Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1. General Rule: MTC and RTC courts gain jurisdiction over the offense
upon the filing of complaint by a complainant or an information by the
prosecuting officer
à Court gains jurisdiction over the person of the accused upon arrest or
surrender; such 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 action and is retained even if the penalty for the
offense is later lowered or raised (People vs. Lagon)
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 violated
Information – accusation in writing charging a person with an offense,
subscribed by the fiscal and filed with the court
Complaint Information
4. Cases where civil courts of equal rank are vested with concurrent
jurisdiction:
ii. Vessel
a. In RTC:
[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 or both,
irrespective of other imposable penalties and civil liabilities]
8. Contents of information
à Information need only allege facts, not include all the evidence which
may be used to prove such facts (Balitaan vs. CFI)
f. Place of commission
à 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 court’s jurisdiction and accused was not surprised by the
variance between the proof and the information
Amendment Substitution
à If complexed with a public crime, the provincial fiscal may sign the
complaint on his own
14. Procedure
15. Remedies
a. Motion to quash
à May be filed after arraignment but before plea on the grounds provided
by the rules (generally, a flaw in the info)
b. Motion to dismiss
à May be filed after plea but before judgment on most of grounds for
motion to quash
à Defined as the joinder of separate and distinct offenses in one and the
same information/complaint
1. General Rule: The injured party may file a civil action independent of
the criminal proceeding to recover damages from the offender.
1. Waiver
2. Reservation of right to institute separate action
3. Institution of civil action prior to criminal action
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 separately shall be
allowed or recognized.
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 “unauthorized
amendment” to substantive law is now no longer controlling. Far from
altering substantive rights, the primary purpose of the reservation
requirement is to avoid multiplicity of 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.
5. Remedies
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.
à Final judgment in civil absolving defendant from civil liability not a bar
to criminal action
7. Filing fees:
5. Procedure
a. If conducted prior to arrest
à 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 judge’s 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
(c) Fiscal either dismisses the complaint and orders the immediate
release of the accused, OR prepares and files an information
à Must be with assistance of counsel and after waiving Art. 125, RPC
à Filed within 5 days after accused learns an information against him has
been filed without a preliminary investigation
d. Appeal to DOJ
à Ordinarily, injunction will not lie but may be granted in certain cases
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
à Not all persons detained are arrested; only those detained to answer
for an offense.
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 who is investigated in
connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed is
considered as placing him under “custodial investigation.” (RA 7438)
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
4. Procedure
a. With warrant
v. If warrant served
b. Without warrant:
1. Person is arrested
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
1. Probable cause
2. Signed by judge
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)
6. Remedies
à Filed with court which issued the warrant of arrest when the warrant
of arrest is fatally flawed
à Filed with court when information against the person arrested has been
filed
5. Procedure
(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
7. Recognizance
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
a. Upon application with the court and due notice to the fiscal
b. Automatic cancellation
1. Case is dismissed
1. Accused is acquitted
2. Accused is convicted and surrenders for execution of judgment
15. Remedies
17. Notes:
a. To due process
b. Against self-incrimination
à Right is limited to testimonies; ocular inspection of the body may be
allowed (Villaflor vs. Summers)
à Being informed of rights means a meaningful transmission of
information, without which 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)
3. Double jeopardy
c. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense without the consent of the fiscal and
the offended party
5. Remedies
1. Motion to quash
2. Motion to dismiss
6. NOTES:
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases
before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
1. Procedure
2. Kinds of plea
3. Effects
4. Remedies
b. Motion to quash
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
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
à The court gained jurisdiction over the person of the accused when he
voluntarily appeared for the pre-suspension hearing (Layosa vs.
Rodriguez)
à No waiver
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.
à 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)
à 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
à No waiver
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
à If there was really no basis for the info, then such could be proved in
the trial
2. Stipulation of facts
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
2. Procedure
a. Parties notified of date of trial 2 days before trial date (R119, §1)
à Presentation
à Cross-examination
à Re-cross
à Offer
5. Application (prosecution)
1. Sick or infirm
2. Has to leave the RP with indefinite date of returning
8. Remedies
b. Motion to consolidate
f. Demurrer to evidence
à If the court finds the prosecution’s evidence insufficient, the case will
be dismissed
g. Motion to reopen
à Filed after the case is submitted for judgment but before judgment is
actually rendered
4. Contents
8. Remedies
a. Appeal
1. Error of law or irregularities have been made during trial which are
prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused
ii. New evidence has been found which could not have been found before
and which could change the judgment
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 or evidence. A simple
modification is made on the basis of what is on the record.
à Evidence already taken shall stand; new evidence taken with the old
Rule 122 Appeal
1. Procedure
i. With CA: notice of appeal with court, and with copy on adverse party
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
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 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
à No waiver against unreasonable search and seizure when one
compromises the criminal proceedings (Alvarez vs. CFI)
à There is no waiver of right when evidence of coercion is present (Roan
vs. Gonzales)
à Property which men may lawfully possess may not be the object of a
search warrant (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
à Nature of goods may allow description to be general or not too
technical (Alvarez vs. CFI)
g. Was not issued for more than 10 days prior to a search made pursuant
thereto (search warrant becomes void after 10 days)
5. Procedure
à Oath requires that the person taking it personally knows the facts of
the case (People vs. Sy Juco)
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 that they belong to the
same person, thus, not affecting third persons (People vs. Sy Juco)
à When complainant’s knowledge is hearsay, affidavits of witnesses are
necessary (Alvarez vs. CFI)
b. Judge conducts ex parte preliminary examination of complainant and
witnesses under oath to determine probable cause
à Judge must ask probing questions, not just repeat facts in the affidavit
(Roan vs. Gonzales)
à Search may last for more than a day as long as it is part of the same
search for the same purpose and of the same place (Uy Khetin vs.
Villareal)
(3) Weapons and things which may be used as proof of offense charged
(Nolasco vs. Pano)
iii. Subject in an offense which is mala prohibita cannot be summarily
seized (Roan vs. Gonzales)
iv. May extend beyond arrestee to include premises and surrounding
under his immediate control
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 complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized.