Professional Documents
Culture Documents
At the outset, lets remove any possibility of misunderstanding that may be caused by the title of this post.
The reference to a preliminary investigation in criminal cases does not imply that theres a preliminary
investigation in civil cases theres none. Preliminary investigation is a part of the rules of criminal
procedure. Simply stated, its available ONLY in criminal cases.
What is Preliminary Investigation?
Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty
thereof, and should be held for trial.
What is the Nature and Purpose of preliminary investigation?
The determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is an executive function, the
correctness of the exercise of which is a matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled
to pass upon.
In a preliminary investigation, the investigating prosecutor makes a determination if theres a probable cause,
which is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind,
acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime
for which he was prosecuted. It has been explained as a reasonable presumption that a matter is, or may be,
well founded, such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution
and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so. The term does not
mean actual and positive cause nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and
reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is
sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission
complained of constitutes the offense charged, as there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the
prosecution in support of the charge.
The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive
prosecution, and to protect him from an open and public accusation of a crime, from the trouble, expense
and anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the state from useless and expensive trials. A preliminary
investigation serves not only the purposes of the State. More important, it is a part of the guarantees of
freedom and fair play which are birthrights of all who live in our country. It is therefore, imperative upon the
fiscal or the judge as the case may be, to relieve the accused from the pain of going through a trial once it is
ascertained that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a prima facie case or that no probable cause exists to
form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused. The judge or fiscal, therefore, should not go on with the
prosecution in the hope that some credible evidence might later turn up during trial for this would be in
flagrant violation of a basic right which the courts are created to uphold. (Salonga vs. Cruz Pao)
When is preliminary investigation required?
A preliminary investigation is required to be conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for an
offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day,
without regard to the fine.
A preliminary investigation is not required in cases of warrantless arrests. When a person is lawfully
arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or
information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such investigation provided an inquest has been
conducted in accordance with existing rules. However, after the filing of the complaint or information in court
without a preliminary investigation, the accused may, within five (5) days from the time he learns of its filing,
ask for a preliminary investigation.
Who are the officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations?
The following may conduct preliminary investigations:
(a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;
(b) Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
(c) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and
(d) Other officers as may be authorized by law.
What are the basic steps in preliminary investigation?
The basic steps (further discussed in the subsequent paragraphs) in preliminary investigation are:
the ground that a probable cause exists, the latter may, by himself, file the information against the
respondent, or direct another assistant prosecutor or state prosecutor to do so without conducting another
preliminary investigation.
An Information filed in court may be quashed, among other reasons, if it does not contain the approval or
authority of the aforementioned superiors.
What is the procedure if the preliminary investigation is conducted by a judge?
The procedure is basically the same as described above. Within ten (10) days after the preliminary
investigation, the investigating judge shall transmit the resolution of the case to the provincial or city
prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction, for appropriate action. The resolution shall state the findings of facts and
the law supporting his action, together with the record of the case which shall include: (a) the warrant, if the
arrest is by virtue of a warrant; (b) the affidavits, counter-affidavits and other supporting evidence of the
parties; (c) the undertaking or bail of the accused and the order for his release; (d) the transcripts of the
proceedings during the preliminary investigation; and (e) the order of cancellation of his bail bond, if the
resolution is for the dismissal of the complaint.
Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the records, the provincial or city prosecutor, or the Ombudsman or his
deputy, as the case may be, shall review the resolution of the investigating judge on the existence of probable
cause. Their ruling shall expressly and clearly state the facts and the law on which it is based and the parties
shall be furnished with copies thereof. They shall order the release of an accused who is detained if no
probable cause is found against him.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rule 110 PROSECUTION of Offenses
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
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)
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
Information
A sworn statement
4.
Cases where civil courts of equal rank are vested with concurrent jurisdiction:
1.
i.
1.
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)
Vessel
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
File civil action under Art. 27, NCC for damages (PO refuses or neglects to perform official duty)
7.
8.
6. Writs of injunction or prohibition to restrain a criminal prosecution are not available, EXCEPT
1.
2.
Necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Clearly no prima facie case against the accused and MTQ on that ground had been denied
7.
a.
In RTC:
By filing a complaint with the appropriate officer for the purpose of conducting requisite preliminary
investigation therein.
b. In Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts:
By filing the complaint or information directly with said courts, or a complaint with the fiscals office
c. In Metropolitan Trial Courts
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
2.
2.
Charge does not deprive accused of a fair opportunity to present his defense
3.
Felonies in Art. 2, RPC (cognizable by proper court in which charge is first filed)
2.
Continuing offenses
3.
4.
5.
Complaint filed in MTC or info filed in RTC where an essential ingredient of the crime took place (territorial
jurisdiction)
1.
2.
