CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1. Features stated in Art.

2, RPC

Rule 110 PROSECUTION of Offenses

à Cognizable by proper court in which charge is first filed

1. General Rule: MTC and RTC courts gain jurisdiction over the offense upon the filing of
1. Continuing crimes committed in different judicial regions
complaint by a complainant or an information by the prosecuting officer
2. Offenses wherein any of the essential elements were committed in different territorial
jurisdictions
à Court gains jurisdiction over the person of the accused upon arrest or surrender; such
3. Offenses committed aboard a train, vehicle, aircraft or vessel (see R110, §15)
jurisdiction once gained cannot be lost even if accused escapes (Gimenez vs. Nazareno)

à Jurisdiction of the court over the offense is determined at the time of the institution of the i. Railroad, train, aircraft
action and is retained even if the penalty for the offense is later lowered or raised (People vs.

Lagon) (1) Territory or municipality where vehicle passed

(2) Place of departure

2. Complaint – sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the

offended party, any peace officer or other public official charged with the enforcement of the law (3) Place of arrival
violated
ii. Vessel
Information – accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the fiscal and

filed with the court. (1) First port of entry

3. Complaint and Information distinguished:
Complaint Information (2) Thru which it passed during voyage

A sworn statement Need not be sworn to

Subscribed by the offended party, any
peace officer or other officer charged
with the enforcement of the law
violated
May be filed either with the court or in
the fiscal’s office generally to
commence the preliminary
investigation of the charges made
4. Cases where civil courts of equal rank are vested with concurrent jurisdiction:
e. Libel and written defamation
5. Remedies of offended party when fiscal unreasonably refuses to file an information or include
Subscribed to by the fiscal
a person therein as an accused
1. In case of grave abuse of discretion, action for mandamus
Filed with the court 2. Lodge a new complaint against the offenders
3. Take up matter with the Secretary of Justice
4. Institute administrative charges against the erring fiscal
5. File criminal charges under Art. 208, RPC (prosecution of offenses)
 6. File civil action under Art. 27, NCC for damages (PO refuses or neglects to perform official c. In Metropolitan Trial Courts
duty)
7. Secure appointment of another fiscal à By filing the complaint ONLY with the office of the fiscal

8. Institute another criminal action if no double jeopardy is involved

à In all 3 above cases, such institution shall interrupt the period of prescription of the offense

6. Writs of injunction or prohibition to restrain a criminal prosecution are not available, EXCEPT charged (Rule 110, §1)

1. To afford adequate protection to constitutional rights of accused
2. Necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of
actions
3. Pre-judicial question which is sub judice
d. Offenses subject to summary procedure
[i.e. (1) violation of traffic laws; (2) violation of rental laws; (3) violation of municipal or city
ordinances; and (4) criminal cases where the penalty does not exceed 6 months or fine of P1000

4. Acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties and civil liabilities]

5. Prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation

à The complaint or information shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior preliminary
6. Double jeopardy is clearly apparent
examination or preliminary investigation.
7. Court has no jurisdiction over the case
8. Case of persecution rather than prosecution
à Zaldivia vs. Reyes – since a criminal case covered by the Rules of Summary Procedure shall be
9. Charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance
deemed commenced only when it is filed in court, then the running of the prescriptive period
10. Clearly no prima facie case against the accused and MTQ on that ground had been denied
shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed in court and not on any date before that.

7. Institution of Criminal Actions: à Reodica vs. CA – [clarifies Zaldivia above] Under Art. 91 of the RPC, the period of prescription

shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information. It does not distinguish whether
a. In RTC:
the complaint is filed for preliminary examination or investigation only, or for an action on the

à By filing a complaint with the appropriate officer for the purpose of conducting requisite
preliminary investigation therein.
b. In Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts:
merits. Thus, the filing of the complaint even with the fiscal’s office should suspend the running
of the Statute of Limitations. The ruling in Zaldivia is not applicable to all cases subject to the
Rules on Summary Procedure, since that particular case involved a violation of an ordinance.
Therefore, the applicable law therein was not Art. 91 of the RPC, but Act No. 3326 (“An Act to

Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances
à By filing the complaint or information directly with said courts, or a complaint with the fiscal’s
and to Provide when Prescription Shall Begin to Run”), §2 of which provides that period of
office
prescription is suspended only when judicial proceedings are instituted against the guilty party.
8. Contents of information à A significant discrepancy in the time alleged cannot be sustained since such would allow the

prosecution to prove an offense distantly removed from the alleged date, thus substantially
a. Name of the accused
impairing the rights of the accused to be informed of the charges against him (People vs. Reyes)

à Information may be amended as to the name of the accused, but such amendment cannot be
f. Place of commission
questioned for the first time on appeal (People vs. Guevarra)

à Conviction may be had even if it appears that the crime was committed not at the place
à Error of name of the offended party: if material to the case, it necessarily affects the
alleged, provided that the place of actual commission was within the court’s jurisdiction and
identification of the act charged. Conviction for robbery cannot be sustained if there is a
accused was not surprised by the variance between the proof and the information
variance between the allegation and the proof as to the ownership of the property stolen.

à Qualifying and inherent aggravating circumstances need to be alleged as they are integral parts
b. Designation of offense by statute (or of section/subsection of statute violated)
of the crime. If proved, but not alleged, become only generic aggravating circumstances.

à Only one offense charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes a single punishment for various
9. Amendment of information and Substitution of information, distinguished
offenses.

Substitution
Amendment
à If facts do not completely allege all the elements of the crime charged, the info may be

quashed; however, the prosecution is allowed to amend the info to include the necessary facts Involves either formal or substantial changes Necessarily involves a substantial change

(People vs. Purisima) Needs leave of court as original information

Without leave of court if before plea has to be dismissed

c. Acts or omissions complained of constituting the offense Where only as to form, there is no need for
another preliminary investigation and
retaking of plea of accused
à Information need only allege facts, not include all the evidence which may be used to prove
Refers to the same offense charged or which
such facts (Balitaan vs. CFI) necessarily includes or is necessarily
included in original charges, hence,
substantial amendments to info after plea
d. Name of offended party taken cannot be made over objections of
accused for if original info is withdrawn,
e. Approximate time of commission accused could invoke double jeopardy
Another preliminary investigation is entailed
and accused has to plead anew
Requires or presupposes that new info
involves a different offense which does not
include or is not included in the original
charge, hence, accused cannot claim double
jeopardy

à Approximation of time is sufficient; amendment as to time is only a formal amendment; no 10. After plea, amendment only as to matters of form, provided
need to dismiss case (People vs. Molero)
1. Leave of court is obtained; and
 2. Amendment is not prejudicial to rights of accused à If offended party who is a minor fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents or

guardian may do so.

