the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his
counsel or representative. When the judge is absent or outside the province or city,
judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court.

If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without
justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in the Rules of Criminal
Procedure against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within 15 days
from promulgation of judgment, however, accused may surrender and file a motion for
leave of court to avail of the said remedies and he/she shall state the reasons for his
absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a
justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within 15 days from
notice. (Section 6, Rule 120) The court promulgating the judgment shall have authority
to accept the notice of appeal and to approve the bail bond pending appeal; provided,
that if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the
offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed and
resolved by the appellate court. (ibid)

If the accused is confined or detained in another province or city, the judgment


may be promulgated by the executive judge of the RTC having jurisdiction over the
place of confinement or detention upon request of the court which rendered the
judgment. (ibid)

Notice to the accused of date of promulgation: The proper clerk of court shall give
notice to the accused personally or through his bondsman or warden and counsel
requiring him to be present at the promulgation of the decision. If the accused was tried
in absentia because he jumped bail or escaped from prison, the notice to him shall be
served at his last known address.

Promulgation in absentia: Allowed (1.) when the judgment is for a light offense, in
which case, the accused’s counsel or representative may stand in for him; and (2.) in
cases where despite due notice to the accused or his bondsman or warden and
counsel, the accused failed to appear at the promulgation of the decision. Regardless of
the gravity of the offense, promulgation in absentia is allowed under the rules. The only
essential elements for its validity are: (a.) that the judgment be recorded in the criminal
docket, and (b.) that a copy thereof shall be served upon the accused in his last known
address or to his counsel. Said elements must concur. (Pamaran, Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure Annotated, 2007 Edition)

Rule allowing the dispensability of the presence of the judge in the reading of a
sentence refers only to the physical presence of the judge, not to his inability to be
present during the promulgation of the judgment because of the cessation of or his
removal from office.

When there is no promulgation of judgment, no right to appeal accrues. (People vs.


Jaranilla, 55 SCRA 565)

Cases: Pascua vs. CA, 348 SCRA 197; Jamiliano vs. Cuevas, 152 SCRA 113; People
vs. Dimalanta, 18 CA Rep 867

25
Modification/Setting Aside of Judgment: Upon motion of the accused, before it
becomes final or before appeal is perfected judgment of conviction may be modified or
set aside. (Sec. 7, Rule 120).

Before a judgment becomes final, the trial court has plenary power to alter or revise the
same in accordance with the requirements of law and justice. However, when the
sentence imposed upon the accused has already become final, it can no longer be
reopened with the end view of modifying the sentence. Such a move cannot be
entertained as it will place the accused in double jeopardy. (Villanueva vs. Estenzo, 64
SCRA 407)

Judgment of Acquittal or order of dismissal amounting to acquittal: Becomes final


immediately after promulgation and cannot be modified or set aside. (Pp. vs. Laggui,171
SCRA 305; Pp. vs. Sison, 105 Phil 1248; Castillo vs. Abuyon, 94 Phil 1014).
An order granting an accused’s demurrer to evidence is a resolution of the case
on the merits and it amounts to an acquittal. (Pp. vs. Laguio, Jr., supra)

Judgment of Conviction: Becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an
appeal; sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served; accused has expressly
waived in writing his right to appeal or he applies for probation. Exception: When death
penalty is imposed.

Entry of Judgment: After a judgment has become final it shall be recorded in the book
of entries of judgment; How made: The record shall contain the dispositive part of the
judgment order and shall be signed by the clerk, with a certificate that such judgment or
order has become final and executory. (Rule 120, Sec. 36)

Failure to appear in judgment of conviction without justifiable cause, accused loses the
remedies available in the Rules against the judgment and the court shall order his
arrest. (Sec. 6, Rule 120)

New Trial or Reconsideration (Rule 121)

When filed: At any time before a judgment of conviction becomes final. (Sec. 1, Rule
121).

Grounds for New Trial: (a). errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial
rights of the accused have been committed during the trial; (b.) new and material
evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with reasonable diligence
have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted would
probably change the judgment. (Sec. 2, Rule 121)

Example of errors of law: judgments based on stipulation of facts without presenting any
witnesses at all from both parties.

Example of irregularities: Trial judge virtually cross-examined witnesses; accused has


no counsel and trial proceeded.

Newly discovered evidence must show that: (1.) evidence were discovered after trial; (2)
could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of
reasonable diligence and (3). It is material and of such weight that it would probably
change the judgment if admitted. Thus, not merely cumulative, corroborative or
impeaching. (Pp. vs. Remudo, 634 SCRA 63; Manahan vs. Pp, 167 SCRA 1; U.S. vs.
Singuimato, 3 Phil 176).

