Professional Documents
Culture Documents
What is pre-trial?
It is a device to bring the parties together to work on a mutually acceptable concession. For example-
plea bargaining.
-Prior to amendment of Rules of Criminal Procedure, pre-trial is merely optional as far as criminal cases.
However, today, pre-trial becomes mandatory in order to expedite trial and expedite the resolution of
the case.
-Purpose is to mark exhibits of evidences as only those evidences marked shall be presented during trial
unless evidence is reserved and allowed by the Court for good cause shown.
Bottom line:
Plea-bargaining
Stipulation of facts
Marking for identification of evidence of parties
Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence
Matters as will promote fair and expeditious trial of criminal and civil aspects of case
*All agreements and admissions made during pre-trial conference shall be (must be followed in order
for admissions to be used against accused and to make it binding):
Illustration: Prosecution and defense, during the pre-trial proper. Pre-trial shall be conducted by the
judge. Suppose accused is charged with estafa on account of issuing bounced cheque. Now during the
pre-trial, prosecution proposed stipulation of facts, accused admitting or denying is stipulation of facts.
Court will issue a pre-trial order. The pre-trial order sets the course of trial. Order sets the course of
parameters of trial and cannot present further evidences aside from those presented during pre-trial.
*When it comes to trial under Rule 119, rule is continuous trial, why? To avoid delay.
Trial v. Hearing
TRIAL HEARING
-confined to presentation of evidence and -includes incidental matters
determination of the merits of the case
The normal answer would be no as trial is part of due process however, if we come to think of it, the
Court can dispose of a case even without trial. Instances where a case can be disposed of without trial:
Suppose the accused pleaded guilty to charge but presented exculpatory evidence, what shall the
Court do?
The Court will issue order for reverse trial, take note, this is discretionary for the Court to do so because
the Court may very well follow the order of trial despite the accused presenting exculpatory evidences.
Nowadays, we observe the judicial affidavit rule in the sense that prior to the scheduled presentation of
evidence, parties will file and serve to the other party the affidavit of witnesses in general which
includes that of private offended party and including affidavit of police.
* JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE: Under the new rule, instead of conducting direct testimony in court,
attorneys will submit affidavits with questions and answers that witnesses have supplied while under
oath. To give opposing counsel sufficient review time, the affidavits must be submitted at least five
days prior to a preliminary conference in a case or the hearing of motions. Its purpose is to serve as
the direct testimony of the witness.
Prosecution present evidence to prove charge and prove civil liability (thru judicial affidavit)
o Mr. Witness do you recall executing a judicial affidavit?
Mr. W: Yes, sir.
o I’m showing you the judicial affidavit and what is the relation of this affidavit to the one
you have just mentioned? Evidence has already been pre-marked.
Mr. W: Yes, bla, blaa
o Did you horn your blow hahahaha ataya dimada brah
o Will you confirm to the truth and veracity of your affidavit?
Yes, sir.
o Cross-examination, Direct-examination, Recross-examination, Redirect-examination
*Formal offer of documentary evidence (still needs ruling from Court whether to admit the
evidence or not even after prosecution rests his case)
Accused presents defense and damages sustained (thru judicial affidavit)
Prosecution present its rebuttal evidence, unless Court allows presentation of additional
evidence
Accused presents sur-rebuttal evidence unless Court allows presentation of additional evidence
Upon submission of evidence of parties, case shall be deemed submitted for decision unless
Court directs them to argue orally or submit written memoranda
*TAKE NOTE: One of the cardinal rights of a witness is right against self-degradation; not to be degraded,
not to be asked in an insulting manner.
*TAKE NOTE: Formal offer of evidence: this happens when all testimonial evidences are presented.
Why do evidences need to be offered?
Because only those evidences or documents offered will be taken into consideration by the Court in the
judgment. Exhibits although marked but not offered will be considered useless. Normally Court will give
you 10 days to formally offer evidences written or oral. Sub-markings and signatures are included in the
formal offer of evidence.
Can accused right away present his own evidences after the prosecution rests its case?
No, as the accused has an option whether to proceed with the presentation of the evidence or file a
demurrer to evidence based on the sole ground of insufficiency of evidence.
*IMPORTANT: Accused shall file a demurrer to evidence with leave of Court because there is danger
when motion is denied as filing a demurrer to evidence without leave of Court as it bars accused from
presenting his own evidence and equates to case being submitted for decision based only on the
evidences of the prosecution.
*In civil case, demurrer to evidence is Rule 33 and there is no need of leave of Court.
SEPTEMEBER 27 | TRIAL
Read:
- prohibited motions
- motions allowed
Why “conditional”?