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)
Fiscal determines direction of prosecution; complainant must ask fiscal if he wants to dismiss the case; the
motion to dismiss must be addressed to the court which has discretion over the disposition of the case
(Republic vs. Sunga)
Objection to the amendment of an information or complaint must be raised at the time the amendment is
made; otherwise, deemed to have consented thereto.
15. Remedies
a. Motion to quash
May be filed after arraignment but before plea on the grounds provided by the rules (generally, a flaw in
the info)
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
May be filed after plea but before judgment on most of grounds for motion to quash
16. Duplicity of Offense (in information or complaint)
Defined as the joinder of separate and distinct offenses in one and the same information/complaint
Remedy: file a motion to quash; failure is equivalent to a waiver
Exception: when existing laws prescribe a single punishment (complex crimes)
Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Action
1. General Rule: The injured party may file a civil action independent of the criminal proceeding to recover
damages from the offender.
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)
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
2. Civil action for recovery of civil liability impliedly instituted, EXCEPT
1.
Waiver
2.
3.
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.
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.
2.
3.
4.
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
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
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
Must be made before prosecution presents evidence
Action instituted only after final judgment in criminal action
b. Petition to suspend the criminal action
Filing fees:
1.
2.
1.
If alleged, fees must be paid by offended party upon filing of complaint or information
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The Ombudsman
2.
5. Procedure
a. If conducted prior to arrest
i.
1.
Investigating officer either dismisses complaint or asks by subpoena complainant and respondent to submit
affidavits and counter-affidavits
1.
If the investigating officer finds prima facie evidence, he prepares an information and a resolution
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
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.
When strong-arm tactics are used for vindictive purposes (Salonga vs. Cruz-Pano)
2.
3.
When the statute on which the charge is based is null and void
4.
5.
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.
2.
3.
4. Procedure
a. With warrant
1.
2.
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.
5.
Probable cause
2.
Signed by judge
3.
John Doe warrants are void for being general warrants (Pangandaman vs. Cesar)
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.
2.
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.
2.
To remain silent
2.
Against self-incrimination
3.
To counsel
4.
2.
3.
The rights may be waived, but the rights to be informed of these rights,i.e.,
to warning, may not be waived
4.
Warning must not only be said, officer must make sure the person arrested
understands them specifically
5.
Present rules
1.
2.
3.
Confessions made without assistance of counsel are inadmissible as evidence to incriminate the accused,
but they may be used to impeach the credibility of the accused, or they may be treated as verbal admission of
the accused through the testimony of the witnesses (People vs. Molas)
Rule 114 Bail
1. Bail security given for the release of a person in custody of law, furnished by him or a bondsman,
conditioned upon his appearance before any court as required under the following conditions:
1.
Undertaking effective upon approval and remains in force at all stages until promulgation of judgment, unless
sooner cancelled
2.
3.
4.
Bail applies to all persons detained, not just to those charged with the offense (Herras vs. Teehankee)
Court has power to prohibit person out on bail from leaving the country (Manotoc, Jr. vs. CA)
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.
Right to bail traditionally unavailable to military personnel facing court martial, who are not in the same
class as civilians (Comendador vs. de Villa)
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. Peoples Court)
Excessive bail is tantamount to denial of bail, which is unconstitutional (Dela Camara vs. Enage)
3. When bail is a matter of right
Before or after conviction by MTC, MCTC, MJC
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
a.
i.
(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.
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
2.
Court may not force fiscal to produce evidence (Herras vs. Teehankee)
2.
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.
3.
8. Prosecution witnesses may be required to post bail to ensure their appearance at the trial,except:
1.
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.
2.
Caught in flagrante
3.
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.
7.
Previously pardoned by municipal or city mayor for violation of ordinance for at least 2 times
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
Accused dies
b. Automatic cancellation
1.
Case is dismissed
1.
Accused is acquitted
2.
12. When bail cancelled or denied: after RTC imposes imprisonment exceeding 6 years, but not more than 20
years, and:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Probability of flight; or
5.
Sureties guarantee only appearance of the accused, not his conduct (US vs. Bonoan)
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
1.
2.
For judge to set hearing for the determination of strength of evidence of guilt
16. Circumstances to be considered in fixing amount of bail:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
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).
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.
3.
To confront and examine the witnesses against him, including the right to use in evidence testimony of a witness
4.
2.
3.
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.
2.
If he testifies, he may refuse to answer those questions which may incriminate him in ANOTHER offense
2.
3.
c.
1.
2.
3.
Action ended in conviction, acquittal or termination without the consent of the accused
2.
An offense lesser than that charged to which the accused pleaded guilty with the consent of
the fiscal and the offended party
2.
The facts constituting the graver offense were only discovered after the filing of the earlier information
No double jeopardy if the new fact which justified the new charge arose only after arraignment and
conviction (People vs. City Court)
No double jeopardy where the trial was a sham since there was no competent court (Galman vs.
