Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses: Criminal Procedure

Criminal Procedure Rule 110 – Prosecution of
Atty. George S.D. Aquino

Offenses
Effect of filing of the complaint to

Criminal actions are instituted by
prescriptive period
Filing of complaint with the
Filing of the complaint with the MTC The institution of criminal action shall interrupt the running of the period
Office of the Prosecutor
of prescription of the offense, unless otherwise provided in special laws.
1. For criminal cases in Metro 1. For all other offenses (Rule 110, Section 1)
Manila or other Chartered Cities
Offenses under the
2. For the purpose of conducting Revised Penal Code (RPC) and Violations of Municipal Ordinances
the requisite preliminary Special Penal Laws
investigation (4-2-1 rule)
Filing of the complaint with the Filing of the complaint with the
Prosecutor tolls the period of Prosecutor does not interrupt; only
prescription (See People v. Bautista, the filing in court interrupts the
G.R. 168641, 2007 (RPC); prescriptive period (See Act No.
Panaguiton, Jr. v DOJ G.R. 167571 3326 and Jadewell Parking Systems
(SPL)) v. Lidua, G.R. 169588, 2013)
Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 3 Rpc t SPL -
prosec Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 4
ordinance Court
-
What is a
complaint? • For public crimes: any
• Katarungang Pambarangay Law: filing of the complaint before Rule 110, Section 3 defines a
complaint as a competent person
the Punong Barangay shall interrupt the prescriptive period but 1. Sworn written statement
in no case shall the interruption exceed 60 days from the filing 2. Charging a person with an
• For private crimes: the
of the complaint offense offended party only
3. Must be subscribed by:
• Adultery, Concubinage, Seduction, Abduction, Acts
a. The offended party,
of Lasciviousness, and Defamation consisting of the
• Prescription is interrupted even when the court has no b. Any peace officer, or Imputation of the above offenses
c. Other public officer charged with
jurisdiction the enforcement of the law
violated
Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 5 Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 6
Effect of the absence of a private Crimes prosecuted upon complaint of the

complainant offended party
• Rape is now excluded because of
RA 8353 (reclassifying rape as a
• For private crimes, the absence of a private complainant Ac 1. Adultery and concubinage crime against person and now a
would render the case dismissible 2. Seduction, abduction, or public crime)
SAL
acts of lasciviousness • Compliance with Section 5, Rule
110 is jurisdictional and not a mere
• For crimes against chastity – the only witness is the D 3. Defamation which consists formal requirement
offended party in the imputation of an
• If the offended party is of age,
offense mentioned above right to file the complaint is
exclusive and successive
• Except if the offended party is
incapacitated

Who must prosecute the criminal action?
• For seduction, abduction, [rape], and acts of lasciviousness, 2
modes are recognized for the extinction of criminal liabiliy–
pardon and marriage Under Rule 110, Section 5
General Rule: All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or
• Pardon must come prior to the institution of the criminal information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the
action prosecutor
• After the case has been filed in court, any pardon made by
the private complainant (sworn statement or in open court) Exception: Private prosecutors may take the lead if the public prosecutor
cannot extinguish criminal liability has a heavy workload or there is lack of public prosecutors
(See People v. Dela Cerna, G.R. 136899-904, 2002)
Authority of the prosecutor is subject to Authority of the prosecutor is subject to control by

control by the court upon filing of information the court upon filing of information
=
• When confronted with a motion to withdraw an Information

• (See Crespo v. Mogul, G.R. 53373, 1987) (on the ground of lack of probable cause to hold the accused for
trial based on a resolution of the DOJ Secretary), the trial court
has the duty to make an independent assessment of the
merits of the motion (See Tamargo v. Awingan, G.R. 177727, 2010)

Sufficiency of the complaint or
Acts or omissions complained of as
information
constitutive of the offense
COMPLAINT v. INFORMATION What must be alleged?
1. Name of the accused • actual recital of the facts of how the elements of the crime are
2. Designation of the offense accomplished must be included)
3. Cause of the accusation • Conflict between the designation and the body of the accusation
4. Name of the offended party Body will govern
5. Date
6. Place
Validity of the information

Validity of the information
• An Information is valid if it sufficiently alleges the manner by which the
crime was committed.
• Test of sufficiency of Information is whether it enables a
• Where the Information charged the accused of selling 42.410 grams of dried person of common understanding to know the charge against
marijuana instead of 42.410 kilos and the accused had been arraigned and pleaded him, and the court to render judgment properly. (See People v.
guilty to the charge, the information can no longer be amended. (See Lasoy v.
Zenarosa, GR 129472, 2005) Puig, GR 173654-765, 2008)
• In an Information for Qualified Theft against bank tellers, the allegations
that such employees acted with grave abuse of confidence, to the damage
and prejudice of the Bank, without particularly referring to it as owner
of the money deposits, is sufficient (See People v. Puig, GR 173654-765,
2008).

Qualifying and aggravating
Validity of the information circumstances
• Every information must state the qualifying and aggravating
• Objections to the sufficiency of the allegations in the Amended
circumstances attending the commission of the crime
Information fall under the objection that the information "does
not conform substantially to the prescribed form." (See Miranda • Relationship as a qualifying circumstance in rape must be
v. SB, GR No. 154098, 2005) 0alleged
• Exception is when the Information alleges that accused is the brother of
the victim as brother-sister relationship is obviously in the second civil
degree (People v. Ceredon, G.R. No. 167179, 2008)
• If not spouse, sibling, parent include the degree of consanguinity for
cases wherein the relationship is material
Date and time of commission of the

Generic aggravating circumstances offense
• It is not necessary for the information to allege the date and
• Must be sufficiently alleged in the information to be appreciated. time of the commission of the offense with exactitude
unless time is an essential ingredient of the offense
(See People v. Buayaban, G.R. 112459, 2003)
• It is sufficient that the complaint or information states that the crime has
been committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual
commission.
• The date or time of the commission of the rape is not a material
ingredient of the said crime.
• Allegation the information that rape was committed “That on or about
sometime (sic) 1987, prior and subsequent thereto” is not insufficient.
(See People v. Almendral, G.R. No. 126025, 2004)

Place of the commission of the offense Amendment of the information
FORMAL SUBSTANTIAL
• It is not necessary to allege the exact place where the crime
was committed. Examples of formal amendments 1. Changes the nature of the
1. New allegations relating only to the
range of the penalty
crime alleged
• It is sufficient to allege that the place where the crime was 2. Amendment which does not charge 2. Exposes the accused to a
committed is some place within the jurisdiction of the court. another offense different or distinct charge which could call for a
from that charged in the original one
higher penalty
3. Allegations which do not alter the
prosecution’s theory of the case 3. Affects the essence of the
4. Does not affect any substantial right of offense or
the accused
5. Adds specifications to eliminate 4. Causes surprise or deprives
vagueness the accused of an opportunity
(See Ricarze v. CA, G.R. 160451, 2007) to meet the new averment.
SUBSTANTIAL
Amendment prejudicial to the interest of

the accused
• Jurisprudential test on whether the accused is prejudiced by the
2 tests: amendment would be the availability of the same defense
• Whether a defense under the original information would be and evidence that the accused previously had under the
available under the amended information original information.
• Whether any evidence of the accused under the original • If the nature of the crime or the essence of the offense charged
information would be equally applicable to the amended remains the same, it is only a formal amendment.
information
(See Mendez v. People, G.R. 179962, 2014)

(See People v. Casey, G.R. No. L-30146, 1981).

Amendment of the information Formal amendments done after
arraignment designation
Before arraignment After arraignment
?
• Amendment of the designation of the offense from homicide
-
• Formal and substantial to murder, only formal and not substantial.

amendments may be made • Only formal amendments may
be made – (1) with leave of • If the averments in the amended information for Murder are exactly the
without leave of court, but leave same as those alleged in the original information.
of court and notice to offended court; and (2) only if it does not
party is necessary when prejudice the rights of the (Pacoy v. Cajigal G.R. No. 157472, 2007)
amendment downgrades the accused
nature of offense charged or
excludes an accused.
Distinction between amendment and

Test to determine identity of offenses
substitution
Amendment Substitution There is identity between the two offenses when:
1. May involve either formal or 1. Necessarily involves a
substantial changes substantial change from the 1. The evidence to support a conviction for one offense would be
original charge
2. Before arraignment – may be sufficient to warrant a conviction for the other
2. Must be with leave of court as
effected without leave of court the original information has to be
3. Amendment as to form – no dismissed 2. The second offense is an attempt to commit or a frustration of
need for another PI and retaking 3. Another PI is entailed and the the offense charged in the first information,
accused has to plead anew
of the plea
4. Requires or presupposes that 3. The second offense necessarily includes or is necessarily
4. There is identity in the offenses the new information involves a
different offense which does not included in, the offense charged in the first information (Sec.
include or is not necessarily 5, Rule 120)
included in the original charge
Examples of identity of offenses Example of substitution of information
• Physical injuries – necessarily included in Murder • First Information is Malversation of Public Funds. If evidence
• Murder necessarily includes reckless imprudence resulting in shows that accused had not taken, appropriated or converted
homicide (See People v. Carmen, GR 137268, 2001) funds for personal use and benefit, but there is showing that he
is guilty of technical malversation, Sec. 11, Rule 119 applies
• Acts of lasciviousness – necessarily included in Rape (Sec. 4,
Rule 120, variance between offense proved and charged)
(See Parungao v. SB, GR 96025, 1991).
• Falsification of public documents necessarily includes
Falsification of private documents
• Malversation of public funds necessarily includes failure to
render account by an accountable officer
Duplicity of offenses Venue in criminal cases

• The rule is that a complaint or information must charge • In criminal actions, it is a fundamental rule that venue is jurisdictional.
only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single • It cannot be waived, and can be challenged at any time
punishment for various offenses. Complex crime
• The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue
of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction.
• When the venue is chosen, exclusionary rule shall apply

Other alternative venues for institution of
Rules on venue
an action
Place of its departure
Where the offense was
committed (for local offenses)
Criminal action shall be Offenses committed in a train, Any municipality or territory
instituted and tried in the court aircraft, or other public or where such train, aircraft, or
of the municipality or territory Where any of its essential private vehicle in the court of other vehicle passed during the
elements occurred (for its trip trip
transitory or continuing
offenses)
Place of arrival
Other alternative venues for institution of Other alternative venues for institution of
an action an action
First port of entry

Offense is committed on Crime is committed outside the
Cognizable by the court where
board a vessel in the Philippines but punishable
the criminal action is first filed
course of its voyage Of any municipality or under Article 2 of the RPC
territory where the vessel
passed during such voyage

Examples Rules on venue for libel cases
(See Foz, Jr. v. People, G.R. 167764, 2009, citing Agbayani v. Sayo)
• In falsification of private documents, venue is the place where
the document is actually falsified regardless of whether the
falsified document is put to the improper or illegal use for which
it was intended. (See Navaja v. De Castro, G.R. 182926, 2015)
If the offended party is a RTC of the province or
public officer or a city where it was printed
• In perjury cases, the venue would be the place where the false private individual and first published
affidavit has been subscribed and sworn since at that time,
all the elements of perjury are executed and not where the
perjured document has been presented. (See Union Bank v.
People, G.R. 192565, 2012)
RTC of the province or city

where it was printed and first
published
RTC of the province where he
actually resided at the time of
the commission of the offense
Offended party is a private (If holding office in Manila at the
Offended party is a public
time of the commission of the
individual officer
offense) RTC of Manila
where it was printed and first
published
(If holding office outside Manila)
where he held office at the time
of commission of the offense

Venue in BP 22 Intervention by the offended party
• Violations of B.P. 22 are categorized as transitory or
continuing crimes. • Offended party may intervene and participate in the criminal
action ONLY when civil action arising from the offense charged
is impliedly instituted.
=
• can be filed in any of the places where any of the elements of
the offense occurred:
• Offended party – no personality if he reserved filing of a
• Place where the check was drawn, issued, delivered, or dishonored separate civil action
(See Rigor v. People, GR 144887, 2004; Morillo v. People, G.R. 198270,

2015)
General Rule: when a criminal action is filed, the civil

action is deemed instituted with it
But only the civil action ex delicto not the independent civil actions
arising from offense
Rule 111 – Prosecution of Civil Exceptions: warp

1. When the offended party waives the civil action
Action 2. When the offended party=
separately
reserves the right to institute it
3. When the offended party institutes the civil action -

prior
to the criminal action
43 Rule 111 - Prosecution of Civil Action 44

Civil action instituted prior to the criminal Independent civil actions
action
• May be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without
reservation in the criminal action
• Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial • Failure to make a reservation in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file
a separate and independent civil action based on the Civil Code
thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with
the criminal action upon application with the court trying the ro other obligations
Test to determine if action is ex delicto or independent civil action:
criminal case.
Ex Delicto Independent Civil Action
Culpa contractual or obligations arising

Act or omission complaint of as a
Basis from law under Article 31, 32, 34; Culpa
felony
aquilana under Article 2176
Rule 111 - Prosecution of Civil Action 45 Rule 111 - Prosecution of Civil Action 46
Effect of judgment in civil action or

administrative action to criminal case Prejudicial questionPrltjudieial
RATIONALE: To avoid two conflicting decisions.
• The court’s determination of the administrative liability for Elements of prejudicial question:
falsification of public documents is in no way conclusive of his 1. Civil action preceded the filing of the criminal action
lack of criminal liability. -
2. Civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue

-
• The purpose of administrative proceedings is to protect public service in the criminal action
while the purpose of criminal prosecution is punishment of the crime 3. Resolution of the issue in the civil case is determinative of the guilt
-
or innocence of the accused in the criminal action (See

(See Ferrer v. SB, G.R. No. 161067, 2008) Dreamwork Construction v. Janiola, G.R. 184861, 2009)
4. Jurisdiction to try the question must be lodged in another tribunal
-
No prejudicial question in independent 2nd Element: Both cases involve the
civil actions same issues
• Both civil and criminal cases must have similar issues or the
• There is no prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal issue in one is intimately related to the issues raised in the
action can, according to law, proceed independently of other.
each other.
• The civil case must involve the same facts upon which the
(See Samson v. Daway, G.R. Nos. 160054-55, 2004) criminal prosecution would be based.
3rd Element: Civil case is determinative of the Civil action to declare construction agreement
guilt of the accused in the criminal case void is NOT determinative of the guilt of the
accused in a BP 22 case
• The resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would be
necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of the • The civil case is not determinative of the guilt of the accused in the criminal
accused. case.
• If the resolution of the issue in the civil action will not determine the • If private respondent indeed issued checks which were subsequently
criminal responsibility of the accused in the criminal action based on dishonored for insufficient funds, it is this fact that is subject of prosecution
the same facts, or there is no necessity that the civil case be under BP 22.
determined first before taking up the criminal case, therefore, the civil
case does not involve a prejudicial question (See Dreamwork Construction v. Janiola, G.R. No. 184861, 2009)
Judgment in civil actions impliedly
• Civil action for injunction where the issue is whether accused instituted with the criminal action
acted as agent of his mother and civil action for damages is not
determinative of the guilt of the accused for estafa. (See People • The rule expressly imposes upon the courts the duty of entering
v. Consing, G.R. 148193, 2003)
judgment with respect to the civil liability arising from the
• Civil case for accounting of investments of a corporation and of offense, if no reservation has been made to ventilate it in a
another corporation’s alleged loan obligations is not separate action. (See Corpuz v. Siapno A.M. MTJ-96,-1106,
determinative for falsification. (See Reyes v. Pearlbank
Securities, G.R. 171435, 2008) 2003)
Effect of the death of accused on his civil

In cases of a demurrer to evidence liability
to insufficiency of evidence by motion of accused Before case is filed or After judgment of After finality of judgment of
conviction but before
before final judgment finality conviction
• If demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted by the • The death of the • The death of the • Judgment can be
court, the accused
Got has the right to adduce evidence on the accused prior to final appellant pending appeal enforced against the
[
civil aspect of the case , (See Salazar v. People, G.R. judgment terminates his and prior to the finality of estate of the accused or
criminal liability and only conviction extinguished his administrator or
151931, 2003) the civil liability directly
arising from and based his criminal and civil executor
solely on the offense liabilities arising from the
a
g grieved party Ioffended committed, i.e., civil delict or crime.
liability ex delicto in (See People v. Abugan,
senso strictiore.”
G.R. 136843, 2000; Datu
(See ABS-CBN v. Omb, G.R. v. People, G.R. 169718,
133347, 2008)
2010)
Preliminary Investigation
A preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to
determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-
Rule 112 – Preliminary founded belief that a crime has been committed and the
respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial
Investigation (Sec. 1, Rule 112)
57 Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 58
Right to a preliminary investigation Purpose:

1. To secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and
• It is not a constitutional right but a statutory grant oppressive prosecution and to protect him from an open
and public accusation of a crime and from the trouble,
• It is a personal right, which can be waived expressly or
expense and anxiety of a public trial.
impliedly.
2. To protect the State from having to conduct useless and
• It is a substantive right and to withhold it would be to
expensive trials.
transgress due process.
Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 59 Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 60

Coverage Quantum of evidence required
1. All offenses where the penalty prescribed by law is at least • The evidence required for purposes of filing an Information in
4 years, 2 months and 1 day without regard to the fine (See court is merely such evidence as would engender a well-
Sec. 1, par. 2, Rule 112) founded belief that a crime has been committed and the
respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for
2. All offenses where the penalty prescribed by law is less than 4 trial.
years, 2 months and 1 day where the prosecutor believes
that a preliminary investigation should be conducted.
Probable cause Decision to dismiss a criminal case rests on

the discretion of the trial court
• Probable cause has been defined as a reasonable ground of
presumption that a matter is or may be well-founded.
• Decision of whether to dismiss the information rests on the
• It does not mean actual and positive cause nor does it import absolute certainty. It is
merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. sound discretion of the trial court where the information was
• It is enough that it is believed that an act or omission complained of constitutes the filed
offense charged (See Paredes Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 108251, 1996)
Crespo v. Mogul, G.R. L-53373, 1987
• A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence
showing that more likely than not a crime has been (See Chan v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. 147065, 2008)
committed and was committed by respondent.
• Probable cause demands more than “bare suspicion”, but it requires
less evidence which would justify conviction. (See Webb v. De Leon,
1995)

