TENTH WEEK
killing and recommended that the corresponding Informations be
1. Preliminary Investigation.
a. Definition of preliminary investigation.
It is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and
should be held for trial (Sec. 1, Rule 112).
a.1. Discuss Maza v. Turla, G.R. No. 187094
Trial Court judges must determine the existence or non-existence of
probable cause based on the personal evaluation of the
prosecutor’s report and its supporting documents. They may:
1. Dismiss the case if there is no probable cause
2. Issue an arrest warrant
3. Require the prosecutor to submit additional evidence.
There is no option to remand the case to the prosecutor for a
“complete” PI.
Petitioners Maza, Ocampo, Casifio, Mariano are former members of
the House of the Representatives were among those who were
allegedly responsible for the death of Bayudang, Peralta, Felipe.
Inspector Palomo recommended that a PI be conducted and an
Information for each count.
The panel of prosecutors found probable cause for murder in the
filed against the suspects.
Judge Turla issued an Order on the Palayan cases. (RTC Palayan) and
held that the proper procedure in the conduct of PI was not
followed.
Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order against Judge Turla and
the Prosecutors and prayed that the Orders of Turla be annulled
and set aside and that the murder cases against them be dismissed
for failure to show probable cause, alleging that she acted with
grave abuse of discretion.
SUPREME COURT: Rule 112, Sec 5. Does not allow the option to
remand the case back to the prosecutors. Only that the trial judge
may (1) dismiss the case, (2) issue a warrant of arrest, (3) order the
prosecutor to present additional evidence
Preliminary Investigation by the Prosecutor – An executive function
for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed
and the accused is probably guilty and should be held for trial.
Preliminary Investigation by the Judge – A judicial function the
purpose of which is to determine if there is probable cause to issue
a warrant of arrest based on the personal evaluation of the
prosecutor’s resolution and the supporting evidence.
b. Who conducts preliminary investigation?
PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT A PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
1. Provincial or city prosecutors and their assistants;
2. National and Regional State Prosecutors; and
3. Other officers as may be authorized by law, such as:
a. Ombudsman;
b. COMELEC;
c. PCGG, with the assistance of the OSG; and
d. And other government agencies, empowered to
investigate, file and prosecute cases investigated by it.
NOTE: Their authority to conduct preliminary investigation shall
include all crimes cognizable by the proper court in their respective
territorial jurisdiction (Sec. 2, Rule 112).
c. When is it necessary?
PERIOD WHEN PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED TO BE
CONDUCTED
GR: Before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense
where the penalty prescribed by law is imprisonment of at least 4
years, 2 months and 1 day without regard to the imposable fine
(Sec. 1, Rule 112).
XPNs:
1. Where an information or complaint is filed pursuant to Sec. 7,
Rule 112, i.e. the complaint or information is filed directly in court
(Ibid.); or
2. For cases requiring preliminary investigation, when a person is
lawfully arrested without a warrant provided that inquest was made
in accordance with Rule 112 (Sec. 6, Rule 112).
d. How is it instituted?
The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following
manner:
(a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent
and shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and
his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to establish
probable cause. They shall be in such number of copies as there are
respondents, plus two (2) copies for the official file. The affidavits
shall be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or
government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their
absence or unavailability, before a notary public, each of whom
must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is
satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their
affidavits.
(b) Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the
investigating officer shall either dismiss it if he finds no ground to
continue with the investigation, or issue a subpoena to the
respondent attaching to it a copy of the complaint and its
supporting affidavits and documents.
The respondent shall have the right to examine the
evidence submitted by the complainant which he may not have
been furnished and to copy them at his expense. If the evidence is
voluminous, the complainant may be required to specify those
which he intends to present against the respondent, and these shall
be made available for examination or copying by the respondent at
his expense.
Objects as evidence need not be furnished a party but shall
be made available for examination, copying, or photographing at the
expense of the requesting party.
(c) Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with
the complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, the
respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit and that of his
witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his
defense. The counter-affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to and
certified as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, with copies
thereof furnished by him to the complainant. The respondent shall
not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of a counter-
affidavit.
(d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if
subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10)
day period, the investigating office shall resolve the complaint based
on the evidence presented by the complainant.
(e) The investigating officer may set a hearing if there are
facts and issues to be clarified from a party or a witness. The parties
can be present at the hearing but without the right to examine or
cross-examine. They may, however, submit to the investigating
officer questions which may be asked to the party or witness
concerned.
The hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from
submission of the counter-affidavits and other documents or from
the expiration of the period for their submission. It shall be
terminated within five (5) days.
(f) Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the
investigating officer shall determine whether or not there is
sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial.
e. What is the effect of failure to complete or terminate
preliminary investigation within a reasonable time?
Failure to complete or terminate preliminary investigation with a
reasonable time may cause the dismissal of the case. The long delay
in the termination of the PI would be violative of the constitutional
guarantee of speedy disposition of cases embodied in the Bill of
Rights.
Every accused has the rights to due process and to speedy
disposition of cases. Inordinate delay in the resolution and
termination of a preliminary investigation will result in the dismissal
of the case against the accused.
Delay, however, is not determined through mere mathematical
reckoning but through the examination of the facts and
circumstances surrounding each case. But the accused must invoke
the constitutional rights in a timely manner for failure to do so
would be considered as a waiver of such right. [Cagang v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 206438]
Absence of preliminary investigation; effect on jurisdiction of the
court
The absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the court's
jurisdiction over the case nor does it impair the validity of the
information or otherwise, render it defective (Rodis v.
Sandiganbayan, 166 SCRA 618; People v. Deang, 338 SCRA 657;
Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, 253 SCRA 773; People v. Buluran, 325
SCRA 476; Enriquez v. Sarmiento, Jr., 498 SCRA 6). If absence of a
preliminary investigation does not render the information invalid
nor affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case, then the denial
of a motion for reinvestigation cannot likewise invalidate the
information or oust the court of its jurisdiction over the case
(Budiongan, Jr. v. De la Cruz, Jr., 502 SCRA 626).
Absence of preliminary investigation; not a ground for motion to
quash
The absence of a preliminary investigation is not a ground for a
motion to quash. Such ground is not provided for in Sec. 3 of Rule
117, the provision which enumerates the grounds for a motion to
quash a complaint or information (Budiongan, Jr. vs. De la Cruz, Jr.,
502 SCRA 626).
e.1 Discuss Tatad v. Sandiganbayan
Tatad seeks to annul and set aside the resolution of the Tanodbayan
and Sandiganbayan and prevent from continuing with the trial or
any other proceedings in People v. Tatad.
1974 – Antonio de los Reyes filed a formal report with the Legal
Panel of the Presidential Security Command (PSC) charging Tatad
with violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
1979 – Tatad had a falling out with Marcos and filed his resignation
as Minister of Public Information and 2 months later Antonio filed
the formal complaint with the Tanodbayan of the same.
1980 – Tatad’s resignation was accepted by Marcos.
PSC – Found that Tatad violated the offense charged.
Issue: Whether the prosecution’s long delay in the filing of these
cases with the Sandiganbayan had deprived petitioner of his
constitutional right to due process and the right to a speedy
disposition of the cases against him.
SC: The complaint filed by Antonio in 1974 was made to “sleep” in
the office of the PSC until the end of 1979 when it became widely
known that Minister Tatad had a falling out with Marcos and the
1974 report was resurrected in the form of a formal complaint filed
with the Tanodbayan. The Tanodbayan acted on the complaint 2
months after Tatad’s resignation was accepted by Marcos.
It was found that the Tanodbayan had all the affidavits and counter-
affidavits necessary for the disposition since October 25, 1982. The
referral of the complaint by Tanodbayan to the PSC for investigation
and report was a revealing attempt to involve an office directly
under the President in the prosecutorial process, lending credence
to the suspicion that the prosecution was politically motivated.
The inordinate delay close to 3 years is violative of petitioner’s
constitutional rights. The facts and circumstances surrounding the
case did not warrant and justify the long delay for the Tanodbayad
to resolve the case. The delay in terminating the PI and filing the
information is violative of the constitutionally guaranteed right of
the petitioner to a speedy disposition of the case against him.
e.2 Discuss Cagang v. Sandiganbayan
Petitioner questions the Sandiganbayan’s denial to quash the
Informations and Order of Arrest against Cagang despite the Office
of the Ombudsman’s alleged inordinate delay in the termination of
the PI.
2003 – Ombudsman received an anonymous complaint alleging that
some employees and officials in the Vice Governor’s Office of
Sarangani committed graft and corruption by diverting public funds
and transferring them to dummy cooperatives.
2005 Information – charging Escobar, Rudes, Maglinte, Cagang,
accountable officials for Malversation of Public Funds.
2010 – Acquitted Escobar, Maglinte, and Cagang for insufficiency of
evidence.
2011 – Ombudsman Carpio-Morales received a resolution finding
probable cause to charge Mangalen and Magcalat of Malversation
of Public Funds and approved the recommendation on the
Information for Violation of R.A. 3019 and Malversation against
Cagang, Camanay, Zulueta, Macagcalat, and Mangalen. (For
falsification of Disbursment Voucher for 350k)
Cagang filed a Motion to Quash and Set Aside the Order of Arrest
and argued that there was an inordinate delay of 7 years which
would violate his constitutional rights.
2012 Sandiganbayan said – there was no inordinate delay
considering that 40 invididuals were involved in 81 different
transactions and Cagang did not invoke his right before the
Ombudsman and only did so after the Information was filed.
Filing of the Complaint – February 10, 2003
Information – November 17, 2011
The PI was concluded in 2005 and that it should not have taken the
Ombudsman 7 years to study the evidence needed to establish
probable cause.
SC: Right to speedy disposition of cases may be invoked against
Judicial, Quasi-judicial, and Administrative bodies while the Right to
a Speedy Trial may only be invoked in criminal prosecutions.
Such right is violated only when the proceeding is attended by
vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays, or when unjustified
postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when
without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed
to elapse without the party having his case tried. The inquiry as to
whether or not an accused has been denied such right is not
susceptible by precise qualification. The concept of speedy
disposition is a relative term.
The Tatad ruling and Barker Balancing test – that courts must
consider the following factors when determining the existence of
inordinate delay:
1. The length of delay
2. The reason for delay
3. The defendant’s assertion or non-assertion of the right
4. The prejudice to the defendant as a result of the delay
Determining the length of delay covers the entire period of
investigation even before trial and may be invoked as early as the
preliminary investigation or inquest.
The State argues that the fact-finding investigation should not be
considered a part of the PI because the former was only preparatory
in relation to the latter and should not be included in the
computation. --- SC: In determining whether inordinate delay
exists, a case is deemed to have commenced from the filing of the
formal complaint and the subsequent conduct of the PI.
The defense must also prove that it exerted meaningful efforts to
protect accused’s constitutional rights. To appreciate a violation of
the right to speedy disposition of cases, delay must not be
attributable to the defense. Unreasonable actions by the accused
will be taken against them.
However, if it has been alleged that there was delay beyond the g. What is an information?
given time periods, the burden of proof shifts. The prosecution will
Information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an
now have the burden to prove that there was no violation of the
offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed by him with the
right to speedy trial or speedy disposition of cases. Prosecution must
prove that it followed established procedure in prosecuting the case court (Sec. 4, Rule 110).
and that any delay incurred was justified and that no prejudice was
h. When is an information sufficient?
suffered by the accused as a result of the delay.
A COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IS DEEMED SUFFICIENT IF IT
Failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial shall
CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING:
constitute a waiver of the right to dismiss under this section.
1. Name of the accused, if the offense is committed by more than
If delay is alleged to have occurred DURING THE GIVEN PERIODS,
one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or
burden of proof is on the accused to prove that it was inordinate.
information;
If delay is alleged to have occurred BEYOND THE GIVEN PERIODS,
2. Designation of the offense given by the statute;
burden of proof shifts on the prosecution.
3. Acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense;

4. Name of the offended party;

Back to the case, THERE is no showing that this case was attended
by malice and no evidence that it was politically motivated, unlike in 5. Approximate date of the commission of the offense; and
Tatad. The dismissal of this case would undoubtedly be prejudicial
6. Place where the offense was committed (Sec. 6, Rule 110)
to the State. The State has as much right as the accused to have its
day in court and an opportunity to present its case. SC finds that 2. Arrest
there is no violation of the accused’s right to speedy disposition
considering that there was a waiver of the delay of a complex case. a. Definition of an arrest.

CAGANG’S PETITION IS DENIED.
f. Probable cause for the purpose of filing an information.
The determination by the prosecutor of probable cause is for the
purpose of either filing an information in court or dismissing the
charges against the respondent.
It is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be
bound to answer for the commission of an offense (Sec. 1, Rule
113).
b. Warrantless arrests.
INSTANCES WHEN WARRANT OF ARREST IS NOT NECESSARY

1. Accused is already under detention;

2. Complaint or information was filed pursuant to a valid warrantless
arrest; and
3. Complaint or information is for an offense penalized by fine only
[Sec. 5 (c), Rule 112].
INSTANCES OF A VALID WARRANTLESS ARREST
1. In flagrante delicto arrest;
2. Doctrine of hot pursuit; and
3. Escapee. (Sec. 5, Rule 113)
c. Probable cause for issuance of a warrant of arrest.
PROBABLE CAUSE
It refers to facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed by the persons involved. It need not be based on clear
and convincing evidence of guilt. It simply implies probability of guilt
and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which
would justify a conviction (The Presidential Ad-Hoc FactFinding
Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto, G.R. No. 136225, April 23,
2008).
c.1. Discuss Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 197293, 21 April 2014.
While the determination of probable cause to charge a person of a
crime is the sole function of the prosecutor, the trial court may
dismiss the case if, upon personal assessment of the evidence, it
finds that the evidence does not establish probable cause.
RTC – dismissed the complaint against petitioner Alfredo Mendoza
for Qualified Theft and Estafa filed by Juno Cars.
Mendoza is a Used Car Supervisor for Juno. When they conducted a
partial audit, they found that 5 cars had been sold by Mendoza
without permission. Mendoza did not remit the payments totaling
886K and that only 18 out of 20 cars in his custody are accounted
for and that he pilfered a total amount of 1M and 46K to Juno’s
prejudice.
Mendoza raised the issue that Juno failed to prove their ownership
over the 5 cars he sold. Prosecutor Delgado found probable cause
and recommended the filing of the Information against Mendoza for
Qualified Theft and Estafa.
While Mendoza’s MR is pending, 2 informations for QT and ESTAFA
were filed before the RTC.
RTC Judge Rizalina Capco-Umali dismissed the complaint and held
that the evidence adduced does not support a finding of probable
cause for the offenses of qualified theft and estafa.
RTC denied Juno’s motion for reconsideration.
Juno filed a petition for certiorari with the CA and argued that
determination of probable cause rightfully belongs to the
prosecutor.
CA – reversed the trial court and reinstated the case and ruled that
RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in supplanting the
prosecutor’s findings of probable cause with her own findings of
insufficiency of evidence.
ISSUE: Whether the trial court may dismiss an information filed by 3. Bail
the prosecutor on the basis of its own independent finding of lack of
a. Definition of bail.
probable cause.
Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the
SC: There are 2 kinds of determination of probable cause: Executive
and Judicial. law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance
before any court as required under the conditions prescribed under
Executive PI – function that pertains to the public prosecutor to the rules (Sec. 1, Rule 114).
determine whether probable cause exists for the respondent
(would-be-accused) to be held for trial. [for the Information] b. Bail as a matter of right.

Judicial PI – made by a judge to ascertain whether there is probable BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT
cause to issue a WARRANT OF ARREST against the accused
1. Before or after conviction by the MeTC, MTC, MTCC or MCTC;
The judge may satisfy himself based on the evidence submitted and
NOTE: All criminal cases under their jurisdiction are bailable offense
if he finds that there is no probable cause, the judge cannot be
because these courts have no jurisdiction to try cases punishable by
forced to issue arrest warrant.
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.(Enrile vs.
The judge does not act as an appellate court for the prosecutor and Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015)
has no capacity to review the prosecutor’s determination of
2. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by
probable cause, rather, he makes a determination of probable
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment (Sec. 4, Rule 114);
cause INDEPENDENT of the prosecutor’s finding.
and
While the information filed by Prosecutor Delgado was valid, Judge
3. Before final conviction by all children in conflict with the law for
Capco-Umali still had the discretion to make her own finding of
an offense not punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
whether probable cause exists to order the arrest of the accused.
imprisonment.
She found that Juno Cars failed to prove by competent evidence
that the vehicles alleged to have been pilfered were lawfully owned c. Bail as a matter of discretion.
by them.
BAIL AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION
CA decision reversed. Case against Mendoza is dismissed.
1. Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment;

2. Regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution, a person

charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is not strong
(Sec. 7, Rule 114); and
3. A child in conflict with the law charged with an offense punishable
by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment when evidence of
guilt is not strong (Sec. 28, A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC).
NOTE: The prosecution cannot adduce evidence for the denial of bail
where it is a matter of right. However, where the grant of bail is
discretionary, the prosecution may show proof to deny the bail.
Whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, reasonable notice
of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor or fiscal, or at
least he must be asked for his recommendation.
Recommendation is necessary because in fixing the amount of bail,
the judge is required to take into account a number of factors such
as the applicant’s character and reputation, forfeiture of other
bonds or whether he is a fugitive from justice.
c.1. Discuss Ponce Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, 18
August 2015.
June 5, 2014 – Ombudsman charged Enrile and others with plunder
on their alleged involvement in the misuse of appropriations under
PDAF.
Enrile – Omnibus Motion w prayer that he should be allowed to
post bail if probable cause was to be found against him.
Sandiganbayan – denied the motion for bail on the ground of its
prematurity considering that Enrile has not yet been placed under
the custody of law.
[BAIL IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENSURING THE ACCUSED’S
APPEARANCE AT TRIAL]
Warrant of Arrest was issued and he voluntarily surrendered.
Motion to Fix Bail was filed and argued that he should be allowed to
post bail because:
1. The Prosecution has not established that the evidence of his
guilt was strong
2. That even though he was charged with plunder (punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death), the penalty to him should only be
reclusion temporal because of his age and mitigating circumstance
of voluntary surrender
3. That he was not a flight risk and that his physical condition
must be seriously considered
His motion was denied.
Enrile raises the ff grounds:
1. That before judgment of the Sandiganbayan, he is bailable
as a matter of right since prosecution has failed to show clearly and
conclusively that evidence of his guilt is strong.
SC: The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the
accused at the trial.
Bail may be granted as a matter of discretion
Section 7, Rule 114 – Capital offenses or those punishable by
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment are NOT bailable. – No
person charged with a. capital offense, etc, shall be admitted to bail
WHEN evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the
criminal prosecution.
General Rule – any person, before being convicted, shall be bailable,
unless the offense is punishable by death, RP, or LI, AND evidence of
guilt is strong.
If evidence of guilt is not strong = Bail is a matter of right
Bail is discretionary when:
1. upon conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT punishable
by death, RP, LI
2. RTC has imposed a penalty of imprisonment EXCEEDING 6
years, provided that any of the circumstances enumerated in Sec. 5,
Rule 114 is present.
Admission to bail in offenses punished by death, RP, LI is subject to
Judicial Discretion. Bail cannot be allowed when its grant is a matter
of discretion on the part of the trial court unless there has been a
hearing with notice to the prosecution.
Enrile’s poor health justifies his Admission to Bail. The PH’s
responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of every person
to liberty and due process (Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
The PH is under obligation to make available to every person under
detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right
to liberty, including the right to be admitted to bail.
Enrile’s reputation of having utter respect for the legal processes of
this country and his health condition are also taken into
consideration, he should be granted bail.
Granting provisional liberty to Enrile will enable him to have his
medical condition be properly addressed and better attended to by
competent physicians in the hospital of his choice which would
ONLY AID in his adequate preparation of his defense but WILL
GUARANTEE his appearance in court for the trial.
Petition is gramted. Sandiganbayan resolutions are set aside.
d. Definition of recognizance.
a. An obligation of record, entered into before some court
or magistrate duly authorized to take it with the condition to do
some particular act. It is an undertaking of a disinterested
person with high credibility wherein he will execute an affidavit
of recognizance to the effect that when the presence of the
accused is required in court, the custodian will bring him to that
court;
b. This is allowed for light felonies only.
NOTE: If the accused does not appear despite notice to the
custodian, or the person who executed the recognizance does not
produce the accused, he may be cited for contempt of court. This is
the remedy because no money is involved in recognizance.
e. Increase, reduction, forfeiture, and cancellation of bail.
After the accused is admitted to bail, the court may, upon good
cause, either increase or reduce its amount. When increased, the
accused may be committed to custody if he does not give bail in the
increased amount within a reasonable period (Sec. 20, Rule 114).
NOTE: A motion to reduce the amount of bail likewise requires a
hearing before it is granted in order to afford the prosecution the
chance to oppose it (Sec. 18, Rule 114).
Excessive bail may not be imposed because that is tantamount to
denying bail.
WHEN ACCUSED DOES NOT HAVE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO POST THE
BAIL INITIALLY FIXED BY THE COURT
The accused may move for its reduction by submitting documents
and affidavits that may warrant his claim for reduction (Sec. 3, A.M.
No. 12-11-2-SC).
PRIORITY OF HEARING FOR MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF BAIL
Such motion shall enjoy priority in the hearing of cases (Sec. 2 A.M.
No. 12-11-2-SC).
The order fixing the amount of the bail shall not be subject to appeal
(Sec. 4, A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC).
EFFECTS OF THE FAILURE OF THE ACCUSED TO APPEAR IN COURT
WHEN SO REQUIRED
1. The bail shall be declared forfeited; and
2. The bondsmen are given 30 days within which to:
a. Produce the body of their principal or give the reason for
his non-production; and
b. Explain why the accused did not appear before the court
when first required to do so (Sec. 21, Rule 114).
LIABILITY OF THE BONDSMEN FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THEIR OBLIGATIONS WHEN THE ACCUSED FAILS TO APPEAR WHEN
REQUIRED
A judgment shall be rendered against the bondsmen, jointly and
severally, for the amount of bail (Sec. 21, Rule 114).
NOTE: The court shall not reduce or mitigate the liability of the
bondsmen, unless the accused has been surrendered or is acquitted
(Sec. 21, Rule 114).
The 30-day period granted to the bondsmen to comply with the two
requisites for the lifting of the order of forfeiture cannot be
shortened by the court but may be extended for good cause shown.
BENCH WARRANT
Aside from the forfeiture, when the accused fails to appear in court
despite notice, the court may issue a bench warrant for his arrest.
It is a writ issued directly by a judge to a law enforcer, for the arrest
of a person who has been held in contempt, has disobeyed a
subpoena, or has to appear at a hearing or trial (Magleo vs. De Juan-
Quinagoran, A.M. No. RTJ-122336, November 12, 2014).
CANCELLATION OF BAIL
1. Upon the application of the bondsmen, with due notice to the
prosecutor, the bail may be cancelled upon:
a. Surrender of the accused; or
b. Proof of his death.
2. The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon:
a. Acquittal of the accused;
b. Dismissal of the case; or
c. Execution of the judgment of conviction (Sec. 22, Rule
114)
NOTE: In all instances of cancellation of bail, automatic or otherwise, Arraignment is the proceeding in a criminal case, whose objwhect is
it shall be without prejudice to any liability on the part of the surety to fix the identity of the accused, to inform him of the charge and to
(Sec. 22, Rule 114). give him an opportunity to plead, or to obtain from the accused his
answer, in other words, his plea to the information.
ORDER OF FORFEITURE VS. ORDER OF CANCELLATION
NOTE: Arraignment is an indispensable requirement of due process.
ORDER OF FORFEITURE ORDER OF CANCELLATION
PERIOD OF ARRAIGNMENT
Conditional and interlocutory. Not independent of the order
It is not appealable. of forfeiture. It is a judgment GR: Arraignment shall be made within 30 days from the date the
ultimately determining the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused [Sec. 1
liability of the surety (g), Rule 116].
thereunder and therefore final.
XPNs:
Execution may issue at once.
1. When an accused is under preventive detention, his case should
be raffled within 3 days from filing and accused shall be arraigned
within 10 days from receipt by the judge of the records of the case
f. Bail not a waiver of right to question validity of arrest. (RA 8493 Speedy Trial Act);
An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused 2. Where the complainant is about to depart from the Philippines
from challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the with no definite date of return, the accused should be arraigned
warrant issued therefor, or from assailing the regularity or without delay;
questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge
against him, provided that he raises them before entering his plea. 3. Cases under RA 7610 (Child Abuse Act), the trial shall be
The court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable but not commenced within 3 days from arraignment;
later than the start of the trial of the case.
4. Cases under the Dangerous Drugs Act; and
4. Arraignment and Plea
5. Cases under SC AO 104-96 i.e. heinous crimes, violations of the
a. How is arraignment made? Intellectual Property Rights law, these cases must be tried
continuously until terminated within 60 days from commencement
It is the formal mode of implementing the constitutional right of the of the trial and to be decided within 30 days from the submission of
accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him the case.
(People v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 171020, March 14, 2007).
PROCEDURE OF ARRAIGNMENT
1. It must be in open court where the complaint or information has
been filed or assigned for trial;
2. By the judge or clerk of court;
3. By furnishing the accused with a copy of the complaint or
information;
4. Reading it in a language or dialect known to the accused (People
v. AlbertG.R. No. 114001 December 11, 1995);
5. Asking accused whether he pleads guilty or not guilty (Sec.1(a),
Rule 116); and
6. Both arraignment and plea shall be made of record but failure to
enter of record shall not affect the validity of the proceedings [Sec.
1(b), Rule 116].
NOTE: The accused must be arraigned before the court where the
complaint or information was filed or assigned for trial [Sec. 1 (a),
Rule 116].
The accused cannot waive the reading of the information to him
and just enter his plea because it is constitutionally required.
NOTE: Accused is presumed to have been validly arraigned in the
absence of proof to the contrary.
b. What is plea bargaining?
Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a process whereby the accused
and the prosecution work a mutually satisfactory disposition of the
case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant’s
pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the
counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence
than that for the graver charge (Daan v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No.
163972-77, March 28, 2008).
NOTE: It is to be noted that the decision to accept or reject a
pleabargaining agreement is within the sound discretion of the
court subject to certain requirements of statutes or rules [Amante-
Descallar v. Judge Ramas, A.M No. RTJ-08-2142 (OCA-IPI No. 08-
2779-RTJ), March 20, 2009].
c. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense.
The accused, with the consent of the offended party and the
prosecutor, may plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily
included in the offense charged (Sec. 2, Rule 116).
REQUISITES FOR A PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE
1. The lesser offense is necessarily included in the offense charged;
and
NOTE: It is necessarily included when some of the essential
elements or ingredients of the crime charge constitute the lesser
offense and vice versa.
2. The plea must be with the consent of both the offended party
and the prosecutor. Consent of the offended party will not be
required if said party, despite due notice, fails to appear during
arraignment (Riano, 2011).
EFFECT OF PLEA OF GUILTY WITHOUT CONSENT OF OFFENDED
PARTY AND PROSECUTOR
If accused was convicted, the accused’s subsequent conviction of
the crime charged would not place him in double jeopardy [Sec. 7
(c), Rule 117].
Q: MAY THE ACCUSED ENTER A PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LOWER PERIOD TO ENTER PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE
OFFENSE?
GR: Plea-bargaining is made during pre-trial stage of criminal
A: YES. proceedings.