Because examination of the witness is prior to the scheduled date of the hearing.
There is a big probability that a witness, during his time to testify, will not be able to do so because of
(grounds).
Effect:
Prior to the time he should be called to testify, gipakuha na daan iyang testimony.
Purpose:
To preserve his testimony. Because whatever may happen to him, na-preserve na iyang testimony. That’s
why it’s like trial because you need notice to the other party and it must be taken before a judge or any
member of the bar in good standing. So unsaon man sir? Iyang testimony na i-ingon sa scheduled date
of hearing, mao sad iyang i-sulti.
Pero conditional lang. Because in the event maabot ang September 29, na ayo na siya, he should be
presented in trial. But in a case where the witness is sick or infirm, there is a big probability he cannot
attend the scheduled date of hearing, he should be conditionally examined to preserve his/her testimony.
The motion shall have an affidavit attached, under oath, and such other evidence as the court may
require. It should be taken before the judge or a member of the bar in good standing.
“Material witness”:
A witness whose testimony is essential to establish the guilt of the accused. Example an eyewitness.
Grounds:
1. Sick or inform
2. Has to leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning
The same concept as that of conditional examination for witness of the accused.
Any one of the accused can always ask for a separate trial. Even if they’re charged together, you cannot
prevent any one of them from asking for a separate trial. Example, kaning latest na hazing incident. The
information will be filed with court, 18 sila kabuok. Aning 18, naa jud ani nila ang mu file for separate
trial because they have separate defenses. That’s the reason nga magpa-separate trial sila. Most
especially they’ll be charged for conspiracy, but you expect some of them will ask for separate trial.
That’s why it’s purely discretionary.
The main objection against separate trial is that it’s repetitive. Mas mayo na lang i-joint trial, kaisa ra i-
present ang evidence, human dayon.
What about after the prosecution has rested its case? The prosecution is done with both testimonial and
documentary evidence. Can a separate trial be allowed?
GR: No, because as a rule must be presented prior to evidence.
EXC: When there is antagonism in the respective defences of the accused. In other words, lahi-lahi ug
defense ang accused. (CASE: Talino v. Sandiganbayan, 1997)
AS far as this charge of the accused to be utilized as state witness, this particular section should be
STRICTLY followed. The conditions should be strictly followed before any charge shall be effected by the
court. DON’T confuse the conditions with the requisites!! Conditions is (A-E).
In addition to these requirements, you have the conditions.The discharge should be strictly construed on
the basis of the conditions under Sec 17:
a. Absolute necessity as far as the testimony of the proposed state witness is concerned.
It connotes that the testimony is essential to establish the commission of the crime, and
is not merely corroborative. Essential in the sense that, example, he is the only
eyewitness to the scene of the crime. He was present when the crime was committed.
Kita jud siya na ang isa gikuptan ang ulo, ang isa sa kamot, ang isa nibunal. Siya ang ni
serve as a lookout. Sa ila tanan, upat sila kabuok, who does not appear the most guilty?
Of course, ang lookout.
Pwede ba sya ma state witness? Yes, ni-qualify na siya under the conditions of number
one.
Unsay pasabot anang corroborative? Aside from nay nisulti ana, naa pa juy lain na nisulti,
pareho sila. Ang gisulti sa usa na pareho sa usa, is merely corroborative. Nag-abot sila.
Pareho sila in all its material points.
b. No other direct evidence available…
Between direct and circumstantial evidence, of course direct evidence is preferred.
Why? Because in direct evidence, like an eyewitness, he witnessed the commission of the
crime. That’s why he’s a material witness. For the prosecution, it’s very easy to prove.
Remember: because the testimony is based on personal knowledge, not merely heresay.
Whereas, if circumstantial evidence may be the basis for conviction, direct evidence is
better. Why? Lisod i-prove ang crime kay circumstantial evidence is akin to tapestry, it
creates a pattern when interwoven. So it’s like a puzzle – to get the entire thing, you
need all the parts of the puzzle. Matangtang ang duha or tulo, di na mabuo ang picture.
c. Testimony is substantially corroborated in its material points.
Bisan nay lain witness, nakalabang lang sya nya nakakita siya “uy, tulo to ka laki ang
nibunal” nya mao sad iyang gisulti – corroboration in its material points.
We are talking here about pila sila kabuok na nibunal. Pag sulti sa katong nakalabay lang,
ug ang gisulti sa accused who is sought to be discharged kay THE SAME, then the
accused can be discharged as state witness. Why? Because the testimony can be
substantially corroborated in its material points.
Why is this important? Because the objective is to test the truthfulness of this testimony.
The rule proceeds with caution because accused gud siya. His testimony is self-serving,
that it is coming from a tainted source. To eliminate that doubt na iya ra ning gisulti to
save his own ass, his testimony should be corroborated in its material points by the
testimiony of other witnesses.
d. Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty
Do not use “said accused is the least guilty”. Dapat not appear the most guilty jud.
CASE: Jimenez Jr. v. People (2014)
Objective/Purpose: In order to arrive at a conviction with a greater number. So dapat i-
discharge namo ni si accused A, sigurado ma convict si B, C, D.
It doesn’t mean he did not participate in the crime. But take note: considering that as far
as his participation is concerned, he is not the most guilty then he should be discharged,
in order to arrive with a judgment of conviction as against the greater number. Sayon na
kaayo sa prosecutor to convict the rest.
e. Not convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude
This means a judgment that is final and executory. If, for example, the case is still on
appeal, par. 5 is absent.
“Moral turpitude” – anything contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals, a vileness.
Example: Estafa, malversation of private funds. Conviction of it carries with it moral
turpitude. Even homicide carries with it moral turpitude.
Effect of discharge:
Equivalent to dismissal and is tantamount to ACQUITTAL. He can no longer be accused for the same
offense.
If the accused who executed a sworn statement/affidavit, did not honor or reneged on his promise to
testify against his co-accused, his testimony is ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM (THE
DISCHARGED ACCUSED). He did not testify against his co-accused, and after such discharge, he is
nowhere to be found, his sworn statement is ADMISSIBLE as evidence and he will be reinstated as an
accused. The statement admitting to the crime will be used as evidence against him.
**joint trial will DEFINITELY come out. Discharge as state witness too**
Different from Rule 111. Under Rule 111, it provides that when a civil action arising from a crime is
instituted separately from a criminal action, what happens to the civil action? The civil action shall be
suspended in whatever stage it may be to give way to the criminal action, unless it is an independent civil
action. HOWEVER! The party may ask for consolidation of the civil action with the criminal action, and
joint trial will proceed.
In this rule, there are two or more cases pending against the accused. Founded on the same facts/same
factual milieu.
Although! It’s discretionary. Pero pagkita sa court na all the requisites are present for consolidation, i-
consolidate jud na.
Scenario:
1. Two or more cases are tried under the same court.
Example, Branch 6 of the RTC. Two cases pending against the accused, lain-lain ug docket
number. Puro estafa, pero different counts. Can it be consolidated? Yes, by placing one with the
other, conducting one trial and one judgment.
2. Two or more cases pending in different branches of the SAME LEVEL court.
Example, if we have cases pending in RTC Branch 6, 5, 4, and 3. The court with the lowest court
docket is where the other three will be consolidated. There will be only one trial and one
judgment.
If there are 2 in MTC and 2 in RTC, cannot be consolidated, because of issues of jurisdiction.
The only basis for demurrer is insufficiency of evidence for the prosecution. In the sense that between
presumption of innocence and the evidence presented, the prosecution was not able to override
presumption, so the accused moves for demurrer to evidence.
When you file for leave, do you file the demurrer with it?
No. Wait for order to file the demurrer, because it is purely discretionary on the court. It is not a matter
of right to file for demurrer. Why? Because presentation of evidence for the defense is still preferred. BUT
if very clear that the defense won’t be convicted, then demurrer to evidence is proper.
Purpose:
To avoid wager on the outcome of the case. Di dapat tugtan ang accused na magtag-an2 sa iyang kaso,
otherwise he will make a mockery of the justice system.
In a civil case (Rule 33), you may or may not file a leave of court. There is no effect. The danger is if the
demurrer is granted, the effect is the dismissal of the case as against the plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals and
the judgment was reversed and the case is reinstated, the reversal bars the defendant from presenting
evidence on appeal. The case is submitted for decision based on plaintiff’s evidence.
Ground:
In order to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
Purpose:
To allow further reception of evidence.
Before the finality of judgment of conviction, the court may motu proprio or upon motion, reopen the
proceedings to allow further reception of evidence. Gituyo jud ni para naay leeway.
**Rule 119 on reopening, Rule 120 modification of judgment, Rule 121 motion for new trial. Mangutana
daw siya, discuss the three in accordance with its importance and objective**
On modification, accused moves to modify the judgment of CONVICTION (not acquittal lol).
OCTOBER 1 | JUDGMENT
Section 14 of the Constitution provides no decision shall be rendered by any Court without expressly and
distinctly setting forth the facts and the law upon which the decision is based. [FACTS+LAW]
So that the accused will know what to appeal and for purposes of information. In accordance also of the
right of the accused to information.
What is judgment?
It is in adjudication by the Court, the determination by the Court whether accused is guilty or not guilty.
(Sec.1, Rule 120)
It should be noted whether such judgment is for conviction or for acquittal. In the judgment for
conviction, it should consist of the following: 1) the legal qualifications, 2) the participation of the
accused whether as principal, accomplice, or accessory, 3) penalty to be imposed, 4) civil liability if any,
5) damages against accused. In judgment for acquittal, it should consist the following: 1) guilt of accused
must be determined whether if guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt or facts which the
criminal liability of the accused was based did not exist, 2) civil liability
What are the requisites for a judgment to be valid and binding? (Section 1, Rule 120)
Yes, by the recording in the criminal docket as far as the judgment is considered. However, you should
take note of the instances where judgment is for conviction where accused is absent and that his
absence is unjustifiable because you will see that accused loses his right to avail of the remedies. This
means that if his judgment is promulgated and it is proven that his absence is unjustifiable, the
judgment becomes final and executory in the sense that accused loses his right to appeal or move for
reconsideration or move for new trial.
Suppose the information is duplicitous and during the trial, all the charges as alleged in the
information were proven, can the accused be convicted of all the charges notwithstanding the rule
under Rule 110 that information should only consist of one offense?
Yes, as an exception to Rule 110 if the accused fails to object to such duplicity before entering his plea.
Take note that however that allegations and proof should go together. Even if accused is charged with
two or more offenses as alleged in the information but during the trial, only one of the charges was
proven, the accused therefore can only be convicted of the charge which was proven.
Judgment in cases of variance between allegation and proof (Section 4, Rule 120)
What is the rationale in Section 4, Rule 120?
It implements the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of his
accusation such that the accused can only be convicted knows what he is proceeded against and the
charges against him. Otherwise, it is a violation of his right to due process. Remember also the right to
presumption of innocence.
Suppose the accused was charged for homicide but what was proven during trial was reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide, if you were the judge will you convict accused of reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide?
Yes, because reckless imprudence resulting to homicide forms part of the crime of homicide and being a
lesser penalty it does not violate the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation or offense charged. Greater offense includes the lesser offense but not vice versa.
Now suppose we flip the scenario, the accused was charged of reckless imprudence (negligence)
resulting to homicide (intentional felony) but what was proven was homicide, if you were the judge
will you convict accused for homicide?
No, because it will now violate the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusation or offense charged against him.
RULE OF THUMB: GREATER OFFENSE INCLUDES THE LESSER OFFENSE and not the other way around.
Accused was charged for rape thru sexual intercourse, what was proven was accused committed rape
by sexual assault, if you were the judge can you convict the accused with rape thru sexual assault
which was proven during the trial?
No. Even if there is rape by sexual assault and what was alleged was rape thru sexual intercourse,
accused cannot be convicted with rape thru sexual assault as there is difference between the two.
Violates right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation of charge against him.
Yes, with acts of lasciviousness as it is a lesser offense of rape thru sexual intercourse.
Accused was charged with rape, can the accused be convicted with simple seduction as proven during
trial?
No because of lack of factual allegations as far as simple seduction is concerned. Even if during the trial
what was proven was that the accused committed simple seduction he cannot be convicted with simple
seduction if he was charged in information with rape.
Accused was charged with one count of rape, what was proven however during the trial was that
accused committed 4 counts of rape, can the accused be convicted with multiple rape?
No, because it will violate right of accused to be informed of nature of cause and accusation of charge
against him.
Accused was charged with intentional malversation, during the trial however, what was proven was
commission of malversation thru negligence, can the accused be convicted of malversation thru
negligence?
Accused was charged with intentional crime of falsification of public documents what was proven
however during the trial was, reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public documents; can
the accused be convicted of reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public documents?
Yes because reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public documents is a lesser offense but not
the other way around.
Accused was charged with illegal detention can he be convicted with grave coercion?
Yes because illegal detention is higher than grave coercion which is deprivation of personal liberty.
Greater offense includes lesser offense.
Accused was charged with higher offense what was proven was a lesser offense and the Court is ready
to convict the accused with the said lesser offense, now what happened was, lesser offense has
already prescribed, can the Judge insist that the accused be convicted with a lesser offense?
No, even if he is found guilty with the lesser offense because the offense has already prescribed and the
accused shall therefore be set free.
Accused was charged with distribution or dealing of shabu or acted as broker, what was proven was
accused committed illegal possession; can he be convicted with illegal possession?
Yes, because illegal possession is a lesser offense than being a dealer or distributor of shabu. GREATER
OFFENSE INCLUDES LESSER OFFENSE NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
Promulgation is done in open court. The general rule is that, accused must be present during
promulgation of judgment. Exceptions are:
When it is a light offense (provided accused will send a representative or his counsel)
o When it comes to graver offenses, presence of accused is necessary.
o Suppose the accused is absent during promulgation, can promulgation be moved to
another date? NO. (So ang courts ang ma-adjust, te? Pa-chix lang?)
accused jumped bail or escaped prison [Promulgation in absentia]
Despite due notice, accused fails to appear without justifiable reason [Promulgation in absentia]
o Effect of failure to appear:
Promulgation in absentia
Accused loses his entitlement to all remedies available against judgment
Court shall order his arrest
In cases where the judgment is conviction and the absence of the accused is not justified, accused loses
all remedies provided by law, such that judgment becomes final and executory. However, within 15 days
from the date of promulgation, if the accused surrenders in Court and explains and justifies his absence
during promulgation, his right to remedies may then be reinstated.
The right to move for modification of judgment shall only be done by the accused however in the above
cases; judgment was allowed to be modified upon motion of prosecution. In what situations where
modification of judgment by the public prosecutor was allowed?
-Accused was charged with a penalty of death, after trial accused was found guilty but judge refused to
impose the penalty of death because of his personal opinion against, instead the judge imposed the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. The public prosecutor raised the matter to SC which the SC ruled that:
The right to move for modification of judgment only rests upon the accused but the SC makes
this case an exemption to such general rule as in this case, the judge committed grave abuse of
discretion in imposing penalty.
When it comes to erroneous judgment why does erroneous judgment be valid? Does it not violate the
right of the accused to know the nature and cause of accusation against him?
Erroneous judgment although how erroneous it is, is still a valid judgment as long as the Court has
jurisdiction over the case and in imposing the penalty, instead remedy of an error of judgment is appeal.
So even though how you perceive the judgment as erroneous either in the appreciation of facts or in the
application of the law, remedy is appeal and you should take it to higher Court for review.
When it comes to Nepys Rule, if mu-appeal sha after 15 days, is the judgment already final and
unappeasable?
Final order is different from final and executory. When it comes to final order is that it completely
disposes off the case. For example, accused is convicted and he has within 15 days to move for
reconsideration. Now prior to the lapse of 15 day period, ni-move sha for reconsideration and his
motion therefore becomes pending.
In case of affirmance of judgment of conviction, the judge will issue an order denying the motion for
reconsideration. The character of such order is a final order. Now in such scenario, does the accused
loses his right to appeal? NO, because the filing of the motion for reconsideration was done prior to the
expiry of period to appeal in fact the rule provides, that he has the remaining period within which the
balance of the period to appeal but that is no longer the situation because under the ruling of Hon.
Samson v. Yu, the accused has a fresh period of 15 days within which to take the appeal from the receipt
of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. That order denying motion for reconsideration is
considered a final order wherein the accused can take now his appeal but it doesn’t prevent the accused
from after the promulgation of judgment of conviction, instead of filing a motion for reconsideration, he
can directly appeal the case.
*The 15-day period of appeal starts from the promulgation of the judgment; exclude the first day,
include the last day
-Availability of remedies is not automatically given to the accused as the accused has to wait for the
order granting his request to avail of the remedies and he has 15 days from the receipt of order granting
him to avail of the remedies to avail on what remedy he shall apply for. (15-15 scenario)
No. It is an original action granted upon extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. Just like in the
judgment was already final and executory in the case of Galman v. Pamaran for example, the accused
was acquitted, because of acquittal you have double jeopardy to apply, how come the case was
reopened? Rule 65-Certiorari; exceptional circumstances
1. Errors of law
2. Irregularities in the proceedings which affect the substantial rights of the accused
3. Newly discovered evidence
-Specificity of the grounds are such because there is already a judgment promulgated thus justified on
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. Also for this remedy not be abused.
-Negligence of counsel is not a ground for new trial. Negligence of counsel binds client unless the
negligence is so gross as it tantamount to violation of due process, then only then shall it be a ground for
new trial.
1. Errors of Law
2. Irregularities in the proceedings which affect the substantial rights of the accused
-Substantial rights: Violation of right of accused under the Constitution like right to counsel, be
heard, presumption of innocence.
Requisites:
Evidence is new
Evidence is only discovered after trial
Evidence presented has a probability to alter or change the outcome of the trial
*Suppose one day after the crime was committed, the accused underwent a ballistic test.
Result came out that he was negative of powder burn. However, during trial, result was not
presented by defense. It was only after conviction that the counsel for the accused, moved for
new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, being the Judge, will you consider the
said evidence?
NO. This is an example of forgotten evidence as the evidence is already inexistent during the
trial.
*Accused moved for new trial on ground of DNA testing, if you were the Judge, will you grant
the DNA testing?
NO because at the time the trial commenced, accused could have moved for DNA Testing. It
cannot be considered as newly discovered evidence.
*PP v. CALAYAN: Judgment became final and executory already, case reached SC. Accused was
charged and convicted and penalty of death was imposed, but SC granted new trial. Accused
was charged with kidnapping and naay namatay. Now, kaning duha na-convict of course
automatic review by SC and judgment became final. Subsequently, the remaining 2 accused
executed a sworn statement that actually, Calayan and other accused were not at the scene of
the crime. In other words, they did not participated in the crime. The SC, even if the judgment
was already final and executory, granted new trial and remanded case to lower court. SC
justified that they relaxed the rules in this case because to allow accused to rot in jail and
disregard the sworn statement would be an injustice. Pro hac vice- only in this particular case;
this case is not controlling to other cases to accommodate new trial.
This is a sweeping question actually. What you need to do first is to determine the grounds first because
if the ground is error of law or irregularities, proceedings are set aside and vacated and the evidence will
be taken anew. Trial de novo then happens. But when it comes to the ground of newly discovered
evidence, evidences that were taken remain in the records and the newly evidence shall then be added
to existing evidences.
What happens if motion for new trial is denied?
Upon receipt of denial, you have another 15 day period within which to appeal by virtue of Nepys Rule
but subsequently you have the case of Samson Tatad v. Judith Yu. (Fresh period rule in appeal cases)
(ehehe di pa end of the world gurl, may another 15 days pa)
Oct 6 | APPEALS
*Appeal is not a constitutional right; it is merely a statutory privilege. It should be exercised in the
manner as provided by law.
When it comes to death penalty, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, take note of the ff:
-Remember the court of origin which is the Regional Trial Court, the judgment of conviction imposing
the penalty of death is reviewed automatically by the Court of Appeals in view of the ruling in People v.
Mateo.
-Suppose CA affirms judgment of conviction and affirms penalty of death, CA will render decision but
refrain from making an entry of judgment and instead certify the case for its final review. When it comes
to penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, there is no automatic review to the Court of
Appeals. The mode of review however, is notice of appeal filed in the Trial Court and then to the Court
of Appeals.
-Subsequently, let us suppose that the case is in Court of Appeals and now Court of Appeals will affirm
the judgment of conviction imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Courts of
Appeals will then render judgment and make an entry of the judgment.
-The mode of appeal to SC is by notice of appeal filed in CA. It has been discussed that as a general rule,
all appeals to the Supreme Court is by way of Rule 45 except in penalties of reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment because from the CA you can appeal to SC by way of notice of appeal only filed in the CA.
Why is it notice of appeal? Because in the first place, CA will not only render judgment but also make an
entry of judgment unlike in the death penalty, CA is prohibited in making an entry of judgment.
The Court of Appeals do business by divisions and not in en banc and is composed of:
Chairman,
Senior Member,
Junior Member (hehehee super junior hehehehehe)
The only time the Court of Appeals meet in en banc is when they decide and promulgate for the internal
rules or having special occasions or someone retires but never to decide a case.
To constitute a quorum upon doing business in Court of Appeals, the 3 justices should be present to
deliberate a case. This is what we call a collegiate body.
To arrive at a vote upon deciding a case, the required number of votes to consider a valid disposition of
the Court of Appeals, is the unanimous vote of the 3 justices.
In case they are not unanimous or 2 did not agree to the ponente, what happens?
The presiding justice through a special raffle will designate 2 additional justices to sit in the division
comprising now of 5 justices and is considered a special division (maypa ang division special hiiiing
charot hahahaha ew) just to render a decision regarding a particular case.
What is then the required number of votes in this special division to promulgate a decision?
The Supreme Court conducts business either in division or en banc. Presently we have 15 justices in the
SC and there are 3 divisions.
Take note of the cases which the SC will decide in en banc or by division:
BY EN BANC BY DIVISION
By the command of the constitution, the following When it comes to deciding case in division is not
must be heard in en banc: (Sec. 4, par. 1, Article 8, the unanimous vote of 5 but only majority which is
1987 Consti) 3 unlike in CA.
(a) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture;
(f) the collegial appellate courts went beyond the issues of the case, and their findings are contrary
to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(g) the findings of fact of the collegial appellate courts are contrary to those of the trial court;
(h) said findings of fact are conclusions without citation specific evidence on which they are based;
(i) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not
disputed by the respondents;
(j) the findings of fact of the collegial appellate courts are premised on the supposed evidence, but
are contradicted by the evidence on record; and
(k) all other similar and exceptional cases warranting a review of the lower courts’ findings of fact.
All appeals to SC except by Consti or by law are by virtue of Rule 45-Petition for review on Certiorari. SC
cannot order a new trial but in Pp v. Calayan, the two accused were not part of the crime was
discovered only upon finality of judgment, SC moved for a new trial.
In the case of Echegaray, at the time he was convicted the penalty was death penalty, the judgment
became final and executory such that there is no other way but to implement the judgment and he must
therefore, be executed in regards to penalty. However, somebody in the pre-legal assistance group
questioned the constitutionality of death penalty by certiorari with prohibition, SC then put a halt in the
execution of the judgment by issuing a TRO, stating that it is to relax its rules in order to avoid
miscarriage of justice.
WORDS OF WISDOM: (OR WA NA JUD KAY LINGAW ATE GURL? BORING GYUD GRABI)
-Effort then keep going charot then remember why you started
(T/N: Ngano way klaro iya discussion huhuhuhuhuhuhu lagpas lagpas man why sir why ge lang lami man
ang kaon ani na day hehehehee sucha happy day)
OCTOBER 11 | INTERNAL RULES OF SC + RULE 125+ RULE 126: SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan:
-From the Sandiganbayan to Supreme Court imposing penalty of Reclusion temporal or lower than RT,
appeal is by way of Rule 45 within 15 days.
-Sandiganbayan imposes reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, appeal to Supreme Court by way of
notice of appeal. Filed in court of origin which is Sandiganbayan.
-Sandiganbayan imposes death of penalty, mode of appeal is by way automatic review by Supreme
Court.
-Suppose case originated in RTC, Sandiganbayan exercised its appellate jurisdiction, what then is the
mode of appeal when it comes to decision of RTC convicting accused imposing the penalty of reclusion
temporal or lower than RT?
From the RTC to Sandiganbayan mode of appeal is Rule 42-Petition for review on both questions of fact
and law.
-From Sandiganbayan to Supreme Court, the mode of appeal is Rule 45-Petition for review on Certiorari.
-When Sandiganbayan imposes penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment,
Sandiganbayan shall render judgment but refrain from making an entry of judgment and forthwith
certify case to SC for its review and final disposition.
WORDS OF WISDOM:
-Life is meaningful when you get out of your comfort zone. (PAK!)
-After all, it is not the number of years in your life but the life you put in your years that will matter.
(MOTIVATED NA KAAYO KO ATTY HOOOO CHAROT)
SEARCH AND SEIZURE (Rule 126)
Constitutional basis: Article 3, Sec.2: The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers 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 complainant and witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. (Right to be let alone) (Does not need
enabling law anymore)(Presumption of regularity will not apply)(Burden of proof lies with officer)
To protect the privacy and sanctity of persons, houses, papers, and effect against arbitrary intrusion by
police officers.
-Generally all searches are unreasonable unless procedural requirements are followed and safeguards
are followed. (Ay lagi patakag panghikap bad bad na tsk)
Only 10 days and after lapse of said days, police officer shall then make a report to Court because after
the lapse, search warrant becomes null and void and becomes functus officio. Unlike in warrant of arrest
which has no lifetime.
What happens when the place to be searched or things to be searched are not properly or specifically
described in the warrant?
The warrant shall be considered a general warrant and shall be null and void.
-Picop v. Asuncion: Applicant applied for search warrant for a compound in Iligan but applicant and
warrant was in the form of general warrant (scatter shot warrant). Warrant is invalidated by the SC.
[MAGPANIC DAYUN UNSAY SCATTER SHOT LELS NYWAYS, IT IS A SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED FOR MORE
THAN ONE OFFENSE, INVALID]
Take note also: 20th Century Fox case and Burgos case.
Shall be issued only upon finding of a probable cause to be determined personally by the judge
Warrant issued must particularly describe place to be searched or things to be seized
Searching questions addressed to applicant must be thorough and must illicit the required
information as far as search warrant is concerned, otherwise, Court cannot issue it if it lacks
specificity. [Rationale: Article 3, Sec.2 par.1]
General Rule: Any court whose territorial jurisdiction crime was committed.
o A warehouse in Pier 1 is under surveillance because it is storing contraband goods,
where then shall you apply search warrant? Pier 1 is part in Cebu City, then file it in
Cebu City Courts.
