You are on page 1of 23

WRITTEN REPORT

(LEGAL FORMS IN
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE)

NEW ERA UNIVERSITY


LEGAL FORMS
Monday 8:00-10:00
Atty. Lising

Submitted by:
APRIL ROSE S. LERIT
3 JD- A

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS OF PROBABLE CAUSE BY PROSECUTOR


If, after preliminary investigation, the prosecutor finds probable cause to file the
Information in court, he issues a Resolution to that effect. The Resolution may be challenged
before the Secretary of Justice in a Petition for Review.

DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 70


SUBJECT : 2000 NPS RULE ON APPEAL

In the interest of expeditious and efficient administration of justice and in line with recent
jurisprudence, the following Rule governing appeals from resolutions of prosecutors in the
National Prosecution Service, to be known as the 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal, is hereby
adopted.

SECTION 1. Scope. - This Rule shall apply to appeals from resolutions of the Chief State
Prosecutor, Regional State Prosecutors and Provincial/City Prosecutors in cases subject of
preliminary investigation/ reinvestigation.

SECTION 2. Where to appeal. An appeal may be brought to the Secretary of Justice within
the period and in the manner herein provided.

SECTION 3. Period to appeal. The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from receipt
of the resolution, or of the denial of the motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation if one has
been filed within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the assailed resolution. Only one motion for
reconsideration shall be allowed.

SECTION 4. How appeal taken. An aggrieved party may appeal by filing a verified petition
for review with the Office of the Secretary, Department of Justice, and by furnishing copies
thereof to the adverse party and the Prosecution Office issuing the appealed resolution.

SECTION 5. Contents of petition. - The petition shall contain or state: (a) the names and
addresses of the parties; (b) the Investigation Slip number (I.S. No.) and criminal case
number, if any, and title of the case, including the offense charged in the complaint; (c) the
venue of the preliminary investigation; (d) the specific material dates showing that it was filed
on time; (e) a clear and concise statement of the facts, the assignment of errors, and the
reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the appeal; and (f) proof of service of
a copy of the petition to the adverse party and the Prosecution Office concerned.
The petition shall be accompanied by legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the
resolution appealed from together with legible true copies of the complaint, affidavits/sworn

2
statements and other evidence submitted by the parties during the preliminary investigation/
reinvestigation.

If an information has been filed in court pursuant to the appealed resolution, a copy of the
motion to defer proceedings filed in court must also accompany the petition. The
investigating/reviewing/approving prosecutor shall not be impleaded as party respondent in
the petition. The party taking the appeal shall be referred to in the petition as either
"Complainant-Appellant" or "Respondent- Appellant".

SECTION 6. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. The failure of the petitioner to
comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall constitute sufficient ground for the
dismissal of the petition.

SECTION 7. Action on the petition. The Secretary of Justice may dismiss the petition outright
if he finds the same to be patently without merit or manifestly intended for delay, or when the
issues raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration. If an information has
been filed in court pursuant to the appealed resolution, the petition shall not be given due
course if the accused had already been arraigned. Any arraignment made after the filing of
the petition shall not bar the Secretary of Justice from exercising his power of review.

SECTION 8. Comment. Within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a
copy of the petition, the adverse party may file a verified comment, indicating therein the
date of such receipt and submitting proof of service of his comment to the petitioner and the
Prosecution Office concerned. Except when directed by the Secretary of Justice, the
investigating/reviewing/approving prosecutor need not submit any comment.
If no comment is filed within the prescribed period, the appeal shall be resolved on the basis
of the petition.

SECTION 9. Effect of the appeal. Unless the Secretary of Justice directs otherwise, the
appeal shall not hold the filing of the corresponding information in court on the basis of the
finding of probable cause in the appealed resolution.
The appellant and the trial prosecutor shall see to it that, pending resolution of the appeal,
the proceedings in court are held in abeyance.

SECTION 10. Withdrawal of appeal. Notwithstanding the perfection of the appeal, the
petitioner may withdraw the same at any time before it is finally resolved, in which case the
appealed resolution shall stand as though no appeal has been taken.
SECTION 11. Reinvestigation. If the Secretary of Justice finds it necessary to reinvestigate

3
the case, the reinvestigation shall be held by the investigating prosecutor, unless, for
compelling reasons, another prosecutor is designated to conduct the same.

SECTION 12. Disposition of the appeal. The Secretary may reverse, affirm or modify the
appealed resolution. He may, motu proprio or upon motion, dismiss the petition for review on
any of the following grounds:
That the petition was filed beyond the period prescribed in Section 3 hereof;
That the procedure or any of the requirements herein provided has not been
complied with;
That there is no showing of any reversible error;
That the appealed resolution is interlocutory in nature, except when it suspends the
proceedings based on the alleged existence of a prejudicial question;
That the accused had already been arraigned when the appeal was taken;
That the offense has already prescribed; and
That other legal or factual grounds exist to warrant a dismissal.

SECTION 13. Motion for reconsideration. The aggrieved party may file a motion for
reconsideration within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of the resolution
on appeal, furnishing the adverse party and the Prosecution Office concerned with copies
thereof and submitting proof of such service. No second or further motion for reconsideration
shall be entertained.

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF PROSECUTORS RESOLUTION FILED WITH


THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

4
Republic of the Philippines
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
Manila
Juan dela Cruz,
Petitioner,

- versus I.S. NO. 02-D-2217

Mando Rupang and Mando Rukot For: Qualified Theft

Respondents.

x x

PETITI O N

PETITONER, by counsel and to this Honorable Secretary of Justice, alleges:

1. Petitioner, JUAN DELA CRUZ, is of legal age and with residence at # 21, Mareklamo
St. He is the complainant in I.S No. 022717, entitled People v. Rupang and Rukot, which
petitioner filed against respondent with the Office of the City of Prosecutor of Manila
City.

2. Respondent, MANDO RUKOT, is of legal age and with residence or address at # 43,
Makasalanan St, where he may be served with legal processes. Respondent MANDO
RUPANG, is likewise of legal age and with residence or address at # 44, Makasalananrin
St, where he may be served with legal processes

3. On 13 September 2016, the City Prosecutor issued a resolution in said I.S No. 022717,
finding probable cause but dismissing the complaint as against herein respondent for
alleged lack of probable cause.

4. Petitioner received said resolution, certified true copy if which is attached as Annex A
on 17 September 2016, and within 10 days therefrom, petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, praying that respondent MANDO RUKOT be included in the
information, notwithstanding which the City Prosecutor denied the same, certified true
copy of which resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration is attached hereto as
Annex B.

5. The facts of these case as disclosed by evidence presented to prosecutor consisted of the
following:

(FACTS OF THE CASE)

5
6. The instant petition for review is filed within 15 days from receipt of said denial Annex
B hereof.

7. Attached hereto and in further support of the petition for review are legible true copies
the complaint affidavits/ sworn statements and other devices submitted by parties during
the preliminary investigation which are marked as annexes C C-1 C-2 etc.

GROUNDS FOR ALLOWANCE OF PETITION

8. The City Prosecutor erred in dismissing the complaint against MANDO RUKOT, for the
following grounds:

a. The City Fiscal gravely erred in not finding that the evidence of the complaint
more than shows probable cause against the respondent; and
b. The City Fiscal gravely erred in not applying the applicable law on the matter.

9. The errors committed by the City Prosecutor calls for correction and for the indictment of
respondent Mando Rukot.

DISCUSSION

(DISCUSS THE GROUNDS IN DETAILS)

WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that the questioned resolutions Annexes A B


be partly set aside and nullified insofar as it excluded herein respondent from the information,
and that the City Prosecutor of Manila City be directed to include in the information respondent
Mando Rukot, within ten (10) days from notice.

Manila City, 27 September 2016. Atty. Puro P. Panalo

Counsel for Petitioner


Unit No. 04, Panalo Bldg.,
Quezon City
0929-299-9292/
attypuropanalo@yahoo.com
Roll NO. 12345
IBP No. 1234567, issued on
April 12, 1994 at Manila City
PTR No. 1234567

IF THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE DENIED THE PETITION FOR REVIEW,


THE AGGRIEVED PARTY MAY FILE A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER
RULE 65 WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS

ARREST

The Rules of Court defines Arrest as the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be
bound to answer for the commission of an offense.

6
Section 5 of Rule 113 enumerates the instances when arrest without warrant may be effected:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement
to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a
warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be
proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.

Section 7 of Rule 112, mentioned in Sec 5 of Rule 113, above, reads:

Sec. 7. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. 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. In the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be
filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly with the proper court on the basis of
the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person.

Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a
preliminary investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the
provision of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his
counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation must be
terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception.

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 with the same right to adduce evidence in his defense
as provided in this Rule.

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

7
Republic of the Philippines
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
Manila
People of the Philippines,
Plaintiff,

- versus CRIMINAL CASE. NO. 022717

Mando Rukot For: Qualified Theft

Accused.

x x

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

ACCUSED, by counsel, and to this Honorable Court, alleges:

1. That he has been arrested without warrant and without conducting a preliminary
investigation.

2. That pursuant to Sec. 7 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, the accused is entitled to a
preliminary investigation.

3. This motion is without prejudice to all of the rights of the accused, which are hereby
reserved.

WHEREFORE, accused prays that an Order be issued, requiring the prosecution


to conduct a preliminary investigation of the case and to submit its report within a
specified period.

Manila City, 3 March 2017.

Atty. Puro P. Panalo


Counsel for Accused
Unit No. 04, Panalo Bldg.,
Quezon City
0929-299-9292/
attypuropanalo@yahoo.com
Roll NO. 12345
IBP No. 1234567, issued on
April 12, 1994 at Manila City
PTR No. 1234567

NOTICE OF HEARING
Atty. Puro P. Panalo
Counsel for Accused

8
Unit No. 04, Panalo Bldg., Quezon City

Sir:

Please be informed that the undersigned counsel has set the foregoing motion for hearing
on 23 March 2017 at 8:30 a.m. for the consideration of the Honorable Cpurt or soon as counsel
may be heard.

MOTION TO QUASH WARRANT OF ARREST

Republic of the Philippines


National Capital Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court
Branch 15, Manila
People of the Philippines,
Plaintiff,

- versus Criminal Case No. 022717

Mando Rukot For: Qualified Theft

Accused.

9
x x

MOTION TO QUASH WARRANT OF ARREST

ACCUSED, by counsel, and to this Honorable Court, alleges:

1. Following his arrest without warrant for the crime of Qualified Theft, the Prosecutor filed
an Information against him charging him of the crime of Qualified Theft.

2. The Honorable Court issued the corresponding warrant of arrest.

3. The arrest made by the police officer, upon which this Honorable Court issued a warrant
of arrest, is illegal for the following reasons:

a) The accused, was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was shown
that he was about to do so or that had just done so. There were no suspicious
circumstances that preceded MANDO RUKOTs arrest.
b) In other words, there was no overt manifestation on the part of the accused that he
had just engaged in, was actually engaging in or was attempting to engage in the
criminal activity of qualified theft, as alleged. Verily, probable cause in this case was
more imagined than real.

4. Since the arrest made by the arresting officer is illegal, then the warrant issued by this
Honorable Court based thereon is also without basis.

WHEREFORE, accused prays that the warrant of arrest issued by this Honorable Court
be quashed and the accused be ordered released.

Manila City, 25 March 2017.


Atty. Puro P. Panalo
Counsel for Accused
Unit No. 04, Panalo Bldg.,
Quezon City
0929-299-9292/
attypuropanalo@yahoo.com
Roll NO. 12345
IBP No. 1234567, issued on
April 12, 1994 at Manila City
PTR No. 1234567

10
MOTION TO SUPPRESS ILLEGALLY SEIZED EVIDENCE

Republic of the Philippines


National Capital Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court
Branch 15, Manila
People of the Philippines,
Plaintiff,

- versus Criminal Case No. 022717

Mando Rukot For: Qualified Theft

Accused.

x x

MOTION TO SUPPRESS ILLEGALLY SEIZED EVIDENCE

ACCUSED, MANDO RUKOT, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, alleges:

1. He has been arrested without warrant, and in the course thereof the arresting officers
seized from him and from his house the following things, allegedly as evidence for the
crime of Qualified Theft, for which he has been arrested without a valid warrant of arrest:

Nokia 3310 Cellular Phone


Nokia 5110 Cellular Phone
Nokia N-70 Cellular Phone

2. The above mentioned things, having been seized pursuant to an illegal arrest, the same
are not admissible in evidence. It has been held:

The Documents, things or articles seized following the illegal arrest are not admissible in
evidence. They are considered the fruits of a poisonous tree. Illegally seized evidence is obtained
as a result of illegal act. The fruit of the poisonous tree is the indirect result of the same legal act,
which renders all such evidence inadmissible. Hence where a person has been arrested not in
flagrante delicto or under circumstances where there has been no consent or waiver to a search
the fact that as in incident thereto to the search yielded in his person a prohibited drug does not
make the search valid nor render the illegally seized drug admissible in evidence being the fruit
of a poisonous tree.