Retraction/recantation of witness and forgotten evidence are not considered newly


discovered evidence. (Pp. vs. Remudo, ibid; Pp. vs. Evaristo, 13 SCRA 172).

26
Grounds for Reconsideration: errors of law or fact in the judgment. No further
proceeding is required. (Sec. 3, Rule 121).

Form of motion for new trial or reconsideration: Must be in writing; shall state the
grounds on which it is based. If based on newly discovered evidence, motion must be
supported by affidavits of witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given or
by duly authenticated copies of documents which are proposed to be introduced in
evidence.

Notice of the motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be given to the prosecutor.

Effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration, in general: The original judgment


shall be set aside or vacated and a new judgment rendered accordingly.

Effects of granting a new trial on the ground of errors of law or irregularities


committed during the trial: All the proceedings and evidence affected thereby shall be
set aside and taken anew. Court may, in the interest of justice, allow the introduction of
additional evidence.

Effects of granting a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence:


Evidence already adduced shall stand and the newly-discovered and such other
evidence as the court may, in the interest of the justice, allow to be introduced shall be
taken and considered together with the evidence already in the record.

Appeal

An appeal in criminal proceedings throws the whole case open for review of all aspects,
including those not raised by the parties. (Pp. vs. Tambis, 560 SCRA 343 [2008])

Who may appeal: Any party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the
accused will be placed in double jeopardy; Persons, other than real party to the case,
who were prejudiced by the judgment, may also appeal from said judgment or final
order.

When appeal by the People will not lie: Cases: The prosecution cannot appeal from
a judgment of acquittal because a verdict of that nature is immediately final and to try
him on the merits, even in an appellate court, is to put him a second time in jeopardy for
the same offense. (Central Bank of the Phil. vs. CA, 171 SCRA 49); Where the trial
court has jurisdiction but mistakenly dismisses the complaint or information on the
ground of lack of it, the order of dismissal is unappealable. (Pp. vs. Duran, Jr., 107 Phil.
973); Nor will an appeal by the People lie if the purpose thereof is to correct the penalty
imposed by the trial court, it being less than that required by law. (Pp. vs. Ang Cho Kio,
95 Phil. 475); or to include in the judgment a penalty erroneously omitted. (Pp. vs. Ruiz,
81 SCRA 453) (Note: all cases were cited in Pamaran, Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure Annotated, supra)

Q: RTC Judge erroneously dismissed an information for BP 22 for being “fatally


defective.” State appealed the said dismissal. Is the appeal proper? A: No, although,
said decision is erroneous, that decision may not be annulled or set aside because it
amounted to a judgment of acquittal. It became final and executory upon its
promulgation. The State may not appeal that decision for it would place the accused
twice in jeopardy of punishment for the offense in violation of his constitutional right
against double jeopardy. (Pp. vs. Laggui, 171 SCRA 305).

When appeal by the People allowed: Appeal by the prosecution from the order of
dismissal of the criminal case by the trial court may be allowed only on errors of

27
jurisdiction when there was denial of due process resulting in loss or lack of jurisdiction;
A decision acquitting the accused, an acquittal rendered in grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction does not really “acquit” and therefore does
not terminate the case as there can be no double jeopardy based on void indictment.
(Pp. vs. Hernandez, 499 SCRA 688 [2006])

Where to appeal: (a.) To the RTC, in cases decided by the MeTC, MTCC, MTC or
MCTC ; (b.) To the CA or to the SC in the proper cases provided by law, in cases
decided by the RTC; and (c.) To the SC, in cases decided by the CA.

When appeal to be taken: Within 15 days from promulgation of the judgment or from
notice of the final order appealed from; Computation of period of appeal: First day is
excluded and the last day is included. Should the last day fall on a Sunday or a Holiday,
period continues to run until the next day which is neither a Sunday or a holiday. (Sec.
13, Revised Administrative Code); Suspension of period of appeal: Filing of a motion
for new trial or reconsideration until notice of the order overruling the motion has been
served upon the accused or his counsel at which time the balance of the period begins
to run. (Sec. 6, Rule 122) Court may not shorten period of appeal. 15-day period to
perfect an appeal does not apply to a judgment of conviction imposing the death penalty
since the review by the CA is automatic. (Sec. 3, Rule 122)

