Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PROCEDURE
Second
2012
Semester 2011Arno
V.
Sanidad
READINGS:
1. Jurisdiction
Search and Seizure
172 (1970) People v. Pilotin, 65 SCRA 635 (1975) Mondiguing v. Abaci, G.R.
No. 4131 3. November 6, 1975,68 SCRA 14. People v. Sola, G.R. No. L-5615864 March 17, 1981 (E.B) See: [A.M. No. 10-1-06-RTC : January 12, 2010] Re:
Petition for Change of Trial Venue of Crimina l Case No. Sa-198, People v.
Data Andal Ampatuan, Sr., et Al. For Rebellion from the Regional Trial Court of
Cotabato City to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. c) Person of the
accused Valdepeas v. People, 16 SCRA 871 (1966) Miranda v. Tuliao, 486
SCRA 377 3. a) Jurisdiction not subject to waiver or agreement Figueroa v.
People, G.R. No. 147406, July 14, 2008 b) Jurisdiction and double jeopardy
Heirs of Honrales v. Honrales, 629 SCRA 423 (2010) III. Hierarchy of Courts
and the Remedy of Appeal A. Generally Rule 122, secs. 1, 2, 3, 6, 9; Section
9. Appeal to the Regional Trial Courts. Rules 123, 124, 125; Alonso, et al.
vs. Cebu Country Club, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 188471, April 20, 2010. -3B. MTC: (Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the
Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts) 1. Original &
Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction: Sec. 32, (1) & (2), B.P. 129 Sec, 3 & 4, SC
Administrative Circular No. 09-94 2. Appeal Sec. 1, Rule 122 Sec. 39, B.P. 129
Sec. 2 (a), Rule 122 3. How appeal taken Sec. 3, (a), Rule 122 C. Regional
Trial Court: 1. Original & Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction Sec. 20, B.P. 129 ( As
amended by R.A. No. 7691) a. Family Courts Sec. 3 & 5 (a), R.A. No. 8369
("Family Courts Act of 1997") b. Special Courts Kidnapping, Robbery,
Dangerous Drugs, Carnapping and Other Heinous Crimes under R. A. No.
7659. S.C. ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 51-96 [Superseding
Administrative Order No. 173-94 dated 28 September 1994] Environmental
Courts (AO No. 23-2008, Re: Designation of Special Courts to Hear, Try, and
Decide Environmental Cases, January 28, 2008) c. Offenses committed by
public officials Sec. 4(a) par. 2, Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. NO.
7975 and R.A. NO. 8249 Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298 (1999)
Magno v. People, 647 SCRA 362 (2011) 2. Appellate jurisdiction -4Sec. 1, Rule 122 Sec. 2 (a), Rule 122 3. Appeals from RTC, how appeal taken
a. In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction Sec. 2 (b), Rule 122 b. In the
exercise of its original jurisdiction (1) Death Penalty Cases R.A. 9346 Rule
122, secs. 3 (d), 10 (as amended by SC A.M. No. 00-5-03 [October 15, 2004];
Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to Govern Death
Penalty Cases); cf. RA 9346; Rule 124, sec. 12, 13 (as amended by SC A.M.
No. 00-5-03 [October 15, 2004]; Amendments to the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure to Govern Death Penalty Cases) Rule 125; (2) Penalty is
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment Rule 122, Sec. 3 (c) People v. Mateo,
433 SCRA 640 (2004) People v. Salome, G.R. No. 169077, Aug. 31, 2006 (3)
Other cases Rule 122, Sec. 2 (c) To the Court of Appeals Rule 41, Sec. 2 c)
Appeal by any of several accused Rule 122, sec. 11; d) Withdrawal of appeal
5
Rule 122, sec. 12; PD 968 (as amended), sec. 4; e) Effects of death of
accused pending appeal -5Villegas v. CA, 271 SCRA 148 (1997); People v. Ayochok, 629 SCRA 324
(2010) f) Effect of failure to appeal a patently wrong judgment People v.
Barro Sr., 338 SCRA 312 (2000); g) Appeal a Judgment of Acquittal: People v.
Asis, 629 SCRA 250 (2010) 4. Ombudsman & Sandiganbayan: Pres. Dec. No.