1. During arraignment XPN: The law still allows accused to change his plea thereafter
provided that the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to
a. If the offended party is present, the latter must
establish guilt of the crime charged (People vs. Valderama, G.R. No.
consent with the prosecutor to the plea; and
99287, June 23, 1992).
b. That the lesser offense is necessarily included in
d. Effect plea guilty to a capital offense.
the offense charged.
DUTY OF THE COURT AFTER THE ACCUSED PLEADS GUILTY TO A
2. After arraignment but before trial, provided the following
CAPITAL OFFENSE
requisites are present:
When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall:
a. The plea of guilty is withdrawn;
1. Conduct a searching inquiry into the:
b. The plea of not guilty and the withdrawal of the
previous guilty plea shall be made before trial; a. Voluntariness of the plea, and

c. The lesser offense is necessarily included in the b. Full comprehension of the consequences of the
offense charged; and d. The plea must have the consent of plea;
the prosecutor and the offended party (Sec. 2, Rule 116).
2. Require the prosecution to prove guilt and the precise degree of
NOTE: No amendment of complaint or information is necessary his culpability; and
(Sec. 2, Rule 116). A conviction under this plea shall be equivalent to
3. Ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his behalf and
a conviction of the offense charged for purposes of double jeopardy
allow him to do so if he desires.
(People v. Magat, G.R. No. 130026, May 31, 2000).
NOTE: The defendant after pleading guilty may not present
3. During Pre-trial- Under Sec. 1(a), Rule 118, Pleabargaining is one
evidence as would exonerate him completely from criminal liability
of the matters to be considered.
such as proof of self-defense.
4. After prosecution rests – Allowed only when the prosecution
NOTE: This procedure is mandatory, and a judge who fails to
does not have sufficient evidence to establish guilt for the crime
observe it commits grave abuse of discretion. The reason for this
charged.
strictness is to assure that the State makes no mistake in taking life
except the life of the guilty (People v. Diaz, G.R. No. 119073, March
13, 1996).
PURPOSE OF THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AFTER THE PLEA OF
GUILTY
To preclude any room for reasonable doubt in the mind of either
the trial court or of the Supreme Court, on review, as to the
possibility that there might have been misunderstanding on the part
of the accused as to the nature of the charges to which he pleaded
guilty; and to ascertain the circumstances attendant to the
commission of the crime which justify or require the exercise of
greater or lesser degree of severity in the imposition of prescribed
penalties (People v. Busa, G.R. No. L-32047, June 25, 1973).
NO COLLATERAL ATTACK ON PLEA OF GUILTY
A plea of guilty entered by one who is fully aware of the direct
consequences, including the actual value of any commitments made
to him by court, the prosecutor or his own counsel, must stand.
NOTE: It is only when the consensual character of the plea is called
into question that the validity of a guilty plea may be impaired.
e. Effect of plea of guilty to a non-capital offense.
Sec. 4. Plea of guilty to non-capital offense; reception of evidence,
discretionary.
When the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense,
the court may receive evidence from the parties to determine the
penalty to be imposed.
- What should the court do when the accused pleads guilty to a non-
capital offense?
> The court may receive evidence from the parties to determine the
penalty to be imposed
> Unlike in a plea of guilty to a capital offense, the reception of
evidence in this case is not mandatory.
> It is merely discretionary on the court
f. When is suspension of arraignment allowed?
Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be
suspended in the following cases:
1. The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental
condition which effectively renders him unable to fully understand
the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto;
2. There exists a valid prejudicial question;
3. A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is
pending at the Department of Justice or the Office of the President
(Sec. 11, Rule 116); and
4. There are pending incidents such as:
a. Motion to Quash;
b. Motion for Inhibition; or
c. Motion for Bill of Particulars.
NOTE: The period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days
counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office
(Sec. 11, Rule 116).
Procedurally speaking, after the filing of the information, the court
is in complete control of the case and any disposition therein is
subject to its sound discretion. The decision to suspend arraignment
to await the resolution of an appeal with the Secretary of Justice is
an exercise of such discretion (Solar Team Entertainment Inc., v.
How, G.R. No. 140863, August 22, 2000).
5. Quashal of Information
a. What are the grounds to quash an information?
1. THE FACTS CHARGED DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE
It is fundamental that the complaint or information must state every
fact necessary to make out an offense for the Constitution
guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions the accused should be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him [Sec.
14 (2) Art. III, 1987 Constitution].
AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
If the motion to quash is based on the ground that the facts charged
do not constitute an offense, the prosecution shall be given by the
court an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. However,
if the prosecution fails to make the amendment, or the complaint or
information still suffers from the same defect despite the
amendment, the motion shall be granted.
RESOLUTION OF A MOTION TO QUASH BASED ON THE GROUND
THAT THE FACTS CHARGED DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE
GR: A motion to quash on the ground that the allegations of the
information do not constitute the offense charged, or any offense
for that matter, should be resolved on the basis alone of said
allegations whose truth and veracity are hypothetically admitted.
XP: Additional facts not alleged in the information, but admitted or
not denied by the prosecution may be invoked in support of the
motion to quash (People v. Navarro, 75 Phil. 561).
2. LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE CHARGED
If the trial court has no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and
decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not
barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same
must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent
of the parties or by estoppel.
3. LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED
Jurisdiction over the person is that acquired by the voluntary
appearance of a party in court and his submission to its authority, or
by the coercive power of legal process exerted over the person
through an arrest. Unlike jurisdiction over the subject matter and
territory, jurisdiction over the person of the accused may be waived,
either expressly or by implication.
NOTE: Where a court has jurisdiction of the offense or subject
matter, the objection that it has no jurisdiction of the person of the
accused may be waived. One who desires to object to the
jurisdiction of the court over his person must appear in court for
that purpose only, and if he raises other questions, he waives the
objection (Layosa v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-46080, November 10,
1978, citing 22 C.J.S., 1961 Ed. p. 418).
TEST OF THE COURT’S JURISDICTION
GR: What determines the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases is
the extent of the penalty which the law imposes on the
misdemeanor, crime or violation of law charged.
XPNs:
 1. Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which is not based on
the penalty provided by law, but on the salary grade of the public
official;
2. Libel, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC
although the imposable penalty does not exceed 6 years
3. Those offenses cognizable by the family court where the
determining factor is the minority of any of the parties; and
4. The offense of slight physical injuries is cognizable by the
first level courts, but where the victim is a minor, the case is to be
filed in the RTC.
LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY
In criminal proceedings, no one should be held to answer for any
crime committed by him except in the jurisdiction where it was
committed.
4. LACK OF AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICER TO FILE INFORMATION
Criminal prosecutions are brought by authority of the sovereign,
and, therefore, only the officers possessed of legal power to do so
must be allowed to file criminal information.
NOTE: The law invests the authority to file and prosecute criminal
cases to the following:
a. Provincial fiscals and their assistants (Sec. 1686, Revised
Administrative Code);
b. Chief State Prosecutor and his deputies;
c. Tanodbayan and his deputies in special cases (PD 1607);
A lawyer appointed by the Secretary of Justice (Sec. 1686, Revised
Administrative Code).
INSTANCES WHERE THERE IS AN UNAUTHORIZED FILING OF
INFORMATION
1. Officer filing is irregularly appointed. It does not necessarily
invalidate the information if such officer may be considered de
facto; 2. Officer is disqualified from appointment to such position.
The information is invalid and the court does not acquire jurisdiction
to try the accused thereon (Villa vs. Banez, G.R. No. L-4313, March
20, 1951);
3. Officer filed the information without the approval by the head or
Chief prosecutor (Sec. 4, Rule 112); and
4. Information is filed without the complaint in cases involving
private crimes.
NOTE: An infirmity in the information caused by the lack of
authority of the officer signing it cannot be cured by silence,
acquiescence, or even by express consent. An invalid information is
no information at all. No criminal proceeding may prosper
therefrom, thus, it is subject to quashal (Romualdez vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 14361841, July 30, 2002).
Despite a certification which provides that the filing of the
information by the assistant city prosecutor is with the prior
authority and approval of the city prosecutor, the information is
defective because of the absence of any proof clearly showing that
the assistant city prosecutor had any authority to file the
information on his own or did seek the prior written approval from
those authorized to do so before filing the Information before the
RTC (Quisay v. People, G.R. No. 216920, January 13, 2016).
5. WHEN THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION DOES NOT CONFORM 6. Prescription of the penalty; and
SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE PRESCRIBED FORM
7. The marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344
Lack of substantial compliance with the requirements for a good of the Revised Penal Code
complaint or information required under Secs. 3 to 13, Rule 110
PARDON VS. AMNESTY
renders the accusatory pleading quashable.
PARDON AMNESTY
NOTE: But mere defects in matters of form may be cured by
amendment. Granted by the Chief Executive. Proclaimed by the President,
6. MULTIPLICITY OF OFFENSES CHARGED but it has to be with the
concurrence of Congress.
A complaint or information must charge only one offense, except
when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses It is a private act which must be It is a public act which the
(Sec. 13, Rule 110). pleaded and proved by the courts have to take judicial
person pardoned because the notice of.
7. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION OR LIABILITY courts take no notice of it.
Under Art. 89 of the RPC, criminal liability is totally extinguished by: Granted to one after Granted to classes of persons
1. The death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to conviction. or communities who may be
pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the guilty of political offenses,
death of the offender occurs before final judgment; generally before or after the
institution of the criminal
NOTE: The death of the offended party before final conviction will
prosecution and sometimes
not abate prosecution where the offense charged is one against the
after conviction.
State involving peace and order as well as in private crimes (People
v. Misola, G.R. No. L-3606, December 29, 1950). Granted to one after Granted to classes of persons
2. Service of the sentence; conviction. or communities who may be
guilty of political offenses,
3. Amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its generally before or after the
effects; institution of the criminal
prosecution and sometimes
4. Absolute pardon;
after conviction.
5. Prescription of the crime;
COMPUTATION OF PRESCRIPTION OF OFFENSES
The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on
which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the
authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of
the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again
when such proceedings terminate without the accused being
convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason
not imputable to him. The term of prescription does not run when
the offender is absent from the Philippines (Art. 91, RPC).
PRESCRIPTION OF THE PENALTY
The loss of right to demand the service of the penalty imposed.
RULE ON THE PERIOD OF PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES
The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from
the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence
and it shall be interrupted if the defendant should give himself up,
be captured, should go to some foreign country with which the
government has no extradition treaty, or should commit another
crime before the expiration of the period of prescription (Art.93,
RPC).
8. THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION CONTAINS AVERMENTS,
WHICH IF TRUE, WOULD CONSTITUTE A LEGAL EXCUSE OR
JUSTIFICATION
Only exempting circumstances constitute a legal excuse or
justification. Justifying circumstances such as selfdefense must be
proven.
9. DOUBLE JEOPARDY
The right against double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution for a
crime of which he has been previously convicted or acquitted.
NOTE: The enumeration is exclusive.
b. What is provisional dismissal?
It contemplates that the dismissal of the action is not permanent
and can be revived within the period set by the Rules of Court.
c. When does a provisional dismissal become a permanent
dismissal?
PERIOD WHEN PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL BECOMES PERMANENT
1. Offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 6 years or a
fine of any amount, or both - shall become permanent 1 year after
issuance of the order without the case having been revived.
2. Offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 years - shall
become permanent 2 years after issuance of the order without the
case having been revived (Sec. 8, Rule 117).
6. Pre-Trial
a. What are the matters to be considered during pre-trial?
1. Plea bargaining;
2. Stipulation of facts;
NOTE: In order for the accused to be bound, it must be signed by
him.
3. Marking for identification of evidence of parties;
NOTE: No evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered
during the trial other than those identified and marked during the
pre-trial except when allowed by the court for good cause shown [IB
(2), AM No. 03-1-09-SC]
4. Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
5. Modification of the order of the trial if one of the accused admits
the charge but interposes a lawful defense (reverse trial); and
6. Such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the
criminal and civil aspects of the case (Sec. 1, Rule 118).
NOTE: If the accused has pleaded not guilty to the crime charged, he
may state whether he interposes a negative or affirmative defense.
A negative defense shall require the prosecution to prove the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, while an affirmative
defense may modify the order of trial and require the accused to
prove such defense by clear and convincing evidence (Sec. 3, Speedy
Trial Act).
b. Pre-trial agreement.
All agreements or admissions made or entered into during the pre-
trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the
accused and counsel; otherwise the same cannot be used against
the accused (Sec. 2, Rule 118).
NOTE: The court shall approve the agreements covering the matters
in the pre-trial conference.
PRE-TRIAL AGREEMENT AS EVIDENCE
Requisites before a pre-trial agreement may be used as evidence:
1. It is reduced in writing; and
2. Signed by the accused and his counsel
The agreements in relation to matters referred to in Sec. 1, Rule 118
are subject to the approval of the court (Sec. 2, Rule 118). Provided,
that the agreement on the plea of the accused to a lesser offense
may only be revised, modified, or annulled by the court when the
same is contrary to law, public morals, or public policy (Sec. 3,
Speedy Trial Act of 1998).
NOTE: The requirement of Sec. 2, Rule 118 is intended to further
safeguard the rights of the accused against improvident or
unauthorized agreements or admissions which his counsel may have
entered into, or which any person may have ascribed to the accused
without his knowledge, as he may have waived his presence at the
pre-trial conference (People vs. Uy, G.R. No. 128046, March 7,
2000).
AMENDMENT OF PRE-TRIAL AGREEMENT
Pre-trial may be amended on the grounds of:
1. Agreement; or
2. Palpable mistake
c. Effect of non-appearance at pre-trial.
EFFECT OF NON-APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED OR
THE PROSECUTOR DURING THE PRE-TRIAL WITHOUT VALID
JUSTIFICATION
The court may impose proper sanctions or penalties in the form of
reprimand, fines or imprisonment, if the counsel does not offer an
acceptable excuse for his lack of cooperation (Sec. 3, Rule 118; Sec.
5, Speedy Trial Act).
RATIONALE OF THE EXCLUSION OF THE ACCUSED IN THE
MANDATORY APPEARANCE DURING PRE-TRIAL
The principal reason why the accused is not included in the
mandatory appearance is the fear that to include him is to violate
his constitutional right to remain silent [Sec. 12(1), Art. III, 1987
Constitution].
NOTE: Unless otherwise required by the court, personal appearance
of the accused at the conference is not indispensable. This is aside
from the consideration that the accused may waive his presence at
all stages of the criminal action, except at the arraignment,
promulgation of judgment or when required to appear for
identification (Regalado, 2008).
d. Pre-trial order.
It is an order issued by the court reciting the actions taken, the facts
stipulated, and the evidence marked during the pre-trial conference
(Sec. 4, Rule 118).
PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PRE-TRIAL ORDER
The pre-trial order shall:
1. Bind the parties;
2. Limit the trial to those matters not disposed of; and
3. Control the course of the action during the trial, unless modified
by the court to prevent manifest injustice (Ibid.; Sec. 5, Speedy Trial
Act of 1998).
NOTE: To prevent manifest injustice, however, the court, upon its
own initiative or at the instance of any party, may modify the pre-
trial order.
PERIOD FOR THE TRIAL JUDGE TO ISSUE A PRE-TRIAL ORDER AND
ITS CONTENTS
It must be issued within 10 days after the termination of the pre-
trial. It shall set forth the following:
1. Actions taken during the pre-trial conference;
2. Facts stipulated;
3. Admissions made;
4. Evidence marked; and
5. Number of witnesses to be presented and the schedule of trial
(Sec. 4, Rule 118).
7. Trial
a. What is the order of trial?
ORDER OF TRIAL IN CRIMINAL CASES
In criminal cases, the trial shall proceed in the following order:
1. The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge and,
in the proper case, the civil liability.
NOTE: In Dangerous Drugs Cases, it is the duty of the
prosecutionga to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust
operation – from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and
the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the
consideration, until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of
the illegal subject of sale (People v. Ong, G.R. No. 175940, February Requisites of trial in absentia:
6, 2008).
1. The accused has already been arraigned;
2. The accused may present evidence to prove his defense, and
2. He has been duly notified of the trial; and 3. His failure to appear
damages, if any, arising from the issuance of a provisional remedy in
is unjustified (Sec. 14(2), Art. III, 1987 Constitution of the
the case.
Philippines; Bernardo v. People, G.R. No. 166980, April 4, 2007).
3. The prosecution may present rebuttal evidence unless the court
EFFECTS OF TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
permits them to present additional evidence bearing upon the main
issue. The accused waives the right to present evidence and cross-
examine the witnesses against him. The accused’s waiver does not
NOTE: Rebuttal evidence is any competent evidence to
mean, however, that the prosecution is deprived of the right to
explain, repel, counteract or disprove the adversary’s proof. It is
require the presence of the accused for purposes of identification
receivable only where new matters have been developed by the
by the witnesses which is vital for conviction of the accused, except
evidence of one of the parties and is generally limited to a reply to
where he unqualifiedly admits in open court after his arraignment
new points.
that he is the person named as defendant in the case on trial.
4. The accused may present rebuttal evidence unless the court
c. May an information be amended after arraignment or during
permits them to present additional evidence bearing upon the main
trial?
issue.
An information may be amended, in form or in substance,
5. Upon admission of the evidence of the parties, the case shall be
without leave court, at any time before the accused enters his
deemed submitted for decision unless the court directs them to
plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment
argue orally or to submit written memoranda (Sec. 11, Rule 119).
may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done
NOTE: The order of the trial may be modified when the accused without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or information
but interposes a lawful defense [Sec. 11 (e), Rule 119].
The proper procedure for the amendment of an Information is
b. What is trial in absentia?
governed by Sec. 14, Rule 110, of the Rules on Criminal
Sec. 14 (2), Art. III of the Constitution provides that trial may Procedure —
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that
SECTION 14. Amendment. — The information or complaint may
he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable
be amended, in substance or form, without leave of court at any
(Parada v. Veneracion, A.M. No.RTJ-96-1353, March 11, 1997).
time before the accused pleads; and thereafter and during the
trial as to all matters of form, by leave and at the discretion of His motion was denied.
the court, when the same can be done without prejudice to the
Enrile raises the ff grounds:
rights of the accused . . . .
1. That before judgment of the Sandiganbayan, he is bailable
c.1. Discuss Gabionza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140311, 30
as a matter of right since prosecution has failed to show clearly
March 2011.
and conclusively that evidence of his guilt is strong.
June 5, 2014 – Ombudsman charged Enrile and others with
SC: The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the
plunder on their alleged involvement in the misuse of
accused at the trial.
appropriations under PDAF.
Bail may be granted as a matter of discretion
Enrile – Omnibus Motion w prayer that he should be allowed to
post bail if probable cause was to be found against him. Section 7, Rule 114 – Capital offenses or those punishable by
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment are NOT bailable. – No
Sandiganbayan – denied the motion for bail on the ground of its
person charged with a. capital offense, etc, shall be admitted to
prematurity considering that Enrile has not yet been placed
bail WHEN evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of
under the custody of law.
the criminal prosecution.
[BAIL IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENSURING THE ACCUSED’S
General Rule – any person, before being convicted, shall be
APPEARANCE AT TRIAL]
bailable, unless the offense is punishable by death, RP, or LI,
Warrant of Arrest was issued and he voluntarily surrendered. AND evidence of guilt is strong.
Motion to Fix Bail was filed and argued that he should be
If evidence of guilt is not strong = Bail is a matter of right
allowed to post bail because:
Bail is discretionary when:
1. The Prosecution has not established that the evidence of his
guilt was strong 1. upon conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT punishable
by death, RP, LI
2. That even though he was charged with plunder (punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death), the penalty to him should only 2. RTC has imposed a penalty of imprisonment EXCEEDING 6
be reclusion temporal because of his age and mitigating years, provided that any of the circumstances enumerated in
circumstance of voluntary surrender Sec. 5, Rule 114 is present.
3. That he was not a flight risk and that his physical condition Admission to bail in offenses punished by death, RP, LI is subject
must be seriously considered to Judicial Discretion. Bail cannot be allowed when its grant is a
 matter of discretion on the part of the trial court unless there To be considered sufficient, the evidence must prove:
has been a hearing with notice to the prosecution.
1. The commission of the crime; and
Enrile’s poor health justifies his Admission to Bail. The PH’s
2. The precise degree of participation therein by the accused
responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of every
(Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 195011-19, September 30,
person to liberty and due process (Universal Declaration of
2013).
Human Rights). The PH is under obligation to make available to
every person under detention such remedies which safeguard RULE ON DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
their fundamental right to liberty, including the right to be
admitted to bail. How made 1. Court on its own initiative; or
2. Upon filing of the accused
Enrile’s reputation of having utter respect for the legal for demurrer of evidence: a.
processes of this country and his health condition are also taken With leave of court; or b.
into consideration, he should be granted bail. Without leave of court.

