Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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
3. Complaint and Information distinguished:
Complaint Information
A sworn statement Need not be sworn to
Subscribed by the offended party, any peace Subscribed to by the fiscal
officer or other officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated
May be filed either with the court or in the Filed with the court
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:
ii. Vessel
a. In RTC:
à By filing a complaint with the appropriate officer for the purpose of conducting requisite
preliminary investigation therein.
à By filing the complaint or information directly with said courts, or a complaint with the
fiscal’s office
à In all 3 above cases, such institution shall interrupt the period of prescription of the offense
charged (Rule 110, §1)
[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]
à The complaint or information shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior
preliminary examination or preliminary investigation.
à Zaldivia vs. Reyes – since a criminal case covered by the Rules of Summary Procedure shall
be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court, then the running of the prescriptive
period shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed in court and not on any date
before that.
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 the complaint is filed for preliminary examination or investigation only, or
for an action on the 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 and to Provide when Prescription Shall Begin to
Run”), §2 of which provides that period of prescription is suspended only when judicial
proceedings are instituted against the guilty party.
8. Contents of information
à Information may be amended as to the name of the accused, but such amendment cannot
be questioned for the first time on appeal (People vs. Guevarra)
à 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.
à Only one offense charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes a single punishment for various
offenses.
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 (People vs. Purisima)
c. Acts or omissions complained of constituting the offense
à 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
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
à 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.
1.Felonies in Art. 2, RPC (cognizable by proper court in which charge is first filed)
2.Continuing offenses
3.Piracy which is triable anywhere
4.Libel (residence; or where first published)
5.In exceptional cases, to ensure fair trial and impartial inquiry
à With consent of the offended party, offended spouse, grandparents, guardian, or state
as parens patriae, in that order
à Offended party, even if minor, has right to initiate the prosecution of the case
independently of parents, grandparents or guardian, unless she is incompetent/incapable on
grounds other than minority.
à If offended party who is a minor fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents or
guardian may do so.
à The offended party may intervene in the prosecution of the criminal case because of her
interest in it (Banal vs. Tadeo)
14. Procedure
1.Complaint filed in MTC or info filed in RTC where an essential ingredient of the crime took place
(territorial jurisdiction)
1.Amendment as a matter of right before plea
2.Amendment upon discretion of the court after plea
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)
d. After plea and before judgment, if it appears there was a mistake in charging proper
offense, court shall dismiss original info upon the filing of a corrected one, provided that the
accused will not be placed in double jeopardy (substitution)
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)
à If duplicity of offense charged is not raised in trial through a motion to quash info, the right
to question it is waived (People vs. Ocapan)
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
à Article 32 is a valid cause of a civil action for damages against public officers who impair
the Constitutional rights of citizens (Aberca vs. Ver)
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
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.
3. Civil action suspended when criminal action filed, EXCEPT
1.The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal
action
2.The resolution of such issue will determine whether the criminal action will proceed or not
à Requisites for a prejudicial question:
1.The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal
action: and
2.The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed
à Petition for suspension of criminal action is to be filed at any time before prosecution rests.
5. Remedies
a. Reservation of right to institute separate civil proceedings to recover civil liability arising
from crime
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:
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
à A preliminary investigation is only necessary for an information to be filed with the RTC;
complaints may be filed with the MTC without need of an information, which is merely
recommendatory (Tandoc vs. Resultan)
à Absence of a preliminary investigation is NOT a ground for a motion to quash the
information; 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 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) conduct its own investigation; or (2) require the fiscal to hold a
reinvestigation.
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 conducted.
3. Right to Preliminary Investigation
à Waived by failure to invoke the right prior to or at least at the time of the plea
5. Procedure
(c) MTC or MCTC judge, excluding MTC judge of Metro Manila or chartered cities
à i.e., if fiscal finds reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and
accused is probably guilty thereof
à 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
à 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
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
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
(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
à 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
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 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
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)
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)
à Warrants of arrest remain valid until arrest is effected, or the warrant is lifted
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
à Warrantless arrest anytime for a continuing offense like rebellion, subversion (Umil vs.
Ramos)
à 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)
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 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)
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)
à Habeas corpus is no longer available after an information has been filed, the information
being the judicial process required by law (Ilagan vs. Enrile)
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
à Filed with court when information against the person arrested has been filed
à Must be made in a “special appearance” before the court questioning only its lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused
à 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
à 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”
à Evolution of rights of the accused under custodial investigation
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 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 liberty
under his bail or recognizance
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
à In capital crimes, judge’s discretion is limited to determining strength of evidence and does
not 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
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.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
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
12. When bail cancelled or denied: after RTC imposes imprisonment exceeding 6 years, but
not more than 20 years, and:
à 30 days for bondsman to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against him
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
à For judge to set hearing for the determination of strength of evidence of guilt
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).
à 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
à 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
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
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
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)
à During trial, the right against self-incrimination takes the following form:
1.Accused may refuse to testify
2.If he testifies, he may refuse to answer those questions which may incriminate him in ANOTHER
offense
3. Double jeopardy
à No double jeopardy if the new fact which justified the new charge arose only after
arraignment and conviction (People vs. City Court)
à No double jeopardy where the trial was a sham since there was no competent court
(Galman vs. Sandiganbayan)
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
same acts (People vs. Relova)
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
à Both filed on the ground of violation of accused’s rights, thereby ousting the court of
jurisdiction
6. NOTES:
à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
1.No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
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 against him, to
have a speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, 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.
