Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Information
Need not be sworn to
Subscribed to by the fiscal
4. Cases where civil courts of equal rank are vested with concurrent jurisdiction:
1. Features stated in Art. 2, RPC
Cognizable by proper court in which charge is first filed
1. Continuing crimes committed in different judicial regions
2. Offenses wherein any of the essential elements were committed in different territorial
jurisdictions
3. Offenses committed aboard a train, vehicle, aircraft or vessel (see R110, 15)
i. Railroad, train, aircraft
(1) Territory or municipality where vehicle passed
(2) Place of departure
(3) Place of arrival
ii. Vessel
(1) First port of entry
(2) Thru which it passed during voyage
iii. Libel and written defamation
5. Remedies of offended party when fiscal unreasonably refuses to file an information or include a
person therein as an accused
1. In case of grave abuse of discretion, action for mandamus
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
duty)
Error of name of the offended party: if material to the case, it necessarily affects the
identification of the act charged. Conviction for robbery cannot be sustained if there is a
variance between the allegation and the proof as to the ownership of the property stolen.
b. Designation of offense by statute (or of section/subsection of statute violated)
Only one offense charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes a single punishment for various
offenses.
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 (People vs. Purisima)
c. Acts or omissions complained of constituting the offense
Information need only allege facts, not include all the evidence which may be used to prove
such facts (Balitaan vs. CFI)
d. Name of offended party
e. Approximate time of commission
Approximation of time is sufficient; amendment as to time is only a formal amendment; no
need to dismiss case (People vs. Molero)
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
impairing the rights of the accused to be informed of the charges against him (People vs.
Reyes)
f. Place of commission
Conviction may be had even if it appears that the crime was committed not at the place
alleged, provided that the place of actual commission was within the courts jurisdiction and
accused was not surprised by the variance between the proof and the information
Qualifying and inherent aggravating circumstances need to be alleged as they are integral
parts of the crime. If proved, but not alleged, become only generic aggravating
circumstances.
9. Amendment of information and Substitution of information, distinguished
Amendment
Substitution
Involves either formal or substantial changes
Necessarily involves a substantial change
Without leave of court if before plea
Needs leave of court as original information
has to be dismissed
Where only as to form, there is no need for
Another preliminary investigation is entailed
another preliminary investigation and retaking
and accused has to plead anew
of plea of accused
Refers to the same offense charged or which
Requires or presupposes that new info
necessarily includes or is necessarily included involves a different offense which does not
in original charges, hence, substantial
include or is not included in the original charge,
amendments to info after plea taken cannot be hence, accused cannot claim double jeopardy
made over objections of accused for if original
info is withdrawn, accused could invoke double
jeopardy
10. After plea, amendment only as to matters of form, provided
1. Leave of court is obtained; and
2. Amendment is not prejudicial to rights of accused
11. When amendment is only as to form
1. Neither affects or alters nature of offense charged
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
6. Extinction of penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil unless the extinction
proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not
exist.
- Final judgment in civil absolving defendant from civil liability not a bar to criminal action
7.
Filing fees:
1. Actual or compensatory damages filing fees not required
2. Moral, temperate and exemplary filing fees required
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
- i.e., if fiscal finds reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and accused is
probably guilty thereof
- Prima facie evidence is that evidence which, standing alone, unexplained and uncontradicted,
would be enough to merit a conviction of the accused
iv. Otherwise, he recommends the dismissal of the complaint
- If the investigating officer is an MTC judge, and he finds that probable cause exists and that there
is a need to place the accused under custody, then he may issue a warrant of arrest
- Flores vs. Sumaling What differentiates the present rule from the previous one is that while
before, it was mandatory for the investigating judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused if
he found probable cause, the rule now is that the investigating judges power to order the arrest of
the accused is limited to instances in which there is a necessity for placing him in custody in order
not to frustrate the ends of justice. It is therefore error for the investigating 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 frustration of justice.
1. Investigating officer forwards records to the city fiscal or chief state prosecutor
1. City fiscal or state prosecutor either dismisses the complaint or files the information
in court
- Decision prevails over decision of the MTC judge
vii. Records will not form records of the case proper
- 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
(b) Fiscal determines existence of prima facie evidence based on the statements of the
complainant, arresting officer and witnesses
(c) Fiscal either dismisses the complaint and orders the immediate release of the accused, OR
prepares and files an information
- While fiscal has quasi-judicial discretion whether or not to file an information, once it is filed 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 decision of fiscal
(Crespo vs. Mogul; Velasquez vs. Undersecretary of Justice)
NOTE: Information may be filed by offended party, peace officer or fiscal without preliminary
investigation.
6. Remedies
a. Motion for preliminary investigation
- Filed when accused is arrested without warrant
- Must be with assistance of counsel and after waiving Art. 125, RPC
b. Motion for preliminary investigation
- Filed within 5 days after accused learns an information against him has been filed without a
preliminary investigation
c. Motion for re-investigation
d. Appeal to DOJ
- 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
e. Petition for prohibition
- Filed with appellate court to stop the criminal proceedings
- Ordinarily, injunction will not lie but may be granted in certain cases
- When prohibition proper to restrain criminal proceedings:
1. When strong-arm tactics are used for vindictive purposes (Salonga vs. Cruz-Pano)
2. When the accused is deprived of his rights
3. When the statute on which the charge is based is null and void
4. When it will aid the administration of justice (Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan)
5. When multiplicity of suits will be avoided (Guingona vs. City Fiscal)
Rule 113 Arrest
1. Arrest taking a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission
of some offense, made by an actual restraint of the person or by his submission to custody
2. General Rule: No person may be arrested without a warrant.
- Not all persons detained are arrested; only those detained to answer for an offense.
- 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 who is
investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed is considered as
placing him under custodial investigation. (RA 7438)
- Warrants of arrest remain valid until arrest is effected, or the warrant is lifted
- Arrest may be made at any time of the day or night
3. Warrantless arrests by a peace officer or a private person
a. When person to be arrested is committing, attempting or has committed an offense
b. When an offense has just been committed and the person making the arrest has personal
knowledge that the person to be arrested committed it
- Warrantless arrest anytime for a continuing offense like rebellion, subversion (Umil vs. Ramos)
- The continuing crime, not the crime finally charged, needs only be the cause of the arrest (Umil vs.
Ramos)
c. When person to be arrested is an escaped detainee (either serving sentence or with case
pending)
1. When a person lawfully arrested escapes
2. Bondsman, for purpose of surrendering the accused
3. Accused attempts to leave country without court permission
4. Procedure
a. With warrant
1. Complainant files application with affidavits attached
2. Judge conducts ex parte preliminary examination to determine probable cause
- In determining probable cause, judge must:
(1) Personally examine witness
(2) Witness must be under oath
(3) Examination must be reduced to writing (Luna vs. Plaza)
- In determining probable cause, the judge may rely on findings by responsible officer (Lim vs. Felix)
iii. Judge issues warrant of arrest
- If without preliminary examination, considered irregular (Bagcal vs. Villaraza)
iv. If peace officer is unable to serve warrant 10 days after issuance, he must file a report and
explanation with judge within 10 days
v. If warrant served
(1) Person informed that he is being arrested
(2) Informed of cause of his arrest
(3) Officer may break door or window if admission to building is refused
(4) Person physically restrained
- For private citizens making an arrest
- May not do so except to do some service to humanity or justice
(5) No violence or unnecessary force may be used
(6) Officer may summon assistance
(7) Person who escapes after arrest may be immediately pursued
vi.
Person arrested is brought to nearest police station or jail
b. Without warrant:
1. Person is arrested
1. Person arrested may waive right to Art. 125, RPC and ask for preliminary
investigation or inquest
- Fiscal is not judicial authority contemplated under Art. 125 (Sayo vs. Chief of Police)
1. Fiscal files info
5.
6. Remedies
a. Petition for writ of habeas corpus
- Filed with any court, to effect immediate release of the person detained
- Filed when a person is being illegally detained (without judicial process), or was illegally arrested
(void warrant or unlawful warrantless arrest, or warrantless arrest beyond period with no information
filed)
- Habeas corpus is not allowed when:
1. The person is in custody of an officer under process of law, and
2. The court had jurisdiction to issue the process (Luna vs. Plaza)
- 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)
- Habeas corpus is no longer available after an information has been filed, the information being the
judicial process required by law (Ilagan vs. Enrile)
- 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
- Filed with court which issued the warrant of arrest when the warrant of arrest is fatally flawed
c. Motion to quash information
- Filed with court when information against the person arrested has been filed
- Must be made in a special appearance before the court questioning only its lack of jurisdiction
over the person of the accused
- Otherwise, the voluntary appearance of the person arrested by filing a motion before the court
would be deemed a submission to the authority of the court, thus granting it whatever jurisdiction it
lacked over the person
- Any irregularity in the arrest is cured when the petitioner submits himself to the jurisdiction of the
court, e.g., by filing for bail (Bagcal vs. Villaraza)
7. V.V. Mendoza, Rights to Counsel in Custodial Investigation
- Evolution of rights of the accused under custodial investigation
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
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
liberty under his bail or recognizance
5. Procedure
a. Offense charged is not capital:
i. Accused applies for bail
(1) Where information against him was filed or where case is pending
(2) Absent (1), in another branch of the same court within the province or city where he is held
(3) If arrested in another province, city or municipality, file with the RTC
(4) Absent (3), with the MTC
1. Judge sets bail
1. Accused may move to reduce bail, and hearing will be set
2. Accused posts bail and deposits the same with the Municipal/City/Provincial
Treasurer or, if cash, with the Collector of Internal Revenue
3. Accused is released
b. Offense charged is capital:
1. Accused petitions for bail
2. Judge sets hearing to determine whether evidence of guilt is strong
- Ex-parte hearing on bail is arbitrary and unacceptable (Herras vs. Teehankee)
1. Prosecution presents evidence
1. Court may not force fiscal to produce evidence (Herras vs. Teehankee)
2. If evidence is strong, bail is denied
1. Otherwise, judge sets bail and procedure for non-capital offense is followed
- In capital crimes, judges discretion is limited to determining strength of evidence and does not
cover determining whether bail should be allowed (Herras vs. Teehankee)
- Evidence must be strong that the accused is guilty of the capital offense charged, not just of any
offense (Bernardez vs. Valera)
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 acts
as he may legally be required to perform
7. Recognizance
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 being
the appearance of the accused for trial
2. Does not require signature of accused for trial
3. Does not require signature of accused to be valid
8. Prosecution witnesses may be required to post bail to ensure their appearance at the trial, except:
1. Substitution of info (see R110, 14)
2. Court believes that material witness may not appear at the trial
9. When bail required under RA 6036 (violation of ordinance, light felony, criminal offense not
higher that 6 month imprisonment and/or P2000 fine, or both)
1. a. Caught in flagrante
2. Confessed to commission of offense unless repudiated (force and intimidation)
3. Previously escaped, evaded sentence or jumped bail
4. Violation of Sec. 2 (fails to report to clerk of court periodically under his recognizance)
5. Recidivist, habitual delinquent previously convicted for an offense to which the law or
ordinance attaches an equal or greater penalty or for 2 or more offenses to which it 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
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
17. Notes:
1. Posting bail waives the right to question any irregularity attending the arrest of a person
(Callanta vs. Villanueva). However, this does not result in waiver of the inadmissibility of the
articles seized incidentally to such illegal arrest.
2. Accused waived the right to question any irregularity in the conduct of the preliminary
investigation when he failed to do so before entering his plea (People vs. Dela Cerna)
3. Accused out on bail may be re-arrested if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without
prior court permission (warrantless arrest allowed).
Rule 115 Rights of Accused
1. Right of the accused under the Rules
a. To be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt
- In an appeal from a conviction, the accused shall again be presumed innocent until and unless his
conviction is affirmed (Castillo vs. Felix)
b. To be informed of the nature and cause of charges
- The right must be substantially complied with; arraignment and later proceedings must be in a
language the accused understands (People vs. Crisologo)
c. To be present at every stage of proceedings, subject to waiver by bail
- If an accused escapes, he waives this right and merits a trial in absentia; the accused forfeits his
rights to be notified of proceedings in the future and to adduce evidence in his behalf (People vs.
Salas)
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
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
testimony of a witness
4. Who is deceased, out of or cannot with due diligence be found in the RP
1. Given in another proceeding
2. With the same parties
3. Same subject matter
4. Opportunity to cross-examine
- 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 the witness
which merits the reversal of the conviction (People vs. Bagano)
g. To have compulsory process to secure witnesses and evidence in his behalf
h. To have a speedy, impartial and public trial
- Unreasonable postponements of trial amounts to a denial of the right to a speedy trial, entitling the
accused to mandamus to compel dismissal of the case, or to habeas corpus if he is detained
i. To have the right of appeal
2. Rights of the accused under the Constitution
a. To due process
b. Against self-incrimination
- Right is limited to testimonies; ocular inspection of the body may be allowed (Villaflor vs. Summers)
- Being informed of rights means a meaningful transmission of information, without which confession
made by the accused is inadmissible (People vs. Nicandro)
and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of
evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided
that he has been duly notified and that his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
- Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 16
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasijudicial, or administrative bodies.
- Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 17
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
- Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 21
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
If an act is punished by a law or ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar
to another prosecution for the same act.
Rule 116 Arraignment and Plea
1. Procedure
1. Court informs accused of his right to counsel and asks him if he wants one
2. Court appoints counsel de oficio if accused has none
- If no such member of the available, any person who is a resident of the province, of good repute for
probity and ability to defend accused
c. Court gives counsel time to confer with accused at least an hour before arraignment
- 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)
1. Accused given a copy of the information, which is read to him in a language he understands
2. Accused is asked whether he pleads guilty or not guilty
3. Accused files a motion to quash or makes plea
4. Accused personally makes his plea
5. Plea is entered into record
6. If accused makes plea of not guilty, counsel has at least 2 days to prepare for trial
- People vs. Agbayani the right for 2 days to prepare must be expressly demanded. Only when so
demanded does denial thereof constitute reversible error and ground for new trial. Further, such
right may be waived, expressly or impliedly.
- NOTE, HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98 (implementing Speedy Trial Act of 1997), accused
must be given at least 15 days to prepare for trial, which shall commence within 30 days from receipt
of Pre-Trial Order.
j. Case proceeds to pre-trial, trial or hearing, depending on the plea
- Statement in the judgment that the accused was arraigned and pleaded is sufficient; the manner of
statement of such fact is immaterial (People vs. Cariaga)
2. Kinds of plea
1. No plea a plea of not guilty shall be entered
2. Conditional plea of guilt a plea of not guilty shall be entered
3. Not guilty case proceeds to trial or pre-trial
4. Guilty to a lesser offense if fiscal and offended party consents, conviction under offense
charged for purposes of double jeopardy
5. Info may be amended
1. Case goes to trial
2. Even if info is not amended, and even if lesser offense is not included in offense
charged, court may still find the accused guilty of that lesser offense
e. Guilty to a capital offense
- Court conducts searching inquiry to determine if accused was aware of the charges, of his plea,
and its consequences
- Court requires prosecution to present evidence to prove guilt of accused and determine his degree
of culpability, and accused may still establish presence of mitigating circumstances in his favor
f. Guilty to a non-capital offense
- Court receives evidence from the parties to determine penalty to impose
- Plea of guilty not necessarily followed by conviction. Upon receipt of exculpatory evidence (if
accused pleaded guilty), trial court should consider the plea withdrawn and in its place, order the
plea of not guilty
- Plea of guilty waives only defects which may be taken advantage of by motion to quash or by plea
in abatement; cannot cure jurisdictional defects.
3. Effects
a. Entry of plea will waive
1. Right to question illegality of the arrest
2. Right to question any irregularity in the preliminary investigation
3. Right to file a motion to quash
b. Improvident plea of guilty may be changed to not guilty any time before judgment is rendered
c. A plea of not guilty may not be changed to guilty, as doing so would only spare the prosecution
of presenting evidence and still result in the conviction of the accused.
4. Remedies
a. Motion for specification
- May be filed any time before plea, even after a MTQ
- 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
b. Motion to quash
- May be filed at anytime before plea is entered
- Based on grounds provided by the rules
c. Motion to suspend arraignment
- Filed when the accused seems mentally unsound or if there is a prejudicial question in a pending
civil case
d. Motion to withdraw an improvident plea of guilt
- May be filed at any time before judgment of conviction becomes final, when it can be shown that
the accused was not aware of the significance of pleading guilty to the charges
Rule 117 Motion to Quash
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
2. When to file Motion to Quash
General Rule: Before entering plea; all grounds not raised deemed waived
Exception: The following grounds may be used in MTQ even after plea
1. No offense charged
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3. Extinction of the offense or of the penalty
4. Double jeopardy
3. Grounds
a. Information does not conform to prescribed form
- 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)
b. Court has no jurisdiction
1. No territorial jurisdiction
2. No jurisdiction over offense charged may be raised at any time; no waiver considered
even upon failure to move to quash on such ground
3. No jurisdiction over person of the accused
- The court gained jurisdiction over the person of the accused when he voluntarily appeared for the
pre-suspension hearing (Layosa vs. Rodriguez)
c. Accused would be put in double jeopardy
- Bars another prosecution
- No waiver
- 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.
- If the first case was dismissed due to a deficient information, then there was no valid information
and there could be no double jeopardy (Caniza vs. People)
- Cudia vs CA it should be the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga, not the City Prosecutor, who
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 authorized by
law. If not, the court does not acquire jurisdiction. Although failure to file a 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 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 without the consent of the
accused cannot be pleaded as prior jeopardy, and will not be a bar to a second prosecution.
d. More than one offense was charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes single punishment for
various offenses
e. Facts alleged do not constitute an offense
- May be raised at any time
- No waiver
- For charge to be complete, it is necessary to state that it was exempted from any amnesty existing
at the time
f. Criminal action or liability has been extinguished
g. Information contains allegations which, if true, would be a legal excuse or justification
h. Officer who filed the information had no authority
- 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
over offense charged.
4. Requisites of Double jeopardy
a. Valid information or complaint, sufficient in form and substance
b. Before court of competent jurisdiction
- Doctrine of Jurisdiction by Estoppel: depends upon whether the lower court actually had
jurisdiction or not. If it had 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.
However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided upon 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 the lower
court had jurisdiction. Here, the principle of estoppel applies. The rule that jurisdiction is conferred by
law, and does not depend upon the will of the parties, has no bearing thereon.
c. Accused had pleaded
d. Conviction, acquittal, or dismissal or termination of case without consent of accused
e. Bar to offense charged, attempt to commit the same or necessarily includes or is necessarily
included
- Conviction for physical injuries through reckless imprudence constitutes double jeopardy to the
charge of damage to property through reckless imprudence.
5. Procedure
1. MTQ filed
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
yet), EXCEPT when the ground is:
1. Double jeopardy OR
2. Extinction of criminal liability
6. Remedies
1. Motion to dismiss if certain grounds were not raised or denied in a MTQ
2. Trial
- If there was really no basis for the info, then such could be proved in the trial
- Upon denial of a MTQ, the proper remedy is to go on trial and later to appeal, if necessary;
mandamus or certiorari will only be granted if there is not other plain, simple and adequate remedy
7. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor deemed a waiver of such grounds,
except:
1. Failure to charge an offense
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3. Extinction of the offense or of the penalty
4. Double jeopardy
Rule 118 Pre-Trial
1. Plea bargaining process whereby the accused and the prosecution in a criminal case work out
a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the
defendants pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only some of the counts of a multi-count
indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the greater charge.
- Under Speedy Trial Act of 1997, in all criminal cases cognizable by the MTC, MCTC, MeTC, RTC
and Sandiganbayan, pretrial is mandatory.
- Under SC Circular 38-98, implementing the Speedy Trial Act of 1997, an accused may plea guilty
to a lesser offense only if said offense is necessarily included in the offense charged.
2. Stipulation of facts
- Facts which both parties and respective counsels agree on as evidenced by their signatures; these
facts need not be proved by evidence in trial
- 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)
3. Pre-trial order binds the parties, limits the trial to matters not yet disposed of, and controls the
course of action during the trial
4. Procedure
1. Judge must calendar pre-trial
2. Either party may waive the pre-trial
3. If court appoints counsel de oficio, counsel has at least 2 days to prepare
4. In the pre-trial conference
5. Plea bargaining
6. Stipulation of facts
7. Marking of evidence (does not imply conceding to its admissibility or credibility)
8. Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence
9. Other matters which will promote a fair and expeditious trial
e. Judge issues pre-trial order
Application (prosecution)
1. Sick or infirm
2. Has to leave the RP with indefinite date of returning
3. Witness can be had at the time to which the trial has been deferred
4. No similar evidence could be obtained
7. Requisites to discharge of an accused as State Witness
1. Testimony of accused absolutely needed
2. No other direct evidence available EXCEPT his testimony
3. Testimony can be corroborated on material points
4. Accused does not appear to be most guilty
5. Accused has never been convicted of offense involving moral turpitude
- Discharge of accused, when not all the requisites were met, cannot be revoked as long as he
testified according to what was expected of him (People vs. Aninon)
8. Remedies
a. Motion for separate trials
- Filed by the fiscal to try several accused separately
- Granted at the courts discretion
- May also be ordered by the court motu proprio
b. Motion to consolidate
- Upon the courts 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
- Court allowed consolidation of rape cases substantially committed in the same manner (People vs.
