10TH WEEK

TENTH WEEK The panel of prosecutors found probable cause for murder in the
killing and recommended that the corresponding Informations be
1. Preliminary Investigation.
filed against the suspects.
a. Definition of preliminary investigation.
Judge Turla issued an Order on the Palayan cases. (RTC Palayan) and
It is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is held that the proper procedure in the conduct of PI was not
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has followed.
been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and
should be held for trial (Sec. 1, Rule 112). Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order against Judge Turla and
a.1. Discuss Maza v. Turla, G.R. No. 187094 the Prosecutors and prayed that the Orders of Turla be annulled
and set aside and that the murder cases against them be dismissed
Trial Court judges must determine the existence or non-existence of
for failure to show probable cause, alleging that she acted with
probable cause based on the personal evaluation of the
grave abuse of discretion.
prosecutor’s report and its supporting documents. They may:
SUPREME COURT: Rule 112, Sec 5. Does not allow the option to
1. Dismiss the case if there is no probable cause
remand the case back to the prosecutors. Only that the trial judge
2. Issue an arrest warrant may (1) dismiss the case, (2) issue a warrant of arrest, (3) order the
prosecutor to present additional evidence
3. Require the prosecutor to submit additional evidence.
Preliminary Investigation by the Prosecutor – An executive function
There is no option to remand the case to the prosecutor for a for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground to
“complete” PI. engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed
Petitioners Maza, Ocampo, Casifio, Mariano are former members of and the accused is probably guilty and should be held for trial.
the House of the Representatives were among those who were Preliminary Investigation by the Judge – A judicial function the
allegedly responsible for the death of Bayudang, Peralta, Felipe. purpose of which is to determine if there is probable cause to issue
Inspector Palomo recommended that a PI be conducted and an a warrant of arrest based on the personal evaluation of the
Information for each count. prosecutor’s resolution and the supporting evidence.

1
10TH WEEK

b. Who conducts preliminary investigation? 1. Where an information or complaint is filed pursuant to Sec. 7,
Rule 112, i.e. the complaint or information is filed directly in court
PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT A PRELIMINARY
(Ibid.); or
INVESTIGATION
2. For cases requiring preliminary investigation, when a person is
1. Provincial or city prosecutors and their assistants;
lawfully arrested without a warrant provided that inquest was made
2. National and Regional State Prosecutors; and in accordance with Rule 112 (Sec. 6, Rule 112).

3. Other officers as may be authorized by law, such as: d. How is it instituted?

a. Ombudsman; The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following

manner:
b. COMELEC;
(a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent
c. PCGG, with the assistance of the OSG; and and shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and
d. And other government agencies, empowered to his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to establish
investigate, file and prosecute cases investigated by it. probable cause. They shall be in such number of copies as there are
respondents, plus two (2) copies for the official file. The affidavits
NOTE: Their authority to conduct preliminary investigation shall shall be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or
include all crimes cognizable by the proper court in their respective government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their
territorial jurisdiction (Sec. 2, Rule 112). absence or unavailability, before a notary public, each of whom
c. When is it necessary? must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is
satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their
PERIOD WHEN PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED TO BE affidavits.
CONDUCTED
(b) Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the
GR: Before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense investigating officer shall either dismiss it if he finds no ground to
where the penalty prescribed by law is imprisonment of at least 4 continue with the investigation, or issue a subpoena to the
years, 2 months and 1 day without regard to the imposable fine respondent attaching to it a copy of the complaint and its
(Sec. 1, Rule 112). supporting affidavits and documents.
XPNs: The respondent shall have the right to examine the
evidence submitted by the complainant which he may not have
been furnished and to copy them at his expense. If the evidence is
2
10TH WEEK

voluminous, the complainant may be required to specify those the expiration of the period for their submission. It shall be
which he intends to present against the respondent, and these shall terminated within five (5) days.
be made available for examination or copying by the respondent at
(f) Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the
his expense.
investigating officer shall determine whether or not there is
Objects as evidence need not be furnished a party but shall sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial.
be made available for examination, copying, or photographing at the
e. What is the effect of failure to complete or terminate
expense of the requesting party.
preliminary investigation within a reasonable time?
(c) Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with
Failure to complete or terminate preliminary investigation with a
the complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, the
reasonable time may cause the dismissal of the case. The long delay
respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit and that of his
in the termination of the PI would be violative of the constitutional
witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his
guarantee of speedy disposition of cases embodied in the Bill of
defense. The counter-affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to and
Rights.
certified as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, with copies
thereof furnished by him to the complainant. The respondent shall Every accused has the rights to due process and to speedy
not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of a counter- disposition of cases. Inordinate delay in the resolution and
affidavit. termination of a preliminary investigation will result in the dismissal
of the case against the accused.
(d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if
subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) Delay, however, is not determined through mere mathematical
day period, the investigating office shall resolve the complaint based reckoning but through the examination of the facts and
on the evidence presented by the complainant. circumstances surrounding each case. But the accused must invoke
the constitutional rights in a timely manner for failure to do so
(e) The investigating officer may set a hearing if there are
would be considered as a waiver of such right. [Cagang v.
facts and issues to be clarified from a party or a witness. The parties
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 206438]
can be present at the hearing but without the right to examine or
cross-examine. They may, however, submit to the investigating Absence of preliminary investigation; effect on jurisdiction of the
officer questions which may be asked to the party or witness court
concerned.
The absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the court's
The hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from jurisdiction over the case nor does it impair the validity of the
submission of the counter-affidavits and other documents or from information or otherwise, render it defective (Rodis v.

3
10TH WEEK

Sandiganbayan, 166 SCRA 618; People v. Deang, 338 SCRA 657; Issue: Whether the prosecution’s long delay in the filing of these
Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, 253 SCRA 773; People v. Buluran, 325 cases with the Sandiganbayan had deprived petitioner of his
SCRA 476; Enriquez v. Sarmiento, Jr., 498 SCRA 6). If absence of a constitutional right to due process and the right to a speedy
preliminary investigation does not render the information invalid disposition of the cases against him.
nor affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case, then the denial
SC: The complaint filed by Antonio in 1974 was made to “sleep” in
of a motion for reinvestigation cannot likewise invalidate the
the office of the PSC until the end of 1979 when it became widely
information or oust the court of its jurisdiction over the case
known that Minister Tatad had a falling out with Marcos and the
(Budiongan, Jr. v. De la Cruz, Jr., 502 SCRA 626).
1974 report was resurrected in the form of a formal complaint filed
Absence of preliminary investigation; not a ground for motion to with the Tanodbayan. The Tanodbayan acted on the complaint 2
quash months after Tatad’s resignation was accepted by Marcos.

The absence of a preliminary investigation is not a ground for a It was found that the Tanodbayan had all the affidavits and counter-
motion to quash. Such ground is not provided for in Sec. 3 of Rule affidavits necessary for the disposition since October 25, 1982. The
117, the provision which enumerates the grounds for a motion to referral of the complaint by Tanodbayan to the PSC for investigation
quash a complaint or information (Budiongan, Jr. vs. De la Cruz, Jr., and report was a revealing attempt to involve an office directly
502 SCRA 626). under the President in the prosecutorial process, lending credence
to the suspicion that the prosecution was politically motivated.
e.1 Discuss Tatad v. Sandiganbayan
The inordinate delay close to 3 years is violative of petitioner’s
Tatad seeks to annul and set aside the resolution of the Tanodbayan
constitutional rights. The facts and circumstances surrounding the
and Sandiganbayan and prevent from continuing with the trial or
case did not warrant and justify the long delay for the Tanodbayad
any other proceedings in People v. Tatad.
to resolve the case. The delay in terminating the PI and filing the
1974 – Antonio de los Reyes filed a formal report with the Legal information is violative of the constitutionally guaranteed right of
Panel of the Presidential Security Command (PSC) charging Tatad the petitioner to a speedy disposition of the case against him.
with violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
e.2 Discuss Cagang v. Sandiganbayan
1979 – Tatad had a falling out with Marcos and filed his resignation
Petitioner questions the Sandiganbayan’s denial to quash the
as Minister of Public Information and 2 months later Antonio filed
Informations and Order of Arrest against Cagang despite the Office
the formal complaint with the Tanodbayan of the same.
of the Ombudsman’s alleged inordinate delay in the termination of
1980 – Tatad’s resignation was accepted by Marcos. the PI.

PSC – Found that Tatad violated the offense charged.

4
10TH WEEK

2003 – Ombudsman received an anonymous complaint alleging that SC: Right to speedy disposition of cases may be invoked against
some employees and officials in the Vice Governor’s Office of Judicial, Quasi-judicial, and Administrative bodies while the Right to
Sarangani committed graft and corruption by diverting public funds a Speedy Trial may only be invoked in criminal prosecutions.
and transferring them to dummy cooperatives.
Such right is violated only when the proceeding is attended by
2005 Information – charging Escobar, Rudes, Maglinte, Cagang, vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays, or when unjustified
accountable officials for Malversation of Public Funds. postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when
without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed
2010 – Acquitted Escobar, Maglinte, and Cagang for insufficiency of
to elapse without the party having his case tried. The inquiry as to
evidence.
whether or not an accused has been denied such right is not
2011 – Ombudsman Carpio-Morales received a resolution finding susceptible by precise qualification. The concept of speedy
probable cause to charge Mangalen and Magcalat of Malversation disposition is a relative term.
of Public Funds and approved the recommendation on the
The Tatad ruling and Barker Balancing test – that courts must
Information for Violation of R.A. 3019 and Malversation against
consider the following factors when determining the existence of
Cagang, Camanay, Zulueta, Macagcalat, and Mangalen. (For
inordinate delay:
falsification of Disbursment Voucher for 350k)
1. The length of delay
Cagang filed a Motion to Quash and Set Aside the Order of Arrest
and argued that there was an inordinate delay of 7 years which 2. The reason for delay
would violate his constitutional rights.
3. The defendant’s assertion or non-assertion of the right
2012 Sandiganbayan said – there was no inordinate delay
4. The prejudice to the defendant as a result of the delay
considering that 40 invididuals were involved in 81 different
transactions and Cagang did not invoke his right before the Determining the length of delay covers the entire period of
Ombudsman and only did so after the Information was filed. investigation even before trial and may be invoked as early as the
preliminary investigation or inquest.
Filing of the Complaint – February 10, 2003

Information – November 17, 2011

The State argues that the fact-finding investigation should not be
The PI was concluded in 2005 and that it should not have taken the
considered a part of the PI because the former was only preparatory
Ombudsman 7 years to study the evidence needed to establish
in relation to the latter and should not be included in the
probable cause.
computation. ---
5
10TH WEEK

exists, a case is deemed to have commenced from the filing of the there is no violation of the accused’s right to speedy disposition
formal complaint and the subsequent conduct of the PI. considering that there was a waiver of the delay of a complex case.

The defense must also prove that it exerted meaningful efforts to CAGANG’S PETITION IS DENIED.
protect accused’s constitutional rights. To appreciate a violation of
f. Probable cause for the purpose of filing an information.
the right to speedy disposition of cases, delay must not be
attributable to the defense. Unreasonable actions by the accused The determination by the prosecutor of probable cause is for the
will be taken against them. purpose of either filing an information in court or dismissing the
charges against the respondent.
However, if it has been alleged that there was delay beyond the
given time periods, the burden of proof shifts. The prosecution will
now have the burden to prove that there was no violation of the
right to speedy trial or speedy disposition of cases. Prosecution must g. What is an information?
prove that it followed established procedure in prosecuting the case Information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an
and that any delay incurred was justified and that no prejudice was offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed by him with the
suffered by the accused as a result of the delay. court (Sec. 4, Rule 110).
Failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial shall
h. When is an information sufficient?
constitute a waiver of the right to dismiss under this section.
A COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IS DEEMED SUFFICIENT IF IT
If delay is alleged to have occurred DURING THE GIVEN PERIODS,
CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING:
burden of proof is on the accused to prove that it was inordinate.
1. Name of the accused, if the offense is committed by more than
If delay is alleged to have occurred BEYOND THE GIVEN PERIODS,
one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or
burden of proof shifts on the prosecution.
information;

2. Designation of the offense given by the statute;

Back to the case, THERE is no showing that this case was attended
3. Acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense;
by malice and no evidence that it was politically motivated, unlike in
Tatad. The dismissal of this case would undoubtedly be prejudicial 4. Name of the offended party;
to the State. The State has as much right as the accused to have its
day in court and an opportunity to present its case. SC finds that 5. Approximate date of the commission of the offense; and

6. Place where the offense was committed (Sec. 6, Rule 110)

6
10TH WEEK

2. Arrest would justify a conviction (The Presidential Ad-Hoc FactFinding

Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto, G.R. No. 136225, April 23,
a. Definition of an arrest.
2008).
It is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be
bound to answer for the commission of an offense (Sec. 1, Rule c.1. Discuss Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 197293, 21 April 2014.
113). While the determination of probable cause to charge a person of a
crime is the sole function of the prosecutor, the trial court may
b. Warrantless arrests.
dismiss the case if, upon personal assessment of the evidence, it
INSTANCES WHEN WARRANT OF ARREST IS NOT NECESSARY finds that the evidence does not establish probable cause.

1. Accused is already under detention;

2. Complaint or information was filed pursuant to a valid warrantless RTC – dismissed the complaint against petitioner Alfredo Mendoza
arrest; and for Qualified Theft and Estafa filed by Juno Cars.

3. Complaint or information is for an offense penalized by fine only Mendoza is a Used Car Supervisor for Juno. When they conducted a
[Sec. 5 (c), Rule 112]. partial audit, they found that 5 cars had been sold by Mendoza
without permission. Mendoza did not remit the payments totaling
INSTANCES OF A VALID WARRANTLESS ARREST 886K and that only 18 out of 20 cars in his custody are accounted
1. In flagrante delicto arrest; for and that he pilfered a total amount of 1M and 46K to Juno’s
prejudice.
2. Doctrine of hot pursuit; and
Mendoza raised the issue that Juno failed to prove their ownership
3. Escapee. (Sec. 5, Rule 113) over the 5 cars he sold. Prosecutor Delgado found probable cause
c. Probable cause for issuance of a warrant of arrest. and recommended the filing of the Information against Mendoza for
Qualified Theft and Estafa.
PROBABLE CAUSE
While Mendoza’s MR is pending, 2 informations for QT and ESTAFA
It refers to facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably were filed before the RTC.
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
RTC Judge Rizalina Capco-Umali dismissed the complaint and held
committed by the persons involved. It need not be based on clear
that the evidence adduced does not support a finding of probable
and convincing evidence of guilt. It simply implies probability of guilt
cause for the offenses of qualified theft and estafa.
and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which
7
10TH WEEK

RTC denied Juno’s motion for reconsideration. While the information filed by Prosecutor Delgado was valid, Judge
Capco-Umali still had the discretion to make her own finding of
Juno filed a petition for certiorari with the CA and argued that
whether probable cause exists to order the arrest of the accused.
determination of probable cause rightfully belongs to the
She found that Juno Cars failed to prove by competent evidence
prosecutor.
that the vehicles alleged to have been pilfered were lawfully owned
CA – reversed the trial court and reinstated the case and ruled that by them.
RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in supplanting the
CA decision reversed. Case against Mendoza is dismissed.
prosecutor’s findings of probable cause with her own findings of
insufficiency of evidence.

ISSUE: Whether the trial court may dismiss an information filed by 3. Bail
the prosecutor on the basis of its own independent finding of lack of
a. Definition of bail.
probable cause.
Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the
SC: There are 2 kinds of determination of probable cause: Executive
and Judicial. law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance
before any court as required under the conditions prescribed under
Executive PI – function that pertains to the public prosecutor to the rules (Sec. 1, Rule 114).
determine whether probable cause exists for the respondent
(would-be-accused) to be held for trial. [for the Information] b. Bail as a matter of right.

Judicial PI – made by a judge to ascertain whether there is probable BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT
cause to issue a WARRANT OF ARREST against the accused
1. Before or after conviction by the MeTC, MTC, MTCC or MCTC;
The judge may satisfy himself based on the evidence submitted and
NOTE: All criminal cases under their jurisdiction are bailable offense
if he finds that there is no probable cause, the judge cannot be
because these courts have no jurisdiction to try cases punishable by
forced to issue arrest warrant.
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.(Enrile vs.
The judge does not act as an appellate court for the prosecutor and Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015)
has no capacity to review the prosecutor’s determination of
2. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by
probable cause, rather, he makes a determination of probable
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment (Sec. 4, Rule 114);
cause INDEPENDENT of the prosecutor’s finding.
and
8
10TH WEEK

3. Before final conviction by all children in conflict with the law for June 5, 2014 – Ombudsman charged Enrile and others with plunder
an offense not punishable by reclusion perpetua or life on their alleged involvement in the misuse of appropriations under
imprisonment. PDAF.

c. Bail as a matter of discretion. Enrile – Omnibus Motion w prayer that he should be allowed to
post bail if probable cause was to be found against him.
BAIL AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION
Sandiganbayan – denied the motion for bail on the ground of its
1. Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by
prematurity considering that Enrile has not yet been placed under
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment;
the custody of law.
2. Regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution, a person
[BAIL IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENSURING THE ACCUSED’S
charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion
APPEARANCE AT TRIAL]
perpetua or life imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is not strong
(Sec. 7, Rule 114); and Warrant of Arrest was issued and he voluntarily surrendered.
Motion to Fix Bail was filed and argued that he should be allowed to
3. A child in conflict with the law charged with an offense punishable
post bail because:
by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment when evidence of
guilt is not strong (Sec. 28, A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC). 1. The Prosecution has not established that the evidence of his
guilt was strong
NOTE: The prosecution cannot adduce evidence for the denial of bail
where it is a matter of right. However, where the grant of bail is 2. That even though he was charged with plunder (punishable
discretionary, the prosecution may show proof to deny the bail. by reclusion perpetua to death), the penalty to him should only be
reclusion temporal because of his age and mitigating circumstance
Whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, reasonable notice
of voluntary surrender
of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor or fiscal, or at
least he must be asked for his recommendation. 3. That he was not a flight risk and that his physical condition
must be seriously considered
Recommendation is necessary because in fixing the amount of bail,
the judge is required to take into account a number of factors such His motion was denied.
as the applicant’s character and reputation, forfeiture of other
Enrile raises the ff grounds:
bonds or whether he is a fugitive from justice.
1. That before judgment of the Sandiganbayan, he is bailable
c.1. Discuss Ponce Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, 18
as a matter of right since prosecution has failed to show clearly and
August 2015.
conclusively that evidence of his guilt is strong.
9
10TH WEEK

SC: The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the The PH is under obligation to make available to every person under
accused at the trial. detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right
to liberty, including the right to be admitted to bail.
Bail may be granted as a matter of discretion
Enrile’s reputation of having utter respect for the legal processes of
Section 7, Rule 114 – Capital offenses or those punishable by
this country and his health condition are also taken into
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment are NOT bailable. – No
consideration, he should be granted bail.
person charged with a. capital offense, etc, shall be admitted to bail
WHEN evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the Granting provisional liberty to Enrile will enable him to have his
criminal prosecution. medical condition be properly addressed and better attended to by
competent physicians in the hospital of his choice which would
ONLY AID in his adequate preparation of his defense but WILL
General Rule – any person, before being convicted, shall be bailable, GUARANTEE his appearance in court for the trial.
unless the offense is punishable by death, RP, or LI, AND evidence of
Petition is gramted. Sandiganbayan resolutions are set aside.
guilt is strong.
d. Definition of recognizance.
If evidence of guilt is not strong = Bail is a matter of right
a. An obligation of record, entered into before some court
Bail is discretionary when:
or magistrate duly authorized to take it with the condition to do
1. upon conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT punishable some particular act. It is an undertaking of a disinterested
by death, RP, LI person with high credibility wherein he will execute an affidavit
of recognizance to the effect that when the presence of the
2. RTC has imposed a penalty of imprisonment EXCEEDING 6 accused is required in court, the custodian will bring him to that
years, provided that any of the circumstances enumerated in Sec. 5, court;
Rule 114 is present.
b. This is allowed for light felonies only.
Admission to bail in offenses punished by death, RP, LI is subject to
Judicial Discretion. Bail cannot be allowed when its grant is a matter NOTE: If the accused does not appear despite notice to the
of discretion on the part of the trial court unless there has been a custodian, or the person who executed the recognizance does not
hearing with notice to the prosecution. produce the accused, he may be cited for contempt of court. This is
the remedy because no money is involved in recognizance.
Enrile’s poor health justifies his Admission to Bail. The PH’s
responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of every person e. Increase, reduction, forfeiture, and cancellation of bail.
to liberty and due process (Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
10
10TH WEEK

After the accused is admitted to bail, the court may, upon good b. Explain why the accused did not appear before the court
cause, either increase or reduce its amount. When increased, the when first required to do so (Sec. 21, Rule 114).
accused may be committed to custody if he does not give bail in the
LIABILITY OF THE BONDSMEN FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
increased amount within a reasonable period (Sec. 20, Rule 114). THEIR OBLIGATIONS WHEN THE ACCUSED FAILS TO APPEAR WHEN
REQUIRED
NOTE: A motion to reduce the amount of bail likewise requires a
hearing before it is granted in order to afford the prosecution the A judgment shall be rendered against the bondsmen, jointly and
chance to oppose it (Sec. 18, Rule 114). severally, for the amount of bail (Sec. 21, Rule 114).
Excessive bail may not be imposed because that is tantamount to NOTE: The court shall not reduce or mitigate the liability of the
denying bail. bondsmen, unless the accused has been surrendered or is acquitted
(Sec. 21, Rule 114).
WHEN ACCUSED DOES NOT HAVE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO POST THE
BAIL INITIALLY FIXED BY THE COURT The 30-day period granted to the bondsmen to comply with the two
requisites for the lifting of the order of forfeiture cannot be
The accused may move for its reduction by submitting documents
shortened by the court but may be extended for good cause shown.
and affidavits that may warrant his claim for reduction (Sec. 3, A.M.
No. 12-11-2-SC). BENCH WARRANT
PRIORITY OF HEARING FOR MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF BAIL Aside from the forfeiture, when the accused fails to appear in court
despite notice, the court may issue a bench warrant for his arrest.
Such motion shall enjoy priority in the hearing of cases (Sec. 2 A.M.
No. 12-11-2-SC). It is a writ issued directly by a judge to a law enforcer, for the arrest
of a person who has been held in contempt, has disobeyed a
The order fixing the amount of the bail shall not be subject to appeal
subpoena, or has to appear at a hearing or trial (Magleo vs. De Juan-
(Sec. 4, A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC).
Quinagoran, A.M. No. RTJ-122336, November 12, 2014).
EFFECTS OF THE FAILURE OF THE ACCUSED TO APPEAR IN COURT
CANCELLATION OF BAIL
WHEN SO REQUIRED
1. Upon the application of the bondsmen, with due notice to the
1. The bail shall be declared forfeited; and
prosecutor, the bail may be cancelled upon:
2. The bondsmen are given 30 days within which to:
a. Surrender of the accused; or
a. Produce the body of their principal or give the reason for
b. Proof of his death.
his non-production; and
11
10TH WEEK

2. The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon: 4. Arraignment and Plea

a. Acquittal of the accused; a. How is arraignment made?

b. Dismissal of the case; or It is the formal mode of implementing the constitutional right of the
accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him
c. Execution of the judgment of conviction (Sec. 22, Rule
(People v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 171020, March 14, 2007).
114)
Arraignment is the proceeding in a criminal case, whose objwhect is
NOTE: In all instances of cancellation of bail, automatic or otherwise,
to fix the identity of the accused, to inform him of the charge and to
it shall be without prejudice to any liability on the part of the surety
give him an opportunity to plead, or to obtain from the accused his
(Sec. 22, Rule 114).
answer, in other words, his plea to the information.
ORDER OF FORFEITURE VS. ORDER OF CANCELLATION
NOTE: Arraignment is an indispensable requirement of due process.
ORDER OF FORFEITURE ORDER OF CANCELLATION
PERIOD OF ARRAIGNMENT
Conditional and interlocutory. Not independent of the order GR: Arraignment shall be made within 30 days from the date the
It is not appealable. of forfeiture. It is a judgment court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused [Sec. 1
ultimately determining the
(g), Rule 116].
liability of the surety
thereunder and therefore final. XPNs:

Execution may issue at once. 1. When an accused is under preventive detention, his case should
be raffled within 3 days from filing and accused shall be arraigned
within 10 days from receipt by the judge of the records of the case
f. Bail not a waiver of right to question validity of arrest. (RA 8493 Speedy Trial Act);

An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused 2. Where the complainant is about to depart from the Philippines
from challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the with no definite date of return, the accused should be arraigned
warrant issued therefor, or from assailing the regularity or without delay;
questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge 3. Cases under RA 7610 (Child Abuse Act), the trial shall be
against him, provided that he raises them before entering his plea. commenced within 3 days from arraignment;
The court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable but not
later than the start of the trial of the case. 4. Cases under the Dangerous Drugs Act; and
12
10TH WEEK

5. Cases under SC AO 104-96 i.e. heinous crimes, violations of the NOTE: Accused is presumed to have been validly arraigned in the
Intellectual Property Rights law, these cases must be tried absence of proof to the contrary.
continuously until terminated within 60 days from commencement
b. What is plea bargaining?
of the trial and to be decided within 30 days from the submission of
the case. Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a process whereby the accused
and the prosecution work a mutually satisfactory disposition of the
case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant’s
PROCEDURE OF ARRAIGNMENT pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the
counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence
1. It must be in open court where the complaint or information has
than that for the graver charge (Daan v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No.
been filed or assigned for trial;
163972-77, March 28, 2008).
2. By the judge or clerk of court;
NOTE: It is to be noted that the decision to accept or reject a
3. By furnishing the accused with a copy of the complaint or pleabargaining agreement is within the sound discretion of the
information; court subject to certain requirements of statutes or rules [Amante-
Descallar v. Judge Ramas, A.M No. RTJ-08-2142 (OCA-IPI No. 08-
4. Reading it in a language or dialect known to the accused (People 2779-RTJ), March 20, 2009].
v. AlbertG.R. No. 114001 December 11, 1995);
c. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense.
5. Asking accused whether he pleads guilty or not guilty (Sec.1(a),
Rule 116); and The accused, with the consent of the offended party and the
prosecutor, may plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily
6. Both arraignment and plea shall be made of record but failure to included in the offense charged (Sec. 2, Rule 116).
enter of record shall not affect the validity of the proceedings [Sec.
1(b), Rule 116]. REQUISITES FOR A PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE

NOTE: The accused must be arraigned before the court where the 1. The lesser offense is necessarily included in the offense charged;
complaint or information was filed or assigned for trial [Sec. 1 (a), and
Rule 116].
NOTE: It is necessarily included when some of the essential
The accused cannot waive the reading of the information to him elements or ingredients of the crime charge constitute the lesser
and just enter his plea because it is constitutionally required. offense and vice versa.

13
10TH WEEK

2. The plea must be with the consent of both the offended party NOTE: No amendment of complaint or information is necessary
and the prosecutor. Consent of the offended party will not be (Sec. 2, Rule 116). A conviction under this plea shall be equivalent to
required if said party, despite due notice, fails to appear during a conviction of the offense charged for purposes of double jeopardy
arraignment (Riano, 2011). (People v. Magat, G.R. No. 130026, May 31, 2000).

EFFECT OF PLEA OF GUILTY WITHOUT CONSENT OF OFFENDED 3. During Pre-trial- Under Sec. 1(a), Rule 118, Pleabargaining is one
PARTY AND PROSECUTOR of the matters to be considered.

If accused was convicted, the accused’s subsequent conviction of 4. After prosecution rests – Allowed only when the prosecution
the crime charged would not place him in double jeopardy [Sec. 7 does not have sufficient evidence to establish guilt for the crime
(c), Rule 117]. charged.

Q: MAY THE ACCUSED ENTER A PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LOWER PERIOD TO ENTER PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE
OFFENSE?
GR: Plea-bargaining is made during pre-trial stage of criminal
A: YES. proceedings.

1. During arraignment XPN: The law still allows accused to change his plea thereafter
provided that the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to
a. If the offended party is present, the latter must
establish guilt of the crime charged (People vs. Valderama, G.R. No.
consent with the prosecutor to the plea; and
99287, June 23, 1992).
b. That the lesser offense is necessarily included in
d. Effect plea guilty to a capital offense.
the offense charged.
DUTY OF THE COURT AFTER THE ACCUSED PLEADS GUILTY TO A
2. After arraignment but before trial, provided the following
CAPITAL OFFENSE
requisites are present:
When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall:
a. The plea of guilty is withdrawn;
1. Conduct a searching inquiry into the:
b. The plea of not guilty and the withdrawal of the
previous guilty plea shall be made before trial; a. Voluntariness of the plea, and

c. The lesser offense is necessarily included in the b. Full comprehension of the consequences of the
offense charged; and d. The plea must have the consent of plea;
the prosecutor and the offended party (Sec. 2, Rule 116).
14
10TH WEEK

2. Require the prosecution to prove guilt and the precise degree of NOTE: It is only when the consensual character of the plea is called
his culpability; and into question that the validity of a guilty plea may be impaired.

3. Ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his behalf and e. Effect of plea of guilty to a non-capital offense.
allow him to do so if he desires.
Sec. 4. Plea of guilty to non-capital offense; reception of evidence,
NOTE: The defendant after pleading guilty may not present discretionary.
evidence as would exonerate him completely from criminal liability
When the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense,
such as proof of self-defense.
the court may receive evidence from the parties to determine the
NOTE: This procedure is mandatory, and a judge who fails to penalty to be imposed.
observe it commits grave abuse of discretion. The reason for this
- What should the court do when the accused pleads guilty to a non-
strictness is to assure that the State makes no mistake in taking life
capital offense?
except the life of the guilty (People v. Diaz, G.R. No. 119073, March
13, 1996). > The court may receive evidence from the parties to determine the
penalty to be imposed
PURPOSE OF THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AFTER THE PLEA OF
GUILTY > Unlike in a plea of guilty to a capital offense, the reception of
evidence in this case is not mandatory.
To preclude any room for reasonable doubt in the mind of either
the trial court or of the Supreme Court, on review, as to the > It is merely discretionary on the court
possibility that there might have been misunderstanding on the part
of the accused as to the nature of the charges to which he pleaded f. When is suspension of arraignment allowed?
guilty; and to ascertain the circumstances attendant to the Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be
commission of the crime which justify or require the exercise of suspended in the following cases:
greater or lesser degree of severity in the imposition of prescribed
penalties (People v. Busa, G.R. No. L-32047, June 25, 1973). 1. The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental
condition which effectively renders him unable to fully understand
NO COLLATERAL ATTACK ON PLEA OF GUILTY the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto;
A plea of guilty entered by one who is fully aware of the direct 2. There exists a valid prejudicial question;
consequences, including the actual value of any commitments made
to him by court, the prosecutor or his own counsel, must stand.

15
10TH WEEK

3. A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is If the motion to quash is based on the ground that the facts charged
pending at the Department of Justice or the Office of the President do not constitute an offense, the prosecution shall be given by the
(Sec. 11, Rule 116); and court an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. However,
if the prosecution fails to make the amendment, or the complaint or
4. There are pending incidents such as:
information still suffers from the same defect despite the
a. Motion to Quash; amendment, the motion shall be granted.

b. Motion for Inhibition; or RESOLUTION OF A MOTION TO QUASH BASED ON THE GROUND

THAT THE FACTS CHARGED DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE
c. Motion for Bill of Particulars.
GR: A motion to quash on the ground that the allegations of the
NOTE: The period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days information do not constitute the offense charged, or any offense
counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office for that matter, should be resolved on the basis alone of said
(Sec. 11, Rule 116). allegations whose truth and veracity are hypothetically admitted.
Procedurally speaking, after the filing of the information, the court XP: Additional facts not alleged in the information, but admitted or
is in complete control of the case and any disposition therein is not denied by the prosecution may be invoked in support of the
subject to its sound discretion. The decision to suspend arraignment motion to quash (People v. Navarro, 75 Phil. 561).
to await the resolution of an appeal with the Secretary of Justice is
an exercise of such discretion (Solar Team Entertainment Inc., v. 2. LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE CHARGED
How, G.R. No. 140863, August 22, 2000).
If the trial court has no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and
5. Quashal of Information decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not
barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same
a. What are the grounds to quash an information? must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent
1. THE FACTS CHARGED DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE of the parties or by estoppel.

It is fundamental that the complaint or information must state every 3. LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED
fact necessary to make out an offense for the Constitution Jurisdiction over the person is that acquired by the voluntary
guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions the accused should be appearance of a party in court and his submission to its authority, or
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him [Sec. by the coercive power of legal process exerted over the person
14 (2) Art. III, 1987 Constitution]. through an arrest. Unlike jurisdiction over the subject matter and
AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
16
10TH WEEK

territory, jurisdiction over the person of the accused may be waived, In criminal proceedings, no one should be held to answer for any
either expressly or by implication. crime committed by him except in the jurisdiction where it was
committed.
NOTE: Where a court has jurisdiction of the offense or subject
matter, the objection that it has no jurisdiction of the person of the 4. LACK OF AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICER TO FILE INFORMATION
accused may be waived. One who desires to object to the
Criminal prosecutions are brought by authority of the sovereign,
jurisdiction of the court over his person must appear in court for
and, therefore, only the officers possessed of legal power to do so
that purpose only, and if he raises other questions, he waives the
must be allowed to file criminal information.
objection (Layosa v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-46080, November 10,
1978, citing 22 C.J.S., 1961 Ed. p. 418). NOTE: The law invests the authority to file and prosecute criminal
cases to the following:
TEST OF THE COURT’S JURISDICTION
a. Provincial fiscals and their assistants (Sec. 1686, Revised
GR: What determines the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases is
Administrative Code);
the extent of the penalty which the law imposes on the
misdemeanor, crime or violation of law charged. b. Chief State Prosecutor and his deputies;
XPNs: c. Tanodbayan and his deputies in special cases (PD 1607);
1. Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which is not based on A lawyer appointed by the Secretary of Justice (Sec. 1686, Revised
the penalty provided by law, but on the salary grade of the public Administrative Code).
official;
INSTANCES WHERE THERE IS AN UNAUTHORIZED FILING OF
2. Libel, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC INFORMATION
although the imposable penalty does not exceed 6 years
1. Officer filing is irregularly appointed. It does not necessarily
3. Those offenses cognizable by the family court where the invalidate the information if such officer may be considered de
determining factor is the minority of any of the parties; and facto; 2. Officer is disqualified from appointment to such position.
The information is invalid and the court does not acquire jurisdiction
4. The offense of slight physical injuries is cognizable by the
to try the accused thereon (Villa vs. Banez, G.R. No. L-4313, March
first level courts, but where the victim is a minor, the case is to be
20, 1951);
filed in the RTC.
3. Officer filed the information without the approval by the head or
LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY
Chief prosecutor (Sec. 4, Rule 112); and

17
10TH WEEK

4. Information is filed without the complaint in cases involving 7. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION OR LIABILITY
private crimes.
Under Art. 89 of the RPC, criminal liability is totally extinguished by:
NOTE: An infirmity in the information caused by the lack of 1. The death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to
authority of the officer signing it cannot be cured by silence, pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the
acquiescence, or even by express consent. An invalid information is death of the offender occurs before final judgment;
no information at all. No criminal proceeding may prosper
NOTE: The death of the offended party before final conviction will
therefrom, thus, it is subject to quashal (Romualdez vs.
not abate prosecution where the offense charged is one against the
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 14361841, July 30, 2002).
State involving peace and order as well as in private crimes (People
Despite a certification which provides that the filing of the v. Misola, G.R. No. L-3606, December 29, 1950).
information by the assistant city prosecutor is with the prior
2. Service of the sentence;
authority and approval of the city prosecutor, the information is
defective because of the absence of any proof clearly showing that 3. Amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its
the assistant city prosecutor had any authority to file the effects;
information on his own or did seek the prior written approval from
those authorized to do so before filing the Information before the 4. Absolute pardon;
RTC (Quisay v. People, G.R. No. 216920, January 13, 2016). 5. Prescription of the crime;
5. WHEN THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION DOES NOT CONFORM 6. Prescription of the penalty; and
SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE PRESCRIBED FORM
7. The marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344
Lack of substantial compliance with the requirements for a good of the Revised Penal Code
complaint or information required under Secs. 3 to 13, Rule 110
renders the accusatory pleading quashable. PARDON VS. AMNESTY

NOTE: But mere defects in matters of form may be cured by PARDON AMNESTY
amendment.
Granted by the Chief Executive. Proclaimed by the President,
6. MULTIPLICITY OF OFFENSES CHARGED but it has to be with the
concurrence of Congress.
A complaint or information must charge only one offense, except
when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses It is a private act which must be It is a public act which the
(Sec. 13, Rule 110). pleaded and proved by the courts have to take judicial

18
10TH WEEK

person pardoned because the notice of. PRESCRIPTION OF THE PENALTY

courts take no notice of it.
The loss of right to demand the service of the penalty imposed.
Granted to one after Granted to classes of persons
RULE ON THE PERIOD OF PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES
conviction. or communities who may be
guilty of political offenses, The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from
generally before or after the the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence
institution of the criminal and it shall be interrupted if the defendant should give himself up,
prosecution and sometimes be captured, should go to some foreign country with which the
after conviction. government has no extradition treaty, or should commit another
crime before the expiration of the period of prescription (Art.93,
Granted to one after Granted to classes of persons
RPC).
conviction. or communities who may be
guilty of political offenses, 8. THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION CONTAINS AVERMENTS,
generally before or after the WHICH IF TRUE, WOULD CONSTITUTE A LEGAL EXCUSE OR
institution of the criminal JUSTIFICATION
prosecution and sometimes
Only exempting circumstances constitute a legal excuse or
after conviction.
justification. Justifying circumstances such as selfdefense must be
proven.

COMPUTATION OF PRESCRIPTION OF OFFENSES

The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on 9. DOUBLE JEOPARDY
which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the
The right against double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution for a
authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of
crime of which he has been previously convicted or acquitted.
the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again
when such proceedings terminate without the accused being NOTE: The enumeration is exclusive.
convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason
not imputable to him. The term of prescription does not run when b. What is provisional dismissal?
the offender is absent from the Philippines (Art. 91, RPC).

19
10TH WEEK

It contemplates that the dismissal of the action is not permanent 5. Modification of the order of the trial if one of the accused admits
and can be revived within the period set by the Rules of Court. the charge but interposes a lawful defense (reverse trial); and

c. When does a provisional dismissal become a permanent 6. Such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the
dismissal? criminal and civil aspects of the case (Sec. 1, Rule 118).

PERIOD WHEN PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL BECOMES PERMANENT NOTE: If the accused has pleaded not guilty to the crime charged, he
may state whether he interposes a negative or affirmative defense.
1. Offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 6 years or a
A negative defense shall require the prosecution to prove the guilt
fine of any amount, or both - shall become permanent 1 year after
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, while an affirmative
issuance of the order without the case having been revived.
defense may modify the order of trial and require the accused to
2. Offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 years - shall prove such defense by clear and convincing evidence (Sec. 3, Speedy
become permanent 2 years after issuance of the order without the Trial Act).
case having been revived (Sec. 8, Rule 117).
b. Pre-trial agreement.
6. Pre-Trial
All agreements or admissions made or entered into during the pre-
a. What are the matters to be considered during pre-trial? trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the
accused and counsel; otherwise the same cannot be used against
1. Plea bargaining; the accused (Sec. 2, Rule 118).
2. Stipulation of facts; NOTE: The court shall approve the agreements covering the matters
NOTE: In order for the accused to be bound, it must be signed by in the pre-trial conference.
him. PRE-TRIAL AGREEMENT AS EVIDENCE
3. Marking for identification of evidence of parties; Requisites before a pre-trial agreement may be used as evidence:
NOTE: No evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered 1. It is reduced in writing; and
during the trial other than those identified and marked during the
pre-trial except when allowed by the court for good cause shown [IB 2. Signed by the accused and his counsel
(2), AM No. 03-1-09-SC]

4. Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;

The agreements in relation to matters referred to in Sec. 1, Rule 118
are subject to the approval of the court (Sec. 2, Rule 118). Provided,
20
10TH WEEK

that the agreement on the plea of the accused to a lesser offense The principal reason why the accused is not included in the
may only be revised, modified, or annulled by the court when the mandatory appearance is the fear that to include him is to violate
same is contrary to law, public morals, or public policy (Sec. 3, his constitutional right to remain silent [Sec. 12(1), Art. III, 1987
Speedy Trial Act of 1998). Constitution].

NOTE: The requirement of Sec. 2, Rule 118 is intended to further NOTE: Unless otherwise required by the court, personal appearance
safeguard the rights of the accused against improvident or of the accused at the conference is not indispensable. This is aside
unauthorized agreements or admissions which his counsel may have from the consideration that the accused may waive his presence at
entered into, or which any person may have ascribed to the accused all stages of the criminal action, except at the arraignment,
without his knowledge, as he may have waived his presence at the promulgation of judgment or when required to appear for
pre-trial conference (People vs. Uy, G.R. No. 128046, March 7, identification (Regalado, 2008).
2000).
d. Pre-trial order.
AMENDMENT OF PRE-TRIAL AGREEMENT
It is an order issued by the court reciting the actions taken, the facts
Pre-trial may be amended on the grounds of: stipulated, and the evidence marked during the pre-trial conference
(Sec. 4, Rule 118).
1. Agreement; or
PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PRE-TRIAL ORDER
2. Palpable mistake
The pre-trial order shall:
c. Effect of non-appearance at pre-trial.
1. Bind the parties;
EFFECT OF NON-APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED OR
THE PROSECUTOR DURING THE PRE-TRIAL WITHOUT VALID 2. Limit the trial to those matters not disposed of; and
JUSTIFICATION
3. Control the course of the action during the trial, unless modified
The court may impose proper sanctions or penalties in the form of by the court to prevent manifest injustice (Ibid.; Sec. 5, Speedy Trial
reprimand, fines or imprisonment, if the counsel does not offer an Act of 1998).
acceptable excuse for his lack of cooperation (Sec. 3, Rule 118; Sec.
NOTE: To prevent manifest injustice, however, the court, upon its
5, Speedy Trial Act).
own initiative or at the instance of any party, may modify the pre-
trial order.

RATIONALE OF THE EXCLUSION OF THE ACCUSED IN THE PERIOD FOR THE TRIAL JUDGE TO ISSUE A PRE-TRIAL ORDER AND
MANDATORY APPEARANCE DURING PRE-TRIAL ITS CONTENTS
21
10TH WEEK

It must be issued within 10 days after the termination of the pre- 3. The prosecution may present rebuttal evidence unless the court
trial. It shall set forth the following: permits them to present additional evidence bearing upon the main
issue.
1. Actions taken during the pre-trial conference;
NOTE: Rebuttal evidence is any competent evidence to
2. Facts stipulated;
explain, repel, counteract or disprove the adversary’s proof. It is
3. Admissions made; receivable only where new matters have been developed by the
evidence of one of the parties and is generally limited to a reply to
4. Evidence marked; and new points.
5. Number of witnesses to be presented and the schedule of trial 4. The accused may present rebuttal evidence unless the court
(Sec. 4, Rule 118). permits them to present additional evidence bearing upon the main
7. Trial issue.

a. What is the order of trial? 5. Upon admission of the evidence of the parties, the case shall be
deemed submitted for decision unless the court directs them to
ORDER OF TRIAL IN CRIMINAL CASES argue orally or to submit written memoranda (Sec. 11, Rule 119).
In criminal cases, the trial shall proceed in the following order: NOTE: The order of the trial may be modified when the accused
1. The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge and, admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or information
in the proper case, the civil liability. but interposes a lawful defense [Sec. 11 (e), Rule 119].

NOTE: In Dangerous Drugs Cases, it is the duty of the b. What is trial in absentia?
prosecutionga to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust Sec. 14 (2), Art. III of the Constitution provides that trial may
operation – from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that
the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable
consideration, until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of (Parada v. Veneracion, A.M. No.RTJ-96-1353, March 11, 1997).
the illegal subject of sale (People v. Ong, G.R. No. 175940, February
6, 2008). Requisites of trial in absentia:

2. The accused may present evidence to prove his defense, and 1. The accused has already been arraigned;
damages, if any, arising from the issuance of a provisional remedy in
the case.

22
10TH WEEK

2. He has been duly notified of the trial; and 3. His failure to appear the court, when the same can be done without prejudice to the
is unjustified (Sec. 14(2), Art. III, 1987 Constitution of the rights of the accused . . . .
Philippines; Bernardo v. People, G.R. No. 166980, April 4, 2007).
c.1. Discuss Gabionza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140311, 30
EFFECTS OF TRIAL IN ABSENTIA March 2011.

The accused waives the right to present evidence and cross- June 5, 2014 – Ombudsman charged Enrile and others with
examine the witnesses against him. The accused’s waiver does not plunder on their alleged involvement in the misuse of
mean, however, that the prosecution is deprived of the right to appropriations under PDAF.
require the presence of the accused for purposes of identification
Enrile – Omnibus Motion w prayer that he should be allowed to
by the witnesses which is vital for conviction of the accused, except
post bail if probable cause was to be found against him.
where he unqualifiedly admits in open court after his arraignment
that he is the person named as defendant in the case on trial. Sandiganbayan – denied the motion for bail on the ground of its
prematurity considering that Enrile has not yet been placed
c. May an information be amended after arraignment or during
under the custody of law.
trial?
[BAIL IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENSURING THE ACCUSED’S
An information may be amended, in form or in substance,
APPEARANCE AT TRIAL]
without leave court, at any time before the accused enters his
plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment Warrant of Arrest was issued and he voluntarily surrendered.
may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done Motion to Fix Bail was filed and argued that he should be
without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused. allowed to post bail because:

1. The Prosecution has not established that the evidence of his

guilt was strong
The proper procedure for the amendment of an Information is
governed by Sec. 14, Rule 110, of the Rules on Criminal 2. That even though he was charged with plunder (punishable
Procedure — by reclusion perpetua to death), the penalty to him should only
be reclusion temporal because of his age and mitigating
SECTION 14. Amendment. — The information or complaint may
circumstance of voluntary surrender
be amended, in substance or form, without leave of court at any
time before the accused pleads; and thereafter and during the 3. That he was not a flight risk and that his physical condition
trial as to all matters of form, by leave and at the discretion of must be seriously considered

His motion was denied.

23
10TH WEEK

Enrile raises the ff grounds: Enrile’s poor health justifies his Admission to Bail. The PH’s
responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of every
1. That before judgment of the Sandiganbayan, he is bailable
person to liberty and due process (Universal Declaration of
as a matter of right since prosecution has failed to show clearly
Human Rights). The PH is under obligation to make available to
and conclusively that evidence of his guilt is strong.
every person under detention such remedies which safeguard
SC: The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the their fundamental right to liberty, including the right to be
accused at the trial. admitted to bail.

Bail may be granted as a matter of discretion Enrile’s reputation of having utter respect for the legal
processes of this country and his health condition are also taken
Section 7, Rule 114 – Capital offenses or those punishable by into consideration, he should be granted bail.
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment are NOT bailable. – No
person charged with a. capital offense, etc, shall be admitted to
bail WHEN evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of
Granting provisional liberty to Enrile will enable him to have his
the criminal prosecution.
medical condition be properly addressed and better attended to
General Rule – any person, before being convicted, shall be by competent physicians in the hospital of his choice which
bailable, unless the offense is punishable by death, RP, or LI, would ONLY AID in his adequate preparation of his defense but
AND evidence of guilt is strong. WILL GUARANTEE his appearance in court for the trial.

If evidence of guilt is not strong = Bail is a matter of right Petition is gramted. Sandiganbayan resolutions are set aside.

Bail is discretionary when: d. Demurrer to evidence.

1. upon conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT punishable It is an objection by one of the parties in an action to the effect that
by death, RP, LI the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of
law to make out a case or sustain the issue (Nicolas v.
2. RTC has imposed a penalty of imprisonment EXCEEDING 6 Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 175930-31, February 11, 2008).
years, provided that any of the circumstances enumerated in
Sec. 5, Rule 114 is present. NOTE: A demurrer to evidence is actually a motion to dismiss that is
filed by the accused after the prosecution has rested its case.
Admission to bail in offenses punished by death, RP, LI is subject
to Judicial Discretion. Bail cannot be allowed when its grant is a
matter of discretion on the part of the trial court unless there
has been a hearing with notice to the prosecution.
24
10TH WEEK

To be considered sufficient, the evidence must prove: rendering the assailed judgment void. The burden is on the
petitioner to clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly
1. The commission of the crime; and
abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very
2. The precise degree of participation therein by the accused power to dispense justice (People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
(Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 195011-19, September 30, 1754504, March 21, 2011, Del Castillio, J.).
2013).
d.1. Discuss Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, G.R. No. 220598, 18 April
RULE ON DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE 2017.

How made 1. Court on its own initiative; or The Court granted the petition for certiorari and set aside the
2. Upon filing of the accused resolution of the Sandiganbayan AND GRANTED Arroyo and Aguas’
for demurrer of evidence: a. Demurrer to Evidence and dismissed the criminal case for
With leave of court; or b. insufficiency of evidence and orders the immediate release from
Without leave of court. detention of petitioners.

When made After the prosecution rests its Ombudsman has moved for the reconsideration of the decision and
case. stated that the Court’s actions violated Rule 119, Sec. 23 which
provides that an order denying Demurrer shall not be reviewable by
Ground Insufficiency of evidence Appeal by certiorari BEFORE judgment.
Effect The court may dismiss the case Arroyo points out that the State (thru Ombudsman) has failed to
(Sec. 23, Rule 119). prove the corpus delicti of plunder and that the Court correctly
required the identification of the main plunderer as well as the
personal benefit gained by the raider of the public treasury.
NOTE: Generally, in criminal cases, the grant of a demurrer is
Sec. 23, Rule 119 Demurrer to Evidence – The order denying the
tantamount to an acquittal and the dismissal order may not be
motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall NOT be
appealed because this would place the accused in double jeopardy.
reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment.
Although the dismissal order is not subject to appeal, it is still
reviewable but only through certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of SC: Sandiganbayan as the trial court was guilty of grave abuse of
Court. For the writ to issue, the trial court must be shown to have discretion when it capriciously denied the demurrers despite the
acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of absence of competent and sufficient evidence to sustain the
jurisdiction such as where the prosecution was denied the indictment for plunder. The remedy for the denial is petition for
opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham thus review on certiorari (Rule 65 – for grave abuse of discretion)
25
10TH WEEK

The general rule is that the grant of a demurrer to evidence

operates as an acquittal and is thus final and unappealable. A
The State argues that the decision amounted to judicial legislation
demurrer to evidence is filed after the prosecution has rested its
when it required that the main plundered must be identified, citing
case, when it is granted, it calls for an appropriation of the evidence
the plain meaning rule to highlight that the crime of plunder did not
adduced by the prosecution and its sufficiency to warrant conviction
require personal benefit on the part of the raider. Insists on the
beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the case on the
definition that raids on the public treasury is the taking of public
merits and tantamount to an acquittal of the accused. Such
money through fraudulent or unlawful means and such definition
dismissal by grant of demurrer may not be appealed, for it would
does not require enjoyment or personal benefit on the part of the
put the accused in double jeopardy. (but the rule on DJ is not
plunderer.
absolute, the case may be reopened when it is shown that the trial
SC: The requirements for the identification of main plunderer and court acted with grave abuse of discretion. Decisions acted with
for personal benefit have been written in R.A. 7080 itself as well as GAOD amounts to a VOID judgment)
embedded in jurisprudence.
Every acquittal becomes final immediately upon promulgation and
7080 – Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with cannot be recalled for correction or amendment. With the acquittal
members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, being final, granting the State’s motion for reconsideration would
business associates, subordinates, other persons, amasses, constitute a violation of the constitutional prohibition against
accumulates, or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or double jeopardy. Only the defendant could seek a new trial after
series of overt criminal acts. conviction, even though the Government had no similar right.

The law on plunder requires that a particular public officer must be

identified as the one who amassed, acquired, or accumulated the ill-
gotten wealth.

The rules of statutory construction indicated the intent of congress

to require personal benefit for the predicate acts of raids on the
public treasury. The Sandiganbayan erred in contending that the
mere accumulation and gathering constituted the forbidden act of
raids on the public treasury. Pursuant to the maxim of Noscitur a
sociis, raids on the public treasury requires the raider to use the
property taken impliedly for his personal benefit.

26
10TH WEEK

e. Effect of failure to seek leave of court prior to filing of prosecution may however,
demurrer to evidence. oppose the demurrer to
evidence within a
DEMURRER WITH LEAVE OF DEMURRER WITHOUT LEAVE
nonextendible period of 10
COURT OF COURT
days from the receipt of the
If leave of court is denied, the If demurrer to evidence is demurrer (Sec. 23, Rule 119).
accused may proceed with the denied, it is tantamount to a
presentation of his evidence. waiver of the accused’s right to
present evidence and as a PURPOSE OF LEAVE OF COURT
consequence the case will be
The purpose of leave of court is to determine whether or not the
submitted for judgment on the
defendant in a criminal case has filed the demurrer merely to stall
basis of the evidence for the
the proceedings (People v. Mahinay, G.R. No. 109613, July 17,
prosecution.
1995).
If demurer is granted, the case If demurer is granted, the case
8. Judgment
is dismissed and the effect is an is dismissed and the effect is an
acquittal. acquittal. a. Definition of judgment

The motion for leave of court Judgment is the adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty
to file a demurrer to evidence or not guilty of the offense charged and the imposition of the proper
shall specifically state its penalty and civil liability, if any (Sec. 1, Rule 120).
grounds and shall be filed
b. Contents of judgment.
within a nonextendible period
of 5 days after the prosecution The judgment must state:
rests its case. The prosecution
may oppose the motion within 1. If of conviction
a non-extendible period of 5 a. Legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts
days from its receipt. committed by the accused, and the aggravating or mitigating
If leave of court is granted, the circumstances attending its commission;
accused may file the demurrer b. Participation of the accused whether as principal,
to evidence within 10 days. The accomplice or accessory;
27
10TH WEEK

c. Penalty imposed upon the accused; and issuance of warrant to arrest appellant and allowed the prosecution
to present evidence in absentia.
d. Civil liability or damages caused by the wrongful act or
omission unless a separate civil action has been reserved or waived Trial in asentia followed and prosecution witnesses Tugade, Mary
(Sec. 2, Rule 120). Grace, her mother, and Dr. Bajaria all presented their testimonies.

2. If of acquittal In 1995 when Mary Grace was 11, she experienced the first of a
series of sexual abuses from Ferrer. 3-4 times a week whenever her
a. Whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely
mother was not around from October 1995 to December 1997. She
failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his
finally revealed it to her Aunt Tugade in 1997.
guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and
The Court rendered a 5-page decision and that based on the
b. In either case, the judgment shall determine if the act or
evidence, the prosecution proved the guilt of appellant beyond
omission from which the civil liability might arise did exist (Sec. 2,
reasonable doubt.
Rule 120).
Ferrer assails the decision as res ipsa loquitor violative of Sec. 14,
b.1. Discuss People v. Ferrer, G.R. No. 1488821, 18 July 2003.
Art. VIII of the Constitution which requires that no decision shall be
RTC of Lanao Del Sur finding appellant Jerry Ferrer guilty of the rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and
crime of rape committed against Mary Grace Belonio. distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.

That in October 1995 and continuously thereafter in Wao, Lanao del And its Statutory Expression Rule 120, Sec. 1.
Sur, Ferrer taking advantage of his moral ascendancy as stepfather
Judgment, definition and form. – The adjudication by the court that
of 11-year-old Mary Grace and having sexual intercourse with her
the accused is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged and the
against her will when she is alone at home while her mother was
imposition on him of the proper penalty and civil liability, if any. It
out.
must be written in the official language, personally and directly
Ferrer’s counsel Atty. Macabanding filed an Urgent Motion for prepared by the judge and signed by him and shall contain clearly
Medical Treatment alleging that Ferrer was suffering from an and distinctly a statement of the facts and the law upon which it is
unknown sickness. Trial court granted the motion and ordered his based.
temporary release.
This Court has struck down as void, decisions of lower courts and
On the date of pre-trial, both Ferrer and his counsel failed to appear even of the CA whose careless disregard of the constitutional
in court despite due notice. Trial court then ordered the immediate behest exposed their cavalier attitude not only to their magisterial

28
10TH WEEK

responsibilities but likewise to their avowed fealty to the NOTE: Where there is not merely physical absence of the judge who
Constitution. penned the decision, but the cessation or termination of his
incumbency as such judge, there is no judgment validly entered in
Jerry Ferrer was also not properly accorded the right to counsel
such a case (Ong Siu vs. Paredes, G.R. No. L-21638, July 26, 1966).
which must me more than just the presence of a lawyer in the
courtroom but one who commits himself to the cause for the WHEN THE ACCUSED IS ABSENT IN THE PROMULGATION OF
defense and acts accordingly. An accused does not cease to have JUDGMENT DESPITE NOTICE
rights just because of his conviction.
The promulgation shall still be made by:
SC -> remand the case to the trial court for continuation of the trial
1. Recording such judgment in the criminal docket; and
c. What are the rules on promulgation of judgment?
2. Serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or
PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT through his counsel.

It is the official proclamation or announcement of judgment. It is If judgment is one of conviction and the accused is absent without
promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any justifiable cause, the court shall order his arrest and he shall lose the
judge of the court which it was rendered, or when the judgment is remedies available in the rules against the judgment and his bail
one of conviction for a light offense, in the presence of the shall be forfeited.
accused’s counsel or representative (Sec. 6, Rule 120).
However, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of
AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE THE JUDGMENT court to avail of these remedies within 15 days from the
promulgation of judgment.
GR: The judge of the court who renders the judgment.
If such motion is granted, he may avail of these remedies within 15
XPNs: When:
days from notice of such order granting the motion (Sec. 6, Rule
1. The judge is absent or outside the province or city – Judgment 120). He must however, state the reasons for his absence at the
may be promulgated by the clerk of court; and promulgation and prove that his absence was for a justifiable cause.

2. Accused is confined or detained in another province or city –

Judgment may be promulgated by the executive judge of the RTC
having jurisdiction over the place of confinement or detention (Sec.
6, Rule120).

29
10TH WEEK

INSTANCES WHEN JUDGMENT MAY BE PROMULGATED EVEN IF 4. When the accused has applied for probation (Sec. 7, Rule 120).
THE ACCUSED IS NOT PRESENT
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
1. A judgment of acquittal;
The recording of the judgment or order in the book of entries of
2. Judgment is for a light offense, in which case judgment may be judgments shall constitute its entry. The record shall contain the
promulgated in the presence of the counsel for the accused or a dispositive part of the judgment order and shall be signed by the
representative; or clerk, with a certificate that such judgment or order has become
final and executory (Sec. 2, Rule 36).
3. Accused fails to attend the promulgation despite due notice or if
he jumped bail or escaped from prison. Notice must be given to the FINALITY OF JUDGMENT VS. ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
bondsmen, warden, accused’s bailor and counsel (Sec. 6, Rule 120).
The finality of the judgment is entirely distinct from its entry and the
RULE ON MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT delay in the latter does not affect the effectivity of the former,
which is counted from the expiration of the period to appeal
A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be
(Munnez vs. CA, G.R. No. L-46040, July 23, 1987).
modified or set aside before it becomes final or before appeal is
perfected (Sec. 7, Rule 120). 9. New Trial, Reconsideration, and Appeal

NOTE: A judgment of acquittal becomes final immediately after a. May a judgment of acquittal be the subject of a motion for
promulgation and cannot be recalled for correction or amendment reconsideration or an appeal on the part of the prosecution?
(People vs. Sison, 105 Phil. 1248).
GROUNDS FOR NEW TRIAL
WHEN DOES JUDGMENT BECOME FINAL
Rehearing of a case already decided but before the judgment of
A judgment becomes final: conviction therein rendered has become final, whereby errors of
law or irregularities are expunged from the record or new evidence
1. After the lapse of time for perfecting an appeal;
is introduced, or both steps are taken.
NOTE: In case the death penalty is imposed, the CA shall
NOTE: A hearing shall be conducted when the motion for new trial
automatically review the judgment before it becomes final.
calls for a resolution of a question of fact (Riano, 2011).
2. When the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied;
1. Errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights
3. When the accused has expressly waived in writing his right to of the accused have been committed during the trial; or
appeal; or

30
10TH WEEK

2. New and material evidence has been discovered which the 3. If the question is purely legal so that should the dismissal be
accused could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and found incorrect, the case shall be remanded for further proceedings
produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted would to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused; and
probably change the judgment (Sec. 2, Rule121).
4. If there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to
GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION lack or excess of jurisdiction, certiorari under Rule 65 may be
available.
May be filed in order to correct errors of law or fact in the
judgment. It does not require any further proceeding. a.1. Discuss Galman v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 72670, 12
September 1986.
GROUNDS
August 21, 1983 – Ninoy Aquino was shot etc etc.
1. Errors of law in the judgment which requires no further
proceedings; or 2. Errors of fact in the judgment which requires no The President was constrained to create a Fact Finding Board to
further proceedings (Sec. 3, Rule121). investigate the treacherous assassination of the former senator. The
Board had 125 hearing days.
NOTE: The principle underlying this rule is to afford the trial court
the opportunity to correct its own mistakes and to avoid The Minority report was sent to the President 1 day ahead of the
unnecessary appeals from being taken. Majority Report. Both the reports rejected the military version of
what happened and found that only the soldiers in the staircase
Q: MAY THE PROSECUTION APPEAL A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL?
with Aquino could have possibly shot him and not Galman.
A: GR: NO. The accused would be subjected to double jeopardy.
Minority Report – only 7 out of the 26 accused should be charged. 6
XPNs: were on the service stairs with Aquino and General Luther Custodio
who was mainly responsible for the criminal plot.
1. If the dismissal is made upon motion or with the express consent
of the accused; Majority Report – all 26 should be charged for the double murder of
Rolando Galman and Ninoy Aquino
XPNs to the XPN:

a. Insufficiency of the prosecution evidence; or

The task of the board was to determine the facts and circumstances
b. Violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial. surrounding the death of Aquino. Marcos sent the Minority report
2. If the dismissal is not an acquittal or based upon consideration of to the Tanodbayad for final resolution instead of the Majority
the evidence on the merits; report.
31
10TH WEEK

Military version: Rolando Galman was the one who shot Aquino. after the Jan. 10 secret conference proved otherwise. There are 3
Galman being a communist-hired shooter. justices in the 1st division of Sandiganbayan and it is suspicious that
it was still “raffled” to Pamaran and not the other 2 justices.
Marcos, however, publicly stated that what happened was the
military version. During the course of the trial, several supposed witnesses for the
Prosecution would disappear, with others getting kidnapped, and
The result for trial of the Aquino-Galman murder case was pre-
the Japanese witness being prevented from giving testimony.
determined by Marcos, as evidenced by the statements of Justice
Manuel Herrera when the case was reopened. There was also a “war room” in the Sandiganbayan which was for
the President’s employees who were there to see to it that Marcos’
Marcos summoned to the Malacanang Justice Fernandez – the
instructions will be complied with. There was also a brownout
Tanodbayan, Sandiganbayan Justice Pamaran. Present also at the
during the time one of the witnesses was giving her testimony, +
meeting were Justice Lazaro and Imelda Marcos.
other events which logically led to the conclusion that the
The SECRET CONFERENCE held on January 10, 1982 – Marcos assassination was a conspiracy.
personally ordered Pamaran to handle the case and dispose of it as
SC: The trial declared for the Aquino-Galman case is a sham trial and
soon as possible.
that the pre-determined judgment of acquittal was unlawful and
Marcos’ original intention was to have the case dismissed void ab initio. There can be no double jeopardy since the judgment
immediately and not go to trial, but after their meeting, the plan has been declared void.
was to have the trial and subsequently acquit all the accused so that
The biased Tanodbayan under the constant and pervasive
they can the protection that double jeopardy provides and to
monitoring and pressure exerted by the authoritarian President to
protect all those involved even after Marcos is not president
assure the carrying out of his instructions. A dictated, coerced,
anymore.
scripted verdict of acquittal is a VOID JUDGMENT which is NO
JUDGMENT AT ALL.

Justice Manuel Herrera did a tell-all of the secret conference. With the declaration of nullity, the cases must now be tried before
Marcos had stage-managed in and from Malacanang the scripted an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor.
and pre-determined manner on how the Justices would handle the
The judgment in People v. Gen Luther Custodia is hereby nullified, a
Aquino-Galman case.
re-trial of the case is ordered.
Pamaran penned the decision on the Aquino-Galman case as
ordered by Marcos. His defense was that it was a coincidence and
that cases are raffled to them, but all of the events that transpired
32
10TH WEEK

b. What is the period to move for a new trial or a SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL
reconsideration?
GR: Notice of appeal should be served upon the adverse party or his
Period to file an MNT or MR counsel by personal service.

It should be filed with the trial court within 15 days from the XPN: If personal service cannot be made, through:
promulgation of the judgment. If an appeal has already been
1. Registered mail; or
perfected, a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered
evidence maybe filed in the appellate court. 2. By substituted service pursuant to Secs. 7 and 8 of Rule 13 (Sec. 4,
Rule122)
A new trial or reconsideration may be granted at any time before
the judgment of conviction becomes final: 3. By publication, made in a newspaper of general circulation in the
vicinity once a week for a period not exceeding 30 days (Pamaran,
1. On motion of the accused; or
2010).
2. On motion of the court but with consent of the accused.
NOTE: The appellee may waive his right to notice of appeal.
c. What is the period to appeal a judgment? However, the appellate court may, in its discretion, entertain an
appeal notwithstanding failure to give such notice if the interests of
PERIOD TO TAKE AN APPEAL
justice so require (Sec. 5, Rule 122).
It must be taken within 15 days from promulgation of judgment or
PERIOD TO WITHDRAW AN APPEAL
from notice of final order appealed from (Sec. 6, Rule 122).
1. An appellant may withdraw his appeal before the record has
d. Notice of appeal.
been forwarded by the clerk of court to the proper appellate court
Appeals shall be taken before the: as provided by Sec. 8, Rule 122, in which case the judgment shall
become final (Sec. 12, Rule 122).
1. RTC, in cases decided by the MTC, MTCC, MeTC, or MCTC; 2.
CA or to the SC in the proper cases provided by law, in cases 2. The court may also, in its discretion, allow the appellant to
decided by the RTC; 3. SC, in cases decided by the CA (Sec. withdraw his appeal, provided a motion to that effect is filed before
2, Rule122); 4. SC, in cases decided by CTA en banc (Sec. 1 the rendition of the judgment in the case on appeal (Sec. 12, Rule
Rule 116 A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA); 5. SC, in cases decided by 122).
Sandiganbayan (Sec. 1 Rule 45).

33