WHEREFORE, accused prays that the above listed documents be returned to herein accused
and/or they be suppressed as evidence.

11
Manila City, 25 March 2017.
Atty. Puro P. Panalo
Counsel for Accused
Unit No. 04, Panalo Bldg.,
Quezon City
0929-299-9292/
attypuropanalo@yahoo.com
Roll NO. 12345
IBP No. 1234567, issued on
April 12, 1994 at Manila City
PTR No. 1234567

WAIVER OF ILLEGALITY OF THE ARREST

In the following instances, the Court held that there has been waiver of illegality of arrest:

1. An accused who enters his plea of not guilty and participating in the trial waives the
illegality of the arrest.

2. Any illegality in the arrest must be raised before arraignment, otherwise, it is deemed
waived, as the accused voluntarily submitted himself tot eh jurisdiction of the Court.

3. Once a person has been duly charged in court, he may no longer question his detention
by a petition for habeas corpus, his remedy being to quash the information or the warrant
of arrest.

WARRANT OF AREST UPON APPLICATION BEFORE PRELIMINARY


INVESTIGATION BY AN MTC JUDGE IS COMPLETED

12
Section 6, par. (b) of Rule 112 provides in part:

x x x However, without waiting for the conclusion of the investigation, the judge may
issue a warrant of arrest if he finds after an examination in writing and under oath of the
complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers, that a
probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under
immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. . .

APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF ARREST

Republic of the Philippines


National Capital Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court
Branch 15, Manila
People of the Philippines,
Plaintiff,

- versus Search Warrant No. 022717

Mando Rukot For: Qualified Theft

Accused.

x x

APPLICATION FOR WARRANT OF ARREST

The undersigned peace officer unto this Honorable Court respectfully alleges:

13
1. The Accused, namely, MANDO RUKOT, is undergoing preliminary investigation, and
while the preliminary investigation has not been completed, there is already a clear
showing that probable cause exists, which would prompt the accused to go into hiding
and thus frustrate the ends of justice.

2. There is thus a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not
to frustrate the ends of justice.

3. The undersigned peace officer makes available the complainant or aggrieved party and
his witnesses for examination by the Honorable Court in writing and under oath in the
form of questions and answers, to show the necessity of such arrest.

WHEREFORE, undersigned peace officer prays that after hearing and examination of the
complainant and his witnesses, a warrant of arrest be issued to bring the respondent under
custody pending completion of the preliminary investigation.

Manila City, 25 March 2017.


JACK N. POY
Prosecutor

COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION

Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 110 provide:

Sec. 2. The complaint or information The complaint or information shall be in


writing, in the name of the People of the Philippines and against all persons who appear
to be responsible for the offense involved.

Sec. 3. Complaint defined. A complaint is a sworn written statement charging a person


with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other public
officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated.

Sections 4, 6 to 12 of Rule 110 read:

Sec. 4. Information defined. An information is an accusation in writing charging a


person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court.

Sec. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. A complaint or information is


sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the
statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the

14
offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place
where the offense was committed.

When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in
the complaint or information.

Sec. 7. Name of the accused. The complaint or information must state the name and
surname of the accused or any appellation or nickname by which he has been or is
known. If his name cannot be ascertained, he must be described under a fictitious name
with a statement that his true name is unknown.

If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed by him or appears in some other
manner to the court, such true name shall be inserted in the complaint or information and
record.

Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. The complaint or information shall state the
designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the
offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no
designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the
statute punishing it.

Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting


the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary
and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms
sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being
charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstance and for the court to
pronounce judgment.

Sec. 10. Place of commission of the offense. The complaint or information is


sufficient if it can be understood from its allegations that the offense was committed or
some of its essential ingredients occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the
court, unless the particular place where it was committed constitutes an essential element
of the offense charged or is necessary for its identification.

Sec. 11. Date of commission of the offense. - It is not necessary to state in the complaint
or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material
ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date
as near as possible to the actual date of its commission.