11. When amendment is only as to form

à In crimes against chastity, the consent of the victim is a jurisdictional requirement–retraction

1. Neither affects or alters nature of offense charged
renders the information void (People vs. Ocapan)
2. Charge does not deprive accused of a fair opportunity to present his defense
3. Does not involve a change in basic theory of prosecution
à If complexed with a public crime, the provincial fiscal may sign the complaint on his own

12. Exceptions to rule on venue

c. Defamation (consisting of imputation of offenses in [a] or [b])

1. Felonies in Art. 2, RPC (cognizable by proper court in which charge is first filed)
à Complainant must be offended party
2. Continuing offenses
3. Piracy which is triable anywhere à The offended party may intervene in the prosecution of the criminal case because of her
4. Libel (residence; or where first published) interest in it (Banal vs. Tadeo)
5. In exceptional cases, to ensure fair trial and impartial inquiry
14. Procedure
13. Special cases (who may prosecute)
1. Complaint filed in MTC or info filed in RTC where an essential ingredient of the crime took
a. Adultery and concubinage place (territorial jurisdiction)
1. Amendment as a matter of right before plea
à Only offended spouse can be complainant
2. Amendment upon discretion of the court after plea

à Both guilty parties must be included in complaint à Inclusion of other accused is only a formal amendment which would not be prejudicial to the

accused and should be allowed (People vs. CA)

b. Crimes against chastity
d. After plea and before judgment, if it appears there was a mistake in charging proper offense,
à With consent of the offended party, offended spouse, grandparents, guardian, or state court shall dismiss original info upon the filing of a corrected one, provided that the accused will
as parens patriae, in that order not be placed in double jeopardy (substitution)

à Offended party, even if minor, has right to initiate the prosecution of the case independently of à Fiscal determines direction of prosecution; complainant must ask fiscal if he wants to dismiss
parents, grandparents or guardian, unless she is incompetent/incapable on grounds other than the case; the motion to dismiss must be addressed to the court which has discretion over the
minority. disposition of the case (Republic vs. Sunga)
à Objection to the amendment of an information or complaint must be raised at the time the à Article 32 is a valid cause of a civil action for damages against public officers who impair the

amendment is made; otherwise, deemed to have consented thereto. Constitutional rights of citizens (Aberca vs. Ver)

15. Remedies à Even if the private prosecutor participates in the prosecution, if he is not given the chance to

prove damages, the offended party is not barred from filing a separate civil action
a. Motion to quash

2. Civil action for recovery of civil liability impliedly instituted, EXCEPT

à May be filed after arraignment but before plea on the grounds provided by the rules (generally,

a flaw in the info) 1. Waiver

2. Reservation of right to institute separate action
à If duplicity of offense charged is not raised in trial through a motion to quash info, the right to 3. Institution of civil action prior to criminal action
question it is waived (People vs. Ocapan) à NOTE: Under SC Circular 57-97, all criminal actions for violations of BP Blg. 22 shall be deemed

to necessarily include the corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file such civil action
b. Motion to dismiss
separately shall be allowed or recognized.

à May be filed after plea but before judgment on most of grounds for motion to quash à San Ildefonso Lines vs. CA – past pronouncements of the SC that the requirement in Rule 111

that a reservation be made prior to the institution of an independent civil action is an

16. Duplicity of Offense (in information or complaint)
“unauthorized amendment” to substantive law is now no longer controlling. Far from altering

à Defined as the joinder of separate and distinct offenses in one and the same substantive rights, the primary purpose of the reservation requirement is to avoid multiplicity of

information/complaint suits, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, to simplify the work of the trial court, and in

short, the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to parties-litigants.
à Remedy: file a motion to quash; failure is equivalent to a waiver
3. Civil action suspended when criminal action filed, EXCEPT
à Exception: when existing laws prescribe a single punishment (complex crimes)
1. Independent civil action (Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of NCC)
Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Action 2. Prejudicial civil action
3. Civil case consolidated with criminal action
1. General Rule: The injured party may file a civil action independent of the criminal proceeding
4. Civil action not one intended to enforce civil liability arising from the offense (e.g., action
to recover damages from the offender.
for legal separation against a spouse who committed concubinage)

4. Prejudicial question arises when

 1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the 7. Filing fees:
criminal action
1. Actual or compensatory damages – filing fees not required
2. The resolution of such issue will determine whether the criminal action will proceed or not
2. Moral, temperate and exemplary – filing fees required
à Requisites for a prejudicial question: 1. If alleged, fees must be paid by offended party upon filing of complaint or information
1. If not alleged, filing fees considered a first lien on the judgment
1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
criminal action: and
Rule 112 Preliminary Investigation
2. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed

1. Preliminary investigation – inquiry or proceeding to determine if there is sufficient ground to

à Petition for suspension of criminal action is to be filed at any time before prosecution rests.
engender a well-founded belief that a crime cognizable by the RTC has been committed, and that

5. Remedies the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial

a. Reservation of right to institute separate civil proceedings to recover civil liability arising from à A preliminary investigation is only necessary for an information to be filed with the RTC;

crime complaints may be filed with the MTC without need of an information, which is merely

recommendatory (Tandoc vs. Resultan)

à Must be made before prosecution presents evidence
à Absence of a preliminary investigation is NOT a ground for a motion to quash the information;

à Action instituted only after final judgment in criminal action an information filed without a preliminary investigation is defective but not fatal; in its absence,

the accused may ask for one; it is the fiscal’s refusal to conduct a preliminary investigation when
b. Petition to suspend the criminal action the accused demands one which is a violation of the rights of the accused (Doromal vs.

Sandiganbayan). Court should not dismiss the info, but hold the case in abeyance and either: (1)
à May be filed upon existence of a prejudicial question in a pending civil action
conduct its own investigation; or (2) require the fiscal to hold a reinvestigation.

à Filed at any time before the prosecution rests 2. GENERAL RULE: The fiscal conducts the preliminary investigation before filing an information

with the RTC, EXCEPT where the accused is lawfully arrested without a warrant and an inquest is
6. Extinction of penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil unless the extinction
conducted.
proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did

not exist. 3. Right to Preliminary Investigation

à Final judgment in civil absolving defendant from civil liability not a bar to criminal action à A personal right and may be waived
à Waived by failure to invoke the right prior to or at least at the time of the plea à Prima facie evidence is that evidence which, standing alone, unexplained and uncontradicted,

would be enough to merit a conviction of the accused

4. Who conducts Preliminary Investigation

iv. Otherwise, he recommends the dismissal of the complaint

1. Provincial or city fiscals and their assistants
2. Judges of MTC and MCTC à If the investigating officer is an MTC judge, and he finds that probable cause exists and that
3. National and regional state prosecutors there is a need to place the accused under custody, then he may issue a warrant of arrest
4. Such other officers as may be authorized by law
5. Duly authorized legal officers of COMELEC à Flores vs. Sumaling – What differentiates the present rule from the previous one is that while
1. The Ombudsman before, it was mandatory for the investigating judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the
2. The PCGG, in cases of ill-gotten wealth accused if he found probable cause, the rule now is that the investigating judge’s power to order

the arrest of the accused is limited to instances in which there is a necessity for placing him in
5. Procedure
custody “in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.” It is therefore error for the investigating

a. If conducted prior to arrest judge to order the issuance of a warrant of arrest solely on his finding of probable cause, without

making any finding of a necessity to place the accused in immediate custody to prevent a
i. Complainant files complaint with
frustration of justice.
1. Investigating officer forwards records to the city fiscal or chief state prosecutor
(a) Provincial or city fiscal
1. City fiscal or state prosecutor either dismisses the complaint or files the information

(b) Regional or state prosecutor in court

(c) MTC or MCTC judge, excluding MTC judge of Metro Manila or chartered cities à Decision prevails over decision of the MTC judge

(d) Other offices authorized by law vii. Records will not form records of the case proper

1. Investigating officer either dismisses complaint or asks by subpoena complainant and
respondent to submit affidavits and counter-affidavits
1. If the investigating officer finds prima facie evidence, he prepares an information
and a resolution
à i.e., if fiscal finds reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and accused
is probably guilty thereof
à Court on its own or on motion may order production of record
b. If conducted after warrantless arrest
1. If accused waives Art. 125, RPC and asks for a preliminary investigation, with the assistance
of counsel, then the procedure for one prior to arrest is followed
1. Inquest conducted as follows
(a) Fiscal determines the validity of the arrest à Filed upon denial of his motion for a preliminary investigation, on the ground that his rights to

due process of law were violated, ousting the court of jurisdiction

(b) Fiscal determines existence of prima facie evidence based on the statements of the

complainant, arresting officer and witnesses e. Petition for prohibition

(c) Fiscal either dismisses the complaint and orders the immediate release of the accused, OR à Filed with appellate court to stop the criminal proceedings

prepares and files an information

à Ordinarily, injunction will not lie but may be granted in certain cases

à While fiscal has quasi-judicial discretion whether or not to file an information, once it is filed
à When prohibition proper to restrain criminal proceedings:
with the court, the court acquires jurisdiction giving it discretion over the disposition of the case

and the Sec. of Justice should refrain from entertaining petitions for review or appeals from the 1. When strong-arm tactics are used for vindictive purposes (Salonga vs. Cruz-Pano)
decision of fiscal (Crespo vs. Mogul; Velasquez vs. Undersecretary of Justice) 2. When the accused is deprived of his rights
NOTE: Information may be filed by offended party, peace officer or fiscal without preliminary 3. When the statute on which the charge is based is null and void

investigation. 4. When it will aid the administration of justice (Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan)
5. When multiplicity of suits will be avoided (Guingona vs. City Fiscal)
6. Remedies

Rule 113 Arrest

a. Motion for preliminary investigation
1. Arrest – taking a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the
à Filed when accused is arrested without warrant commission of some offense, made by an actual restraint of the person or by his submission to

custody
à Must be with assistance of counsel and after waiving Art. 125, RPC

2. General Rule: No person may be arrested without a warrant.

b. Motion for preliminary investigation

à Not all persons detained are arrested; only those detained to answer for an offense.
à Filed within 5 days after accused learns an information against him has been filed without a

preliminary investigation à “Invitations” are not arrests and are usually not unconstitutional, but in some cases may be

taken as commands (Babst vs. NBI); however, the practice of issuing an “invitation” to a person
c. Motion for re-investigation
who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed is considered

d. Appeal to DOJ as placing him under “custodial investigation.” (RA 7438)

à Warrants of arrest remain valid until arrest is effected, or the warrant is lifted (2) Witness must be under oath

à Arrest may be made at any time of the day or night (3) Examination must be reduced to writing (Luna vs. Plaza)

à In determining probable cause, the judge may rely on findings by responsible officer (Lim vs.
3. Warrantless arrests by a peace officer or a private person
Felix)

a. When person to be arrested is committing, attempting or has committed an offense

iii. Judge issues warrant of arrest

b. When an offense has just been committed and the person making the arrest has personal
à If without preliminary examination, considered irregular (Bagcal vs. Villaraza)
knowledge that the person to be arrested committed it

iv. If peace officer is unable to serve warrant 10 days after issuance, he must file a report and
à Warrantless arrest anytime for a continuing offense like rebellion, subversion (Umil vs. Ramos)
explanation with judge within 10 days
à The continuing crime, not the crime finally charged, needs only be the cause of the arrest (Umil

vs. Ramos) v. If warrant served

c. When person to be arrested is an escaped detainee (either serving sentence or with case (1) Person informed that he is being arrested

pending)
(2) Informed of cause of his arrest
1. When a person lawfully arrested escapes
(3) Officer may break door or window if admission to building is refused
2. Bondsman, for purpose of surrendering the accused
3. Accused attempts to leave country without court permission
(4) Person physically restrained

4. Procedure
à For private citizens making an arrest

a. With warrant
à May not do so except to do some service to humanity or justice

1. Complainant files application with affidavits attached

(5) No violence or unnecessary force may be used
2. Judge conducts ex parte preliminary examination to determine probable cause

(6) Officer may summon assistance

à In determining probable cause, judge must:

(7) Person who escapes after arrest may be immediately pursued

(1) Personally examine witness
vi. Person arrested is brought to nearest police station or jail à If an arrest is improper, the remedy is a motion for quashal of the warrant of arrest and/or a

motion to quash the information, not habeas corpus (Ilagan vs. Enrile)
b. Without warrant:
à Habeas corpus is no longer available after an information has been filed, the information being

1. Person is arrested the judicial process required by law (Ilagan vs. Enrile)

1. Person arrested may waive right to Art. 125, RPC and ask for preliminary
investigation or inquest
à Fiscal is not judicial authority contemplated under Art. 125 (Sayo vs. Chief of Police)
1. Fiscal files info
à Habeas corpus is proper when a person is being restrained illegally, e.g., imprisoned past
maximum penalty allowed by law (Gumabon vs. Director of Prisons)
b. Quashal of warrant of arrest

à Filed with court which issued the warrant of arrest when the warrant of arrest is fatally flawed
5. Requisites for a warrant of arrest:

1. Probable cause c. Motion to quash information

2. Signed by judge
à Filed with court when information against the person arrested has been filed
3. Specifically naming or particularly and sufficiently describing person to be arrested

à John Doe warrants are void for being general warrants (Pangandaman vs. Cesar) à Must be made in a “special appearance” before the court questioning only its lack of

jurisdiction over the person of the accused

6. Remedies

à Otherwise, the voluntary appearance of the person arrested by filing a motion before the court
a. Petition for writ of habeas corpus
would be deemed a submission to the authority of the court, thus granting it whatever jurisdiction

à Filed with any court, to effect immediate release of the person detained it lacked over the person

à Filed when a person is being illegally detained (without judicial process), or was illegally à Any irregularity in the arrest is cured when the petitioner submits himself to the jurisdiction of

arrested (void warrant or unlawful warrantless arrest, or warrantless arrest beyond period with no the court, e.g., by filing for bail (Bagcal vs. Villaraza)

