SYLLABUS IN

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Judge Juanita T. Guerrero
SECS. 11 !1"#
A. General Matters
1. Distinguish Jurisdiction over subject matter from jurisdiction over person of the accused
2. Requisites for eercise of criminal jurisdiction
!. Jurisdiction of "riminal courts
#. $hen injunction ma% be issued to restrain criminal &rosecution
'. Rule 11() *ecs. 1+ 1, &rosecution of -ffenses
1. "riminal actions. ho/ instituted
2. $ho ma% file them. crimes that cannot be prosecuted de officio
!. "riminal actions. /hen enjoined
#. "ontrol of prosecution
,. *ufficienc% of "omplaint or 0nformation
1. Designation of -ffense
2. "ause of the Accusation
3. Duplicit% of the -ffense4 5ception
6. Amendment or *ubstitution of complaint or information
1(. 7enue of criminal actions
11. 0ntervention of offended part%
"ases)
1. 8u9usume vs. &eople G.R. 1#!1#2. :ov. 11. 2((,4
2. Republic of the &hilippines vs. ;on. Asuncion. Manio. G.R. 1(32(3. March 11.
166#
!. &eople vs. 7an<uela . G.R. 123211. Jul% 21. 2((3
#. =/ong *ing vs. "it% of Manila. #1 &hil.. 1(!4
,. >aldivia vs. Re%es G.R. 1(2!#2. Jul% !. 1662
1. Gorospe vs. &enaflorida. G.R. :o. 11,3!. Jul% 16. 16,2
2. Guiao vs. 8igueroa 6# &hil 1(16 ?Ma% 12. 16,#@
3. 'roc9a vs. 5nrile G.R. :o. 1631!+1, Dec. 1(. 166(
6. :arciso vs. *ta. Romana+"ru< GR 1!#,(#. march 12. 2(((
1(. 5barle vs. 0snani !#112 Dec. 26. 1632
11. Rodrigue< vs. Gadiane et. al GR :o. 1,26(!. Jul% 12. 2((1
12. 'autista vs. "it% 8iscal. GR :o. ,63!(. Jul% !1. 163#
1!. "respo vs. Mogul G.R. :o. ,!!2!. June !( 1632
1#. &adilla et.al vs. "A A+!6666. Ma% !1. 163#
1,. &eople vs. "amba. A+!1#21. :ovember 16. 163(
11. 'uhat vs. "A G.R. :o. 1161(1. December 12. 1661
12. Beehan9ee Jr. vs. Mada%ag et.al GR 1(!1(2. March 1. 1662
13. Jalandoni vs. 5nda%a A+2!36#. Januar% 2#. 162#
1$. UBP and To%a& '&. Peo()e G.R. No. 1$#*+*, -e.ruar/ #0, #1#
". Rule 111) *ecs. 1 C 2 + &rosecution of "ivil Action
1. Rule on implied institution of civil action /ith criminal action
2. $hen civil action ma% proceed independentl%
!. $hen separate civil action is suspended
#. 5ffect of the death of accused or convict on civil action
,. &rejudicial Duestion
1. Rule on 8iling 8ees in civil action deemed instituted /ith the criminal action
Read the follo/ing cases)
a. Javier vs. 0A" G.R. 2,!26 March !1. 1636.
b. "asupanan vs. "A. Aaro%a GR. 1#,!61. Augu. 21. 2((2.
c. General vs. "laravall. GR 6122#. March 22. 1661.
d. Aim vs. "A G.R. 1!((!3. *eptember 13. 2((3.
e. Ban vs. Mende< GR1!3116. June 1. 2((2.
f. Read Art. !1( or R&" as amended b% RA #!1!.
g. Republic vs. 'ello A+!#6(1. Jan. 22. 163!.
h. De la "ru< vs. 5jercito C G.R. #(36, :ov. 1. 162,.
i. Donato vs. Auna GR ,61#2. April 1,. 1633.
j. Ras vs. Rasul GR ,(##1+#2 *ept. 13. 163(.
9. *ala<ar vs. &eople GR 1,16!. *ept 2!. 2((!