David)
c. Motion for continuance filed to postpone trial for just cause
d. Motion to exclude public
- Excluding parties, counsels and court personnel
- May also be ordered by court motu proprio
e. Motion for discharge
- Filed before the prosecution rests
- Hearing to determine existence of requisites for discharge
- Prosecution will present evidence and the sworn statement of the proposed state witness
- Evidence adduced in this said hearing automatically form part of trial; however, if court denies
motion for discharge, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.
- 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)
f. Demurrer to evidence
- May be made after the prosecution rests its case
- If the court finds the prosecutions evidence insufficient, the case will be dismissed
- Otherwise, if demurrer denied
1. If the demurrer was made with leave of court, defense gets to present evidence
2. If the demurrer was made without leave of court, defense is deemed to have waived the right
to present evidence and the case is submitted for judgment
- Case may also be dismissed motu proprio
g. Motion to reopen
- Filed after the case is submitted for judgment but before judgment is actually rendered
- To allow either side to present additional evidence, if such could not be found before
- Granted on discretion of the judge
- The accused cannot move to reopen the case to allow him to adduce evidence in his behalf when
his failure to adduce them during the trial was his own fault (People vs. Cruz)
Rule 120 Judgment
1. Judgment 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 provided by law on the accused
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 liability will be imposed
on him.
3. Accused may be convicted of
1. The offense charged
2. A lesser offense necessarily included in the offense charged
- Accused cannot be convicted for an offense graver than that charged (People vs. Guevarra)
4. Contents
1. Written in official language
2. Personally prepared and signed by the judge
3. Contains facts proved
4. Contains law upon which judgment is based
- In case of conviction, judgment must state:
1. Legal qualification of offense and aggravating and mitigating circumstances
2. Level of participation
3. Penalty imposed
4. Civil liability for damages, unless right to separate civil action has been reserved
- In case of acquittal, judgment must state:
1. Civil liability for damages, unless acts alleged clearly did not exist
2. Basis of liability
5. Procedure
1. Judge reads judgment in presence of accused
2. If judgment is of acquittal
3. It becomes final and executory
4. It bars subsequent prosecution for the same offense
c. If judgment is of conviction, remedy is to file:
1. Motion for reconsideration
2. Motion for new trial
3. Notice of appeal
- Or else, judgment becomes final and is entered in the book of Judgments
6.
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
- Otherwise, equal protection is violated
1. When penalty is lowered and convict has already served more than the maximum period of
the new penalty
- 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.
Rule 126 Search and Seizure
1. Search warrant an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed
by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property
described therein and bring it before the court
- Cannot be issued to look for evidence (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
- Seizing objects to be used as evidence is equivalent to forcing one to be a witness against himself
(Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
- For a warrant to be valid, it must meet the requirements set by law (Burgos vs. Chief of Staff)
- Tapping conversations is equivalent to a search and seizure (US vs. Katz)
2. General Rule: No search or seizure can be conducted unless it is authorized by a search warrant.
Evidence gathered from an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible.
- Warrantless searches are illegal, unreasonable and unconstitutional (Alvarez vs. CFI)
- It is not the police action which is impermissible, but the procedure and unreasonable character by
which it is exercised (Guazon vs. de Villa)
- Court gains jurisdiction over items seized by a valid search warrant and returned to it, and such is
not an unconstitutional deprivation of property (Villanueva vs. Querubin)
- Evidence from an illegal search may be used as evidence, if no objection is raised (Stonehill vs.
Diokno)
- Right against unreasonable search and seizure may be waived, but for the waiver to be effective:
1. The right must exist
2. Person must be aware of the right
3. Person clearly shows the intent to relinquish such right
- No waiver against unreasonable search and seizure when one compromises the criminal
proceedings (Alvarez vs. CFI)
- There is no waiver of right when evidence of coercion is present (Roan vs. Gonzales)
3. Requisites of a valid search warrant
a. Issued upon probable cause
- Probable cause such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably prudent man to
believe that a crime has been committed and the thing to be searched for and seized is in the place
to be searched
(1)
(2)
(3)
iii.
iv.