Crimpro Suarez
Crimpro Suarez
Crimpro Suarez
Court, Definition
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Is a body in the government to which the public administration
Ateneo de Davao University | College of Law of justice is delegated. Entity or body vested with a portion of
From the Discussions and Lectures of the judicial power.
Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez
SY 2018-2019 Judge, Definition
A public officer lawfully appointed to preside over a court for
the purpose of administering the law. The jurisdiction however
Criminal Procedure
is vested in the court not the judge. The judge is the person and
It is a generic term to describe the network of laws and rules
the court is the body.
which governs the procedural administration of justice. As such,
it treats of the rules and processes by which the criminal laws
Courts in the Philippines
are enforced and by which the State prosecutes persons who
1. Supreme Court
violate such laws.
2. Court of Appeals; Sandiganbayan; Court of Tax Appeals
3. Regional Trial Court
Procedural law as applied to criminal law, “provides or regulates
4. Municipal Trial Court
the steps which one who committed the crime is to be
punished” (People v. Lacson, 400 SCRA 267). While criminal law
Some Special Courts in the Philippines
declares what conduct is criminal as it defines crimes and
1. Probate Courts
prescribes punishments, criminal procedure lays down the
2. Land Registration Courts
processes offender is made to answer for the crime committed.
3. Tribal Courts
4. Family Courts
Jurisdiction
How do we define jurisdiction with reference to criminal cases?
Classification of Courts
It is the power and authority of the court to take cognizance of
1. Constitutional and Statutory Courts – there is only one
an offense and announce the sentence or judgment provided
constitutional court, and it’s the Supreme Court.
for by law after trying in the manner prescribed.
2. Superior and Inferior Courts – the hierarchy of courts
arranged from MTC the least to SC.
When you talk about taking cognizance, it is to “try a case,” to
3. Original Court and Appellate Courts – an original court
pronounce a judgment, to issue a verdict of guilty or not guilty
is where you file an action for the first time, Court of
as to pronounce the sentence provided for by law. Suppose a
Appeals is appellate, MTC is always an original court.
judge finds the accused guilty of homicide, can the judge
4. Civil and Criminal Courts – note that these are not
sentence him to death? The answer is no, because it is not the
separate courts, but on the subject matter.
penalty provided for by law.
5. Courts of Law and Courts of Equity – – there are certain
A judge has to pronounce the sentence provided for
situations that the court is not merely of law but also
by law, after a trial. So, there must be a trial – full trial.
of equity.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 3
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction In Trenas v. People, 664 SCRA 355, the place where the crime
Courts will not determine a controversy involving a question was committed determines not only the venue of the action but
within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal, when the is an essential element of jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule
question demands the exercise of sound administrative that for jurisdiction to be acquired in criminal cases, the offense
discretion requiring specialized knowledge and expertise of should have been committed or any of one its essential
said administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate ingredients should have been committed or within the territorial
matters. jurisdiction of the court.
Hearing and Trial, Distinguished Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the
When we mean by trial, it may refer to reception of evidence court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or try the offense
and other processes involved in the court proceedings. On the allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot
other hand a hearing may refer to the several stages of a case, take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense
this includes arraignment, pre-trial and of the like. allegedly committed outside that limited territory.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 4
Five Branches (Branches XXII to XXVI) for the province of South PEOPLE v. OLERMO (2003)
Cotabato and the city of General Santos, Branches XXII and XXIII with This involved illegal recruitment in large scale without securing
seats at General Santos City, Branches XXIV and XXV at Koronadal, and
license, the crime cannot have convicted beyond RTC
Branch XXVI at Surallah;
Valenzuela. Information was filed in RTC Valenzuela.
and Three branches (Branches XXVII to XXIX) for the province of Surigao She allegedly committed the crime and met the
del Sur, Branch XXVII with seat at Tandag, Branch XXVIII at Lianga, and complainant in Quezon City.
Branch XXIX at Bislig. Yes, RTC of Valenzuela had jurisdiction over the crime
of illegal recruitment in large scale against Marlene
Take note however that there is Branch XXXIII in Davao, it seems Olermo.
that we have been adding courts. So, branches VIII to XVII in The element of recruitment took
took place in her office in
Davao can exercise Territorial Jurisdiction over the crimes Valenzuela, at least one of the elements.
committed in Davao City. Since the action was filed of RTC Valenzuela where
one of the ingredients took place, the jurisdiction
How is territorial jurisdiction determined? already has attached, it has exclusive jurisdiction.
It is determined by the geographical area over which it presides.
RTCs of Davao preside over Davao City and the fact the crime PURITA LIM v. JUDGE DUMLAO (2005)
was committed or any of its essential ingredients took place A municipal trial court judge has no authority to grant bail to
within said area is an element of jurisdiction. In other words, an accused arrested outside of his territorial jurisdiction. In this
Davao City RTCs exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed in case, the filed against RTC Santiago. Order of release should
Davao City. have released by RTC Santiago, no proof presented that he was
absent. Judge Dumlao of MTC erred in approving bail and
Interim Rules issuing the order of release. This is another city – San Mateo
According to Section 2, we have two lower courts the RTC and Isabela. It was filed in RTC.
MTCs. MTCs shall exercise jurisdiction over the city, municipality
or the circuit of which judge thereof is appoint or designated. MORILLO v. PEOPLE AND NATIVIDAD (2015)
Natividad was charged for BP 22 of MTC Makati because the
MTC Jurisdiction (Chapter III, BP 129) checks were delivered to Pampanga, thus, MTC of Makati has
There are Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial jurisdiction of the case.
Courts (MTC) and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC). To
outline the chapter, it provides for the following. BP 22 are considered as transitory or continuing crimes. Since
the checks were drawn and issued in Pampanga but MTC
Section 27 – MeTCs in NCR Makati has jurisdiction. Even if brought to Makati and
Section 28 – Other MeTCs deposited the check there.
Section 29 – MTCs in Cities, seven (7) MTCs for Davao City.
Section 30 – MTC (not in cities) 2. JURISDICTION OVER THE
Section 31- MCTCs PERSON OF THE ACCUSED
Q. How do you differentiate MTCs from RTCs? Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused
In Davao it is easy because the MTC and RTCs herein have the In criminal cases, the start is the accused and the court does not
same territorial jurisdiction. But there are areas in Mindanao have to acquire jurisdiction upon anyone else when you talk
which applies different. For example, in Samal there is no RTC about person unlike in civil cases.
there thus, RTC cases are tried in either Tagum or Panabo. In
Kaputian, Samal there is an MTC. Ways Court Acquire Jurisdiction over the Person of Accused
There are instances when a case in a municipality for 1. Voluntary appearance or surrender
RTC has not RTC in the municipality itself. 2. Arrest
CASE DISCUSSIONS Suppose X is charged with murder before the RTC of Davao
City. Now, the next step that the judge would do is to issue a
ARANES v. JUDGE OCCIANO (2002) warrant of arrest. It is very important so that the court can have
Territorial jurisdiction in a different municipality, although in jurisdiction over the case or else the judgment
judgment is void.
same province, but outside jurisdiction of the judge. Judge
Occiano solemnized the marriage in a municipality outside his Now, if X finds out of the warrant against him, what he can do
territorial jurisdiction. is to go to court and surrender and submit himself under the
jurisdiction of the court.
Judge Aranes solemnized a marriage outside his territorial
jurisdiction at the request
request of the parties,
parties, thus the action
action cannot Now suppose X has no idea of the warrant of arrest against him
be a legal basis for enforcement of actions because of lack of and he was arrested, the moment he is arrested, then the court
jurisdiction of the judge in rendering the decision.
decision. again acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 5
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 6
3.A JURISDICTION OF COURTS RTC is an appellate court of the MTC in cases on review.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 7
Operative also in the case of Palana v. People is the doctrine of PEOPLE v. BENIPAYO (2009)
the Adherence of Jurisdiction which means that once Libel – WON RTC has jurisdiction that the law is clear that in
jurisdiction attaches, it cannot be ousted by the happening of Article 360 that an action for libel is exclusively filed on RTC.
subsequent events although such character which should have By express provision of law, the jurisdiction over the
prevented the jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. subject matter is identified.
So, because jurisdiction already attached to the RTC, the PEOPLE v. JUDGE YADAO (2012)
happening of a subsequent event like the enactment of R.A. This case involves the alleged summary execution suspected
7691 - Expanding the jurisdiction of MTC over BP 22 cases, the members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang, the OMB filed 11
RTC’s jurisdiction over such case cannot be taken away. In other counts of murder against Lacson, et al. During the proceedings,
words, if we have pending cases with RTC - BP 22 cases, then two of the parents of the victims presented birth certificate
the RTC will have to continue despite the enactment of RA 7691 showing that two of the victims were minors. Prosecution
. argued that due to such – it must be reraffled to a family court.
PEOPLE v. CA (2008)
In this case the violation of BP 22 was 1992 – unlawful The denial of Judge Yadao of this motion to reraffled is correct
possession of timber; RTC Surigao Branch 32 because Section 5, RA 8369 which aims to protect children and
PC medium their welfare can be relaxed when the purpose no longer
RA 7691 took effect on 1994 expanding MTC applies. In this case, the minor victims are already dead. Thus,
jurisdiction, prior BP 129, the MTC could only try cases
cases RTC of Quezon has jurisdiction over the case.
with only 4 years or months, now it is 6 years.
The passage of RA 7691 did not relieve RTC ASISTIO v. PEOPLE (2015)
jurisdiction, a jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal Section 46 of the Cooperative Code, RTC lacks jurisdiction for it
action is to be determined by the law in force at the only provided only a civil liability - punishment is not less than
time of the institution of the case. 6 months and to 1 year. OSG argues Sec 124(3) of RA 6938 –
Exception: Where statute expressly provides to be Section 47 is violated by P5,000 of not less than 5-10.
applied retroactively, those have not reached the trial
stage. Since law specifically provides would be punishable 5y-10y it
is the RTC that has jurisdiction.
DAYAP v. SENDIONG (2009) Jurisdiction of the subject matter conferred by law.
An information was filed for Reckless Imprudence resulting to This law also contains provisions on what court has
Homicide, Less Serious Physical. jurisdiction.
WON has jurisdiction; what court has jurisdiction over
the case.
It is the MTC since the crime charged was such, which 3.A.1. JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN
the RPC imposes a penalty PC med – PC max which
has (2y4m1d – 4y2m1d) took cognizance. Sandiganbayan
The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is perhaps one of the
The fact that the crime when it was committed was under the most often amended provision from the 1973 Constitution to
jurisdiction of the RTC does not matter. It does not matter what RA 8249 of 1997. Before RA 8249, jurisdiction of the
jurisdiction was at the time of the commission of the crime. Sandiganbayan was determined on the basis of the penalty
What is important is the court that has jurisdiction at the time imposable on the offense charged.
of the filing of the complaint.
Then, it was amended such that regardless of the penalty, so
GARCIA v. MIRO (2009) long as the offense charged was committed by a public officer,
Yes. MTC – Article 365; Reckless Imprudence Resulting to the Sandiganbayan was vested with jurisdiction.
Homicide is PC med-max.
Just because the accused here is a judge, the crime Under RA 8249, to determine whether the Sandiganbayan has
that he allegedly had nothing to do with his office as jurisdiction, lawyers must look into two
two (2) criteria, namely: The
a judge, an accident with a Land Cruiser collided with nature of the offense and The salary grade of the public official.
a motorcycle.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the duty of the Laws Relative to Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction
judge. It is important to note that there are important laws that
determine the jurisdiction and how it affects cases because
The judge here accidentally hit somebody with his car and that what matters was the law that governs at the time of the filing
person died, that is not automatic. Just because he is a judge it or institution of the criminal case.
is not automatic that he is under the jurisdiction of the 1. PD 1606 effective December 10, 1978
Sandiganbayan. 2. RA 7975 effective May 16, 1995
3. RA 8249 effective February 23, 1997
The alleged offense was not committed in relation of his office.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 8
The following are the different laws that the covers the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, note the differences in the following laws.
PRESIDENT DECREE NO. 1606 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7975 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8246
December 10, 1978 May 16, 1995 February 23, 1997
ON CASES AND OFFICERS COVERED BY THE SANDIGANBAYAN
The Sandiganbayan shall have jurisdiction over: Sandiganbayan shall exercise original Sandiganbayan shall exercise original
jurisdiction in all cases invo lving: jurisdiction in all cases in volving:
(a) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019,
as amended, otherwise, known as the A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft amended, otherwise known as the Anti-graft
and Republic Act No. 1379; and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No.
1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II
(b) Crimes committed by public officers Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more
and employees including those principal accused are officials occupying the of the accused are officials occupying the
employed in government-owned or following positions in the government, whether following positions in the government whether
controlled corporations, embraced in in permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at
Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, time of the commission of the offense: the time of the commission of the offense:
whether simple or complexed with
other crimes; and (1) Officials of the executive branch (1) Officials of the executive branch
occupying the positions of regional occupying the positions of regional
(c) Other crimes or offenses committed director and higher, otherwise classified as director and higher, otherwise classified as
by public officers or employees, grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation Grade '27' and higher, of the
including those employed in and Position Classification Act of 1989 Compensation and Position Classification
government-owned or controlled (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758),
corporations, in relation to their including: specifically including:
office.
(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, (a) Provincial governors, vice-governors,
members of the sangguniang members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, panlalawigan and provincial
assessors, engineers, and other treasurers, assessors, engineers and
provincial department heads; other provincial department heads;
(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of (b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of
the sangguniang panlungsod, city the sangguniang panlungsod, city
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and treasurers, assessors engineers and
other city department heads; other city department heads;
(c) Officials of the diplomatic service (c) Officials of the diplomatic service
occupying the position of consul and occupying the position of consul and
higher; higher;
(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, (d) Philippine army and air force colonels,
naval captains, and all officers of higher naval captains, and all officers of
rank; higher rank;
(e) PNP chief superintendent and PNP (e) Officers of the Philippine National
officers of higher rank; Police while occupying the position of
provincial director and those holding
(f) City and provincial prosecutors and the rank of senior superintendent or
their assistants, and officials and higher;
prosecutors in the Office of the
Ombudsman and special prosecutor; (f) City and provincial prosecutors and
their assistants, and officials and
(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or prosecutors in the Office of the
managers of government-owned or Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions (g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or
or foundations; managers of government-owned or -
controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions
or foundations;
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 9
(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof (2) Members of Congress and officials
classified as Grade "27" and up under the thereof classified as Grade'27'and up
Compensation and Position Classification under the Compensation and Position
Act of 1989; Classification Act of 1989;
(3) Members of the judiciary without (3) Members of the judiciary without
prejudice to the provisions of the prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution; Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional (4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional
Commissions, without prejudice to the Commissions, without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution; and provisions of the Constitution; and
(5) All other national and local officials (5) All other national and local officials
classified as Grade "27" and higher under classified as Grade'27'and higher under
the Compensation and Position the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989; Classification Act of 1989.
B. Other offenses or felonies committed by the B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
public officials and employees mentioned in complexed with other crimes committed by the
subsection (a) of this section in relation to their public officials and employees mentioned in
office. subsection a of this section in relation to their
office.
C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and
in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14
and 14-A. and 14-A, issued in 1986.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 10
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 11
Provided, however, that, in cases within the Provided, however, That where the civil action Provided, however, That where the civil action
exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, had heretofore been filed separately but had therefore been filed separately but
where the civil action had therefore been filed judgment therein has not yet been rendered, judgment therein has not yet been rendered,
separately with a regular court but judgment and the criminal case is hereafter filed with the and the criminal case is hereafter filed with the
therein has not yet been rendered and the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said
criminal case is hereafter filed with the civil action shall be transferred to the civil action shall be transferred to the
Sandiganbayan, said civil action shall be Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court as the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, as the
transferred to the Sandiganbayan for case may be, for consolidation and joint case may be, for consolidation and joint
consolidation and joint determination with the determination with the criminal action, determination with the criminal action,
criminal action, otherwise, the criminal action otherwise the separate civil action shall be otherwise the separate civil action shall be
may no longer be filed with the Sandiganbayan, deemed abandoned. deemed abandoned.
its exclusive jurisdiction over the same
notwithstanding, but may be filed and
prosecuted only in the regular courts of
competent jurisdiction; Provided, further, that,
in cases within the concurrent jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan and the regular courts, where
either the criminal or civil action is first filed with
the regular courts, the corresponding civil or
criminal action, as the case may be, shall only
be filed with the regular courts of competent
jurisdiction.
Concerning the Transfer of Cases | As decided in Binay v. Sandiganbayan (GR 120681, October 1, 1999)
R.A. No. 7975, by virtue of Section 7, belongs to the exception rather than the rule. ( Doctrine of Adherence ). The provision is transitory in nature and
expresses the legislature's intention to apply its provisions on jurisdiction to "criminal cases in which trial has not begun in the Sandiganbayan." To this
extent, R.A. 7975 is retroactive. Such a transitory provision is not peculiar to R.A. No. 7975; similar provisions are found in other laws reallocating the
jurisdiction of the cou rts. 35 There is no reason why Section 7 of R.A. No. 7975 should be any different.
The term "proper courts," as used in Section 7, means "courts of competent jurisdiction," and such jurisdiction is defined in Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606,
as amended by R.A. No. 7975. The former should not be read in isolation but construed in conjunction with the latter.
The term "proper courts" as used in Section 7, therefore, is not restricted to "regular courts," but includes as well the Sandiganbayan, a special court. If
the intent of Congress were to refer all cases the trials of which have not begun to the regular courts, it should have employed the term "proper regular
courts" or "regular courts" instead of "proper courts." Accordingly, the law in the third paragraph of Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section
2 of R.A. No. 7975, uses the term "regular courts," not "proper courts":
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction on appeals from the final judgments, resolutions or orders of regular courts where all
the accused are occupying positions lower than salary grade "27," or not otherwise covered by the preceding enumeration.
The latter provision more accurately expresses the legislature's intent and, in any event, should be applied in this case, R.A. No. 8249 having superseded
R.A. No. 7975. In Panfilo M. Lacson vs. The Executive Secretary, et al., the Court explained the purpose of the foregoing provision.
. . . it can be reasonably anticipated that an alteration of [the Sandiganbayan's] jurisdiction would necessarily affect pending cases, which is why it has to
provide for a remedy in the form of a transitory provision. . . . . The transitory provision does not only cover cases which are in the Sandiganbayan but
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 12
also in "any court." . . . . Moreover, those cases where trial had already begun are not affected by the transitory provision under Section 7 of the new law
(RA 8249).
The possible disruptive effect of the amendments to the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction on pending cases was, therefore, not lost on the legislature.
Congress has, furthermore, deemed the commencement of the trial as the crucial point in determining whether a court retains a case pending before it
or lose the same on the ground of lack of jurisdiction per the provisions of R.A. No. 8249. The law obviously does not want to waste the time and effort
already devoted to the presentation of evidence if trial had already begun. On the other hand, not much disruption would be caused if the amendment
were made to apply to cases the trials of which have yet to start.
Thus, under both R.A. Nos. 7975 and 8429, the Sandiganbayan retains jurisdiction over said cases.
CASE DISCUSSIONS It is the COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction over the case
involving election offenses, as compared to the case of
PEOPLE v. MONTEJO (1960) Benipayo but the law expressly provides.
In this case, Mayor Brown et al., equipped some policemen with When this happens it is the COMELEC has the power
high powered guns at a sub-police headquarters at Tipo-Tipo. to investigate this crimes.
This involved the torture of Awalin Tebag.
Other issue: So we have here, the prosecutor for this case is the
The case was filed in the RTC of Zamboanga, Mayor Brown COMELEC, once probable cause is found, where should the
alleged that SB had jurisdiction over his case. criminal complaint be found?
Since Mayor Brown that SB has jurisdiction over his The Sandiganbayan – one of the accused is a member
case that the offense committed related of his office. of the COMELEC.
Yes, the crime committed is related to the office of Mayor Is the only one under the jurisdiction under the Sandiganbayan?
Brown, if he committed it in the performance of his duty. What about the private individuals?
Mayor established the sub-police HQ and the police So if we have a government official, who falls under
followed the orders. the jurisdiction of the SB and he commits a crime in
Therefore, SB has the jurisdiction over the case. connection with his office, in conspiracy with private
individuals, they will also be under the SB.
CORPUZ v. TANODBAYAN (1987) Private individuals are included as long as they are in
Corpus was a member of the group of a political group. The conspiracy with the public official included in the case
public officer here involved is the Mayor who won the elections. under the jurisdiction of the SB.
As one of the accused, there was a COMELEC Official,
the kind of COMELEC Official. SANCHEZ v. DEMETRIOU (1993)
Focus on the COMELEC Official, they were charged for Antonio Sanchez charged was with rape with homicide before
the offenses under the 1978 Election Code, election the RTC contending that he was a public official and he should
hearing and campaigning inside voting centers. be under the SB.
Why is the Tanodbayan (Ombudsman) insisting the authority to The crime of rape with homicide is not a graft and corruption
prosecute the case, and one of the accused is a public official. case and it is not an offense committed in relation of his office.
And so here we have the Tanodbayan, of the Special There is no direct relation between the offense with charge and
Investigator of the Ombudsman for they were under the office as a Mayor. The offense can stand independently of
the jurisdiction of the SB. the office.
Public officer – COMELEC Official. Compared to the case of Montejo, where the Mayor
The COMELEC Officer allowed registration of voters committed murder in relation to his office, which he
outside of the registration period and that he was a could have not done without it.
SG27 official. It does not fall under the SB.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 13
Yes. SB has jurisdiction over Bondoc as he is a co-accused of RA 7975 Significance in relation of PD 1606
the crime based on nature (estafa) and penalty. Why was Lacson alleging under RA 7975, before RA
The impossibility of a joint trial cannot and does not 7975 there was no such thing as salary grade
alter the essential nature of the crimes in question. requirement.
The SB just like the CA has several divisions, there was Under PD 1606 – there was no salary grade
a crime committed with conspiracy with public requirement and higher, it applied practically all
officials, definitely under PD 1606, Section 4(3): officials, but from May 16, 1995 there was additional
(a) In case private individuals are charged with requirements.
public officers they should be tried jointly. Lacson was charged as accessory.
Jointly tried: To avoid repeated and unnecessary presentation RA 8249 – Expanding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, it
in different venues in the same facts. deleted the word principal from principal accused, the degree
What happened was that they were charged of participation of the public officer is immaterial now. The
separately. Bondoc wanted the cases to be joint but it information was filed on 2 November 1995, Lacson was Police
was too late, for the other cases were almost finished. Superintendent under the present rule RA 7975.
Can he be tried alone as private i ndividual in the SB? RA 8249 was applicable, it was given a retroactive
effect, ex post facto laws do not cover remedial laws.
(a) Adherence to jurisdiction: it has already RA 8249 deleted word “principal” accused.
attached to SB, this is a rare occasion where
he was tried before the SB. Argument: The crime was murder, it was not present in Section
4(a), but under Section 4(b) the crime must have been
If a crime is committed by a private individual and a public committed in relation to his office.
individual in conspiracy while conspiring each other under RA Intimately connected with his office.
3019. Will the proceeding be filed differently? – No. It has to be clearly stated in the information how
the crime of murder was related to his office as
AZARCON v. SANDIGANBAYAN (1997) Supt. Of the PNP if it was not clearly stated, it
In this case, Azarcon was designated by BIR as custodian of the removes him from the jurisdiction of the SB.
property of Jaime Alcala (seized for back wages). The property We have to look at it step by step.
was taken out by Alcala.
Charged by BIR for malversation for having failed to NOTE: While the information state that the above named
keep and preserve the subject property. accused committed the crime of murder in related to their
SB acquire jurisdiction over rime committed solely by public office there is no specific allegation of the fact that the
private individuals? shooting of the victim by the principal accused is intimately
related with the discharge of his office of their official duties as
No. The SB does not acquire jurisdiction over crimes committed police officers. Thus, if the crime involves those which are
by private person, under Section 4 of PD 1606 only when they felonies or offenses not enumerated it has to be in direct or
are co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer or intimate relation to their duties or office.
employee. Has no jurisdiction over him.
BINAY v. SANDIGANBAYAN (1999)
Here we have a private individual, who allegedly was signed to On September 1994, Binay was charged of RA 3019 before the
some government work by the BIR. SB as a Municipal Mayor under PD 1606
Why are you invoking PD 1606 – what date was the He was under SB then without grade required.
action filed? RA 7975 came into effect, alleging that SB lost
jurisdiction.
The law in force at the time of the filing of the action , what is Alleging that Section 4(a)(1). Municipal mayors were
important during the commission of the crime is the position not included and not classified as Grade 27.
of the public officer like salary, grade. Still under SB jurisdiction, even if the Municipal Mayor
Date of the filing action: 01-12-1990 was not enumerated, the law is not exclusive.
SB PD 1606 (as amended) Section 444 of the LGC – The municipal mayor shall
RA 7975 – May 16, 1995, so all cases filed before this receive a minimum monthly compensation
date will apply PD 1606. corresponding to Salary Grade 27.
Therefore, he is under the jurisdiction
the jurisdiction of the SB.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 14
The informations against Binay were filed in SB on 7-7-1994 LLORENTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2000)
pursuant to PD 1606. On 05-16-1995, RA 7975 took. At this Llorente was elected as municipal mayor
time Binay had not yet been arraigned by the SB. August 3, 1993 – RA 3019; 1995
The trial has not begun in both cases when in May 16,
While the cases were pending before the SC, the Congress had 1995 RA 7975 was enacted amending P D 1606.
enacted RA 8249 against redefining jurisdiction. The law took
effect on 02-23-97. Llorente argued that it divested Sandiganbayan for those
municipal mayors who allegedly receives less than Salary G27.
It should not be referred – the doctrine of adherence of
jurisdiction because the action
action was already filed before the SB. Yes. It has been ruled that SB still has jurisdiction, that RA 7975
did not deprive jurisdiction over violations against municipal
The SC said the exception to the rule where the statute mayors. It is the official’s grade that determine his or her salary
expressly provides. according RA 6758 and Index of Occupation Services and
RA 7975 belongs to the exception, the provision is Section 444(d) of the LGC
transitory in nature, this is now applicable. In this case, municipal mayor is clearly covered.
But, the SC went on, proper court it is still the SB that
is still the proper court for Binay was a G27 employee. INDING v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2004)
Inding is a SP charged with violation of RA 3019, filed on 27
What are the effects of Section 7? January 1999 – applicable law was RA 8249 (02-11-1997).
Moving the case to the proper court. Inding contended here that the Sandiganbayan has no
1. If trial case before the SB has already begun as of jurisdiction because of the following contentions
contentions that he is not
approval of RA 7975 – it does not apply. at least SG27 for he falls under SG25.
2. If trial of cases before the SB has not begun as of the SB: RA 7975 is applicable for violation of RA 3019 without
approval of RA 7975 then it applies: qualification and regardless of salary.
a. If by virtue of Section 4 of PD 1606, as
amended by Section 2 of Ra 7975m the SB Which law is applicable?
has jurisdiction then it should be referred. RA 7975 – May 16, 1995, original jurisdiction of the SB
b. If SB has no jurisdiction over a case be RA 8249 – Feb. 24, 1997, enumerates
referred to regular courts.
Transitory- this Act shall apply to all cases pending in any court But both laws, the reckoning period of the position is the time
over which trial has not begun as of the approval hereof. of the commission of the offense.
Committed on 01-3-1997, thus RA 7975 applies.
Retroactive 8249: Under RA 7975 included members of SP falls under
1. If it begun do not apply 8249; the jurisdiction of the SB.
2. If not begun The court ruled here that violation of RA 3019 by
a. Retain officials in the executive Salary Grade 27.
b. No – referred to regular court
c. If pending but has jurisdiction – retain. This case is an En Banc penned by Justice Callejo, it was truly
mentioned here: For purposes for determining which of the two
They apply retroactively and work as an exception from the laws. The period is the time of the commission of the offense.
Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction provided that the trial
for the case has not begun.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 15
This stands as an exception thereto the general rule, Petitioner Dinah Barriga seeks to nullify the Resolution of the
for it expressly states the reckoning period is the time SB in denying her motion to quash the information and motion
of the commission of the offense. for reconsideration thereof. Barriga and Mayor Villamor of
Offense was 01-03-1997, the applicable law is RA Carmen, Cebu were charged with malversation of funds
7975, even if RA 8249 is applicable law (at the time of wherein they allegedly connived and collaborated in using the
institution) SB still has jurisdiction, because the said public fund to a public purpose different from which it was
position Sangguniang Panglungsod is still included. intended or appropriated. Such criminal case was filed with the
Sandiganbayan.
Another thing to look out for, RA 7975, Section (4)
RA 7975 – original jurisdiction Barriga assail the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan over the case
RA 8249 – exclusive jurisdiction filed against her considering that position only holds a SG24
PD 1606 says exclusive original jurisdiction and she is not an accountable officer to be charged with such.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 16
Revised Penal Code, and the illegal use of public funds or AMBIL v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2011)
property defined and penalized by Article 220 of the same Governor of Eastern Samar who was the provincial warden, they
Code. The public office of the accused is a constituent element were both charged with RA 3019. Apelado who was a provincial
in both felonies. warden (SG 22), if a person acts in conspiracy – he can also be
Thus, there is no more need to allege the factual tried by the Sandiganbayan.
situation in order to justify that the crime was
committed in relation with official functions. BILLEDO v. JUDGE WAGAN (2011)
Criminal cases were filed for investigation OMB but no
The Court has also ruled that one who conspires with the probable cause was dismissed. Civil case in the RTC.
provincial treasurer in committing six counts of malversation is
also a co-principal in committing those offenses, and that a WON the jurisdiction belongs to the Sandiganbayan – No.
private person conspiring with an accountable public officer in
committing malversation is also guilty of malversation. The RTC has jurisdiction, it does not fall within the purview of
this subject civil case.
We reiterate that the classification of the petitioner’s position No criminal action was filed, there was no appropriate
as SG 24 is of no moment. court to which the civil case should be consolidate.
It is illogical to say that the civil case was abandoned,
The determinative fact is that the position of her co-accused, it does not mean the criminal action was dismissed.
the municipal mayor, is classified as SG 27, and under the last
paragraph of Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975, if the position of Under Article 100 of the RPC, any person criminally liable is also
one of the principal accused is classified as SG 27, the civilly liable. This applies when there is a victim or the offended
Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the party. In RA 9165 there are times when there are no offended
offense. party.
If there is a victim (like in this case, an Unlawful Arrest),
ALZAGA v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2006) the victim filed a criminal case against Cruz before the
AFR-RSBS, and the public officials were the VP and AVP. They OMB to investigate but because of Article 100, Mina
are under the jurisdiction of the SB for AFP-RSBS of the GOCC, also filed for damages with the RTC.
they are definitely higher than director. So we have a civil case in the RTC, and criminal cases
were investigated but dismissed.
LAZARTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2009)
Petitioner was the chairman of the NHA which is a GOCC even According to Cruz, the civil case should have been to
though he does not receive SG27 he is the chairman or a the Sandiganbayan according to Section 4 of RA 8249.
department manager, therefore they are under the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan. TORRES v. PEOPLE (2011)
The appeal was made to the CA instead to the SB, it was filed
BALABA v. PEOPLE (2009) to the RTC (principal of rural high school – malversation);
Crime is committed in 1993 (under RA 7975) was the Municipal appeal should have been made to the SB.
Treasures, information was filed for Malversation of Public
Funds. DISINI v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2013)
WON CA Erred in Dismissing Balaba’s Appeal. Civil case was filed by PCGG against Disini in SB in ill-gotten
Section 4(c)(3) – SB the exclusive appellate jurisdiction wealth and embezzlement, criminal case. 30 June 2004 Disini.
over final judgment, resolutions of the RTC. Questioning the SB jurisdiction not charged for he was private
individual.
When he committed the crime he was a Municipal Treasurer at
the time 1993 (PD 1606) which did not specify the position, it SB has jurisdiction. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and
was filed at the RTC, because the trial has not yet begun, the in connected. EO 1, Section 2 did not distinguish whether
effect of RA 7975 which transfer cases to proper court. private or public status. While Section 4(c) did not mention
Since RA 7975 does not enumerate the Municipal it salary grade or position.
was filed at the RTC.
From the RTC it should be filed to the Sandiganbayan. When it comes to the cases filed by PCGG it doesn’t matter if
It cannot be transferred from the CA due to Section case is civil or criminal, you do not have to be SG27 or to be
2.2 of Rule 50, an appeal erroneous but its shall not be conspiracy. Section 4(c) is independent.
transferred but shall be dismissed outright.
Unquestionably, public officials occupying positions classified
Under the original jurisdiction of the RTC over the accused, as Grade 27 or higher are mentioned only in Subsection 4a and
being an assistant municipal treasurer, he is not under the Subsection 4b, signifying the plain legislative intent of limiting
jurisdiction of RTC. The error us that the appeal
appeal should be made the qualifying clause to such public officials.
to the Sandiganbayan and not to the Court of Appeals.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 17
To include within the ambit of the qualifying clause the persons JURISDICTION OF FAMILY COURTS
covered by Subsection 4c would contravene the exclusive The Court is not impervious to the provisions of Section 5 of
mandate of the PCGG to bring the civil and criminal cases R.A. 8369, that vests in family court’s jurisdiction over violations
pursuant to and in connection with E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A. of R.A. 7610, which in turn covers murder cases where the victim
is a minor. Thus:
In view of this, the Sandiganbayan properly took cognizance of
cases despite Disini’s being a private individual, and despite the Sec. 5. Jurisdiction of Family Courts
Courts. – The Family Courts shall
lack of any allegation of his being the co-principal, accomplice have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the
or accessory of a public official in the commission of the following cases:
offenses charged.
Criminal cases where:
PEOPLE v. HENRY GO (2014) one or more of the accused is below eighteen (18)
A private person and involved public officer is not an accused. years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age, or
Go’s act of posting bail and filing Motion for Consolidation where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time
vests the SB with jurisdiction over his position. of the commission of the offense: Provided, That if the
Principle of adherence of jurisdiction minor is found guilty, the court shall promulgate
He submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the SB he sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the
asked for affirmative relief respondent may have incurred.
Motion for consolidation of cases – tantamount to (See People v. Judge Yadao)
submit oneself to the jurisdiction of the court.
He was a co-principal.
1. COURT OF APPEALS
1. Cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its
original or appellate jurisdiction
2. Quasi-judicial
2. SANDIGANBAYAN
1. Cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its
original or appellate jurisdiction
3. SUPREME COURT
1. Cases decided by the CA and CTA
2. Cases decided by the RTC involving pure questions of
law
3. Cases decided by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise
of its original or appellate jurisdiction.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 18
Now, if we talk about cases under jurisdiction of the SB, if you The prescriptive period will be interrupted upon the filing of
want to file a criminal office (SG27 and under SB), you have to the complaint.
go the Ombudsman. Or if there is no ombudsman, but there If there is no prosecutor, to the MTC.
are public officers, then go to the office of the prosecution. What if you file to the prosecutor’s office? Is the
period interrupted, according to jurisprudence, if the
Under Rule 112, Penalty from crime is more than 4 years and 2 crime is a felony under the RPC then yes.
months, if below, then no need for preliminary investigation is What if it is a crime under a special law? No. But note
required. that this is an old rule.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 19
Prescription and Institution of Criminal Actions No. It is a well-settled rule that the filing of the complaint with
The institution of the criminal action interrupts the running of the fiscals office suspends the running of the prescriptive
the period of the prescription of an offense unless otherwise period. Proceedings against respondent was not terminated
provided in special law. It is elementary in Criminal Law that upon the time the complaint was filed with the Office of the
when a case is not filed right away upon the commission or Prosecutor until such time respondent is either convicted or
discovery of the crime, the offense has prescribed – barred by acquitted by the proper court.
prescription.
BRILLANTE v. COURT OF APPEALS (2004)
Interruption of Prescription of Crimes Felonies There was a libel case filed against Brillante by publishing open
And Special Laws – Act No. 3326 letter alleging that Binay and Rodente involved in a plot of an
In your book, there this case, Zaldivia v. Reyes, a crime assassination for a mayoralty candidate.
punishable by arresto menor , it was filed to the prosecutor’s 10-12 January 1988 was the publication.
office – it interrupted? To the SC – no, it is the filing of the 15 January 1988 was the filing to the fiscals office.
complaint before the court, however in Riodica v. CA, the case 16 January 1989 the case was filed with RTC Makati,
of Zaldivia was not followed now it ruled that it did interrupt
because the complaint here is a felony which slight physical Issue: Whether or not the filing with the fiscal’s office of the
injuries, under Zaldivia, violation was a municipal ordinance. case interrupted the running of the prescription. – YES.
If special law, the filing to pro secution’s office, there is
no interruption – only when the case is filed in court. This is an instance wherein the law itself provides for the
(Act No. 3326). interruption of the period when the case is filed to the fiscal.
Under the provisions under RPC, Article 91 provides that:
Q. What do you by filing as to interrupt the running of period?
Well it is not stated in the provision, but jurisprudence reveals offenses. The period of prescription shall
Computation of prescription of offenses. The
that previous rule was that if the crime was a felony, mere filing commence to run from the day o n which the crime is discovered by the
with the prosecutor is enough and the special law offense must offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be
be with the court (People v. Clemente Bautista, 2007). interrupted by the filing of the complaint or i nformation, and shall
commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the
accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for
But in the more recent ruling in Sanrio v. Edgar Lim (2008), it any reason not imputable to him.
does not matter anymore if the offense committed was
punishable by either the RPC, special law or even if the The aforequoted provision expressly states that prescriptive
ordinance. It now interrupts the running of prescriptive period. period shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
information. The meaning of the phrase shall be interrupted by
CASE DISCUSSIONS the filing of the complaint or information in Article 91 has been
settled in the landmark case of People v. Olarte, where the Court
PEOPLE v. CLEMENTE BAUTISTA (2007) settled divergent views as to the effect of filing a complaint with
Clemente Bautista and Leonida Bautista had a row against a the Municipal Trial Court for purposes of preliminary
Felipe Goyena that let to the latter’s slight physical injuries investigation on the prescriptive period of the offense. The
complaint against the former. The complaint was filed by Court therein held that the filing of the complaint for purposes
Goyena at the barangay office in Malate, Malina but no of preliminary investigation interrupts the period of prescription
settlement was attained. The recourse of Goyena was at the of criminal responsibility .
Office of the City Prosecutor.
SANRIO v. EDGAR LIM (2008)
Upon the recommendation of the prosecutor, a Joint Petitioner Sanrio filed complaint for copyright infringement
Resolution dated 8 November 1999 was filed against the with the Task Force on Anti-Intellectual Property Piracy (TAPP)
respondents and was approved by City Prosecutor. The case of the DOJ. Respondent asserted he obtained his merchandise
was filed to the MTC on 20 June 2000. The respondents from authorized manufacturers. The complaint was dismissed.
implored that their case be dismissed on the premise that the The CA affirmed such and held that the offense has prescribed.
time the case was filed the prescription period of 60 days had
elapsed from the time crime was committing to the filing. Issue: Whether or not the action has prescribed. – No.
Issue: Whether or not the crime has prescribed? Section 2 of Act 3326 provides that the prescriptive period for
violation of special laws starts on the day such offense was
Held: It is not disputed that the filing of the Complaint with the committed and interrupted by institution of proceedings
OCP effectively interrupted the 60 day prescriptive period for against respondent. Although no information filed immediately
instituting the criminal action for slight physical injuries. before the court, violation still has not yet prescribed. As ruled
However, issue for resolution for this case is whether in Brillantes v. CA, we affirmed that the filing of the complaint
prescriptive period run anew after investigating prosecutor’s for purpose of PI interrupts the period of prescription of
recommendation to file the proper criminal information against criminal responsibility by filing before TAPP.
respondent was approved by the City Prosecutor.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 20
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 21
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 22
Q. Why placed under direction and control of public prosecutor? Party who must file the Complaint:
It is to prevent malicious or unfounded prosecutions by the 1. If the offended party is NOT a minor
private persons. Public prosecutors have duty of prosecuting (a) The offended party himself/herself ;
persons who, not only have authority but also a duty. (b) The State – if the offended party dies or
becomes incapacitated before she can file a
B. Exception – Private Prosecutor May Prosecute the Case complaint.
Provided that the following requisites herein are present:
1. The public prosecutor has a heavy workload or there 2. If the offended party is A MINOR
is a lack of public prosecutors; (a) The offended party –
– has the right to initiate
2. He must be authorized in writing by the Chief of the proceedings in independently;
Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor; (b) If offended party fails to file the complaint,
3. There must be approval by the Court. the following in successive order, and
exclusive of all other persons;
Action: Ex Parte Motion, if one has this authority there is no i. Parents
need for the public prosecutor to be there. The private ii. Grandparents
prosecute may prosecute at the end of the prosecution even if iii. Guardian
there is absence of the public prosecutor provided. It is not (c) The State – when following occurs:
revoked by the authority. i. Offended party dies, or becomes
incapacitated before filing, and
C. Private Prosecutor May Prosecute Until End of Trial ii. She has no known parents,
1. When so authorized to prosecute the criminal action; grandparents or guardians.
2. Even in the absence of the public prosecutor;
3. Provided such authority is not revoked or withdrawn. Instances where the above Offenses will Not be Prosecuted
1. If the offended party is alive and not incapacitated and
the complaint is not filed by:
D. In MTC: When Prosecutor Assigned Not Available
a. The offended party who is not a minor; and
When the prosecutor assigned there or to the case is not
b. The offended party who is a minor, or in the
available, the following may prosecute:
proper case, the parents, grandparents, or
1. The offended party;
guardians.
2. Any peace officer;
2. If the offender has been expressly pardoned by any of
3. The public officer charged with the enforcement of the
the above.
law violated.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 23
General Rule: The complaint or information can be filed by the What happened was that there were certain witnesses to be
public prosecutor even without the instance or signature of the presented but the court did not want to. Go went to the CA
offended party. asking CA to interfere with the presentation by the prosecutor,
interfere with the RTC resolution be prohibited.
Exception: Only the offended party can file the complaint if the
defamation consists of any of the following offenses: Can you go to the CA so that they can interfere? No. Refer to
(a) Adultery; Section 5, Rule 110. The private prosecutor went to the CA. In
(b) Concubinage; private prosecutor in everything he does must get the
(c) Seduction; conformity of the public prosecutor.
(d) Abduction; or
(e) Acts of Lasciviousness Since you went on an appeal you go to the Solicitor General. If
you are a private prosecutor, never do anything without the
Sumili v. CFI: She would go through silence rather than suffer permission of the public prosecutor.
the public humiliation of a public trial.
COBARRUBIAS v. PEOPLE (2009)
CASE DISCUSSIONS A criminal case is questionable, this was questioned via petition
for certiorari which alleges GADALEJ on the part of the court.
WILSON CHUA v. PADILLO (2007) When you file such, it is usually Cobarrubias v. RTC. But what
Padillo spouses filed complaints against C hua with the NBI. The about the complainant? The CA wanted Cobarrubias v. RTC and
prosecutor filed an information for estafa against them in the People. The People should be included in the information.
RTC. The issue whether or not CA SOJ to include Wilson and
Renita in the information. This involves the name of the People of the Philippines, because
here we are talking about criminal cases and one party is the
This issue herein, can the CA interfere with the proceedings of accused and the other party is always the People.
the Secretary of Justice – the answer is no.
Cobarrubias was charged with FH and he pleaded not guilty
The general rule is no. Why? Because of Section 5, which says and trial followed, RTC judge dismissed the charges and set the
that prosecution of offense, all criminals action shall be other for trial and there are so many issues with case. A motion
prosecuted be under the control and direction of the public for clerical correction was filed. When he filed for a petition for
prosecutor, he is under the Department of Justice, now if the certiorari, he did not implead the People, so the CA ordered
prosecutor is wrong in the investigation, the DOJ can correct. Cobarrubias to rename Cobarrubias v. RTC and People, but he
did not comply thus the dismissal.
But the CA is another department of government which the
judiciary is, the courts are in charge of trying case, not with PI The failure to implead the People as the respondent is not so
which is for the executive. When the CA interferes, it disturbs grave as to warrant the dismissal of the petition. He rectified his
the justice system. Prosecution is the role of executive; the trial error later in the MR. So the Ca should’ve granted.
is for the judiciary.
PEOPLE v. DUCA (2009)
As a general rule, no. Courts can only review that decision if Dismissed the case without informing the OSG. The authority
there is grave abuse of direction, the business of the court is to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the
whether or not the accused is guilty, but as to the CA and SC is solely vested of the OSG. In relation to Rule 110,
determination as to who to charge, it is the work of the Section 5. The People is always represented by the public
prosecution and falls under their authority. prosecutor, but when the case is appealed whether the CA or
the SB, it is imperative that the Solicitor General knows about
Exception: If there is grave abuse of discretion under Rule 65 it. It is the SG who will represent the people in that appealed
which involves this case. case.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 24
In this case, the victims wanted a Motion for Reinvestigation, WORLD WIDE WEB v. PEOPLE (2014)
can they? The SC said yes – provided that there is consent of WWW moved to quash, RTC allowed. PLDT questioned such
the public prosecutor. grant, but PLDT had no personality for failure to getting the
conformity of the public prosecutor based on Section 5, Rule
If the public prosecutor agrees to have a reinvestigation, is that 110. Is the conformity required to give PLDT personality.
agreement binding in court? Is the court obliged to agree?
No. Section 5, Rule 110 gives general rule that public
No. Once a complaint or information is filed, any disquisition prosecutor, but a search warrant is obtained not by the
rests in the sound discretion of the court, the role of the complaint or an information, but by the filing of an application
prosecution is now limited to prosecution, it cannot impose therefore. An application is part of the process, but not the
opinion no longer at the court. filing of an information. Clearly, an application for a search
warrant is not a criminal action. Therefore, the conformity of
Once case is in court, any disquisition should be addressed to the prosecutor is not necessary in filing the application for the
the court for its consideration and approval. Now, the court is search warrants.
not obliged the court can deny. What if the court grants?
Comment: The application for search warrant is outside the
Then the court is deemed to have deferred to the authority of rules of criminal actions. Just remember this principle.
the prosecutor, he cannot intervene anymore, now its back to
the prosecutor, wide and far-reaching. NELSON LAI v. PEOPLE (2015)
Lai was accused of homicide, Judge Elumba was the public
Can the judge choose who will conduct reinvestigation? No. The prosecutor on 23 March 1998, thereafter by 27 April 2000 he
prosecution’s discretion herein lies. became a judge and the case to his court. He was supposed to
be mandatorily disqualified. Lai was convicted. Judge Elumba
PUNZALAN v. PLATA (2013) defends that he did not personally prosecute for the private
Plata filed complaint against Punzalan against the OCP in prosecutor was the one who handled the case, cross examined
Mandaluyong. OCP dismissed for lack of sufficient basis. Plata the victims entered his appearance long after.
went to the DOJ, but withdrawal for information. It was elevated
the resolutions of the DOJ to the CA. The CA ruled in favor of Issue: Whether it was Judge Elumba who prosecuted. – Yes.
Plata. The CA stated that there is probable cause.
Section 5, Rule 110 states that while there may be private
Whether or not DOJ findings can be questioned in court? prosecutor it is under the direction and control of the public
prosecutor. A private prosecutor appeared still came under the
No. The conduct of PI of determining probable cause belongs direct control of the public prosecutor of Judge Elumba. The
to the public prosecutor. The only time can court can interfere records do not indicate that the private prosecutor who
when the acts of the executive acted in capricious manner. appeared had been duly authorized in writing. The case was
remanded due to violation of the right to due process.
Landmark case cited by the SC: Crespo v. Mogul.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 25
Issue: WON Urgent Motion prosper without signature of the Yes. The allegations in in the information, determine what
public prosecutor. offense is charged. The complained acts should not be in the
terms of the statute as long as it can be understood by common
Held: No. Procedural mandates that all criminal action knowledge. The words were clear and self-explanatory. By
commenced or by information shall be under the direction and reading that information, the ordinary person know what acts
control of public prosecutor. Thus, the refusal of the public he committed that the made resulted in the filing of the
prosecutor to sign was a clear manifestation. Anything that the offense. It is already sufficient, as he was carrying a firearm
private complainant wants to do he or she has to get the outside the residence. You do not have to follow the wording
approval of the public prosecutor. of the law, as long as it can b e understood.
PEOPLE v. CILOT (2014) No. The erroneous designation of his name in the information
Cilot and Brigole was convicted of the complex crime of will not vitiate it, as it was clearly proven that the accused, was
Kidnapping with Rape. The information was not sufficient. In part of the group that was arrested, hogtied and killed the
charging the commission of a complex offense, the information victim. Besides, Cultura did not raise question of his identity
must allege each element of the compromise offense with the during the arraignment. His acquiescence to be tried under the
same precision that would be necessary if they were made the name “Jose” at that stage of the case is deemed to be a waiver
subject of a separate prosecution. on his part to raise the question (People v. Cagadas , 193 SCRA
216, 23 Jan. 1996).
An information charging a crime of kidnapping with rape
should include that which alleges the commission of Three Instances Accused Needs to Appear Personally
kidnapping qualified by extortion of ransom and that which 1. Arraignment
alleges on the same occasion. 2. For purposes of identification
3. Conviction
In other words, there were four separate informations. But at
the end of the day, they were convicted with the special The complaint or
complex crime of kidnapping with rape. How can the court information shall state the designation of the offense given
accuse of such if the informations only charge with simple by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the
offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating
crimes?
circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense,
reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the
They were not informed of the crime which they were statute punishing.
convicted, for special complex crime has different elements, it
should have been described in the information how it was Designation of the Offense
committed. 1. The complaint or information shall:
1. State the designation of the offense given by the
One cannot be charged with a certain simple crime and be statute;
convicted of a special complex crime if the elements do not 2. Aver the acts or omissions constituting the
match. offense, and (specially the elements of offense)
3. Specify its qualifying and aggravating
The complaint or circumstances.
information must state the name and surname of the
accused or any appellation or nickname by which he has
2. If there is no designation of the offense – reference
been or is known. If his name cannot be ascertained, he shall be made to the section or subsection of the
must be described under a fictitious name with a statute punishing it (like provision number).
statement that his true name is unknown.
Designation Not Controlling
If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed by The interlocutory paragraph of the information states that the
him or appears in some other manner to the court, such
accused is being charged with simple theft , but the body
true name shall be inserted in the complaint.
containing the accusatory portion mentions that he took
– Yes.
registered mail. May he be convicted with qualified theft? –
Name of the Accused
1. What Must be Stated i n the Information The averments in the complaint or information characterize the
a. The name and surname of the accused; or crime to be prosecuted and determine the court before which
b. Any appellation or nickname by which he has the case must be tried. What controls is not the designation of
been or is known
the offense but the description thereof as alleged in the
information (Avecilla v. People, 209 SCRA 466, 2 June 1992).
2. If the Name of the Accused Cannot be Ascertained
a. He must be described under a fictitious When Section Needs to be Specified
name (e.g. John Doe or Juan dela Cruz)
It is only when there is no specific name given to the offense
b. There must be accompanying statement that
that reference to the section or subsection of that statute
his true name is unknown.
punishing it may be made, which usually applies to special laws,
in which case the offenses is described as a violation of the
3. Effect if the true name of the accused is thereafter statute which defines and penalizes it.
disclosed by him or appears in some other manner to the
court.
Moreover the real nature of the criminal charge is determined
o Such true name shall be inserted in the
not from the caption or preamble of the information, nor from
complaint or information.
the specification of the provision of law, as there are mere
conclusion of law. Rather, the nature of the accusation is
Erroneous Designation of Name determined by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or the
Should accused be acquitted considering that his name was
information (People v. Gutierrez, 403 SCRA 123, 9 May 2003).
erroneously designated in the information?
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 27
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 28
What controls is not the title but the allegations. The purpose In fact, he was able to present evidence based on sweetheart
is to inform the accused, it does not matter to the accused defense in that he and AAA were lovers and that they had a
whether it not is 5(a) or 5(b) it does not really matter towards consensual sexual intercourse on the said date. During trial, he
for the accused – it did not fail to information it is based testified that he and AAA were in a secret relationship as
whether or not the accused is sufficiently informed. In here the husband and wife and he was surprised when he was charged
acts he committed clearly stated therein. with rape (he is contesting the charge of qualified rape).
PEOPLE v. ARMANDO RODAS (2007) As embodied in Section 14 (1), Article III of the 1987
Rodas was charged with murder of Asenda. Whether or not the Constitution, no person shall be held to answer for a criminal
descriptive words qualifying or qualified by to qualify the offense without due process of law. Further, paragraph 2 of the
offense. No it is not necessary , merely required that the same section, it provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the
information allege, specify or enumerate. It is the specific accused has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of
allegation of the attendant circumstance. It need not be the accusation against him.
expressly stated. All you have to do is that the qualifying
circumstance are alleged in information, no need to use the It is further provided under Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the
words qualified by them are not part of the information. Revised Rules of Court that a complaint or information to be
filed in court must contain a designation given to the offense
SOMBILON v. PEOPLE (2009) by the statute, besides the statement of the acts or omissions
Sombilon was charged with Acts of Lasciviousness and RTC was constituting the same, and if there is no such designation,
charged with aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of reference should be made to the section or subsection of the
his public position. It was not alleged in the information. statute punishing it and the acts or omissions complained of as
Nothing in the information alleges such aggravating constituting the offense.
circumstances.
The
Section 9 provides that aggravating circumstances must be complaint or information is sufficient if it can be
stated. The thing is, this requirement only came out in the 2000 understood from its allegations that the offense was
committed or some of its essential i ngredients occurred at
rules, when was the criminal case instituted in 1999. The court
some place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the
retroactively applied because it is beneficial to the accused. It particular place where it was committed constitutes an
was not placed in the information, and the court found that the essential element of the offense charged for is necessary
accused – it was according to the rules at that time, but when for its identificatio
identification.
n.
it reached at the SC, the new rules appeared, since this is not
an ex post facto, it is a procedural law which is favorable to the How the Place of Commission Must be Stated
accused then it must be given retroactive effect. General Rule: It may be sated generally in a sense that it can be
understood from its allegations that the offense was committed
PEOPLE v. TUANDO (2016) or some of its essential ingredients occurred at some place
Tuando contends that his right to be informed of the nature within the jurisdiction of the court.
and cause of accusation against him was violated when the
appellate court affirmed his conviction despite the fact that the Exceptions: It must be specific when the particular place it was
crime of which he was convicted by the trial court was different committed on the following instances:
from the one he pleaded to and was charged with. To support 1. It constitutes an essential element of the crime
his argument, he cited the case of People
People v. Valdesancho where charged; or
the Court acquitted the accused due to the denial of his right 2. It is necessary for its identification.
to due process as he was charged with rape committed on 15
August 1994 and 16 August 1994, but was convicted for crimes Example: Polling place in election offenses, like precinct No. 333
of rape committed on 15 and 16 August 1993. and not precinct No. 555.
Erroneous Designation of the Place
The court disagrees with the accused. His reliance on the cited Where the time or place or any other fact alleged is not an
case is misplaced. In the Valdesancho case, this Court acquitted essential element of the crime charged, conviction may be had
the accused and held that his right to due process was violated on proof of the commission of the crime, even if it appears that
since he was not able to present evidence to prove where he the crime was not committed at the precise time or place
was on 15 and 16 August 1993. He was not given any alleged (People v. Lucas, 232 SCRA 537, 25 May 1994).
opportunity to defend himself of the crimes of rape allegedly
committed on the earlier dates. It is not
necessary to state in the complaint or information the
But, the facts of the cited case and this case are different from precise date of the offense was committed except when it
each other. In this case, the accused was charged with rape is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be
alleged to have been committed on a date as near as
committed sometime in January 2006 against AAA. He was able
possible to the actual date of its commission.
to present evidence proving where he was on January 2006
when the crime was committed.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 29
On or about August 1996. The failure to specify the exact dates In rape, the gravamen of offense, being the carnal knowledge
or times when the rapes occurred does not ipso facto make the of a woman, the date is not an
an essential element, hence, the
information defective on its face as this is not an element of the specification of the exact date of time of its commission is not
offense. important.
The gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge under any of the In statutory rape, like in this case, what matters most is that the
circumstances. As long as it is alleged that the offense was information alleges that the victim is a minor under twelve
committed at any time as near as the actual date when the years of age and that the accused had carnal knowledge of her.
offense was committed (People v. Espinosa, 432 SCRA 86).
If accused-appellant found the information defective as it bears
From 1977 to December 27, 1983. This date alleged now makes only the month and year of the incident complained of, he
the information seriously defective. It places on accused the should have filed a Motion for Bill of P articulars, as provided for
unfair and unreasonable burden of having to recall their under Rule 116, before he entered a plea. His failure to do so
activities over a span of more than 2,500 days. amounted to a waiver of the defect or detail desired in the
information. At all events, accused-appellant participated in the
It is a burden nobody should be made to bear. The prosecutor trial and never objected to the presentation of evidence by the
must make more definite and particular the time of the prosecution that the rape was committed on or about the
commission of the crime attributed accused. If he cannot, the month of August 1996.
case must be dismissed (Rocarberte v. People, 193 SCRA 152).
ZAPANTA v. PEOPLE (2013)
Remedy when Date is Not Specific The petitioner submits that, while the information charged him
The remedy is a motion for bill of particulars . The failure of for acts committed "sometime in the month of October, 2001,"
the accused to move for the specification of the date when the he was convicted for acts not covered by the information, i.e.,
alleged crime was committed or for the quashal of the November 2001, thus depriving him of his constitutional right
Information on the ground that it does not conform to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
substantially to the prescribed form deprives him of the right against him. He further argues that the prosecution failed to
to object evidence which could lawfully be introduced and establish the fact of the loss of the steel beams since the corpus
admitted under an information of general terms but which delicti was never identified and offered in evidence.
sufficient charges a crime ( People v. Desuyo , 381 SCRA 235).
The petition lacks merit. Conformably with these provisions,
PEOPLE v. IBANEZ (2007) when the date given in the complaint is not of the essence of
Ibanez was charged with three counts of rape it was alleged the offense, it need not be proven as alleged; thus, the
that it was alleged that it happened in 1997 -1998 -1999 in complaint will be sustained if the proof shows that the offense
three different criminal cases. He argues that the informations was committed at any date within the period of the statute of
are not explicit as to the dates of the rape. limitations and before the commencement of the action.
The court ruled that a complaint or information is sufficient if it In this case, the petitioner had been fully apprised of the charge
states the approximate state. Section 11, Rule 110, does not of qualified theft since the information stated the approximate
require precise aside from the exceptions. Is the exact dates are date of the commission of the offense through the words
essential element of rape – No. Hence, the exact date of the "sometime in the month of October, 2001."
commission of the crime an essential element or rape.
Sometime in the month of – no problem.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 30
The petitioner could reasonably deduce the nature of the 3. If the true name of the offended party
par ty is thereafter
criminal act with which he was charged from a reading of the disclosed or ascertained:
contents of the information, as well as gather by such reading a. The court must cause such true name to be
whatever he needed to know about the charge to enable him inserted in the complaint or information and
to prepare his defense. the record;
We stress that the information did not have to state the precise 4. If offenses against property, if the name of the
date when the offense was committed, as to be inclusive of the offended is unknown:
month of "November 2001" since the date was not a material a. The property must be described with such
element of the offense. particularly as to property identify the
offense charged.
As such, the offense of qualified theft could be alleged to be 5. If the offended party is a juridical person:
committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of a. It is sufficient to state:
its commission. Clearly, the month of November is the month b. There is no need to aver that it is a juridical
right after October. person or that it is organized in accordance
with law.
PEOPLE v. BUCA (2015)
The conviction of accused-appellant based on the Information EDUARDO RICARZE v. CA (2007)
stating that the crime was committed sometime before Ricarze was employee responsible for checks collections, he
December 24, 2002, despite the fact that the crime was forge the signature. Upon discovery, Caltex filed for estafa
committed on December 24, 2002, is valid. through falsification of commercial documents. After the PI. In
the information, the designated offended party was Caltex. PCI
The Court does not agree with accused-appellant. It bears Bank substituted Caltex. Whether the substitution to PCIBank is
stressing that the precise date of the commission of the crime fatal to the information filed.
of rape is not an essential element of the crime. Failure to
specify the exact date when the rape was committed does not No. The important thing in cases of property, the property must
render the Information defective. be described. The designation of offended party not absolutely
indispensable, the name error is mere formal defect. The check
The complaint were properly described the substitution by Caltex by PCIBank.
or information must state the name and surname of the Under Section 12, so what if the offended party changes?
person against whom or against whose property the
offense was committed, or any appellation or nickname by
A complaint or
which such person has been or is known. If there is no
information must charge only one offense, except when
better way of identifying him, he must be described under
the law prescribes a single punishment for various
a fictitious name.
offenses.
(a) In offenses against property, if the name of the
offended party is unknown, the property must be
described with such particularity as to properly Duplicity of the Offense
identify the offense charged. GENERAL RULE: That a complaint or information must charge only
(b) If the true name of the of the person against whom one offense.
or against whose properly the offense was
committed is thereafter disclosed or ascertained,
EXCEPTION: A complaint or information may charge more than
the court must cause the true name to be inserted in
the complaint or information and the record. one offense when the law prescribes a single punishment for
(c) If the offended party is a juridical person, it is various offenses.
sufficient to state its name, or any name or
designation by which it is known or by which it may Special Complex Crimes
be identified, without need of averring that it is a Rape with homicide. Homicide committed on the occasion or
juridical person or that it is organized in accordance
accordance
with law. by reason of the rape, loses its character as an independent
offense, but assumes a new character, and functions like a
qualifying circumstance.
Name of the Offended Party
1. What the complaint or information must state:
However, by fiction of law, it is merged with rape to constitute
a. In the name and surname of the offended
a constituent element of a special complex crime of rape with
party; or
a specific penalty which is in the highest degree.
b. Any appellation or nickname by which such
person has been or is known.
An information must charge but one offense, except only in
those cases in which existing laws prescribe a simple
2. If there is no better way of identifying them;
punishment for various offenses. Rape with homicide comes
(a) He must be described in under a fictitious
within the exception ( People v. Sanchez, 227 SCRA 627).
name;
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 31
Conviction of Component Crimes Santiago v. People. She approved 32 aliens who were not
People v. Nardo 270 SCRA 672: The accused here was charged allowed to enter, how many informations to be filed? You do
in one information with multiple murder and double frustrated not have to separate the name, you can only file one
murder. While the trial court convicted him of the charge, it information if only names is the issue.
appears that what he actually committed were 4 separate
crimes of murder and 2 crimes of attempted murder. May the One shot three deaths – one information; three shots and
SC on review convict him of all component offenses? three deaths – different information. But what about machine
gun, there is many crimes as many victims (PP v. Tabaco).
Yes. Generally, an accused may only be convicted only of the
crime charged in the information, or of an offense which 4. Absorption Doctrine. In Enrile v. Salazar, where the crime
necessarily includes that which was charged or included of rebellion absorbs murder, homicide and injuries.
therein.
5. Special Complex Crimes – specially named in provisions
However, in this case, the information charging accused further under the RPC like Robbery with Homicide.
states that “accused, with intent to kill and with the qualifying
circumstance of treachery armed with M16 Armalite Rifles did If there are many ways to commit a crime was made in the
shoot and fire in a sudden and unexpected manner. information it is not duplicitous:
PP v. Buendiaje: The information not duplicitous for
In effect, it imputed to accused the commission of several the crimes charged were only the manners in the
felonies. Yet, accused did not move to quash the information committing the same offense.
on the ground of multiplicity of charges.
SORIANO v. RP (2009)
Neither did he object thereto at any other time. Consequently, Soriano and Ilagan were officers of Rural Bank of San Miguel as
such defect is deemed waived, and the Court may validly render offices they falsified loan application and make appear that two
judgment against him for as many crimes as were alleged and people have obtained. The state prosecutor charged them of
proven. Section 93 of RA 337 as amended by PD 1795 (DOSRI).
Duplicitous Information – information charging for more than On the same date an information for estafa thru falsification of
one offense. When it prescribes single punishment, it is allowed commercial document on the ground that more than one
in an information. offense is charged with DOSRI rules and estafa and that they
1. Delito Complejo – where the crime is a necessary means were duplicitous?
like estafa through falsification, for the is only one crime, only
one penalty, like crimes under Article 48 under the Revised No. Soriano was faced not with one information but with more
Penal Code. than one information charging a different offense, violation of
DOSRI and estafa. They erroneously invoked Section 13 to
Reckless Imprudence Resulting Homicide – this applies to ground to quash information. They were s eparate informations,
culpable felonies; the accused can be charged (People v. Glen there was really nothing wrong.
de los Santos).
GUTIERREZ v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (2011)
2. Delito Compuesto – where a single act constitutes two or Two impeachment complaint against OMB Gutierrez, they were
more grave or less grave felonies. Like one gunshot killing consolidation, Gutierrez questions on ground of Section 13.
two or more people. The effect is the same, then it is the Does this apply to impeachment cases?
crime with higher penalty, imposed in its maximum period.
No. The constitution allows the indictment for multiple grounds
3. Delito Continuado – a series of act arising from a single as in the Articles of Impeachment. An impeachment complaint
criminal intent. For example A wants to steal 10 cows, but X need not allege only one impeachable offense. In other words,
has three, Y has three and Z has four so A steals their cows. this rule does not apply to impeachment proceedings, there are
They can only be included in one information (People v. many violation which could include Articles of Impeachment.
Tumlos).
PEOPLE v. BRIOSO (2016)
People v. Jaranillo – roosters are taken from two coops there Brioso was charged with statutory rape, the information that he
are two acts of stealing but only one intent, so one crime. inserted a finger in vagina of 4 year old and have carnal
knowledge, when it reached SC he found him both of statutory
People v. Sabun – a lawyer collects in a monthly basis, there rape and rape with sexual assault.
is no need to file for every month, you can lump everything
together in one information. This falls under the single Yes. Section 3, Rule 120 applies. When two or more offense
larceny doctrine. The following are not considered to be charged in the single complaint or information but the accused
single larceny like multiple estafa and multiple malversation. fail to object to it before trial, the court may convict him as
many offenses as are charged and proved.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 32
Brioso failed to quash the information before the trial. Two Kinds of Amendment
Therefore, he can be convicted with the two counts of rape. It Amendment to forms or Formal Amendment
can only be surmised, he should have objected. Amendment to substance or Substantial Amendment
PEOPLE v. ARENAS (2016) What the lawyer of the accused should do, look at the
Arenas was charged for violation of RA 9165 before RTC for information and look at the defects and file for a motion to
selling two sachets of shabu as well as possession with intent quash, when it is filed, the prosecutor has the chance to amend
to sell. And for violating Section 5 and Section 11. Arenas the information if there is something wrong with it.
argued that the RTC erred for charging her by a duplicitous
information. The prosecutor do that without asking permission, provided the
accused has not entered his plea on arraignment. There is a big
There is a duplicitous information, but Section of Rule 120 also difference between amendment and revisions. No formal
states when two or more offense but the accused fails to amendments are allowed.
object before the trial as many as those charged. The failure
to have motion to quash before plea is deemed as a waiver. Before Arraignment
GENERAL RULE: A complaint or information may be amended in
Absorption doctrine is not applicable here, It was proven that form or in substance even without leave of court.
the possession herein could be separately charged for illegal
possession of the sale. EXCEPTION:
If the amendment (when it requires leave of court)
Under the RA 9165, if A is arrested in buy bust and he charged (a) Downgrades the nature of offense charged
with selling 5g, and in his possession was 10g, then the in, or
possession is absorbed. But if he is selling 10g but found with (b) Excludes any accused from the complaint or
50g, then he must charged with possession of 40g, what information.
absorbed is only 10g.
It can be made only:
Can the accused complain? Yes, but if you want to complain (a) Upon motion by the prosecutor
you do it in a motion to quash. Otherwise, information will not (b) With the notice to the offended party, and
be void, it is merely duplicitous, it is for the accused to complain (c) With leave of court
about it due to Rule 120. It is no longer a matter of right we
have to ask permission of court.
A complaint or
information may be amended, in form or in substance, What the court must do in resolving the motion either
without leave of court, at any time before the accused granting or disallowing it:
enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal (a) It shall state it reasons, and
amendment may only be made with leave of court and (b) It shall furnish copies of its order to all
when it can be done without causing prejudice to the
parties, especially the offended party.
rights of the accused.
However, any amendment before plea, which downgrade After Arraignment and During Trial
the nature of the offense charged in or excludes any A. Amendment as to form may only be made if:
accused from the complaint or information, can be made 1. It is done with leave of court, and
only upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the 2. It does not prejudice the accused
offended party and with leave of court. The court shall
state its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of its
order shall be furnished all parties, especially the offended B. Amendment as to substance – NOT ALLOWED. Definitely not
party. allowed, only formal amendments allowed after arraignment.
Rules on Amendment of the Information Tests to Determine the Need for Substitution
If the information is defective, like duplicitous like the name or 1. If evidence is applicable to the other no need.
date in information, there is always a way to repair a defective 2. When the second offense is exactly the same.
information and that is what we call an amendment under this 3. When it is frustration or attempt of the first.
Section. 4. When is necessarily includes or is included in first.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 33
Ground for substitution: It appears any time before judgment b. Change in description of the injury
that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense. After the accused was arraigned for murder, the judge ordered
the change of the description of some wounds from lacerated
Effects when the above ground exists: to stab in the information in order to conform with the
A new information charging the proper offense may description of the victim’s wounds in the autopsy report. Is
be filed provided the accused shall not be placed in there a need to re-arraign the accused?
double jeopardy.
The court shall dismiss the original complaint or No. A re-arraignment is only necessary where the change or
information, and amendment of the information involves in the changing of the
The court may require the witnesses to give bail for proper offense. Here, the change in the information was not
their appearance at the trial. effected to correct a mistake changing the offense charged in
the information (People v. Jaralba, 226 SCRA 602, 1993).
Amendment and Substitution, Distinguished
Amendment and substitution may differ in the four following c. Change in date of commission
aspects as stated in Galvez v. CA 237 SCRA 685 (1994): The amended date in all 19 informations is not at all material
1. Amendment may involve either formal or substantial to the offenses charged because the basis thereof is not the
changes, while substitution necessarily involves a date of the construction but the defective construction of the
substantial change from the original charge; 46 dwelling units. Such amendment does not prejudice the
2. Amendment before plea has been entered can be rights of accused since it would not alter the nature of the
effected without leave of court, but substitution of offense charged.
information must be with leave of court as the original
information has to be dismissed; d. Insertion of the word “printed”
3. Where amendment is to form, no need for another Here it was just to clarify the facts, the original information
preliminary investigation and the retaking of the plea clearly stated that the newspaper is published in Makati. It is
of the accused; in substitution of information, another merely a formal amendment wen it merely adds specification
preliminary investigation is entailed and the accused to eliminate vagueness in the information and not to introduce
has to plead anew to the new information; and new and material facts and merely states with additional
4. An amended information refers to the same offense precision something which is already contained in the original
charged in the original information or to an offense information and which therefore, adds nothing essential for
which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in
in conviction of crime charged ( Banal III v. Panganiban, 2005).
the original charge, hence substantial amendments to
the information after the plea has been take cannot e. Allegation of conspiracy
be made over the objection of the accused, for the The addition of the phrase, “conspiring, confederating and
original information would be withdrawn, the accused helping one another” does not change the nature of his
could invoke double jeopardy. Substitution requires participation as principal in the killing. Whether under the
or presupposes that the new information involves a original or amended information, accused would have to
different offense which does not include or is not defend himself as the People makes a case against hi m and
necessarily included in the original charge, hence the secures for public prosecution for punishment for stabbing to
accused cannot claim double jeopardy. death, using superior strength, a fellow citizen whose help and
safety society as a whole is interested (Buhat v. CA, 1996).
Illustration of Formal Amendments
a. Allegation of insanity of the victim f. Other formal amendments
After accused was arraigned but before trial commenced, the In the case of Matalam v. Sandiganbayan 455 SCRA 737, 12
court allowed the amendment of the information to include the April 2005, it enumerated the following as to have been held to
allegation that by reason of rape the victim became insane, is be merely formal amendments:
the amendment proper? 1. New allegations which related only to the range of the
penalty that the court might impose in the event of
Yes. The subject amendment is clearly not one of substance but conviction;
of form. The insertion of the phrase that the victim has become 2. An amendment which does not charge another
insane by reason or on occasion of the rape in the Information offense different or distinct from that charged in the
merely raised the penalty that may be imposed in case of original one;
conviction and does not charge another offense different fro m 3. Additional allegations which do not alter the theory of
that charged in the original information. Whatever defense the prosecution of the case so as to cause surprise to
accused may have raised under the original information for the accused and affect the form of defense he has or
rape committed with a deadly weapon equally applies to rape will assume;
committed with a deadly weapon where the victim has become 4. An amendment which does not adversely affect any
insane by reason or on occasion of the rape. The amendment substantial rights of the accused;
did not affect the substantial rights of the accused ( People v. 5. An amendment that merely adds specifications to
Degamo, 402 SCRA 133). eliminate any vagueness in the information
information and not to
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 34
introduce new and material facts, and merely states BALTAZAR v. CHUA (2009)
with additional precision something which is already Downgraded the charges and dropping charges for Jaime, the
in the original information and which adds nothing City Prosecutor filed a motion and withdraw information and
essential for conviction for the crime charged. an admission for a new information. The prosecution cannot
impose with the proceedings of the court. It involves two
Illustrations of Substantial Amendments courts, there was a Motion for Amendment that was filed by
a. Homicide to Murder the private complainants. The original charge was homicide, the
To amend the information so as to change the crime charged case was moved to another court to put it back to murder. The
from homicide to the more serious offense of murder after the Crespo v. Mogul doctrine herein applies.
accused had pleaded not guilty to the former is indubitably
proscribed by Rule 110, Section 14. For certainly a change from SALUDAGA v. SB (2010)
homicide to murder is not a matter of form; it is one of Saludaga here was Mayor entered with the Pakyaw Contract
substance with very serious consequence ( Buhat v. CA, 1996). without public bidding thus he was charged with Section 3(e)
of RA 3019 by causing undue injury to the government. A new
b. Robbery to Robbery in an Uninhabited Place basis was now coffering unwarranted benefit from
from undue injury.
The proposed amendments are clearly substantial from Article There was no substitution the refiled information charged the
299 to Article 302 of the RPC, thereby exposing the accused to same offense, it was only the mode of commission that was
a higher penalty (People v. Montenegro 159 SCRA 236, 1988). charged. And it is not a substantial amendment, because the
refiled information is founded in the same transaction the
c. Allegation of Relationship evidentiary requirement remains the same – in conclusion what
After the accused has been arraigned, an amendment of the changed was mode, hence it was only a formal amendment.
information for rape to be made alleged the relationship of
accused to the victim is not allowed. The amendment is clearly LEVISTE v. ALAMEDA (2010)
substantial in character as it had the effect changing the crime Leviste was charged with Homicide. Reinvestigations is
charged. Such amendment can no longer be done through required in substantial amendment. Substantial amendments
amendment but only be substitution ( People v. Sandoval ). consists of change in the recital of facts. The information from
homicide the murder is one of substance with very serious
EDUARDO RICARZE v. CA (2007) consequences. It was allowed because it was prior to
It was only after the prosecution had rested its case when arraignment, thus the substantial amendment is allowed.
SRMO entered its appearance with PCIB as private respondent.
There is no violation, the substitution of Caltex by PCIB is not a KUMMER v. PEOPLE (2013)
substantial amendment it did not alter the basis of the charge Homicide against Kummer. July to June 1988 change. A mere
nor did it result in prejudice. Changing the offended party is change in the date of time is formal when it does not prejudice
merely a formal amendment, but here leave of court required the rights of the accused. There is no need for a new
for it was after the arraignment. arraignment for it is only imperative when it is a substantial
amendment. The one month gap is acceptable.
PACOY v. AFABLE (2007)
Judge ordered the change of charge from homicide to murder. Place
No. It was only a formal amendment and not a substantial where action is to be instituted. –
amendment, provided if does not prejudice the rights of the (a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall
accused. be instituted and tried in the court of the
municipality or territory where the offense was
committed or where any of its essential
The only change made was in the caption of the case and ingredients occurred.
preamble it changed from homicide to murder. No change in (b) Where an offense is committed
committed in a train, aircraft,
the recital of facts or determination of the jurisdiction of the or other public or private vehicle in the course of
court not all changed in the act committed. its trip, the criminal action shall be instituted and
tried in the court of any municipality or territory
where such train, aircraft, or other vehicle passed
passed
Test: Whether a defense under the complaint can stand, since
during its trip, including the place of its departure
there is no change it could not have any affect on the theory of and arrival.
the prosecution on the case. (c) Where an offense is committed on board a vessel
in the course of its voyage, the criminal action
RAMON ALBERT v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2009) shall be instituted and tried in the court of the
Albert et al. were charged with RA 3019; the difference was first port of entry or of any municipality or
territory where the vessel passed during such
from ross neglect of duty to gross inexcusable negligence. Is it voyage, subject to the generally accepted
substantial or prejudicial? No. principles of international law.
This is allowed even after arraignment and plea being (d) Crimes committed outside the Philippines but
beneficial of the accused, it is considered as a modality punishable under Article 2 of the Revised Penal
in the commission of the offense. Thus, the same is Code shall be cognizable by the court where the
considered as an amendment in form. criminal action is first filed.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 35
Venue: Where Action is to be Instituted So how do you determine the elements take place?
Rule: The criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the You look at the information. If one of the elements
court of the municipality or territory: state the venue. It is not a question of fact, it is a question of
1. Where the offense was committed (for local offenses) whether or not it was stated in the information.
2. Where any of its essential ingredient occurred (for
transitory or continuing offenses).
Where the civil action for recovery of
Other Alternative Venues for Institution of an Action civil liability is instituted i n the criminal action pursuant to
Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by counsel in
1. Where an offense is committed in a train, aircraft, or
the prosecution of the offense.
other public or private vehicle in the course of its trip,
the criminal action shall be instituted and tried either
in the court of: Effect when the Civil Action for Recovery of Civil Liability is
a. The place of its departure; or Instituted in the Criminal Action
b. Any municipality or territory where such 1. When the offended party may intervene in the
train, aircraft or vehicle passed during its trip prosecution offense:
c. Place of arrival a. When the civil action is for recovery of civil
2. Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in liability instituted in the criminal action.
the course of its voyage, 2. How may the offended party may intervene:
a. The criminal action shall be instituted and a. By counsel.
tried in the court of:
i. The first port of entry; or Intervention, Instances when Prohibited
ii. Of any municipality or territory In Dichaves v. Apalit 333 SCRA 54 (2000), the following are the
where the vessel passed during instances when an offended party is not allowed to take part in
such voyage. the criminal prosecution, as under Rule 111, Section 1, there are
b. Subject to generally accepted principles of three instances:
international law 1. If the civil action has been waived;
3. When the crime is committed outside the Philippines 2. If the right to institute a separate civil action has been
but punishable under Article 2 of the RPC: reserved; and
a. It shall be cognizable by the court where the 3. If the civil action was filed prior to the criminal action.
criminal action is first filed
Exterritoriality – any court in the country. Offenses without an Offended Party
May a private prosecutor appear in such cases? No. The court
Provisions of Law held in Ramiscal v. SB 446 SCRA 706 (2004), that a violation of
Article 360 on Libel – where the libel matter is first RA 3019 in this case, the offended party is the government
published, or residence of the victim or office of the which was allegedly deprived of capital gains and documentary
public official involved. stamp taxes.
Cases covered by Sandiganbayan – the SB only has the
main court in Manila, one in Cebu and in Cagayan. Q. Where the offended party did not initiate the complaint or
Section 5, Article VIII – the SC can order the change of institute the prosecution, can he ask for damages is he actually
venue to avoid miscarriage of justice. If in the interest testifies during trial?
of justice, it is not safe nor practical to file in that city
the court can move it ( Sanchez v. CA, the mayor of Yes. If the injured party has not expressly waived the civil
Laguna, he was charged of the rape and murder of UP liability of the accused nor reserved his right to file a separate
student and her boyfriend, the action was filed in civil action, it is error for the court to refuse a request of the
Laguna – it was moved out for his influence, but it has injured party during the course of the criminal prosecution.
to be the Supreme Court).
Q. What if the offended party has desisted?
TRENAS v. PEOPLE (2012) No. While it may be true that the desistance does not bar the
An information was filed in the RTC charging him with estafa. People from prosecuting the criminal action, it does operate
No other evidence was shown that the offense was committed however, as a waiver of the right to pursue civil indemnity
(People v. Amaca, 277 SCRA 215).
in Makati. Jurisdiction of a court over the case is determined in
the complaint of information. Look at the elements of the crime.
Commentary
UNION BANK v. PEOPLE (2012) This section gives us situation when a private offended party
may join, when the civil action for recovery of civil liability. A
Desi Tomas charged with perjury for making false narrations in
criminal case but under Article 100 of RPC, the offended party
an affidavit, executed in Makati and it was submitted to the
can ask for damages – meaning money – compensation for the
Pasay. It is the MeTC Makati City. The venue of action states
loss and injury caused to the offended party. When there is an
that the crime was done in the false narration is an affidavit
offended party, there is a civil aspect.
under Article 183.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 36
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 37
RULE 111
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION Every person criminally liable for a felony
is also civilly liable.
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Moral, Nominal, Temperate or Exemplary Damages
Blg. 22 shall be deemed to i nclude the corresponding civil 1. If the amount is specified in the complaint or
action. No reservation to file such civil action separately
information:
shall be allowed.
o The corresponding filing fees shall be paid by
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party upon the filing thereof in
the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on court.
the amount of the check involved, which shall be 2. If the amount is not specified in the complaint or
considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the information:
complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated,
o The filing fees therefor shall constitute a first
moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the
offended party shall pay additional filing fees based on the lien on judgment awarding such damages.
amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged
but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the Rule on Counterclaim, Cross-Claims, Third Party Complaint
court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall 1. They cannot be filed by the accused in the criminal
constitute a first lien on the judgment. case, but
2. Any cause of action which could have been subject
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial
thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action.
with the criminal action upon application with the court
trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial Q. What are the civil actions deemed instituted in a criminal
of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 prosecution under the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure?
of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil and
criminal actions.
Ans: Only the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime
charged is deemed impliedly i nstituted in a criminal action, that
Rule 111, Section 1: Sections of Discussion is unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the
A. Effect of Institution of a Criminal Action right to institute it separately or institutes it prior to the criminal
B. Specifications under BP 22 action.
C. Consolidation of Civil and Criminal Actions
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 38
What is deemed instituted in every criminal prosecution is the Requisites for Proper Consolidation
civil liability arising from the crime or delict per se which is also 1. The civil action has been filed separately;
known as the civil liability ex delicto, but not those liabilities 2. Trial of the civil action has not yet commenced, and
arising from quasi-delicts (reckless imprudence cases), quasi- 3. There must be an application for consolidation with
contracts (like solutio indebiti and negotiorum gestio). the court trying the criminal case.
In fact, even if a civil action is filed separately, the ex delicto civil Effect if consolidation is granted: The trial of both actions
liability in the criminal prosecution remains, and the offended shall proceed in accordance with Rule 111, Section 2 governing
party may – subject to the control of the prosecutor – still consolidation of the civil and criminal actions.
intervene in the criminal prosecution in order to protect the
remaining civil interest therein ( Philippine Rabbit v. People, Commentaries
427 SCRA 456, 14 April 2004). Those not arising from the crime are called in the independent
civil actions they are not deemed instituted. This “arising from
B. Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 the crime” only came out in the 2000 Rules. In the 1985 Rules,
everything was deemed instituted.
Rules in Relation to the Civil Aspect
1. The criminal action for violation of BP 22 shall be What is the effect? Casupanan v. Laroya (2002), the new rules
deemed to include the corresponding civil action. came out of December of 2000. The SC discussed the effects:
2. Reservation to file the civil action is not allowed. 1. Actions premised on quasi-delict and other
independent civil action may be filed separately
Rules in Relation to Docket Fees without the civil action.
1. Actual Damages: the offended party shall pay in full 2. The judge may no longer the apply the provisions on
the filing fees based on the amount of the check quasi-delict on basis of the award of civil liability.
involved in the case. 3. The pendency of the criminal case will not preclude he
2. Moral, Nominal, Temperate or Exemplary Damages: offended party from filing for a quasi-delict against
a. If the amount is specified: the accused.
The offended party shall pay
additional filing fees based on the When is the claim for civil liability not deemed instituted?
amount alleged therein. You refer to the three exceptions.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 39
If an accused is convicted by the trial court and such conviction SPOUSES YAP v. FIRST E-BANK (2009)
is reversed, what happens to the civil liability? It cannot be applied because when the bank filed the BP22, the
Under Rule 111, the acquittal of the accused does not amount of the check was the civil aspect of BP 22. Since the civil
necessarily extinguish it is based on the r eason of the aspect in a BP 22 case is deemed instituted, what the bank
acquittal. wants is the value of the check.
It cannot have for the foreclosure so as to run against
She cannot be held liable for the civil liability, in the CA it was the principle of unjust enrichment.
clearly stated and ruled that she did not issue a worthless The foreclosure case is an independent civil action
check meaning
meaning she did not commit the crime. There was no arising more the contract, because the civil aspect is
crime, and therefore the Court does not have to put the exact the amount of the check.
words, but in this case, she did not commit the crime.
HEIRS OF BURGOS v. CA (2010)
FERDINAND CRUZ v. MINA (2007) The offended party cannot question the granting of bail, the
The court reminds us that every person who criminally liable is role of the offended party is there just to ask for civil liability.
also civilly liable. Even if there is no claim in the complaint of The issue on bail is a criminal aspect, this is the duty of the
information for the civil liability, the civil action is deemed prosecution, the rules on bail govern. The question of granting
instituted under Rule 111, Section 1. of bail is but an aspect of criminal action preventing him from
eluding the action.
GOSIACO v. CHING (2009)
Ching was acquitted in the criminal case. Is a corporate office HEIRS OF SIMON v. ELVIN CHAN (2011)
who signed a bouncing check civilly liable? – only when When it comes to BP 22 cases, no independent civil action,
convicted. Since Ching was acquitted in the criminal case, no absolutely not even under Article 33 on fraud based on BP 22
civil liability. Can a corporation then be impleaded – no. because Rule 111, Section 1(b) is clear. If a civil action was filed
Section 1 of BP 22 requires that the accused must be first then it must be consolidated with the criminal case.
convicted so that civil liability can be done.
In BP 22 cases, the acquittal of the accused will mean CHUA v. EXECUTIVE JUDGE (2013)
that there is no civil liability. It is the corporation who Chua could not afford to pay at all once, so he asked if he could
really issues the check Ching only issues it in their pay on a per case basis other than payment of P540K, the clerk
behalf. stated that he cannot. The motion was denied for it would
contravene. Can he pay on a per case basis?
So what now is the remedy? He thought that he cannot file a
separate civil action, but the court ruled that nothing in the rule Yes. It did not say that it was indivisible obligation. Filing fees
prohibits reservation of separate civil action against the when requires are assessed, these pleadings refer to the
juridical person. Only concerned with the civil liability with the information in criminal cases. Each 40 count reflect the filing
signatory of the check. fees of 40 information. For each count represents a different
For the signatory, the basis is the wrongful act despite violation.
the insufficiency of the funds in the account;
For juridical body, the very obligation of the check or Consolidation refers to purposes of trial, consolidation does not
the consideration for its execution. transform the filing fees into one indivisible fee. There are still
40 counts of violation so 40 individual filing fees are to be paid.
Therefore, Gosiaco may pursue an independent civil action In BP 22, each and every check has to be proven, identified,
against ASB for the amount of the checks. there are really 40 different cases.
The corporation has a totally different civil liability, there is no DY v. PEOPLE (2016)
prohibition against filing a civil action against the corporation Gloria Dy is the general manger of a company, an information
for it is not deemed instituted in the case. was filed in Gloria Dy before RTC for allegedly misappropriating
the money intended for the payment of the loan, while RTC
CHENG v. SPOUSES SY (2009) acquitted but it ordered her to pay the amount of the check,
Rule 111 can apply those pending cases. The estafa were CA affirmed because it was merely based on reasonable doubt.
dismissed based on reasonable doubt, the liability can only be Was it correct for them to find civil liability.
civil. The court hold that civil liability for these BP22 cases
cannot be done. BP 22 cannot have separate civil action. No. The civil liability they are claiming here is civil liability ex
contractu, in here, all elements of estafa are not complete thus
The civil aspect is deemed instituted; the offended party must there is no delict. Therefore the civil liability is now ex contractu
be very careful, in BP 22 has to ask the court to rule the civil should now be recovered in a separate civil action.
liability in the criminal case itself. So ask the court to rule on
the civil aspect , then appeal the ruling of the civil aspect, that The action based on the contract is an independent civil action,
is the only way, otherwise it cannot operate. but here there is no crime done thus there is no civil liability ex
delicto.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 40
The rule is that every act or omission punishable by law has its If the criminal action is filed after said civil action has
accompanying civil liability. The civil aspect of every criminal already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in
case is based on the principle that every person criminally liable whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the
is also civilly liable. merits. The suspension shall last until final judgment is
rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before
judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, the
If the accused, however, is not found to be criminally liable, it same may, upon motion by the offended party, be
does not necessarily mean that he will not likewise be held consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying
civilly liable because extinction of the penal action does not the criminal action. In case of consolidation, the evidence
carry with it the extinction of the civil action. already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed
automatically reproduced in the criminal action without
prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine
This rule more specifically applies when:
the witness presented by the offended party in the
(a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only criminal case and of the parties to present additional
preponderance of evidence is required; evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil actions shall
(b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is be tried and decided jointly.
only civil; and
(c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or During the pendency of the criminal action, the running of
the period of prescription of the civil action which cannot
is not based upon the crime of which the accused was
be instituted separately or whose proceeding has been
acquitted. suspended shall be tolled.
The civil action based on the delict is extinguished if there is a The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the
finding in the final judgment in the criminal action that the act extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action
or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a
finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the
or where the accused did not commit the acts or omission
act or omission from which the civil liablity may arise did
imputed to him. not exist.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 41
General Rule General Rule: It does not cause the extinction of civil action.
A. The evidence already adduced in the civil action is deemed
automatically reproduced in
in the criminal action but: Exception: The civil action based on the delict shall
shall be deemed
1. The prosecution (should be defense) has the right to extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment that the act
cross-examine witness presented by the offended or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.
party in the criminal case, and
2. The parties are allowed to present evidence. Remedy of the Offended Party: He or she can still file a civil
case based on other sources of obligation.
B. Consolidated criminal and civil actions shall be tried jointly.
Commentary on Extinction
Exception What if the prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of
Civil action based on the delict shall
shall be deemed extinguished if beyond reasonable doubt the extinction of criminal action does
there is a finding in a final judgment that the act or omission not carry with the extinction of civil action.
from which the civil liablity my arise did not exist.
If the court says in the decision, that the act or omission where
Remedy of the Offended Party the civil liability came from did not exist – stating that there is
He or she can still file a civil case based on other sources of no crime. This is when the court must say that the act or
obligation. Article 1157 of the civil Code enumerates these omission that it did not exist.
other sources of obligation from which civil liability may arise If this is included in the decision then civil liability ex
as a result from same act or omission: delicto cannot be instituted separately.
a. Law
b. Contract Concept Questions
c. Quasi-Contract Q. Is the non-payment of docket fee a bar to the prosecution of
d. Quasi-Delicts the civil action?
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 42
HUN HYUNG PARK v. EUNG WON CHOI (2007) The conclusion of the CA that petitioner was acquitted not
Choi was charged with BP 22. Motion for Leave of Court to File because he did not commit the crime charged but because the
Demurrer to Evidence asserting failure to receive notice of RTC and the MTC could not ascertain with moral conviction the
dishonor. There was already a dismissal. wanton and reckless manner by which petitioner drove the bus
at the time of the accident. Put differently, petitioner was
So, what happens to the civil liability? The MTC did not bother, acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove his guilt
did Park avail the correct remedy? Yes, the proper procedure beyond reasonable doubt.
should be, if dismissal is based on demurrer; the court should
have continued the case, but the MTC did not do it. Thus, However, his civil liability for the death, injuries and damages
correctly appealed the MTC decision in failure to recognize the arising from the collision is another matter. While petitioner
civil liability. The RTC correctly remanded this case for the was absolved from criminal liability because his negligence was
determination of the civil liability. not proven beyond reasonable doubt, he can still be held civilly
liable if his negligence was established by preponderance of
When Park appealed, the RTC affirmed the MTC granting of evidence. In other words, the failure of the evidence to prove
demurrer and awarded to Park the 1.875M check value. Choi negligence with moral certainty does not negate (and is in fact
filed the MR (for he was not able to rebut); the RTC, instead of compatible with) a ruling that there was preponderant evidence
awarding, rightfully remanded. of such negligence. And that is sufficient to hold him civilly
liable.
ANTONIO CHIENG v. SANTOS (2007) ELIZALDE CO v. MUNOZ (2013)
What was filed was a violation of BP 22. For reasons of justice Three counts of libel and was acquitted. Co claims damages. he
and equity, we rule in favor of petitioner. At the threshold, the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 111 of the ROC applies to civil
following discussion merits equal attention. A mortgage- actions to claim civil liability arising from the offense charged,
creditor may, in the recovery of a debt secured by a real estate regardless if the action is instituted with or filed separately from
mortgage, institute against the mortgage-debtor either a the criminal action. Undoubtedly, Section 2, Rule 111 of the
personal action for debt or a real action to foreclose the ROC governs situations when the offended party opts to
mortgage. These remedies available to the mortgage-creditor institute the civil action separately from the criminal action;
are deemed alternative and not cumulative. An election of one hence, its title “When separate civil action is suspended.”
remedy operates as a waiver of the other. Despite this wording, the last paragraph, by its terms, governs
all claims for civil liability ex delicto. This is based on Article 100
The impliedly instituted civil action in Criminal Cases No. 612- of the RPC. This dual mode of enforcing civil liability ex delicto
90 to No. 615-90 for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was, does not affect its nature.
in effect, a collection suit or suit for the recovery of the
mortgage-debt since the dishonored checks involved in the In other words, it does not matter if waived, reserved or what
said criminal cases were issued by respondent Eulogio to not the rule is that the civil liability is not automatically
petitioner for the payment of the same loan secured by the extinguished. Even though, civil liability is deemed instituted,
Deed of Real Estate Mortgage. the court should continue with the civil aspect of the case
and not just totally dismiss it.
Hence, he was deemed to have already availed the remedy of
collection suit. Therefore, following the rule on the alternative CATERPILLAR v. SAMSON (2016)
remedy of mortgage-creditor, Antonio is barred from Civil Case No. Q-00-41446, the civil case filed by Caterpillar in
subsequently resorting to an action for foreclosure. the RTC in Quezon City, was for unfair competition , damages
and cancellation of trademark , while Criminal Cases Nos. Q-
SC: However, it should be stressed that respondents have not 02-108043-44 were the criminal prosecution of Samson for
yet fully paid the loan. In fact, respondents themselves unfair competition .
admitted that they still owe petitioner the balance of the loan.
To allow respondents to benefit from the loan without paying The civil case was filed first, thus, the civil case to be
its whole amount to petitioner, and to preclude the petitioner consolidated with the criminal case, the SC said no. It does not
from recovering the remaining balance of the loan, would mean they arose out of the unfair competition act or omission
constitute unjust enrichment at the expense of petitioner. of the civil action. A common element of all such cases for
unfair competition - civil and criminal - was fraud. Under Article
ROMERO v. PEOPLE (2009) 33 of the Civil Code, a civil action entirely separate and distinct
Romero was charged with the crime of reckless imprudence in from the criminal action may be brought by the injured party in
multiple homicide and multiple serious physical injuries with cases of fraud, and such civil action shall proceed
damage to property in the MTC. There was a head-on collision. independently of the criminal prosecution.
MTC acquitted Sonny Romero of the crime charged, however In view of its being an independent civil action, Civil Case No.
he was held civilly liable and was ordered to pay heirs so RTC Q-00-41446 did not operate as a prejudicial question that
and CA affirmed the decision. Romero argues why is he liable justified the suspension of the proceedings in Criminal Cases
for the civil liability. Nos. Q-02-108043-44.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 43
2. The court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding
heirs; the death of (the) accused, if the same may also be predicated
on a source of obligation other than delict.
3. The court shall forthwith order said legal representative to
appear and be substituted within a period of 30 days from Death of Mayor Comendador during the pendency of the case
notice; and could have extinguished the civil liability if the same arose
directly from the crime committed. However, in this case, the
4. A final judgment entered in favor of the offended party shall civil liability is based on another source of obligation, the law
be enforced in the manner especially provided in these rules for on human relations. Article 32(6) of the Civil Code on the
prosecuting claims against the estate of the d eceased. deprivation of property without due process of law.
Death During Pendency of the Appeal In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the
The following are the effects of death of the accused while his defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the
appeal is pending: aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such
extinguishes criminal liability as well as the civil liability civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal
ex delicto. prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and may be proved by
2. The claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the a preponderance of evidence.
death of the accused if the liability are predicated on
other sources other than the delict. PEOPLE v. LIPATA (2016)
3. Where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery Gerry Lipata was charged with Murder, before SC can render
thereof may be pursued by filing a separate civil action judgment Gerry Lipata died. It was also based on quasi-delict
which may be enforced either against the executor or because the heirs of victim did not file any civil action based on
administrator of the estate of the accused. the quasi-delict. This rule is totally unjust, for similar cases in
the future, we refer for study for revision for resolution of such
GO v. LOOYUKO (2007) cases which objective of indemnifying the heirs. This rule of
Respondent Looyuko died on October 29, 2004. It is an extinguishes ex delicto liability is unfair.
established principle that the death of the accused pending
final adjudication of the criminal case extinguishes the However, for similar cases in the future, we refer to the
accused’s criminal liability. If the civil li ability directly arose from Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court for study and
and is based solely on the offense committed, then the civil recommendation to the Court En Banc appropriate
liability is also extinguished.53 amendments to the Rules for a speedy and inexpensive
resolution of such similar cases with the objective of
In the case at bar, the civil liability for the recovery of the CBC indemnifying the private offended party or his heirs in cases
stock certificates covering 41,376 shares of stock or their value where an accused dies after conviction by the trial court but
does not directly result from or based solely on the crime of pending appeal.
estafa but on an agreement or arrangement between the
parties that petitioner Go would endorse in blank said stock Court declared that our law recognizes that an acquittal based
certificates and give said certificates to respondent Looyuko in on reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused does not
trust for petitioner for said respondent to sell the stocks exempt the accused from civil liability ex delicto which may be
covered by the certificates. In such a case, the civil liability proved by preponderance of evidence.
survives and an action for recovery therefor in a separate civil
action can be instituted either against the executor or If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon
administrator or the estate of the accused. reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of
any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text
ASILO v. PEOPLE (2011) of the decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that
We note, first off, that the death of Angeles and of Mayor ground.
Comendador during the pendency of the case extinguished
their criminal liabilities. The old rule that the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case
also releases him from civil liability is one of the most serious
Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction flaws in the Philippine legal system. It has given rise to
extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability numberless instances of miscarriage of justice, where the
based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this acquittal was due to a reasonable doubt in the mind of the
regard, "the death of the accused prior to final judgment court as to the guilt of the accused.
terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly
arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., The reasoning followed is that inasmuch as the civil
civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore." responsibility is derived from the criminal offense, when the
latter is not proved, civil liability cannot be demanded.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 45
But for the purpose of indemnifying the complaining party, why (3) In the court where the criminal case is pending (at any
should the offense also be proved beyond reasonable doubt? time before the prosecution rests).
Is not the invasion or violation of every private right to be
proved only by a preponderance of evidence? Is the right of the NOTE: Under the rules, the suspension may be made only upon
aggrieved person any less private because the wrongful act is the petition and not at the instance of the judge alone, and it
also punishable by the criminal law? also says suspension not dismissal of the case.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 46
Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or OMICTIN v. CA (2007)
voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a n sum, the main issue is whether or not a prejudicial question
judicial proceeding. Even if Salvador eventually obtained a exists to warrant the suspension of the criminal proceedings
declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio, the point pending the resolution of the intra-corporate controversy that
is both the first and second marriage were subsisting before the was originally filed with the SEC.
first marriage was annulled (Abunado v. People, 2004).
A prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a case,
Declaration of Nullity (civil) and Concubinage (criminal) the resolution of which a logical antecedent of the issue is
Does a pending action for declaration for nullity of marriage involved therein and the cognizance of which pertains to
filed by the accused against his wife pose a prejudicial question another tribunal.14 Here, the case which was lodged originally
to the charge of concubinage filed by his wife against him? before the SEC and which is now pending before the RTC of
Mandaluyong City by virtue of Republic Act No. 8799 involves
No. Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge facts that are intimately related to those upon which the
for themselves that it was a nullity, for the same must be criminal prosecution is based.
submitted to judgment of the competent courts and only when
the nullity of marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and Logically, under the circumstances, since the alleged offended
so long as there is no such declaration the presumption is that party is Saag Phils., Inc., the validity of the demand for the
the marriage exists for all intent and purposes. delivery of the subject vehicles rests upon the authority of the
person making such a demand on the company’s behalf.
Therefore, he who cohabits with a woman not his wife before Private respondent is challenging petitioner’s authority to act
the judicial declaration of nullity of marriage assumes the risk for Saag Phils., Inc. in the corporate case pending before the
of being prosecuted for concubinage. RTC of Mandaluyong, Branch 214.
The pendency of a civil action for nullity of marriage does not Taken in this light, if the supposed authority of petitioner is
pose a prejudicial question in a criminal case for concubinage. found to be defective, it is as if no demand was ever made,
hence, the prosecution for estafa cannot prosper. Moreover,
Other examples without prejudicial question: the mere failure to return the thing received for safekeeping or
Civil action related to unfair competition on commission, or for administration, or under any other
Civil action for annulment of sale on ground of fraud obligation involving the duty to deliver or to return the same
and BP 22 case. or deliver the value thereof to the owner could only give rise to
a civil action and does not constitute the crime of estafa.
Consing v. People:
A prejudicial question does not exist if the civil action is an This is because the crime is committed by misappropriating or
independent civil action, there is no prejudicial question for it converting money or goods received by the offender under a
can proceed independently from the criminal action. lawful transaction.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 47
It is evident that the result of the civil case will determine the
innocence or guilt of the petitioner in the criminal cases for
falsification of public documents.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 48
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 49
There was no PC as found by the SOJ, who has the last say in Other Officers Authorized by Law
the determination of the PC. (a) Authority of the Ombudsman
The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct
PI and to prosecute all criminal cases involving public
The following may conduct preliminary officers and employees, not only within jurisdiction of
investigations: the SB but also those of regular courts.
(a) Provincial or City Prosecutor and their assistants;
(b) National and Regional State Prosecutors;
(c) Other officers as may be authorized by law. This is founded in Section 15 and 11 of RA 6770 which
vests the Ombudsman with the power to investigate
Their authority to conduct preliminary investigations shall and prosecute any act or omission of any public officer
include all crimes cognizable by the proper court in their or employee, office or agency, when such act or
respective territorial jurisdiction (As amended by AM No omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
05-08-26-SC, August 30, 2005). inefficient (Uy v. Sandiganbayan – PLENARY AND
UNQUALIFIED).
Authority to Conduct Preliminary Investigation
(b) Authority of the Special Prosecutor
Who may conduct Preliminary Investigation? It is merely a component of the Office of the
(a) Provincial and City Prosecutors and theirs assistants; Ombudsman and may only act under the supervision
(b) National and Regional State prosecutors; and and control and upon the authority of Ombudsman.
(c) Other officers as may be authorized by law. Its power to conduct PI and prosecute is limited to
criminal cases within the jurisdiction of SB.
Extent of their authority to conduct PI
It shall extend to all crimes cognizable by the proper court in (c) Commission on Elections
their respective territorial jurisdictions. COMELEC has the exclusive authority to conduct PI
and prosecute all election offenses under BP 881 but
this is qualified however.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 50
SANTIAGO TURINGAN v. JUDGE GARFIN (2007) SHARON CASTRO v. JUDGE DELORIA (2009)
Moved for quash that state prosecutor Tolentino lacked the There was a 1999 ruling that OMB can only prosecute SB cases
authority to sign it. Did state prosecutor had authority to file but on 2001 it reversed itself saying that the OMB can now
the information of violation of RA 8282. For there was no prosecute cases. It is settled, therefore, that the March 20, 2001
directive citing him as private prosecutor. U Resolution in Uy, that the Ombudsman has prosecutorial
powers in cases cognizable by the RTC, extends even to criminal
Under SSS Law, there are criminal acts, like when the employer information filed or pending at the time when its August 9,
collects and does not remit. Apparently, who is authorized who 1999 Decision was the operative ruling on the issue.
are authorized to conduct PI under SSS Law?
It is settled, therefore, that the March 20, 2001 Resolution in Uy,
The SOJ or the Provincial or City Prosecutor must have a written that the Ombudsman has prosecutorial powers in cases
authority to authorize a particular prosecutor to investigate. cognizable by the RTC, extends even to criminal information
Here the information was signed by Prosecutor Tolentino, filed or pending at the time when its August 9, 1999 Decision
according to him that he was clothed with authority to was the operative ruling on the issue.
investigate and file for he was designated for SSS cases.
RODOLFO MAGO v. JUDGE FERMO (2009)
SC said here that he does not, for it is enough to cite Regional Prior to the amendment on October 3, 2005 of Rules 112 and
Order for it was not the authority contemplated for it was just 114 of the Rules of Court via A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, Re:
a circular or memorandum. Without such authority, he cannot Amendment of Rules 112 and 114 of the Revised Rules on
file. Here it was only Tolentino who investigated and who Criminal Procedure by Removing the Conduct of Preliminary
signed, SC said that it is unauthorized. An unauthorized Investigation from Judges of the First Level Courts, judges of
information has a jurisdictional defect. municipal trial courts were empowered to conduct preliminary
investigations in which they exercised discretion in determining
MARINA SCHROEDER v. SALDEVAR (2007) whether there was probable cause to hale the respondent into
There is a direct bribery which
which is under the Sandiganbayan Law. court. Such being the case, they could not delegate the
It was proper for the Ombudsman to conduct preliminary discretion to another.
investigation. Here, the OMB power to investigate and to
prosecute is plenary and unqualified. It means to pertains to An officer to whom a discretion is entrusted cannot delegate it
any act or omission of the public officer. to another, the presumption being that he was chosen because
he was deemed fit and competent to exercise that judgment
PAYAKAN TILENDO v. OMBUDSMAN (2007) and discretion, and unless the power to substitute another in
Tilendo was charged with RA 3019. There was an NBI fact his place has been given to him, he cannot delegate his duties
finding team. By referring the complaint to the NBI, the OMB to another.
did not delegate the conduct of PI. The fact finding
investigation which was preparatory before the PI. The options In those cases in which the proper execution of the office
available are five. It is the OMB who conduct investigation and requires on the part of the officer, the exercise of judgment or
not the NBI, it only conducts fact-finding. discretion, the presumption is that he was chosen because he
was deemed fit and competent to exercise that judgment and
Rule II, Section 3 of AO 7 discretion, and, unless power to substitute another in his place
Preliminary investigation; who may conduct. Preliminary has been given to him, he cannot delegate his duties to
Investigation may be conducted by any of the following: another.
1. Ombudsman Investigators;
2. Special Prosecuting Officers; Then, as now, a personal examination of the complainant in a
3. Deputized Prosecutors; criminal case and his witness/es was required. Thus, under
4. Investigating Officials authorized by law to conduct Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court before its
preliminary investigations, or amendment, the investigating fiscal was required to certify
5. Lawyers in the government service, so designated by under oath that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized
the Ombudsman. officer, has personally examined the complainant and his
witnesses . . .
We already know that the OMB is the investigating body of the
public officers, but we also know the authority of the OMB to By respondents delegation of the examination of the sheriff-
investigate crimes committed by public officers which is plenary complainant in the grave threats case to the stenographer, and
and unqualified. worse, by allowing the witnesses to read/study the [written]
question[s] to be propounded to them and to write their
If the prosecutor does not find a probable cause he has to get answers [thereto] upon respondents justification that the
the authority of the OMB for authority to dismiss or if there is scheme was for the convenience of the stenographers,
PC he must get the prior authority of the OMB in order to file respondent betrayed her lack of knowledge of procedure,
the case in such. thereby contributing to the erosion of public confidence in the
judicial system.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 51
SPOUSES CHUA v. ANG (2009) Within ten (10) days from the receipt
recei pt of the subpoena
Contended that HLURB shout take jurisdiction of the case. Is with the complaint and supporting affidavits and
the dismissal is correct? No. Even though HLURB have JD under documents, the respondent shall submit his counter-
affidavit and that of his witnesses and other supporting
PD 957. Here in the decree there are two remedies between an
documents relied upon for his defense. The counter-
administrative or criminal with differing consequences. affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to and certified
as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, with copies
Spouses Chua pursued criminal case. The special law has to thereof furnished by him to the complainant. The
authorize officer to conduct, if there is none, then those how respondent shall not be allowed to file a motion to
are empowered under Rule 112, Section 2. There are cases dismiss in lieu of a counter-affidavit.
under PD 957, administrative case be filed to HLURB where to
If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if
have quasi-judicial powers and authority to impose fines. In subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within
criminal cases, the investigation be made by those under Rule the ten (10) day period, the investigating officer shall
112, Section 2. resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented
by the complainant.
BP 881
The investigating officer may set a hearing if there are
This is another kind of special law which gives the COMELEC
facts and issues to be clarified from a party or a witness.
the power to conduct PI for crimes committed under the OEC The parties can be present at the hearing but without
and the question here, does the COMELEC has exclusive the right to examine or cross-examine. They may,
authority to conduct. however, submit to the investigating officer questions
which may be asked to the party or witness concerned.
Yes, but this is qualified but the prosecutors are given
The hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from the
automatic authority to them to investigate crimes committed
submission of the counter-affidavits and other
under BP 881. Such authority may be revoked anytime, documents or from the expiration of the period for their
whenever necessary. submission. It shall be terminated within five (5) days.
Continuing authority given to prosecutors until such
authority. Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the
investigating officer shall determine whether or not
there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for
The Preliminary Investigation
trial.
shall be conducted in the following manner:
The complaint shall state the address of the respondent Procedure as to the Complainant
and shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the 1. He or she shall file the complaint to the office of the
complainant and his witnesses, as well as other prosecutor.
supporting documents to establish probable cause.
They shall be in such number of copies as there are
2. The complaint shall:
respondents, plus two (2) copies for the official file. The a. State the address of the respondent
affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to before any b. Be accompanied by:
prosecutor or government official authorized to i. Affidavits (subscribed, sworn to and certified)
administer oath, or in their absence or unavailability, of the complainant and his witnesses; and
before a notary public, each of whom must certify that ii. Other supporting documents to establish
he personally examined the affiants and that he is
probable cause.
satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood
their affidavits. 3. Number of copes for the complaint:
a. As many as there are respondents, plus
Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint,
complaint, the
the b. Two (2) copies for the official file.
investigating officer shall either dismiss it if he finds no
ground to continue with the investigation, or issue a Procedure as to the Investigating Officer
subpoena to the respondent attaching to it a copy of the
complaint and its supporting affidavits and documents.
1. He/she has ten (10) days, after the filing of the complaint
either to:
The respondent shall have the right to examine the a. Dismiss it – if he finds no ground to continue with the
evidence submitted by the complainant which he may investigation, or
not have been furnished and to copy them at his b. Issue a subpoena to the respondent , attaching to the
expense. If the evidence is voluminous, the subpoena:
complainant may be required to specify those which he
intends to present against the respondent, and these
i. A copy of the complaint, and
shall be made available for examination or copying by ii. Its supporting affidavits and documents
the respondent at his expense.
2. He/she shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence
Objects as evidence need not be furnished a party but presented by the complainant, if the r espondent:
shall be made available for examination, copying, or a. Cannot be subpoenaed, or
photographing
photographing at the expense of the requesting party.
b. Is subpoenaed, but does not submit counter-
affidavits within the ten (10) day period.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 52
3. He/she may set
set a hearing if there are facts and issues to Failure to Receive Subpoena, Effects
be clarified from a party or a witness. Section 3(d) of Rule 112 provides that if the respondent cannot
a. The parties (complainant and respondent): be subpoenaed the investigating officer shall base his
i. Can be present at the hearing, resolution on the evidence presented by the complainant. The
ii. Have no right to examine or cross- rules does not require as condition sine qua non to validity
examine, but of the proceedings in the PI as long as efforts were made.
iii. May submit to the investigating officer
questions which may be asked to the party SOCRATES v. SANDIGANBAYAN
or witness concerned. In asserting that there was a violation of his right to a speedy
trial by reason of the unreasonable delay of six (6) years
b. The hearing shall be: between the conduct of the preliminary investigation and the
i. Held within ten (10) days: filing of the informations, petitioner invokes the doctrine laid
1. From the submission of the down in the leading case of Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.
counter-affidavits and other
documents, or In said case, all the affidavits and counter-affidavits had already
2. From the expiration of the period been filed with the Tanodbayan for final disposition as of
for their submission. October 25, 1982 but it was only on June 12, 1985, or three (3)
ii. Terminated within five (5) days. years thereafter, that the informations accusing Tatad of a
violation of Republic Act No. 3019 were filed before the
4. Within ten (10) days after the investigation, he/she shall Sandiganbayan.
determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold
the respondent for trial. The Court held there that an inordinate delay of three (3) years
in the conduct and termination of the preliminary investigation
Investigation refers to the investigation of documents. He is violative of the constitutional rights of the accused to due
cannot dismiss it on his own he must get the consent of the process and speedy disposition of his case, by reason of which
City Prosecutor or the Ombudsman. the informations filed against the accused therein were ordered
dismissed.
Procedure as to the Respondent
1. With respect to the documentary evidence submitted by It must be emphasized, however, that in the Tatad case, no
the complainant, he/she shall have the right to: explanation or ratiocination was advanced by the prosecution
a. Examine the evidence which he may not have been therein as to the cause of the delay. In the present case, as
furnished; distinguished from the factual milieu obtaining in Tatad,
b. To copy them at his expense; and respondent court found that the six-year delay in the
c. To require the complainant to specify those which termination of the preliminary investigation was caused by
he intends to present against the respondent, if the petitioners own acts. Even though the prosecutors take some
evidence is voluminous. time the respondent must object to the delay, you cannot
right away file to the violation of speedy disposition, make
2. With respect to object evidence known your issue. More or less the minimum is 45 days.
a. They need not be furnished to the respondent.
b. They shall be made available for examination, PEOPLE v. EMILIANO ANONAS (2007)
copying or photographing at his/her expense. SPO4 was charged for illegal possession of drugs and firearms.
The court ordered a reinvestigation, and failed to inform the
3. Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with the succeeding prosecutor the ongoing prosecution.
complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, he/she
shall submit: Issue: Whether or not the delay of 4 years is a violation.
a. Counter-affidavits (subscribed, sworn and certified)
of himself and that of his witnesses; Yes. It invoked Section 3(f) of Rule 112. It was found out that it
b. Other supporting documents relied upon for his/her took more than 4 years before the prosecution made a decision
defense. to hold a trial.
4. He/she shall not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in BENJAMIN MARTINEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS (2007)
lieu of a counter-affidavit. Issue: Was there compliance with the requirements set forth in
Section 3, Rule 112? YES.
In criminal cases, upon receipt of the complaint the
respondent must file a counter-affidavit , so that is the Initially defective for complaint was not accompanied by the
procedure under Section 3. required affidavits and document because of this, MCTC had
the option of either:
1) Order SPO1 Sulatre to comply with the rule
2) Dismiss the complaint
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 53
But what it did was that it opted not to act on the complaint Indubitably, there was no preliminary investigation conducted
until SPO1 Sulatre was able to submit the required affidavits as required by the rules since no subpoena was issued to herein
and documents – and he indeed submitted such. complainants for them to file counter-affidavits.
Which prompted MCTC to issue a subpoena to
Martinez attached the submitted affidavits and The inordinate haste attending the issuance of the warrants of
documents by SPO1 Sulatre. arrest against complainants, Ernesto Cruz, and Gus Abelgas
belies the conduct of preliminary examination and personal
In addition, Moreover, Martinez submitted his counter-affidavit determination of probable cause, in contravention of the
without any protest. Neither did he assail the validity of the provisions of the Rules of Court, and constituting a denial of
criminal complaint or the tardy submission by SPO1 Sulatre of due process.
the medical certificate, the affidavit of Dean and the affidavit of
arrest of SPO1 Sulatre. Aside from this, Martinez was arraigned NOTE: This is why the power of PI is removed from the judges,
in the RTC, assisted by counsel, and entered a plea of not guilty. the one who issues warrant is the judge where the information
Thus, Sulatre complied with Section 3(a) and (b) of Rule 112. is filed, definitely the judge did not follow proper procedure,
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 54
CALLO-CLARIDAD v. ESTEBAN (2013) extension of time within which to file her counter-affidavit, she
The affidavits were unsworn. The statements subscribed and very well knew that the documents she was asking were not in
sworn to before the officers of the Philippine National Police the record of the case. Obviously, she was not furnished those
(PNP) having the authority to administer oaths upon matters documents because they were not submitted to the Joint
connected with the performance of their official duties Committee. Logically, she has no right to examine said
undeniably lacked the requisite certifications to the effect that documents. We cannot, therefore, fault the Joint Committee in
such administering officers had personally examined the consequently denying her motion for extension to file counter-
affiants, and that such administering officers were satisfied that affidavit as there was no compelling justification for the non-
the affiants had voluntarily executed and understood their observance of the period she was earlier required to follow.
affidavits.
In other words, the time given to the respondent to file her
It can be inferred that the rationale for requiring the affidavits counter-affidavit IS TEN DAYS – THIS IS A MANDATORY. This
of witnesses to be sworn to before a competent officer so as to exception, in the 2008 Revised Manual for Prosecutors,
ensure that the affidavits supporting the factual allegations in investigating prosecutors allow or grant motions or requests
the Complaint have been sworn before a competent officer and for extension of time to submit counter-affidavits when the
that the affiant has signed the same in the former’s presence interest of justice demands that respondent be given
declaring on oath the truth of the statement made considering reasonable time or sufficient opportunity to engage the
that this becomes part of the bases in finding probable guilt services of counsel; examine voluminous records submitted in
against the respondent. support of the complaint or undertake research on novel,
complicated or technical questions or issues of law and facts of
The lack of the requisite certifications from the affidavits of the case.
most of the other witnesses was in violation of Section 3, Rule
112 of the Rules of Court, which pertinently provides. Not in the case of GMA, she access to lawyers, this does not
apply to her. What she was asking for was not there in the
In the case at bar, a perusal of the statements/affidavits records submitted there in support of the complaint.
accompanying the complaint shows that out of the total of 16
statements/affidavits corresponding to the respective JINGGOY ESTRADA v. BERSAMIN (2015)
witnesses, only nine (9) thereof were sworn to before a OMB served upon Estrada a copy of the complaint praying for
competent officer. The effect of the unsworn affidavit is that the conduct of criminal proceedings for Plunder. Sen. Estrada
they are inadmissible, they are stricken off but it does not filed his counter-affidavit. He requested the counter-affidavits
make the preliminary investigation void. copies of his co-respondents.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 55
evidence on record" does not stand alone, but should be read Under the provision, the conduct of a clarificatory hearing is not
in relation to the provisions of Section 4(a and b) of the same indispensable; rather, it is optional on the part of the
Rule II requiring the investigating officer to furnish the investigating prosecutor as evidenced by the use of the term
respondent with the "affidavits and other supporting "may."
documents" submitted by "the complainant or supporting
witnesses." Thus, a respondent’s "access to evidence on record" That hearing fulfills only the p urpose of aiding the investigating
in Section 4(c), Rule II of the Ombudsman’s Rules of Procedure prosecutor in determining the existence of probable cause for
refers to the affidavits and supporting documents of "the the filing of a criminal complaint before the courts. The
complainant or supporting witnesses" in Section 4(a) of the clarificatory hearing does not accord validity to the preliminary
same Rule II. investigation by the prosecutor, nor does its absence render the
proceedings void.
Third, Section 3(b), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure provides that "[t]he respondent shall have the right Necessarily, the failure of Ong and Santiago to appear at the
to examine the evidence submitted by the complainant which scheduled clarificatory hearing might have caused some slight
he may not have been furnished and to copy them at his inconvenience to the investigating prosecutor, but it did not
expense." A respondent’s right to examine refers only to "the result in the exclusion of the affidavits or counter-affidavits
evidence submitted by the complainant." already submitted by the parties.
Thus, whether under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal In fact, under the rules, an investigating prosecutor may resolve
Procedure or under Rule II of the Ombudsman’s Rules of a complaint based only on the evidence presented by the
Procedure, there is no requirement whatsoever that the complainant if the respondent cannot be subpoenaed or, if
affidavits executed by the co-respondents should be furnished subpoenaed, does not submit a counter-affidavit within the
to a respondent. prescribed period.
No Right to Cross-Examine The panel's act of resolving the complaint against petitioners
This Court has unequivocally ruled in Paderanga that "Section and Ong primarily on the basis of Doble's evidence, and in spite
3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly of the timely submission of the counter-affidavits, was clearly
provides that the respondent shall only have the right to submit committed with grave abuse of discretion.
a counter-affidavit, to examine all other evidence submitted by
the complainant and, where the fiscal sets a hearing to NOTE: If the affidavits complied with the rules, they cannot be
propound clarificatory questions to the parties or their excluded, a clarificatory hearing is not mandatory, the
witnesses, to be afforded an opportunity to be present but failure to appear does not render those affidavits non-
without the right to examine or cross-examine." admissible. Clearly, the panel did not follow rules, they did not
consider the side of the respondent.
Moreover, Section 4 (a, b and c) of Rule II of the Ombudsman’s
Rule of Procedure, read together, only require the investigating COMMENTARY: So we have the investigating prosecutor and
officer to furnish the respondent with copies of the affidavits of did PI and found PC to hold respondent for trial, what are the
the complainant and his supporting witnesses.1âwphi1 There is respondents to take? He has prepare the resolution and
no law or rule requiring the investigating officer to furnish the information. Resolution means that the investigation
respondent with copies of the affidavits of his co-respondents. prosecutor found probable cause and recommends
information, if it was Information he cannot sign unless he is
FELIX v. CA (2016) the one authorized.
As aptly pointed out by the RTC, there was no justification for
the rejection of the counter-affidavits upon the failure to Next, he shall certify under oath the information that he or as
subscribe and swear to them before the panel. shown of the record, an authorized officer has personally
examined the complainant and his witnesses (either in the
Under Section 3(a) and (c), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, swearing or in the clarificatory hearing), and there is probable
counter-affidavits may be subscribed and sworn to before any cause, he should certify four things or statements.
prosecutor or government official authorized to administer
oaths or, in their absence or unavailability, before any notary The information and resolution are already ready, he shall
public. forward the record to the case within 5 days to the superior
depending either City/Provincial Prosecutor or Ombudsman.
Notably, the counter-affidavits of Ong and Santiago, the
recantation of Santos, and the affidavit of Bishop Bacani were What if no probable cause, he will recommend dismissal the
all subscribed and sworn to before government prosecutors. resolution now is a Recommendation to Dismiss and forward
to the superior, anything he decided will be forwarded to the
Also, the failure of Ong and Santiago to appear before the superior. Superior now has the recommendation he has to act
panel did not justify the exclusion of their duly submitted to approve or not and immediately inform the parties (review).
counter-affidavits and annexes.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 56
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 57
Yes. Notwithstanding the absence in the information of a Remedy in Cases of Dismissal by the DOJ Secretary
certification as to the holding of a preliminary investigation, the If his motion for reconsideration is denied by the SOJ, since
information is nonetheless considered valid for the reason that there is no more appeal or other remedy available in the
such certification is not an essential part of the information ordinary course of law, the procedure to file a petition for
itself and its absence cannot vitiate it as such ( Alvios v. certiorari with the CA on the ground of grave abuse of
Sandiganbayan, 220 SCRA 55). discretion under Rule 65 (Filadams v. CA, 426 SCRA 460).
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 58
In resolving the motion, the court should not rely solely and WEBB v. DE LEON
merely on the findings of the public prosecutor or the SOJ that On June 1994, NBI filed with DOJ charging Webb with Rape
no crime was committed or that the evidence in the possession with homicide. A panel of prosecutors was formed by the DOJ
of the public prosecutor is insufficient to support a judgment to conduct PI this panel was headed by ACSP Zuno. During PI
of conviction of the accused. claimed because he was in US and return only in PH i n 1992.
The trial court should make an independent assessment of the Finding probable cause to hold respondents for trial
merits of the case based on affidavits and counter-affidavits, recommending that an Information for rape and homicide be
documents or evidence appended to the Information; or any filed with Webb et al. Webb assails a premature the filing of the
evidence already adduced before the court by the accused at Information because they still have the right to appeal the
the time motion is filed by the public prosecutor. adverse resolution of DOJ Panel to the SOJ. Was it premature
due to inability to appeal?
Exceptions to the Non-Interference of Courts
While as a general policy, courts should not interfere in the No. Basis of Filing is DOJ Order 223, an appeal or MR shall not
conduct of preliminary investigation, leaving the investigating hold the filing of the information in court, so if there is a motion
officers sufficient discretion to determine probable cause. What it will not bar the filing. DOJ Order No. 223 allows the filing
are the exceptions? In the case of Filadams Pharma v. CA: of the information even if the accused can still exercise the right
1. When necessary to afford adequate protection to the to seek a review of prosecution recommendation.
constitutional rights of the accused;
2. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice After PC is found, the Information is filed. Now, the accused can
or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; appeal to the SOJ the finding of PC under Section 4, but the
3. Where there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice; Information will not be held in abeyance, both information
4. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of and appeal can both proceed simultaneously.
authority;
5. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance DUMLAO v. JUDGE PONFERRADA
or regulation; In 1995 7 were murdered the witnesses identified Flores et al
6. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent; and Atty. Tamargo and Modina gave orders. After PI there was
7. Where the court has no j urisdiction over the offense; PC found by State Prosecutor charged with multiple murder.
8. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; Flores filed a review with DOJ – reversed Prosecutor and
9. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by directed withdrawal of the said Information. A motion to
the lust for vengeance; and withdraw were filed with RTC Manila.
10. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the
accused and a motion to quash has been denied. Later Judge Ponferrada granted the motion and dismissed the
cases of Flores. Flores argues that SOJ cannot review the
Remedies Against Refusal to File resolution of the public prosecutor after the cases had been
What are remedies of offended party in cases where filed in court. Can the SOJ review after the such Informations
government prosecutor unjustifiably refuses to file information were filed in court?
against a person who appears to be responsible for a crime?
Yes. RA 5180 the SOJ is vested with the power to review
Where the government prosecutor unreasonably refuses to file resolution of the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor. The
an information or to include a person as an accused therein filing of an information does not prevent SOJ from ordering the
despite the fact that the evidence clearly warrants such action, exercise review power. In Crespo
withdrawal of the case and to exercise
the offended party has the following remedies: v. Mogul, while the SOJ can alter the findings, he cannot review
the findings. He can MOVE FOR DISMISSAL.
1. In case of grave abuse of discretion, he may file an
action for mandamus to compel the prosecutor to file NOTE: Can an appeal be made to the SOJ even if the
such an information; information is filed in court? Yes. When the SOJ reverses the
2. He may lodge a new complaint against the offenders resolution of the prosecutor but the information was filed, the
before the Ombudsman and have a new examination SOJ cannot order withdrawal he can only direct prosecutor
conducted as required by law; to file for a motion to dismiss, the court has to make its own
3. He may institute administrative charges against the decision whether to dismiss or not.
erring prosecutor, or a criminal complaint under
Article 208 of RPC or a civil action of damages Art. 27 FIRST WOMEN CREDIT CORP v. BAYBAY
of the Civil Code. Inv Pros found PC – CP approved but DOJ moved for withdrwal
4. He may secure the appointment of another of the information. While this was happening, the Jacinto filed
prosecutor; or a motion to withdraw because of the DOJ motion, here Judge
5. He may institute another criminal action if no double Baybay dismissed the criminal cases. Should the court make an
jeopardy is involved. independent assessment? Yes.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 59
While the SOJ is persuasive it is not binding to the courts. Court determination whether or not there is probable cause to hold
emphasized that Judge Baybay need not make a lengthy the accused for trial.
explanation.
NOTE: The CPO filed a Motion to Withdraw on October 23 and
NOTE: Here we have the SOJ ordering Pros to move to dismiss the judge granted the motion on October 24. How can he study
the court judge however has to make an independent all of these voluminous documents, the judge could not have
judgment. The judge can either
either grant deny, in here the motion read the whole thing in the whole.
of judgment – it does not matter if the resolution is short as
long as he made his independent assessment. It suffices upon This failure of Judge Eugenio to independently evaluate and
his personal evaluation he is convinced there is no probable assess the merits of the case against the accused violates the
cause to indict the accused. complainants right to due process and constitutes grave
abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction
AMANDA CRUZ v. WILFREDO CRUZ (2007)
In 1996 the ACP recommended the dismissal of the complaint, SORIANO v. MARCELO (2009)
sustained by the CCP and then the CSP and SOJ. The CA Resolution was forwarded to ACP – meanwhile Palad filed a
directed SOJ to file an information. And here comes the CA motion to reopen the case for she was not given a copy of the
ordering the SOJ to file the information. Is that correct? Crespo subpoena. Dimagiba recommended the reopening of the case.
v. Mogul – separation doctrine. March 26, 2002 Balasbas issued a subpoena. The reopening of
the case prompted Soriano to file with OMB. Soriano alleged
TOLENTINO v. JUDGE PAQUEO (2007) that Palad received an unwarranted advantage. Graft
Failure to remit SSS despite demand, during arraignment Investigation Office dismissed. Was the dismissal proper?
moved for the deferment of the arraignment and moved for
quash was granted by the court. The S tate prosecutor opposed Although Balasbas initially recommended filing of a criminal
the motion to quash. Whether or not the complaint or case against Palad, this recommendation was still subject to the
information by SP Tolentino has prior written authority or approval of his superiors, Dimagiba and the City Prosecutor.
approval. The quashal was because there no prior written Balasbas, as investigating prosecutor, had no power or control
authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor. over the final disposition of Palads motion to reopen the case.
Who are authorized to approve? Conducting a preliminary investigation for the purpose of
Who gave the prior authority? – Regional State Prosecutor he determining whether there exists probable cause to prosecute
is not included in this list, there is still no proper approval. He a person for the commission of a crime, including the
must get the approval of the Chief State Prosecutor. determination of whether to conclude, reopen or dismiss the
criminal complaint subject of the preliminary investigation, is a
SUMMERVILLE v. EUGENIO (2007) matter that rests within the sound discretion of the provincial
Kho et al raised CPO finding to SOJ – which affirmed the CPO. or city prosecutor.
Whether or not judge is bound to adopt the SOJ finding. This
is because once a complaint or information has been filed in NOTE: Can an investigating prosecutor reopen a case, after he
court, any disposition of the case rests in the sound discretion has already submitted resolution recommending the filing of
of the court. an information? When the City Prosecutor directed him to allow
the respondent to allow him to file the counter-affidavit under
[T]he trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Section 3. The superior here has the jurisdiction. This is
Secretary of Justice since it is mandated to independently favorable to the accused.
evaluate or assess the merits of the case and it may either agree Although there was a repeat of the PI and
or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of unfortunately the resolution was dismissal.
Justice. Reliance alone on the resolution of the Secretary of The investigation prosecutor cannot be blamed for he
Justice would be an abdication of the trial courts duty and just followed the orders of prosecutor.
jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case.
LEE v. KBC BANK (2010)
In this case, it can be readily seen from the October 24, 2001 State prosecutor recommended that the two counts of estafa
Order of Judge Eugenio, granting the withdrawal of the be filed. SOJ directed Prosecutor to move for dismiss.
Information, that the trial court glaringly failed to conduct its Considering that the trial court has the power and duty to look
own determination of a prima facie case, and simply adopted into the propriety of the prosecution’s motion to dismiss, with
the September 28, 2001 Resolution issued by the Secretary of much more reason is it for the trial court to evaluate and to
Justice. Where the prosecution is, as in this case, make its own appreciation and conclusion, whether the
disappointingly unsure, irresolute, and uncertain on whether it modification of the charges and the dropping of one of the
should prosecute the accused, the court should have been most accused in the information, as recommended by the Justice
circumspect and judicious in the resolution of the Motion to Secretary, is substantiated by evidence.
Withdraw Information, and should have conducted its own
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 60
This should be the state of affairs, since the disposition of the Yes. If upon petition by a proper party under such rules as the
case — such as its continuation or dismissal or exclusion of an Department of Justice may prescribe or motu proprio, the
accused — is reposed in the sound discretion of the trial court. Secretary of Justice reverses or modifies the resolution of the
provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, he shall
In the present case, Judge Dumayas, in his 26 March 2003 direct the prosecutor concerned either to file the
Order, did not (1) positively state that the evidence against Lee corresponding information without conducting another
and Lim is insufficient, (2) include a discussion of the merits of preliminary investigation, or to dismiss or move for dismissal of
the case, (3) assess whether Secretary Perez’s conclusion is the complaint or information with notice to the parties. The
supported by evidence, (4) look at the basis of Secretary Perez’s same rule shall apply in preliminary investigations conducted
recommendation, (5) embody his assessment in the order, and by the officers of the Office of the Ombudsman.
(6) state his reasons for granting the motion to withdraw the
informations. Judge Dumayas’ failure to make his own Verily, the Secretary of Justice was empowered to review the
evaluation of the merits of the case violates KBC Bank’s right to actions of the Provincial Fiscal during the preliminary
due process and constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Judge investigation or the reinvestigation.
Dumayas’ 26 March 2003 Order granting the motion to
withdraw the informations is void. In the case at bar, we find that there is nothing on record to
show that respondents were given notice and an opportunity
PLOPINIO v. CARINO (2010) to be heard before the Secretary of Justice. For this reason, we
Whether or not the charges before the OMB are considered as remand the case to the Secretary of Justice with respect to
formal charges. In criminal cases, the determination that a respondents Dongail, Lorilla, Hulleza, and Cimatu for further
person is formally charged. proceedings, with the caveat that any resolution of the
Secretary of Justice on the matter shall be subject to the
To summarize, a person shall be considered formally charged: approval of the trial court.
(1) In administrative proceedings (a) upon the filing of a NOTE: A Motion for Reinvestigation is filed before the court,
complaint at the instance of the disciplining authority; or (b) and this was filed by the private complainant, it is not the only
upon the finding of the existence of a prima facie case by the the accused. If the court in its own decision orders such
disciplining authority, in case of a complaint filed by a private reinvestigation, it must be conducted. The SOJ ordered for
person. reinvestigation, not only upon petition but also motu proprio.
(2) In criminal proceedings (a) upon the finding of the existence Q. If there is a petition for review or appeal before SOJ, and the
of probable cause by the investigating prosecutor and the information has been filed, what if the SOJ does not find the
consequent filing of an information in court with the required crime but merely homicide, can the SOJ order the prosecutor
prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city to change, under Section 4 – the SOJ can only look two things.
prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his Affirmed the probable cause
deputy; (b) upon the finding of the existence of probable cause Direct prosecutor for a motion to dismiss, this is when
by the public prosecutor or by the judge in cases not requiring the prosecutor can file for an Amended Information.
a preliminary investigation nor covered by the Rule on There must first be a motion to dismiss.
Summary Procedure; or (c) upon the finding of cause or ground
to hold the accused for trial pursuant to Section 13 of the We already know that even if INF, the SOJ can review, the INF
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. can still run in the case.
NOTE: ONLY UPON THE FILING OF THE INFORMATION IN ADASA v. ABALOS (2007)
COURT. Before that one cannot be considered as an accused. OCP found PC resulting them to file two criminal cases against
He is not yet “charged” during the PI, when “charged” means Adasa. Adasa plead not guilty. In 2001, Adasa filed to the DOJ
filing of an information in court. a petition for review. SOJ recommended the withdrawal of the
information. Abalos filed MR citing Section 7 of DOJ Circular 70
FORTALEZA v. SOJ (2016) outrightly advises that a review after arraignment must be
Investigation Prosecutor recommending dismissal for lack of dismissed, DOJ does denied the MR.
PC. The second one was dismissed for actual and legal merit.
This time, ACP Elmaco issued a Resolution finding PC. However, Can DOJ take cognizance of appeal after arraignment – No.
the case of Escalante et al. Later on ACP Elmaco released Dumail
from the complaint and an Information was filed to the RTC. Section 7 is neither contradictory nor irreconcilable with
Section 12. As can be seen above, Section 7 pertains to the
A wife of victim filed for a motion for reinvestigation, but the action on the petition that the DOJ must take, while Section 12
prosecutor did not do a reinvestigation but merely affirmed the enumerates the options the DOJ has with regard to the
Elmaco findings. However in December 13, 2004, a letter was disposition of a petition for review or of an appeal.
sent for automatic review. Whether or not the SOJ motu proprio
despite the fact that complainant did not file a petition for review.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 61
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 62
When MTC Judge Need Not Issue Warrant of Arrest What is required, is that judge must have sufficient supporting
1. When the complaint or information was filed pursuant documents (complaints, affidavits, counter-affidavits, sworn
to a lawful warrantless arrest; statements of witnesses or transcript of stenographic notes)
2. When the accused is charged for an offense upon which to make his independent judgment, or at the very
punishable by fine only; or least, upon which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to
3. When the case is covered by the Rules of Summary the existence of probable cause.
Procedure (there is no issuance of warrant of arrest)
Personal Determination by the Judge
Probable Cause, Definition
Probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest is the Evidence Needed by for Issuance
existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a In Okabe v. Gutierrez, 429 SCRA 685, the judge issued a
reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an warrant of arrest based on the resolution, information and the
offense has been committed by the person sought to be affidavit of the complainant. It was ruled that the judge
arrested. Hence, the judge before issuing a warrant of arrest, committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant.
must satisfy himself that
that based on the evidence submitted,
there is sufficient proof that a crime has been committed and In determining the existence or non-existence of probable
that the person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof. cause for the arrest of the accused, the judge should not rely
solely on the report of the investigation prosecutor but also on
At this stage of the criminal proceeding, the judge is not yet the affidavits and the documentary evidence of the parties, the
tasked to review in detail the evidence submitted during the counter-affidavit of accused and witnesses, the TSN during the
preliminary investigation. It is sufficient that he personally PI, if any submitted to the court.
evaluates such evidence in determining probable cause. The
judge merely determine the probability
probability not certainty. Reliance on the Prosecutor’s Certification
In Abdula v. Guiani 326 SCRA 1 (2000), The judge issued a
Probable Cause by Prosecutor Distinguished from warrant and commented that there was “no reason for him to
Probable Cause by the Judge to Issue Warrant of Arrest doubt the validity of the certification made by the prosecutor
Prosecutor Judge that a PI was conducted and that the probable cause was found
Whether there is reasonable The judge, on the other to exist justifying the issuance of the warrant.”
ground to believe that the hand, determines whether a
accused is guilty of the warrant of arrest should be It was ruled here that the warrant is not valid. The statement
offense charge and should issued against the accused, is an admission that the judge relied solely on the certification
be held for trial is what the whether there is a necessity made by the prosecutor that PC exists. The Constitution itself
prosecutor passes on. for placing him under commands the judge to PERSONALLY DETERMINE the
immediate custody in order probable cause in the issuance of warrants of arrest. He cannot
not to frustrate the ends of adopt the judgment of the prosecutor regarding the existence
justice. of probable cause without doing his constitutional duty.
Since their objectives are different, the judge cannot rely solely
Reliance by Judge on Clerk
In Talingdan v. Eduarte 366 SCRA 559 (2001), the judge here
on the report of the prosecutor in finding probable cause to
was made administratively liable when the judge issued the
justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
arrest.
subject warrant of arrest without even such certification to rely
upon and worse merely at the instance of the clerk who
The contents of the prosecutor’s report will support his own
mechanically typed the warrant for his signature.
conclusion that there is reason to charged the accused of an
offense and hold him for trial.
Examination of Witnesses
In Webb v. De Leon 247 SCRA 652 (1995), the judge, in
However, the judge must decide independently. Hence, he
satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the
must have supporting evidence, other than the prosecution’s
issuance of the warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to
bare report upon which to legally sustain his own findings on
the existence or non-existence of probable cause to issue an
personally examine the complainant and his witnesses . The
following established doctrine and procedure, he shall:
arrest order.
1. Personally evaluate the report and the supporting
documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the
It is not required that the entire records of the case during the
existence of probable cause, and on the basis hereof
Preliminary Investigation be submitted to and examined by the
issue a warrant of arrest;
judge. Resolution and the attached documents.
2. If on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he
may disregard the fiscal’s report and require the
The trial courts should not be unduly burdened by obliging
submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid
them to examine the complete records of every case all the time
him in arriving at a conclusions as to the existence of
simply for the purpose of ordering the arrest of the accused.
probable cause.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 63
Pendency of Motion to Hold in Abeyance NOTE: In other words, lawyers abuse this provision and apply
Can a court commit grave abuse of authority in issuing an arrest for judicial determination of probable cause, what the judge
warrant despite a pending motion to hold in abeyance the should only determine to find warrant of arrest. The judge
issuance of the same? should deny that.
No. When accused filed the omnibus motion, the court has not AAA v. CARBONELL (2007)
yet acquired jurisdiction over his person. With the filing of the Information was filed against Azardon, Azardon filed a motion
information the trial court could then issue an arrest warrant. to hold abeyance all court proceedings to determine probable
cause. Judge Antonio granted the motion directing AAA and
Arrest Warrant Against “John Does” witnesses for personal examination – but did not appear thus
May judge issue warrants of arrest against persons designated he dismissed. Does the judge has to personally examine the
merely as John Does? complainant the witnesses for a determination of PC?
No. An arrest warrant issued against John Does not one of NO. In this case, respondent Judge Carbonell dismissed
whom the witnesses to the complaint could or would identify, Criminal Case No. 6983 without taking into consideration the
is one of the nature of General Warrant – unconstitutional and June 11, 2003 Resolution of 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
totally subversive of liberty thus void and without effect. Georgina Hidalgo, the October 13, 2003 Resolution of the panel
(Pangandaman
Pangandaman v. Cesar, 159 SCRA 599, 1988). of prosecutors, and the July 1, 2005 Resolution of the
Department of Justice, all of which sustain a finding of probable
Arrest Warrant in Extradition cause against Arzadon.
In Government v. Purganan 389 SCRA 623 (2002), the US
Government through DOJ filed with RTC a petition for Moreover, he failed to evaluate the evidence in support thereof.
extradition of Mark Jimenez who was facing various criminal Respondent judge’s finding of lack of probable cause was
charges in Florida. It prayed for his arrest, so judge set hearing. premised only on the complainant’s and her witnesses’ absence
Is the potential extraditee entitled to notice and hearing before a during the hearing scheduled by the respondent judge for the
warrant of arrest can issue? judicial determination of probable cause.
cause.
No. PD 1069, the Extradition Law, uses the word immediate to ONG v. GENIO (2009)
qualify the arrest of the accused. Arrest subsequent to a herring What we should always remember the difference of two kinds
can no longer be considered immediate. Thus, immediately between two kinds of probable cause.
upon receipt of the petition, the judge shall make a prima facie
finding of whether the petition is sufficient in form and INOCENTES v. SB
substance and in compliance with PD 1069 if the judge is Here Inocentes, there was a resolution by the SB finding PC, the
convinced, he issues a warrant for the arrest of the person and INF filed before SB, to issue arrest warrant. Inocentes posted for
summon him to appear at scheduled hearings. bail and filed for judicial determination of probable cause. This
is not allowed.
Even Article III, Section 2 of 1987 Constitution does not require
notice or a hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. If you post bail, you can no longer question the PC, you
What it merely requires is for the judge to determine probable must do this before posting bail . The findings of the SB is
cause by personal examination of complainants and witnesses pointless because it already acquired JD over him due to the
they may produce. There is no requirement to notify and hear posting of bail.
the accused before the issuance of warrants of arrest in such
instances.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 64
A. When Section is Applicable Only offenses that would require preliminary investigation will
1. When a person is lawfully arrested without warrant; have to go through inquest. Those not requiring preliminary
2. When the arrest involves an offense which requires investigation need not go through an inquest proceeding.
Preliminary Investigation.
Here, there is no need for preliminary investigation because
B. When a complaint and information may be filed there is a deadline for the accused to be detained. Otherwise
without need of the required preliminary the peace officer will be guilty of arbitrary detention – delay in
investigation: the delivery.
When an inquest has been conducted in accordance
with existing rules. The purpose of the inquest proceedings in these cases is that
while the state acknowledges the law enforcers’ authority to
C. Inquest investigation: arrest and detain persons without a warrant, the state must also
An investigation based only on the affidavit of the ensure that these persons are not unlawfully detained, and that
offended party, police, and some witnesses. they are not denied due process.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 65
The inquest establishes whether the evidence is sufficient When Accused is Illegally Arrested
enough to seek court approval to keep the person in detention.
Prosecutors have a heavy burden to oversee police Duty of the Prosecutor
investigations in cases involving inquest proceedings (DOJ Where a person is unlawfully arrested and the police files a
Circular 61 on New Rules on Inquest). complaint against him for inquest, what should prosecutor do?
Each police station or headquarters should in principle also When the police files a complaint which is not proper for
have designated inquest prosecutors to process inquest inquest, the prosecutor should immediately schedule a
procedures with a schedule of assignments for their regular preliminary investigation to determine whether there is
inquest duties. probable cause for charging the person in court. In such a
situation a person is entitled to a preliminary investigation and
The inquest requires the prosecutors to resolve the complaint that right should be accorded him without any conditions. He
the police filed in a prescribed period, which varies depending is also entitled to be released forthwith subject only to his
on the gravity of the offense. appearing at the preliminary investigation. (Go v. Court of
Appeals, 206 SCRA 138, 1992).
Cases punishable with light penalties must be resolved in 12
hours; those punishable with correctional penalties within 18 Duty of the Judge
hours; and those punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, Where an accused has been ill egally arrested but thereafter the
within 36 hours. If the inquest prosecutor fails to complete the Office of the Prosecutor conducted an inquest, instead of a
proceedings in the prescribed period then the person must be regular PI, an information was filed against him, what should
released. the trial court do?
How should the complaint or information be filed when the Suspend proceedings and order PI. The absence of PI does
accused is lawfully arrested without warrant? not affect jurisdiction but a mere irregularity of proceedings, it
does not impair the validity of the Information or a ground to
The complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor quash the information or nullify the order of arrest.
without need for a preliminary investigation provided an
inquest proceeding has been conducted in accordance with However, the trial court should suspend proceedings and order
existing rules. (Sec. 6, Rule 112, Rules of Court) a PI considering that the inquest investigation conducted by
the State Prosecutor is null and void.
Suppose there is no inquest prosecutor? Or there is an inquest
prosecutor but he is not available, what will happen now to the Effect of Subsequent Issuance of Warrant
case? In the absence of an inquest prosecutor, the offended When a person is unlawfully arrested without a warrant or
party or any peace officer may file the complaint directly in invalid warrant, but subsequently a valid warrant is issued
court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or peace against him, can he question the validity of his continued
officer. (Sec. 6, Rule 112, Rules of Court) detention? No. The issue of his invalid arrest becomes moot
and academic if the new warrant of arrest complies with the
Inquest During Holidays requirements. If the first warrant was unquestionably
unquestionably void,
In Soria v. Desierto, 450 SCRA 339 (2005), when a person is release of the accused for that reason will be futile act as it will
arrested without a warrant on a Sunday or a holiday, the be followed by her immediate re-arrest – this court will not
prosecutor need not hold an inquest and charge him within 12- participate in such meaningless charade (People v. Sanchez ).\ ).\
18-36 hours so as not to render him liable for Article 125 of the
RPC if there are sufficient considerations enough to deter the REYNALDO DE CASTRO v. FERNANDEZ (2007)
conduct of such (e.g. time taken to look for the clerk or judge On June 11, 2002 there was a complaint for sexual assault
to open courthouse). against De Castro, the following day he was turned over ot the
police, he was indorsed to the CP for inquest, thereafter CP,
Posting of Bail Before Case is Filed ordered his detention. June 18, 2002 CP filed an INF against De
A person lawfully arrested or detained but who has not yet Castro – two days after, De Castro’s lawyer appear in court and
been formally charged in court, can seek his provisional release asked for copies of file. July 1, 2002, he filed for Motion for
through the filing of an application for bail. He need not wait Reinvestigation?
for a formal complaint or information to be filed since bail is
available to all persons. Is De Castro entitled for PI? No. Rule 112, Section 6. The filing
was on June 18, he asked for Motion for Reinvestigation on
Nature of the Five-Day Period June 25. When did he know about it? When he is presumed to
May a motion for “reinvestigation” be
be filed beyond the 5-day have known about, when he asked for his lawyer, notice to
period form the time accused learns of the filing of the lawyer, when Atty. Villarin requested for copies, De Castro
information filed against him? No. This period is mandatory already knew of the filing of INF, he filed on July 1 which is
(People v. CA, 242 SCRA 645). more than 5 days from the time he learned of the filing.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 66
It is imperative to first take a closer look at the predicament of All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information
both the arrested person and the private complainant during shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the
the brief period of inquest, to grasp the respective remedies public prosecutor.
available to them before and after the filing of a complaint or
information in court. The private complainant in a criminal case is merely a witness
and not a party to the case and cannot, by himself, ask for the
BEFORE THE FILING OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IN reinvestigation of the case after the information had been filed
COURT, the private complainant may proceed in coordinating in court, the proper party for that being the public prosecutor
with the arresting officer and the inquest officer during the who has the control of the prosecution of the case.
latters conduct of inquest. Meanwhile, the arrested person has
the option to avail of a 15-day preliminary investigation, Thus, in cases where the private complainant is allowed to
provided he duly signs a waiver of any objection against delay intervene by counsel in the criminal action, and is granted the
in his delivery to the proper judicial authorities under Article authority to prosecute, the private complainant, by counsel and
125 of the Revised Penal Code. For obvious reasons, this with the conformity of the public prosecutor, can file a motion
remedy is not available to the private complainant since he for reinvestigation.
cannot waive what he does not have. The benefit of the
provisions of Article 125, which requires the filing of a In fact, the DOJ instructs that before the arraignment of the
complaint or information with the proper judicial authorities accused, trial prosecutors must examine the Information vis--
within the applicable period, belongs to the arrested person. the resolution of the investigating prosecutor in order to make
the necessary corrections or revisions and to ensure that the
The accelerated process of inquest, owing to its summary information is sufficient in form and substance.
nature and the attendant risk of running against Article 125,
ends with either the prompt filing of an information in court or NOTE: There is nothing in the rules that state that the accused
the immediate release of the arrested person. Notably, the rules shall be served a copy thereof, thus the counsel has to be alert
on inquest do not provide for a motion for reconsideration. upon such.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 67
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 68
a. Affidavits (subscribed and sworn to and There are instances, when the judge need not issue a warrant
certified) of the complainant and his of arrest, he may issue for summons but not for warrant of
witnesses, and arrest. In summary rules, there is no arrest warrant at all, in here,
b. Other supporting documents to establish there is discretion to issue warrant arrest or summons instead.
probable cause;
CARANDANG v. BASE
B. If the Judge finds NO Probable Cause Only the judge can issue a commitment order, here the
1. He shall dismiss the complaint issuance of such is a duty of the clerk of court. She overstepped
a. Within 10 days after the filing of the the boundaries of her function. The Clerk of Court has no
complaint or information power, the clerk can only issue upon authority the Judge.
b. After personally:
NOTE: Only a judge can issue an arrest warrant as well as a
i. Evaluating the evidence, or commitment order – it cannot be done by clerk of court.
ii. Examining in writing an under oath
the complainant and his witnesses ATTY. TABUJARA v. PEOPLE (2008)
in the form of searching questions The Complaints were filed in 1991. Afable filed MTC. On 1999,
and answers, or Tabujara filed their Counter-Affidavit denying allegations. MTC
Judge conducted a PI, issued an order dismissing for lack of PC.
2. He may require the submission of additional evidence;
He issued Order reversing his own Order his basis was that the
Within 10 days from notice, to determine further the sworn allegation of witness De Lara. The judge issued a warrant
existence of probable cause. of arrest. This falls on old rule of Section 9.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 69
Procedure
Arrest
How Arrest is Made
DEFINITION: The
taking of a person into custody.
1. By an actual restraint of the accused be arrested, or
PURPOSE: In order that he may be bound to answer for the
2. By the submission of such person to the custody of
commission of an offense.
the person making the arrest (voluntary submission)
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 70
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 71
Meaning of “In his presence” Alunday entered a plea of not guilty on November 22,
In People v. Evaristo, 216 SCRA 431 (1992), an offense is 2000, and he raised the issue of irregularity of arrest
committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, is only during his appeal to the Supreme Court.
meant by the phrase, within the meaning of the rule authorizing Deemed to have waived such defect by submitting
an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense, himself to the jurisdiction of the court by his counsel-
although at a distance, or hears the disturbance created assisted plea during his arraignment, actively
thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof. participating in the trial and by not raising the
In the later cases, the SC clarified this. objection before his arraignment.
In Flagrante Delicto Arrest Based on Report, Prohibited So, the second issue will be academic, but nonetheless the
In People v. Chua, it has been held that reliable information court still answered, thus the Court entertained this question:
alone, absent any over act indicative of a felonious enterprise
in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers, is Issue 2: Was the offense committed in the presence or within
not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an the view of the arresting officer to justify a warrantless arrest
in flagrante delicto arrest. under Section 5(a) of Rule 113? – Yes.
Arrest During Buy-Bust Operation When in the presence or within the view of the arresting
A warrantless arrest for such is valid. An arrest made after an officer or private person, the person to be arrested:
entrapment does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is a. Has committed
considered a valid warrantless arrest under Section 5(a) of the b. Is actually committing , or
Rules of Court. Any search resulting from a lawful warrantless c. Is attempting to commit the crime.
arrest is valid because the accused committed a crime in
flagrante delicto, that is, the person arrested committed a crime Alunday was caught in the act of cutting and gathering the
in the presence of the arresting officers (Teodosio v. People). marijuana plants from the marijuana plantation. Therefore,
there was a valid warrantless arrest.
Continuing Offenses
In the landmark Umil v. Ramos, 187 SCRA 311 (1990), the PEOPLE v. DELA CRUZ (2008)
crime of rebellion is considered a continuing offense, the The warrantless arrest of accused-appellant was effected under
arrest without a warrant is justified because it can be said that Sec. 5(a), arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto. For this type of
he is committing and offense when arrest. The crimes of: warrantless arrest to be valid, two requisites must concur:
Rebellion (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
Subversion indicating that he has just committed, is actually
Conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
Crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view
Or in connection therewith of the arresting officer.
These constitute direct assaults against he State and are in the
nature of continuing crimes. A rebel may be deemed to be in Does the crime has to be seen? What needs to be seen an overt
flagrante delicto at all times for purposes of arrest. act which would indicate done in front of the arresting officer –
not on the commission of the crime but for the overt act. Did
PEOPLE v. VELASCO (2007) they see anything to indicate that the accused is committing,
The issue was whether the prosecuting officers complied with has just committed or is actually committing the offense? In this
proceedings. The inquest proceedings can only be proper when case, the Supreme Court ruled that; the crime was for illegal
the warrantless arrest was in relation to the crime. In this case, possession of shabu – but he was holding a shotgun this does
none of the officers saw him commit the crime of rebellion. not have any relation to the possession of shabu. The act which
Therefore, the officers did not have authority to conduct they saw, must be related to the crime to have been committed
inquest. Inquest should be made on the crime the accused was as to justify the in flagrante delicto arrest. It must be related to
arrested for. In this case he was arrested was for INCITING TO the crime which he is charged.
SEDITION the inquest was for rebellion, if it does not match the
arrest then the inquest was invalid. Accused-appellants act of pointing a firearm at the buy-bust
team would have been sufficient basis for his arrest in flagrante
PEOPLE v. ALUNDAY (2008) delicto; however, the prosecution was not able to adequately
Issue 1: Can Alunday still raise the issue of irregularity of arrest prove that accused-appellant was committing an offense.
for the first time in an appeal before the Supreme Court? – No. Although accused-appellant merely denied possessing the
firearm, the prosecutions charge was weak absent the
Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure for presentation of the alleged firearm. He was eventually
the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of acquitted by the trial court because of this gaffe. His arrest,
the accused must be made before he enters his plea otherwise independent of the buy-bust operation targeting Boy Bicol, was
the objection is deemed waived. therefore not lawful as he was not proved to be committing any
offense.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 72
The Ilagan is not applicable. In the dissenting opinion of Justice NOTE: Especially in buy-busts resulting in inquest, whom only
Teehankee: the allegation of the complainant is taken into account, it is very
important to get assistance from a lawyer from a law student
The majority decision holds that the filing of the information without to ask for PI and ask for a motion for reinvestigation.
preliminary investigation falls within the exceptions of Rule 112, sec. 7
and Rule 113, sec. 5 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Again, Here the fence was 5’7 to 5’9 and the gaps was 1.5 – 2 inches,
this is erroneous premise. The fiscal misinvoked and misapplied the
the officers cannot actually what is going on? So definitely the
cited rules. The petitioners are not persons "lawfully arrested without a
warrant." The fiscal could not rely on the stale and inoperative PDA of
arrest here was not valid under the flagrante delicto exception.
January 25, 1985. Otherwise, the rules would be rendered nugatory, if
all that was needed was to get a PDA and then serve it at one's whim PERALTA v. PEOPLE (2017)
and caprice when the very issuance of the PDA is premised on its Issue is whether the warrantless arrest valid? – yes. In
imperative urgency and necessity as declared by the President himself. warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (a), Rule 113,
The majority decision then relies on Rule 113, Sec. 5 which authorizes two (2) elements must concur, namely: (a) the person to be
arrests without warrant by a citizen or by a police officer who witnessed
arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
the arrestee in flagrante delicto, viz. in the act of committing the
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
offense. Quite obviously, the arrest was not a citizen's arrest nor were
they caught in flagrante delicto violating the law. a crime; and (b) such overt act is done in the presence or within
the view of the arresting officer.
In this case that Datukan Malan Salibo is not the same person
with Butukan S. Malang. Salibo presented documents that he On the other hand, Section 5 (b), Rule 113 requires for its
was not here during the massacre – clearances and ID showing application that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact
that he did not use the alias Butukan S. Malang. None of the just been committed and the arresting officer had personal
three exceptions were present. The filing of an INF cannot knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed
cure and invalid warrantless arrest and Salibo does not fall it.
under the circumstances.
In both instances, the officer's personal knowledge of the fact
NOTE: Atty. Risonar merely went to Camp Catitipan to check of the commission of an offense is essential. Under Section 5
on his any arrest papers issued against him. When he appeared (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
there, he was arrested. The illegal arrest was cured by the INF. officer himself witnesses the crime; while in Section 5 (b) of the
But now in this case, the SC – that the Ilagan ruling was wrong, same, he knows for a fact that a crime has just been committed.
this is by Justice Leonen. If you’re arrest is illegal no filing of INF
against you will make it legal. T he fact that he was not even the In this case, records show that upon the police officers' arrival
guy does not matter. The fact he was arrested without a warrant at Pantal District, Dagupan City, they saw Peralta carrying a
but not him, and none of the exceptions apply then his arrest pistol, in plain view of everyone. This prompted the police
is illegal and invalid. officers to confront Peralta regarding the pistol, and when the
latter was unable to produce a license for such pistol and/or a
SINDAC v. PEOPLE (2016) permit to carry the same, the former proceeded to arrest him
A previous surveillance was made on Sindac’s alleged drug and seize the pistol from him.
trade for a month, he was caught selling shabu, RTC convicted
and that there was valid in flagrante delicto. – The SC held that Clearly, the police officer conducted a valid in flagrante delicto
arrest was not valid. Sindac’s talking was not considered as warrantless arrest on Peralta, thus, making the consequent
ongoing criminal activity – this is not an overt act. search incidental thereto valid as
a s well. At this point, it is well to
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 73
emphasize that the offense of illegal possession of firearms is When Arrest is Accompanied by Search
malum prohibitum punished by special law and, in order that Where the accused fails to challenge the legality of the arrest
one may be found guilty of a violation of the decree, it is before entering into trial, is he also precluded from questioning
sufficient that the accused had no authority or license to the legality of the search?
possess a firearm, and that he intended to possess the same,
even if such possession was made in good faith and without No. The waiver by the accused of his right to question the
criminal intent. By carrying an unlicensed firearm you are legality of his arrest does not necessarily carry with it his waiver
committing a crime in flagrante delicto. of the right to question the admissibility of any evidence
procured by the police or the occasion of or incidental to his
NOTE: Remember the exceptions and requisites especially illegal arrest or thereafter. The plea and actual participation of
under Rule 113, Section 5(a) the accused in the trial would not cure the illegality of the
admissible evidence (People v. Pua, 415 SCRA 540, 2003).
ARREST WHEN CRIME HAS JUST BEEN COMMITTED
Freshly Committed Rule or Hot Pursuit Arrest PEOPLE v. MANAGO (2012)
INF for RA 9165, PO3 Din was getting his haircut, a shootout
Offense Has Just Been Committed commenced the suspects were able to flee, identifying Manago
Arresting has probable cause, based on personal knowledge as one of the suspects. The next day, they set up checkpoint
that the person to be arrested committed it. This is the third where they apprehended Manago using the “hot pursuit” arrest
kind of probable cause. and was able to find shabu.
1. PC for PI by the investigating prosecutor. The police officer here is saying it was under hot pursuit
2. PC for issuance of warrant of arrest by judge. operation. Was there a valid warrantless arrest? – NO.
3. PC for determination based on personal knowledge
for warrantless arrest under hot pursuit [Section 5(b)] In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (b), it is
essential that the
Requisite of Probable Cause 1. element of personal knowledge must be coupled with
cause . It means the actual belief or
Definition of probable cause. 2. the element of immediacy.
reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are
reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting Otherwise, the arrest may be nullified, and r esultantly, the items
officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrest is probable yielded through the search incidental thereto will be rendered
guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual facts. inadmissible in consonance with the exclusionary rule of the
1987 Constitution.
Witness provided the identity of culprit . In People v.
Gerente, it was shown that under the circumstances of the case, Personal knowledge and Immediacy
since the policemen had personal knowledge of the violent The phrase covers facts or, in the alternative, circumstances.
death of the victim and of facts indicating that accused had According to the Black's Law Dictionary, "circumstances are
killed him, they could lawfully arrest accused without a warrant. attendant or accompanying facts, events or conditions."
If they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain such, Circumstances may pertain to events or actions within the
he would have fled the law. actual perception, personal evaluation or observation of the
police officer at the scene of the crime.
Witness Pinpointed to the Culprit. The arrest was held valid if
it was based on their personal knowledge culled from the victim Thus, even though the police officer has not seen someone
herself who pointed to the suspect as the assailant at the time actually fleeing, he could still make a warrantless arrest if, based
of the arrest. The arrest of Vinalon in this case done on his personal evaluation of the circumstances at the scene of
immediately after the incident was valid for it was made by the the crime, he could determine the existence of probable cause
arresting officers the victims pointed to him. Accordingly, the that the person sought to be arrested has committed the crime.
search and seizure are valid as incidental to a lawful arrest. However, the determination of probable cause and the
gathering of facts or circumstances should be made
Waiver of Illegality of Arrest immediately after the commission of the crime in order to
The accused appears to be illegally arrested without a warrant comply with the element of immediacy.
more than a month after the crime was committed and the
kidnap victim was released. However, they only raise the In other words, the clincher in the element of "personal
illegality of their arrest on appeal before the Supreme Court. knowledge of facts or circumstances" is the required element
The failure to raise the illegality of the arrest before the trial of immediacy within which these facts or circumstances should
court results to a waiver any of the irregularities relating to be gathered. This required time element acts as a safeguard to
their warrantless arrest when they failed to file a motion to ensure that the police officers have gathered the facts or
quash the Information on the ground, or to object any perceived the circumstances within a very limited time frame.
irregularity in their arrest before they were arraigned. They are This guarantees that the police officers would have no time to
now estopped from questioning the legality of their arrest. base their probable cause finding on facts or circumstances
People v. Ejandra , 429 SCRA 364, 2004).
( People obtained after an exhaustive investigation.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 74
The foregoing circumstances show that while the element of Now there are other exceptions under Section 13, Rule 113:
personal knowledge under Section 5 (b) above was present - 1. Escapes or is rescued after the arrest.
given that PO3 Din actually saw the March 15, 2007 robbery 2. Rule 114, Section 23 – when the crime is bailable, now
incident and even engaged the armed robbers in a shootout - there are times when he has to appear in court and
the required element of immediacy was not met. the bondsman has to produce him, and if he does not
appear he can be arrested without warrant.
This is because, at the time the police officers effected the 3. Rule 114, Section 23 – when an accused under bail
warrantless arrest upon Manago's person, investigation and attempt to depart from the Philippines when his case
verification proceedings were already conducted, which is still pending.
consequently yielded sufficient information on the suspects of
the March 15, 2007 robbery incident. So what to do if you are a private person and happen to arrest
a person under in flagrante delicto? You
You bring that person to
NOTE: Justice Perlas-Bernabe provided us two requirements the nearest police station or jail, then he will undergo inquest
are (1) element of personal knowledge; and (2) element of proceeding so as not to violate Article 125 of the RPC.
immediacy. Here there was time to investigate. Here in the old
cases, it referred to how long, how many hours so they differ An arrest may be
with respect to “immediacy.” made on any day and at any time of the day or night.
But when it comes from escaping, they can be arrested Showing a Copy of the Warrant
immediately even without a warrant – anybody can arrest. It A police officer may arrest a person at the time when he does
does not have to in flagrante or freshly committed – it is no not have a copy of the warrant in his possession but if the
longer necessary. What is the best way of escaping? In transit person arrested so requires, the warrant shall be shown to him
or when detainees to go to court. If they do that – arrest. as soon as practicable (Mallari v. CA, 256 SCRA 456).
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 75
Exceptions: The officer’s failure to apprise the arrestee of Obligation of the Persons Summoned
the above is justified when: Assist the arresting officer in effecting arrest, provided he can
1. Person to be arrested flees; render such assistance without detriment to himself.
2. Person to be arrested forcibly resists before the office
has opportunity to inform him of the cause of his NOTE: The officer must exercise proper discretion on selecting
arrest and of the fact that a warrant has been issued the persons to be summoned. He must not choose to have the
for his arrest; children in the streets or women who are physically fit for the
3. Giving of such information will imperil the arrest; assistance.
4. Person to be arrested ins then engaged in the
commission of an offense; If you are going to arrest goons you cannot ask somebody as
5. Person to be arrested is pursued immediately after the large as Hannah to help, what can she done, he must at least
commission of an offense; or ask assistance from competent persons.
6. Person arrested is pursued immediately after escape.
(People v. Mahinay).
An officer, in order to make
make an arrest either by
When virtue of a warrant, or without a warrant as provided in
making an arrest, a private person shall inform the person Section 5, may break into any building or enclosure where
to be arrest of the intention to arrest him and the cause of the person to be arrested is or i s reasonably believed to be,
the arrest, unless the latter is engaged in he commission of if he is refused admittance thereto, after announcing his
an offense, pursued immediately after its commission, or authority and purpose.
has escaped, flees, or forcibly resists before the person
making the arrest has the opportunity to inform him, or
when the giving of such information
information will imperil the
the arrest.
Requisites for Breaking INTO a Building or
Enclosure When Invoking Arrest
1. The person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed
How Arrest is Effected by a Private Person
to be inside said building or enclosure;
2. The arresting officer has announced his authority and
General Rule: The private person must inform
infor m the person to purpose; and
be arrest of: 3. The arresting officer is refused admittance.
1. Intention to arrest him, and
2. The cause of his arrest NOTE: If he is inside his house, is this allowed? Yes, but there
are requisites. Knock the door, ring the doorbell but nobody
Note: The exceptions under these are the same.
answers – therefore he can break into the building.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 76
Now there are instances when accused are detained, they rot
Whenever an officer
officer has entered the building their for days, weeks, months and even years because they have
or enclosure in accordance with the preceding section, he no means of communication. Public phones are problematic so
may break out therefrom when necessary to liberate
it is very pitiful for these people. Now we have mobile phones.
himself.
Under this Section 14, this person has the right to be visited by
Right to Break OUT from a Building; Requisites any person member of the Philippine Bar – this is the right to
1. An officer has entered the building or enclosure in be visited by a lawyer. He may confer privately with such person
accordance with Section 11. with any place. This is a constitutional right, the right to counsel.
2. It is necessary to liberate himself. He can also be visited by a relative, subject to reasonable
regulations.
Commentary
What if the arresting officers gets inside the house but he is Sometimes it is difficult for the friends, that is why if you want
locked inside, the arresting officer can break out from the to visit your friend who is in the jail, you must become a lawyer.
enclosure and liberate himself therefrom. Meaning when he Because lawyers are deemed, when visiting the jail, they are
entered the building in accordance with Section 11 he has to there to help whoever is inside.
liberate himself, if it is locked he can break the window or go
through the backdoor. IN RE: ALEJANO v. CABUAY (2005)
May the detaining officer require that the lawyer may visit only
If a person business hours? – Yes.
lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, any person may
immediately pursue or retake him without a warrant at
any time and in any place within the Philippines. While counsel may not visit detainees any time they want, the
fact that the detainees still have face-to-face meetings with
their lawyers on a daily basis clearly shows that there is no
Effects When a Person Lawfully Arrested
impairment of detainee’s right to counsel. Lawyers could visit
Escapes or is Rescued
their clients between 8AM to 5PM with a lunch break at 12PM.
1. Any person may immediately pursue or retake him;
2. No warrant is required for his purpose, and
Clearly, visiting his hours pass the standard of reasonableness.
3. This may be carried out at any time and in any place
The last paragraph of Section 4(b) of RA 7438 provides the
within the Philippines
standard to make regulations in detention centers allowable:
“such reasonable measures as may be necessary to secure the
NOTE: This is another instance when warrantless arrest can be
detainee’s safety and prevent his escape.”
conducted by an officer. Note that when he is arrested, he is
delivered to the police station or the jail.
In the present case, the visiting hours accorded to the lawyers
of the detainees are reasonably connected to the legislation to
Any member of the Philippine Bar shall, at the the legitimate purpose of securing the safety and preventing
request of the person arrested or of another acting in his the escape of all detainees.
behalf, have the right to visit and confer privately with
such person in the jail or any other place of custody at any
hour of the day or night. Subject to reasonable regulations,
a relative of the person arrested can also exercise the same
right.
Visiting Hours
The detaining officer can require that counsel be only allowed
during business hours and this does not impair the right to
counsel. This pass the standard of reasonableness.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 77
A search warrant is Perhaps the crime is in Davao, but the search is in Digos, s o for
an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the compelling reason, the RTC Davao can issue a SW for a search
Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace in Digos. But ordinarily RTC Davao is limited to Davao.
office, commanding him to search for personal property
described therein and bring it before the court.
This general rule and exception applies if there is no criminal
case yet for that crime, if there is already, there is only one
Definition and Elements of a Search Warrant (SW) place; where the crime is actually pending.
1. It is an Order in writing;
2. Issued in the name of the People of the Philippines; Where an Application for Search Warrant May be Filed
3. Signed by a judge; and
4. Directed to a peace officer commanding him to: General Rule
a. Search for a personal property described Before any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime
therein, and
was committed.
b. Bring it before the Court.
[OPSD-SB] Exception
For Compelling reasons stated in application before:
Non-Judicial Search Warrants 1. Any court within the judicial region where the crime
May the Secretary of Labor issue search warrants in cases of
was committed if the place of the commission of the
illegal recruitment as provided under Article 38 of Labor Code? crime is known;
2. Any court within the judicial region where the warrant
No. The Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may not issue
shall be enforced.
search or arrest warrants. To that extent, Article 38(c), is
unconstitutional and no force and effect ( Salazar v. Achacoso ). Qualification – if the criminal action has already been filed:
The application shall only be made in the court where the
Exception: Under the Tariff and Customs Code, the Customs criminal action is pending.
Commissioner or his authorized representative can issue a
search warrant. There are times when the courts are closed thus 1. Place of Application
the Commissioner is allowed but only for violation of the
Tariff and Customs Code. People v. Chiu
424 SCRA 72 | February 27, 2004 | Callejo, Sr.
Difference from Arrest Warrant
An arrest warrant can only be issued if the INF is already been Facts: The police applied for a Search Warrant (SW) from the
filed meaning there is already a case, the accused to be Executive Judge of the RTC Pasay for the search of a residence
arrested. But for SW, even if there is no case, who can be in Quezon City. In the course of his deposition, the applicant
searched? – anyone. It allows peace officer to search anyone told the judge that the shabu might be moved to another place,
named in the warrant need not be accused. Despite that the
or that subject of the search warrant might get wind of the
application is still done before the court. application if it is before Quezon.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 78
2. Court with Power to Issue Search warrants involving these following special criminal cases
1. Heinous crimes,
Kenneth Roy v. Taypan 2. Illegal gambling,
331 SCRA 697 | May 11, 2000 | Bellosillo, J. 3. Illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions as well
4. As violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Issue: Does RTC Cebu Br. 12 have the authority to issue the SW Act of 2002,
considering that it was not designated as a special court for 5. The Intellectual Property Code,
Intellectual Property Rights? 6. The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001,
7. The Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, and
Held: Yes. A search warrant is merely a process issued by the 8. Other relevant laws that may hereafter be enacted by
court in the exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction and not a Congress, and included herein by the Supreme Court.
criminal action which it may entertain pursuant to its original
jurisdiction. The authority to issue search warrant is inherent in This Section shall be an exception to Section 2 of Rule 126 of
all courts and may be effected outside their TJ. the Rules of Court.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 79
Accordingly, the Executive Judges under AM 03-8-02-SC are What Kind of Personal Property may be Seized
relieved from issuing SW for IP Code violation. 1. Property Subject of the offense;
So these judges are now not allowed to issued search 2. Property Stolen or Embezzled and other proceeds, or
warrants involving IP Code Violation. Fruits of the offense; or
It has now to be the Judges of the of Special 3. Property Used or Intended to be used as the means
Commercial Courts of the four mentioned courts only. of committing an offense. [S-SEF-UI]
A search A
warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause
personal property: in connection with one specific offense to be determined
Subject of the offense; personally by the judge after examination under oath or
Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
of the offense; or produce, and particularly describing the place to be
Used or intended to be used as the means of searched and the things to be seized which may be
committing an offense. anywhere in the Philippines.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 80
Requisites for Issuing a Search Warrant People v. Estrada 296 SCRA 383 (1998)
1. There must be an Application in writing under oath; Mere allegation of the application as to the non-existence of a
Applicant can be anyone, anywhere n TJ. No need for head license is not sufficient to establish probable cause. A
of agency, anyone, any crime and anywhere within the TJ. certification to that effect from DOH (unlicensed drugs case).
2. There must be Probable cause;
3. It can only be issued in connection with One specific People v. Salanguit 356
356 SCRA 683 (2001)
offense; The fact that there was no PC for seizure of drug paraphernalia
a. To be determined by the Judge; does not mean that the whole search warrant is void. It would
b. After Examination under oath or affirmation be a drastic remedy indeed if a warrant, which was issued on
of the complainant and the witnesses he may probable cause and particularly describing the things to be
produce; - PERSONAL EXAMINATION seized is to be invalidated as a whole just because the judge
4. It must Particularly describe; erred in authorizing a search for other items not supported.
a. The Place to be searched which may be
anywhere in the Philippines, and SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE PLACE
b. The Objects to be seized.
People v. CA
NOTE: This is the fourth kind of probable cause encountered to 291 SCRA 400 | June 25, 1998 | Narvasa, J.
be determined by the judge.
Facts: Upon application by police, judge issued an S W ordering
There must be a specific offense connected to the application. the search of the Apartment 1207 but police instead served
Thus, there must be personal examination of complainant and warrant not there but at Apartment 1, which resulted to the
witnesses. This is different from PC of a search warrant. arrest of the accused and seizure of guns and explosives The
police claimed that it was Apartment 1 they had in mind. Is the
Probable Cause In Issuance of Search Warrants search considered valid?
People v. Aruta Held: No. What is material is the place stated in the warrant
288 SCRA 626 | April 3, 1998 | Romero J. itself, not what applicants had in mind. It cannot be left to the
discretion of the police officers conducting the search.
It generally signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to PICOP v. Asuncion 307 SCRA 253 (1999) | 55 hectares compound
warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is Upon application the judge ordered search “located at PICOP
guilty of the offense with which he is charged. Compound, Barangay Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur” this
this was not
deemed sufficient because it simply authorizes a search of the
It refers to the existence of such facts and circumstances which aforementioned premises but did not specify – it described a
could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe whole compound which that compound is made up of 200
than an offense has been committed and that the articles offices and buildings, 15 plants, 84 staff houses, 1 airship, etc.
sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and
destruction by law is in the place to be searched. People v. Estrada 263 S 383 (1998) | 5,000 sqm compound
The SW is not valid. The place to be searched had not been
There must be substantial evidence that the items sought are described with particularity considering that the size of place it
in fact seizable by virtue of being connected with criminal technically is considered as a general warrant. This is not
activity, and that items will be found in the place to be s earched. allowed for it would transgress the requirement of particularity
of the place to be searched.
Requisites in the Determination of Probable Cause
In the case of Pendon v. CA, 191 S 429, November 16, 1990, it Minor Defect in Description
is required that: If the officer with the warrant can with reasonable effort and
1. The judge must examine the witnesses (and the identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places
complainant) personally; in the co9mmunity. In this case, it was not shown that a street
2. The examination must be under oath (or affirmation); named Hernan Cortes is in Cebu for it is only in Mandaue thus
3. The examination must be reduced to writing in the not void (Uy v. BIR, 344 SCRA 36, 2000).
form of searching questions and answers.
Defect in the Name of the Owner of the Place
Illustrations of Probable Cause for Search Warrants The warrant need not name the person who occupies the
named premises. Where the warrant is issued for the search of
PICOP v. Asuncion 307 SCRA 253 (1999) a specifically described place only and not for the search of a
The absence of license but was not shown in evidence during person, the failure to name the owner or the occupant of such
the time of application for search warrant, the applicant must property in the warrant does not invalidate the warrant, it is not
show a justifiable reason therefor during examination. a fatal defect (Uy v. BIR, 334 SCRA 36, 2000).
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 81
Mistake in the Name of the Person No. In seizing the said items then, the police officers were
Mistakes in the name of the person do not invalidate the exercising their own discretion and determining for themselves
warrant provided that the place to be search is properly and which items are proceeds or means. This absolutely
particularly described (People v. Del Norte, 426 SCRA 383). impermissible. The constitutional requirement that the articles
seized be particularly described in the warrant is to limit the
DESCRIPTION OF THE OBJECTS things to be seized to such particularly described.
Violation of Intellectual Property Law This is to leave the officers of the law with no dis cretion to what
The search warrant here is invalid because the articles and articles they would seize. A search warrant is not a sweeping
appliances enumerated in the SW are generally connected with authority empowering a raiding party to have fishing
a legitimate business and not necessarily involving piracy or expedition.
with infringement – too general ( Columbia Pictures v. Flores).
NOTE: Plain view doctrine in this case was also held to be
How Specific is Specific inapplicable because the typewriters, checks, checkbooks, dry
In the case of Microsoft v. Maxicorp, Inc. 438 SCRA 224, what seals, stamp pads are not contraband or sufficient evidence of
is only required that a search warrant be specific as far as the offense itself.
circumstances will ordinarily allow.
ONE OFFENSE RULE
The description of the property be seized need not be
technically precise. The articles to be seized were not only General Warrants, Not Allowed
sufficiently identified physically, they were also specifically These are void and unconstitutional because it does not specify
identified by stating their relation to the offense charged, a the place to be searched, the things to be seized, and the
search warrant need not be void as a whole. offense involved in the application.
The Law does not require that the things to be seized must be Scatter-Shot Warrant, Not Allowed
described in precise and minute detail as to leave no room for In the case of Vallejo v. CA 427 SCRA 658 (2004), a warrant for
doubt on the part of the s earching authorities. Otherwise, it will three offenses is not allowed is not void.
be virtually impossible for the applicants to obtain warrant as
they would not know exactly (Kho v. Makalintal , 1999). A warrant must be issued upon probable cause in connection
with one specific offense. In People v. Simbahon (2003) even
Once described, the articles need not to be so invariant as to two offenses still invalid search warrant.
require absolute concordance between those seized and those
described in the warrant. Substantial similarity of those articles Related Offenses in One Search Warrant, Allowed
described as a class or species would suffice ( Al-Ghoul
Al-Ghoul v. CA). If the crime involves related offenses such as possession and
selling of dangerous drugs under Section 5 and Section 15
Violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act under RA 9165.
In the case of People v. Tee 395 SCRA 419 (2003) the
description “an undetermined amount of marijuana must be Several Counts of the Same Offense
held to satisfy the requirement of the constitution as to the Considering that there are as many offenses of infringement as
particularity of the description. The description therein is: there are rights protected in the various movie titles involved,
does the warrant violate the rule that a search warrant must be
1. As specific as the circumstances allow; issued only in connection with one specific offense?
2. Expresses a conclusion of fact – not of law- by which
the peace officers may be guided in making the search No. The search warrant indicates that it was issued for violation
and seizure; Section 56 of PD 49 only. The specification therein merely refer
3. Limits the things to be seized to those which bear to the titles belonging to Columbia.
direct relation to the offense for which it is issued.
That there were several counts of the offense of copyright
Said warrant imposes a meaningful restriction upon the objects infringement and the search warrant uncovered several
to be seized by the officers serving warrant, thereby preventing contraband is not to be confused with the number of offenses
exploratory searches. charged (Columbia Pictures v. CA, 261 SCRA 144, 1996).
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 82
Searching Questions, Explained Here clearly, the Pepsi warehouse is to be searched, but what is
The examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely the crime charged – unfair competition? It should have been
routinary or pro-form, if the claimed probable cause is to be theft, the crime invoked was incorrect – it was not a crime under
established. The examining magistrate must not simply rehash unfair competition – therefore there is no PC.
of the contents of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry
on the intent and justification of the application for a search TAN v. SY TIONG GUE (2010)
warrant (Pendon v. CA, 191 SCRA 429, 1990). Two cases – robbery and qualified theft. No probable cause was
found for SW for robbery; the items seized by virtue of search
Records of Deposition warrants based on the same incidents to be used as evidence.
The depositions of the witnesses herein were not attached to Whether the items seized by virtue of search warrant in robbery
the SW, but the purpose of the Rules of Court in requiring the be used in qualified theft? – No.
depositions to be taken is to satisfy the examining magistrate
of the existence of PC. The determination by the judge is It is clear that there needs to be probable in connection with
already of great deference (People v. Tee). one specific offenses. The SW is for that particular crime, you
cannot search something that is related to another crime even
People v. Mamaril though the crimes are not related.
420 SCRA 622 | January 22, 2004 | Azcuna, J.
CHU v. JUDGE TAMIN (2003)
Facts: During trial for possession of marijuana which was seized CENRO Officer Cruz applied for SW with Judge Tamin against
by virtue of an SW, the clerk of the issuing RTC testified that the Chu for violation of PD 705 for possessing forest products.
available records do not include the transcript of the searching Tamin issued warrant for seizure of mangrove lumber, this
questions and answers made by the judge in connection with allowed CENRO to seize such.
the application. Was the warrant validly issued? – No.
Judge Tamin had already issued the SW against him for the 5th
Rule: The law requires that the judge must, before issuing the time and that there were no transcriptions of the examinations.
warrant PERSONALLY EXAMINE IN THE FORM OF SEARCHING
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, in writing and under oath, the Tamin denied and contended that he personally examined,
complainant and witnesses he may produce, he may produce printed transcript and he said that the reason was not in the
on facts personally known to the m and attach to the record records for the legal researcher failed to make a copy.
their sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted.
Issue: WON Judge Tamin was able to determine PC. – NO.
Since the clerk of court could not produce the sworn
statements showing that the judge examined them in the form Tamin either did not conduct required searching and if he did
of searching questions, the search warrant is tainted with not put it in writing, failed to examine, failed to secure affidavit.
illegality by the failure of the judge to conform with the with SW is only justified upon finding of PC. The examination must
the essential requisites of the taking the depositions in writing be reduced into writing.
and attaching them to the record.
NOTE: You ask searching question, the questions and the
No presumption of regularity can be invoked in aid of the answers are to be taken by the stenographer and transcribed.
process when an officer undertakes to justify it. There must be proof that searching questions were indeed
asked in order to determine probable cause.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 83
SONY MUSIC v. ESPANOL (2005) Commentary: Taken note the requirement that two of the
VRB charged Uy, Chung, Lim and an officer of SLC with PD 1987, presenting the original item and fake items produced by the
the four were engaged in replication of videograms without entity, you need not produce the original. There is no need, the
license from VRB. rules do not require to present the original and show that such
were fake – it is enough to allege that they are fake. The
Sony filed for copyright infringement under RA 8293 against judge can already determine.
the same. Agent Lavin stated before Judge Espanol that an The questions should not be merely pro-forma, this is
unnamed person gave tip as to the presence of pirated CD. No not how searching questions should be made.
probable cause.
QUELNAN v. PEOPLE (2007)
Absent of the personal knowledge of witnesses and complaint Team of policemen was formed to implement of SW and
because its issuance is deemed arbitrary. The issuance of the proceeded to City land Condo and went to the Security Office
search warrant in question, they relied based on the and went to Unit 615. When they knocked, they saw Quelnan,
information given by unnamed persons and meaning that they then presented SW, then implemented and found drugs
persons who gave the information, no one testified seeing the paraphernalia, tubings, and that there was a receipt of the
pirated discs in Laguna. properties seized.
Tips from unnamed persons are allowed if they are verified, the Quelnan questions for there was improper enforcement, and
records shows such is not the case before us. despite the knowledge that Quelnan was not the subject of
such for the person alleged in the SW is Kim. Is this correct?
Commentary: In determining PC, the judge must elicit PC from
complainant and witnesses from the personal evidence; not No. Nothing in the rules requires that the person occupying the
merely hearsay, this cannot be tantamount to probable cause. premises must be required in the SW. Citing the case of Uy v.
The probable cause must be with personal knowledge.
knowledge. BIR if it was issued for the place, failure to name the owner or
occupant of property does not invalidate warrant. Where the
MANLY SPORTSWEAR v. DADODETTE name of the owner is incorrectly inserted in the warrant does
The crime alleged in violation of Infringement of Trademark. not render the warrant defective.
Dadodette moved to annul the issuance contending that the
issuance for element of PC was not compliance. The SC said no SW reveals that they were ordered to make immediate search
there must be probable cause to be determined by the judge. to seize and take possession of offense and bring person to be
The RTC found that the probable cause. Hence, the goods were dealt with. There was a valid warrantless arrest here for he
not originally made by Manly. was caught in flagrante delicto; and even if he was not named,
it is not material. It is the place of the search is required, in
There is no probable cause, they found that the goods that the warrant of arrest it is the name. Here it is enough, and
were possessed. You have to be the offended party if you are whoever is there one can search.
to be complainant, so how can there be a search warrant. If you
are the complainant, you apply for the search warrant. Since it COMERCIANTE v. PEOPLE (2015)
was one’s own personal rights as an individual or corporation, Spotted Adan and Calag at 5meters standing and showing
then it must be that it must be an offended party and a crime
cr ime improper movements with one handing plastic sachets to the
was committed against it and that there was PC. other. PO3 Calag introduced himself. There was probable
cause, for when he saw them, he was aboard a motorcycle
PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER CHOI (2005) running at 30KPH in the SC, Comerciante contended that he did
There was a test buy for fake Marlboro cigarettes for violation not affect a valid warrantless arrest and that the seized items
of RA 8293 for the alleged and possession for fake Marlboro should be inadmissible. WON valid warrantless search. – NO.
cigarettes The judges issued the search warrant – Choi assailed
such, stating that PC was not established. Whether the SW was The Supreme Court finds it highly implausible that PO3 Calag,
valid – it was valid. even assuming that he has perfect vision, would be able to
identify with reasonable accuracy especially from a distance of
One of the requisites that the examination must be reduced, around 10 meters, and while aboard a motorcycle cruising at a
the searching questions propounded to the applicant and the speed of 30 kilometers per hour miniscule amounts of white
witnesses depend largely on the discretion of the judge. The crystalline substance inside two (2) very small plastic sachets
judge must make his own inquiry, the question should be not held by Comerciante.
be merely repetitious. Aside from testimony Sealey, the witness,
they positively determined Choi possessed such fake cigarettes. The Court also notes that no other overt act could be properly
attributed to Comerciante as to rouse suspicion in the mind of
The questions were sufficiently probing, not at all superficial PO3 Calag that the former had just committed, was committing,
and perfunctory, it constituted adequate bases. In applying of or was about to commit a crime. Verily, the acts of standing
20th Century Fox Corporation ruling was not allowed. around with a companion and handing over something to the
latter cannot in any way be considered criminal
criminal acts.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 84
Commentary
There is another kind of probable to cause to actually make a No search of a house,
warrantless search based on the stop and frisk doctrine. This room, or any other premises shall be made except in the
presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of
case squarely falls under Section 13 of the Rule 126 on the his family or in the absence of the latter, two (2) witnesses
Criminal Procedure. of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same
locality.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 85
Tira contended the room search was made in their absence and The warrant must
that the room was leased to boarders. Was the search in direct that it be served in the day time, unless the affidavit
compliance? asserts that the property is one the person or in the place
ordered to be searched, in which a case direction may be
inserted that it be served anytime of the day or night.
No evidence was adduced that there were boarders. Thus, Tiras
here were the lawful occupants.
Time of Making Search
GENERAL RULE: The warrant must direct that it be served in the
Then, Amadeo Tira was present when the policemen searched
the inner room of the house. The articles and substances were day time.
found under the bed on which the appellant Amadeo Tira
EXCEPTION: Itmay be served at any time of the day or night – if
slept. Everything was done in accordance with the rules.
the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or in
SONY v. BRIGHT FUTURE (2007) the place ordered to be searched.
Sony filed eight SW for copyright and trademark infringement;
a raid was conducted on the premises of Bright Future
NOTE: Unlike an arrest warrant which can be served anytime,
here there should be an assertion.
Technologies, Inc. on April 1, 2005, that there were no witnesses
that they were already inside. However, Sony alleged that the
searching team waited for barangay officials, and were A search
warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date.
accompanied by the security. There was violation of Section Thereafter, it shall be void.
8 on two-witness rule.
NOTE: Security guard do not live in the premises, they are not Multiple Service of Warrant
May a service of warrant be served twice during its lifetime?
occupants and they are there to watch the premises. They
Yes. It could be served anytime within the said period, and if its
should have waited for the barangay officials. The fact that the
object or purpose cannot be accomplished in one day, the
searching party made the search invalid.
same may be continued ( Mustang Lumbar v. CA, 1986).
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 86
Difference from arrest warrant. It has a lifetime of 10 days, The referred case shows that it is not the person searched, this
outside the period, it shall be useless. If the police uses an is tantamount to a violation of one’s rights. After the true
expired warrant, however, a warrant within 10 days can be inventory and verified under oath.
served as many times as necessary. For example, Day 1 – they
can go back for Day 2 until 10 days allowed. After such Section 12 shall be applied, if it was shown that the
search warrant applied for and implemented was properly and
The officer correctly inventoried and receipt.
seizing property under the warrant must give a detailed
receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the premises
in whose presence the search and sei zure were made, or in
the absence of such occupant must, in the presence of at The office must forthwith deliver the property
least two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion seized to the judge who issued the warrant,
residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in the place in together with a true inventory thereof duly
which he found the seized property.
property. verified under oath.
Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant,
Obligation of Officer Seizing Property under a Warrant the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has
1. He must give a detailed receipt for property seized; been made, and if none, shall summon the person
to whom the warrant was issued and require him
2. The receipt: to explain why no return was made. If the return
a. Must be given to the lawful occupant of the has been made, the judge shall ascertain whether
premises in whose presence the search and Section 11 of this Rule has been complied with
seizure were made, or and shall require that the property seized be
b. In the absence of such occupant, must be left delivered to him. The judge shall see to it that
in the place in which the seized property is subsection (a) hereof has been complied with.
The return on the search warrant shall be filed and
found, in the presence of at least 2 witnesses kept by the custodian of the log book on search
of sufficient age and discretion in the same warrants who shall enter therein the date of the
locality. return, the result, and other actions of the judge.
No. The procedure is irregular for failure to comply with Section B. Duty of the Judge After Issuance of Search Warrant
11 of Rule 126. The receipt should be given who witnessed. Ten (10) days after the issuance of the search warrant, he shall
ascertain if the return has been made:
The receipt issued by the seizing party in the case at bar s howed 1. If no return has been made – the judge shall summon
that it was signed by a witness who was a policeman form the person to whom the warrant was issued and
Manila Police who accompanied NBI in the conduct of search require him to explain why
(Quintero v. NBI, 162 SCRA 469, 1988). 2. If the return has been made – the judge shall
a. Ascertain whether a receipt has been issued
Signing of the Receipt for the items seized (Section 11)
After the house where accused stayed was searched by virtue b. Require that the property seized be delivered
of a warrant, the police asked her to sign an inventory of the to him, and
article seized which included a quantity of shabu. c. See to it that the property seized, together
with a true inventory duly verified under
Considering that the accused was not assisted by counsel, is the oath, be delivered to him.
– No.
receipt admissible in evidence? –
C. Duty of Custodian of the Log Book on Search Warrants
The accused was the victim of a clever ruse to make him sign 1. He shall file and keep the return of the search warrant
an alleged receipt which in effect is an extra-judicial confession 2. He shall enter in the log book
of the offense (People v. Del Castillo, 2004). a. The date of the return,
b. The result, and
c. Other actions of the judge
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 87
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 88
Silence in Consented Search: Silence means consent if outside EPIE v. JUDGE-ULAT MARREDO (2007)
residence, but not consent if inside the residence. In this case, the officers obtained information that a jeepney
vehicle with a certain plate loaded with Benguet pine lumbers.
2. PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE They established checkpoint and flagged it down, but it did not
a. Prior justification for intrusion – they must be stop and forced to them chase, upon lifting the loaded
there justifiably in the first place. vegetables, they found pine lumbers. The police officers
b. Illegality must be apparent; arrested Epie et al for they had no license to transport the
lumber. Was the warrantless search and seizure? YES.
YES.
3. STOP AND FRISK SEARCH: only requires one
probable cause – this person was acting suspiciously. This fall under a search of a moving vehicle – there must be a
This is also known as Terry Search. This is based on the probable cause. When a vehicle sped away after noticing a
decision in Terry v. Ohio. checkpoint and even after having been flagged down to
dissuade them from inspection, there exists PC to justify a
Steps to be Taken reasonable belief on part of law enforcers.
Office observes unusual conduct
In light of experience, that a criminal activity is afoot COMMENTARY: This is a search of moving vehicle, the most
That the person is armed and dangerous abused term is probable cause, and here for this exception, the
The police must introduce himself as such probable cause is the fact that the persons involved in the
vehicle acted suspiciously. But, because they were acting
Later on, the SC stated that one cannot conduct stop and frisk suspiciously they had to be chased down.
in many people in broad daylight, it must be with appropriate
circumstances (late at night; deserted road). REVALDO v. PEOPLE (2009)
Revaldo was charged with violation of Forest Code, when police
The police officer can conduct carefully limited outer search officers went into the premises of Revaldo who was allegedly in
of his clothing to find for any weapon or object to protect possession of lumber without the necessary documents, and
himself and the people around. they found such, but Revaldo was not able to present one. They
took and seized such for evidentiary purposes. They were not
4. SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLES armed with a SW. Revaldo contended its inadmissibility.
a. General Visual Search – checkpoints
b. Extensive Search – body search by ordering Whether or not the search and seizure incident to lawful arrest
passengers to alight, opening the was proper. – Yes.
compartment, opening the trunk and bags.
Revaldo was validly arrest pursuant to Forestry Code, the
Principles under Cases lumber were in plain view which are objects falling in plain view
Subject to general searches only of the officer which is in right of the position of that view can
Extensive search is only allowed only when there is seizure; requisites
probable cause – there is reasonable belief that the 1. Prior justification for an intrusion
motorist is an offender because of a specific report 2. Discovery of the evidence in plain view in
when that person is described particularly, or the inadvertent
person about to be searched is acting suspiciously. 3. Apparent illegality.
Consent – if there is an extensive search, and you do
not say anything, silence or failure to object except in When he was asked to present documents, he was not able to
coercive and intimidating circumstances. present there was probable cause to confiscate the lumber,
therefore there was no necessity for an SW.
Note the application of this violations can only be invoked
against the State. For private institutions is not applicable. Commentary: Normally, the objects that need of license are in
plain view, the police has the right to ask, do you have a license?
5. SEARCH IN ENFORCEMENT OF CUSTOMS LAW If none, Then this is already a probable. This involved the
mere report is sufficient to establish probable cause, exception of the plain view the illegality is apparent, so if there
persons, vehicles, stores etc. but not dwelling houses. is no license for something that requires such it makes the
Dwelling houses cannot be searched by customs illegality apparent.
houses only dutiable.
PEOPLE v. MARIACOS (2010)
6. AIRPORT SECURITY They set up a checkpoint, but it did not yield any suspect or
marijuana, he conducted a surveillance operation. He received
7. JAIL SECURITY info from secret agent from intelligence network that a
marijuana was in a jeepney to leave for Poblacion. P02 Palayoc
8. EXIGENCY positioned on top of the jeepney. While in motion, he noticed
a backpack, and he picked such and found bricks
bricks of marijuana.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 89
At that time, he has no idea, when it reached the Poblacion, it Held: No, whenever a search warrant has been issued by one
was now carried by two women and found Belen Mariacos. One Court or Branch and a criminal prosecution is initiated in
of them got away. Belen was brought to the police station. The another, as a result of the service of s earch warrant case should
search preceded the arrest. be consolidated with the criminal case for orderly procedure.
There must be a prior valid arrest. If the search substantially Motion to Quash and Preliminary Investigation
contemporaneous arrest, it can precede at the outset. The
probable cause was based on the information – that the search Solid Triangle v. Sheriff of RTC
was valid, the arrest on the search was valid. 370 SCRA 491 | November 23, 2001 | Kapunan J.
Search of a moving vehicle exception.
It is impracticable to obtain a warrant when the s earch Question: May the court issuing the search warrant quash the
is conducted on moving vehicles since they can be same on the on the ground of lack of PC despite the pendency
moved out quickly. of a PI before the PROS office involving the possession of object
The search here was valid for it carried the contraband. which were seized by the SW?
Commentary: Note this is a second division ruling – this is not Held: YES. The proceedings for the issuance/quashal of SW
a ruling, if such is allowed we are adding another exception before a court and the PI before the prosecutor are entirely
– the search cannot precede the arrest – here it was stated different from each other (Crespo v. Mogul). The court does not
that the search was in a moving vehicle – allowed. oblige the investigation PROS not to file INF for the ruling of a
court is only for the quashal of warrant.
But to say that search first but arrest after is made, what do we
mean by contemporaneous? Here Here it was made before – but the It may be true that as a result of the quashal of the warrant, the
search was made under a basis the information. private complainant is deprived of vital evidence to establish
his case, but such is the inevitable consequence. But it does not
render the PI academic.
A motion to quash
and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby may be Waiver of Illegality of Search
filed in and acted upon only by the court where the action
Objects to the legality of the search to the admissibility of the
has been instituted, the motion may be filed in and
resolved by the court that issued the search warrant. evidence obtained thereby are deemed waived when NO
However, if such court failed to resolve the motion and a OBJECTION TO THE LEGALITY of the SW is raised during the
criminal case was subsequently filed in another court, the trial of the case nor to the admissibility of the evidence
motion shall be resolved by the latter court. obtained (Demaisip v. People 193 S 373, 1991).
Venue of Motion to Quash YES. The motion to quash may be filed in either courts (under
the old ruling), Rule 126 however provides a different rule. Here
Ong v. CA even under the new rule, it was proper to file in RTC Lapu-Lapu.
370 SCRA 48 | November 21, 2001 | Quisumbing J.
Commentary: Normally SW precedes the filing of the case it
Facts: The RTC Ilocos Branch 17 issued SW for seizure of could be a different court for SW and different of filing case,
firearms belonging to Ong. Following the confiscation of but once an information is filed it is the only court that can rule
unlicensed firearms, the Provincial Prosecutor charged Ong on the motion to quash. Note motion to quash – QUASH.
with violation PD 1866 which was raffled to Branch 15.
Meanwhile Ong filed a motion to recall SW before Branch 17. MANLY v. DADODETTE (2005)
SW was issued against Dadodette on allegation that it harbored
Issue: May Branch 17, recall warrant it previously issued and goods the copyright of which belonged to Manly Sportswear
order the return of the seized items? the search warrant was issued by RTC Manila. It was filed in the
same RTC that issued a same court.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 90
Yes. The power to issue is vested with the judges in the exercise But it has been used and seized, what is the point of
of their judicial function. Therefore, the power to quash rests MTQ? So you file a motion to suppress evidence.
with the court which issued them, he is not precluded to issue
a motion to quash.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 91
When the
the civil action is properly
instituted in the criminal action as provided in Rule 111,
the offended party may have the property of the accused
attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment
that may be recovered from the accused in the following
cases:
When the accused is about to abscond from the
Philippines;
When the criminal action is based on a claim for
money or property embezzled or fraudulently
misapplied or converted to the use of the
accused who is a public officer, officer of a
corporation, attorney, factor, broker, agent or
clerk, in the course of his employment as such,
or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or
for a willful violation of duty;
When the accused has concealed, removed, or
disposed of his property, or is about to do so; and
When the accused resides outside the
Philippines.
Attachment
B. Purpose of attachment
To hold the property of the accused as security for the
satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered from the
accused.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 92
Bail is the security given for the 2. Property bond; property is put up by the accused if
release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him such conditions are violated it shall be sold at a public
or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any auction, the amount shall be forfeited in favor of the
court as required under the conditions hereinafter
government.
specified, Bail may be given in the form of corporate
surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance.
3. Cash deposit; the most popular form of bail bond.
Definition
4. Recognizance; this is not property, money nor surety
Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody
but this is just a persons released in his own custody
of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman.
or custody of a responsible person – this is not
allowed anymore.
Normally if you are not in custody of the law, there is no point
in posting bail. This is bail – in exchange for one’s freedom. He
Who will decide what to post?
gives security so he can be temporarily released.
It is the accused, the court cannot order what form of bond to
be made, like property bond. Recognizance is not allowed as a
Who Furnishes the Bail?
general rule, only in certain cases.
1. The person in custody whose release is sought; or
2. A bondsman
Bail Prior to Arrest
Q. May an accused who has not been arrested be granted bail?
There is a case where Mr. X lent his property to Mr. Y who was
charged criminally and wanted to post bail, so he borrowed the
NO. The right to bail can only be availed of by a
title of Mr. X as bail bond. Mr. X is the bondsman. Mr. Y has
person who is in custody of the law or otherwise deprived of
absconded and then the bail bond was forfeited and later on
his liberty and it would be premature not to say incongruous, to
Mr. X found that the property was already in the name of
file a petition for bail for someone whose freedom has yet to
another person and he filed an action to quite title.
be curtailed (Docena-Caspe v. Bugtas, 2003).
What is the Purpose of Bail?
Meaning of “In Custody of the Court”
To guarantee said person’s appearance before any court.
Q. When is a person deemed to be in custody for the purpose
Because normally person on bail is undergoing trial, so most of
of bail application? Arrested or deprived of liberty.
the time, a person undergoing trial does not have to appear
only on certain stages (plea, identification and promulgation)
When either of the following happens:
but the rest of the time there is no need.
(a) He is arrested by virtue of a lawful arrest; or
But when he is required he has to appear thus the bail
(b) He has voluntarily submitted
submitted himself to jurisdiction of
serves as a penalty.
the court by surrendering to the proper authorities.
It is combine administration to criminal justice
convenience to keep him from imprisoned while trial.
Tabao v. Judge Barataman : The father cannot file for bail for
It is not only to give him provisional liberty, but also
the accused was still not under the jurisdiction of the court via
to declog the jail – to work and provide for families.
arrest or voluntarily surrender.
Not everyone has the right to bail, this is a constitutional right
Principle of Constructive Custody
but given only to persons who are not charged with RP when
the evidence is strong (under the Constitution), so below that
Santiago v. Vasquez
even RT and below, bail is a matter of right. Right given by the
217 SCRA 633 | January 27, 1993 | Regalado, J.
constitution.
What if not RP but evidence of guilt is strong? What if
Facts: Accused was charged before the SB without having been
accused is military person (Comendador v. De Villa). It
arrested and without actually physically surrendering to the
does not apply under military under Court Martial.
court, she posted bail stating that “she be considered as having
Right to bail springs from the presumption of
placed herself under the jurisdiction” of the court as she was
innocence, after the trial he can be given acquittal.
then in hospital. When later on the SB issued a Hold Departure
Order against her, she claimed that said court had no
Different Types of Bail
jurisdiction to do so.
1. Corporate surety; - this is issued by a bonding
company and they will issued a surety bond. So
Issue: Did the court validly acquire jurisdiction over accused?
example is bail is P500K, the accused need not to put
up P500K, the accused will just pay surety company a
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 93
Held: It has been held that where after the filing of the Held: NO. Trial proceeded without the accused calling the
complaint or information a warrant for the arrest of the accused attention of the trial court of his unresolved petition. It was only
is issued by the trial court and the accused either voluntarily on appeal that he raised the issue.
submitted himself to the court or was duly arrest, the court
thereby acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Thus, for failure to raise the issue at the earliest opportune
time, accused is deemed to have waived the right to bail. In
In this case, accused is deemed to have voluntarily submitted addition, when the issue has been rendered academic by the
herself to the jurisdiction of the court upon the filing of her conviction of the accused.
motion wherein she express sought leave that “ she be
considered as having placed herself under the jurisdiction of the When an accused is charged with an offense punishable by
Sandiganbayan for purposes of the required trial and other reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment or death, and the
proceedings.” Accused
Accused cannot now be heard to claim otherwise evidence of guilt is strong, bail must be denied.
for, by her own representations, she is effectively estopped
from asserting the contrary after she had recognized the Bail for Military Men
jurisdiction of the court. Q. Are military men charged before court martial for violation
of the Articles of War entitled to bail?
Q. May person charged with capital offense who is undergoing
confinement in a hospital be admitted to bail even before he is NO. Bail has traditionally not been recognized and is
arrested or voluntarily surrenders? not available in the military, as an exception to the general rule
embodied in the Bill of Rights. The justification for this
It may be conceded that accused had indeed filed his exception is that the unique structure of the military should be
motion for admission to bail before he was actually and enough reason to exempt military men from the constitutional
physically under arrest. He may however, at that point in the coverage on the right to bail.
factual ambience thereof, be considered as being constructively
and legally under custody. Through his lawyers he voluntarily Aside from this structural peculiarity, it is vital to note that
submitted himself. This may squarely fall as house arrest or mutinous soldiers operate within the framework of the
confined to quarters ( Paderanga v. CA ). democratic system are allowed the fiduciary use of firearms by
the government for discharge of duties and responsibilities and
Waiver of Right to Bail are paid out of revenues collected from the people
Even though cases are bailable maybe because of waiver via (Comendador v. De Villa, 200 SCRA 80, August 2, 1991).
failure to pay the bond or waiver.
Bail in Extradition
A. Express Waiver Q. In extradition proceedings, is the prospective extraditee
The right to bail can be waived. Rights guaranteed to one entitled to post bail while the extradition proceedings are
accused of a crime fall naturally into 2 classes: pending?
a. Those in which the state, as well as the accused; is
interested; and NO. Extradition proceedings are not criminal in nature
b. Those which are personal to the accused, which are in and by using the term “before conviction”, it is apparent that
the nature of personal privileges. the right to bail does not apply in extradition proceedings
because extradition courts do not render judgments of
Those of the first class cannot be waived; those of the second conviction or acquittal ( Government v. Purganan, 2002).
may be. Bail is a right which is personal to the accused and
whose waiver would not be contrary to law, public order, etc. US GOVERNMENT v. PURGANAN (2002)
This involved Mark Jimenez, he was wanted in the US for certain
B. Implied Waiver crimes like money laundering and related to stocks and he
came to the Philippines, while he was here, US filed an
People v. Manes extradition case against him.
303 SCRA 231 | February 17, 1999
At that time he was free but he was arrested. Now when an
Facts: Accused was charged with murder. He applied for bail extradition case is filed, our government can arrest that person
but the judge set the case for trial without acting on such. He and detain him and an extradition proceedings. Is he entitled to
was convicted and on appeal he contended that the judge bail while pending?
committed a serious error of law when he tried the case without
resolving the application for bail. NO. He is not entitled to bail.
Issue: Is the contention of the accused correct? NOTE: But now we have the case of Hong Kong Government v.
Olalia.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 94
He remained incarcerated until 2001 and he was detained for Effect of Failure of the Accused to Appear at the Trial
two years by any standard such deprivation of liberty is serious, without Justification and Despite Due Notice
bail may be granted to a possible extraditee: 1. It shall be deemed as a wavier of his right to be
1. That he is not a flight risk or a danger to the present thereat; and trial proceed in absentia.
community; and 2. For execution of the final judgment.
2. That there is humanitarian reasons.
Contents
Comments: This case overturn US v. Purganan, because bail is
allowed in criminal cases, but in extradition proceedings, so if The original papers shall state:
bail can be granted in criminal cases (which is higher) why not 1. The full name and address of the accused;
the administrative proceedings like extradition proceedings. 2. The amount of the undertaking, and
3. The conditions required by Section 2.
This is an en banc case of 2007 penned by Justice Sandoval
Gutierrez. It is shown that an en banc ruling can overturn an What must be attached to the bail:
earlier decision of the Supreme Court. Thus, extradition cases Photographs of the accused:
now allows the filing of bail. Thus it clearly overturns the case 1. Passport size;
of US v. Purganan prohibiting bail in extradition proceedings by 2. Taken within the last six months; and
virtue of constitution and international law. 3. Showing his face, left and right profiles.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 95
Presence of Accused When it comes to Hold Departure Order only the RTC can
Q. In what instances may be an accused not be allowed to waive issue an HDO, the MTC has no right to issue an HDO, so there
his presence in court? is a possibility those under bail under HDO cases can travel.
In certain stages of the proceedings, an accused on bail or tried Under the constitution we also have the right to travel.
in absentia may be required to appear, to wit:
1. At arraignment and plea, whether innocence or of
guilt; No person under detention by legal process shall
2. During trial whenever necessary for identification be released or transferred except upon order of the court
purposes, and or when he is admitted to bail.
3. Promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light
offense, in which case the accused may appear by A Person Under Detention by Legal Process
counsel or representative. Not Released or Transferred, Exceptions
1. Upon order of the court; or
At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is required and 2. When he is admitted to bail.
it cannot be waived (Lavides v. CA, 2000).
Is this really being followed?
Presence during Trial No, let’s say the person is arrested and brought to Sta. Ana jail
Q. May the court order the forfeiture of the bail bond of the after spending some time there he is transferred to Maa City
accused upon his failure to appear for trial where his presence Jail it is not always with a court order. What about going the
is not specifically required by the Rules of Court? court to attend hearing – there is no need for a court order for
it is not considered as a court transfer.
NO. The accused shall appear before the proper court
whenever so required by the Rules of Court. A bail bond may ORBE v. DIGANDANG (2009)
be forfeited only in instances where the presence of the This is en banc and per curiam. On February 14 PDEA-ARMM
accused is specifically required by the court or the Rules of arrested Indag for alleged violation of RA 9165. They were
Court and despite due notice to the bondsmen to produce him released from custody of the Provincial Warden on the basis of
before the court on a given date, the accused fails to appear in the Custody Receipt by Marcus Digandang.
person as so required (Marcos v. Ruiz, 1992).
Complainant alleges that the release was illegal for the offense
Arraignment as Condition for Bail were non-bailable offense. Digandang however alleged they
Q. May the court set as a condition that the bail bond of the needed medical attention and that the warden temporarily
accused will only be approved after he is arraigned? released custody of them for humanitarian reasons. Was this
proper?
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 96
NO. The accused were charged with a non-bailable offense, Governor claims good faith in taking custody as Provincial Jail er
that they were released from detention on the basis merely of basing on Article 1731 of the Administrative Code of 1917.
the Custody Receipt singed by Digandang. This is not which is However, nowhere in said provision that gives the provincial
contemplated under Section 3. It was the process server who governor has the power to take custody of detention prisoner,
signed, it should be the judge who should sign the release. at best he is only given administration of the jail, procurement
of food and clothing.
AMBIL v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2009)
Governor Ambil and Provincial Warden Apelado were charged Before he can in case of insufficient number of jail. This
with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. They released the provision is also superseded by the Section 3, Rule 114 of Rules
criminally charged Adalim and transferred to the residence of of Criminal Procedure. Under separation of powers, only the
Governor for a period of 85 days and such act was without any court can release or transfer or the person. The governor has
court order. He only posted bail months after stay. Whether a no authority to transfer even if the detainee is a mayor of the
provincial governor has authority to take custody of the government.
prisoner. NO.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 97
Held: YES. Under Administrative Circular 12-94, bail is a matter 2. Provided it is shown that:
of right before conviction by the RTC of an offense not a. The accused
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. i. Is NOT a recidivist;
ii. Is NOT a quasi-recidivist;
Q. What if the RTC erroneous grants bail? iii. Is NOT a habitual delinquent; or
The CA motu proprio can review and reverse the decision or iv. Has NOT committed the crime
the offended party can file an appeal to the CA, questioning the aggravated by the circumstance of
grant by the RTC of the bail of the person, then the CA can be reiteration.
reverse the issue. Notice must be given.
b. The accused has NOT:
Q. What if the RTC erroneous denies bail? i. Escaped from legal confinement;
Then the accused must appeal the decision of the RTC to the ii. Evaded sentence, or
CA in order for the CA to review the validity of the grant of bail iii. Violated the conditions of his bail
in such a manner that it will allow the reversal thereof. without valid justification.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 98
c. The accused did NOT commit the offense Since Obosa was convicted of two counts of homicide, his bail
while under: application is subject to the sound discretion of the court.
i. Probation;
ii. Parole; or SAN MIGUEL v. JUDGE MACEDA (2007)
iii. Conditional pardon San Miguel was arrested with violation of RA 6425 punishable
by PC he jumped bail. Judge issued bench warrant and fix the
d. The circumstances of the accused’s case bail bond to P120K cancelling his P60K bail. State prosecutor
does NOT indicate the probability of flight if filed motion to cancel for there was risk of evasion of trial.
released on bail; or Judge argued that an information for murder was
was filed
3 days earlier before the filing of the cancellation by
e. There is NO undue risk that the accused may the prosecutor.
commit another crime during the pendency
of the appeal. Bail is a matter of right in this case. Eduardo was charged
Effect when Bail is Discretionary and was charged of RA 6425 which was punishable by PC this was
Accused Files a Notice of Appeal a matter of right.
1. The application for bail may be filed and acted upon What about the murder information? The The court held that no, he
by the RTC: was still entitled to bail but no longer as a matter of right
a. If the original record has not yet been instead it is discretionary and calls for a judicial determination
transmitted to the appellate court. that the evidence of guilt is not strong.
2. The application for bail can only be filed and resolved Comment: Remember this case when the applicable law was
by the appellate court: RA 6425 wherein bail was still allowed in drug cases but under
a. If the decision of the RTC convicting the RA 9165 they are now non-bailable. Since penalty here is PC, it
accused changed the nature if the offense does not matter, the five circumstances, it does not matter,
from non-bailable to bailable. when it is a matter of right, it is a matter of right, it is punishable
only be PC which is 6 months to 6 years.
3. If the proper court grants the application for bail:
a. The accused may be allowed to continue on CHUA v. CA AND CHIOK (2007)
provisional liberty during the pendency of Chua filed complaint against Chiok before RTC. RTC set the
the appeal under the same bail; promulgation but Chiok failed to appear. RTC convicted him of
b. However, this must be with the consent of estafa and sentencing him for 12Y to 20Y. Prosecutor filed for
the bondsman. cancellation of bail for he might flee or commit another crime.
A Record Check Routing Form issued by BIR showing
4. When it is the RTC which resolves the application for that he has Alien Cert. of Registration and Immigrant
bail: Residence Cert. and admitted that he used aliases.
a. The appellate court may review the RTC issued an omnibus order cancelling his bail and
resolution of the RTC: giving him 5 days to appear, otherwise he would be
i. Motu proprio arrest. RTC issued warrant of arrest pending appeal to
ii. On motion of any party. the CA for the bail reconsideration.
b. Notice must be given to the adverse party. The warrant was returned unserved because he could
not be found in his address.
Where Penalty Exceeds Six Years Argued that offense was non-capital offense.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 99
The special civil action he filed was unnecessary for it comes of guilt was strong. When it is discretionary, it applies to Section
with the review – he must file a regular appeal proceeding 5 where the court has the option has to grant or deny. Once
with the CA which includes the review of RTC cancellation of court determines the evidence of guilt is strong, bail should be
bail. denied.
What was the basis of the denial of the bail? He was
convicted by the RTC of a crime punishable by 12Y which is What happened here, there was a Demurrer to Evidence which
between 6Y and 20Y and therefore bail is a matter of discretion is a motion to dismiss on the ground that the prosecution
but it was proven that he was a flight risk. In this circumstances, evidence is insufficient. The demurrer was filed, the original INF
the bail here must be denied. charged Plaza with murder – so evidence was presented.
The demurrer was denied – but the judge continued
PEOPLE v. SB AND ESTRADA (2007) the trial not for murder but now for homicide which is
He was charged with crime of plunder (RP); he filed an now bailable.
application for bail, after bail hearing it was granted. Was the If it was based on murder, then hearing shall be made.
grant of bail valid? – YES.
The SC stated here that there is no need for hearing for there is
Even if the capital offense charged is bailable owing to the already determination that it was only for homicide, for it is
weakness of the evidence of guilt, the right to bail may already a matter of right.
justifiably denied if the probability of escape is great.
great.
The grant of bail is not acquittal. LEVISTE v. CA (2010)
The SB is still in the process of determining of the facts Leviste was initially charged for murder but was convicted by
and merits – but in this stage the evidence was not RTC Makati of homicide appealed his conviction and filed an
found to be strong. application for admission to bail citing his advanced age and
health condition. Leviste questioned the denial of CA stating
Comment: If the penalty for the crime is RP, the bail is not that none of the 5 circumstances are present.
automatically denied – there should be a hearing to determine
whether or not evidence of guilt is strong. Does the absence of any of the circumstances warrant the
automatic grant of bail? NO.
OCA v. JUDGE LORENZO (2008)
They found smoking and manufacturing shabu, despite strong Two Scenarios
objection from prosecution, the accused were granted bail. Was 1. Absence of any circumstances – bail is a matter of
the grant of bail proper? sound judicial discretion then the appellate has the
Filipino committed sniffing of shabu (RA 6425, S8) it discretion to grant or deny bail.
was proper to grant bail was bailable. 2. If there is one of any circumstances – contemplates
As to the Chinese committed manufacturing and the existence of at least one of the said circumstances
possession of shabu which is life imprisonment, bail is – a more stringent discretion, to carefully ascertain
a matter of right still when the evidence of guilt is not whether any of the enumerated circumstances.
strong.
It cannot be said that the CA error in denying bail, for it has the
There should have been a bail hearing, he preterminated bail sound discretion to either grant or deny the same. If none of
hearing and the prosecution was not given the opportunity to the circumstances are present and punishable of 6Y-20Y, the
prove that the evidence of guilt is strong. bail is matter of discretion after conviction by RTC.
The judge should not grant bail right away if the
prosecution is not given opportunity or else the state It is no longer a matter of right, a matter of discretion
will be denied of due process. and if any of the circumstances are present, it shall be
denied. This is a matter of proof .
PEOPLE v. PLAZA (2009) But still it is still under the discretion of the court
Plaza was charged with Murder, Judge Buyser’s Order stated under Section 5.
that the evidence was for homicide. Jugde Tan (upon transfer)
agreed that the evidence was only for Homicide. The brother What then is remedy of Leviste then? He must appeal the
argued that there was no hearing. possible grave abuse of discretion of CA, for CA can review the
RTC discretion, more so the SC can review the discretion of the
He was entitled to bail as a matter of right. This was before CA.
conviction of RTC and homicide was RT. A summary hearing
is not required because the evidence has already been But here Leviste insisted that it was a matter of right, no it was
presented. Summary hearing is brief and speedy method to not. He should have asked for the CA to question whether it
determine the weight of evidence for the grant of bail. was wrong in denying the bail.
Comment: SC used here when bail is discretionary in a sense SC stated the theory of the lawyer of Leviste reduced
that the court has the right to determine whether the evidence the CA as a fact-finding body.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 100
When you analyze, you have to make sure the stage of the Evidence of Mitigating Circumstance
proceedings, when is bail being applied for. Q. In determining whether the offense is capital, may the court
take consideration the presence of mitigating and aggravating
QUI v. PEOPLE (2012) circumstances?
Qui was charged under RA 7610. OSG argued that Qui is a flight
risk and propensity to evade the law for he failed to attend NO. An offense is capital if it may be punished by
hearings in the RTC. The CA denied her application on the basis death under both the law prevailing at time of its commission
of bail. Whether or not Qui can be granted bail? and that prevailing at the time of application for bail, even if
after conviction less than death penalty is imposed.
Bail negating conditions – tough on bail pending appeal, Qui
indeed did not attend the hearings in the RTC and transferred The criterion to determine whether the offense charged is
residence without informing her bondsman. capital is the PENALTY PROVIDED BY LAW regardless of the
attendant circumstances.
PEOPLE v. PIAD (2016)
Four people were charged with violation RA 9165. All of them Rationale of provision lies in the difficulty and impracticability
were judged to be guilty by the RTC and that conviction was of determining the nature of the offense on the basis of the
affirmed by CA. In the SC, the BOC informed SC that Mr. Davis penalty actually imposable. Otherwise, the test will require
was not kept in any facility. Mr. Davis appeared in court consideration not only of evidence showing commission of the
nonetheless no warrant arrest or commit order against him. crime but also evidence of the circumstances. Thus, there has
to be not only a complete trial, but the trial court must also
The OSG should have immediately cancelled the bail bond. So, render a decision in the case. This defeats the purpose of bail,
Whether Davis is entitled to bail? The court ruled that it is a which is to entitle the accused to provisional liberty pending
matter of right that before conviction – the crime was only trial (People v. IAC, 1987).
punishable by reclusion temporal.
Evidence of Minority (Bravo v. Borja, Jr., 1985)
The moment he violated the conditions of his bail, his bail is Q. Where the accused who is charged with a capital offense is
already cancelled. The bail should be denied the moment the a minor, is he entitled to bail as a matter of right even if the
person fails to comply with the conditions. evidence of guilt is strong?
The RTC should have immediately order the arrest of
Mr. Davis, there was no record of him being kept in YES. Where it has been established without objection
the detention facility. that accused is a minor, it follows that if convicted he would be
given “the penalty lower than that prescribed by law,” which
Comment: When a person out on bail, violates the condition effectively rules out death penalty.
of his bail bond, where will you find the conditions – Section 2.
Then, the bail bond under Section 5, that violation of conditions The Constitution withholds the guaranty of bail from one who
will cause the cancellation of his bail bond. Even though it is a is accused of a capital offense where the evidence of guilt is
matter of right, Section 5 applies when bail is discretionary. strong. The obvious reason is that one who faces a probable
The bail filed before RTC is cancelled if any of these death sentence has a particularly strong temptation to flee.
circumstances.
This reason does not hold where the accused has been
But when he violate conditions of bail even though matter of established without objection to be a minor who by law cannot
right, it shall be cancelled. Even though bail is a right, it is a be sentenced to death (Bravo v. Borja, Jr. , 1985).
waivable right by violating the conditions.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 101
NOTE: It is clearly obvious that he will be given the penalty next certiorari anytime considering that the Rules provide that no
lower and if there is no objection then it shall be appreciated. person charged with a capital offense shall b e admitted to bail
regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution?
No person NO, it is true that Rule 114, Section 7 of the Rules of
charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by Court provide that an accused charged with a capital offense is
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, shall be
not entitled to bail at any time during trail when the evidence
admitted to bail when the evidence of guilt is strong,
regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. of guilt is strong.
It does not mean however that since the accused is not entitled
WHEN BAIL SHALL BE DENIED
to bail at any stage of the trial, a grant thereof can be
questioned any time and without the regard to the period of
1. BEFORE conviction by the RTC:
filing provided by the Rules.
a. Of an offense punishable by:
i. Death
An order of granting bail is interlocutory and when it is issued
ii. Reclusion perpetua; or
with grave abuse of discretion a special civil action is can be
iii. Life imprisonment
considered as an appropriate remedy. However Rule 65,
b. The evidence of guilt is strong.
Section 4 prescribes a period of 60 days to file a special civil
action for certiorari (Pobre v. CA, 2005).
2. AFTER conviction by the RTC, pending appeal, of an
Bail while Conviction is on Appeal
offense punishable by:
a. Death
Padilla v. CA
b. Reclusion perpetua
260 SCRA 155 | July 31, 1996
c. Life imprisonment
Accused was convicted by RTC of violation of PD 1866 and
3. AFTER conviction by the RTC of an offense with an
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 17 years and 4
imposable penalty of imprisonment of more than 6
months and 1 day of reclusion temporal to 21 years of reclusion
years but not exceeding 20 years, and it is shown
perpetua. He appealed to the CA, but judgment was rendered
that:
affirming his conviction. Is accused entitled to bail pending
a. The accused:
review of his conviction by the Supreme Court?
i. Is a recidivist;
ii. Is a quasi-recidivist;
NO. If an accused who is charged with a crime
iii. Is a habitual delinquent;
punishable by reclusion perpetua is convicted by the trial court
iv. Has committed crime aggravated
and sentenced to suffer such a penalty, bail is neither a matter
by the circumstances of reiteration.
of right on the part of the accused nor of discretion on the part
of the court.
b. The accused has:
i. Escaped from legal confinement;
In this case, the accused was convicted of a crime punishable
ii. Evaded sentence, or
by reclusion perpetua. Therefore, the Court finds accused not
iii. Violated the conditions of his bail
entitled to bail as his conviction clearly imports that the
without valid justification;
evidence of guilt is strong.
c. The accused committed the offense while
Indeed, the extensive trial before the RTC and the appeal before
under:
the CA are more than sufficient in accomplishing the purpose
i. Probation
for which a summary hearing for bail application is designed.
ii. Parole, or
iii. Conditional pardon
PEOPLE v. RICHARD HU (2005)
Can Richard Hu apply for bail as a matter of right? - NO
d. The circumstances of the accused’s case
indicates the probability of flight if released
Section 7 Rule 114 provides that no person charged with a
on bail; or
capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment shall be admitted to bail when evidence of
e. There is undue risk that the accused may
guilt is strong regardless of the stage of the criminal
commit another crime during the pendency
prosecution.
of the appeal.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 102
If the accused is charged with an offense punishable by death, This should refer to prescribed not imposable penalty. The
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the judge should not complex crime RT to RP. The imposable penalty. The SB
grant bail for his provisional release regardless of whether or intended the prescribed penalty the word used is punishable
not the prosecutor recommends bail under the Circular. which carries the same meaning prescribed.
If the accused has been brought under custody of the court, he Comment: Remember under Criminal Law, in special complex
may file a petition for bail for his provisional liberty. If, after the crimes which are named and numbered with their own
requisite hearing, the court finds that the evidence of the penalties. In this case, the one with the higher penalty will apply.
accused is strong; the petition shall be denied, and accused will However, this is the prescribed penalty which is applied
remain under the custody of the court. before conviction .
But after conviction, and the penalty imposed is RP;
However, if the evidence of the guilt of the accused is not what is then the basis the RP after conviction , here
strong, the petition shall be granted and the accused the evidence of guilt is already strong.
discharged upon approval of the bail bond, in such amount Before conviction – prescribed penalty
fixed by the court takin into consideration the guidelines set After conviction – penalty imposed
forth in Section 9, Rule 114. In this case, no conviction yet.
This is an EN BANC case, this can be doctrine.
In this case: Respondent was charged with qualified theft of
P762K and in People v. Canales, the Court ruled that the ENRILE v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2015)
penalty for qualified theft under Article 40 of the RPC taking Enrile was charged with plunder in the SB involving the PDAF,
into account the value of the property stolen is reclusion the filed a motion to Fix Bail. Enrile has three arguments:
perpetua with the accessory penalty of death, with no 1. The prosecution not established guilt is strong;
possibility of pardon before the lapse of forty years. 2. Penalty RT (by virtue of mitigating circumstances)
3. Not a flight risk and his age and physical condition
Since the imposable penalty for the felony charged is reclusion must be seriously considered.
perpetua, the respondent was not entitled to bail as a matter of
right. Hence, the RTC was correct in rejecting the recommended SB: Only after prosecution shall have presented evidence and
amount of bail of P40K and ordering the issuance of warrants the court made determination only when court is duty bound
for the arrest of Richard Hu. to fix the amount of bail. SB stated it was premature, he did not
file for application.
VALERIO v. CA
Milagros claims that she is entitled to bail because evidence of The contention of mitigating circumstances are not
guilt against her is strong. The SC ruled that no. The SC said covered.
that the trial court ignored the glaring fact that the killer The age and condition are considered, but he did not
confessed the crime and implicated Milagros as mastermind, file the proper motion.
making her a possible principal by inducement.
He is entitled to bail. For purposes for admission of bail, the
Comment: This is an illustration when bail should be denied, determination of evidence of guilt being strong, there must be
there was a plea of guilty by the killer and implicating that she a hearing for bail (there was none).
was a principal by inducement.
The court is guided by the principle by the purpose
Unfortunately, since this is a influential person, Jun Valerio, of bail, which is to guarantee the appearance of the
when it reached the Supreme Court it took account of the accused at the trial or whenever required by court.
circumstances. Clearly, the evidence of guilt was strong.
The Court is mindful in the national commitment
PEOPLE v. VALDEZ (2011) under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Luzviminda was former mayor and was alleged to the altered Two Requisites:
and falsified cash slips amounting to P279K. OMB 1. Detainee will not be flight risk;
recommended no bail, the charge constituting the complex 2. There exists, special humanitarian and compelling
crime was the penalty of RP. Was the complex crime a non- circumstances.
bailable offense?
Two Requisites are Present
No. When committed through falsification of official/public He immediately for surrendered
documents, the RPC does intend to classify malversation as a This showed utter respect for the legal processes of
capital offense, otherwise It should have been included under the country
RA 7659 which gives the list of capital offense. Solid reputation in both his public and his private life
Fragile health conditions.
“Punishable”
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 103
Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of the 1. Upon motion of either party;
crime charged, should be allowed independently of the merits 2. Unless the witness to be called is:
of the charge, provided his continued incarceration is clearly a. Dead
shown to be injurious to his health or to endanger his life. b. Outside the Philippines, or
Indeed, denying him bail despite imperiling his health and life c. Otherwise unable to testify
would not serve the true objective of preventive incarceration
during the trial. Commentary: The accused is in upper hand here, the burden
of proof in the prosecution. This is a summary hearing, a
Comment: Here, the court did not really strictly based in the hearing is more like an informal conversation, it is not a full
rule. Decisions of the court are collegial. blown trial. A hearing to determine whether to determine if
guilt is strong is MANDATORY.
PEOPLE v. SOBREPENA (2016)
Sobrepena was charged for Estafa and Large Scale Illegal Even if the prosecutor r ecommended bail, the prosecutor must
Recruitment. Is he entitled for bail? NO. The court’s grant or still prove or try to prove that the evidence of guilt is strong
refusal of bail, what contain a summary of evidence of the which is quite contrary.
prosecution on the basis of judgment whether such evidence is What is discretionary is only when the determination
strong enough to indicate the guilt of the accused. whether the evidence of guilt is strong.
The bail hearing is mandatory – always.
The findings and assessment of the trial during the bail hearing
were only a preliminary appraisal of the strength of the BASCO v. JUDGE RAPATALO (1997)
evidence for the limited purpose of determining whether they In the light of the applicable rules on bail and the
are entitled to be released on bail during pendency. jurisprudential principles just enunciated, this Court reiterates
the duties of the trial judge in case an application for bail is
Comment: Here there was a summary hearing to determine filed:
whether or not the evidence guilt of strong. There was no (1) Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application
conviction yet, in a summary hearing there is no need to prove for bail or require him to submit his recommendation
guilt. When the CA ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse (Section 18, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court as
of discretion, the People went to the SC, and SC went back to amended);
the RTC ruling to deny bail. (2) Conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless
of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present
At the evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong
hearing of an application for bail filed by a person who is for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its
in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by sound discretion (Sections 7 and 8, supra);
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the
(3) Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is
prosecution has the burden of showing that evidence of
guilt is strong. The evidence presented during the bail strong based on the summary of evidence of the
hearing shall be considered automatically reproduced at prosecution (Baylon v. Sison, supra);
the trial but, upon motion of either party, the court may (4) If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the
recall any witness for additional examination unless the accused upon the approval of the bailbond. (Section
latter is dead, outside the Philippines, or otherwise unable 19, supra). Otherwise, petition should be denied.
to testify.
GACAL v. INFANTE (2011)
PROCEDURE AND REQUIREMENT IN Judge Infante relying solely on the recommendation of bail
THE APPLICATION FOR BAIL granted such. Atty. Gacal was private prosecutor filed MR to
cancel bail bond and filed for inhibition of Infante for his failure
1. An application for bail is filed by a person who is in custody to resolve for he was too dependent on the public prosecutor’s
for the commission of an offense punishable by death, reclusion comment considering that the resolution was under discretion
perpetua, or life imprisonment; was no necessary.
Judge argued that no need for hearing, for there was
2. There must be a hearing to determine as to whether or not no hearing.
the evidence of guilt is strong;
Is hearing before grant of bail necessary? YES.
3. The burden is one the prosecution to prove that the evidence It is mandatory before grant of bail whether bail is matter of
of guilt is strong. right or a matter of discretion, especially if it involves a capital
offense, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
4. The evidence being presented during bail hearing shall be
considered automatically reproduced at the trial, but The case involved here murder with a penalty of RP, therefore
murder is considered a capital offense by reason of penalty
5. The court may recall any witness for additional examination imposed by law. The hearing here is indispensable.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 104
Is bail hearing dispensable when accused did not file for The judge who
application? NO issued the warrant or granted the application shall fix a
reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not
limited to, the following factors:
Even where there is no petition for bail. This hearing is separate
(a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;
and distinct from the initial hearing to determine the existence (b) Nature and circumstance of the offense;
of probable cause. The prosecution must be given the chance. (c) Penalty for the offense charged;
The recommendation is not material in deciding (d) Character and reputation of the accused;
whether the mandatory hearing is to be conducted or (e) Age and health of the accused;
accused;
not. The recommendation is not binding. (f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;
accused;
(g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bail;
Comment: Sometimes the prosecution goes beyond its (i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from
authority, it only files information after PI. The prosecution justice when arrested; and
recommended for bail despite the fact it was murder (RP) thus, (j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on
there is should be a hearing. bail.
Whether matter of right or discretion there must be a
Excessive bail shall not be required.
hearing.
If only a matter of right what happens only is the fixing
the amount where the accused can ask for a lower GUIDELINES IN THE AMOUNT OF BAIL
amount.
If matter of discretion, if he does not apply then it is TANOG v. JUDGE BALINDONG (2015)
considered waived. Sidic filed motion to fix bail; the bail bond was fixed P30K, the
evidence guilt was no strong, RTC ordered City Warden to
GACAD v. JUDGE CLAPIS (2012) release accused. The prosecution objected. Was the bail
Judge Clapis was charged with gross ignorance of law. It was amount the reasonable amount of the bail? NO.
alleged that judge set hearing for a petition for pail, accused
here filed a petition for bail only on April 8, 2010. The hearing t is settled that the amount of bail should be reasonable at all
was on March 29, 2010. Judge Clapis calendared a continuous times. In implementing this mandate, regard should be taken
hearing for bail from April 12-14, 2010. of the prisoner's pecuniary circumstances. We point out that
what is reasonable bail to a man of wealth may be unreasonable
On May 18, 2010, Clapis granted petition of bail. He is liable to a poor man charged with a like offense. Thus, the right to
for conducting bail hearings without a petition
p etition for bail filed bail should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum that
for the accused without affording the prosecution an is relatively excessive. The amount should be high enough to
opportunity to prove that the guilt of the accused is strong. assure the presence of the defendant when required, but no
higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose.
1. An application for bail filed
2. Judge notified prosecution and conducted bail Comment: There is no fixed amount. In fixing the amount of
hearing bail, the judge is given the discretion to set an amount which
he or she perceives as appropriate under given circumstances
It was only on April 8 when accused filed application but on in relation to the factors enumerated under Section 9 of Rule
March 29 there was already hearing. During the April 12 114. As quoted above, Judge Balindong enumerated the
hearing Gacad appeared herself for the private counsel filed a reasons (i.e., accused's incarceration for more than 4 years; his
motion to withdraw. However, the hearing proceeded with reputation as a former councilor; his financial ability; and the
accused alone. It was only the last day on April 14 she was weak evidence against him) why he set the amount of bail at
represented by a private prosecutor. P30,000.00.
Clearly the prosecution was not given the opportunity BALANAY v. JUDGE WHITE (2016)
to prove the evidence of guilt of strong. A complaint against judge for gross ignorance of the law, for
he granted furloughs despite murder being non-bailable.
While there may be a hearing, there was no inquiry, Adamas was a public official. Judge White granted motion of
due process requires that the prosecution must be Adamas. Judge White also explained that she granted Adamas
given the opportunity to present within a reasonable six furloughs based on affidavits of desistance.
period all the evidence it may desire to produce
before the court should resolve the Motion for Bail. Bail hearing is necessary. A hearing for a petition for bail is
required in order for the court consider the guidelines set forth
Commentary: En banc case, per curiam, there was a setting of in fixing the amount of bail.
a hearing right away even before the application and then
during the hearing, the prosecution was not able to present. Comment: In other words, six furloughs were not allowed.
If you look at Section 3, one furlough – allowed, upon order of
the court. What is the procedure? The PAO lawyer will apply to
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 105
the court for an order for the temporary release for the accused Procedure
to attend burial for a few hours – not in the rules but is being Within ten (10) days after the approval of the bail bond:
done. But here, Adamas was a municipal councilor, who was 1. The accused shall cause the annotation of the lien:
detained for murder – he wanted to attend session. He should a. On the certificate of title on file;
ask for bail. Furloughs are not allowed. i. If the land is registered with the
This is a circumvention of bail grant. Registry of Deeds, or
Six furloughs is definitely not allowed. ii. If unregistered – in the Registration
Book on the space provided therefor,
Any domestic or foreign in the Registry of Deed for the province
corporation, licensed as a surety in accordance with law or city where the land lies.
and currently authorized to act as such, may provide bail b. On the corresponding tax declaration in the
by a bond subscribed jointly by the accused and an officer
office of the provincial, city or municipal
of the corporation duly authorized by its board of
directors. assessor concerned.
The owner of the property is the property bondsmen – it can Every surety must be worth the amount specified in his own
be a corporation or a natural person who is the registered undertaking over and above all:
owner of the property. Even unregistered property can be 1. Just debts
considered as subject for a property. Note that the accused 2. Obligations; and
must compliance – that he will cause the annotation of the 3. Properties exempt from execution
lien on title of property or tax declaration.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 106
Every surety shall NOTE: In truth and in fact, this is being deposited in the clerk
justify by affidavit taken before the judge that he possesses of courts, thus the scandal in the loss cash bonds.
the qualification prescribed in the preceding section. He
shall describe the property given as security, stating the
How much shall be deposited
nature of his title, its encumbrances, the number and
amount of other bails entered into by him and still 1. The amount of bail fixed by the court; or
undischarged, and his other liabilities. The court may 2. The amount recommended by the prosecutor who
examine the sureties upon oath concerning their investigated or filed the case.
sufficiency in such manner as i t may deem proper. No bail
shall be approved unless the surety is qualified. When Accused Shall be Discharged from Custody
Upon Submission Of:
Justification of Sureties 1. A proper certificate of deposit, and
2. A written undertaking showing compliance with the
1. Obligations of a surety: requirement of Section 2 (conditions of bail)
1. He must justify by affidavit taken before the judge that What Happens to the Money Deposited
he possess the qualifications prescribed in Section 12. 1. It shall be considered as bail;
2. He must describe the property given as security 2. It shall be applied to the payment of fine and costs
stating; 3. The excess, if any, shall be returned;
a. The nature of his title; a. To the accused, whether convicted or
b. The encumbrances acquitted, or
c. The number and amount of other bails b. To whoever made the deposit.
entered into by him and still undischarged;
and In Victory Liner v. Bellosillo 425 SCRA 79 (2004), the court
d. His other liabilities ruled that the judge compelling the conversion of surety bond
to cash bond, in a way requiring the latter, is wrong because
2. This court may examine the sureties upon oath concerning the option to deposit cash in lieu of a surety bond primarily
their sufficiency in such a manner as it may deem proper. belongs to the accused.
3. No bail shall be approved unless the surety is qualified. Q. May a judge be held administratively liable for personally
accepting the cash bond of an accused?
Commentary: He must submit an affidavit to show he is
qualified and disclose how many bails to be entered by him, YES. Rules specify person with whom a cash bail bond
because some people make this as a business. may be deposited, namely (1) collector of internal revenue or
(2) the provincial, city, or municipal treasurer. A judge is not
The accused or any authorized to receive the deposit of cash as bail nor should
person acting in his behalf may deposit in cash with the such cash be kept in his office (Lachica v. Tormis, 2005).
nearest collector of internal revenue or provincial, city, or
municipal treasurer the amount of bail fixed by the court,
It is the right of the accused to decide what kind of
or recommended by the prosecutor who investigated or
filed the case. Upon submission of a proper certificate of bail bond to apply person.
deposit and a written undertaking showing compliance
with the requirements ofof section 2 of this Rule,
Rule, the accused Whenever allowed by law or
shall be discharged from custody. The money deposited these Rules, the court may release a person in custody on
shall be considered as bail and applied to the payment of his own recognizance or that of a responsible person.
fine and costs while the excess, if any, shall be returned to
the accused or to whoever made the deposit.
RECOGNIZANCE
Cash Bond as Bail What is recognizance?
An obligation of record, entered into before some court or
Who may Deposit the Cash Bond: magistrate duly authorized to take it, with the condition to do
1. The accused; or some particular act, the most usual condition in criminal cases
2. Any person acting in his behalf being the appearance of the accused for trial.
Commentary: Most of the time it is not the accused who will When may person in custody be released on recognizance:
deposit their cash bond, it is their counsel. The accused cannot 1. Whenever allowed by law, or
do this personally most of the time. 2. Whenever allowed by these rules
Where the cash bond may be deposited: In whose recognizance may a person be released:
1. The nearest collector of internal revenue, or (BIR) 1. On his own, or
2. Provincial, city or municipal treasurer 2. On that of a responsible person.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 107
NO. The granting was a clear violation of RA 6036, the A person in custody for a period
period equal to or more
more than the
law allows release of recognizance if he is unable to post the minimum of the principal penalty prescribed for the
required cash or bail bond. The accused here is CPA, but the offense charged, without application of the Indeterminate
law did not distinguish. But even if he was not able to pay the Sentence Law or any modifying circumstance, shall be
released on a reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at
cash or bail bond, the sworn statement was signed by the father
the discretion of the court.
not the accused itself, here it was not the accused which is a
violation under the rules. The custodian cannot assume this
requirement. It was erroneous for it was the father filed. The When Bail is Not Required
accused here was at large, it is basic principle that bail cannot 1. When provided by law, or
be granted cannot be granted before custody has been 2. When provided by these Rules
acquired thus it has been premature.
NOTE: There are laws that do not require imprisonment like
Comment: Someone else can post the bail bond, the accused when it only imposes fine.
need not personally appear and post the bail bond. But it is
required that the accused is in the custody of the law. In this When a person in custody shall be released
case, he was at large, the father merely went on his behalf. Even 1. When he has been in custody for a period (without
if the crime is under RA 6036 it is not that easy to file for bail prejudice to the continuation of the trial or the
for recognizance. Section 1 requires that he is unable to afford. proceedings on appeal):
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 108
3. If he has been in custody for a period equal to or more Where Petition for Bail is Filed
than the minimum of the principal penalty prescribed
for the offense charged, (without application of the General Rule: With the court where the case is pending
Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying
circumstance): Exceptions: The petition may be filed
1. With any RTC or MTC judge in the province, city, or
He shall be released on a reduced bail or on municipality – when the judge where the case is
his own recognizance, at the discretion of the pending is absent or unavailable
court 2. With the RTC of the place where the accused is
arrested – if arrested in a place other than were the
When the accused is exempt putting up bail case is pending.
1. RA 6036: When the offense has an imposable penalty 3. With the MTC of the place where the accused is
of 6 months or less under the conditions mentioned arrested – of RTC judge of the place where he is
therein; arrested is not available.
2. Rule 114, Section 16: When a case is filed under the
Summary Rules, a mere notice is sufficient, a warrant Q. What if arrested in Kidapawan but committed crime in Davao
of arrest is not required; and a case is already filed?
3. Rule 112, Section 9(b): If the judge is satisfied that
there is no necessity for placing the accused under Section 17 provides it may also be filed to the RTC,
custody, he may issue summons instead of a warrant the mother can go to the Judge Carpio or to the RTC Kidapawan
of arrest or any RTC judge. Suppose it was an MTC crime, still she has
4. In summary rules, the accused need not be arrested to go to the RTC in Kidapawan.
so there is no need to arrest, thus there is no bail to Only when there is no RTC judge available and only
be considered. MTC judges are left – this is the only time the mother
can go to the MTC judge in Kidapawan.
Q. May a judge be held administratively liable for ordering the
arrest of accused and requiring bail in a case for malicious When bail can ONLY be granted in court where the case is
mischief which carries a penalty or arresto mayor? pending (whether or trial or on appeal)
1. When the grant is a matter of discretion, and
YES. RA 6036 provides that bail is not generally 2. When accused seeks to be released on recognizance
required for violation of municipal or city ordinances or for
criminal offenses when the prescribed penalty is not higher When the person in custody is NOT yet charged in court
than arresto mayor and/or
and/or a fine of P2000 or both. The petition may be filed with any court in the province, city or
municipality where he is held (this applies to inquest ).
).
In a charge of simple malicious mischief which is covered by the Any court: this applies to inquest proceedings where
Rule on Summary Procedure, bail is no longer necessary, unless a person is arrested without warrant, and he does not
accused fails to appear whenever required (Martinez v. want to spend a night in jail, so where can he apply?
Paguio, 2002). Again any court, so if he was arrested in Kidapawan,
but committed in Davao, it is to get out of detention
right away.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 109
PURITA LIM v. JUDGE DUMLAO (2005) file her bail bond in RTC San Fernando Pampanga where her
Lim here filed two criminal cases against Medina. Lim charged case in pending, in her absence, other RTC of Pampanga or San
Dumlao with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Fernando City.
Authority for the release of Medina on bail. There was
allegation for the judge frequently approves bail bonds for She voluntarily applied for place in RTC Bulacan, it
cases filed in other cases outside his territorial jurisdiction. could have been allowed if she was arrested there. But she
cannot go there if she was not arrested there. It is not allowed,
Judge Dumlao erred in approving the bail and issuing only when she is arrested.
the order. He is expected to know that certain requirements is
required to be complied. The petition for bail is filed generally Judge Bartolome also failed to require submission of the
to the court where case is pending. supporting documents needed in the application for a bond
without the certificate od detention and warrant of arrest. So
It is not disputed that the criminal cases was filed pending for even if she had authority there is still violation of Section 19.
RTC Santiago and warrant of arrest of the presiding judge of
the court, the order of release of bail should have been issued RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER (2010)
by the court, or in her absence any other. On the day Dumlao There was an anonymous letter sent then CJ Davide from a
ordered release of Medina – RTC judges were present. concerned citizen requested for an investigation against Judge
Tamang, judge MeTC in Pateros and Acting Presiding Judge of
Comment: It must be filed because of the involve of the MeTC Manila. There was fake bonds. The OCA found out that
prosecutor, the circumstances must be checked the records 34 of the accused were attained, 7 in San Juan, 6 in San Juan
shall be considered. and 1 is in accused. She was MeTC Judge of Pateros and Acting
MeTC of San Juan, all of these cases were pending in RTC Pasig.
SAVELLA v. JUDGE INES (2007)
Criminal complaint was filed by Savella against Ibaez, a warrant Judge Tamang was allowing fake bonds from a surety that was
of arrest was not immediately served for Ibaez was in USA. Later blacklisted by the SC. Can she approve bail bonds outside her
on Ibaez was not found in Ilocos Sur. Judge Ines was the territorial jurisdiction.
presiding judge of MTC Ilocos Sur, ordered provisional release.
Savella (MTC Vigan) stated the MTC Sinait did not forward the Judge Tamang argued that the 3 voluntary surrenders that they
bail bond papers and avers that Ines was highly irregular in can file in San Juan. And those in Taguig for she was the Pairing
giving undue favor and illegal accommodated. She claims that Judge in MeTC of Taguig.
she forgot to transmit the bail bond papers to MTCC Vigan to
forward. Judge Ines failed to property apply bail rules. Court said as a judge in San Juan she was correct for such,
however she did not substantiate her explanation why she
1. There is violation of Section 17. The case against Ibaez approved the bail application of the accused in Pasig Accused
was filed before MTC Vigan president by Judge Ante. and had issued the corresponding release orders after office
No showing of his unavailability – then it should be in hours. Court found it anomalous and worked until 9PM, it was
MTC Vigan or in absence thereof, any Regional Trial shown that there are RTC Judges in Pasig.
Judge of the province.
a. Case was pending in MTC Vigan, what if Comment: Here she was a judge in three courts, where she was
Judge Ante is not around, where can he file? able to grant bail bonds, but in Pasig, where cases are pending,
b. The application for bail was filed in MTC she was not able substantially prove the case.
Sinait which was still wrong court.
c. It should have been any court in Vigan. PANTILO v. JUDGE CANOY (2003)
Pantilo, brother of homicide victim, when inquired in CPO, the
2. Even if Ines correctly granted she failed to transmit the details surrounding the release of Melgazo and that no
order of release and other supporting papers to the information has been filed and no written Order release was
court. Judge Ines failed to transmit the records to the issued only verbal. Judge Canoy invokes the right of accused to
bail immediately after she received the same. bail and that a constructive bail given that only the papers
were needed to formalize it. Can a judge verbally grant bail
JUDGE SIMBULAN v. JUDGE BARTOLOME (2009) without the application?
Simbulan accused Judge Bartolome of MTC Sta Maria Bulacan
for the case was originally filed in her court in RTC S an Fernando NO. Section 17. Melgazo did not file any application
Pampanga. RTC received an order that the accused surrendered or petition for the grant of bail with the Surigao RTC despite
in MTC Sta Maria and she posted her bail bond there and it was absence of written application, Judge Canoy verbally granted
approved there. It was found later by Deputy Court bail to Melgazo. There is no such species of bail of
Administrator that the accused was never arrested. constructive bail. There must be an application for bail. The
judge cannot
cannot just arbitrarily grant
grant bail – worse a verbal bail, they
No compliance of Section 17 and 19. The accused did not even deposit amount of bail in the CIR or the treasurer.
Mercado was not arrested thus the proper procedure was to The clerk was made to accept.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 110
There was no even signing of the written undertaking, it is Therefore, whether bail is a matter of right or discretion,
either the accused nor even the bondsman. reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given to the
1. No application prosecutor or fiscal or at least he must be asked for his
2. No certificate of deposit recommendation because in fixing the amount of bail, the
3. No written undertaking judge is required to take in to
to account factors (Ruiz
account a number of factors
4. No written release order, it is not allowed for verbal v. Beldia, 2005).
release, there is no constructive bail.
TOREVILLAS v. JUDGE NAVIDAD (2009)
TORMIS v. JUDGE PAREDES (2015) Provincial Prosecutor brought attention to CJ Davide the
Judge Paredes (RTC Cebu), Tormis alleged that he received a actions of Judge Navidad in handling of the bail he handled. In
bail bond in a case for he accepted a bail bond of P6000 for the Criminal Cases it was alleged that the accused were charged of
release of Guioguio which was pending in MTCC Cebu City. capital offense and Judge Navidad granted bail without
Judge Paredes admitted that he personally accepted that cash hearing, There were also other criminal cases involving murder
bail bond on a Sunday. He claimed that his act was in but also released accused even if it involved murder even
accordance with Section 14, Chapter 5 of AM 03-8-02-SC. without the requisite hearing.
Judge Paredes was justified for the approval, as YES. There was violation , the court must give notice
well as the receipt of the cash bail bond as it was in of hearing or recommendation of the matter, this task was
accordance with Section 14, Chapter 4 of AM 03-8-62 which ignored by the judge. The grant or denial of bail hinges on the
allowed the executive judges to act on petitions for bail and determination of strength of guilt, and in order for the judge to
other urgent matters on Saturdays, or Sundays. exercise this correctly, there must be a hearing, and even if
there is no petition for bail, hearing must be done. Judge
Judge Paredes acted in accordance with the AM, that should Navidad was clearly in violation of the rule.
the accused deposit cash bail, the executive judge shall
acknowledge receipt of the cash bail bond in writing and issue The accused must be
a temporary receipt therefore. Judge Paredes was merely discharged upon approval of the bail by the judge with
exercising incidental to his function as Executive Judge for he whom it was filed in accordance with Section 17 of this
Rule.
was the only available judge – the Executive Judge of Cebu.
When bail is filed with
with a court other
other than where the
the case is
Comment: There is nothing in Rule 114 that gives accused the pending, the judge who accepted the bail shall forward it,
right to apply for bail for holidays and Sundays. The thing to do together with the order of release and other supporting
is to look for the Executive Judge as provided under the AM 03- papers, to the court where the case is pending, which may,
8-02, Section 14, Chapter 5. for good reason, require a different one to be filed.
Now it is possible for those who arrested to apply for bail so Procedure for Release on Bail
they can be released immediately, it must be made before the 1. The accused can only be discharged upon approval of
executive judge of the case where the case is pending. the bail by the judge with whom the petition was filed.
2. When the motion for bail is filed with a court other
In the than where the case is pending:
application for bail under Section 8 of this Rule, the court a. The judge who accepted the bail shall
must give reasonable notice of the hearing to the forward it, to the court where the case is
prosecutor or require him to submit his recommendation. pending.
b. He must include the order of release and
What the Court must do when it receives an application for other supporting papers, and
bail under Section 8 c. The court where the case is pending may, for
1. It must give reasonable notice of the hearing to the good reason, required a different bail to be
prosecutor, or filed.
2. It must require the prosecutor to submit his
recommendation After the
accused is admitted to bail, the court may, upon good
Notice Where Bail is a Matter of Right cause, either increase or reduce its amount. When
The prosecutor should be notified of the application. A hearing increased, the accused may be committed to custody if he
does not give bail in the increased amount within a
on an application for bail is mandatory. Bail should be fixed
reasonable period. An accused held to answer a criminal
according to the circumstances of each case. charge, who is released without bail upon filing of the
complaint or information, may, at any subsequent stage of
The amount fixed should be sufficient to ensure the presence the proceedings and whenever a strong showing of guilt
the accused at the trial yet reasonable enough to comply with appears to the court, be required to give bail in the amount
the constitutional provision that bail should not be excessive. fixed, or in lieu thereof, committed to custody.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 111
CONQUILLA v. BERNARDO (2011) Effect of failure of bondsmen to comply with the above
Conquilla charged Judge Bernardo with usurpation of authority, requisites:
grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law. Judge 1. A judgement shall be rendered against the bondsmen,
Bernardo conduct PI and recommended bail. Judge issued jointly and severally for the amount
amount of bail; and
order reducing P12K to P6K. Conquilla filed complaint alleging 2. The court shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the
that under AM 05-08-26-SC, first level judges no longer have liability of the bondsmen, unless the accused:
authority to conduct PI, and that he committed conducting PI a. Has been surrendered; or
and issuing Warrant of Arrest. b. Is acquitted.
Not correct. Judges are allowed to grant bail, increase Q. What are the two occasions upon which the trial court may
or decrease bail but assumes that the judge has jurisdiction rule adversely against the bondsman in cases when the accused
over the case. In this case, Judge Bernardo conducted the PI fails to appear in court?
without authority and issued warrant.
(1) The non-appearance by accused is cause for the
COMMENT: This was adjudged when judges were stripped off judge to summarily declare his bond as forfeited; and (2) the
of authority to conduct; no jurisdiction over the case. bondsman, after the summary forfeiture of the bond, are given
30 days within which to produce the principal and to show
When the presence of the cause why a judgment should not be rendered against them for
accused is required by the court or these Rules, his the amount of the bond.
bondsmen shall be notified to produce him before the
court on a given date and time. If the accused fails to It is only after this 30-day period, during which the bondsman
appear in person as required, his bail shall be declared
forfeited and the bondsmen given thirty (30) days within
is afforded the opportunity to be heard by the court, that the
which to produce their principal and to show why no trial court may rendered a judgement on the bond against
against the
judgment should be rendered against them for the amount bondsman. Judgment against the bondsman cannot be
of their bail. Within the said period, the bondsmen must: entered unless such judgment is preceded by the order of
(a) produce the body of their principal or give the forfeiture and an opportunity given to the bondsman to
reason for his non-production; and produce the accused or to adduce satisfactory reason for their
(b) explain why the accused did not appear before
the court when first required to do so.
inability to do so ( Reliance Surety v. Amante, 2005).
Failing in these two requisites, a judgment shall be Failure of counsel to Appear for Trial
rendered against the bondsmen, jointly and severally, for Q. May the judge order the forfeiture of bail and the detention
the amount of the bail. The court shall not reduce or of accused for the failure of his counsel to appear during trial?
otherwise mitigate the liability of the bondsmen, unless
the accused has been surrendered or i s acquitted.
NO. Nowhere in Rule 114 does such a ground exist.
Under Section 2, the presence of counsel is not a condition of
FORFEITURE OF BAIL the bail, neither is it a reason for increase or forfeiture of such
(Andres v. Beltran, 2001).
When the presence of the accused is required by the court
or these Rules Appeal of Judgment Against Bond
His bondsmen shall be notified to produce him before Q. Is the judgment against the bondsman on the bond subject
the court on a given date and time. to appeal?
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 112
MENDOZA v. ALARMA (2008) Anita put up a bail bond of P80,000 for accused in 4 criminal
Sps. Alarma were owners of land for property bond for Mayo cases. While out on bail, accused committed another
another crime, was
charged with illegal possession of firearms, Mayo failed to arrested and detained so that Anita filed a motion to cancel the
appear, the confiscation was made. A writ of execution was cash bond she posted. The judge denied motion on theory that
made without a judgment against the bondsmen being the accused was not surrendered by Anita but was arrested for
rendered and the land was eventually sold in public auction. another crime, and that the cash bond is to be applied as
WON writ of execution may issue based on the order of payment for fine and consist.
forfeiture. NO.
Q. Is the court correct in refusing to cancel cash bond?
An order of forfeiture is interlocutory and merely requires
bondmen to show judgment. While judgment on the bond is YES. Rule 114, Section 22 contemplates of a situation
made after failure within 30 days. “Order of Forfeiture” where, among others, the surety or bondsman surrenders the
The proper procedure was for judge to render accused. Anita did not surrender the accused, charged in 4
judgment, but this was not followed, there was no criminal cases, to the trial court. The accused was arrested and
judgment of the bond, thus the writ of execution detained because he was charged in a subsequent criminal
is null and void. case. In addition, the bail bond was a cash deposit which under
Section 14, shall be applied to the payment of fine and costs
Comment: Under Rule 39, there can be no execution if there is and the excess be returned.
no judgment, what happened here is a shortcut, there was an
execution without a judgment on the bond, if not followed Escape of Accused to a Foreign Country
everything after that will become a nullity. Q. May an explanation given by a bondsman within a
reasonable period that a principal left the country
Upon application of surreptitiously and was denied in a foreign jurisdiction for the
the bondsmen, with due notice to the prosecutor, the bail commission of a different offense in said jurisdiction be
may be cancelled upon surrender of the accused or proof considered as substantial compliance of the duty imposed
of his death. upon the bondsman sufficient to exonerate from liability?
The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon
acquittal of the accused, dismissal of the case, or execution NO. To justify exemption, the accused must be
of the judgment of conviction. surrendered to the court and his non-appearance when first
required must be explained. It could have taken steps to have
In all instances, the cancellation shall be without prejudice prevented the departure. As the jailer or custodian of the
to any liability on the bail. accused its obligation to produce the body of the accused
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 113
Comment: What is the effect of the accused jumping his bail The condition stated under Rule 114 r equired that the accused
bond? The bondsman obviously cannot produce him. The bond be available at all times is a valid restriction of the right to travel
cannot be cancelled because he jumped him, so she cannot (Santiago v. Vasquez, 1993).
replace the property bond with the cash bond. The effect of
Cawaling jumping bail or violation of conditions of bail, the bail 2. Prohibition by MTC
will be there until he is arrested, and after he is arrested then Q. May a MTC judge issued a hold departure in
that is the time the bail bond can be cancelled. criminal cases pending before it?
Judgment against the bond , it will not help the
People in finding the accused. NO. Circular No. 39-97 provides that hold departure
Have the accused arrested, detain him, and then orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive
the bond can be cancelled. jurisdiction of the RTCs (Mondejar v. Buban, 2001).
In this case, the property bondsmen, she cannot cancel it yet.
This forfeiture of the bond and judgment against the bond, is NOTE: But if he attempts to depart, no court is prohibited from
the punishment for the bondsmen but not punishment for the issuing a warrant to arrest him.
accused.
No
No
For the bail shall be allowed after a judgment of conviction has
purpose of surrendering the accused, the bondsmen may become final. If before such finality, the accused applies
arrest him or, upon written authority endorsed on a for probation, he may be allowed temporary liberty under
certified copy of the undertaking, cause him to be arrested his bail. When no bail was filed or the accused is incapable
by a police officer or any other person of suitable age and of filing one, the court may allow his release on
discretion. An accused released on bail may be re-arrested recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of
without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts
attempts to depart the community. In no case shall bail be allowed after the
from the Philippines without permission of the court accused has commenced to serve sentence.
where the case is pending.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 114
BAIL AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION 7. Strive to eliminate conditions inimical to the detainees
A. After Final Judgment of Conviction C. In cities and municipalities to be specified by the Supreme
1. General Rule: Bail is NOT allowed Court, the MTC judges shall:
2. Exceptions: If before such finality, the accused 1. Conduct monthly personal inspection of the municipal
applies for probation: jails in their respective municipalities,
municipalities, and
a. He may be allowed temporary liberty under 2. Submit a report to the executive judge of the RTC
his bail ,or having jurisdiction therein.
b. The court may allow his release on
recognizance to the custody of a responsible D. A monthly report of such visitation shall be submitted by the
member of the community: executive judges to the Court Administrator which shall state:
i. When no bail was filed, or 1. The total number of detainees,
ii. When the accused is incapable of 2. The names of those held for more than 30 days,
filing one 3. The duration of detention,
4. The crime charged,
B. After the Accused Has Commenced to Serve Sentence 5. The status of the case,
Bail is not allowed. 6. The cause for detention, and
7. Other pertinent information.
The court
shall exercise supervision over all persons in custody for
the purpose of eliminating unnecessary detention. The An
executive judges of the Regional Trial Courts shall conduct application for or admission to bail shall not bar the
monthly personal inspections of provincial, city, and accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the
municipal jails and the prisoners within their respective legality of the warrant issued therefore, or from assailing
jurisdictions. They shall ascertain the number of the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary
detainees, inquire on their proper accommodation and investigation of the charge against him, provided that he
health and examine the condition of the jail facilities. They raises them before entering his plea. The court shall
shall order the segregation of sexes and of minors from resolve the matter as early as practicable but not later than
adults, ensure the observance of the right of detainees to the start of the trial of the case.
confer privately with counsel, and strive to eliminate
conditions inimical to the detainees.
EFFECT ON ILLEGAL ARREST
In cities and municipalities to be specified by the Supreme
Court, the municipal trial judges or municipal circuit trial A. Effect of Application or Admission to BailB ail – It shall not
judges shall conduct monthly personal inspections of the bar the accused from:
municipal jails in their respective municipalities and 1. Challenging:
submit a report to the executive judge of the Regional Trial
Court having jurisdiction therein.
a. The validity of his arrest, or
b. The legality of the warrant issued therefor;
A monthly report of such visitation shall be submitted by or
the executive judges to the Court Administrator which 2. Assailing the regularity of or questioning the absence
shall state the total number of detainees, the names of of a PI of the charged against him (provided he raises
those held for more than thirty (30) days, the duration of them before he enters his plea).
detention, the crime charged, the status of the case, the
cause for detention, and other pertinent information.
B. Requisite for accused to be entitled to the above:
He must raise them before entering his plea.
COURT SUPERVISION OF DETAINEES C. When the court shall resolve the matter or whether or
not to grant bail:
A. The court shall exercise supervision over all persons in As early as practicable but not later than the start of
custody for the purpose of eliminating unnecessary detention;
the trial of the case.
B. The executive judges of the RTCs shall: Comment: Up to what point can he question illegality of arrest
1. Conduct monthly personal inspections of provincial, or warrant up to the point of arraignment, now even if he
city, and municipal jails and the prisoners within their
applies for bail, he can still question such illegality.
respective jurisdictions,
2. Ascertain the number of detainees,
Admission to Bail Before Arraignment
3. Inquire on their proper accommodations and health,
Q. Whether or not the accused should first be arraigned before
4. Examine the condition of the jail facilities,
hearings on his petition for bail may be conducted?
5. Order the segregation of sexes and of minors from
adults,
NO. The arraignment of an accused is not prerequisite
6. Ensure observance of the right of detainees to confer
to the conduct of hearing on his petition for bail.
privately with counsel, and
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 115
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 116
favorable bail for all was denied – he was in jail for eight years
RULE 115 until he was acquitted. There was no rape.
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
What is the point of being presumed innocent if you are
In all criminal incarcerated but you are not allowed outside?
prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the f ollowing
rights: It is always the prosecution that presents evidence first, the
accused only has to rebut presented. In relation to right to
Rights of the Accused presumed innocent which is Demurrer to Evidence due to
It talks about the right of the accused at the trial, in insufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution.
Constitutional Law, this particular rule focuses on the right of However this presumption is merely a presumption,
the accused at the trial. once there is proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
the presumption is destroyed, thus a judgment of
Elements of Due Process finding the accused guilty.
1. There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial
authority to hear and determine the matter before it; Cannot be waived unless he pleads guilty, which will kill the
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person presumption.
of the defendant or property which is the subject of
the proceeding; Prima Facie Presumption of Guilt
3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be In Hizon v. CA, PD 704 provided that the discovery of
heard; and explosives or obnoxious substance in any fishing boat shall
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing. constitute a presumption that the owner or operator was
( Aguirre
Aguirre v. People, 2001). fishing with the use of explosive or poisonous substance. Is this
a violation of the constitutional presumption of innocence?
To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved
beyond reasonable doubt. No. The legislature has the power to provide that
proof of certain facts can constitute a prima facie evidence of
1. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE guilt provided that there is a rational connection between the
This is a right given to all accused. So, in other words, the fact proved and the fact presumed.
prosecution has the burden of proven the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. These defense lawyers, all they have PD 704 creates a presumption of guilt based on facts proved
to do is create a doubt in order to have their clients acquitted. and is not constitutionally impermissible. However, statutory
presumption can only be prima facie it can be rebutted.
In drugs cases, the defense lawyers will just find a way to chain
of custody which is required under RA 9165, once there is a Equipoise Rule
small break or cut in the chain of possession there is a doubt. This rule is applied when the evidence by the prosecution and
There was this, Order, from an informant telling PDEA that X the accused are of equal weight, under this rule, the party
will buy shabu at a time in place. PDEA were supposed to act as having the burden of proof loses. This means that the evidence
poseur-buyers, when there is a buy bust operation, there is an does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and does not provide
Order. What happened was, they kept on testifying that the buy a sufficient ground for conviction ( Dado
Dado v. People, 2002).
bust took place around 10:30 – 11:30 PM. All of their
testimonies now in the morning. To be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him.
In the Order, the time was 1300H, it was changed to 1000H to
make it 10 in the morning, thus the Order was made after the 2. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF
conduct of buy bust or “to follow” which was not the proper NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION
order thus a break, even though it was not connected to the That is why we have Rule 110 for an information to be sufficient
guilt or accused, but due to this failure to follow to the in form and substance for it will inform the accused. Under Rule
procedure, the accused was acquitted. 116, Section 1 the information will be read to him in a language
he understands thus this right will not be violated, so that if
This presumption of innocence is powerful as an accused in there is nobody in the court room who can read the information
court, it is not easy to convict, but accused however are for him? What happens?
detained, that is why we have bail but for those who cannot
afford and offenses are not bailable they have suffer in prison. One has to find someone to interpret for the accused. When we
took Rule 112, we did not encounter a provision that the
Like in the case of Custodio, who was charged for rape by a information be given to the accused, because this is not yet the
married lady, who hitched with him. And so, he was charged time, the proper time is during the arraignment, but lawyers
and the lawyer was Dean Inigo and it was so hard to find a already get the information from the court, which there is
nothing wrong with that.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 117
Can this right to be informed be waived? NO. This cannot be Effect when absence of the accused without justifiable
waived, the information must be read to him. Why public cause at the trial of which he had notice:
interest is involved in this right so that no person shall be It shall be considered as a waiver of his right to be
deprived of his life or liberty. present thereat.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 118
2. He is detained and escapes, or he is out on bail and Effect of Failure to Appear in One Trial Date
he disappears, he shall be deemed to have waived his In Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan (2005) , , an accused on bail
presence in subsequent dates until custody over him who fails to appear for a particular trial date does not
is regained. He can no longer participate on the next necessarily amount to a waiver of appearance for the
trial. subsequent trial dates. It is only when an accused under
custody has been notified of the date and escapes or jumps bail
What does this mean? When he goes, custody over him will be who shall be deemed to have waived right to subsequent trials
regained, but meanwhile the lawyer cannot participate unlike dates until custody is regained.
(1) the lawyer can still participate on his behalf. In this instance,
the lawyer cannot present on his behalf, and a judgment can The Right to Counsel During Trial
be rendered against him. This is related in trial in absentia. This is different from custodial investigation. Both times, CI and
Trial the accused has the right to counsel, is this right waivable?
Trial in Absentia YES in both instances.
Applies to both, that the trial will go on without him if he is not In CI, he can waive this right of counsel in presence of
there, the elements are: counsel;
1. Court acquired jurisdiction over person of accused; In trial, the only requirement is that the waiver is clear,
2. He has already been arraigned intelligent and competent.
3. Notified of the trial
4. Non-appearance of the accused is unjustified It means that the accused does not desire a lawyer as the
accused wants to defend for himself.
In other words, this provision applies when the accused is
already arraigned and he is absent, he waives his right to be What about the offended party? Can the offended argue that
present thereat, despite being notified. he must be prosecute? No, he can ask the public prosecutor to
include the civil liability. It is only the accused who can waive
Due Notification his right of counsel.
How can the prosecution establish that he is notified? How can
one say his appearance is unjustified. Non-appearance of Counsel
In People v. Diaz (1999), the accused was denied due process
People v. Abgulos when the successive non-appearance of his counsel was
If one is fugitive he is deemed to waived notice because of construed as a waiver of his right to present evidence.
escape, it is this escape results to the failure to appear. If he
escapes or jumps bail, duly notified rule is no longer important. In People v. Larranaga (2004), the judge did not violate the
The notification process is deemed waived, his escape is non- right of the accused to counsel where a counsel de oficio was
appearance is unjustified. Even if his absence, the trial will appointed during the absence of counsel de parte of accused.
continue. Once established, that he has escaped, he is no longer
allowed to present evidence. Q. Where an accused who is represented by counsel de parte
appear for trial without his lawyer, is it incumbent upon the trial
Trial in absentia really refers to the second instance. For the first judge to appoint a counsel de oficio for him?
instance, the lawyer can participate, but in the second instance
the lawyer cannot even participate. NO. In Sayson v. People (1988), the duty of the court
to appoint a counsel de oficio when the accused has no counsel
In Gimenez v. Nazareno, the court need not wait that the of choice is mandatory only at the time of arraignment. This is
accused decides to appear in court, to allow this delay would no longer so where the accused has proceeded with
be to violate constitutional rule in trial in absentia. arraignment and the trial with a counsel of his choice but when
By his failure to appear, he virtually waives his rights the time for the presentation of evidence for the defense he
to confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, appears by himself alone and absence of counsel was
the right to present evidence on his behalf, so an inexcusable. At most, appointment of a counsel de oficio during
escape can be considered as an waiver. trial is now discretionary with the trial court.
Q. If accused is convicted in trial in absentia, what happens to NOTE: In People v. Liwanag (2001), the right to counsel does
the presumption of innocence and of due process? not include the guarantee of the right to an intelligent counsel.
The requirement for the counsel is not to be intelligent but to
No violation. He is still presumed innocent, the be effective.
prosecution still has to prove, but due to his waiver he cannot
disprove. Defending One’ Self
In People v. Sesbreno (1999), accused here acted his own
Due process is the giving of opportunity to be heard, he was counsel for he himself is a prominent and competent member
given opportunity, there was trial for him, but he threw away all of the bar, even if there were others available, thus he is
those rights by escaping or jumping bail. estopped in claiming such violation of right to counsel.
to counsel.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 119
To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to People v. Delmendo (1998); his silence can be taken
cross-examination on matters covered by direct against when the crime is serious, and his testimony
examination. His silence shall not in any manner might help him but would show that the testimony
prejudice him.
would be inimical to himself. (Exception)
4. RIGHT TO TESTIFY IN HIS OWN BEHALF To be exempted from being compelled to be a witness
against himself.
Right Guaranteed: The accused has the right to testify as a
witness in his own behalf. 5. RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
Condition for the Exercise of Such Right: In Villaflor v. Summers (1920), The constitutional guaranty,
He can be cross-examined on matters covered by that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
direct examination (deemed as a waiver of his right against self- witness against himself, is limited to a prohibition against
incrimination). compulsory testimonial self-incrimination. On a proper
showing and under an order of the trial court, an ocular
Effect of Silence on Part of the Accused: inspection of the body of the accused is permissible.
It shall not in any matter prejudice him.
Not only to testimonial consumption but includes production
Comments: This is subject to cross-examination on matters of documents and things that will incriminate him. He is not
covered by direct examination. Now, so if I am the accused and required or forced to speak against himself. It does not include
I want to be my own witness, normally I will be presented by the mechanical acts.
my lawyer as the witness during presentation of evidence by Handwriting or signature – this is not mechanical.
the defense. If I want to be placed in the witness stand, I open
myself to cross-examine to the prosecutor. This is waivable. How do you waive this right?
He has the right to refuse to be put in the witness stand this is By taking the witness stand and freely answering
against self-incrimination. question propounded and not objecting.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 120
To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against “Either party may utilize testimony of … ”
him at the trial. Either party may utilize as part of its Let’s say, there is this criminal case against the accused and it
evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out is estafa. Now, the witness is dead. So, what happens to this
of or can not with due diligence be found in the
right to confront the witness?
Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify,
given in another case or proceeding, judicial or What if before criminal case, there was a civil case for
administrative, involving the same parties and subject collection by victim against accused and was able to
matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross- present evidence and present Witness X, where he was
examine him. cross-examined. And then, the prosecution filed an
INF for estafa against accused, the collection case is
6. RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION suspended, in the meantime, Witness X died, so can
the prosecution use the testimony of Witness X in the
Right guaranteed: The accused has the right to confront and criminal case?
cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial.
YES. It involves same parties and subject matter, and the
Addition benefit granted Sec. 1(f) accused was given the opportunity to cross-examine. It need
Either party may use as evidence testimony of a witness who is not be done in the criminal case, whether civil or
not present during trial, provided: administrative case as long as same parties and same cause. It
1. Said witness is: is only if the witness is dead, or cannot with due diligence be
a. Deceased, found in the Philippines, unavailable to testify.
b. Out of or can not with due diligence be General Rule: Witness must testify.
found in the Philippines;
c. Unavailable; or The right to confront and cross-examine does not include the
d. Otherwise unable to testify; and right to know their names and addresses in advance. The case
2. Said testimony was given by the witness in another of the prosecution might be in danger, the confrontation right
case or proceeding: given is during the trial.
a. Judicial or administrative; and
b. Involving the same parties or subject matter; Jurisprudential Doctrines
and In People v. Santos (1985), the court ruled that the right was
3. The adverse party had the opportunity to cross- violated when the RTC convicted accused of murder based
examine said witness. mainly on an affidavit which affiant did not testify during trial.
Purpose of Right to Confrontation In People v. Narca (1997), where the death of witness prevents
1. Secure opportunity of cross-examination; and the cross-examination, to strike out what has obtained in the
2. Allow the judge to observe the deportment and direct examination, when the accused himself moved for the
appearance of witness while testifying. deferment of the cross-examination is not permissible. What
(People v. Ortiz-Miyake, 1997). the right grants is the opportunity and not actual cross
examination thus losing such opportunity when he sought for
Right to Confrontation Includes Cross-Examination the deferment he has only himself to blame.
This happens when there is a witness presented by the
prosecution. For example, Witness X, witness of the crime, In People v. Digno, Jr. (1995), when a witness for the
asking questions, Witness X has testified the narration. This prosecution has not be cross-examined for her testimony, it
right contains of the lawyer the accused to cross-examine should be the counsel who should move and has the burden of
against him. ensuring her cross-examination for some other time.
In relation to Section 1(c) on Right to be Present In People v. Nadera (2000), the decision of the counsel not to
Let us say Witness X is being presented, and then he is actually cross-examine the victim due to manifest lack of enthusiasm
supposed to identify the accused, but accused is not around for his client’s cause amounts to a violation of the right to
despite he was arraigned but he did not appear. So, the confrontation of the accused.
prosecution presented a video, and the witness pointed at the
accused in the video. The lawyer of the accused was in court, Testimony in Preliminary Investigation
can he cross-examine the witness? Yes, he can. Q. May the testimony of a witness taken during PI be used in
He just waives his presence during that day, the lawyer evidence against the accused where said witness died before
is not deprived. he could testify at the trial?
Another situation, Here we have the witness, on the day of the YES. The testimonies given by witnesses during PI can
trial, the City Jail reported that accused escape. Can his lawyer be admitted as evidence when such testimony was taken by
still cross-examine? No. This right to cross-examine is question and answer in the presence of defendant or his
waivable, by escaping and jumping bail he waives his right. attorney and there was opportunity for cross-examine the
witness who is now dead (De Leon v. People, 1992).
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 121
To have compulsory process issued to secure the In Re: Request TV/Radio Coverage of Plunder Case (June 29,
attendance of witness and production of other evidence in 2001), the request of the KBP to allow live media coverage of
his behalf. the trial of Former President Estrada was denied on the ground
that the rights of the accused is preferred over the free press
7. COMPULSORY PROCESS TO SECURE WITNESSES AND because a television coverage can impair the performance of
EVIDENCE FOR HIS BEHALF (SUBPOENA) the judge and can destroy case of accused in the eyes of public.
Right to Compulsory Process In the Reconsideration (September 13, 2001), the court still
The accused has the right to compulsory process, meaning that denied the request for coverage but emphasized that the audio
the witness he wants to present can be forced to attend by visual recording be preserved but it will not be for live
means of subpoena. He can also compel people to bring broadcast but for documentary purposes. Only later will they
evidence to help him in his trial. be available for public showing after SB promulgate decision.
Now there is a 100km limit to compel witnesses to
attend, if the witness resides more than, he cannot C. Public Trial
forced to attend trial – this does not apply to criminal Publicity of the trial is necessary to prevent abuses that may be
cases, even if the witness is in Baguio, he can be committed by the court to the prejudice of the defendant. It
compelled because of this right. suffices to be considered public trial as long as the door of the
court are open for the public to come in. These rights belong
Requisites (People v. Chua, 2001). to the accused and can be waived.
(a) That the evidence is really material;
(b) That he is not guilty of neglect in previously obtaining Exceptions:
the production of such evidence; 1. Trial of cases involving child abuse;
(c) That the evidence will be available at the time desired; 2. Trial of cases involving rape
(d) That no similar evidence could be obtained.
To be exempted from being compelled to be a witness
To have speedy, impartial and public trial. against himself.
A. Speedy Trial The right to appeal is only the first appeal. The first appeal is
The right to speedy trial is deemed violated only when the a notice of appeal you are notifying the court that you are
proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious and appealing its decision. A second appeal is now a petition for
oppressive delays or when unjustified postponements of the review. In first appeal, the court has no choice.
trial are asked for and secured.
B. Impartial Trial
In People v. Sanchez (1999), the intensive publicity of a trial
does not violate the right to a fair trial. Intensive publicity is not
per se prejudicial for it does not prove that the publicity so
permeated to the mind of judge impaired his impartiality. There
must be actual prejudice and proof is required.
It is at this stage that the accused for the first time, is given the Waiver of Reading Information
opportunity to know the precise charge that confronts him. IT Q. May counsel for the accused waive the reading of the
is only imperative that he is, thus, made fully aware of the information during the arraignment and manifest that accused
possible loss of freedom, even of his life, depending on the is pleading not guilty to the charge?
nature of the imputed crime ( Kummer v. People, 2013).
No. In Marcos v. Ruiz 213 SCRA 177 (1992), the
counsel alone cannot waive the reading of the information, it is
The accused must be arraigned before the court where the accused himself that must be made to confirm the
the complaint or information was filed or assigned for trial. manifestation to make the plea.
The arraignment shall be made in open court by the judge
or clerk by furnishing the accused with a copy of the
complaint or information, reading the same in the The accused of course can ask the court “please do not read
language or dialect known to him, and asking him whether the information”, for the purpose is to inform him, if he already
he pleads guilty or not guilty. The prosecution may call at read it and manifests and writes it under oath that he knows of
the trial witnesses other than those named in the the crime he is charged with, there is no need, but it must be
complaint or information. the accused.
SECTION 1 PARAGRAPH A NOTE: He shall be given a copy of the information upon such
ARRAIGNMENT; PROCEDURE instance. Technically, only time he will receive INF.
A. The accused must be arraigned before the court where: The accused must be present at the arraignment and
1. The information is filed, or must personally enter his plea. Both arraignment and plea
2. Assigned for trial must be made of record, but failure to do so shall not affect
the validity of the proceedings.
B. The arraignment shall be made in open court by the
judge or clerk by: SECTION 1 PARAGRAPH B
1. Furnishing the accused with a copy of the complaint PRESENCE OF ACCUSED AT ARRAIGNMENT
or information;
2. Reading the same in the language or dialect known to A. The accused must:
him; and 1. Be present at the arraignment; and
3. Asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. 2. Must personally enter his plea
C. The prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than B. Both arraignment and plea shall be made of record
those named in the complaint or information. But failure to do so shall not affect the validity of the
proceedings.
Language Known to Accused
In People v. Alicando (1995), the information for rape was in Comment: After an accused learns of the crime charged
English, the record of arraignment does not reveal that the against him, he can consult with a lawyer and then the lawyer
information against him was in the language or dialect known will ask him, so there will be a discussed, and then they will
to him. Here, the arraignment was held invalid, it cannot be decide what plea to enter “ guilty ” or “not guilty” . Both
presumed that the arraignment was regularly conducted. arraignment and plea shall be made of record, but failure will
not invalidate proceedings.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 123
Duties of Judge when Accused Does not have Counsel Example: When accused present a video that he was forced to
1. To inform the accused that he has the right to have stab the victim, this is no longer a guilty plea.
his own counsel before being arraigned;
2. After giving such information, to ask accused whether When you enter a plea of guilty, you do not present evidence
he desires the aid of counsel; to prove innocence, because there is admission of the
3. If he so desires to procure the services of counsel, the commission of the crime.
court must grant him reasonable time to do so; and
4. If he so desires to have counsel but is unable to When the accused is under preventive detention, his
employ one, the court must assign a counsel de oficio case shall be raffled and its records transmitted to the
to defend him. judge to whom the case was raffled within three (3) days
from the filing of the information or complaint. The
accused shall be arraigned within ten (10) days from the
NOTE: The judge will have to postpone, arraignment will be date of the raffle. The pre-trial conference of his case shall
postponed to give time accused to find private counsel. be held within ten (10) days after arraignment..
Exception: Only when the accused states that he waives his SECTION 1 PARAGRAPH E
right to counsel at arraignment and a showing that he is When Accused is Under Preventive Detention
capable to defend himself. 1. His case shall be raffled
2. Within 3 days from the filing of the information or
When the accused refuses to plead or makes a complaint;
conditional plea, a plea of not guilty shall be entered for
him.
a. The records of his case shall be transmitted
to the judge to whom the case was raffled
3. Within 10 days from the date of the raffle:
SECTION 1 PARAGRAPH C a. He shall be arraigned
When Plea of Not Guilty Shall be Entered for Accused 4. Within 10 days after arraignment:
1. When the accused refuses to plead; or a. The pre-trial conference of his case shall be
2. When the accused makes a conditional plea.
held.
Refusal to Plea or Conditional Plea – Not guilty. Comment: If accused is in preventive detention for his crime
This is done when accused is in silence of keeps quiet, the court
is either non-bailable or did not avail of bail.
will enter for him. The plea must be guilty or not guilty period,
if is guilty but, this is conditional. It is better to state not guilty.
What is a Raffle?
Here in Davao, we have the Hall of Justice, each branch has its
What is Deemed Admitted in a Plea of Guilty? own room, court room. There is a main Clerk of Court for the
People v. Egido, when an unqualified plea of guilty is
RTC and MTC this is where the cases go. When information is
mitigating circumstance, it is an admission of the material facts
filed, in the Main Clerk of Court, they will have a raffle to which
alleged in information including the aggravating circumstances
branch the case will go. The accused cannot choose a court for
cited in the information. When he admits plea of guilty, the
it is random.
prosecution needs not to prove his guilt anymore, all the
material allegations are deemed admitted. Q. Does it refer calendar days or working days?
It does not say. It is just to ensure that the detainee
What are deemed Not Admitted? will have the right to speedy trial.
Those not alleged in the information;
Conclusions of fact (therefore, there is bad faith)
The private offended party shall be required to appear
Jurisdiction of the court at the arraignment for purposes of plea bargaining,
Sufficiency of the complaint or information determination of civil liability, and other matters requiring
He can still question compliance of Rule 110 his presence. In case of failure of the offended party to
appear despite due notice, the court may allow the
When the accused pleads guilty but presents accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is
exculpatory evidence, his plea shall be deemed wi thdrawn necessarily included in the offense charged with the
and a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him. conformity of the trial prosecutor alone.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 124
B. Effect of failure of offended party to appear despite due accused until the petition for review with the SOJ is resolved.
notice: The delay here is justified because the importance is based on
1. The court may allow the accused to enter a plea of the exhaustion of administrative liabilities, an immediate
guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included arraignment would have then proscribed right of accused to
in the offense charged, and appeal the resolution of the prosecutor to the SOJ.
2. Only the conformity of the trial prosecutor is required.
NOTE: This was decided before December 2000, but now NO,
Plea Bargaining the court is not obligated to suspend the proceedings or
You plead guilty to a lower offense, it means plead of guilty, arraignment.
there is no longer a trial, the only thing here is how much the
accused pay to civil liability. During the arraignment, the PEOPLE v. PANGILINAN
accused can ask for civil liability. Even though there was two years of the belated arraignment
but the counsel actively participated. There is already trial even
Before, the accused can plead to a different non-related without arraignment, but counsel participated, it is in a way, the
offense. Now, the plea of guilt that is necessarily included like lawyer has entered a plea of not guilty. The non-arraignment is
homicide and murder. not fatal but there is already trial. As long as the purpose of the
arraignment has been fulfilled. Even if it was done belatedly, it
Unless a shorter period is provided by special law or was just a formal defect.
Supreme Court circular, the arraignment shall be held
within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires OBLES v. BUEMIO
jurisdiction over
over the person of the accused.
accused. The time of the
There was a motion to dismiss the information on the ground
pendency of a motion to quash or for a bill or particulars
or other causes justifying suspension of the arraignment of violation of right to speedy. His warrant was withdrawn.
shall be excluded in computing the period. There was a third reschedule. There 253 days delay between the
arraignment and the final schedule of the pre-trial. This case
SECTION 1 PARAGRAPH G cited Rule 116, Section 1(g). There is SC Circular No. 38-98:
TIME OF ARRAIGNMENT requiring the arraignment and pre-trial within 30 days from
acquiring jurisdiction of accused.
A. When arraignment shall be held:
1. General rule: Within 30 days from the date the court Speedy trial is the relative terms and necessarily involves a
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused degree of flexibility. Such right to speedy trial is violated when
2. Exception: Unless shorter period is provided by: there is oppressive. Because Olbes did not oppose to the
a. Special law, or reschedules, and it was beyond the control of the court. The
b. Supreme Court Circular court does not find a violation to the speedy trial, did not
deliberately delayed.
B. The following shall be excluded in the computing the
30 day period: KUMMER v. PEOPLE
1. The time of pendency In an amended information or complaint, the need for
a. Of a motion to quash, or arraignment is equally imperative. However, this pertains only
b. For a bill of particulars; or to substantial amendments but not formal amendments. The
2. Other causes justifying suspension of the arraignment change of date of commission is merely formal. If there is an
amendment after arraignment but only formal. If only formal,
NOTE: This is for the accused who is NOT in detention for there is no need for a new arraignment.
under (e) there is 13 days but if he is on bail, (g) applies.
At
Time of Arraignment (Possible Oversight by Court) arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the
offended party and prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial
In People v. Cabale 185 SCRA 140 (1990), here the accused court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily
was tried without first being arraigned and that it was included in the offense charged. After arraignment but
discovered after case was submitted for decision, thus he was before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty
arraigned before judgment, he was convicted. to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not
guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is
Here, the court held that the arraignment is valid because the necessary.
error was deemed non-prejudicial and has been cured. The
interest of accused has not suffered and that the counsel PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE
entered into trial without objecting that his client had not yet
been arraigned. A. Requisites
1. Such plea may be made by the accused:
Indefinite Suspension of Arraignment a. During arraignment, or
In Solar Team v. How 338
338 SCRA 511, the court ruled that the b. After arraignment but before trial;
trial court may indefinitely suspend the arraignment of the
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 125
NO. People v. Magat 332 SCRA 517, En Banc (2000) (5) Inquire if the accused knows the crime with which he is
provides that the only instance when plea bargaining is allowed charged and to fully explain to him the elements of the crime
under the rules is when an accused pleads guilty to a lesser which the basis of his indictment is.
offense under Rule116, Section 2. What happened here is not
correct, because by pleading guilty to the offense charged, the (6) All questions posed to the accused should be in a language
accused should be sentenced to the penalty to which he known and understood by the latter.
pleaded thereto.
(7) The trial judge must satisfy himself that the accused, in
NOTE: In People v. Patrolla, Jr. 254 SCRA 467 (1996), the pl ea pleading guilty, is truly guilty. The accused must be required to
of guilty by one accused that he alone committed the crime
narrate the tragedy or reenact the crime or furnish its missing
does not operate to acquit the co-accused. details.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 126
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 127
the judgment having become final, the judge is not vested with Q. Where the accused appears for trial without counsel and his
any discretion to allow the alleged improvident plea of guilty motion for postponement is denied, is the court required to
to be withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not guilty. appoint a counsel de oficio for him?
Duties of the Court BEFORE Arraignment Usually, when the Court assigns de counsel de oficio for the
1. To inform the accused that he has the right to have accused at the arraignment, he shall be given at least one hour
his own counsel before being arraigned; to consult with the accused as to his plea before proceeding
2. After giving such information, to ask accused whether with the arraignment. There is no reason why the counsel in this
he desires the aid of counsel; case could not have been required to confer to prepare.
3. If he so desires to procure the services of counsel, the
court must grant him reasonable time to do so; and The accused may, before
4. If he so desires to have counsel but is unable to arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to enable him
employ one, the court must assign a counsel de oficio properly to plead and prepare for trial. The motion shall
to defend him. specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information
(People v. Agbayani, 1998, En Banc). and the details desired.
One of the modes of discovery. The filing is to enable accused b. Any designated documents, papers, books,
to prepare, this is an avenue given to a party to find out more accounts, letters, photographs, objects or
about him. This is normally done before arraignment. tangible things.
2. Not otherwise privileged;
WEBB v. DE LEON (2007) 3. Which constitute or contain evidence material to any
Webb filed violation of right to discovery procedure of PI for matter involved in the case; and
suppressing sworn statements and evidence. Are modes of 4. Which are in the possession or under the control of
discovery like right to move bill of particulars and production a. The prosecution;
or inspection of material evidence in possession of the b. The police; or
prosecution, may be availed during PI? YES. c. Other law investigating agencies.
What was used was the 1985 Rules, under Section 10 and 11, COMMENT: Anything that is in the hands of the prosecutor,
the failure to provide by the rules does not negate its use the accused has the right to inspect it. When the accused wants
during PI. They very reason because in this stage, for the liberty to view these evidences, his remedy is to file under Section 10/
of accused is at stake. The risk of to the Liberty of Webb cannot
be understated which was non-bailable, which needs to prove Upon motion
the strength of evidence. There was also exculpatory character by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended
of documents: in the following cases:
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 129
Evidently, when the RTC judge issued the order, it was merely
performing his mandated duty to personally determine the
existence of PC and thus arrive at a resolution of the motion to
dismiss. Having found probable cause, the RTC acted well
within its authority in denying such motion to dismiss.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 130
At any time before Comment: Obviously, there are no oral motions, it may be
entering his plea, the accused may move to quash the signed by the accused or the lawyer, what is important is that it
complaint or information. states he factual and legal grounds.
Comment: Technically, the accused is deemed to know about The accused may move to quash the
INF is during arraignment, so it can be seen that this is complaint or information on any of the following grounds:
problematic, what if the accused did not know? There must be
a period so accused can file MTQ. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
When No Motion is Filed NOTE: If I will file a MTQ; I shall include the grounds that are
Q. May the judge quash an information without any motion applicable to the case of the client. This is called Omnibus
from the accused? Motion Rule (Rule 9, Section 1), you should include all the
ground available; otherwise they cannot be considered in the
NO. It is clear from the rules that the right to file a future. So all of the other grounds are waivable, except when
motion to quash belongs only to the accused. There is nothing there is lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged.
in the rules which authorizes the court or judge to motu proprio
initiate motion to quash ( People v. Nitafan, 1999). Basis of Determination Whether Facts Constitute Offense
Q. What is the test to determine whether or not the information
Motion to Quash After Arraignment; Special Instances charges an offense?
Q. May an accused file a motion to quash after arraignment?
The fundamental test of the viability of the motion to
YES. Under Rule 117, Section 9, motion to quash is not quash on the ground that the facts averred in the information
improper even after arraignment if the same is grounded on do not amount to an offense is whether the facts alleged
the failure to charge an offense and lack of jurisdiction of the would establish the essential elements of the crime as
offense charged, extinction of the offense or penalty and defined by law. In this examination, matters aliunde are not
double jeopardy (Marcos v. Sandiganbayan,
Sandiganbayan, 2000). considered (Mendoza-Ong v. People, 2003).
That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over That the accused has been previously convicted or
the person of the accused; acquitted of the offense charged or the case against him
was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
express consent;
Basis for Determining Jurisdiction (Waivable)
Jurisdiction over the person is acquired by the court by virtue
of voluntary submission or arrest. To prevent waiver of this Pendency of Two Cases
defense, the accused must raise the lack of jurisdiction Q. While two informations for same offense are still pending
seasonably by motion for the purpose of objecting to the against the accused, may he file a motion to quash invoking
jurisdiction of the court, otherwise he shall be deemed to have double jeopardy?
submitted himself or his persons to the jurisdiction.
No. The mere filing of two informations charging the
That the officer who filed the information had no same offense does not yet afford the accused in those cases
authority to do so; the occasion to complain that he is being placed in double
jeopardy twice for the same offense for the simple reason that
Effect of Lack of Authority (Waivable) the primary basis for the defense has already been convicted or
acquitted in the first case or that the s ame has been terminated
The trial court cannot acquire jurisdiction when the officer is
without his consent. Thus, clearly there has been no double
without authority to file the information. But if the accused
pleas this may be construed as a waiver of all formal objections. jeopardy present to warrant a motion to to quash.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 132
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 133
Q . What happens during the period when the MTQ is granted, You can still file a new information, as long as there is no double
and the court requires information to be filed, what happens to jeopardy. Remember a MTQ is filed before arraignment, and
the accused provided that before the prosecution files a new the amendment before arraignment can be formal or
information, there is basically no charge at all? substantial, it can be made before arraignment.
He shall not be released. This is when if the court If you are the prosecutor, you can file an amended information
orders the prosecution to file new information. But if the court if there is MTQ this is to counter the quashal. There is no need
does not order and/or the prosecution does not file a new to wait for an order to amend the information if you are the
information then the accused shall be released. prosecutor. You can do so before arraignment.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 134
DABALOS v. RTC (2013) the motion to quash is not a bar unless the exceptions. This
Dabalos was charged with RA 9292. Dabalos alleged that at the case used Section 3(a), they are yet to prove that the liability
time of the incident he was no longer in a dating relationship was extinguished. Another information can be filed no longer
hence RA 9262 was inapplicable. Whether information alleging an amended information.
a fact contrary to admission. It should not be quashed.
PEOPLE v. BAYABOS (2015)
The information sufficiency alleged the necessary elements, Information was filed against Castillo charging him of RA 3019.
there was period of two days given to the prosecutor to amend He filed supplemental MTQ on the ground of 3(a) stating that
the information to reflect the cessation of dating relationship. the undue injury must not only be mentioned, it must be
specified. SB granted such. Outright quashal was improper.
In the present case, RTC was correct in directing the
amendment of the information and in denying the motion to If it is based on the ground that the facts do not constitute an
quash the same. offense, the prosecution shall be given by the court opportunity
to correct the defect by amendment. The motion shall be
Comment: If the dating relationship is removed then the crime granted if the prosecution fails to make amendment or the
would different but then again, a substantial amendment information still suffers from the same defect despite the
changing the crime to reflect the true facts or instances is amendment.
allowed. The SC allowed such, amendment can be done.
Thus, when an MTQ is filed challenging validity and sufficiency
PEOPLE v. BAYABOS (2015) of INF, and the defect may be cured by amendment, court must
Balidoy was midshipman for PMMA, he was required to deny the motion to quash and order the prosecution to file an
undergo the indoctrination, he was “hazed” and he died. The amendment Information.
Deputy OMB filed crime against Bayabos et al. for hazing.
In this the courts are mandated NOT
NO T to automatically quash
An MTQ was filed that the information did not contain all the the information ; rather it should grant the prosecution the
essential elements of the offense because of no allegation that opportunity to cure the defect through an amendment. Even
such indoctrination was a prerequisite to admission to PMMA. assuming information was defected, SB should have ordered
its amendment and not its quashal.
Before Bayabos et al were arraigned, the SB quashed the INF
and dismissed case against them, that the INF did not charge DIO v. PEOPLE (2016)
an offense and that it was mere conclusions of the law. A complaint was filed against Dio. She filed a MTQ under 3(a),
the quashal here was deemed improper because there was a
Q. Was quashal proper? failure to provide the prosecution with the opportunity to
amend is an arbitrary exercise of power. If it can be cured by
YES. The facts did not constitute an offense. The amendment, the court must deny the MTQ and order the
reference to the technical term of hazing, the information is a prosecution to file an amended information.
mere conclusion.
Generally, a defect of 3(a) is one that may be corrected by
Q. Was is the remedy? amendment and the courts are mandated not to automatically
quash information, it should grant the prosecution the cure the
The prosecution was given an opportunity to correct defect an amendment.
the defect by amendment however, he still argued that there
was no defect in the amendment.
When an accused has been convicted or
Thus, he failed to make an amendment of the complaint of acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent by a court of
information. Thus, it follows that the motion to quash shall be
competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or
granted, meaning that the MTQ is sustained. information or other formal charge sufficient in form and
substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused
Q. If MTQ is sustained, what is the next remedy? had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of
Section 5, if MTQ is sustained, the court may order a the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to
new INF may be filed. However, the prosecution did not file a another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any
attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for
new information after MTQ grant, and still insisted the there
any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily
was still defect. included in the offense charged in the former complaint or
information.
Q. Since MTQ is final and order quashing was final, does this
bar the prosecution filing information? However, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar
to another prosecution for an offense which necessarily
includes the offense charged in the former complaint or
It does not bar . Even though there was order
information under any of the following instances:
quashing the information. Under Section 6, an order sustaining
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 135
the graver offense developed due to Three Exceptions under Rule 117(2)
supervening facts arising from the same act or 1. Supervening fact doctrine – Melo doctrine.
omission constituting the former charge; 2. Newly discovered fact
the facts constituting the graver charge
3. When plea of guilty to lesser offense is without
became known or were discovered only after a
plea was entered in the former complaint or consent of prosecutor and offended party
information; or
the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was REQUISITES FOR DOUBLE JEOPARDY
made without the consent of the prosecutor FIRST JEOPARDY MUST FIRST JEOPARDY MUST
and of the offended party except as provided in
section 1(f) of Rule 116.
HAVE ATTACHED PRIOR HAVE BEEN VALIDLY
TO THE SECOND TERMINATED
In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused satisfies When first jeopardy When first jeopardy
or serves in whole or in part the judgment, he shall be attached? terminated?
credited with the same in the event of conviction for the 1. When there is a valid 1. When accused is
graver offense. complaint of information. acquitted; or
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 136
Plea Bargain to a Lower Offense Without Consent Under the rules, pleading guilty to a lesser offense or condition
If prosecutor files anew, there is no jeopardy if the consent of subject to a proviso, a conditional plea is equivalent to a plea
the prosecutor and the offended party, unless the private of not guilty. Thus, the judgment of the court based on a void
prosecutor and offended party did not attend arraignment. plea-bargaining is also void ab initio, so that double jeopardy
here will not lie.
Two kinds of Double Jeopardy
1. Same offense In People v. Dela Torre (2002), an appeal for sole purpose for
2. Same act involving a law and an ordinance increasing penalty will violate right against double jeopardy.
VALID TERMINATION OF FIRST JEOPARDY However in People v. Rondero (1999), when the accused
1. Acquittal – absolves the accused immediately, it is a himself appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he waives
rule that when an accused is acquitted, such judgment his right against double jeopardy and throws the whole case
is final and executory. open for review of the appellate court, which is then called to
GR: Acquittal cannot be appealed; render judgment as the law and justice dictate.
XPN: Reopening of the case is allowed when:
(1) State was denied due process Appeal of Civil Liability
(2) Judgment with grave abuse of When an accused humps bail, he is deemed to have abandoned
discretion amounting to lack or his appeal, the judgment against him has become final and
excess of jurisdiction. executory, if his employer appeals, the aim is to have the
accused employee absolved of the criminal responsibility and
2. Conviction – This involves the determination that judgment reviewed as a whole (Phil. Rabbit v. People, 2004).
there is guilt of the accused.
NOTE: 15 days before finality A. Previous Acquittal
In Argel v. Pascua (2001), it is an elementary rule that a
3. Dismissed or Otherwise Terminated without the decision once final is no longer susceptible to amendment or
Express Consent of the Accused alteration except to correct errors which are clerical in nature.
GR: Double jeopardy applies when such In criminal cases, a judgment of acquittal is immediately
dismissal or termination was without the final upon its promulgation.
consent of the accused.
However, in Vincoy v. CA (2004), a dismissal of a case during
XPN: There is grave abuse of discretion in the PI does not constitute double jeopardy since a PI is not part
dismissing the case. of the trial and not the full display of evidence and it is just to
engender a well-founded belief that an offense has been
XPNTO THE XPN: The following: committed and accused is probably guilty to hold for trial.
(1) Violation right to speedy trial
(2) Grant of demurrer to evidence In People v. Velasco (2000), the doctrine of double jeopardy
(3) Discharged as state witness may not be invoked after trial and may apply only when the
Court finds that the criminal trial was a sham because the
Jurisprudential Doctrines prosecution was denied due process.
In Cudia v. CA (1998), for jeopardy to attach there must be a
valid complaint or information, here the information was filed Acquittal Due to Legal Error
by Angeles City prosecutor outside jurisdiction. Thus, dismissal In People v. Laggui (1989), although the deicison of the court
of the case did not amount to a double jeopardy. is erroneous, that decision may not be annulled or set aside
because it amount to a judgment of acquittal. It became final
In Binay v. Sandiganbayan (1999), the first jeopardy here and executory upon its promulgation.
never attached because at the time RTC was not a competent
court of jurisdiction, there can be no double jeopardy where The State may not appeal its decision for it would place the
the accused entered a plea in a court that had no jurisdiction. accused twice in jeopardy of punishment for the offense in
violation of his constitutional right against double jeopardy.
In People v. Nitafan (1999), even if there are three cases which
are pending, there is still no double jeopardy when the first This is reaffirmed in People v. CA (2004), when the Court stated
jeopardy has not yet been validly terminated.
terminated. that in the absence of a finding of mistrial, like when the trial
was a sham, a judgment of acquittal is final and is
Void Plea Bargaining Resulting to a Void Conviction unappealable in the ground of double jeopardy, whether it
In People v. Magat (2000), the revival of the cases here was not happens at the trial court level or at the CA.
considered as a violation of the protection against double
jeopardy. It was shown here the while the accused pleaded Exception to the Acquittal Rule
guilty to the rape charges he bargained for a lesser penalty. In Merciales v. CA (2002), double jeopardy did not lie in this
case because the prosecutor was guilty of nonf easance
easance when
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 137
it failed to protect the interest of the State for he had not While both crimes required that (1) offended party is a virgin;
presented sufficient evidence and failed to present an available and (2) that she must be over 12 and under 18. Consented
witness this also included the nonfeasance of the judge when abduction requires that
that (1) the taking away must be with
with her
he allowed the prosecutor to bungle the case. consent after solicitation or cajolery from the offender, and (2)
the taking away of the offended party must be with lewd
B. Previous Dismissal designs. While in qualified seduction (1) crime be committed by
In Sta. Rita v. CA (1995) where an accused files a motion to abuse of authority, confidence or relationship; (2) offender has
dismiss with the express consent of accused the protection sexual intercourse with a woman.
against double jeopardy does not apply.
Exception to the Same Offense Test
Two Instances Where Double Jeopardy Will Attach Even if In People v. Degamo (2003), the amendment of an information
Case was Dismissed with Express Consent to charge a more serious offense is permissible
permissible and does not
constitute double jeopardy even where accused was already
1. Where ground of dismissal is insufficiency of the arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the charge, where basis of
evidence of prosecution (via Demurrer to Evidence ) the more serious charge did not exist, but comes as a
2. Criminal proceedings have been unreasonably subsequent event (psychosis was involved).
prolonged in violation of the right to speedy trial.
Same Act (Statute and Ordinance)
In Tupaz v. Ulep (1999), when the court dismissed the case In People v. Relova (1987), it was shown that Ordinance No. 1,
without asking the consent of accused the dismissal of the s. 1974 of Batangas and Theft of Electricity under the RPC
case at the instance of the prosecutor is final, thus double involved the same act – taking of electric current. It is because
jeopardy applies. the ordinance seeks to punish unauthorized installed of electric
wiring which was essentially to steal electric currents.
In Gorion v. RTC (1992), the erroneous dismissal issued
capriciously and arbitrarily deprive the State of a fair BENARES v. LIM (2009)
opportunity to present and prove its case, due process here Benares was charged with estafa, the PROS was given 15 days
was violated such order is null and void. An invalid order of to formally offer evidence but it failed to do so. The case was
dismissal cannot be used as basis for double jeopardy. dismissed for failure to prosecute the case. There was a motion
to reconsider order of dismissal claiming difficulty to secure the
SAME OFFENSE SAME ACT documents. Benares opposed invoking double jeopardy. No
It can either be: Must necessarily involve a double jeopardy as result of dismissal. The dismissal in this
1. Same provision of statute and an ordinance case was due to the failure to prosecute. The delay here was
law; not vexatious or oppressive, it follows that the right to speedy
2. Different trial was not violated.
provisions of the
same law; SUMMERVILLE v. EUGENIO (2007)
3. Different Whether the re-filing or reinstatement of the information
statements constitutes double jeopardy. No. The October 24, 2001 order
As to the point of inquiry Look at the acts in space granting the withdrawal of the information produces no
look at the elements of the and time if committed on effect. Then, the accused was not acquitted, nor there was a
two offenses the same day or place. valid and legal dismissal or termination of the case.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 138
The dismissal was based on speedy trial, but here double Q. Whether the reinstatement or revival of the case had put
jeopardy did not attach because dismissal was issued with Quiambao under double jeopardy.
grave abuse of discretion and was reversed by CA.
NO. MTC no longer had the authority to dismiss
Thus, where dismissal on ground of speedy trial was allegedly because jurisdiction had already been acquired by SC. There is
capricious, certiorari lies from such order and does not no double jeopardy because the MTC, which ordered the
involve double jeopardy as the petition challenges not the dismissed of the criminal case, is not a court of competent
correctness but validity of the order of dismissal; such grave jurisdiction. Since MTC had no jurisdiction to issue Order of
abuse discretion amounts to lack of jurisdiction, which prevents Dismissal and Order Revival, there can be no double jeopardy.
double jeopardy from attaching.
Since the MTC did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of
PEOPLE v. NAZARENO the case pending this Court's review of the RTC Order, its order
Three contracts between PNP and Beltra Industries, for the of dismissal was a total nullity and did not produce any legal
purchase and delivery of Caliber .45 pistols spawned the filing effect. Thus, the dismissal neither terminated the action on the
of the criminal
criminal charge against Dir. Gen. Nazareno et al. COA merits, nor amounted to an acquittal.
found that the PNP procurement appeared to have been
overpriced thus INF was filed by SB. ASISTIO v. PEOPLE (2015)
Asistio was charged with violation of Sec. 46 of Cooperative
The SB acquitted Nazareno et al after trial, it concluded that Code of the Philippines (RA 6938) involving cooperative officers
AFP prices did not offer sufficient basis to establish overpricing acquiring personal interest in conflict with their duty by
in the purchase of firearms by PNP. A judgment of acquittal is defrauding the Cooperative which she was a Chairperson. Upon
final and is no longer reviewable. It is also immediately arraignment she entered a plea of not guilty.
executory and the State may not seek its review without placing
the accused in double jeopardy. She moved to dismiss the case by way of Demurrer to Evidence.
She argued among others that RTC Manila Br. 40 does not have
Further prosecution via an appeal from a judgment of acquittal jurisdiction as the crime charged does not carry with it a
is likewise barred because the government has already been sanction for which she can be held criminally liable.
afforded a complete opportunity to prove the criminal
defendants culpability; after failing to persuade the court to On October 14, 2008, RTC dismissed the case for lack of
enter a final judgment of conviction, the underlying reasons jurisdiction for the crime charged is only punishable by
supporting the constitutional ban on multiple trials applies and imprisonment of 6 months to 1 year and a fine of not less than
becomes compelling. P1,000.
IN THIS CASE: The petition itself states that it was formally filed OSG argues that RTC has jurisdiction over the case stating that
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and seeks to reverse and Sec. 124 of RA 6938 applies which provides for a penalty of
set aside the decision of the Sandiganbayan. imprisonment for 5 years to 10 years and fine not less than
P5,000. On August 31, 2011, CA reversed and remanded the
Thus, the petitions clear and unequivocal intention to seek a case to RTC for further proceedings. Court settled that violation
review on the merits of the Sandiganbayan judgment of is punishable by imprisonment of 5 years to ten years and fine
acquittal puts it on a direct collision course with the of P5,000 or both.
constitutional proscription on double jeopardy.
Asistio posits three main arguments:
CEREZO v. PEOPLE (2011)
Cerezo filed a complaint for libel, and information was filed, the 1. That the order of remand to the RTC for further
OP-QC reversed earlier finding; recommended withdrawal of proceedings ignored the rule that dismissal on the
information, the RTC ordered dismissal of cases. SOJ reversed charge on Demurrer to Evidence amounts to an
resolution and ordered refiling. Respondents were not acquittal and the dismissal is not appealable and
acquitted nor was there a valid and legal dismissal or
termination of the case. 2. That the remand would subject her to double
jeopardy.
PEOPLE v. QUIAMBAO (2014)
STRADEC filed before OP a criminal complaint for violation for 3. Her grant of demurrer and acquittal in a criminal case
BP 68 against Quiambao. After PI, Quiambao, they were filed of falsification bars this case for Section 46 of RA 6938
charged under two INF. RTC granted petition holding that there is actually and necessarily included in the case for
was no probable cause to hold them for trial and directed MTC falsification of private documents.
to dismiss for want of probable cause. The other criminal case,
MTC dismissed, MTC issued an Order dated recalling the Order Issue 1:
of Dismissal and reinstating the criminal information Was the dismissal of the case by Demurrer of Evidence
by RTC resulted to acquittal, thus final and unappealable?
unappealable?
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 139
It is true that the general rule is when there is a grant of a In 2007, CA acquitted Chiok, failure of the prosecution to prove
Demurrer to Evidence it operates as an acquittal, thus making his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Chua filed a motion for
it final and unappealable. reconsideration, it was denied MR.
In this case however, it must be noted that the RTC granted the Q. Whether or not the appeal from the judgment will place the
demurrer and dismissed not for insufficiency of evidence, but accused in double jeopardy.
for lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged.
Finality of Acquittal Rule
The RTC did not decide the case on its merits nor resolve issue A judgment of acquittal is final, unappealable, and immediately,
of guilt or innocence based on evidence proferred by the executory upon its promulgation. Because the innocence of the
prosecution. This being the case, RTC Order of Dismissal does accused has been confirmed by a final judgment the
not operate as an acquittal, hence may still be subject of an Constitution conclusively presumes that a second trial would be
appeal. unfair.
Issue 2: Exceptions:
Was the remand of the case to RTC violated her right against 1. Finding of mistrial;
double jeopardy due to its earlier dismissal on the ground of 2. Grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower
lack of jurisdiction? court in acquitting the accused.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 140
The public prosecutor cannot be expected to comply with the Section 8 was purposely crafted and included as a new
timeline unless served with a copy of the order of dismissal provision to reinforce the constitutional right of the accused to
(People v. Lacson, 2003). a speedy disposition of the case.
Express Consent (People v. Lacson, 2003) If the time-bar fixed in Section 8 were to be applied
It is given either viva voce or in writing. It is a positive, direct, retroactively, this would mean that the State would be barred
unequivocal consent requiring no inference or implication to from reviving the case for failure to comply with the said time-
supply its meaning. bar, which was yet to be approved by the Court three years after
the provisional dismissal of the criminal case. In fine, to so hold
Where the accused writes on the motion of a prosecutor for a would imply that the State was presumed to foresee and
provisional dismissal of the case stating, “ No objection” or
or “With anticipate that three years after 1997, the Court would approve
my conformity ”.
”. The writing amounts to express consent of the and amend the RRCP. The State would thus be sanctioned for
accused. Mere silence is not express. its failure to comply with a rule yet to be approved by the Court.
Motion to Withdraw Information from Motion to Dismiss LOS BAÑOS v. PEDRO (2009)
Motion to Withdraw Motion to Dismiss Pedro was charged with a violation of Article 22; Section 261(q),
Both motions put an end to an action filed court. in relation to Sec. 264 of BP 881 or the OEC for carrying a loaded
Attains finality after 15 days Becomes final after 15 days firearm without authorization from COMELEC. There was a
from receipt thereof, from receipt thereof, with checkpoint in Boac. Provincial prosecutor filed an INF with RTC.
without prejudice to the re- prejudice to the re-filing of
filing of the information the same case on such Pedro filed a MTQ arguing that the INF contains averments
upon reinvestigation. order achieves finality, which if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification
which is after the lapse of 1 and/or that the facts charged do not constitute offense. RTC
year (MTC) or 2 years (RTC) quashed INF and ordered the police and prosecutors to return
depending on the the seized articles to Pedro.
imposable penalty.
Not time barred, thus not Time barred. Representing the checkpoint team and with conformity of the
covered by Sec. 8, Rule 117. public prosecutor, Los Banos moved to reopen case saying
that COMELEC Certification was falsification and prosecution
Torres Jr v. Torres-Aguinaldo 451 SCRA 579 (2005)
was deprived of due process.
Revival of Dismissed Case
RTC re-opened the case for further proceedings. Filed a motion
It can be revived within the time-bar either by the State by:
to reconsideration arguing that the dismissal had become
Refiling or
By the filing of new information
permanent citing Section 8, Rule 117.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 141
In his MR, Pedro manifested the exact date and time of the ATTY. BONSUBRE, JR v. YERRO (2015)
Marinduque provincial prosecutor’s receipt of the quashal Atty. Bonsubre, Jr. filed a complaint for estafa against Yerro.
order to be 2:35PM. December 10, 2001, and argued that based Prosecution manifested that there was on-going settlement, a
on this date, the provisional dismissal of the case became compromise agreement was reached but the prosecution failed
permanent on December 10, 2002. to furnish the RTC a copy of such agreement. In Sept. 18, 2001,
Order dismissing case in view of accused right to speedy trial.
Held: Section 8, Rule 117 does not apply in this case. An
examination of the whole Rule tells us that a dismissal based Contention of Bonsubre stated that there was no violation of
on a MTQ and a Provisional Dismissal are far different from the accused right to speedy trial as both parties mutually
one another as concepts, in features, and legal consequences. agreed to provisionally dismiss the case until full settlement
of the obligation of compromise agreement.
While the provision on provisional dismissal is found in Rule
117, it does not follow that MTQ results in provisional There is no provisional dismissal of the case. None of the
dismissal to which Section 8, Rule 117. requisites were met, while it may appear that Yarras consented
to provisional dismissal of the case, the prosecution neither
A motion to quash is the mode by which an accused assails, present the same for the court’s approval nor filed the
before entering his plea, the validity of the criminal complaint required motion to that effect such that no order was in fact
or the criminal information filed against him for insufficiency on issued granting the provisional dismissal of the case. Hence, the
its face in point of law, or for d efect apparent on the face of the assertion that the Yarras are estopped from invoking their right
Information. to speedy trial is without basis.
The motion, as a rule, hypothetically admits the truth of the SALDARIEGA v. PANGANIBAN (2015)
facts spelled out in the complaint or information. Two informations were filed against Saldariega for violation of
RA 9165. Judge issued order provisionally dismissing the
Motion to Quash Provisional Dismissal express consent of Saldariega. PO2 Villas field a motion to
It is filed by the accused to A case may be provisionally reopen the case. Judge granted reopening and set the cases for
question the efficacy of the dismissed at the instance of continuation.
complaint or information either the prosecution or
filed against him or her. the accused, or both, She argued that the provisional dismissal of the criminal cases
subject to the conditions is considered an acquittal. PO2 Villas has no personality to file
enumerated under Sec. 8. motion t reopen. OSG argued that Saldariega died not object.
Sec. 2 of Rule 117, provides Section 2, Rule 117, does
for the forma and content not apply to a provisional Q. Whether or not provisional dismissal is akin to acquittal? NO.
of a MTQ. dismissal.
Assails the validity of the May be grounded on When a criminal case is provisionally dismissed with
criminal complaint or reasons other than the the expressed consent of the accused, the case may be
criminal information for defects found in the revived by State within the periods. Saldariega did not oppose.
defects or defenses information.
apparent on the face of the Q. Is there violation of double jeopardy? NO.
information.
Allowed before the Allowed even when trial The provisional dismissal of the case does not operate
arraignment (Sec. 1) proper of the case is as an acquittal since its dismissal was made with the express
already underway provided consent of the accused thus there is no double jeopardy.
that the required consents
are present. Q. Does PO2 Villas have personality to file? YES.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 142
Effect of Failure to File Motion to Quash or Allege Ground In this case, Asilan not only failed to question the sufficiency of
General Rule: It shall be deemed as a waiver on part of accused
the INF at any time during the pendency of the case in RTC.
He also allowed the prosecution to present evidence proving
Exceptions: There is no deemed waiver when the ground is:
1. Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter; (3a) the elements of treachery, thus deemed to have waived.
2. Information does not charge any offense; (3b)
3. Criminal liability is already exintguished; (3g) PEOPLE v. ANDRADE (2014)
4. Double jeopardy; (3i) A random drug test was conducted National Bilibid Prison
wherein urine samples were collected and subjected to drug
In Uy v. CA (1997), it appeared that court had no jurisdiction testing and out of 38, 21 urine samples tested positive. All
but it was only after 5 years after she was convicted that accused pleaded not guilty.
accused raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction. This was not a
waiver because question of jurisdiction of a court may be In 2006, accused filed consolidated Motion to Dismiss on the
raised at any stage of the proceedings, thus, accused is not ground that facts alleged in the Information do not constitute
estopped questioning jurisdiction even on appeal. a violation of Sec. 15 of RA 9165, further contending that they
were never arrested for such drug.
When must a Motion to Quash be filed?
It must be filed after arraignment, there can be no more quashal RTC granted motion to dismiss finding no probable cause for
it is already motion to dismiss. For the information, it is only the offense charged in the Information. CA affirmed. The
motion to quash but only to the point of arraignment. complaint asserts that the CA erred because they were already
It is always in the best interest of the client for the arraigned. Accused averred that CA is correct.
accused to get the information.
Q. Can a motion to quash may be filed even after the accused
PEOPLE v. LAMBERTO RAFON (2007) have entered their plea? – YES
It is too late in the day for appellant to raise this issue. He
should have made his objection before he was arraigned. The ground was Section 3(a), while under ordinary
Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, circumstances, such motion may no longer be allowed after
arraignment because of their failure to raise any ground,
to wit: The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a
however, since ground asserted is one of the exceptions
motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or
under Section 9, the timeliness, of the filing is immaterial.
information, either because he did not file a motion to quash
or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a
FANTASTICO v. MALICSE (2015)
waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds A case for Attempted Murder was filed against accused, they all
provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of pleaded not guilty. Trial court found Fantastico and Villanueva
this Rule. guilty for the attempted murder. Can they assert that the
information filed against them was defective for failure to state
As was held in Bugayong, appellant herein cannot be said to all the elements of attempted murder? – NO.
have been deprived of his right to be informed. He did not
timely object to the alleged defects in the Informations and he In any case, it is now too late for Fantastico and of
actively participated in the trial, defending himself and Villanueva to assail the insufficiency of the information on the
confronting the witnesses against him. Hence, there was no ground that the elements of the crime are lacking, they are
denial of due process. already convicted and past arraignment.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 143
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)