When made After the prosecution rests its

Granting provisional liberty to Enrile will enable him to have his case.
medical condition be properly addressed and better attended to Ground Insufficiency of evidence
by competent physicians in the hospital of his choice which
would ONLY AID in his adequate preparation of his defense but Effect The court may dismiss the case
WILL GUARANTEE his appearance in court for the trial. (Sec. 23, Rule 119).

Petition is gramted. Sandiganbayan resolutions are set aside.

d. Demurrer to evidence.
It is an objection by one of the parties in an action to the effect that
the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of
law to make out a case or sustain the issue (Nicolas v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 175930-31, February 11, 2008).
NOTE: A demurrer to evidence is actually a motion to dismiss that is
filed by the accused after the prosecution has rested its case.
NOTE: Generally, in criminal cases, the grant of a demurrer is
tantamount to an acquittal and the dismissal order may not be
appealed because this would place the accused in double jeopardy.
Although the dismissal order is not subject to appeal, it is still
reviewable but only through certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court. For the writ to issue, the trial court must be shown to have
acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction such as where the prosecution was denied the
opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham thus
rendering the assailed judgment void. The burden is on the
petitioner to clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly
abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very
power to dispense justice (People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
1754504, March 21, 2011, Del Castillio, J.).
d.1. Discuss Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, G.R. No. 220598, 18 April
2017.
The Court granted the petition for certiorari and set aside the
resolution of the Sandiganbayan AND GRANTED Arroyo and Aguas’
Demurrer to Evidence and dismissed the criminal case for
insufficiency of evidence and orders the immediate release from
detention of petitioners.
Ombudsman has moved for the reconsideration of the decision and
stated that the Court’s actions violated Rule 119, Sec. 23 which
provides that an order denying Demurrer shall not be reviewable by
Appeal by certiorari BEFORE judgment.
Arroyo points out that the State (thru Ombudsman) has failed to
prove the corpus delicti of plunder and that the Court correctly
required the identification of the main plunderer as well as the
personal benefit gained by the raider of the public treasury.
Sec. 23, Rule 119 Demurrer to Evidence – The order denying the
motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall NOT be
reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment.
SC: Sandiganbayan as the trial court was guilty of grave abuse of
discretion when it capriciously denied the demurrers despite the
absence of competent and sufficient evidence to sustain the
indictment for plunder. The remedy for the denial is petition for
review on certiorari (Rule 65 – for grave abuse of discretion)
The State argues that the decision amounted to judicial legislation
when it required that the main plundered must be identified, citing
the plain meaning rule to highlight that the crime of plunder did not
require personal benefit on the part of the raider. Insists on the
definition that raids on the public treasury is the taking of public
money through fraudulent or unlawful means and such definition
does not require enjoyment or personal benefit on the part of the
plunderer.
SC: The requirements for the identification of main plunderer and
for personal benefit have been written in R.A. 7080 itself as well as
embedded in jurisprudence.
7080 – Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with
members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity,
business associates, subordinates, other persons, amasses,
accumulates, or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or
series of overt criminal acts.
The law on plunder requires that a particular public officer must be
identified as the one who amassed, acquired, or accumulated the ill-
gotten wealth.
The rules of statutory construction indicated the intent of congress
to require personal benefit for the predicate acts of raids on the
public treasury. The Sandiganbayan erred in contending that the
mere accumulation and gathering constituted the forbidden act of
raids on the public treasury. Pursuant to the maxim of Noscitur a
sociis, raids on the public treasury requires the raider to use the
property taken impliedly for his personal benefit.
The general rule is that the grant of a demurrer to evidence
operates as an acquittal and is thus final and unappealable. A
demurrer to evidence is filed after the prosecution has rested its
case, when it is granted, it calls for an appropriation of the evidence If demurer is granted, the case If demurer is granted, the case
adduced by the prosecution and its sufficiency to warrant conviction is dismissed and the effect is an is dismissed and the effect is an
beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the case on the acquittal. acquittal.
merits and tantamount to an acquittal of the accused. Such
dismissal by grant of demurrer may not be appealed, for it would The motion for leave of court
put the accused in double jeopardy. (but the rule on DJ is not to file a demurrer to evidence
absolute, the case may be reopened when it is shown that the trial shall specifically state its
court acted with grave abuse of discretion. Decisions acted with grounds and shall be filed
GAOD amounts to a VOID judgment) within a nonextendible period
of 5 days after the prosecution
Every acquittal becomes final immediately upon promulgation and rests its case. The prosecution
cannot be recalled for correction or amendment. With the acquittal may oppose the motion within
being final, granting the State’s motion for reconsideration would a non-extendible period of 5
constitute a violation of the constitutional prohibition against days from its receipt.
double jeopardy. Only the defendant could seek a new trial after
conviction, even though the Government had no similar right. If leave of court is granted, the
accused may file the demurrer
to evidence within 10 days. The
prosecution may however,
e. Effect of failure to seek leave of court prior to filing of
oppose the demurrer to
demurrer to evidence.
evidence within a
DEMURRER WITH LEAVE OF DEMURRER WITHOUT LEAVE nonextendible period of 10
COURT OF COURT days from the receipt of the
demurrer (Sec. 23, Rule 119).
If leave of court is denied, the If demurrer to evidence is
accused may proceed with the denied, it is tantamount to a
presentation of his evidence. waiver of the accused’s right to
PURPOSE OF LEAVE OF COURT
present evidence and as a
consequence the case will be The purpose of leave of court is to determine whether or not the
submitted for judgment on the defendant in a criminal case has filed the demurrer merely to stall
basis of the evidence for the the proceedings (People v. Mahinay, G.R. No. 109613, July 17,
prosecution. 1995).
 8. Judgment
a. Definition of judgment
Judgment is the adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty
or not guilty of the offense charged and the imposition of the proper
penalty and civil liability, if any (Sec. 1, Rule 120).
b. Contents of judgment.
The judgment must state:
1. If of conviction
a. Legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts
committed by the accused, and the aggravating or mitigating
circumstances attending its commission;
b. Participation of the accused whether as principal,
accomplice or accessory;
c. Penalty imposed upon the accused; and
d. Civil liability or damages caused by the wrongful act or
omission unless a separate civil action has been reserved or waived
(Sec. 2, Rule 120).
2. If of acquittal
a. 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; and
b. In either case, the judgment shall determine if the act or
omission from which the civil liability might arise did exist (Sec. 2,
Rule 120).
b.1. Discuss People v. Ferrer, G.R. No. 1488821, 18 July 2003.
RTC of Lanao Del Sur finding appellant Jerry Ferrer guilty of the
crime of rape committed against Mary Grace Belonio.
That in October 1995 and continuously thereafter in Wao, Lanao del
Sur, Ferrer taking advantage of his moral ascendancy as stepfather
of 11-year-old Mary Grace and having sexual intercourse with her
against her will when she is alone at home while her mother was
out.
Ferrer’s counsel Atty. Macabanding filed an Urgent Motion for
Medical Treatment alleging that Ferrer was suffering from an
unknown sickness. Trial court granted the motion and ordered his
temporary release.
On the date of pre-trial, both Ferrer and his counsel failed to appear
in court despite due notice. Trial court then ordered the immediate
issuance of warrant to arrest appellant and allowed the prosecution
to present evidence in absentia.
Trial in asentia followed and prosecution witnesses Tugade, Mary
Grace, her mother, and Dr. Bajaria all presented their testimonies.
In 1995 when Mary Grace was 11, she experienced the first of a
series of sexual abuses from Ferrer. 3-4 times a week whenever her
mother was not around from October 1995 to December 1997. She
finally revealed it to her Aunt Tugade in 1997.
The Court rendered a 5-page decision and that based on the
evidence, the prosecution proved the guilt of appellant beyond
reasonable doubt.
Ferrer assails the decision as res ipsa loquitor violative of Sec. 14,
Art. VIII of the Constitution which requires that no decision shall be
rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
And its Statutory Expression Rule 120, Sec. 1.
Judgment, definition and form. – The 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. It
must be written in the official language, personally and directly
prepared by the judge and signed by him and shall contain clearly
and distinctly a statement of the facts and the law upon which it is
based.
This Court has struck down as void, decisions of lower courts and
even of the CA whose careless disregard of the constitutional
behest exposed their cavalier attitude not only to their magisterial
responsibilities but likewise to their avowed fealty to the
Constitution.
Jerry Ferrer was also not properly accorded the right to counsel
which must me more than just the presence of a lawyer in the
courtroom but one who commits himself to the cause for the
defense and acts accordingly. An accused does not cease to have
rights just because of his conviction.
SC -> remand the case to the trial court for continuation of the trial
c. What are the rules on promulgation of judgment?
PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT
It is the official proclamation or announcement of judgment. It is
promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any
judge of the court which it was rendered, or when the judgment is
one of conviction for a light offense, in the presence of the
accused’s counsel or representative (Sec. 6, Rule 120).
AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE THE JUDGMENT
GR: The judge of the court who renders the judgment.
XPNs: When:
1. The judge is absent or outside the province or city – Judgment