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative bodies.
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
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
à 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
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)
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
à 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.
à 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.
à 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
à Court conducts searching inquiry to determine if accused was aware of the charges, of his
plea, and its consequences
à 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
à 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
à 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
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
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
b. Motion to quash
à Filed when the accused seems mentally unsound or if there is a prejudicial question in a
pending civil case
à 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
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
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)
b. Court has no jurisdiction
à 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
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
à For charge to be complete, it is necessary to state that it was exempted from any amnesty
existing at the time
à 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
à 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
à If there was really no basis for the info, then such could be proved in the trial
à 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 defendant’s 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.
à Under “Speedy Trial Act of 1997”, in all criminal cases cognizable by the MTC, MCTC, MeTC,
RTC and Sandiganbayan, pretrial is mandatory.
à 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
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
4. Procedure
1.To assail the admissibility of evidence which prove the elements of the offense charged
2.To assail the credibility of such evidence
3.To prove another version, possibly admitting certain evidence of the prosecution and adding
other evidence to cast reasonable doubt
à Even in summary procedure, the judge cannot base his decision simply on affidavits; he
must give the defendant the chance to cross-examine (Combate vs. San Jose)
2. Procedure
a. Parties notified of date of trial 2 days before trial date (R119, §1)
à HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98, accused must be given at least 15 days to prepare for
trial, which shall commence within 30 days from receipt of Pre-Trial Order.
à Presentation
à Cross-examination
à Re-cross
à Offer
1.If Accused cannot be convicted of offense charged or offense necessarily included therein
2.Accused detained, not discharged
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 for the dismissal of the info in order to file a new one for estafa. No Double Jeopardy
because no valid info in the first case.
4. Application for examination of witnesses for accused before trial
5. Application (prosecution)
1.Sick or infirm
2.Has to leave the RP with indefinite date of returning
à 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
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 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
à Prosecution will present evidence and the sworn statement of the proposed state witness
à 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.
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)
f. Demurrer to evidence
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
à Filed after the case is submitted for judgment but before judgment is actually rendered
à To allow either side to present additional evidence, if such could not be found before
à 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.
à Accused cannot be convicted for an offense graver than that charged (People vs. Guevarra)
4. Contents
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
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
9. Procedure for new trial
10. Notes:
à Suspension of sentence for youthful offenders – after conviction, minor is committed to
custody and care of DSWD or any training institution until reaches 21 years of age, or a
shorter period
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 Parole – the conditional release of an offender from a penal or correctional institution after
he 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
Rule 121 New Trial or Reconsideration
1. Reopening of the case
1.Made by the court before judgment is rendered in the exercise of sound discretion
2.Does not require consent of accused
3.May be made at the instance of either party who can thereafter present additional evidence
1.Only impeaching evidence is sought to be introduced as the court had already passed upon issue
of credibility
2.Only corroborative evidence is offered
3.Prisoner admits commission of crime with which accused is charged (facility with which such
confession can be obtained and fabricated)
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 of such
recantations, EXCEPT if no other evidence to sustain conviction aside from recanted testimony
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 make them conformable to the law applicable to the case on the judgment the
court has to render anew.
5. New Trial vs. Modification of 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 New trial presupposes that existence of a judgment to be set aside upon the granting of a
new trial
à In reopening, no judgment has yet been rendered, although the hearing may have already
been closed
à Grounds are errors of law or fact in judgment, which require no further proceedings.
à Proceedings and evidence not affected by irregularities stand, and those affected are set
aside. Court may allow introduction of new evidence
à Evidence already taken shall stand; new evidence taken with the old
i. With CA: notice of appeal with court, and with copy on adverse party
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
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.
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.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.
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
à Cannot be issued to look for evidence (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
à Seizing objects to be used as evidence is equivalent to forcing one to be a witness against
himself (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
à For a warrant to be valid, it must meet the requirements set by law (Burgos vs. Chief of
Staff)
à 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.
à Warrantless searches are illegal, unreasonable and unconstitutional (Alvarez vs. CFI)
à It is not the police action which is impermissible, but the procedure and unreasonable
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 is not an unconstitutional deprivation of property (Villanueva vs. Querubin)
à Evidence from an illegal search may be used as evidence, if no objection is raised (Stonehill
vs. Diokno)
à Right against unreasonable search and seizure may be waived, but for the waiver to be
effective:
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)
3. Requisites of a valid search warrant
à 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
b. Probable cause is personally determined by the issuing judge
à By any RTC, to be served anywhere in the country, for an offense which occurred anywhere
in the country (Malaloan vs. CA)
c. Issuing judge personally examined, in the form of searching questions, the appellant and
his witness and took down their written depositions
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)
e. Particularly describes the place to be searched
f. It shall issue only for one specific offense
à Otherwise, cannot be said to have issued upon probable cause (Asian Surety vs. Herrera)
à Absence of specific offense makes impossible determination of probable cause (Stonehill
vs. Diokno)
g. Was not issued for more than 10 days prior to a search made pursuant thereto (search
warrant becomes void after 10 days)
4. When a search warrant may be said to particularly describe the thing to be seized
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)
c. Judge issues search warrant good for 10 days
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)
e. Peace officer leaves receipt with occupant at place searched
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.
Gonzales)
6. Remedies from an unlawful search
(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
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
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
1.The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order
of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
2.Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in the proceeding.