Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
PART ONE
INTRODUCTION1
Amy Rossabi, The Colonial Roots of Criminal Procedure in the Philippines, 11 Columbia
Journal of Asian Law 175
Rules of Criminal Procedure 1964, 1985, 1988
Pangalanagan, Raul (Ed.): The Philippine Judicial System (IDE Asian Law
Series No. 5, March 2001)
A Synopsis Of The Criminal Litigation Process, Riano, Willard: Criminal
Procedure (Bar Lecture Series) 2011, pp. 49-54.
Criminal Jurisdiction
Oscar M. Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. IV , Criminal Procedure
(Rules 110-127), pp. 1-56.
a. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (as amended);
b. SC Administrative Circular No. 09-942;
c. The 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure;
d. Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as amended by RA 8249 (Sandiganbayan Law);
e. Rep. Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Law);
I. Criminal Jurisdiction
A. Principles & Elements:
1. Allegations of complaint/information as basis of jurisdiction:
Buaya v. Polo, 169 SCRA 471 (1989)T
2. Real party in interest in criminal cases:
Jimenez v. Sorongon, G.R. No. 178607, Dec. 5, 2012T
3. Elements & Requisites of Criminal Jurisdiction:
Antiporda v. Gatchitorena, G.R. No. 133289 Dec. 23, 1999T
1
Revised & Updated, June. 2017.
2
Guidelines in the Implementation of Republic Act No. 7691. Entitled "An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Amending for the Purpose Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,
Otherwise Known as the 'Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980."
-4-
a) Subject matter or offense
Revised Penal Code as amended and Special Penal Laws
Law at time of institution of criminal
action not at commission:
People v. Lagon, 185 SCRA 442 (1990) T
Neither law at arraignment:
Palana v. People, 534 SCRA 296 (2007)
Exception, offenses under jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan:
Sec. 4, A, R.A. 8249
People v. Sandiganbayan & Plaza, G.R. No. 169004, Sept. 15, 2010T
b) Venue or Territory where committed; Purpose
Sec. 18, B.P. 129
Rule 110, Sec. 10 & 15
Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases; based on
allegations; burden of proof:
Treñas v. People, G. R. No. 195002, January 25, 2012T
Lopez v. City Judge, G.R. No. L-25795, [October 29, 1966], 124 PHIL
1211-1219)
Jurisdiction can be waived?:
Uy v. C.A., 276 SCRA 367 (1997) T
Venue of BP 22 & Estafa distingusihed:
People v. Grospe, G.R. Nos. L-74053-54 January 20, 1988
Venue in Perjury (Art. 183):
Union Bank v. People, G.R. No. 192565, February 28, 2012
Change of venue:
Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (4), 1987 Constitution
History of:
People v. Gutierrez, 36 SCRA 172 (1970)
People v. Pilotin, 65 SCRA 635 (1975)
Mondiguing v. Abad, 68 SCRA 14.
People v. Sola, G.R. No. L-56158-64 March 17, 1981**
See: [A.M. No. 10-1-06-RTC : January 12, 2010] Re: Petition for
Change of Trial Venue of Criminal Case No. Sa-198, People
v. Data Andal Ampatuan, Sr., et Al. For Rebellion from
the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City to the Regional
-5-
Trial Court of Quezon City. T
Re: Petition for Change of Venue of Crim. Case No. 15-147-W, A.M. No.
16-07-242-RTC (Notice), [August 24, 2016])
-6-
People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47. January 20, 2003,
443 Phil. 521-554**T
Cabarles v. Maceda, G.R. No. 161330, February 20, 2007T
Must be before judgment:
In Re: Anonymous letter against Judge Pinto, A.M. No.
RTJ-11-2289 October 2, 2012**
-7-
When available
At whose instance
After either or both parties have offered & closed their evidence, but before judgment:
Agulto v. C.A., 181 SCRA 80 (1990) T
Alegre v. Reyes, 161 SCRA 226 (1988)
-8-
A. Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTC), the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities
(MTCC), the Municipal Trial Courts (MTC), and the Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts (MCTC):
Original & Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction:
2. General Jurisdiction:
Sec. 32, (1) & (2), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691
Sec, 3 & 4, SC Administrative Circular No. 09-94 B.P. Blg. 22:
SC Circular No. 57-97 September 16, 1997
SC Admin. Circular No. 13-2001 February 14, 2001
Alternative Penalties for Violation of BP 22:
Tan v. Mendez, G.R. No. 138669, June 6, 2002
Lunaria v. People, G.R. No. 160127, Nov. 11, 2008
-9-
B. Regional Trial Court (RTC):
1. Original & Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction
Sec. 20, B.P. 129 ( As amended by R.A. No. 7691)
-10-
569 PHIL 298-309
B. Ordinary Appeal:
In cases decided in the exercise of its original jurisdiction -
Rule 41, Sec. 2 (a)
Period of ordinary appeal, Sec. 3, Rule 41
Notice of Appeal, Sec. 5, Rule 41
Perfection of appeal, Sec. 9, Rule 41
-11-
PD 968 (as amended), sec. 4;
e) Effects of death of accused pending appeal
People vs. Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova, G.R. No. 102007, Sept. 2, 1994
Villegas v. CA, 271 SCRA 148 (1997);
People v. Ayochok, 629 SCRA 324 (2010)
f) Effect of failure to appeal a patently wrong judgment
People v. Barro Sr., 338 SCRA 312 (2000);
-12-
People v. Molina, G.R. Nos. 141129-33, December 14, 2001;
Ong vs. Genio, 609 SCRA 188, Dec. 23, 2009
3. Even split or no majority in Supreme Court
Rule 125, sec. 3;
Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, 71 SCRA 231(1976)
VI. The Anti-Graft Court (Sandiganbayan) and the Office of the Ombudsman
A. The Office of the Ombudsman:
Article XI - 1987 Philippine Constitution - Accountability of Public Officers
Rep. Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Law);
Administrative Order No. 08, November 2, 1990 (Clarifying and Modifying
Certain Rules of Procedure)
Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 1990 (Rules of Procedure of the
Office of the Ombudsman)
-13-
RA 8249 (Amendments to Sandiganbayan Law)
Duncano v. Sandiganbayan (2nd Division), G.R. No. 191894, [July 15, 2015])T
-14-
Magno v. People, supra
4. Exclusive and original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of
the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
injunctions
Sec. 4 (c) par. 4, R.A. No. 8249, amending P.D. No. 1606
PART II
-15-
RULE 126 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE3
Pertinent Documents & Pleadings:
(1) Search Warrant;
(2) Documents as basis for issuance:
Request for Issuance;
Affidavit/s of complainant or witnesses
Others (Photographs, sketches, etc.)
(3) Motion to Quash Search Warrant
(4) Motion to Suppress
(5) Motion for Return of Property Seized
3
Revised Feb. 2016.
-16-
B. Constitutional and statutory boundaries; limitations on State action
1. Nature of right protected; waiver of protected right
Katz v. U.S., supra
Deference to one's personality at the core of this right:
Villanueva v. Querubin, 48 SCRA 349 (1972);
Legality of "areal target zonings" or saturation drives":
Guanzon v. De Villa, 181 SCRA 623 (1990);
Governmental transgression
People v. Marti, supra
2. Scope of protection
Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 3(1);
Katz v. U.S., supra
People v. Valdez, supra
-17-
March 26, 2013T
C. Types
1. With A Search Warrant
a. Generally
Rule 126, sec. 1;
People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626 (1998)T
Manalili v. CA, 280 SCRA 400 (1997)
-18-
People v. Mamaril, 420 SCRA 662 (2004)T
Kho v. Makalintal, 306 SCRA 70**
Tan v. Sy Tiong Gue, 613 SCRA 98 (2010)
Ogayon v. People, G.R. No. 188794, Sept. 2, 2015T
-19-
Maryland v. King, No. 12–207. Argued February 26, 2013—Decided
June 3, 2013T
Blood Test for DUI:
Missouri v. McKeeny, U.S. No. 11–1425. Argued January 9, 2013
—Decided April 17, 2013T
f. Validity of warrant
People v. Estrada, supra
People v. CA, supra
-20-
2013—Decided June 3, 2013 T
Cellphones:
Riley v. California, June 25, 2014 T
b. Consented search
People v. Malasigui, 63 Phil. 221 (1936);
Alvarez v. CFI, 64 Phil. 48 (1937);
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973)
People vs. Cuizon, 265 SCRA 325
-21-
People v. Canton, G.R. No. 148825, Dec. 27, 2002, supra
Checkpoints:
Valmonte v. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989);
Aniag vs. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 424 (1994);
People v. Vinecario, 420 SCRA 280 (2004)T
-22-
People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 24 (2000)T
Partly defective warrant; limits of “plain view”
People v. Salanguit, 356 SCRA 683 (2001)T
“Plain Touch”:
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 113 S.Ct. 2130 (1993)
g. Extraordinary circumstances:
People v. De Gracia, 233 SCRA 716 (1994);
Bringham City v. Stuart, 126 S.Ct. 1943 (2006)
B. Post-service procedure
People v. Gesmundo, supra
1. Issuance of Receipt
Rule 126, sec. 11;
People v. Lacbanes, 270 SCRA 193 (1997);
2. Delivery of property and inventory; return and proceedings on the
return:
-23-
Rule 126, sec. 12;
People v. Gesmundo, supra
-24-
PART III
A. Definition
Rule 113, Secs. 1, 2;
Sanchez v. Demetriou, 227 SCRA 627 (1993);
People v. Sequiño, 264 SCRA 79 (1996);
Defensor-Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 663 (1993);
B. Types
1. With a warrant
a. When and how warrant issued
Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 2;
Rule 112, sec. 5;
May dismiss instead of issue warrant
Ong vs. Genio, 609 SCRA 188, Dec. 23, 2009;
4
Updated July 2016
-25-
People v. Yadao, G.R. Nos. 162144-54, Nov. 13, 2012 (EB)T
“[O]nly when evidence plainly fails to establish probable cause.”
De los Santos-Dio v. Caguioa, G.R. No. 178947& G.R. No. 179079, June
26, 2013T
Young v. People, G.R. No. 213910, Feb. 03, 2016T
NO T E: Co m p are Yad ao to San to s -Dio & Yo u n g !
-26-
(1) Old Rule:
Rule 113, sec. 5, !985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 (1986);T
People v. Joselito Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999 (EB)T
Cadua v. CA, 312 SCRA 703 (1999);
Padilla v. C.A., 269 SCRA 402 (1997)
R.A. 7438 [Gu id e lin e s , p ro c e d u re s an d d u tie s o f o ffic e rs arre s tin g , d e tain in g , in v itin g o r
in v e s tig atin g at th e tim e o f arre s t o r at c u s to d ial in te rro g atio n ];
-27-
c. Method of arrest by private person
Rule 113, sec. 9;
d. Post-arrest procedure
Rule 112, sec. 7;
4. “DNA” Warrants:
DNA warrants: A panacea for old, cold rape cases?
Georgetown Law Journal, Apr 2002 by Valdivieso, Veronica
Se e : Denver District Attorney’s Office:
http://www.denverda.org/DNA/John_Doe_DNA_Warrants.htm]
PDF Samples of :
1. The John Doe Arrest Warrant.
2. The John Doe Complaint With Genetic Profile.
3. The John Doe Arrest Warrant With Alles
4. The John Doe Amended Complaint After Cold Hit
5. The brief in support of John Doe Warrants
5. Invitations:
Babst, et al. v. NIB, 132 SCRA 316 (1984);
People v. Sequino, 264 SCRA 79 (1996);
People v. Del Rosario, 305 SCRA 740 (1999)
R.A. No. 7438
People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755 April 14, 1999;
305 SCRA 740 (1999)**
People v. Olivarez, Jr., G.R. No. 77865 | 1998-12-04
1. Definition
People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755 April 14, 1999;
305 SCRA 740 (1999)**T
People v. Guting, G.R. No. 205412, Sept. 9, 2015T
Navallo v. Sanidaganbayan, G.R. No. 97214, July 16, 1994**
-28-
People v. Pasudag, G.R. No. 128822, May 4, 2001;
People v. Abe Valdez, G.R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000, 341 SCRA 25;
People v. Rodriguez, 341 SCRA 645 (2000);
Republic Act No. 7438, sec. 2(f), par. 2;
Cf. Babst v. NIB, 132 SCRA 31 (1984);
People v. Muleta, 309 SCRA 148 (1999);
People v. Tan, 286 SCRA 207 (1998);
Confession and Admission Distinguished:
People v. Zuela, 323 SCRA 589 (2000);
1. Rights involved
Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 12 (1), (2);
Republic Act No. 7438, sec. 2(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f);
People v. Obrero, 332 SCRA 190 (2000);
People v. Mojello, G.R. No. 145566, March 9, 2004**
2. Consequences of violation
Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 12 (3)
Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971);
New York v. Quarles, 104 S. Ct. 2626 (1984);
People v. Duero, 104 SCRA 379 (1981);
People v. Figueroa, 335 SCRA 299 (2000);
Gumabon v. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 429 (1971);
Republic Act No. 7438, sec. 4:
-29-
People v. Samulde, 336 SCRA 632 (2000);
People v. Gallardo, 323 SCRA 218 (2000);
Cf. V.V. Mendoza, The Right to Counsel in Custodial Interrogations, 61 PHIL. L. J. 409 (1986);
B. Remedies
-30-
Luna v. Plaza, 26 SCRA 310 (1968);
Alimpoos v. CA, 106 SCRA 159 (1981);
4. Bail
Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 14;
RJCL, secs. 15, 16, 17;
JJWA, secs. 34, 35, 36 cf. sec. 4(p);
Rule 114, sec. 26;
Panada v. Veneracion, 269 SCRA 371 (1997);
-31-
Sayo v. Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 859 (1948);
Cf. Rule 126, sec. 14;
-32-
RULE 114 - BAIL
Pertinent pleadings:
(1) Motion to set bail/Petition for bail
(2) Motion to reduce bail
Pertinent Rules and Laws:
1) Rule 114, 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure
2) Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails By Enforcing the Rights of Accused Persons to Bail and to
Speedy Trial (A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC [March 18, 2014])
3) Bail Not Required In Certain Offenses (R.A. No. 6036)
4) Recognizance Act of 2012" (R.A. No. 10389)
PPA-DOJ Internal Guidelines for the Implementation of Republic Act No. 10389
5) Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC)
B. Nature
1. Matter of right
- Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 13;
- Rule 114, sec. 4;
- JJWA, secs.34-37;
- RJCL, sec. 15, 16;
- People v. Donato, 198 SCRA 130 (1991);
- San Miguel v. Judge Maceda, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1749, April 4, 2007
2. Discretionary
-33-
- Rule 114, secs. 5, 6, 7, 8, 24;
- RJCL, sec. 17;
- Teehankee v. Director of Prisons, 76 Phil. 756 (1946);
- People v. San Diego, 26 SCRA 522 (1988);
- Ocampo v. Bernabe, 77 Phil. 55 (1946);
- Siazon v. Judge, 4 SCRA 184 (1971);
- Mamolo v. Narisima, 252 SCRA 613 (1995);
II. Procedure
10, III, Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (A.M.
No. 15-06-10-SC)
1. Petition for Bail
2. Evidence in Petition for Bail
3. Non-suspension of the presentation of evidence
A. Corporate surety
- Rule 114, secs. 1. 2, 10, 13, 21, 22;
B. Cash deposit
- Rule 114, secs. 1, 2, 14, 21;
C. Property
- Rule 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22;
D. Recognizance
- Bail Not Required In Certain Offenses (R.A. No. 6036)
Tubao v. Judge Barataman, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1384, April 11, 2002
- “Recognizance Act of 2012" (R.A. No. 10389)
PPA-DOJ Internal Guidelines for the Implementation of Republic Act No. 10389
- Rule 114, secs. 1, 2, 15, 16;
- RJCL, secs. 6(i), 15;
- JJWA, secs. 4(p), 35;
A. Guidelines
- Rule 114, sec. 9;
- Dela Camara v. Enage, 41 SCRA 1 (1971);
- Villasenor v. Abano, 21 SCRA 321 (1967);
-34-
B. When not required or reduced
- Rule 114, secs. 16, 20;
- Rep. Act No. 6036;
-35-
PART IV
RULE 110
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
&
RULE 127
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN
CRIMINAL CASES*****
Pertinent Forms:
(1) Complaint
(2) Information
(3) Authority to Appear as Private Prosecutor
Pertinent Pleadings:
(1) Motion for Suspension of Criminal Action
(2) Reservation of Civil Action
(3) Entry of Appearance as Private Prosecutor
A. Criminal
Revised Penal Code
Special Penal Laws
B. Civil
Rev. Pen. Code, arts. 100-113;
Civil Code, arts. 29, 32, 33, 34, 2176;
Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 322 SCRA 160 (2000)
A. Criminal aspect
1. Generally
Sec. 1;
RJCL, sec. 11;
People v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 102955, March 22, 1993.
Rule 110, Sec. 16;
Tolling of prescriptive period:
People v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012
Executive power to prosecute violators:
Ampatuan v. De Lima, G.R. No. 197291, April 3, 2013
*****
Revised & Updated June 2017
-36-
2. Venue and Jurisdiction
BP 129 (as amended), secs. 20, 32;
Rule 110, sec. 15;
RJCL, sec. 14;
a) MTC: (Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the
Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts)
Sec. 32 (2), B.P. 129. (As amended by Sec. 2, R.A.
No. 7691)
Sec. 3 & 4, S.C. ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 9-94
b) RTC
CASES:
People v. Lagon, 185 SCRA 442 (1990)
Malaloan v. CA, 232 SCRA 249 (1994)
a) MTC:
(Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the
Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts)
Sec. 11 & 12, 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
b) RTC:
Rule 110, secs. 2, 3, 4;
DOJ-NPS Manual, Part III, sec. 8;
-37-
Cases [Sept.2017])
Who must prosecute:
Pinote v. Ayco, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1944, [December 13, 2005]
Intervention of offended party through private prosecutor:
Rodriguez v. Ponferrada, G.R. Nos. 155531-34. July 29, 2005.T
Goan v. Yatco, G.R. No. L-6286, December 29, 1953
Physical presence of fiscal or proceedings are void:
People v. Beriales, G.R. No. L-39962, April 7, 1976T
Private complainant’s standing to appeal acquittal:
Delgado v. Gonzalez, GR No. 184337, 07 August 2009T
Merciales v. C.A., G.R. No. 124171, March 18, 2002**T
Fiscal’s consent to dismiss:
Republic v. Sunga, 162 SCRA 191 (1988)T
People v. Ilarde, G.R. No. 58595, October 10, 1983
People v. Tañada, G.R. No. L-32215, October 17, 1988
Role of private complainant:
People v. Madali, 349 SCRA 104 (2001)
1) Procedural
a. Name of accused and offended party
(i) Name of the accused:
Secs. 7, Rule 110
“John Doe” Informations
DOJ Department Circular No. 50, Oct. 29,1990
Substitution of private offended party:
Ricarze v. C.A., G.R. No. 160451, February 9, 2007 supra
(ii) Name of offended party in crimes against property:
Sec. 12, Rule 110
(1) When offended party unknown
(2) When true name disclosed
(3) Offended party is a juridical person
Effect of wrong designation of offended party in an information:
Senador v. People, G.R. No. 201620. March 6, 2013T
b. Designation of offense
Rule 110, secs. 8;
DOJ-NPS Manual, Part III, sec. 40;
People v. Purisima, 86 SCRA 542 (1978)
“Sexual Abuse” not element of Rape:
People v. Flores, G.R. No. 128823-24. December 27, 2002
Generic & Qualifying Circumstances must be alleged:
-38-
People v. Pardilla, 92 SCRA 591(1979)**
People v. Buayaban, 400 SCRA 48 (2003)
People v. Delim, G.R. No. 142773, January 28, 2003**
People v. Fernandez, 414 SCRA 84 (2003)
People v. Masapol, 417 SCRA 371 (2003)
Estafa includes falsification as means?:
Patula v. People, G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012
Consequence of failure to allege
People v. Valdez, 663 SCRA 272 (Jan. 2012) supraT
c. Formal amendment
Effect of failure to object:
People v. Degamo, 402 SCRA 133 (2003);
Villaflor v. Viver, 349 SCRA 194 (2001);
Albert v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164015, February 26, 2009
2) Substantive
a. Single offense
Rule 110, sec. 13; Rule 117, Sec. 3 (f): Rule 120, Sec. 3
People v. Fernandez, 183 SCRA 511 (1990);
People v. Lopez, 312 SCRA 684 (1999);
b. Cause of accusation
Rule 110, sec. 9;
Must contain all essential elements of crime charged:
Balitaan v. CFI-Batangas, 115 SCRA 729 (1982);
“Simple theft in relation to P.D. 133" insufficient:
Matilde v. Jabson, 68 SCRA 456 (1975);
Libel information must state defamatory words verbatim and as published:
Vasquez v. CA, G.R. 314 SCRA 460 (1999);
Qualifying circumstance of relationship must be alleged specifically:
People v. Llanto, G.R. No. 146458, January 20, 2003;
Exceptions in statute need not be alleged:
People v. Chan Toco, 12 Phil. 262 (1908)
-39-
Variance not invalidate information; Supplanted by evidence during trial:
People v. Delfin, G.R. No. 201572, July 9, 2014T
Timely object and show prejudice; remedy of prosecution:
People v. Rivera, G.R. No. L-27825, June 30, 1970**T
U.S. v. Bungaoil, G.R. No. L-11505, August 25, 1916
“On or about . . .”:
People v. Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003T
“On or about the year 1982":
People v. Ladrillo, 320 SCRA 61 (1999);
Other cases:
People v. Losano, G.R. No. 127122, July 20, 1999;
U.S. v. Javier Dichao, 27 Phil. 421 (1914);
People v. Molero, 144 SCRA 397 (1986);
People v. Lualhati, 171 SCRA 277 (1989);
-40-
i. (c) Meritorious Motions, II, (Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal
Cases [Sept. 2017])
Teehankee v. Madayag, 140 SCRA 425 (1985)**T
Matalam v. Sandiganbayan, 455 SCRA 736 (2005)T
Draculan v. Donato, 140 SCRA 425 (1985);
Almeda v. Villaluz, 66 SCRA 38 (1975);
People v. CA, 121 SCRA 733 (1983)
Galvez v. C.A., G.R. No. 114046, Oct. 24, 1994
People v. Tubongbanua, 500 SCRA 727 (2006)
Excluding an accused by amendment:
Soberano v. People, G.R. No. 154629, [October 5, 2005], 509 PHIL 118-136)T
Substitution:
Pacoy v. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472, Sept. 28, 2007
People v. Mogol, G.R. No. L-37837, Aug. 24, 1984T
Substitution of a private complainant:
Ricarze v. C.A., G.R. No. 160451, February 9, 2007T
When another preliminary investigation is required:
Matalam v. Sandiganbayan, supraT
Amendment as to date:
People v. Rivera, G.R. No. L-27825, June 30, 1970** supra
B. Motion to Withdraw & Motion to Dismiss:
Distinguished:
Torres, Jr. v. Spouses Torres-Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 164268,
[ June 28, 2005]
C. Motion to Quash
Rule 117; Cf. Rule 119, sec. 19;
Cruz v. CA, 194 SCRA 145 (1991);
D. Bill of Particulars
Rule 116, sec. 9;
See: B ill o f Partic u lars in Crim in al Cas e s by Ambrosio R. Blanco,
202 SCRA 739
Enrile v. People, G.R. No. 213455. August 11, 2015**T
Rocaberte v. People, 193 SCRA 152 (1991)
-41-