1606, as amended (Sandiganbayan Law); RA 8249 (Amendments to
Sandiganbayan Law); Rep. Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Law); a) Ombudsman:
Uy v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 105965-70. March 20, 2001 Appeals from the
Ombudsman: (i) In administrative cases & annulment of judgment Fabian vs.
Desierto, 295 SCRA 470, September 16, 1998 Macalalag vs. Ombudsman,
424 SCRA 741(2004) Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals, 640
SCRA 544(2011) (ii) In criminal cases Golangco vs. Fung, 504 SCRA
321(2006) Perez vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 429 SCRA 357(2004) Office of
the Ombudsman vs. Heirs of Margarita Ventura , 605 SCRA 1(2009) b)
Sandiganbayan - . . . in relation to office (i) Grade 27 and above Sec.
4(a), (1), (2), (3), (4) & (5) Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. NO. 7975
and R.A. NO. 8249 (ii) Public officials irrespective of salary grade Sec. 4(a),
1(a), (b), , (d), (e), (f) & (g)Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. NO.
7975 and R.A. NO. 8249 Rodriguez v. Sandiganbayan, 424 SCRA 236 (2004)
-6-
cause: i) Person Authorized: Who determines? Const. (1987), Art. III, sec. 2;
Rule 126, sec. 4; People v. Tuan, G.R. No. 176066. August 11, 2010 Kho vs.
Makalintal, 306 SCRA 70 Bache vs. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823 (1971) People vs.
Mamaril, 420 SCRA 662 (2004) Tan vs. Sy Tiong Gue, 613 SCRA 98 (2010) ii)
Procedure: How is it determined? Rule 126, sec. 5; Personal examination by
searching questions complainant & witnesses: Bache v. Ruiz, supra Kho vs.
Makalintal, supra PICOP v. Asuncion, supra People v. Tuan, G.R. No. 176066.
August 11, 2010 Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 (1984); Coca-Cola v.
Gomez, 571 SCRA 18 (2008) (3) Description of things to be seized Kho v.
Macalintal, supra; Bache vs. Ruiz, supra; (4) Description of place to be
searched People v. Estrada, supra Roan vs. Gonzales, supra PICOP v.
Asuncion, supra People vs. C.A., supra of -10d. Things that may be seized Rule 126, sec. 3; Burgos vs. Chief of Staff, supra
California v. Greenwood, supra Washington vs. Boland, supra Rules on DNA
Evidence A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC October 2, 2007 People v. Umanito, G.R.
#172607 Oct. 26, 2007 e. Form and content of warrant; lifetime Rule 126,
sec. 1, 6, 10; Bache v. Ruiz, supra Mustang Lumber v. CA, 257 SCRA 430
(1996); f. Validity of warrant People v. Estrada, supra People v. CA, supra 2.
Warrantless Search & Seizure: a. Search incident to lawful arrest Rule 126,
sec. 13; People v. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915 April 3, 1998 People v. Valdez,
supra People v. Padilla, 269 SCRA 402 (1997); People v. Chua Ho San, 308
SCRA 432 (1999); People v. Binad Chua, G.R. Nos. 136066-67, February 4,
2003 Office of the Court Administrator v. Barron, 297 SCRA 376 (1998);
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969); Nolasco v. Pano, 147 SCRA 509
(1987); Cf. Nolasco v. Pano, 139 SCRA 152 (1985); Posadas v. CA, 188 SCRA
288 (1990) People vs. Cuizon, 265 SCRA 325 Malacat v. CA, 283 SCRA 159
(1997) EB; Warrantless Search of Computers & Cell Phones: Computers: U.S.
vs. Hill, 459 F.3d 966 (2006) U.S. vs. Ziegler, 474 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir., January
30, 2007) -11Journal Articles: Edward T.M. Garland and Donald F. Samuel, Fourth Am endm
ent and Com puters, Georgia Bar Journal, Vol. 44, Feb. 2009 Cellphones: U.S.
vs. Finley, 477 F.3d 250 State vs. Smith, 124 Ohio St.3d 163 (2009) Journal
Articles: Adam M. Gershowitz, The I Phone M eets the Fourth Am endm ent,
UCLA Law Review, October, 2008. Bryan Andrew Stillwagon, Bringing an End
to W arrantless Cell P hone Searches, Summer 2008 Georgia Law Review. b.