Sandiganbayan)
No double jeopardy if first case was dismissed with consent of the accused (Caes vs. IAC)
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
Both filed on the ground of violation of accuseds rights, thereby ousting the court of jurisdiction
6. NOTES:
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.
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14
1.
2.
No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
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.
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 16
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, 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.
2.
Court informs accused of his right to counsel and asks him if he wants one
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.
3.
4.
5.
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.
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.
2.
3.
4.
Guilty to a lesser offense if fiscal and offended party consents, conviction under offense charged for purposes of
double jeopardy
5.
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
2.
3.
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
No offense charged
2.
3.
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.
2.
No territorial jurisdiction
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.
The court gained jurisdiction over the person of the accused when he voluntarily appeared for the presuspension 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.
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.
6. Remedies
1.
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.
2.
3.
4.
Double jeopardy
2.
3.
4.
5.
Plea bargaining
6.
Stipulation of facts
7.
8.
9.
To assail the admissibility of evidence which prove the elements of the offense charged
2.
3.
To prove another version, possibly admitting certain evidence of the prosecution and adding other evidence to
cast reasonable doubt
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
2.
3.
Prosecution witnesses, if they would be unable to attend trial, may be examined by the judge handling the case
4.
Trial continues from day to day, unless postponed for a just cause
5.
Presentation
Testimonies: direct examination
Cross-examination
Re-cross
Offer
1.
2.
Prosecution rests
3.
4.
5.
Defense rests
6.
7.
8.
2.
3.
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.
1.
2.
Resides more than 100 km. from means of trial; no means to attend
Application (prosecution)
1.
Sick or infirm
2.
2.
Party who applies for postponement has not been guilty of neglect
3.
Witness can be had at the time to which the trial has been deferred
4.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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 coaccused in accordance with his statement (which formed the basis for his discharge)
f.
Demurrer to evidence
If the demurrer was made with leave of court, defense gets to present evidence
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
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.
2.
Accused cannot be convicted for an offense graver than that charged (People vs. Guevarra)
4. Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
2.
Level of participation
3.
Penalty imposed
4.
Civil liability for damages, unless right to separate civil action has been reserved
Civil liability for damages, unless acts alleged clearly did not exist
2.
Basis of liability
5. Procedure
1.
2.
If judgment is of acquittal
3.
4.
2.
3.
Notice of appeal
2.
3.
Accused has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal, EXCEPT in cases of automatic review where death
penalty is imposed
4.
2.
3.
8. Remedies
a. Appeal
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
1.
2.
3.
4.
10. Notes:
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
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
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.
3.
May be made at the instance of either party who can thereafter present additional evidence
3.
1.
2.
3.
The prosecution can move only for the reconsideration of the judgment but cannot present additional evidence
Only impeaching evidence is sought to be introduced as the court had already passed upon issue of credibility
2.
3.
Prisoner admits commission of crime with which accused is charged (facility with which such confession can be
obtained and fabricated)
4.
5.
With CA: notice of appeal with court, and with copy on adverse party
If CA is of opinion that penalty should be reclusion perpetua or higher, it shall render judgment imposing
said penalty, but refrain from entering judgment and then certify the case and the entire record thereof to
the SC for review (R124, 13)
CA may reverse, affirm, or modify judgment of RTC, or remand case for new trial or re-trial, or dismiss the
case
If RTC decided case in appellate jurisdiction: Petition for Review
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
If death penalty, automatic review
iii. Withdrawal of appeal
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.
3. When appeal by prosecution from order of dismissal of criminal case will not result in double jeopardy
1.
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
Filed when the law under which the accused was convicted is repealed or declared unconstitutional
2.
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.
2.
3.
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)
Otherwise, cannot be said to have issued upon probable cause (Asian Surety vs. Herrera)
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)
h. Indicates time, if to be served at night
4. When a search warrant may be said to particularly describe the thing to be seized
1.
2.
3.
Things described are limited to those which bear a direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is issued
5. Procedure
a. Complainant files application, attaches affidavits
Oath requires that the person taking it personally knows the facts of the case (People vs. Sy Juco)
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)
When complainants 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
Judge must ask probing questions, not just repeat facts in the affidavit (Roan vs. Gonzales)
c. Judge issues search warrant good for 10 days
d. Peace officer in presence of occupant, members of the family OR 2 witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality
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)
2.
3.
2.
3.
4.
Limited to:
2.
Vessels and aircrafts for violation of Tariff and Customs Code, EXCEPT dwelling houses
3.
Plain view
4.
Moving vehicle
5.
Hot pursuit
6.
7.
8.
Inspection of building and premises for enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations
2.
3.
Property which may furnish the arrestee with a weapon against the arresting person
4.
9. NOTES:
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.
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 3
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.
1.
2.
3.
4.