information filed)
7. V.V. Mendoza, “Rights to Counsel in Custodial Investigation”
à Habeas corpus is not allowed when:
1. The person is in custody of an officer under process of law, and à Evolution of rights of the accused under custodial investigation
2. The court had jurisdiction to issue the process (Luna vs. Plaza)
1. All involuntary confession were inadmissible; accused had to prove involuntariness
1. Involuntary confessions were inadmissible only if they were false
 2. Revert to exclusionary rule: any involuntary confession is inadmissible
1. Miranda rule: the accused must be informed of his rights
1. To remain silent
2. Against self-incrimination
3. To counsel
4. Definition of custodial investigation questioned
1. It begins only after arrest
2. Police investigations prior to arrest are not covered
3. The rights may be waived, but the rights to be informed of these
rights, i.e., to warning, may not be waived
4. Warning must not only be said, officer must make sure the
person arrested understands them specifically
5. Present rules
1. Voluntary confessions are admissible
2. Test of voluntariness determined on a case-to-case basis
3. Waiver of rights must not only be with counsel but must
be in writing
à Confessions made without assistance of counsel are inadmissible as evidence to incriminate the
accused, but they may be used to impeach the credibility of the accused, or they may be treated
as verbal admission of the accused through the testimony of the witnesses (People vs. Molas)
Rule 114 Bail
1. Bail – security given for the release of a person in custody of law, furnished by him or a
bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any court as required under the following
conditions:
1. Undertaking effective upon approval and remains in force at all stages until promulgation
of judgment, unless sooner cancelled
2. Accused shall appear before court when required
3. Failure to appear despite notice to him or the bondsman will waive his right to be present
and trial shall proceed in absentia
4. Bondsman shall surrender accused for execution of judgment
à Bail applies to all persons detained, not just to those charged with the offense (Herras vs.
Teehankee)
à Court has power to prohibit person out on bail from leaving the country (Manotoc, Jr. vs. CA)
à Bail implies delivery of the accused to the sureties who, though not holding him prisoner, may
seize him and imprison him until they can deliver him to court (US vs. Bonoan)
2. General Rule: All persons are entitled to bail as a matter of right, except those charged with
capital offenses.
à Right to bail traditionally unavailable to military personnel facing court martial, who are not in
the same class as civilians (Comendador vs. de Villa)
à Bail should be available regardless of other circumstances or the merits of the case, if the
health or the life of the detainee is in danger (Dela Rama vs. People’s Court)
à Excessive bail is tantamount to denial of bail, which is unconstitutional (Dela Camara vs. Enage)
3. When bail is a matter of right
à Before or after conviction by MTC, MCTC, MJC
à Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment
4. When bail is discretionary (application filed with court where case is pending)
1. Upon conviction by RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment
2. Provisional liberty under same circs. but during period to appeal subject to consent of
bondsman
 3. In case he has applied for probation after final judgment, he may be allowed temporary à In capital crimes, judge’s discretion is limited to determining strength of evidence and does not
liberty under his bail or recognizance cover determining whether bail should be allowed (Herras vs. Teehankee)

à Evidence must be strong that the accused is guilty of the capital offense charged, not just of
5. Procedure
any offense (Bernardez vs. Valera)

a. Offense charged is not capital: 6. Bail bond – an obligation under seal given by accused with one or more sureties and made

payable to proper officer with the condition to be void upon performance by the accused of such
i. Accused applies for bail
acts as he may legally be required to perform

(1) Where information against him was filed or where case is pending
7. Recognizance

(2) Absent (1), in another branch of the same court within the province or city where he is held
1. Obligation of record entered into before some court of magistrate duly authorized to take
it, with the condition to do some particular act, the most usual condition in criminal cases
(3) If arrested in another province, city or municipality, file with the RTC
being the appearance of the accused for trial

(4) Absent (3), with the MTC 2. Does not require signature of accused for trial
3. Does not require signature of accused to be valid
1. Judge sets bail
8. Prosecution witnesses may be required to post bail to ensure their appearance at the
1. Accused may move to reduce bail, and hearing will be set
trial, except:
2. Accused posts bail and deposits the same with the Municipal/City/Provincial
1. Substitution of info (see R110, §14)
Treasurer or, if cash, with the Collector of Internal Revenue
2. Court believes that material witness may not appear at the trial
3. Accused is released

9. When bail required under RA 6036 (violation of ordinance, light felony, criminal offense – not
b. Offense charged is capital:
higher that 6 month imprisonment and/or P2000 fine, or both)

1. Accused petitions for bail

1. a. Caught in flagrante
2. Judge sets hearing to determine whether evidence of guilt is strong
2. Confessed to commission of offense unless repudiated (force and intimidation)
à Ex-parte hearing on bail is arbitrary and unacceptable (Herras vs. Teehankee)
3. Previously escaped, evaded sentence or jumped bail
1. Prosecution presents evidence
4. Violation of Sec. 2 (fails to report to clerk of court periodically under his recognizance)
1. Court may not force fiscal to produce evidence (Herras vs. Teehankee)
5. Recidivist, habitual delinquent previously convicted for an offense to which the law or
2. If evidence is strong, bail is denied
ordinance attaches an equal or greater penalty or for 2 or more offenses to which it
1. Otherwise, judge sets bail and procedure for non-capital offense is followed
attaches a lighter penalty
 6. Committed offense while on parole or under conditional pardon
7. Previously pardoned by municipal or city mayor for violation of ordinance for at least 2
times
10. Instances when accused may be released on recognizance:
1. Offense charged is a violation of an ordinance, a light felony or criminal offense the
imposable penalty to which does not exceed 6 months and or P2000 fine
2. Person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the
imposable principal penalty, without application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any
modifying circumstance
3. Accused has applied for probation and before the same has been resolved, but NO BAIL was
filed or accused is incapable of filing one
4. Youthful offender held for physical and mental examination, trial or appeal, if unable to
furnish bail
11. Cancellation of bail
a. Upon application with the court and due notice to the fiscal
1. Accused surrenders back to custody
1. Accused dies
b. Automatic cancellation
1. Case is dismissed
1. Accused is acquitted
2. Accused is convicted and surrenders for execution of judgment
12. When bail cancelled or denied: after RTC imposes imprisonment exceeding 6 years, but not
more than 20 years, and:
1. Accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual delinquent or guilty of the aggravating
circumstance of reiteration;
2. Provisionally escaped, evaded sentence, violated provisions of bail;
3. Committed offense while on probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
4. Probability of flight; or
5. Undue risk that during appeal, he may commit another crime
13. When bail is forfeited
a. Accused fails to appear before court when required
à 30 days for bondsman to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against him
b. Bondsman fails to produce him within 30 days
c. Bondsman fails to satisfactorily explain to the court why accused did not appear when first
required to do so
à Sureties guarantee only appearance of the accused, not his conduct (US vs. Bonoan)
à Sureties exonerated if appearance made impossible by an act of God, the obligee or the law (US
vs. Bonoan)
14. Provisional forfeiture
1. Within 30 days, produce the body or give reason for non-production AND
2. Explain satisfactorily the absence of the accused when first required to appear
15. Remedies
1. Application for bail, when bail can be availed of as a matter of right
2. Petition for bail, when the offense charged is a capital offense
à For judge to set hearing for the determination of strength of evidence of guilt à In an appeal from a conviction, the accused shall again be presumed innocent until and unless

his conviction is affirmed (Castillo vs. Felix)

16. Circumstances to be considered in fixing amount of bail:

b. To be informed of the nature and cause of charges

1. Financial ability of accused to give bail;
2. Nature and circumstances of offense; à The right must be substantially complied with; arraignment and later proceedings must be in a
3. Penalty of offense charged; language the accused understands (People vs. Crisologo)
4. Character and reputation of accused;
5. Age and health of accused c. To be present at every stage of proceedings, subject to waiver by bail
6. Weight of evidence against accused
à If an accused escapes, he waives this right and merits a trial in absentia; the accused forfeits
7. Probability of accused appearing for trial;
8. Forfeiture of other bonds; his rights to be notified of proceedings in the future and to adduce evidence in his behalf (People

9. Fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and vs. Salas)

10. Pendency of other cases in which the accused is under bond 1. To testify as witness on his own behalf, subject to cross-examination on matters covered by
direct examination; not to be prejudiced by his silence
17. Notes: 2. Not to be compelled to be a witness against himself
3. To confront and examine the witnesses against him, including the right to use in evidence
1. Posting bail waives the right to question any irregularity attending the arrest of a person
testimony of a witness
(Callanta vs. Villanueva). However, this does not result in waiver of the inadmissibility of
4. Who is deceased, out of or cannot with due diligence be found in the RP
the articles seized incidentally to such illegal arrest.
1. Given in another proceeding
2. Accused waived the right to question any irregularity in the conduct of the preliminary
2. With the same parties
investigation when he failed to do so before entering his plea (People vs. Dela Cerna)
3. Same subject matter
3. Accused out on bail may be re-arrested if he attempts to depart from the Philippines
4. Opportunity to cross-examine
without prior court permission (warrantless arrest allowed).
à Prosecution has no privilege to withhold the identity of informers when such informer was

crucial in the operation itself; failure to present the informer is a denial of the right to confront
Rule 115 Rights of Accused
the witness which merits the reversal of the conviction (People vs. Bagano)