Exceptions:
o For compelling reasons stated in application, any Court within judicial region where
crime was committed if place of commission of crime is known, or any Court within
judicial region where warrant shall be enforced.
Bisan pa i-enforce sa Bohol considering that Bohol is included in 7th judicial
region, you can get search warrant there. But again, know the enumeration by
heart.
o However, if criminal action has already been filed, application shall only be made in
Court where criminal action is pending.
*Judicial Region: Refers for example to Cebu City as part of Region 7, hence, 7 th judicial
region which is composed of Cebu, Cebu Province, Bohol
Where do you file a motion to quash a search warrant? (Sec.14, Rule 126)
It may be filed in and acted upon only by Court where action has been instituted. If no criminal action
has been instituted, motion may be filed in and resolved by Court that issued search warrant. However,
if such Court failed to resolve motion and criminal case is subsequently filed in another court, motion
shall be resolved in latter Court.
*When it comes to motion to quash a search warrant, what is being assailed is validity of search
warrant and not as to its implementation.
* Normally when you assail validity of a search warrant you file a motion to quash but in Pp v. Burgos, SC
went to the extent that the aggrieved party may file petition for certiorari under Rule 65 if illegality of
search warrant has a far-reaching implications.
As to the manner of effecting or implementing the search warrant, does the motion to quash cover
this particular situation?
NO because what is being assailed is validity of search warrant hence remedy should be filing a criminal
offense under RPC. File violation of domicile, maliciously obtained search warrant against police officers,
search of dwelling without witnesses. [Article 128, 129, 130, RPC] Can also ask for damages.
-Except for searches incidental to lawful arrest, the rest are already warrantless searches and seizures.
Under Article 126, what is only covered is search incidental to lawful arrest.
-By search incidental to lawful arrest, what is important is that arrest must be lawful before you can
effect a lawful search because if arrest is unlawful, then subsequent search shall also be unlawful. In fact,
any evidence obtained shall be considered fruit of poisonous tree.
-However, just because there is a lawful arrest, it does not follow that the subsequent search is also
lawful because you have to consider the time element; from the time the accused is lawfully arrested
and from the time of actual search. If sufficient lapse of time will occur from the actual search then you
can no longer justify search incidental to lawful arrest. [TIME ELEMENT IMPORTANT, REMEMBER!]
-What you should remember: Search must be contemporaneous to lawful arrest and must be made
within permissible area of search. Pag-arrest nimo sa isa ka tao, diha-diha isearch nimo dayun sha for
weapons or dangerous drugs, etc dili kay pagkadakop nimo, dal-on nimo shas laing lugar. (hmmmm
beshie lahi na na nga search and seizure hahahahahaha) Classic example of search and seizure would be
buy bust operations.
>It extends beyond the person arrested as long as it is within the surroundings of immediate
control. Example: standby sa iya car, nag-tabako marijuana, car can also be searched.
>Example: Accused was standing at the front of door, subsequently search was also conducted
inside the house, SC held no, search was invalid as beyond the door is already not within the
immediate control of person arrested.
(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in
a position from which he can view a particular area; (there is prior valid intrusion)
Example: Police nangukab ug aparador, search is invalid. Authority ceases upon arrest of person.
(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. (Without further search) (Seen by naked eyes)
Checkpoints
o They are not illegal per se as long as search is limited to visual search and does not extend to
bodily and vehicular extensive search. VISUAL SEARCH ONLY.
o Anyag v. Comelec: Accused just left Batasan Premised, there was checkpoint, police officer
extended the search in the baggage compartment and found high powered weapons in the car
tire.
Consented Searches
Elements:
-Consent which was given under coercive atmosphere is no longer within the ambit of consented search.
It must be given voluntarily and freely.
-Example: Search was allowed to proceed when it comes to search with the rebels but it so happened,
officers opened the doors to rooms and cabinets, SC said no, search not covered under consented
search.
-Malacat v. CA!
Customs searches
o Person did not pay correct tariffs, can vehicle used to transport with contraband goods
be searched? YES as exception to search warrant.
Cases:
o People v. Salanguit: there is search warrant to search for shabu and its paraphernalia
but after police officers came across in the premises which was wrapped in newspaper,
is the search for the items inside the newspaper wrapped things? NO.
o Pp v. De Garcia: exigent and emergency situations
WORD OF WISDOM:
I missed so many shots in my lifetime that’s why I succeeded. Keep on trying. –by Jude Jordan
hahahahah charot