). 1eir& o2 Si%on '&. E)'in C3an GR 1*4*54 -e.. #", #11
D. &reliminar% 0nvestigation
1. :ature of right
2. &urposes of preliminar% investigation
!. $ho ma% conduct determination of eistence of probable cause
#. Resolution of investigation prosecutor
,. Revie/
1. $hen /arrant of arrest ma% issue
2. "ases not requiring a preliminar% investigation
3. Remedies of accused if there /as no preliminar% investigation
6. 0nquest
"ases)
1. 'autista vs. *armiento et. Al. A+#,1!2 *eptember 2!. 163,
2. Balusan vs. -fiana A+!1(23. June 26. 1622
!. &onsica vs. 0gnalaga. A+223(1. Jul% !1. 1632
#. &eople vs. 7illanueva C A+,1##!. Dec. 16. 1631
,. *ol. Gen. vs. Garrido C A+23,!,. -ct. 1(. 163(
1. Erbano vs. "have< C A+32622. March 16. 166(
2. &lacer vs. 7illanueva C A+1(!#6+12. Dec. 26. 163!
3. Abdula vs. Guiani C A+113321. 8eb. 13. 2(((
5. Arrest
1. Arrest. ho/ made
2. Arrest /ithout /arrant. /hen la/ful
!. Method of arrest
a. b% officer /ith /arrant
b. b% officer /ithout /arrant
c. b% private person
#. Requisites of a valid /arrant of arrest
,. Determination of &robable "ause for issuance of /arrant of arrest
1. Distinguish probable cause of fiscal from that of a Judge
"ases)
1. "ollector of "ustoms vs. 7illalu< 21 *"RA !,1
2. Emil vs. Ramos -ct. !. 1661 GR 31,12
!. Malacat vs. "A 23! *"RA 1,6. 12#. Dec 12. 1662
#. &eople vs. Musa 212 *"RA ,62
,. &eople vs. 'urgos 1## *"RA 1. 1# *ept. #. 1631
+. Le'i&te '&. A)a%eda ! GR 10#+44, Augu&t ", #1
4. Co '&. RP, Mari&te)a ! GR1+0011, No'e%.er #0, #4
8. 'ail
1. :ature
2. $hen a matter of right4 eceptions
!. $hen a matter of discretion
#. ;earing of application for bail in capital offenses
,. Guidelines in fiing amount of bail
1. 'ail /hen not required
2. 0ncrease or Reduction of 'ail
3. 8orfeiture and "ancellation of bail
6. Application not a bar to objections in illegal arrest. lac9 of or irregular preliminar%
investigation
1(. ;old Departure -rder F 'ureau of 0mmigration $atchlist
"A*5*)
1. Aeviste vs. "A G.R. 136122. March 12. 2(1(
2. D-J vs. Jimene< G.R. 1#3,21 *eptember 2#. 2((2
!. &adilla vs. "A GR 121612. Jul% !1. 1661
#. Go et. Al. vs. 'ongolan RBJ+66+1#1# Jul% 21. 1666
,. &eople vs. 8it<gerald GR 1#622! -ct. 22. 2((1
1. 5steban vs. Judge Alhambra. GR 1!,(12 *eptember 2. 2((#
4. O6a.e '&. Judge Gutierre7 GR 1*10*, Ma/ #4, #5
G. Rights of the Accused
1. Rights of accused at the trial
2. Rights of persons under "ustodial 0nvestigation
"ases to read)
1. Peo()e '&. Larranaga et. a). G.R. 1"0045!4*, -e.ruar/ ", #5
#. Cor(u7 '&. Sandigan.a/an GR 1++#15, No'. 11, #5
;. Arraignment and &lea
1. Arraignment and &lea. ho/ made
2. $hen should plea of :-B GE0ABG be entered
!. $hen ma% accused enter a plea of guilt% to a lesser offense
#. Accused plead guilt% to capital offense. /hat the court should do
,. *earching 0nquir%
1. 0mprovident plea
2. Grounds for suspension of arraignment
"A*5*)
1. &eople vs. 8lores C GR 12332! +2# Dec. 22. 2((2
2. &eople vs. Mario *er<o C GR 113#!, June 2(. 1662
!. &eople vs. A%son + GR 3,21,. Jul% 2. 1636
#. 5nciro vs. &eople C GR 1(2316 Dec. 12. 166!