1. Right of the accused under the Rules

g. To have compulsory process to secure witnesses and evidence in his behalf

a. To be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt

h. To have a speedy, impartial and public trial
à Unreasonable postponements of trial amounts to a denial of the right to a speedy trial, entitling 2. First jeopardy attached and terminated

the accused to mandamus to compel dismissal of the case, or to habeas corpus if he is detained 3. Valid complaint or information
1. Competent court with jurisdiction
i. To have the right of appeal 2. Accused had pleaded
3. Action ended in conviction, acquittal or termination without the consent of the
2. Rights of the accused under the Constitution
accused

a. To due process
c. Offense charged in later case is:

b. Against self-incrimination
1. Same as that in previous case
1. Necessarily includes or is included in the previous case
à Right is limited to testimonies; ocular inspection of the body may be allowed (Villaflor vs.
2. An attempt or frustration of the offense in previous case
Summers)
1. An offense lesser than that charged to which the accused pleaded guilty with
à Being informed of rights means a meaningful transmission of information, without which
the consent of the fiscal and the offended party
confession made by the accused is inadmissible (People vs. Nicandro)

à Confessions obtained through coercion are inadmissible (People vs. Opida)
à Right against self-incrimination and to counsel do not apply during custodial investigation
(People vs. Ayson)
4. Exceptions to double jeopardy
1. The offense was made graver by supervening events
2. The facts constituting the graver offense were only discovered after the filing of the earlier

à During trial, the right against self-incrimination takes the following form: information

à No double jeopardy if the new fact which justified the new charge arose only after arraignment
1. Accused may refuse to testify
and conviction (People vs. City Court)
2. If he testifies, he may refuse to answer those questions which may incriminate him in
à No double jeopardy where the trial was a sham since there was no competent court (Galman vs.
ANOTHER offense
Sandiganbayan)

c. Against double jeopardy à No double jeopardy if first case was dismissed with consent of the accused (Caes vs. IAC)

à There is double jeopardy if a person is charged twice under different penal statutes for the
d. To be heard by himself and counsel same acts (People vs. Relova)

3. Double jeopardy c. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense without the consent of the fiscal and the offended party

1. First jeopardy must have attached prior to the first

5. Remedies à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 17

1. Motion to quash No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

2. Motion to dismiss
à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 21
à Both filed on the ground of violation of accused’s rights, thereby ousting the court of
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
jurisdiction

If an act is punished by a law or ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a
6. NOTES:
bar to another prosecution for the same act.
à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1
Rule 116 Arraignment and Plea
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any
1. Procedure
person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

1. Court informs accused of his right to counsel and asks him if he wants one
à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14
2. Court appoints counsel de oficio if accused has none
1. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
à If no such member of the available, any person who is a resident of the province, of good
2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations repute for probity and ability to defend accused

against him, to have a speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to
c. Court gives counsel time to confer with accused at least an hour before arraignment
face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf. à Period allowed for counsel de oficio to confer with accused must be substantially complied

with; if not, case may be remanded for re-arraignment (People vs. Gonzaga)
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
1. Accused given a copy of the information, which is read to him in a language he understands
provided that he has been duly notified and that his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
2. Accused is asked whether he pleads guilty or not guilty

à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 16 3. Accused files a motion to quash or makes plea
4. Accused personally makes his plea
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi- 5. Plea is entered into record
judicial, or administrative bodies. 6. If accused makes plea of not guilty, counsel has at least 2 days to prepare for trial
à People vs. Agbayani – the right for 2 days to prepare must be expressly demanded. Only when à Court requires prosecution to present evidence to prove guilt of accused and determine his

so demanded does denial thereof constitute reversible error and ground for new trial. Further, degree of culpability, and accused may still establish presence of mitigating circumstances in his

such right may be waived, expressly or impliedly. favor

à NOTE, HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98 (implementing “Speedy Trial Act of 1997”), accused f. Guilty to a non-capital offense

must be given at least 15 days to prepare for trial, which shall commence within 30 days from
à Court receives evidence from the parties to determine penalty to impose
receipt of Pre-Trial Order.

à Plea of guilty not necessarily followed by conviction. Upon receipt of exculpatory evidence (if
j. Case proceeds to pre-trial, trial or hearing, depending on the plea
accused pleaded guilty), trial court should consider the plea withdrawn and in its place, order the

à Statement in the judgment that the accused was arraigned and pleaded is sufficient; the plea of not guilty

manner of statement of such fact is immaterial (People vs. Cariaga)

à Plea of guilty waives only defects which may be taken advantage of by motion to quash or by

2. Kinds of plea plea in abatement; cannot cure jurisdictional defects.

1. No plea – a plea of not guilty shall be entered 3. Effects

2. Conditional plea of guilt – a plea of not guilty shall be entered
3. Not guilty – case proceeds to trial or pre-trial a. Entry of plea will waive

4. Guilty to a lesser offense – if fiscal and offended party consents, conviction under offense
1. Right to question illegality of the arrest
charged for purposes of double jeopardy
2. Right to question any irregularity in the preliminary investigation
5. Info may be amended
3. Right to file a motion to quash
1. Case goes to trial
2. Even if info is not amended, and even if lesser offense is not included in offense b. Improvident plea of guilty may be changed to not guilty any time before judgment is rendered
charged, court may still find the accused guilty of that lesser offense
c. A plea of not guilty may not be changed to guilty, as doing so would only spare the
e. Guilty to a capital offense prosecution of presenting evidence and still result in the conviction of the accused.

à Court conducts searching inquiry to determine if accused was aware of the charges, of his plea, 4. Remedies
and its consequences
a. Motion for specification
à May be filed any time before plea, even after a MTQ 3. Extinction of the offense or of the penalty
4. Double jeopardy
à Filed when the information is insufficient in form or is generally worded, that a Bill of

Particulars is necessary to clarify the acts for which the accused is being charged 3. Grounds

b. Motion to quash a. Information does not conform to prescribed form

à May be filed at anytime before plea is entered à For the info to charge a complex crime, it is not necessary that it be defined by law, only that

it alleges that one offense was necessary to commit the other (People vs. Alagao)
à Based on grounds provided by the rules
b. Court has no jurisdiction
c. Motion to suspend arraignment
1. No territorial jurisdiction
à Filed when the accused seems mentally unsound or if there is a prejudicial question in a 2. No jurisdiction over offense charged may be raised at any time; no waiver considered
pending civil case even upon failure to move to quash on such ground
3. No jurisdiction over person of the accused
d. Motion to withdraw an improvident plea of guilt
à The court gained jurisdiction over the person of the accused when he voluntarily appeared for

à May be filed at any time before judgment of conviction becomes final, when it can be shown the pre-suspension hearing (Layosa vs. Rodriguez)

that the accused was not aware of the significance of pleading guilty to the charges
c. Accused would be put in double jeopardy

Rule 117 Motion to Quash

à Bars another prosecution
1. Motion to quash – a hypothetical admission that even if all the facts alleged were true, the

accused still cannot be convicted due to other reasons à No waiver

2. When to file Motion to Quash à No double jeopardy if first case was dismissed with the consent of the accused (Que vs. Cosico),

unless ground for dismissal is: (a) denial of right to speedy trial; or (b) insufficiency of evidence.
General Rule: Before entering plea; all grounds not raised deemed waived
à If the first case was dismissed due to a deficient information, then there was no valid

Exception: The following grounds may be used in MTQ even after plea information and there could be no double jeopardy (Caniza vs. People)

1. No offense charged à Cudia vs CA – it should be the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga, not the City Prosecutor, who

2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged should prepare informations for offenses committed within Pampanga but outside Angeles City.
An information must be prepared and presented by the prosecuting attorney or someone 4. Requisites of Double jeopardy

authorized by law. If not, the court does not acquire jurisdiction. Although failure to file a
a. Valid information or complaint, sufficient in form and substance
motion to quash the information is a waiver of all objections to it insofar as formal objections to

pleadings are concerned, questions relating to want of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of b. Before court of competent jurisdiction
the proceedings. Moreover, since the complaint or information was insufficient because it was so

defective in form or substance that conviction upon it could not have been sustained, its dismissal à Doctrine of “Jurisdiction by Estoppel”: depends upon whether the lower court actually had

without the consent of the accused cannot be pleaded as prior jeopardy, and will not be a bar to jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory

a second prosecution. 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
d. More than one offense was charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes single punishment for estoppel’. However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided upon
various offenses a given theory, such, for instance, as that the court had no jurisdiction, the party who induced it

to adopt such theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position — that
e. Facts alleged do not constitute an offense
the lower court had jurisdiction. Here, the principle of estoppel applies. The rule that jurisdiction

à May be raised at any time is conferred by law, and does not depend upon the will of the parties, has no bearing thereon.

à No waiver c. Accused had pleaded

à For charge to be complete, it is necessary to state that it was exempted from any amnesty d. Conviction, acquittal, or dismissal or termination of case without consent of accused

existing at the time

e. Bar to offense charged, attempt to commit the same or necessarily includes or is necessarily

f. Criminal action or liability has been extinguished included

g. Information contains allegations which, if true, would be a legal excuse or justification à Conviction for physical injuries through reckless imprudence constitutes double jeopardy to the

charge of damage to property through reckless imprudence.

h. Officer who filed the information had no authority

5. Procedure
à Presentation of evidence cannot cure an invalid information (People vs. Asuncion)

NOTE: Court will consider no other grounds other than those raised, EXCEPT lack of jurisdiction 1. MTQ filed

over offense charged. 2. If based on defect in info which can be cured, court shall order its amendment
 3. Quashing the info shall NOT be a bar to subsequent prosecution (accused has not pleaded à Under SC Circular 38-98, implementing the “Speedy Trial Act of 1997”, an accused may plea
yet), EXCEPT when the ground is: guilty to a lesser offense only if said offense is necessarily included in the offense charged.
1. Double jeopardy OR
2. Extinction of criminal liability 2. Stipulation of facts

6. Remedies à Facts which both parties and respective counsels agree on as evidenced by their signatures;

these facts need not be proved by evidence in trial

1. Motion to dismiss – if certain grounds were not raised or denied in a MTQ
2. Trial à Stipulation is inadmissible if unsigned by either accused or counsel; a later memo of

confirmation, signed only by counsel, cannot cure defect (Fule vs. CA)
à If there was really no basis for the info, then such could be proved in the trial

3. Pre-trial order – binds the parties, limits the trial to matters not yet disposed of, and controls
à Upon denial of a MTQ, the proper remedy is to go on trial and later to appeal, if necessary;
the course of action during the trial
mandamus or certiorari will only be granted if there is not other plain, simple and adequate

remedy 4. Procedure
7. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor deemed a waiver of such
1. Judge must calendar pre-trial
grounds, except:
2. Either party may waive the pre-trial
1. Failure to charge an offense
3. If court appoints counsel de oficio, counsel has at least 2 days to prepare
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
4. In the pre-trial conference
3. Extinction of the offense or of the penalty
5. Plea bargaining
4. Double jeopardy
6. Stipulation of facts
7. Marking of evidence (does not imply conceding to its admissibility or credibility)
Rule 118 Pre-Trial
8. Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence
1. Plea bargaining – process whereby the accused and the prosecution in a criminal case work
9. Other matters which will promote a fair and expeditious trial
out 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 some of the counts of a multi-count e. Judge issues pre-trial order

indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the greater charge.

à Under “Speedy Trial Act of 1997”, in all criminal cases cognizable by the MTC, MCTC, MeTC,

RTC and Sandiganbayan, pretrial is mandatory.

 à Re-cross

Rule 119 Trial

à Offer

1. In trial, the defense tries

1. Accused may move for discharge

1. To assail the admissibility of evidence which prove the elements of the offense charged 2. Prosecution rests

2. To assail the credibility of such evidence 3. Defense may, with or without leave of court, file a demurrer to evidence

3. To prove another version, possibly admitting certain evidence of the prosecution and 4. Defense presents evidence

adding other evidence to cast reasonable doubt 5. Defense rests

à Even in summary procedure, the judge cannot base his decision simply on affidavits; he must 6. Prosecution presents rebuttal evidence

give the defendant the chance to cross-examine (Combate vs. San Jose) 7. Defense presents rebuttal evidence
8. Trial is closed; case is submitted for judgment
2. Procedure
3. When mistake made in charging proper offense
a. Parties notified of date of trial 2 days before trial date (R119, §1)
1. If Accused cannot be convicted of offense charged or offense necessarily included therein
à HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98, accused must be given at least 15 days to prepare for trial, 2. Accused detained, not discharged

which shall commence within 30 days from receipt of Pre-Trial Order. 3. Original case dismissed upon filing of proper information

à Example: Charged with theft. At trial, appears that offense is estafa. The prosecution can ask
1. Accused may move that his witnesses be examined
for the dismissal of the info in order to file a new one for estafa. No Double Jeopardy because no
2. Defense witnesses examined by any judge or lawyer
valid info in the first case.
3. Prosecution witnesses, if they would be unable to attend trial, may be examined by the
judge handling the case 4. Application for examination of witnesses for accused before trial
4. Trial continues from day to day, unless postponed for a just cause
5. Prosecution presents evidence 1. Sick or infirm; unable to attend trial
2. Resides more than 100 km. from means of trial; no means to attend
à Presentation
5. Application (prosecution)
à Testimonies: direct examination
1. Sick or infirm
à Cross-examination 2. Has to leave the RP with indefinite date of returning
6. Requisites for postponement due to absence of a witness à Court allowed consolidation of rape cases substantially committed in the same manner (People

vs. David)
1. Witness is really material and appears to the court to be so
2. Party who applies for postponement has not been guilty of neglect c. Motion for continuance – filed to postpone trial for just cause
3. Witness can be had at the time to which the trial has been deferred
4. No similar evidence could be obtained d. Motion to exclude public

7. Requisites to discharge of an accused as State Witness à Excluding parties, counsels and court personnel

1. Testimony of accused absolutely needed à May also be ordered by court motu proprio
2. No other direct evidence available EXCEPT his testimony
e. Motion for discharge
3. Testimony can be corroborated on material points
4. Accused does not appear to be most guilty
à Filed before the prosecution rests
5. Accused has never been convicted of offense involving moral turpitude

à Discharge of accused, when not all the requisites were met, cannot be revoked as long as he à Hearing to determine existence of requisites for discharge
testified according to what was expected of him (People vs. Aninon)
à Prosecution will present evidence and the sworn statement of the proposed state witness
8. Remedies
à Evidence adduced in this said hearing automatically form part of trial; however, if court denies
a. Motion for separate trials motion for discharge, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.

à Filed by the fiscal to try several accused separately à Discharge of the accused has the effect of acquittal, unless accused fails or refuses to testify

against his co-accused in accordance with his statement (which formed the basis for his discharge)
à Granted at the court’s discretion

f. Demurrer to evidence
à May also be ordered by the court motu proprio

à May be made after the prosecution rests its case

b. Motion to consolidate

à If the court finds the prosecution’s evidence insufficient, the case will be dismissed
à Upon the court’s discretion, separate charges may be tried in one single case if the offenses

charged arise form the same facts or form part of a series of similar offenses à Otherwise, if demurrer denied
 1. If the demurrer was made with leave of court, defense gets to present evidence 4. Contents
2. If the demurrer was made without leave of court, defense is deemed to have waived the
1. Written in official language
right to present evidence and the case is submitted for judgment
2. Personally prepared and signed by the judge
à Case may also be dismissed motu proprio
3. Contains facts proved

g. Motion to reopen 4. Contains law upon which judgment is based

à In case of conviction, judgment must state:

à Filed after the case is submitted for judgment but before judgment is actually rendered
1. Legal qualification of offense and aggravating and mitigating circumstances
2. Level of participation
à To allow either side to present additional evidence, if such could not be found before
3. Penalty imposed

à Granted on discretion of the judge 4. Civil liability for damages, unless right to separate civil action has been reserved

à In case of acquittal, judgment must state:

à The accused cannot move to reopen the case to allow him to adduce evidence in his behalf 1. Civil liability for damages, unless acts alleged clearly did not exist
when his failure to adduce them during the trial was his own fault (People vs. Cruz) 2. Basis of liability

5. Procedure
Rule 120 Judgment

1. Judgment – adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty of the offense 1. Judge reads judgment in presence of accused
charged, and the imposition of the proper penalty and civil liability provided by law on the 2. If judgment is of acquittal
accused 3. It becomes final and executory
4. It bars subsequent prosecution for the same offense
2. General Rule: If the accused is found not guilty, he will be acquitted and the acquittal

immediately becomes final and executory. If the accused is found guilty, penalty and civil c. If judgment is of conviction, remedy is to file:
liability will be imposed on him.
1. Motion for reconsideration

3. Accused may be convicted of 2. Motion for new trial

3. Notice of appeal
1. The offense charged
2. A lesser offense necessarily included in the offense charged à Or else, judgment becomes final and is entered in the book of Judgments

à Accused cannot be convicted for an offense graver than that charged (People vs. Guevarra)
6. When judgment in a criminal case becomes final:
 1. After lapse of period for perfecting an appeal; or à Filed on the following grounds:
2. When sentence partially or totally satisfied or served; or
1. Error of law or irregularities have been made during trial which are prejudicial to the
3. Accused has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal, EXCEPT in cases of automatic
substantial rights of the accused
review where death penalty is imposed
4. Accused has applied for probation
ii. New evidence has been found which could not have been found before and which could change

7. Only a judgment in conviction can be modified or set aside the judgment

1. Before judgment had been final (otherwise double jeopardy); 9. Procedure for new trial

2. Before appeal had been perfected; or

1. Hearing shall be set and held
3. To correct clerical errors in the judgment
2. All evidence not alleged to be in error shall stand

8. Remedies 3. New evidence will be introduced

4. Old judgment may be set aside and a new one rendered
a. Appeal 10. Notes:

à Suspension of sentence for youthful offenders – after conviction, minor is committed to custody
à Filed within 15 days of promulgation of judgment
and care of DSWD or any training institution until reaches 21 years of age, or a shorter period

à Period is interrupted by filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration à Probation – disposition under which a defendant after conviction and sentences, is released

subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer
à On motion of accused or at its own instance with consent of the accused
à Parole – the conditional release of an offender from a penal or correctional institution after he

b. Motion for reconsideration has served the minimum period of his prison sentence under the continued custody of the state

and under conditions that permit his reincarceration if he violated the conditions of his release.
à Filed when there are errors of law or fact in the judgment Rule 121 New Trial or Reconsideration

à Shall require no further proceedings 1. Reopening of the case

à Notice should be given to the fiscal 1. Made by the court before judgment is rendered in the exercise of sound discretion
2. Does not require consent of accused
c. Motion for new trial
3. May be made at the instance of either party who can thereafter present additional
evidence
à Notice should be given to the fiscal
2. Motion for new trial 6. New Trial vs. Reopening of the Case

1. Filed after judgment is rendered but before the finality thereof à New trial presupposes that existence of a judgment to be set aside upon the granting of a new
2. At the instance or with the consent of the accused trial
3. The prosecution can move only for the reconsideration of the judgment but cannot present
additional evidence à In reopening, no judgment has yet been rendered, although the hearing may have already been

closed
3. Motion for New Trial is denied if:
7. Motion for Reconsideration
1. Only impeaching evidence is sought to be introduced as the court had already passed upon
issue of credibility à Grounds are errors of law or fact in judgment, which require no further proceedings.
2. Only corroborative evidence is offered
3. Prisoner admits commission of crime with which accused is charged (facility with which 8. Effects of Granting Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration

such confession can be obtained and fabricated)

a. Based on error of law or irregularities during trial:
4. Alleged new evidence is inherently improbable and could easily be concocted
5. Alleged new evidence consists of recantations of prosecution witness, due to unreliability à Proceedings and evidence not affected by irregularities stand, and those affected are set
of such recantations, EXCEPT if no other evidence to sustain conviction aside from recanted aside. Court may allow introduction of new evidence
testimony
b. Based on newly discovered evidence:
4. New Trial vs. Reconsideration
à Evidence already taken shall stand; new evidence taken with the old
à Motion for recon is based on the grounds of errors of law in the judgment is court is not asked

to reopen the case for further proceedings, but to reconsider its findings or conclusions of law and Rule 122 Appeal

make them conformable to the law applicable to the case on the judgment the court has to
1. Procedure
render anew.

a. Filed with RTC, if original case was with MTC

5. New Trial vs. Modification of Judgment

à Notice served to lower court and to adverse party

à In New Trial, irregularities are expunged from the record and/or new evidence is introduced.