Consented search People v. Malasigui, 63 Phil. 221 (1936); Alvarez v. CFI, 64
Phil. 48 (1937); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) People vs.
Cuizon, 265 SCRA 325 (1) Peaceful submission not consent to search Garcia
v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689 (1938); Written consent: Roan v. Gonzales, supra (2)
Effect of voluntary surrender People v. Agbot, 106 SCRA 325 (1981); (3)
Effect of posting bail Rule 114, sec. 26; c. Stop and Frisk, Roadblocks &
Checkpoints, and Other Less Intrusive Searches Stop and Frisk: -128
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)
Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000) People v. Binad Chua, supra Malacat v. CA,
supra Esquillo v. People, 629 SCRA 370 (2010) Roadblocks & Checkpoints:
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979); Michigan Dept. of State Police v.
Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 Caballes v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002; People v. Lacerna, 278 SCRA
561 (1997) People v. Solayao, 262 SCRA 255 (1996) People v. Malmstedt, 198
SCRA 401(1991) People vs. Encinada, G.R. No. 116720. October 2, 1997
Checkpoints: Valmonte v. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989); People vs.
Vinecario, 420 SCRA 280 (2004); Aniag vs. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 424 (1994);
People vs. Escano, 323 SCRA 754 (2000) d. Moving vehicles/hot pursuit Caroll
v. US, 267 U.S. 132 (1925); California V. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985) Papa v.
Mago, 22 SCRA 857 (1968); Caballes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292,
January 15, 2002; Asuncion v. CA, 302 SCRA 490 (1999); Roldan v. Arca, 65
SCRA 336 (1975); People v. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122 (1990); People v.
Balingan, 241 SCRA 277 (1995); Obra v. CA, 317 SCRA 594 (1999); e. "Plain
View" Doctrine: Harris v. US, 390 U.S. 234 (1966); Coolidge v. New
Hampshire, 403 U.S. 472 (1971); -13Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128
(1990) People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597 (1993); People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668
(1999); People v. Bolasa, 321 SCRA 459 (1999); People v. Evaristo, 216 SCRA
431 (1992); People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 24 (2000); People v. Salanguit, 356
SCRA 683 (2001) f. Private Searches & "State Expansion of Private Search"
People v. Marti, supra People v. Bongcarawan, G.R. No. 143944. July 11, 2002
State v. Von Bulow, 475 A.2d 995 g. Extraordinary circumstances: People v.
De Gracia, 233 SCRA 716 (1994); Bringham City v. Stuart, 126 S.Ct. 1943
(2006) h. Concepts of : "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree"; "Attenuation";
"Inevitable Discovery" Nardone v. U.S., 308 U.S. 338 Wong Sun v. U.S., 371
U.S. 471 Nix vs. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 II. Procedure for service of warrant;
post-service procedure A. Service of warrant 1. Time of search Rule 126, sec.
9; 2. Two-witness rule Rule 126, sec. 8; People v. Gesmundo, 219 SCRA 743
(1993); 3. Breaking of door or window to effect search Rule 126, sec. 7;
People vs. Huang Zhen Hua, 439 SCRA 350 (2004) -14B. Post-service procedure People v. Gesmundo, supra 1. Issuance of Receipt
Rule 126, sec. 11; People v. Lacbanes, 270 SCRA 193 (1997); 2. Delivery of
property and inventory; return and proceedings on the return: Rule 126, sec.
12; People v. Gesmundo, supra III. Remedies against unreasonable search
and seizure 1. Exclusionary Rule: Motion to quash search warrant or
suppress evidence : Art. III, Sec. 3 (2) Rule 126, sec. 14; RA 8493, sec. 2(d)
(cf. Rule 118, sec. 2[d];) Stonehill v. Diokno, supra Bache v. Ruiz, supra Rakes
v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978); PICOP v. Asuncion, supra 2. Waiver of
Jurisdiction & Non Waiver of Admissibility: People vs. Lapitaje, 397 SCRA 674
(2003); Esquillo vs. People, G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010 3. Return of
9
10