,. E% vs. Adriano GR 1,6(63. -ct. 22. 2((1
1. &eople vs. :uelan GR 12!(2,. -ct. 3. 2((1
2. &eople vs. 7illarama GR 66232. June 2!. 1662
3. &eople vs. 5spidol GR 1,((!!. :ov. 12. 2((#
$. Peo()e '&. Ceredon GR 1+414$ Jan. #0, #0
0. Motion to Duash
1. Grounds
2. Distinguish from demurrer to evidence
!. 5ffects of sustaining the motion to quash
#. 5ception to the rule that sustaining the motion is not a bar to another prosecution
,. Double Jeopard%
1. &rovisional Dismissal
"A*5*)
1. &aco% vs. &eople GR 1,2#22. April 23. 2((2
2. Aos 'anos vs. Joel &edro GR 12!,33 April 22. 2((6
!. Antone vs. 'eronilla GR 13!32# Dec. 3. 2(1(
#. 7illaflor vs. 7ivar GR 1!#2##. Jan 11. 2((1
,. Madarang vs. "A 1#!(##. August 1#. 2((,
+. Peo()e '&. Sa)a6 GR 101#5$, Mar83 15, #11
J. &re+trial
1. Matters to be considered during pre+trial
2. $hat the court should do /hen prosecution and
offended part% agree to the plea offered b% the accused
!. &re+trial agreement
#. :on+appearance during pre+trial
,. &re+trial order
1. Referral of some cases for "ourt Anneed Mediation and Judicial Dispute Resolution
"ases to read)
1. Peo()e '&. Ta8!an and Au&tria GR 150, -e.ruar/ #4, #"
#. Gara/.)a& et. a). '&. 1on. Ong GR 145*4, Augu&t ", #11
=. Brial
1. 0nstances /hen presence of accused is required b%
la/
2. Requisite before trial can be suspended on account
of absence of /itness
!. Brial in Absentia
#. Remed% /hen accused is not brought to trial
/ithin the prescribed period
,. Requisites for discharge of accused to become a
state /itness
1. 5ffects of Discharge of accused as state /itness
2. Demurrer to 5vidence
A. Judgment
1. Requisites of a judgment
2. "ontents of Judgment
!. &romulgation of judgment4 instances of
promulgation of judgment in absentia
#. $hen does judgment become final ?four instances@
"ases)
!. Rufina "hua vs. "hio9 GR 1#(32 april 12. 2((2
#. *' of Baguig vs. Judge 5strella A.M. :o. (1+11(3 RBJ Jan. 11. 2((1
,. Moll vs. "A. Judge Almonte GR 1#,#2, Dec. 6. 2((2
1. David *o vs. "A and &eople GR 1!3316. August 21. 2((1
2. Beves vs. *andiganba%an GR 1,#132 Dec. 12. 2((#
3. &eople vs. *uming/a GR 13!116 -ct. 1!. 2((6
$. Peo()e '&. Larranaga et. a). G.R. 1"0045!4*, -e.ruar/ ", #5
1. Cor(u7 '&. Sandigan.a/an, GR 1++#15, No'. 11, #5

M. :e/ Brial or Reconsideration
1. Grounds for :e/ Brial
2. Grounds for Reconsideration
!. Requisites before a ne/ trial ma% be granted on ground of ne/l% discovered evidence
#. 5ffects of granting a ne/ trial or reconsideration
,. Application of Neypes Doctrine in "riminal "ases
:. Appeal
1. 5ffect of an Appeal
2. $here to appeal
!. ;o/ appeal ta9en
#. 5ffect of appeal b% an% of several accused
,. Grounds for dismissal of appeal
"ases)
1. Dinglasan vs. "A GR :o. 1#,#2( *eptember 16. 2((1
2. "ustodio et. Al.. vs. &eople GR 61(22+23 March 3. 2((,
!. Agulto vs. "A GR ,2223 Jan. 12. 166(
#. Remulla vs. Manlongat GR 1#3136 :ov. 11. 2((#
,. Magestrado vs. &eople GR 13(22 Jul% 1(. 2((2
1. &eople vs. Rocha GR 12!262 Aug. !1. 2((2
4. Pa&8ua '&. CA, Peo()e GR 15#5", De8. 15, #
Rule 12! C &rocedure in the "ourt of Appeals
1. Eniform &rocedure
2. &rohibited &leadings and Motions
!. $hat are the eceptions to the cases cogni<able b% the Aupon
Rule 12# C &rocedure in the "ourt of Appeals
1. Dismissal of Appeal
2. "ertification or appeal of case to the *upreme "ourt
!. :e/ Brial to be conducted b% the "ourt of Appeals
"A*5*)
1. Dimarucut vs. &eople GR 13!62, *ept. 2(. 2(1(
2. 7itto vs. "A and &eople of the &hilippines GR 1!#631. June 13. 2((!
!. EG de 'aron vs. "A and &eople GR 1#(216. -ct. 21. 2((1
#. &eople vs. "aruncho Jr. et. Al. GR ,23(#. Jan. 2!. 166#
,. &eople vs. &arade<a GR 1##,6(. 8eb. 2. 2((!
1. Advincula vs. "A GR 2,!1(. Jan. 11. 1632
Rule 12, C &rocedure in the *upreme "ourt
1. Eniform &rocedure
2. Decision if -pinion equall% divided
!. $hat are the eceptions to the cases cogni<able b% the Aupon
-. *earch and *ei<ure
1. :ature of search /arrant
2. Distinguish from /arrant of arrest
!. Application for search /arrant. /here filed
#. &robable "ause
,. &ersonal eamination b% judge of the applicant and /itnesses
1. &articularit% of place to be searched and things to be sei<ed
2. &ersonal propert% to be sei<ed
3. 5ceptions to search /arrant requirement
a. *earch incidental to la/ful arrest
b. "onsented *earch
c. *earch of moving vehicle
d. "hec9 points4 bod% chec9s in airport
e. &lain vie/ situation
f. *top and 8ris9 situation
g. 5nforcement of "ustom Aa/s
6. Remedies from unla/ful search and sei<ure
"A*5*)
1. &eople vs. Aruta GR 12(61, April !. 1663
2. M;& Garments vs. "A. 7illacru< GR 3122(.*eptember 2. 166#
!. &eople vs. Budtud GR 1##(!2. *ept. 21. 2((!
#. &eople vs. 'inad *% "hua GR 1!1(11+12 8ebruar% #. 2((!
,. Malaloan vs. "A GR 1(#326 Ma% 1. 166#
+. Di&ini et. a). '&. SOJ et. a) GR #"#$$,#"*$, #""40, #"54 et8. -e.. 10, #15
122 + &rovisional Remedies
1. :ature
2. =inds of provisional remedies
&residential Decree :o. 613 or the &robation Aa/
1. $hat are the conditions to avail of the provisions of the &robation Aa/H
2. $ho are disqualified to avail of the benefits of the &robation Aa/H
!. 5ffectivit% of &robation -rder
#. &eriod of &robation
,. Arrest of &robation and Bermination of &robation
1. "onfidentialit% of Records
"ases)
1. *ilangan vs. Demetria GR 111216. March 12. 2((2
2. *antos et al.. vs. ;on. Jose 8lores GR A+132,1 and 132,2. August !1. 1612
!. &eople vs. Deli<o GR 1#12#. August 12. 2((#
#. 8rancisco vs. "A GR 1(32#2. April 1. 166,
,. Moreno vs. Mejes GR 113,,( August 1(. 2((1
1. 'ernardo vs. Judge 'alagot GR 31,11 :ov. 1(. 1662
4. Co)inare& '&. Peo()e GR 10#450, De8. 1" #11
1. $rit of Amparo
a. Definition
b. $ho ma% file
c. $here to file
d. "onditions to be alleged in the &etition
e. "ontents of the $rit of Amparo
f. Return of the $rit
g. &rohibited &leadings
h. 5ffect of failure to ma9e a return
i. Bemporar% &rotection -rder
2. $rit of ;abeas Data
a. Definition
b. $ho ma% file
c. 7enue
d. 0ssuance and Return of the $rit
e. "ontents of the &etition
!. =atarungang &ambaranga% Aa/
a. "onditions for Application of the =' Aa/
b. *ubject Matter Jurisdiction for =' &roceedings
c. 5clusions from =' Jurisdiction
d. 5nforcement of *ettlement or A/ard
e. *anctions
"A*5*)
1. Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo. G.R. :o. 13(6(1. -ctober 2. 2((3.
,13 *"RA 1.
2. Canlas v. NAPICO Homeowners. G.R. :o. 13226,. June ,. 2((3. ,,# *"RA 2(3.
!. Castillo vs. Cru. G.R. :o. 13211,. :ovember 2,. 2((6. 1(, *"RA 123.
#. Masan!"ay# et.al. v. Hon. $lmo del %osario. G.R. :o. 132#3#. June 12. 2((3. ,,#
*"RA 213.
,. %oyales v. Intermediate Appellate Court# G.R. :o. 1,(22. Januar% !1. 163#. 122
*"RA #2(.
1. Morata et al.# v. &o and Hon. 'omol. G.R. :o. 12!!6. -ctober 22. 163!. 12, *"RA
###.
4. SOJ de Li%a '&. Gatdu)a GR #5*#0, -e.ruar/ 1$, #1"
0. Ba)ao et. a). '&. Arro/o et. a)., GR 10+*, De8. 1", #11