In modification of judgment, no new hearings or proceedings of any kind or change in the record b. Filed with the CA or SC, if original case was with RTC
or evidence. A simple modification is made on the basis of what is on the record.
i. With CA: notice of appeal with court, and with copy on adverse party
à If CA is of opinion that penalty should be reclusion perpetua or higher, it shall render judgment
imposing said penalty, but refrain from entering judgment and then certify the case and the
entire record thereof to the SC for review (R124, §13)
à CA may reverse, affirm, or modify judgment of RTC, or remand case for new trial or re-trial, or
dismiss the case
à If RTC decided case in appellate jurisdiction: Petition for Review
ii. With SC: notice of appeal where penalty imposed is life imprisonment, or lesser penalty
involving offenses committed on the same occasion, or arising out of same occurrence where
graver penalty of death is available but life imprisonment is imposed; all other cases, by petition
for review on certiorari
à If death penalty, automatic review
iii. Withdrawal of appeal
à May be made at any time before judgment on the appeal is rendered
à Lower court judgment becomes final
à Case remanded for execution of judgment
à Once notice of appeal is filed, cannot be validly withdrawn to give way for a Motion for Recon or
a Motion for New Trial, since the filing of the notice perfected the appeal, and the trial court
loses its power to modify or set aside the judgment. The only valid withdrawal of an appeal is
where the accused decides to serve his sentence.
2. Effect of appeal by any of several accused
1. Shall not affect those who did not appeal, EXCEPT if favorable and applicable to them
2. Civil appeal by offended party shall not affect criminal aspect of judgment
3. Execution of judgment on appellant will be stayed upon perfection of appeal
3. When appeal by prosecution from order of dismissal of criminal case will not result in double
jeopardy
1. Dismissal made upon motion or with express consent of the accused
2. Dismissal is not an acquittal nor based upon consideration of the evidence or merits of
the case
3. Question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely legal so that if the dismissal is
found incorrect, the case has to be remanded to the court of origin to determine the guilt
or innocence of the accused
4. When serving sentence, remedy is to petition for habeas corpus
1. Filed when the law under which the accused was convicted is repealed or declared
unconstitutional
2. When a later judgment is rendered acquitting others for similar circumstances
à Otherwise, equal protection is violated
1. When penalty is lowered and convict has already served more than the maximum period of
the new penalty
à Habeas corpus is available when a person is imprisoned beyond the maximum penalty imposed
by law (Gumabon vs. Dir. of Prisons)
NOTE: When dismissal is capricious, certiorari lies and no double jeopardy since validity and not
correctness of dismissal is being challenged.
 à No waiver against unreasonable search and seizure when one compromises the criminal

Rule 126 Search and Seizure proceedings (Alvarez vs. CFI)

1. Search warrant – an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, à There is no waiver of right when evidence of coercion is present (Roan vs. Gonzales)

signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal
3. Requisites of a valid search warrant
property described therein and bring it before the court

à Cannot be issued to look for evidence (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal) a. Issued upon probable cause
à Seizing objects to be used as evidence is equivalent to forcing one to be a witness against

himself (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal) à Probable cause – such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably prudent man to

à For a warrant to be valid, it must meet the requirements set by law (Burgos vs. Chief of Staff) believe that a crime has been committed and the thing to be searched for and seized is in the

à Tapping conversations is equivalent to a search and seizure (US vs. Katz) place to be searched

2. General Rule: No search or seizure can be conducted unless it is authorized by a search b. Probable cause is personally determined by the issuing judge

warrant. Evidence gathered from an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible.

à Hence, signed by him

à Warrantless searches are illegal, unreasonable and unconstitutional (Alvarez vs. CFI)
à By any RTC, to be served anywhere in the country, for an offense which occurred anywhere in
à It is not the police action which is impermissible, but the procedure and unreasonable
the country (Malaloan vs. CA)
character by which it is exercised (Guazon vs. de Villa)

à Court gains jurisdiction over items seized by a valid search warrant and returned to it, and such c. Issuing judge personally examined, in the form of searching questions, the appellant and his

is not an unconstitutional deprivation of property (Villanueva vs. Querubin) witness and took down their written depositions

à Evidence from an illegal search may be used as evidence, if no objection is raised (Stonehill vs.
d. Search warrant particularly describes or identifies the property to be seized
Diokno)

à Property which men may lawfully possess may not be the object of a search warrant (Uy Khetin
à Right against unreasonable search and seizure may be waived, but for the waiver to be
vs. Villareal)
effective:
à Nature of goods may allow description to be general or not too technical (Alvarez vs. CFI)
1. The right must exist
e. Particularly describes the place to be searched
2. Person must be aware of the right
3. Person clearly shows the intent to relinquish such right
f. It shall issue only for one specific offense
à Otherwise, cannot be said to have issued upon probable cause (Asian Surety vs. Herrera) c. Judge issues search warrant good for 10 days

à Absence of specific offense makes impossible determination of probable cause (Stonehill vs.
d. Peace officer in presence of occupant, members of the family OR 2 witnesses of sufficient age
Diokno)
and discretion residing in the same locality

g. Was not issued for more than 10 days prior to a search made pursuant thereto (search warrant
à Search may last for more than a day as long as it is part of the same search for the same
becomes void after 10 days)
purpose and of the same place (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)

h. Indicates time, if to be served at night

e. Peace officer leaves receipt with occupant at place searched

4. When a search warrant may be said to particularly describe the thing to be seized
1. Description is as specific as circumstances allow
2. Expresses a conclusion of fact by which the warrant officer may be guided
3. Things described are limited to those which bear a direct relation to the offense for which
f. Peace officer files return of search warrant and inventory, and surrenders items seized to
receiving court (not necessarily court which issued the warrant)
à Items seized illegally must remain in custodia legis pending resolution of the case (Roan vs.

the warrant is issued Gonzales)

5. Procedure 6. Remedies from an unlawful search

a. Complainant files application, attaches affidavits 1. MTQ the warrant

2. Motion to suppress as evidence the objects illegally taken
à Oath requires that the person taking it personally knows the facts of the case (People vs. Sy 3. Return of property illegally seized
Juco)
7. When a search may be validly conducted without a warrant
à Affidavits submitted must state that the premises is occupied by the person against whom the

warrant is issued, that the objects to be seized are fruits or means of committing a crime, and 1. Without consent of person searched
that they belong to the same person, thus, not affecting third persons (People vs. Sy Juco) 2. When the search is incident to a lawful arrest
à When complainant’s knowledge is hearsay, affidavits of witnesses are necessary (Alvarez vs. 3. Personal knowledge of the arresting person (Posadas vs. CA)
CFI) 4. Limited to:

b. Judge conducts ex parte preliminary examination of complainant and witnesses under oath to
(1) Immediate time of arrest
determine probable cause

à Judge must ask probing questions, not just repeat facts in the affidavit (Roan vs. Gonzales) (2) Immediate vicinity of the arrest
(3) Weapons and things which may be used as proof of offense charged (Nolasco vs. Pano) complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be

iii. Subject in an offense which is mala prohibita cannot be summarily seized (Roan vs. Gonzales) searched and the persons or things to be seized.

iv. May extend beyond arrestee to include premises and surrounding under his immediate control à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 3

1. Border searches (customs, mail and airport) 1. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful
2. Vessels and aircrafts for violation of Tariff and Customs Code, EXCEPT dwelling houses order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
3. Plain view 2. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for
4. Moving vehicle any purpose in the proceeding.
5. Hot pursuit Rule 127 Provisional Remedies in Criminal Cases
6. Stop-and-frisk, reasonable check-points
7. Private searches with no state action (People vs. Marti) 1. Attachment as provisional remedy in criminal cases

8. Inspection of building and premises for enforcement of fire, sanitary and building
regulations
8. Person making the arrest may take from the arrestee
1. Properties used in the commission of the crime
2. Fruits or proceeds thereof
3. Property which may furnish the arrestee with a weapon against the arresting person
4. Property which may be used as evidence at the trial
1. Accused is about to abscond from RP
2. 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, or any officer of
a corporation, or an attorney, factor, broker, agent or clerk in a fiduciary capacity, in
willful violation of duty
3. Accused has concealed, removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do so
4. Accused resides outside the RP.

9. NOTES:

à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, houses and effects against

unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,

and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be

determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the