How taken: (a.) Appeal to the RTC or to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction, shall be by notice of appeal filed with the court
which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and by serving a copy thereof
upon the adverse party; (b.) Appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review under Rule 42; (c.)
Appeal in cases where the penalty imposed by the RTC is reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment or where a lesser penalty is imposed for offenses committed on the same
occasion or which arose of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious
offense for which the penalty for death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is
imposed shall be by notice of appeal to the CA in accordance with paragraph (a) of
this Rule; (d.) Automatic review by the CA where the RTC imposed death penalty.
(Sec. 3, Rule 122; See: AM No. 00-5-003-SC, 10/15/04 re: Automatic review)

Effect of Appeal by any of several accused: (a.) An appeal taken by one or more of
several accused shall not affect those who did not- appeal, except insofar as the
judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter; (b.) Appeal of
the offended party from the civil aspect shall not affect the criminal aspect of the
judgment or order appealed from; (c.) Upon perfection of the appeal, the execution of
the judgment or final order appealed from shall be stayed as to the appealing party.
(Section 11, Rule 122)

Appellee may waive his right to notice that an appeal has been taken. Appellate court
may in its discretion, entertain an appeal notwithstanding failure to give such notice if
the interest of justice so require. (Sec. 5, Rule 122)

Transmission of records: When Taken by the Clerk of Court; (a.) to the appellate
court upon appeal – within 5 days from the filing of the notice of the appeal; (b.)
appeal to the RTC – within 5 days from perfection of the appeal; (c.) in case of death
penalty – within 20 days but not earlier than 15 days from the promulgation of the
judgment or notice of the denial of a motion for new trial or reconsideration. ( Sections
8-10, Rule 122)

Withdrawal of appeal: RTC, MTC, MTCC, MCTC or MeTC may allow the appellant to
withdraw his appeal before the record has been forwarded by the clerk of court to the
proper appellate court. RTC (in its discretion) allow the appellant from the judgment of a

28
MTC, MTCC, MeTC, MCTC to withdraw his appeal, provided a motion to that effect is
filed before rendition of the judgment in the case on appeal.

Procedure in the MTC, RTC, CA and SC

General Rule: the procedures in the MTC, MTCC, MeTC and MCTC shall be the same
as in the RTC. Exceptions: (a.) where a particular provision is made applicable only to
such courts; and (b.) in cases governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure.

In criminal case appealed to the CA, the title of the case shall remain as it was in the
court of origin; Appellant: the party appealing the case; Appellee: adverse party.

Appointment of counsel de officio for the accused: When: (a.) if accused is


confined in prison; (b.) is without counsel de parte on appeal; or (c )has signed the
notice of appeal himself. An appellant who is not confined in prison, may, upon request
be assigned a counsel de oficio within ten (10) days from receipt of the notice to file
brief and he establishes his right thereto.

When brief for appellant to be filed: within 30 days from receipt by the appellant or his
counsel of the notice from the clerk of court of the CA that the evidence is already
attached to the record. Appellant shall file 7 copies of his brief with the clerk of court
which shall be accompanied by proof of service of 2 copies thereof upon the Appellee.
When brief for Appellee to be filed: within 30 days from receipt of the brief of the
appellant, Appellee shall file 7 copies of his brief to the clerk of court which shall be
accompanied by proof of service of 2 copies thereof to the appellant. When reply brief
of the appellant be filed: within 20 days from receipt of the brief of the Appellee;
Extension of time for the filing of briefs will not be allowed except for good and sufficient
cause and only if the motion for extension is filed before the expiration of the time
sought to be extended.

Power of CA to receive evidence: CA shall have the power to try cases and conduct
hearings, receive evidence and perform and any all acts necessary to resolve factual
issues raised in cases, (a.) falling within its original jurisdiction; (b.) involving claims for
damages arising from provisional remedies, or (c.) where the CA grants a new trial
based only on the ground of newly discovered evidence. (sec.1 2, 14 & 15, Rule 124).

Dismissal of appeal: the CA, may upon motion of the Appellee or motu proprio and
with notice to the appellant in either case dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file
his brief within the time prescribed by this Rule except where the appellant is
represented by a counsel de oficio; CA may also, upon motion of the appellee or motu
proprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps
bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal.

Judgment: no judgment shall be reversed or modified unless the CA after an


examination of the record and of the evidence adduced by the parties, is of the opinion
that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the
appellant. Scope: The CA may reverse, affirm or modify the judgment and increase or
reduce the penalty imposed by the trial court, remand the case to the RTC for new trial
or retrial, or dismiss the case.

Quorum of the court: 3 Justices of the CA shall constitute a quorum for the sessions of
a division; Certification of appeal of cases to SC. (Sec. 13, Rule124)

The procedure in the SC in original and appealed cases shall be the same as in the CA
unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law.

29
When the SC en banc is equally divided in opinion or the necessary majority cannot be
had on whether to acquit the appellant, the case shall again be deliberated upon and if
no decision is reached after re-deliberation, the judgment of conviction of lower court
shall be reversed and the accused acquitted.

Search and Seizures


(Rule 126)

Definition: An order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines,
signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for
personal property described therein and bring it before the court. (Rule 126, Sec. 1).
Validity: 10 days from its date. (Rule 126, sec. 10)

Requisites for issuing Search Warrant: 1. It must be issued upon probable cause; 2.
the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself; 3. in the determination of
probable cause, the judge must examine under oath or affirmation; and 4. the warrant
issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to
be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. (Rule 126, Sec. 4) Judge must
personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and
under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally
known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the
affidavits submitted. (Rule 126, Sec. 5)

Search warrant can only be validly issued for one specific offense. (CCBPI vs. Gomez,
571 SCRA 18 [2008])

Issuance and Form: If the judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the
application is based or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall
issue the warrant; The search warrant must be in writing and must contain such
particulars against whom it is directed, the offense for which it was issued, the place to
be searched and the specific things to be seized. Likewise, it must contain a directive to
law enforcement officers to search the place unequivocally identified, and to seize the
person or things therein specifically described, and to bring them to the court. The
warrant must bear the signature of the judge issuing it. (Rule 126, Sec. 6; Pamaran,
supra.) Search warrant cannot issue against diplomatic officers (WHO vs. Aquino, 48
SCRA 242)
Public officer or employee who procures a search warrant without just cause is
criminally liable under Article 129, RPC.

Where Application for Search Warrant Filed: (a.) any court within whose territorial
jurisdiction a crime was committed. (b.) for compelling reasons stated in the application,
any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the
commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial region where the
warrant shall be enforced. However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the
application shall only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending. (Rule
126, Sec 2) See: Malalaon vs. CA, 232 SCRA 249.

What to be Seized: personal property: a. subject of the offense; b. stolen or embezzled


and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or. Used or intended to be used as the
means of committing an offense. (Rule 126, Sec. 3) Ownership of the property to be
seized, immaterial. (Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP, 133 SCRA 800).

The constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal


right that may be waived. To constitute a waiver, it must appear that: 1. the right exist; 2.
person involved had knowledge of the existence of such right; and 3. said person had
an actual intention to relinquish the right.

30
Illegal seizure must be made before plea. (p.20)

Time of making search: Day time unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on
the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be
inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night. (Rule 126, Sec. 9)

Search of house, room, or any other premises: shall be made in the presence of the
lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter; two
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. (Rule 126, Sec 8)
Officer seizing property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to
the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and seizure was
made, or in the absence of such occupant in the presence of at least 2 witnesses. (Rule
126, Sec 11)

Eight instances when a warrantless search and seizure is valid, to wit: 1.


consented searches; 2. as an incident to a lawful arrest; 3. searches of vessels and
aircraft for violation of immigration, customs and drug laws; 4. searches of moving
vehicles; 5. searches of automobiles at borders or constructive borders; 6. where the
prohibited articles are in “plain view”; 7. searches of buildings and premises to enforce
fire, sanitary, and building regulations; and 8. “stop and frisk’ operations. (Pp. vs. Agulay,
GRN 181747, 9-26-08).

Warrantless seizure of illegal drugs placed in an open back of a van is valid under the
“plain view” doctrine. (Pp. vs. Lagman, 573 SCRA 224 [2008]).

Provisional Remedies in Criminal Cases


(Rule 127)

The provisional remedies in civil actions, insofar as they are applicable, may be availed
of in connection with the civil action deemed instituted with the criminal action. (Sec. 1,
Rule 127).

Attachment.- When the civil action is properly instituted in the criminal action as
provided in Rule 111, the offended party may have the property of the accused attached
as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered from the accused
in the following cases:
(a.) when the accused is about to abscond from the Philippines;
(b.) when the criminal action is based on a claim for money or
property embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted to
the use of the accused who is a public officer, officer of a
corporation, attorney, factor, broker, agent or clerk, in the course
of his employment as such, or by any other person in a fiduciary
capacity, or for a willful violation of duty;
(c.) when the accused has concealed, removed, or disposed of his
property, or is about to do so; and
(d.) when the accused resides outside the Philippines. (sec. 2, Rule
127)

31

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi