Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CrimPro Memory Aid
CrimPro Memory Aid
1. General Rule: MTC and RTC courts gain jurisdiction over the offense upon the filing of complaint by a
complainant or an information by the prosecuting officer
à Court gains jurisdiction over the person of the accused upon arrest or surrender; such jurisdiction once
gained cannot be lost even if accused escapes (Gimenez vs. Nazareno)
à Jurisdiction of the court over the offense is determined at the time of the institution of the action and
is retained even if the penalty for the offense is later lowered or raised (People vs. Lagon)
2. Complaint – sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended
party, any peace officer or other public official charged with the enforcement of the law violated
Information – accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the fiscal and filed
with the court
4. Cases where civil courts of equal rank are vested with concurrent jurisdiction:
II. Vessel
5. Remedies of offended party when fiscal unreasonably refuses to file an information or include a
person therein as an accused
6. Writs of injunction or prohibition to restrain a criminal prosecution are not available, EXCEPT
a. In RTC:
à By filing a complaint with the appropriate officer for the purpose of conducting requisite preliminary
investigation therein.
à By filing the complaint or information directly with said courts, or a complaint with the fiscal’s office
c. In Metropolitan Trial Courts
à In all 3 above cases, such institution shall interrupt the period of prescription of the offense charged
(Rule 110, §1)
[i.e. (1) violation of traffic laws; (2) violation of rental laws; (3) violation of municipal or city ordinances;
and (4) criminal cases where the penalty does not exceed 6 months or fine of P1000 or both, irrespective
of other imposable penalties and civil liabilities]
à The complaint or information shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior preliminary
examination or preliminary investigation.
à Zaldivia vs. Reyes – since a criminal case covered by the Rules of Summary Procedure shall be deemed
commenced only when it is filed in court, then the running of the prescriptive period shall be halted on
the date the case is actually filed in court and not on any date before that.
à Reodica vs. CA – [clarifies Zaldivia above] Under Art. 91 of the RPC, the period of prescription shall be
interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information. It does not distinguish whether the complaint
is filed for preliminary examination or investigation only, or for an action on the merits. Thus, the filing
of the complaint even with the fiscal’s office should suspend the running of the Statute of Limitations. The
ruling in Zaldivia is not applicable to all cases subject to the Rules on Summary Procedure, since that
particular case involved a violation of an ordinance. Therefore, the applicable law therein was not Art. 91
of the RPC, but Act No. 3326 (“An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by
Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide when Prescription Shall Begin to Run”), §2 of which
provides that period of prescription is suspended only when judicial proceedings are instituted against
the guilty party.
8. Contents of information
à Information may be amended as to the name of the accused, but such amendment cannot be
questioned for the first time on appeal (People vs. Guevarra)
à Error of name of the offended party: if material to the case, it necessarily affects the identification of
the act charged. Conviction for robbery cannot be sustained if there is a variance between the allegation
and the proof as to the ownership of the property stolen.
à Only one offense charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.
à If facts do not completely allege all the elements of the crime charged, the info may be quashed;
however, the prosecution is allowed to amend the info to include the necessary facts (People vs. Purisima)
à Information need only allege facts, not include all the evidence which may be used to prove such facts
(Balitaan vs. CFI)
à A significant discrepancy in the time alleged cannot be sustained since such would allow the prosecution
to prove an offense distantly removed from the alleged date, thus substantially impairing the rights of the
accused to be informed of the charges against him (People vs. Reyes)
f. Place of commission
à Conviction may be had even if it appears that the crime was committed not at the place alleged, provided
that the place of actual commission was within the court’s jurisdiction and accused was not surprised by
the variance between the proof and the information
à Qualifying and inherent aggravating circumstances need to be alleged as they are integral parts of the
crime. If proved, but not alleged, become only generic aggravating circumstances.
a. Felonies in Art. 2, RPC (cognizable by proper court in which charge is first filed)
b. Continuing offenses
c. Piracy which is triable anywhere
d. Libel (residence; or where first published)
e. In exceptional cases, to ensure fair trial and impartial inquiry
* With consent of the offended party, offended spouse, grandparents, guardian, or state as parens
patriae, in that order
* Offended party, even if minor, has right to initiate the prosecution of the case independently of
parents, grandparents or guardian, unless she is incompetent/incapable on grounds other than minority.
* If offended party who is a minor fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents or guardian
may do so.
* If complexed with a public crime, the provincial fiscal may sign the complaint on his own
14. Procedure
1. Complaint filed in MTC or info filed in RTC where an essential ingredient of the crime took place
(territorial jurisdiction)
Inclusion of other accused is only a formal amendment which would not be prejudicial to the
accused and should be allowed (People vs. CA)
d. After plea and before judgment, if it appears there was a mistake in charging proper offense, court
shall dismiss original info upon the filing of a corrected one, provided that the accused will not be placed
in double jeopardy (substitution)
Fiscal determines direction of prosecution; complainant must ask fiscal if he wants to dismiss the
case; the motion to dismiss must be addressed to the court which has discretion over the
disposition of the case (Republic vs. Sunga)
Objection to the amendment of an information or complaint must be raised at the time the
amendment is made; otherwise, deemed to have consented thereto.
15. Remedies
a. Motion to quash
May be filed after arraignment but before plea on the grounds provided by the rules (generally, a
flaw in the info)
If duplicity of offense charged is not raised in trial through a motion to quash info, the right to
question it is waived (People vs. Ocapan)
b. Motion to dismiss
May be filed after plea but before judgment on most of grounds for motion to quash
Defined as the joinder of separate and distinct offenses in one and the same
information/complaint
1. General Rule: The injured party may file a civil action independent of the criminal proceeding to recover
damages from the offender.
Article 32 is a valid cause of a civil action for damages against public officers who impair the
Constitutional rights of citizens (Aberca vs. Ver)
Even if the private prosecutor participates in the prosecution, if he is not given the chance to
prove damages, the offended party is not barred from filing a separate civil action
a. Waiver
b. Reservation of right to institute separate action
c. Institution of civil action prior to criminal action
NOTE: Under SC Circular 57-97, all criminal actions for violations of BP Blg. 22 shall be deemed to
necessarily include the corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file such civil action
separately shall be allowed or recognized.
San Ildefonso Lines vs. CA – past pronouncements of the SC that the requirement in Rule 111 that
a reservation be made prior to the institution of an independent civil action is an “unauthorized
amendment” to substantive law is now no longer controlling. Far from altering substantive rights,
the primary purpose of the reservation requirement is to avoid multiplicity of suits, to prevent
delays, to clear congested dockets, to simplify the work of the trial court, and in short, the
attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to parties-litigants.
a. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal
action
b. The resolution of such issue will determine whether the criminal action will proceed or not
a. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal
action: and
b. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed
Petition for suspension of criminal action is to be filed at any time before prosecution rests.
5. Remedies
a. Reservation of right to institute separate civil proceedings to recover civil liability arising from crime
6. Extinction of penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil unless the extinction proceeds
from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.
Final judgment in civil absolving defendant from civil liability not a bar to criminal action
7. Filing fees:
If alleged, fees must be paid by offended party upon filing of complaint or information
If not alleged, filing fees considered a first lien on the judgment
A preliminary investigation is only necessary for an information to be filed with the RTC;
complaints may be filed with the MTC without need of an information, which is merely
recommendatory (Tandoc vs. Resultan)
Absence of a preliminary investigation is NOT a ground for a motion to quash the information; an
information filed without a preliminary investigation is defective but not fatal; in its absence, the
accused may ask for one; it is the fiscal’s refusal to conduct a preliminary investigation when the
accused demands one which is a violation of the rights of the accused (Doromal vs.
Sandiganbayan). Court should not dismiss the info, but hold the case in abeyance and either: (1)
conduct its own investigation; or (2) require the fiscal to hold a reinvestigation.
2. GENERAL RULE: The fiscal conducts the preliminary investigation before filing an information with the
RTC, EXCEPT where the accused is lawfully arrested without a warrant and an inquest is conducted.
Waived by failure to invoke the right prior to or at least at the time of the plea
5. Procedure
(c) MTC or MCTC judge, excluding MTC judge of Metro Manila or chartered cities
i.e., if fiscal finds reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and accused is
probably guilty thereof
Prima facie evidence is that evidence which, standing alone, unexplained and uncontradicted,
would be enough to merit a conviction of the accused
If the investigating officer is an MTC judge, and he finds that probable cause exists and that there
is a need to place the accused under custody, then he may issue a warrant of arrest
Flores vs. Sumaling – What differentiates the present rule from the previous one is that while
before, it was mandatory for the investigating judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the
accused if he found probable cause, the rule now is that the investigating judge’s power to order
the arrest of the accused is limited to instances in which there is a necessity for placing him in
custody “in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.” It is therefore error for the investigating
judge to order the issuance of a warrant of arrest solely on his finding of probable cause, without
making any finding of a necessity to place the accused in immediate custody to prevent a
frustration of justice.
1. Investigating officer forwards records to the city fiscal or chief state prosecutor
1. City fiscal or state prosecutor either dismisses the complaint or files the information in
court
1. If accused waives Art. 125, RPC and asks for a preliminary investigation, with the assistance of
counsel, then the procedure for one prior to arrest is followed
1. Inquest conducted as follows
(b Fiscal determines existence of prima facie evidence based on the statements of the
complainant, arresting officer and witnesses
(c) Fiscal either dismisses the complaint and orders the immediate release of the accused,
OR prepares and files an information
While fiscal has quasi-judicial discretion whether or not to file an information, once it is filed with
the court, the court acquires jurisdiction giving it discretion over the disposition of the case and
the Sec. of Justice should refrain from entertaining petitions for review or appeals from the
decision of fiscal (Crespo vs. Mogul; Velasquez vs. Undersecretary of Justice)
NOTE: Information may be filed by offended party, peace officer or fiscal without preliminary
investigation.
6. Remedies
Filed within 5 days after accused learns an information against him has been filed without a
preliminary investigation
d. Appeal to DOJ
Filed upon denial of his motion for a preliminary investigation, on the ground that his rights to
due process of law were violated, ousting the court of jurisdiction
Ordinarily, injunction will not lie but may be granted in certain cases
1. When strong-arm tactics are used for vindictive purposes (Salonga vs. Cruz-Pano)
2. When the accused is deprived of his rights
3. When the statute on which the charge is based is null and void
4. When it will aid the administration of justice (Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan)
5. When multiplicity of suits will be avoided (Guingona vs. City Fiscal)
1.Arrest – taking a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of
some offense, made by an actual restraint of the person or by his submission to custody
Not all persons detained are arrested; only those detained to answer for an offense.
“Invitations” are not arrests and are usually not unconstitutional, but in some cases may be taken
as commands (Babst vs. NBI); however, the practice of issuing an “invitation” to a person who is
investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed is considered as
placing him under “custodial investigation.” (RA 7438)
Warrants of arrest remain valid until arrest is effected, or the warrant is lifted
Warrantless arrest anytime for a continuing offense like rebellion, subversion (Umil vs. Ramos)
The continuing crime, not the crime finally charged, needs only be the cause of the arrest (Umil
vs. Ramos)
c. When person to be arrested is an escaped detainee (either serving sentence or with case
pending)
4. Procedure
a. With warrant
e. In determining probable cause, the judge may rely on findings by responsible officer (Lim vs.
Felix)
iv. If peace officer is unable to serve warrant 10 days after issuance, he must file a report and explanation
with judge within 10 days
v. If warrant served
b. Without warrant:
1. Person is arrested
1. Person arrested may waive right to Art. 125, RPC and ask for preliminary investigation or
inquest
Fiscal is not judicial authority contemplated under Art. 125 (Sayo vs. Chief of Police)
a. Probable cause
b. Signed by judge
c. Specifically naming or particularly and sufficiently describing person to be arrested
John Doe warrants are void for being general warrants (Pangandaman vs. Cesar)
6. Remedies
Filed with any court, to effect immediate release of the person detained
Filed when a person is being illegally detained (without judicial process), or was illegally arrested
(void warrant or unlawful warrantless arrest, or warrantless arrest beyond period with no
information filed)
Habeas corpus is not allowed when:
If an arrest is improper, the remedy is a motion for quashal of the warrant of arrest and/or a
motion to quash the information, not habeas corpus (Ilagan vs. Enrile)
Habeas corpus is no longer available after an information has been filed, the information being
the judicial process required by law (Ilagan vs. Enrile)
Habeas corpus is proper when a person is being restrained illegally, e.g., imprisoned past
maximum penalty allowed by law (Gumabon vs. Director of Prisons)
Filed with court which issued the warrant of arrest when the warrant of arrest is fatally flawed
Filed with court when information against the person arrested has been filed
Must be made in a “special appearance” before the court questioning only its lack of jurisdiction
over the person of the accused
Otherwise, the voluntary appearance of the person arrested by filing a motion before the court
would be deemed a submission to the authority of the court, thus granting it whatever jurisdiction
it lacked over the person
Any irregularity in the arrest is cured when the petitioner submits himself to the jurisdiction of
the court, e.g., by filing for bail (Bagcal vs. Villaraza)
Confessions made without assistance of counsel are inadmissible as evidence to incriminate the
accused, but they may be used to impeach the credibility of the accused, or they may be treated
as verbal admission of the accused through the testimony of the witnesses (People vs. Molas)
1. Bail – security given for the release of a person in custody of law, furnished by him or a bondsman,
conditioned upon his appearance before any court as required under the following conditions:
a. Undertaking effective upon approval and remains in force at all stages until promulgation of
judgment, unless sooner cancelled
b. Accused shall appear before court when required
c. Failure to appear despite notice to him or the bondsman will waive his right to be present and
trial shall proceed in absentia
d. Bondsman shall surrender accused for execution of judgment
Bail applies to all persons detained, not just to those charged with the offense (Herras vs.
Teehankee)
Court has power to prohibit person out on bail from leaving the country (Manotoc, Jr. vs. CA)
Bail implies delivery of the accused to the sureties who, though not holding him prisoner, may
seize him and imprison him until they can deliver him to court (US vs. Bonoan)
2. General Rule: All persons are entitled to bail as a matter of right, except those charged with capital
offenses.
Right to bail traditionally unavailable to military personnel facing court martial, who are not in the
same class as civilians (Comendador vs. de Villa)
Bail should be available regardless of other circumstances or the merits of the case, if the health
or the life of the detainee is in danger (Dela Rama vs. People’s Court)
Excessive bail is tantamount to denial of bail, which is unconstitutional (Dela Camara vs. Enage)
3. When bail is a matter of right
Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment
4. When bail is discretionary (application filed with court where case is pending)
1. Upon conviction by RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment
2. Provisional liberty under same circs. but during period to appeal subject to consent of
bondsman
3. In case he has applied for probation after final judgment, he may be allowed temporary liberty
under his bail or recognizance
5. Procedure
(1) Where information against him was filed or where case is pending
(2) Absent (1), in another branch of the same court within the province or city where he
is held
(3) If arrested in another province, city or municipality, file with the RTC
In capital crimes, judge’s discretion is limited to determining strength of evidence and does not
cover determining whether bail should be allowed (Herras vs. Teehankee)
Evidence must be strong that the accused is guilty of the capital offense charged, not just of any
offense (Bernardez vs. Valera)
6. Bail bond – an obligation under seal given by accused with one or more sureties and made payable
to proper officer with the condition to be void upon performance by the accused of such acts as he may
legally be required to perform
7. Recognizance
1. Obligation of record entered into before some court of magistrate duly authorized to take it,
with the condition to do some particular act, the most usual condition in criminal cases being
the appearance of the accused for trial
2. Does not require signature of accused for trial
3. Does not require signature of accused to be valid
8. Prosecution witnesses may be required to post bail to ensure their appearance at the trial, except:
9. When bail required under RA 6036 (violation of ordinance, light felony, criminal offense – not higher
that 6 month imprisonment and/or P2000 fine, or both)
a. Caught in flagrante
b. Confessed to commission of offense unless repudiated (force and intimidation)
c. Previously escaped, evaded sentence or jumped bail
d. Violation of Sec. 2 (fails to report to clerk of court periodically under his recognizance)
e. Recidivist, habitual delinquent previously convicted for an offense to which the law or
ordinance attaches an equal or greater penalty or for 2 or more offenses to which it attaches
a lighter penalty
f. Committed offense while on parole or under conditional pardon
g. Previously pardoned by municipal or city mayor for violation of ordinance for at least 2 times
1. Offense charged is a violation of an ordinance, a light felony or criminal offense the imposable
penalty to which does not exceed 6 months and or P2000 fine
2. Person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the imposable
principal penalty, without application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying
circumstance
3. Accused has applied for probation and before the same has been resolved, but NO BAIL was filed
or accused is incapable of filing one
4. Youthful offender held for physical and mental examination, trial or appeal, if unable to furnish
bail
a. Upon application with the court and due notice to the fiscal
b. Automatic cancellation
1. Case is dismissed
a. Accused is acquitted
b. Accused is convicted and surrenders for execution of judgment
12. When bail cancelled or denied: after RTC imposes imprisonment exceeding 6 years, but not more
than 20 years, and:
30 days for bondsman to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against him
c. Bondsman fails to satisfactorily explain to the court why accused did not appear when first required to
do so
Sureties guarantee only appearance of the accused, not his conduct (US vs. Bonoan)
Sureties exonerated if appearance made impossible by an act of God, the obligee or the law (US
vs. Bonoan)
a) Within 30 days, produce the body or give reason for non-production AND
b) Explain satisfactorily the absence of the accused when first required to appear
15. Remedies
For judge to set hearing for the determination of strength of evidence of guilt
17. Notes:
1) Posting bail waives the right to question any irregularity attending the arrest of a person (Callanta
vs. Villanueva). However, this does not result in waiver of the inadmissibility of the articles seized
incidentally to such illegal arrest.
2) Accused waived the right to question any irregularity in the conduct of the preliminary
investigation when he failed to do so before entering his plea (People vs. Dela Cerna)
3) Accused out on bail may be re-arrested if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without prior
court permission (warrantless arrest allowed).
In an appeal from a conviction, the accused shall again be presumed innocent until and unless his
conviction is affirmed (Castillo vs. Felix)
The right must be substantially complied with; arraignment and later proceedings must be in a
language the accused understands (People vs. Crisologo)
Prosecution has no privilege to withhold the identity of informers when such informer was crucial
in the operation itself; failure to present the informer is a denial of the right to confront the
witness which merits the reversal of the conviction (People vs. Bagano)
Unreasonable postponements of trial amounts to a denial of the right to a speedy trial, entitling
the accused to mandamus to compel dismissal of the case, or to habeas corpus if he is detained
a. To due process
b. Against self-incrimination
Right is limited to testimonies; ocular inspection of the body may be allowed (Villaflor vs.
Summers)
Right against self-incrimination and to counsel do not apply during custodial investigation (People
vs. Ayson)
During trial, the right against self-incrimination takes the following form:
1) Accused may refuse to testify
2) If he testifies, he may refuse to answer those questions which may incriminate
him in ANOTHER offense
3. Double jeopardy
NOTE: No double jeopardy if the new fact which justified the new charge arose only after arraignment
and conviction (People vs. City Court)
No double jeopardy where the trial was a sham since there was no competent court (Galman vs.
Sandiganbayan)
No double jeopardy if first case was dismissed with consent of the accused (Caes vs. IAC)
There is double jeopardy if a person is charged twice under different penal statutes for the same
acts (People vs. Relova)
c. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense without the consent of the fiscal and the offended party
5. Remedies
1) Motion to quash
2) Motion to dismiss
Both filed on the ground of violation of accused’s rights, thereby ousting the court of
jurisdiction
6. NOTES:
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws.”
1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved,
and shall enjoy the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him,
to have a speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his
behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that
he has been duly notified and that his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
“All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies.”
“No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
If an act is punished by a law or ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to
another prosecution for the same act.”
1. Procedure
a. Court informs accused of his right to counsel and asks him if he wants one
b. Court appoints counsel de oficio if accused has none
If no such member of the available, any person who is a resident of the province, of good repute for
probity and ability to defend accused
c. Court gives counsel time to confer with accused at least an hour before arraignment
* Period allowed for counsel de oficio to confer with accused must be substantially complied with; if not,
case may be remanded for re-arraignment (People vs. Gonzaga)
1) Accused given a copy of the information, which is read to him in a language he understands
2) Accused is asked whether he pleads guilty or not guilty
3) Accused files a motion to quash or makes plea
4) Accused personally makes his plea
5) Plea is entered into record
6) If accused makes plea of not guilty, counsel has at least 2 days to prepare for trial
* People vs. Agbayani – the right for 2 days to prepare must be expressly demanded. Only when so
demanded does denial thereof constitute reversible error and ground for new trial. Further, such right
may be waived, expressly or impliedly.
* NOTE, HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98 (implementing “Speedy Trial Act of 1997”), accused must be
given at least 15 days to prepare for trial, which shall commence within 30 days from receipt of Pre-Trial
Order.
* Statement in the judgment that the accused was arraigned and pleaded is sufficient; the manner of
statement of such fact is immaterial (People vs. Cariaga)
2. Kinds of plea
Court conducts searching inquiry to determine if accused was aware of the charges, of his plea,
and its consequences
Court requires prosecution to present evidence to prove guilt of accused and determine his
degree of culpability, and accused may still establish presence of mitigating circumstances in his
favor
f. Guilty to a non-capital offense
Plea of guilty not necessarily followed by conviction. Upon receipt of exculpatory evidence (if
accused pleaded guilty), trial court should consider the plea withdrawn and in its place, order
the plea of not guilty
Plea of guilty waives only defects which may be taken advantage of by motion to quash or by
plea in abatement; cannot cure jurisdictional defects.
3. Effects
b. Improvident plea of guilty may be changed to not guilty any time before judgment is rendered
c. A plea of not guilty may not be changed to guilty, as doing so would only spare the prosecution of
presenting evidence and still result in the conviction of the accused.
4. Remedies
Filed when the information is insufficient in form or is generally worded, that a Bill of Particulars
is necessary to clarify the acts for which the accused is being charged
b. Motion to quash
Filed when the accused seems mentally unsound or if there is a prejudicial question in a pending
civil case
1. Motion to quash – a hypothetical admission that even if all the facts alleged were true, the accused
still cannot be convicted due to other reasons
General Rule: Before entering plea; all grounds not raised deemed waived
Exception: The following grounds may be used in MTQ even after plea
1) No offense charged
2) Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3) Extinction of the offense or of the penalty
4) Double jeopardy
3. Grounds
For the info to charge a complex crime, it is not necessary that it be defined by law, only that it
alleges that one offense was necessary to commit the other (People vs. Alagao)
1) No territorial jurisdiction
2) No jurisdiction over offense charged may be raised at any time; no waiver considered even
upon failure to move to quash on such ground
3) No jurisdiction over person of the accused
The court gained jurisdiction over the person of the accused when he voluntarily appeared for
the pre-suspension hearing (Layosa vs. Rodriguez)
* If the first case was dismissed due to a deficient information, then there was no valid information and
there could be no double jeopardy (Caniza vs. People)
* Cudia vs CA – it should be the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga, not the City Prosecutor, who should
prepare informations for offenses committed within Pampanga but outside Angeles City. An information
must be prepared and presented by the prosecuting attorney or someone authorized by law. If not, the
court does not acquire jurisdiction. Although failure to file a motion to quash the information is a waiver
of all objections to it insofar as formal objections to pleadings are concerned, questions relating to want
of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Moreover, since the complaint or
information was insufficient because it was so defective in form or substance that conviction upon it could
not have been sustained, its dismissal without the consent of the accused cannot be pleaded as prior
jeopardy, and will not be a bar to a second prosecution.
d. More than one offense was charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes single punishment for various
offenses
No waiver
For charge to be complete, it is necessary to state that it was exempted from any amnesty
existing at the time
NOTE: Court will consider no other grounds other than those raised, EXCEPT lack of jurisdiction over
offense charged.
Doctrine of “Jurisdiction by Estoppel”: depends upon whether the lower court actually had
jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory
that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for
the same ‘must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent of the parties or
by estoppel’. However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided
upon a given theory, such, for instance, as that the court had no jurisdiction, the party who
induced it to adopt such theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent
position — that the lower court had jurisdiction. Here, the principle of estoppel applies. The rule
that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and does not depend upon the will of the parties, has no
bearing thereon.
c. Accused had pleaded
e. Bar to offense charged, attempt to commit the same or necessarily includes or is necessarily included
Conviction for physical injuries through reckless imprudence constitutes double jeopardy to the
charge of damage to property through reckless imprudence.
5. Procedure
1) MTQ filed
2) If based on defect in info which can be cured, court shall order its amendment
3) Quashing the info shall NOT be a bar to subsequent prosecution (accused has not pleaded yet),
EXCEPT when the ground is:
Double jeopardy OR
Extinction of criminal liability
6. Remedies
If there was really no basis for the info, then such could be proved in the trial
Upon denial of a MTQ, the proper remedy is to go on trial and later to appeal, if necessary;
mandamus or certiorari will only be granted if there is not other plain, simple and adequate
remedy
7. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor deemed a waiver of such grounds, except:
1. Plea bargaining – process whereby the accused and the prosecution in a criminal case work out a
mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant’s
pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for
a lighter sentence than that for the greater charge.
Under “Speedy Trial Act of 1997”, in all criminal cases cognizable by the MTC, MCTC, MeTC, RTC
and Sandiganbayan, pretrial is mandatory.
Under SC Circular 38-98, implementing the “Speedy Trial Act of 1997”, an accused may plea guilty
to a lesser offense only if said offense is necessarily included in the offense charged.
2. Stipulation of facts
Facts which both parties and respective counsels agree on as evidenced by their signatures;
these facts need not be proved by evidence in trial
3. Pre-trial order – binds the parties, limits the trial to matters not yet disposed of, and controls the course
of action during the trial
4. Procedure
To assail the admissibility of evidence which prove the elements of the offense charged
To assail the credibility of such evidence
To prove another version, possibly admitting certain evidence of the prosecution and adding
other evidence to cast reasonable doubt
Even in summary procedure, the judge cannot base his decision simply on affidavits; he must
give the defendant the chance to cross-examine (Combate vs. San Jose)
2. Procedure
a. Parties notified of date of trial 2 days before trial date (R119, §1)
HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98, accused must be given at least 15 days to prepare for trial,
which shall commence within 30 days from receipt of Pre-Trial Order.
Accused may move that his witnesses be examined
Defense witnesses examined by any judge or lawyer
Prosecution witnesses, if they would be unable to attend trial, may be examined by the
judge handling the case
Trial continues from day to day, unless postponed for a just cause
Prosecution presents evidence
* Presentation
* Cross-examination
* Re-cross
* Offer
Example: Charged with theft. At trial, appears that offense is estafa. The prosecution can ask
for the dismissal of the info in order to file a new one for estafa. No Double Jeopardy because
no valid info in the first case.
5. Application (prosecution)
1) Sick or infirm
2) Has to leave the RP with indefinite date of returning
6. Requisites for postponement due to absence of a witness
Discharge of accused, when not all the requisites were met, cannot be revoked as long as he
testified according to what was expected of him (People vs. Aninon)
8. Remedies
b. Motion to consolidate
Upon the court’s discretion, separate charges may be tried in one single case if the offenses
charged arise form the same facts or form part of a series of similar offenses
Court allowed consolidation of rape cases substantially committed in the same manner (People
vs. David)
Prosecution will present evidence and the sworn statement of the proposed state witness
Evidence adduced in this said hearing automatically form part of trial; however, if court denies
motion for discharge, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.
Discharge of the accused has the effect of acquittal, unless accused fails or refuses to testify
against his co-accused in accordance with his statement (which formed the basis for his
discharge)
f. Demurrer to evidence
If the court finds the prosecution’s evidence insufficient, the case will be dismissed
1) If the demurrer was made with leave of court, defense gets to present evidence
2) If the demurrer was made without leave of court, defense is deemed to have waived the
right to present evidence and the case is submitted for judgment
g. Motion to reopen
Filed after the case is submitted for judgment but before judgment is actually rendered
To allow either side to present additional evidence, if such could not be found before
The accused cannot move to reopen the case to allow him to adduce evidence in his behalf when
his failure to adduce them during the trial was his own fault (People vs. Cruz)
1. Judgment – adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged,
and the imposition of the proper penalty and civil liability provided by law on the accused
2. General Rule: If the accused is found not guilty, he will be acquitted and the acquittal immediately
becomes final and executory. If the accused is found guilty, penalty and civil liability will be imposed on
him.
Accused cannot be convicted for an offense graver than that charged (People vs. Guevarra)
4. Contents
1) Civil liability for damages, unless acts alleged clearly did not exist
2) Basis of liability
5. Procedure
8. Remedies
a. Appeal
Error of law or irregularities have been made during trial which are prejudicial to the
substantial rights of the accused
ii. New evidence has been found which could not have been found before and which could change the
judgment
10. Notes:
Suspension of sentence for youthful offenders – after conviction, minor is committed to custody
and care of DSWD or any training institution until reaches 21 years of age, or a shorter period
Probation – disposition under which a defendant after conviction and sentences, is released
subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer
Parole – the conditional release of an offender from a penal or correctional institution after he
has served the minimum period of his prison sentence under the continued custody of the state
and under conditions that permit his reincarceration if he violated the conditions of his release
1) Made by the court before judgment is rendered in the exercise of sound discretion
2) Does not require consent of accused
3) May be made at the instance of either party who can thereafter present additional evidence
1) Only impeaching evidence is sought to be introduced as the court had already passed upon issue
of credibility
2) Only corroborative evidence is offered
3) Prisoner admits commission of crime with which accused is charged (facility with which such
confession can be obtained and fabricated)
4) Alleged new evidence is inherently improbable and could easily be concocted
5) Alleged new evidence consists of recantations of prosecution witness, due to unreliability of such
recantations, EXCEPT if no other evidence to sustain conviction aside from recanted testimony
Motion for recon is based on the grounds of errors of law in the judgment is court is not asked
to reopen the case for further proceedings, but to reconsider its findings or conclusions of law
and make them conformable to the law applicable to the case on the judgment the court has to
render anew.
In New Trial, irregularities are expunged from the record and/or new evidence is introduced. In
modification of judgment, no new hearings or proceedings of any kind or change in the record
or evidence. A simple modification is made on the basis of what is on the record.
6. New Trial vs. Reopening of the Case
New trial presupposes that existence of a judgment to be set aside upon the granting of a new
trial
In reopening, no judgment has yet been rendered, although the hearing may have already been
closed
Grounds are errors of law or fact in judgment, which require no further proceedings.
Proceedings and evidence not affected by irregularities stand, and those affected are set aside.
Court may allow introduction of new evidence
Evidence already taken shall stand; new evidence taken with the old
1. Procedure
i. With CA: notice of appeal with court, and with copy on adverse party
If CA is of opinion that penalty should be reclusion perpetua or higher, it shall render judgment
imposing said penalty, but refrain from entering judgment and then certify the case and the
entire record thereof to the SC for review (R124, §13)
CA may reverse, affirm, or modify judgment of RTC, or remand case for new trial or re-trial, or
dismiss the case
ii. With SC: notice of appeal where penalty imposed is life imprisonment, or lesser penalty involving
offenses committed on the same occasion, or arising out of same occurrence where graver penalty of
death is available but life imprisonment is imposed; all other cases, by petition for review on certiorari
If death penalty, automatic review
Once notice of appeal is filed, cannot be validly withdrawn to give way for a Motion for Recon or
a Motion for New Trial, since the filing of the notice perfected the appeal, and the trial court
loses its power to modify or set aside the judgment. The only valid withdrawal of an appeal is
where the accused decides to serve his sentence.
1) Shall not affect those who did not appeal, EXCEPT if favorable and applicable to them
2) Civil appeal by offended party shall not affect criminal aspect of judgment
3) Execution of judgment on appellant will be stayed upon perfection of appeal
3. When appeal by prosecution from order of dismissal of criminal case will not result in double
jeopardy
1) Filed when the law under which the accused was convicted is repealed or declared
unconstitutional
2) When a later judgment is rendered acquitting others for similar circumstances
1) When penalty is lowered and convict has already served more than the maximum
period of the new penalty
Habeas corpus is available when a person is imprisoned beyond the maximum penalty imposed
by law (Gumabon vs. Dir. of Prisons)
NOTE: When dismissal is capricious, certiorari lies and no double jeopardy since validity and not
correctness of dismissal is being challenged.
Rule 126 Search and Seizure
1. Search warrant – an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a
judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein
and bring it before the court
Seizing objects to be used as evidence is equivalent to forcing one to be a witness against himself
(Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
For a warrant to be valid, it must meet the requirements set by law (Burgos vs. Chief of Staff)
2. General Rule: No search or seizure can be conducted unless it is authorized by a search warrant.
Evidence gathered from an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible.
Warrantless searches are illegal, unreasonable and unconstitutional (Alvarez vs. CFI)
It is not the police action which is impermissible, but the procedure and unreasonable character
by which it is exercised (Guazon vs. de Villa)
Court gains jurisdiction over items seized by a valid search warrant and returned to it, and such
is not an unconstitutional deprivation of property (Villanueva vs. Querubin)
Evidence from an illegal search may be used as evidence, if no objection is raised (Stonehill vs.
Diokno)
Right against unreasonable search and seizure may be waived, but for the waiver to be effective:
No waiver against unreasonable search and seizure when one compromises the criminal
proceedings (Alvarez vs. CFI)
There is no waiver of right when evidence of coercion is present (Roan vs. Gonzales)
Probable cause – such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably prudent man to
believe that a crime has been committed and the thing to be searched for and seized is in the
place to be searched
b. Probable cause is personally determined by the issuing judge
By any RTC, to be served anywhere in the country, for an offense which occurred anywhere in
the country (Malaloan vs. CA)
c. Issuing judge personally examined, in the form of searching questions, the appellant and his witness
and took down their written depositions
Property which men may lawfully possess may not be the object of a search warrant (Uy Khetin
vs. Villareal)
Nature of goods may allow description to be general or not too technical (Alvarez vs. CFI)
Otherwise, cannot be said to have issued upon probable cause (Asian Surety vs. Herrera)
Absence of specific offense makes impossible determination of probable cause (Stonehill vs.
Diokno)
g. Was not issued for more than 10 days prior to a search made pursuant thereto (search warrant
becomes void after 10 days)
4. When a search warrant may be said to particularly describe the thing to be seized
5. Procedure
Oath requires that the person taking it personally knows the facts of the case (People vs. Sy Juco)
Affidavits submitted must state that the premises is occupied by the person against whom the
warrant is issued, that the objects to be seized are fruits or means of committing a crime, and
that they belong to the same person, thus, not affecting third persons (People vs. Sy Juco)
When complainant’s knowledge is hearsay, affidavits of witnesses are necessary (Alvarez vs. CFI)
b. Judge conducts ex parte preliminary examination of complainant and witnesses under oath to
determine probable cause
Judge must ask probing questions, not just repeat facts in the affidavit (Roan vs. Gonzales)
d. Peace officer in presence of occupant, members of the family OR 2 witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality
Search may last for more than a day as long as it is part of the same search for the same purpose
and of the same place (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
f. Peace officer files return of search warrant and inventory, and surrenders items seized to receiving
court (not necessarily court which issued the warrant)
Items seized illegally must remain in custodia legis pending resolution of the case (Roan vs.
Gonzales)
(3) Weapons and things which may be used as proof of offense charged (Nolasco vs.
Pano)
iii. Subject in an offense which is mala prohibita cannot be summarily seized (Roan vs. Gonzales)
iv. May extend beyond arrestee to include premises and surrounding under his immediate control
9. NOTES:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, houses and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant
or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
“The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the
court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in
the proceeding.”
Link: https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/tag/criminal-procedure-memory-aid/