15
Sec. 12. Name of the offended party. The complaint or information must state the
name and surname of the person against whom or against whose property the offense was
committed, or any appellation or nickname by which such person has been or is known.
If there is no better way of identifying him, he must be described under a fictitious name.
(a) In offenses against property, if the name of the offended party is unknown, the
property must be described with such particularity as to properly identify the offense
charged.
(b) If the true name of the person against whom or against whose property the offense
was committed is thereafter disclosed or ascertained, the court must cause such true name
to be inserted in the complaint or information and the record.

COMPLAINT BY PRIVATE COMPLAINANT

Republic of the Philippines


National Capital Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court
Branch 15, Manila
Juan dela Cruz,
Complainant,

- versus Criminal Case No.

Mando Rukot For: Qualified Theft

Accused.

x x

C O M PLAI N T

The undersigned accuses MANDO RUKOT of the crime of qualified theft committed as
follows:

That on 17 January 2017, in the City of Manila, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, said accused MANDO RUKOT, with intent to gain but without violence
against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, without the consent of the owner thereof, JUAN DELA CRUZ engaged in the
business of buying-and-selling all kinds of gadgets, take, steal and use for his personal use

16
fifteen (15) cellular phones, ten (10) laptops and five (5) computer sets. in the total amount of
SIXTY THOUSAND PESOS (P60,000.00) Philippine Currency.

Contrary to law.
Juan Dela Cruz
Complainant

J U R AT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, the undersigned Prosecutor, this 6th day of
February 2017 at Manila City.

The undersigned Prosecutor certifies that he personally examined the affiant and that he
testified that he voluntarily executed and understood his complaint-affidavit.

JACK N. POY
Prosecutor

V E R I F I C AT I O N

The undersigned certifies that he conducted a preliminary investigation in this case, that
he personally examined the complainant and his witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to
believe that a crime has committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the
accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him; and that he
was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence.

HON. JACK N. JILL


. RTC JUDGE

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 7th day of February 2017.

INFORMATION BY PROSECUTOR

Republic of the Philippines


National Capital Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court
Branch 15, Manila
People of the Philippines,
Plaintiff,

17
- versus Criminal Case No.

Mando Rukot For: Qualified Theft

Accused.

x x

I N F O R M AT I O N

The undersigned accuses MANDO RUKOT of the crime of Qualified Theft committed
as follows:

That on 17 January 2017, in the City of Manila, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, said accused MANDO RUKOT, with intent to gain but without
violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, without the consent of the owner thereof, JUAN DELA
CRUZ engaged in the business of buying-and-selling all kinds of gadgets, take, steal and use
for his personal use fifteen (15) cellular phones, ten (10) laptops and five (5) computer sets.
in the total amount of SIXTY THOUSAND PESOS (P60,000.00) Philippine Currency.

JACK N. POY
Prosecutor

V E R I F I C AT I O N

The undersigned certifies that h conducted a preliminary investigation in this case, that he
personally examined the complainant and his witnesses, that there is reasonable ground to
believe that a crime has committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the
accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him; and that he
was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence.

JACK N. POY
Prosecutor

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 7th day of February 2017.

Approved by:

18
JACK N. ROSE
City Prosecutor

Witnesses:

Ako C. Nakakita
#123 Malinaw Rd., Mata St.

Ako C. Nakarinig
#345 Malakas Rd., Tenga St.

AMENDMENTS OF INFORMATION

Section 14 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court reads:

Sec. 14. Amendment. The information or complaint may be amended, in substance or


form, without leave of court, at any time before the accused pleads; and thereafter and
during the trial as to all matters of form, by leave and at the discretion of the court, when
the same can be done without prejudice to the rights of the accused.

If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the
proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon the
filing of a new one charging the proper offense in accordance with Rule 119, Section 11,
provided the accused would not be placed thereby in double jeopardy, and may also
require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance at the trial.

MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO AMEND INFORMATION ON FORMAL


MATTERS

Republic of the Philippines


National Capital Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court
Branch 15, Manila
People of the Philippines,

19
Plaintiff,

- versus Criminal Case No.

Mando Rukot For: Qualified Theft

Accused.

x x

MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO AMEND


INFORMATION ON FORMAL MATTERS

THE PROSECUTION moves, pursuant to Sec. 14 of Rule 110, for leave of court to
amend the information on formal matters, the accused, MANDO RUKOT, having already
entered a plea of not guilty, said formal matters being as follows:

ENUMERATE THE FORMAL AMENDMENTS SOUGHT, SUCH AS ANY OF THE


FOLLOWING:

1. To amend the information to include a person, as co-conspirator, who was at the time
at large, as another accused after his arrest;
2. To amend the date of commission of the offence;
3. Where some of the accused were named as John Doe, an amendment of the
information as soon as they are indentified by their names.

WHEREFORE, the prosecution prays that it be given leave of court to amend


information accordingly.

Manila City, 25 March 2017.


JACK N. POY
Prosecutor

MOTION TO AMEND BY DOWNGRADING OFFENSE OR EXCLUDING


ANOTHER ACCUSED FROM THE INFORMATION

Republic of the Philippines


National Capital Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court
Branch 15, Manila
People of the Philippines,
Plaintiff,

20
- versus Criminal Case No.

Kuma Cathay and Nakiki Cathay For: MURDER

Accused.

x x

MOTION TO AMEND INFORMATION

THE PROSECUTION, to this Honorable Court, alleges:

1. Both accused, KUMA CATHAY and NAKIKI CATHAY, has not entered their
respective plea.

2. However, after review of the evidence on hand, the prosecution believe that the
evidence justifies downgrading the offense of murder to that of homicide and that
accused NAKIKI CATHAY, should be excluded from the informations.

3. Copy of this motion is served o the offended party, who may be heard on the matter.

WHEREFORE, the prosecution prays that it be given leave of court to amend the
information accordingly.

Manila City, 25 March 2017.


JACK N. POY
Prosecutor

MOTION FOR AMENDMENT DUE TO SUPERVENING EVENTS

Republic of the Philippines


National Capital Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court
Branch 15, Manila
People of the Philippines,
Plaintiff,

- versus Criminal Case No.

Pedro Montemayor For: SERIOUS PHYSICAL


INJURIES

Accused.

21
x x

MOTION FOR AMENDMENT DUE


TO SUPERVENING EVENTS

THE PROSECUTION, to this Honorable Court, alleges:

The accused, PEDRO MONTEMAYOR, has been charged with the crime of
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES, and the trial is on-going:

On 13 August 2016, the victim died does the serious physical injuries he sustained which
were inflicted by the herein accused PEDRO MONTEMAYOR. By reason of such supervening
event, the offense is hereby changed to the crime of HOMICIDE. Copy of the victims Death
Certificate is attached hereto as Annex A.

The accused would not be prejudiced because he did not plead to such higher crime at the
time of arraignment, as the higher crime was not yet in existence at time.

WHEREFORE, the prosecution prays that it be allowed to amend the information from
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES to HOMICIDE.

Manila City, 25 March 2017.


JACK N. POY
Prosecutor

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND TO RECALL


WARRANT OF ARREST

After the Criminal Information has been filed in Court, the Judge determines whether
there is probable cause, as basis for issuing a Warrant of Arrest. Before Arraignment, the accused
may file a Motion for Determination of Probable Cause and/or to recall a warrant, if one has
already been issued and for the dismissal of the case.

Republic of the Philippines


National Capital Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court
Branch 15, Manila
People of the Philippines,
Plaintiff,

22
- versus Criminal Case No.

Pedro Montemayor For: SERIOUS PHYSICAL


INJURIES

Accused.

x x

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE

THE ACCUSED, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, alleges:

1. The Prosecution has filed an Information against the herein accused, PEDRO
MONTEMAYOR, alleging that there is, after preliminary investigation, a probable
cause to indict him.

2. However, the accused submits otherwise, as the records of said preliminary investigation
will readily show, and for this purpose, he moves that all the records of the preliminary
investigation be submitted to this Honorable Court. This will be for the purpose of
enabling the Court to resolve the issue of whether or not there is actually a probable
cause.

3. An examination of the records shows that there is no probable cause to indict the accused.

WHEREFORE, accused prays for the following:

a) An Order be issued to require the prosecution to elevate and submit the whole
records of the preliminary investigation of the case;
b) After examination of the records, another Order be issued finding that there is no
probable cause to indict the accused and the Information be accordingly dismissed.

Manila City, 25 March 2017.

Atty. Puro P. Panalo


Counsel for Accused
Unit No. 04, Panalo Bldg.,
Quezon City
0929-299-9292/
attypuropanalo@yahoo.com
Roll NO. 12345
IBP No. 1234567, issued on
April 12, 1994 at Manila City
PTR No. 1234567

23

You might also like