JURISDICTION is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for The only thing extinguished by the death of Secretary

1. HANNAH SERANA V. SANDIGANBAYAN six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00 …. Enrile is his criminal liability. His death did not
A UP Student Regent is a Public Officer. A public office For the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive jurisdiction extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the
is the right, authority, and duty created and conferred under the said law over crimes committed by public charge of conspiracy between him and private
by law, by which for a given period, either fixed or officers in relation to their office, it is essential that the respondent. Stated differently, the death of Secretary
enduring at the pleasure of the power, an individual is facts showing the intimate relation between the office Enrile does not mean that there was no public officer
interested with some portion of sovereign functions of of the offender and the discharge of official duties must who allegedly violated
the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit be alleged in the Information. It is not enough to merely Section 3 (g) of R.A. 3019. In fact, the Office of the
of the public. allege in the Information that the crime charged was Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found probable cause
committed by the offender in relation to his office to indict Secretary Enrile for infringement of Sections 3
Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan covers Board of because that would be a conclusion of law. The (e) and (g) of R.A. 3019.14 Were it not for his death, he
Regents. The Sandiganbayan, also has jurisdiction amended Information filed with the RTC against the should have been charged.
over the other officers enumerated in PD No. 1606. In petitioner does not contain any allegation showing the
Geduspan v. People, the SC held that while the first intimate relation between his office and the discharge The requirement before a private person may be
part of Sec. 4(A) covers only officials with Salary grade of his duties. Hence, the RTC had jurisdiction over the indicted for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019,
27 and higher but who are by express provisions of law offense charged when on November 24, 1995, it among others, is that such private person must be
placed under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as ordered the re-amendment of the Information to include alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a public
she is placed there by express provisions of law. Sec. therein an allegation that the petitioner committed the officer. The law, however, does not require that such
4(A)(1)(g) of PD No. 1606 explicitly vested the crime in relation to office. The trial court erred when it person must, in all instances, be indicted together with
Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents, ordered the elevation of the records to the the public officer. If circumstances exist where the
directors and trustees, or manager of government- Sandiganbayan. It bears stressing that R.A. No. 7975 public officer may no longer be charged in court, as in
owned or controlled corporations, state universities, or amending P.D. No. 1606 was already in effect. the present case where the public officer has already
educational foundations. Petitioner falls under this died, the private person may be indicted alone.
category. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the Under Sec. 2 of said law, even if the offender
Board of Regents performs functions similar to those of committed the crime charged in relation to his office but 5. RAMISCAL V. SANDIGANBAYAN
a board of trustee of a non-stock corporation. By occupies a position corresponding to a salary grade With respect to the finding of probable cause, it is the
express mandate of law, petitioner is, indeed, a public below "27," the proper Regional Trial Court or Ombudsman who has the full discretion to determine
officer as contemplated by PD No. 1606. Municipal Trial Court, as the case may be, shall have whether or not a criminal case should be filed in the
exclusive jurisdiction over the case. In this case, the Sandiganbayan, once the case has been filed with the
2. GARCIA V. SANDIGANBAYAN petitioner was a Police Senior Inspector, with salary said court, it is the Sandiganbayan, and no longer the
The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over actions for grade "23." He was charged with homicide punishable Ombudsman which has full control of the case.
forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379, albeit the by reclusion temporal. Hence, the RTC had exclusive Ramiscal Jr., failed to establish that Sandiganbayan
proceeding thereunder is civil in nature—the civil jurisdiction over the crime charged conformably to committed grave abuse of discretion, thus, there is
liability for forfeiture cases does not arise from the Sections 20 and 32 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as probable cause in the filing of the case.
commission of a criminal offense. amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7691.
6. PEOPLE V. BENIPAYO
3. ESCOBAL V. SANDIGANBAYAN The petitioner’s contention that R.A. No. 7975 should
The case is within the jurisdiction of the RTC. not be applied retroactively has no legal basis. It bears 1. Jurisdiction in libel cases belong to the RTC to the
Under Section 4(a) of P.D. No. 1606 as amended by stressing that R.A. No. 7975 is a substantive exclusion of all other courts.
P.D. No. 1861, the Sandiganbayan had exclusive procedural law, which may be applied retroactively. 2. The rule is well settled that the act of an accused in
jurisdiction in all cases involving the following: posting bail or in filing motions seeking affirmative relief
(1) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, is tantamount to submission of his person to the
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt 4. PEOPLE V. HENRY T. GO jurisdiction of the court.
Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Yes. It is true that by reason of Secretary Enrile's death, 3. The Sandiganbayan is a special criminal court which
Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code; there is no longer any public officer with whom has exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving
(2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public respondent can be charged for violation of R.A. 3019. violations of Republic Act (R.A.) 3019 committed by
officers and employees in relation to their office, It does not mean, however, that the allegation of certain public officers, as enumerated in Presidential
including those employed in government-owned or conspiracy between them can no longer be proved or Decree (P.D.) 1606 as amended by R.A. 8249. This
controlled corporations, whether simple or complexed that their alleged conspiracy is already expunged. includes private individuals who are charged as co-
with other crimes, where the penalty prescribed by law
Criminal Procedure Case Doctrines | Fiscal Salazar
Jurisdiction, Rule 110 – Rule 116
mayaxluna
principals, accomplices or accessories with the said
public officers. 9. DISINI JR V. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
Sec. 21 provides that the RTC shall have jurisdiction
7. LACSON V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY over any violation of the provisions of RA 10175
RTC HAS JURISDICTION. (Cybercrime Prevention Act) including any violation
In People vs. Montejo, it was held that an offense is committed by a Filipino national regardless of the place
said to have been committed in relation to the office if of commission. Jurisdiction shall lie if any of the
it is intimately connected with the office of the offender elements was committed within the Philippines or
and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his committed with the use of any computer system wholly
official functions. Such intimate relation must be or partly situated in the country, or when by such
alleged in the information which is essential in commission any damage is caused to a natural or
determining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. juridical person who, at the time the offense was
However, upon examination of the amended committed, was in the Philippines.
information, there was no specific allegation of facts There shall be designated special cybercrime court
that the shooting of the victim by the said principal manned by specially trained judges to handle
accused was intimately related to the discharge of their cybercrime cases.
official duties as police officers.
Likewise, the amended information does not indicate
that the said accused arrested and investigated the
victim and then killed the latter while in their custody.
The stringent requirement that the charge set forth with
such particularity as will reasonably indicate the exact
offense which the accused is alleged to have
committed in relation to his office was not established.

Consequently, for failure to show in the amended

informations that the charge of murder was intimately
connected with the discharge of official functions of the
accused PNP officers, the offense charged in the
subject criminal cases is plain murder and, therefore,
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Court and not the Sandiganbayan.

WHEREFORE, the constitutionality of Sections 4 and

7 of R.A. 8249 is hereby sustained. The Addendum to
the March 5, 1997 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan is
REVERSED. The Sandiganbayan is hereby directed to
transfer Criminal Cases Nos. 23047 to 23057 (for
multiple murder) to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City which has exclusive original jurisdiction over the
said cases.

8. SANCHEZ V. DEMETRIO

The absence of a preliminary investigation does not

impair the validity of the information or otherwise
render the same defective and neither does it affect the
jurisdiction of the court over the case or constitute a
ground for quashing the
information.
Criminal Procedure Case Doctrines | Fiscal Salazar
Jurisdiction, Rule 110 – Rule 116
mayaxluna
RULE 110 – PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES The People is the real party in interest in a criminal charged with. To have the facts stated in the body of
case and only the OSG can represent the People in the information determine the crime of which he stands
1. ZALDIVIA V. REYES criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court. charged and for which he must be tried thoroughly
As a general rule, the filing of the case in the This ruling has been repeatedly stressed in several accords with common sense and with the requirements
prosecutor’s office is sufficient to interrupt the running cases and continues to be the controlling doctrine. of plain justice.
of the prescriptive period except when the case is 5. MIGUEL V SANDIGANBAYAN
covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure. If it is While there may be rare occasions when the offended
any crime, you file it in the fiscal’s office; the running of party may be allowed to pursue the criminal action on The test of the information’s sufficiency is whether the
the prescriptive period is interrupted. But in the case at his own behalf (as when there is denial of a due crime is described in intelligible terms and with such
bar having only a penalty of arresto menor, it therefore process), this exceptional circumstance does not apply particularity with reasonable certainty so that the
falls under the provisions of the Rules on Summary in the present case. accused is duly informed of the offense charged.
Procedure. If it is covered by the Summary Rules, the
period continues. It must be the filing of the case in 4. PEOPLE V. VALDEZ 6. PEOPLE V. SORIA
court which will interrupt the period from running. For complaint or information to be sufficient, it must
state the name of the accused; the designation of the The Information in this case did not specify with
2. PEOPLE V. TAN offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions certainty whether appellant committed the rape through
complained of as constituting the offense; the name of sexual intercourse under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A,
the offended party; the approximate time of the or rape by sexual assault as described in paragraph 2
commission of the offense, and the place wherein the thereof.
offense was committed. What is controlling is not the
title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense The allegation in the information of the various ways of
charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly committing the offense should be regarded as a
violated, these being mere conclusions of law made by description of only one offense and the information is
the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged not thereby rendered defective on the ground of
3. JIMENEZ V. SORONGON and the particular facts therein recited. The acts or multifariousness.
omissions complained of must be alleged in such form
NO. It is well-settled that "every action must be as is sufficient to enable a person of common 7. MATRIDO V. PEOPLE
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in understanding to know what offense is intended to be It is the allegations in the Information that determine the
interest[,]""who stands to be benefited or injured by the charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper nature of the offense and not the technical name given
judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the avails judgment. No information for a crime will be sufficient if by the prosecutor in the preamble of the Information.
of the suit." Interest means material interest or an it does not accurately and clearly allege the elements
interest in issue to be affected by the decree or of the crime charged. Every element of the offense 8. UNION BANK V. PEOPLE
judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere must be stated in the information. What facts and YES. Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in
interest in the question involved. By real interest is circumstances are necessary to be included therein criminal cases. It determines not only the place where
meant a present substantial interest, as distinguished must be determined by reference to the definitions and the criminal action is to be instituted, but also the court
from a mere expectancy, or a future, contingent, essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement of that has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case. The
subordinate or consequential interest. When the alleging the elements of a crime in the information is to reason for this rule is two- fold. First, the jurisdiction of
plaintiff or the defendant is not a real party in interest, inform the accused of the nature of the accusation trial courts is limited to well-defined territories such that
the suit is dismissible. against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his a trial court can only hear and try cases involving
defense. The presumption is that the accused has no crimes committed within its territorial jurisdiction.
Procedural law basically mandates that "[a]ll criminal independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the Second, laying the venue in the locus criminis is
actions commenced by complaint or by information offense. grounded on the necessity and justice of having an
shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of accused on trial in the municipality of province where
a public prosecutor." In appeals of criminal cases The requirement of sufficient factual averments is witnesses and other facilities for his defense are
before the CA and before this Court, the OSG is the meant to inform the accused of the nature and cause available.
appellate counsel of the People, pursuant to Section of the charge against him in order to enable him to
35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 prepare his defense. This requirement accords with the Unlike in civil cases, a finding of improper venue in
Administrative Code. presumption of innocence in his favor, pursuant to criminal cases carries jurisdictional consequences. In
which he is always presumed to have no independent determining the venue where the criminal action is to
knowledge of the details of the crime he is being be instituted and the court which has jurisdiction over
Criminal Procedure Case Doctrines | Fiscal Salazar
Jurisdiction, Rule 110 – Rule 116
mayaxluna
it, Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure provides that subject to existing
laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in
the court or municipality or territory where the offense
was committed or where any of its essential ingredients
occurred.
The above provision should be read in light of Section
10, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure which states:
Place of commission of the offense. – The complaint or
information is sufficient if it can be understood
from its allegations that the offense was committed or
some of its essential ingredients occurred at some
place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the
particular place where it was committed constitutes an
essential element of the offense charged or is
necessary for its identification.

Both provisions categorically place the venue and

jurisdiction over criminal cases not only in the court
where the offense was committed, but also where any
of its essential ingredients took place. In other words,
the venue of action and of jurisdiction are deemed
sufficiently alleged where the Information states that
the offense was committed or some of its essential
ingredients occurred at a place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court.

Criminal Procedure Case Doctrines | Fiscal Salazar

Jurisdiction, Rule 110 – Rule 116
mayaxluna
RULE 111 – PROSECUTION OF CIVIL OFFENSES cumulatively, without of ending the rules on forum petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal
shopping, litis pendentia, or res judicata. action at any time before the prosecution rests.
1. SOLIDUM V. PEOPLE Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question.—The
4. CASUPANAN V. LAROYA elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the
1. Civil liability must not rest on speculation but on The accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for previously instituted civil action involves an issue
competent evidence. the same act or omission he is accused of in the similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
2. The civil action for the recovery of civil liability that is criminal case. This is expressly allowed in paragraph subsequent criminal action; and (b) the resolution of
deemed instituted with the criminal action refers only to 6, Section 1 of the present Rule 111 which states that such issue determines whether or not the criminal
that arising from the offense charged. the counterclaim of the accused “may be litigated in a action may proceed.
separate civil action.”
2. CASTILLO V. SALVADOR The rationale behind the principle of suspending a
5. CATERPILLAR, INC. V. SAMSON criminal case in view of a prejudicial question is to avoid
An acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of two conflicting decisions. A prejudicial question is
the accused is not exempt from civil liability, which may defined as that which arises in a case the resolution of
be proved by preponderance of evidence only. which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved
therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to
In Manantan v. CA, we discussed the consequences of another tribunal. The prejudicial question must be
an acquittal on the civil liability of the accused as determinative of the case before the court but the
follows. jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be
lodged in another court or tribunal. It is a question
Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime
effects on the civil liability of the accused. First is an but so intimately connected with it that it determines the
acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the 6. PEOPLE V. ROMERO guilt or innocence of the accused.
author of the actor omission complained of. This Pursuant to the doctrine established in People vs.
instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person Bayotas, the death of the accused pending appeal of 8. PIMENTEL V. PIMENTEL
who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well Annulment of marriage is not a prejudicial question in
act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for as the civil liability ex delicto. The criminal action is criminal case for parricide. Further, the resolution of the
such act or omission. There being no delict, civil liability extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a civil action is not a prejudicial question that would
ex delicto is out of the question, and the civil action, if defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action warrant the suspension of the criminal action. There is
any, which may be instituted must be based on instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto a prejudicial question when a civil action and a criminal
grounds other than the delict complained of. This is the is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the action are both pending, and there exists in the civil
situation contemplated in Rule III of the Rules of Court. criminal case. action an issue which must be preemptively resolved
The second instance is an acquittal based on before the criminal action may proceed because
reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is
case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same resolved would be determinative of the guilt or
satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil may also be predicated on a source of obligation other innocence of the accused in the criminal case.
liability, which may be proved by preponderance of than delict.
evidence only. This is the situation contemplated in 9. J.M. DODMINGUEZ V. LICLICAN
Article 29 of the Civil Code, where the civil action for 7. MAGISTRADO V. PEOPLE As jurisprudence elucidates, a prejudicial question
damages is "for the same act or omission." There is no prejudicial question if the civil and the generally exists in a situation where a civil action and a
criminal action can, according to law, proceed criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the
3. LIM V. KOU CO PING independently of each other. former an issue that must be preemptively resolved
before the latter may proceed, because howsoever the
If the action for the civil liability ex delicto is instituted Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides that: issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be
prior to or subsequent to the filing of the criminal action, Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question.— determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence
its proceedings are suspended until the final outcome A petition for suspension of the criminal action based of the accused in the criminal case. The rationale
of the criminal action. Because of the distinct and upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil behind the principle is to avoid two conflicting
independent nature of the two kinds of civil liabilities, action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the decisions, and its existence rests on the concurrence
jurisprudence holds that the offended party may pursue court conducting the preliminary investigation. When of two essential elements… (see Magistrado v People)
the two types of civil liabilities simultaneously or the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the
Criminal Procedure Case Doctrines | Fiscal Salazar
Jurisdiction, Rule 110 – Rule 116
mayaxluna
RULE 112 – PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION 2. BURGUNDY REALTY CORPORATION V. REYES 4. HEIRS OF NESTOR TRIA V. OBLAS
Under the procedure for preliminary investigation
1. FENEQUITO V. VERGARA, JR. It must be remembered that the finding of probable provided in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules
cause was made after conducting a preliminary of Criminal Procedure, as amended, in case the
It is wrong for petitioners to argue that it is the OSG investigation. A preliminary investigation constitutes a investigating prosecutor conducts a hearing where
which has authority to file an appeal with the RTC. realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of a case. Its there are facts and issues to be clarified from a party or
Section 35 (l), Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of purpose is to determine whether (a) a crime has been witness, "[t]he parties can be present at the hearing but
Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the committed; and (b) whether there is a probable cause without the right to examine or cross-examine. They
Administrative Code of 1987, mandates the OSG to to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. It is not may, however, submit to the investigating officer
represent “the Government in the Supreme Court and disputed that decisions or resolutions of prosecutors questions which may be asked to the party or witness
the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings.” On are subject to appeal to the Secretary of Justice who, concerned." Hence, the non-referral by the OP to the
the other hand, Section 11 of Presidential Decree No. under the Revised Administrative Code, exercises the DOJ of the motion for reconsideration of respondent, in
1275, entitled “Reorganizing the Prosecution Staff of power of direct control and supervision over said the exercise of its discretion, did not violate petitioners’
the Department of Justice and the Offices of the prosecutors; and who may thus affirm, nullify, reverse right to due process. The findings of the prosecutor with
Provincial and City Fiscals, Regionalizing the or modify their rulings. Review as an act of supervision respect to the existence or non-existence of probable
Prosecution Service, and Creating the National and control by the justice secretary over the fiscals and cause is subject to the power of review by the DOJ.
Prosecution Service,” which was the law in force at the prosecutors finds basis in the doctrine of exhaustion of
time the appeal was filed, provides that the provincial administrative remedies which holds that mistakes, Indeed, the Secretary of Justice may reverse or modify
or the city fiscal (now referred to as prosecutor) “shall abuses or negligence committed in the initial steps of the resolution of the prosecutor, after which he shall
have charge of the prosecution of all crimes, an administrative activity or by an administrative direct the prosecutor concerned either to file the
misdemeanors and violations of city or municipal agency should be corrected by higher administrative corresponding information without conducting another
ordinances in the courts of such province or city and authorities, and not directly by courts. preliminary investigation, or to dismiss or move for
shall therein discharge all the duties incident to the dismissal of the complaint or information with notice to
institution of criminal prosecutions.” This Court need not overemphasize that in a the parties. In reversing the DOJ’s finding of probable
preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor merely cause, the OP found merit in the argument of the
It is a settled rule that the right to appeal is neither a determines whether there is probable cause or respondent that the DOJ’s finding that she was with
natural right nor a part of due process, it is merely a sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that Aclan when she went to the residence of Engr. Tria
statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the a crime has been committed, and that the respondent early in the morning of May 22, 1998, was not
manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It sufficiently established. The OP gave more weight to
An appeal being a purely statutory right, an appealing does not call for the application of rules and standards the affidavit of Calayag stating that Aclan was not
party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial around when they and respondent, among other
in the Rules of Court. The rationale for this strict attitude on the merits. The complainant need not present at this visitors, were at Engr. Tria’s house at that time -- than
is not difficult to appreciate as the Rules are designed stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. A preliminary that account given by SA Eduarte, which was
to facilities the orderly disposition of appealed cases. investigation does not require a full and exhaustive uncorroborated.
presentation of the parties’ evidence. Precisely, there
A final order is one that which disposes of the whole is a trial to allow the reception of evidence for both 4. UY V. JAVELLANA
subject matter or terminates a particular proceeding or parties to substantiate their respective claims. The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure does not
action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by provide for a preliminary investigation prior to the filing
execution what has been determined. Upon the other 3. ABANADO V. BAYONA of a criminal case under said Rule.
hand, an order is interlocutory if it does not dispose of The conduct of a preliminary investigation is primarily
a case completely, but leaves something more to be an executive function. The courts must consider the Section 1, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
done upon its merits. The RTC Decision is beyond cavil rules of procedure of the Department of Justice in Procedure only requires that a preliminary investigation
interlocutory in nature. It is essentially a denial of conducting preliminary investigations whenever the be conducted before the filing of a complaint or
petitioners’ motion to quash because it leaves actions of a public prosecutor is put in question. The information for an offense where the penalty prescribed
something more to be done x x x, i.e., the continuation Department of Justice-National Prosecution Service by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one
of the criminal proceedings until the guilt or innocence (DOJ-NPS) Manual states that the resolution of the (1) day without regard to the fine.
of the accused is determined. Specifically, the MeTC investigating prosecutor should be attached to the
has yet to arraign the petitioners, then proceed to trial information only as far as practicable. Such attachment
and finally render the proper judgment. is not mandatory or required under the rules.

Criminal Procedure Case Doctrines | Fiscal Salazar

Jurisdiction, Rule 110 – Rule 116
mayaxluna
5. PEOPLE V. VALENCIANA admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better prosecution of the accused when the prosecutor has
1. Information can be filed without a preliminary ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary not found a prima facie case.
investigation against an accused arrested without investigation level."
warrant. Nevertheless, this policy of non-interference is not
2. Preliminary investigation; deemed waived when not 7. DE LIMA V. REYES without exception.
invoked. The prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not
determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. He The Constitution itself allows (and even directs) court
A person who is lawfully arrested, without a warrant does not exercise adjudication nor rule-making action where executive discretion has been gravely
pursuant to paragraph 1(b), Section 5, Rule 113, Rules functions. Preliminary investigation is merely abused. In other words, the court may intervene in the
of Court should be delivered to the nearest police inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering executive determination of probable cause, review the
station and proceeded against in accordance with Rule the persons who may be reasonably charged with a findings and conclusions, and ultimately resolve the
112, Section 7. Under said Section 7, Rule 112, the crime and to enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint existence or non-existence of probable cause by
prosecuting officer can file the Information in court or information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits examining the records of the preliminary investigation
without a preliminary investigation, which was done in and has no purpose except that of determining whether when necessary for the orderly administration of
the accused-appellant’s case. a crime has been committed and whether there is justice.
probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty
Since the records do not show whether the accused- thereof. While the fiscal makes that determination, he Courts cannot reverse the Secretary of Justice’s
appellant asked for a preliminary investigation after the cannot be said to be acting as a quasi-court, for it is the findings except in clear cases of grave abuse of
case had been filed in court, as in fact, the accused- courts, ultimately, that pass judgment on the accused, discretion.
appellant signified his readiness to be arraigned, the not the fiscal.
Court can only conclude that he waived his right to
have a preliminary investigation, when he did, in fact, 8. PEOPLE V. CA
pleaded "Not Guilty" upon his arraignment. As a general rule, if the information is valid on its face
and there is no showing of manifest error, grave abuse
6. PCGG V. NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ of discretion or prejudice on the part of the prosecutor,
1. Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal courts should not dismiss it for want of evidence,
information, has been defined as such facts as are because evidentiary matters should be presented and
sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime be heard during the trial. In our criminal justice system,
has been committed and that respondent is probably the public prosecutor has the quasi-judicial discretion
guilty thereof. The term does not mean "actual or to determine whether or not a criminal case should be
positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It filed in court.
is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief.
Probable cause does not require an inquiry whether 9. UNILEVER PHILS V. TAN
there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is The determination of probable cause for purposes of
enough that it is believed that the act or omission filing of information in court is essentially an executive
complained of constitutes the offense charged. function that is lodged, at the first instance, with the
2. Preliminary investigation is merely an inquisitorial public prosecutor and, ultimately, to the Secretary of
mode of discovering whether or not there is reasonable Justice. The prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice
basis to believe that a crime has been committed and have wide latitude of discretion in the conduct of
that the person charged should be held responsible for preliminary investigation; and their findings with
it. Being merely based on opinion and belief, a finding respect to the existence or non-existence of probable
of probable cause does not require an inquiry as to cause are generally not subject to review by the Court.
whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a
conviction. "[A preliminary investigation] is not the The settled policy of non-interference in the
occasion for the full and exhaustive display of [the prosecutor’s exercise of discretion requires the courts
prosecution's] evidence. The presence and absence of to leave to the prosecutor and to the DOJ the
the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to
isa matter of defense that may be passed upon after a establish probable cause. Courts can neither override
full-blown trial on the merits." Hence, "the validity and their determination nor substitute their own judgment
merits ofa party's defense or accusation, as well as the for that of the latter. They cannot likewise order the
Criminal Procedure Case Doctrines | Fiscal Salazar
Jurisdiction, Rule 110 – Rule 116
mayaxluna
 commission of an offense. It is effected by an actual (1) search of moving vehicles, (2) seizure in plain view,
RULE 113 – ARREST restraint of the person to be arrested or by that persons (3) customs searches, (4) waiver or consented
voluntary submission to the custody of the one making searches, (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search),
1. SARAUM V. PEOPLE (window) the arrest. Neither the application of actual force, and search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last
The valid warrantless arrest gave the officers the right manual touching of the body, or physical restraint, nor includes a valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule,
to search the shanty for objects relating to the crime a formal declaration of arrest, is required. It is enough an arrest is considered legitimate [if] effected with a
and seize the drug paraphernalia they found. In the that there be an intention on the part of one of the valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court recognize
course of their lawful intrusion, they inadvertently saw parties to arrest the other, and that there be an intent permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest in
the various drug paraphernalia. As these items were on the part of the other to submit, under the belief and flagrante delicto, (2) arrest effected in hot pursuit, and
plainly visible, the police officers were justified in impression that submission is necessary. Under R.A. (3) arrest of escaped prisoners. (Citation omitted.)
seizing them. Considering that Saraum’s arrest was 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the Thus, the appellant cannot seek exculpation by
legal, the search and seizure that resulted from it were general procedure for dealing with a traffic violation is invoking belatedly the invalidity of his arrest and the
likewise lawful. The various drug paraphernalia that the not the arrest of the offender, but the confiscation of the subsequent search upon his person.
police officers found and seized in the shanty are, driver license of the latter.
therefore, admissible in evidence for having proceeded
from a valid search and seizure. Since the confiscated 4. ANTIQUERA V. PEOPLE (door)
drug paraphernalia are the very corpus delicti of the No crime was plainly exposed to the view of the
crime charged, the Court has no choice but to sustain arresting officers that authorized the arrest of accused
the judgment of conviction. Antiquera without warrant under the above-mentioned
rule. Considering that his arrest was illegal, the search
2. COMERCIANTE V. PEOPLE and seizure that resulted from it was likewise illegal.
The acts of standing around with a companion and Consequently, the various drug paraphernalia that the
handing over something to the latter cannot in any way police officers allegedly found in the house and seized
be considered criminal acts. In fact, even if are inadmissible, having proceeded from an invalid
Comerciante and his companion were showing search and seizure. Since the confiscated drug
"improper and unpleasant movements" as put by PO3 paraphernalia is the very corpus delicti of the crime
Calag, the same would not have been sufficient in charged, the Court has no choice but to acquit the
order to effect a lawful warrantless arrest under Section accused.
5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure The failure of the accused to object to the irregularity of
his arrest by itself is not enough to sustain his
The balance lies in the concept of "suspiciousness" conviction. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest
present where the police officer finds himself or herself does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of
in. This may be undoubtedly based on the experience evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest.”
of the police officer. Experienced police officers have
personal experience dealing with criminals and criminal 5. PEOPLE V. VASQUEZ
behavior. Hence, they should have the ability to discern We reiterated in People v. Tampis that "[a]ny objection,
- based on facts that they themselves observe - defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made
whether an individual is acting in a suspicious manner. before the accused enters his plea on arraignment.
Clearly, a basic criterion would be that the police Having failed to move for the quashing of the
officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must information against them before their arraignment,
observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit appellants are now estopped from questioning the
act. legality of their arrest. Any irregularity was cured upon
their voluntary submission to the trial court’s
3. LUZ V. PEOPLE jurisdiction."
There was no valid arrest of petitioner. When he was
flagged down for committing a traffic violation, he was This interdiction against warrantless searches and
not, ipso facto and solely for this reason, arrested. seizures, however, is not absolute and such
Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order warrantless searches and seizures have long been
that he or she may be bound to answer for the deemed permissible by jurisprudence in instances of
Criminal Procedure Case Doctrines | Fiscal Salazar
Jurisdiction, Rule 110 – Rule 116
mayaxluna
RULE 114 – BAIL may justifiably still be denied if the probability of escape owed; Under what circumstances an accused may
1. FLORESTA V. UBIADIAS is great. A grant of bail does not prevent the trier of obtain bail pending appeal is a delicate balance
Judge Eliodoro G. Ubiadas is found GUILTY of undue facts, the same Anti-Graft Court, from making a final between the interests of society and those of the
delay in resolving a motion and of gross ignorance of assessment of the evidence after full trial on the merits. accused; In the exercise of discretion in the grant of bail
the law or procedure in granting an application for bail pending appeal, the proper courts are to be guided by
without affording the prosecution due process. 5. OKABE V. GUTIERREZ the fundamental principle that the allowance of bail
The Court takes the occasion to reiterate the injunction Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal pending appeal should be exercised not with laxity but
that a judge is called upon to balance the interests of Procedure is a new one, intended to modify previous with grave caution and only for strong reasons,
the accused who is entitled to the presumption of rulings of the Court that an application for bail or the considering that the accused has been in fact convicted
innocence until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable admission to bail by the accused shall be considered by the trial court.
doubt, and to enable him to prepare his defense as a waiver of his right to assail the warrant issued for
without being subject to punishment prior to conviction, his arrest on the legalities or irregularities thereon; 7. ENRILE V. SANDIGANBAYAN
against the right of the State to protect the people and Curative statutes are by their essence retroactive in Petitioner's poor health justifies his admission to bail
the peace of the community from dangerous elements. application. The Supreme Court took note of the Philippine's
responsibility to the international community arising
2. ZUO V. CABEBE 6. LEVISTE V. CA from its commitment to the Universal Declaration of
Under the present Rules, a hearing is mandatory in under Sec 5 of Rule 114 bail is discretionary, upon Human Rights. We therefore have the responsibility of
granting bail whether it is a matter of right or discretion. conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by protecting and promoting the right of every person to
It must be stressed that the grant or the denial of bail in death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. Under liberty and due process and for detainees to avail of
cases where bail is a matter of discretion, hinges on the par. 3 of the same rule if the penalty impose is more such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right
issue of whether or not the evidence of guilt of the than 6 years the accused shall be denied bail, or his to liberty. Quoting from Government of Hong Kong
accused is strong, and the determination of whether or bail be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, SAR vs. Olalia, the SC emphasized:
not the evidence is strong is a matter of judicial with notice to the accused, of the following or other x x x uphold the fundamental human rights as well as
discretion which remains with the judge. In order for the circumstances: value the worth and dignity of every person. This
latter to properly exercise his discretion, he must first 1. that he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual commitment is enshrined in Section II, Article II of our
conduct a hearing to determine whether the evidence delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by Constitution which provides: “The State values the
of guilt is strong. In fact, even in cases where there is the circumstance of reiteration; dignity of every human person and guarantees full
no petition for bail, a hearing should still be held. The 2. that he has previously escaped from legal respect for human rights.” The Philippines, therefore,
importance of a bail hearing and a summary of confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the has the responsibility of protecting and promoting the
evidence cannot be downplayed, these are considered conditions of his bail without a valid justification; right of every person to liberty and due process,
aspects of procedural due process for both the 3. that he committed the offense while under probation, ensuring that those detained or arrested can participate
prosecution and the defense; its absence will invalidate parole, or conditional pardon; in the proceedings before a court, to enable it to decide
the grant or denial of bail. 4. that the circumstances of his case indicate the without delay on the legality of the detention and order
probability of flight if released on bail; or their release if justified. In other words, the Philippine
3. GOVERNMENT OF HONGKONG SPEC. ADM. 5. that there is undue risk that he may commit another authorities are under obligation to make available to
REGION V. OLALIA crime during the pendency of the appeal. every person under detention such remedies which
The modern trend in public international law is the That bail is expressly declared to be discretionary safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. These
primacy placed on the worth of the individual person pending appeal and it cannot be said that CA remedies include the right to be admitted to bail.
and the sanctity of human rights. If bail can be granted committed grave abuse of discretion. After conviction (emphasis in decision)
in deportation cases, the Court sees no justification by the trial court, the presumption of innocence Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion.
why it should not also be allowed in extradition cases— terminates and, accordingly, the constitutional right to They arbitrarily ignored the objective of bail to ensure
clearly, the right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail ends, from then on the grant of bail is subject to the appearance of the accused during the trial and
bail must be viewed in the light of the various treaty judicial discretion. unwarrantedly disregarded the clear showing of the
obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the fragile health and advanced age of Petitioner. As such
promotion and protection of human rights. Bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in
both the accused’s interest in pretrial liberty and denying the Motion to Fix Bail. It acted whimsically and
4. PEOPLE V. SANDIGANBAYAN society’s interest in assuring the accused’s presence at capriciously and was so patent and gross as to amount
Even if the capital offense charged is bailable owing to trial. to an evasion of a positive duty [to allow petitioner to
the weakness of the evidence of guilt, the right to bail An erroneously convicted accused who is denied bail post bail].
loses his liberty to pay a debt to society he has never
Criminal Procedure Case Doctrines | Fiscal Salazar
Jurisdiction, Rule 110 – Rule 116
mayaxluna
RULE 115 – RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED 3. SANICO V. PEOPLE right against self-incrimination. It is a right that a
Without doubt, the petitioner could reasonably expect witness knows or should know, in accordance with the
1. DEL CASTILLO V. PEOPLE that his counsel would afford to him competent legal well-known axiom that everyone is presumed to know
The records are void of any evidence to show that representation. The mere failure of the counsel to the law, that ignorance of the law excuses no one.
petitioner owns the nipa hut in question nor was it observe a modicum of care and vigilance in the Furthermore, in the very nature of things, neither the
established that he used the said structure as a shop. protection of the interests of the petitioner as the client judge nor the witness can be expected to know in
The RTC, as well as the CA, merely presumed that — as manifested in the multiple defects and advance the character or effect of a question to be put
petitioner used the said structure due to the presence shortcomings discovered in the petition for review — to the latter.
of electrical materials, the petitioner being an was gross negligence in any language because the The right against self-incrimination is not self-
electrician by profession. defects were plainly avoidable by the simple executing or automatically operational. It must be
application of the relevant guidelines existing in the claimed. If not claimed by or in behalf of the witness,
The prosecution must prove that the petitioner had Rules of Court. the protection does not come into play. It follows that
knowledge of the existence and presence of the drugs If the incompetence of counsel was so great and the the right may be waived, expressly, or impliedly, as by
in the place under his control and dominion and the error committed as a result was so serious that the a failure to claim it at the appropriate time.
character of the drugs. With the prosecution’s failure to client was prejudiced by a denial of his day in court, the
prove that the nipa hut was under petitioner’s control litigation ought to be reopened to give to the client 5. VILLAREAL V. PEOPLE
and dominion, there casts a reasonable doubt as to his another chance to present his case. The right to a speedy trial is violated when the
guilt. In considering a criminal case, it is critical to start proceeding is attended with unjustified postponements
with the law’s own starting perspective on the status of 4. PEOPLE V. AYSON of trial, or when a long period of time is allowed to
the accused — in all criminal prosecutions, he is The first right, against self-incrimination, mentioned in elapse without the case being tried and for no cause or
presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, is justifiable motive.
contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Proof accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether
beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena, in any
sufficient to produce a moral certainty that would civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding. The right is
convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act NOT to "be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
in judgment, is indispensable to overcome the The precept set out in that first sentence has a settled
constitutional presumption of innocence. meaning. It prescribes an "option of refusal to answer
incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry.”
2. MIGUEL V. SANDIGANBAYAN It simply secures to a witness, whether he be a party or
To be heard does not only mean oral arguments in not, the right to refuse to answer any particular
court; one may be heard also through pleadings. incriminatory question, i.e., one the answer to which
Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral has a tendency to incriminate him for some crime.
arguments or pleadings, has been accorded, no denial
of procedural due process However, the right can be claimed only when the
exists. specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually
put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at any other
3. PEOPLE V. LARA time. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a
The right to counsel is deemed to have arisen at the subpoena, to decline to appear before the court at the
precise moment custodial investigation begins and time appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether. The
being made to stand in a police line-up is not the witness receiving a subpoena must obey it, appear as
starting point or a part of custodial investigation. required, take the stand, be sworn and answer
questions. It is only when a particular question is
This is because during a police line-up, the process has addressed to him, the answer to which may incriminate
not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory him for some offense, that he may refuse to answer on
and it is usually the witness or the complainant who is the strength of the constitutional guaranty.
interrogated and who gives a statement in the course
of the line-up. An exception to this rule is when the That first sentence of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973
accused had been the focus of police attention at the Constitution does not impose on the judge, or other
start of the investigation. officer presidingover a trial, hearing or investigation,
any affirmative obligation to advise a witness of his
Criminal Procedure Case Doctrines | Fiscal Salazar
Jurisdiction, Rule 110 – Rule 116
mayaxluna
RULE 116 – ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA has finished presenting its evidence and rested its already pending with this court: In order to avoid a
case. situation where the opinion of the Secretary of Justice
1. PEOPLE V. ESTOMACA who reviewed the action of the fiscal may be
Section 1(a) of Rule 116 requires that the arraignment 4. PEOPLE V. JANJALANI disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary of Justice
should be made in open court by the judge himself or 1. All trial judges must refrain from accepting with should, as far as practicable, refrain from entertaining
by the clerk of court furnishing the accused a copy of alacrity an accused’s plea of guilty, for while justice a petition for review or appeal from the action of the
the complaint or information with the list of witnesses demands a speedy administration, judges are duty fiscal, when the complaint or information has already
stated therein, then reading the same in the language bound to be extra solicitous in seeing to it that when an been filed in the Court. The matter should be left
or dialect that is known to him, and asking him what his accused pleads guilty, he understands fully the entirely for the determination of the Court. The trial
plea is to the charge. The requirement that the reading meaning of his plea and the import of an inevitable court should have proceeded with respondents Dela
be made in a language or dialect that the accused conviction; The requirement for a judge to conduct a Peña-Reyes and Manalastas’ arraignment after the 60-
understands and knows is a mandatory requirement, searching inquiry applies more so in cases of re- day period from the filing of the Petition for Review
just as the whole of said Section 1 should be strictly arraignment. before the Department of Justice on March 8, 2005. It
followed by trial courts. This the law affords the 2. The requirement to conduct a searching inquiry was only on September 13, 2010 that the temporary
accused by way of implementation of the all-important should not be deemed satisfied in cases in which it was restraining order was issued by the Court of Appeals.
constitutional mandate regarding the right of an the defense counsel who explained the consequences The trial court erred when it did not act on the criminal
accused to be informed of the precise nature of the of a “guilty” plea to the accused—the conduct of a case during the interim period. It had full control and
accusation leveled at him and is, therefore, really an searching inquiry remains the duty of judges, as they direction of the case. As Judge Mogul reasoned in
avenue for him to be able to hoist the necessary are mandated by the rules to satisfy themselves that denying the motion to dismiss in Crespo, failure to
defense in rebuttal thereof. It is an integral aspect of the accused had not been under coercion or duress; proceed with the arraignment “disregards the
the due process clause under the Constitution. mistaken impressions; or a misunderstanding of the requirements of due process and erodes the Court’s
significance, effects, and consequences of their guilty independence and integrity.”
2. PEOPLE V. PANGILINAN plea.
Procedural defect of belated arraignment was cured 3. Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are 6. ENRILE V. PEOPLE
when the counsel of the accused participated in the trial set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the The grant or denial of a motion for bill of particulars is
without raising any objection that his client had yet to judgment. discretionary on the court where the Information is filed.
be arraigned. As usual in matters of discretion, the ruling of the trial
5. ABS-CBN CORP. V. GOZON court will not be reversed unless grave abuse of
When the hearings for his petition for bail were SEC. 11. Suspension of arraignment.—Upon motion discretion or a manifestly erroneous order amounting
conducted, the trial court had already acquired by the proper party, the arraignment shall be to grave abuse of discretion is shown.
jurisdiction over his person. Settled is the rule that suspended in the following cases: (a) The accused
jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired appears to be suffering from an unsound mental The rule requires the information to describe the
upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. In the case at condition which effectively renders him unable to fully offense with sufficient particularity to apprise the
bar, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person understand the charge against him and to plead accused of the crime charged with and to enable the
of the appellant when he was arrested on 19 March intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order court to pronounce judgment. The particularity must be
1997. His arrest, not his arraignment, conferred on the his mental examination and, if necessary, his such that persons of ordinary intelligence may
trial court jurisdiction over his person. confinement for such purpose; (b) There exists a immediately know what the Information means. The
prejudicial question; and (c) A petition for review of the general function of a bill of particulars, whether in civil
3. DAAN V. SANDIGANBAYAN resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the or criminal proceedings, is to guard against surprises
1. Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a process Department of Justice, or the Office of the President; during trial. It is not the function of the bill to furnish the
whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a provided that the period of suspension shall not exceed accused with the evidence of the prosecution. Thus,
mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition the prosecutor shall not be required to include in the bill
court approval—it usually involves the defendant’s with the reviewing office. of particulars matters of evidence relating to how the
pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or people intend to prove the elements of the offense
some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return The suspension of the arraignment should always be charged or how the people intend to prove any item of
for a lighter sentence than that for the graver charge. within the limits allowed by law. The doctrine in Crespo factual information included in the bill of particulars.
2. Ordinarily, plea bargaining is made during the pre- v. Judge Mogul was reiterated in Mayor Balindong v.
trial stage of the proceedings but it may also be made Court of Appeals where this court reminded the
during the trial proper and even after the prosecution Department of Justice Secretary to refrain from
entertaining petitions for review when the case is
Criminal Procedure Case Doctrines | Fiscal Salazar
Jurisdiction, Rule 110 – Rule 116
mayaxluna