may be promulgated by the clerk of court; and
2. Accused is confined or detained in another province or city –
Judgment may be promulgated by the executive judge of the RTC
having jurisdiction over the place of confinement or detention (Sec.
6, Rule120).
NOTE: Where there is not merely physical absence of the judge who
penned the decision, but the cessation or termination of his
incumbency as such judge, there is no judgment validly entered in
such a case (Ong Siu vs. Paredes, G.R. No. L-21638, July 26, 1966).
WHEN THE ACCUSED IS ABSENT IN THE PROMULGATION OF
JUDGMENT DESPITE NOTICE
The promulgation shall still be made by:
1. Recording such judgment in the criminal docket; and
2. Serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or
through his counsel.
If judgment is one of conviction and the accused is absent without
justifiable cause, the court shall order his arrest and he shall lose the
remedies available in the rules against the judgment and his bail
shall be forfeited.
However, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of
court to avail of these remedies within 15 days from the
promulgation of judgment.
If such motion is granted, he may avail of these remedies within 15
days from notice of such order granting the motion (Sec. 6, Rule
120). He must however, state the reasons for his absence at the
promulgation and prove that his absence was for a justifiable cause.
INSTANCES WHEN JUDGMENT MAY BE PROMULGATED EVEN IF
THE ACCUSED IS NOT PRESENT
1. A judgment of acquittal;
2. Judgment is for a light offense, in which case judgment may be
promulgated in the presence of the counsel for the accused or a
representative; or
3. Accused fails to attend the promulgation despite due notice or if
he jumped bail or escaped from prison. Notice must be given to the
bondsmen, warden, accused’s bailor and counsel (Sec. 6, Rule 120).
RULE ON MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT
A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be
modified or set aside before it becomes final or before appeal is
perfected (Sec. 7, Rule 120).
NOTE: A judgment of acquittal becomes final immediately after
promulgation and cannot be recalled for correction or amendment
(People vs. Sison, 105 Phil. 1248).
WHEN DOES JUDGMENT BECOME FINAL
A judgment becomes final:
1. After the lapse of time for perfecting an appeal;
NOTE: In case the death penalty is imposed, the CA shall
automatically review the judgment before it becomes final.
2. When the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied;
3. When the accused has expressly waived in writing his right to
appeal; or
4. When the accused has applied for probation (Sec. 7, Rule 120).
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
The recording of the judgment or order in the book of entries of
judgments shall constitute its entry. 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 (Sec. 2, Rule 36).
FINALITY OF JUDGMENT VS. ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
The finality of the judgment is entirely distinct from its entry and the
delay in the latter does not affect the effectivity of the former,
which is counted from the expiration of the period to appeal
(Munnez vs. CA, G.R. No. L-46040, July 23, 1987).
9. New Trial, Reconsideration, and Appeal
a. May a judgment of acquittal be the subject of a motion for
reconsideration or an appeal on the part of the prosecution?
GROUNDS FOR NEW TRIAL
Rehearing of a case already decided but before the judgment of
conviction therein rendered has become final, whereby errors of
law or irregularities are expunged from the record or new evidence
is introduced, or both steps are taken.
NOTE: A hearing shall be conducted when the motion for new trial
calls for a resolution of a question of fact (Riano, 2011).
1. Errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights
of the accused have been committed during the trial; or
2. 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, Rule121).
GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION
May be filed in order to correct errors of law or fact in the
judgment. It does not require any further proceeding.
GROUNDS
1. Errors of law in the judgment which requires no further
proceedings; or 2. Errors of fact in the judgment which requires no
further proceedings (Sec. 3, Rule121).
NOTE: The principle underlying this rule is to afford the trial court
the opportunity to correct its own mistakes and to avoid
unnecessary appeals from being taken.
Q: MAY THE PROSECUTION APPEAL A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL?
A: GR: NO. The accused would be subjected to double jeopardy.
XPNs:
1. If the dismissal is made upon motion or with the express consent
of the accused;
XPNs to the XPN:
a. Insufficiency of the prosecution evidence; or
b. Violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial.
2. If the dismissal is not an acquittal or based upon consideration of
the evidence on the merits;
3. If the question is purely legal so that should the dismissal be
found incorrect, the case shall be remanded for further proceedings
to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused; and
4. If there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction, certiorari under Rule 65 may be
available.
a.1. Discuss Galman v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 72670, 12
September 1986.
August 21, 1983 – Ninoy Aquino was shot etc etc.
The President was constrained to create a Fact Finding Board to
investigate the treacherous assassination of the former senator. The
Board had 125 hearing days.
The Minority report was sent to the President 1 day ahead of the
Majority Report. Both the reports rejected the military version of
what happened and found that only the soldiers in the staircase
with Aquino could have possibly shot him and not Galman.
Minority Report – only 7 out of the 26 accused should be charged. 6
were on the service stairs with Aquino and General Luther Custodio
who was mainly responsible for the criminal plot.
Majority Report – all 26 should be charged for the double murder of
Rolando Galman and Ninoy Aquino
The task of the board was to determine the facts and circumstances
surrounding the death of Aquino. Marcos sent the Minority report
to the Tanodbayad for final resolution instead of the Majority
report.
Military version: Rolando Galman was the one who shot Aquino.
Galman being a communist-hired shooter.
Marcos, however, publicly stated that what happened was the
military version.
The result for trial of the Aquino-Galman murder case was pre-
determined by Marcos, as evidenced by the statements of Justice
Manuel Herrera when the case was reopened.
Marcos summoned to the Malacanang Justice Fernandez – the
Tanodbayan, Sandiganbayan Justice Pamaran. Present also at the
meeting were Justice Lazaro and Imelda Marcos.
The SECRET CONFERENCE held on January 10, 1982 – Marcos
personally ordered Pamaran to handle the case and dispose of it as
soon as possible.
Marcos’ original intention was to have the case dismissed
immediately and not go to trial, but after their meeting, the plan
was to have the trial and subsequently acquit all the accused so that
they can the protection that double jeopardy provides and to
protect all those involved even after Marcos is not president
anymore.
Justice Manuel Herrera did a tell-all of the secret conference.
Marcos had stage-managed in and from Malacanang the scripted
and pre-determined manner on how the Justices would handle the
Aquino-Galman case.
Pamaran penned the decision on the Aquino-Galman case as
ordered by Marcos. His defense was that it was a coincidence and
that cases are raffled to them, but all of the events that transpired
after the Jan. 10 secret conference proved otherwise. There are 3
justices in the 1st division of Sandiganbayan and it is suspicious that
it was still “raffled” to Pamaran and not the other 2 justices.
During the course of the trial, several supposed witnesses for the
Prosecution would disappear, with others getting kidnapped, and
the Japanese witness being prevented from giving testimony.
There was also a “war room” in the Sandiganbayan which was for
the President’s employees who were there to see to it that Marcos’
instructions will be complied with. There was also a brownout
during the time one of the witnesses was giving her testimony, +
other events which logically led to the conclusion that the
assassination was a conspiracy.
SC: The trial declared for the Aquino-Galman case is a sham trial and
that the pre-determined judgment of acquittal was unlawful and
void ab initio. There can be no double jeopardy since the judgment
has been declared void.
The biased Tanodbayan under the constant and pervasive
monitoring and pressure exerted by the authoritarian President to
assure the carrying out of his instructions. A dictated, coerced,
scripted verdict of acquittal is a VOID JUDGMENT which is NO
JUDGMENT AT ALL.
With the declaration of nullity, the cases must now be tried before
an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor.
The judgment in People v. Gen Luther Custodia is hereby nullified, a SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL
re-trial of the case is ordered.
GR: Notice of appeal should be served upon the adverse party or his
b. What is the period to move for a new trial or a counsel by personal service.
reconsideration?
XPN: If personal service cannot be made, through:
Period to file an MNT or MR
1. Registered mail; or
It should be filed with the trial court within 15 days from the
2. By substituted service pursuant to Secs. 7 and 8 of Rule 13 (Sec. 4,
promulgation of the judgment. If an appeal has already been
Rule122)
perfected, a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered
evidence maybe filed in the appellate court. 3. By publication, made in a newspaper of general circulation in the
vicinity once a week for a period not exceeding 30 days (Pamaran,
A new trial or reconsideration may be granted at any time before
2010).
the judgment of conviction becomes final:
NOTE: The appellee may waive his right to notice of appeal.
1. On motion of the accused; or
However, the appellate court may, in its discretion, entertain an
2. On motion of the court but with consent of the accused. appeal notwithstanding failure to give such notice if the interests of
justice so require (Sec. 5, Rule 122).
c. What is the period to appeal a judgment?
PERIOD TO WITHDRAW AN APPEAL
PERIOD TO TAKE AN APPEAL
1. An appellant may withdraw his appeal before the record has
It must be taken within 15 days from promulgation of judgment or
been forwarded by the clerk of court to the proper appellate court
from notice of final order appealed from (Sec. 6, Rule 122).
as provided by Sec. 8, Rule 122, in which case the judgment shall
d. Notice of appeal. become final (Sec. 12, Rule 122).

Appeals shall be taken before the: 2. The court may also, in its discretion, allow the appellant to
withdraw his appeal, provided a motion to that effect is filed before
1. RTC, in cases decided by the MTC, MTCC, MeTC, or MCTC; 2. CA the rendition of the judgment in the case on appeal (Sec. 12, Rule
or to the SC in the proper cases provided by law, in cases decided by 122).
the RTC; 3. SC, in cases decided by the CA (Sec. 2, Rule122); 4. SC, in
cases decided by CTA en banc (Sec. 1 Rule 116 A.M. No. 05-11-07-
CTA); 5. SC, in cases decided by Sandiganbayan (Sec. 1 Rule 45).