Who may conduct preliminary Notes:
investigations? • The Regional State Prosecutor is not included among the
law officers authorized to approve the filing or
• Rule 112, Section 2:
dismissal of the Information of the investigating
prosecutor. (See Tolentino v. Paqueo, G.R. 150606,
1. Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants 2007).
2. National and Regional State Prosecutors • Secretary of Justice may reverse or modify the resolution
of the prosecutor (Baltazar v. People, G.R. 174016, 2008)
3. Other officers as may be authorized by law
• Other officers as may be authorized – COMELEC,
Ombudsman, PCGG
Preliminary
Preliminary Investigation Inquiry/Examination Procedure in Preliminary Investigation
• Ascertains whether the offended should • Determines probable cause for the
be held for trial or released issuance of warrant of arrest
• Function of the prosecutor • Made by the Judge
Form of complaint in preliminary investigation
• (Under Section 1, Rule 112) the • Primary task of the presiding judge is to
investigating prosecutor is tasked to determine existence or non-existence of
determine whether there is sufficient probable cause for the arrest of the • Unlike a complaint or information for instituting the criminal
ground to engender a well-founded belief accused (Probable cause – offense proceeding, a complaint in a preliminary investigation need not
that a crime has been committed and the charged in the information has been be contained in a single document.
accused is probably guilty thereof committed and has been committed by
• If investigating prosecutor finds probable the person sought to be arrested)
cause, he executes a certification at the • Affidavits and documents submitted by the • Affidavit of the complainant is only a component of the
bottom of the information to that effect,
prosecutor, report, TSNs will be material in the
determination of the same complaint
but the same is not binding on the trial
court • Probable cause demands more than
suspicion, it requires less than evidence
which would justify conviction.
(See Baltazar v. People, G.R. 174016, 2008)
Initial action by the Investigating
• There are cases where the extent of one’s personal knowledge may
not cover the entire gamut of details material to the alleged offense Prosecutor on the Complaint filed
• Complaint for PI need not be filed by the offended party, unless
the offense is one which cannot be prosecuted de oficio 1. Within O
10 days from the receipt of the complaint by the
prosecutor, Prosecutor shall:
-
• Complaint for PI need not exhibit the attending structure of a

complaint or information under Rule 110 a. Dismiss the complaint if he finds no ground to continue with the
inquiry
(See Santos-Concio v. DOJ, G.R. 175057, 2008) b. Issue a subpoena to respondent
2. Within 10 days from the receipt of the subpoena, Inquest

respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit and
supporting documents An informal and summary
investigation conducted by a • An inquest investigation is
public prosecutor in criminal proper only when the suspect
3. When to set case for clarificatory hearing – within 10 cases involving persons arrested is lawfully arrested without a
and detained without the benefit
days from submission of the counter affidavit or from the of a warrant of arrest issued by
warrant. (See San Agustin v.
expiration of the period for submission the court for the purpose of People, G.R. 158211, 2004;
determining: Ladlad v. Velasco, G.R.
• Prosecutor may set case for clarificatory hearing to propound
(1) whether said persons should 172070-72, 2007).
clarificatory question to partiesor their witnesses if he believes there
are matters which need to be inquired into personally by him remain under custody; and
(2) whether they should be
charged in court.

Termination of inquest proceedings Issuance of warrant of arrest
• Must be terminated within the period prescribed under Article • No warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
125 of the RPC (counted from time of arrest) “to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
• 12 hours – light offenses witnesses he may produce.”
• 18 hours – less grave offenses • Constitutional provision does not require the judge to personally
examine the complainant and his witnesses, but may opt to
• 36 hours – grave offenses personally evaluate the report and supporting documents (See AAA
v. Carbonell, G.R. 171465, 2007)
Effect of the absence of PI on validity of

information and jurisdiction of court
• Absence of PI does not impair the validity of an information
or render it defective
• It does not affect jurisdiction of court nor constitute a ground for
quashing the information
• Court should hold the proceeding in abeyance and order the
Rule 113 - Arrest
prosecutor to conduct the PI
(See Villaflor v. Vivar)
Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 75 76

Requisites for the issuance of an arrest
Arrest warrant
Is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may
be bound to answer for the commission of an • Arrest warrant shall issue only upon finding of a probable
offense. (Rule 113, Section 1) cause to be determined personally by the judge
Personal determination of probable cause Lawful warrantless arrests

• A judge need not personally examine the complainant and his
witnesses in determining probable cause for the issuance of As a general rule, a warrant of arrest is needed in order to
warrants of arrest validly effect the same.
• What the constitution requires is that the judge personally
evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted 3 instances where a lawful warrantless arrests may be effected:
by the prosecutor or may disregard the report and require 1. Arrest of suspect in flagrante delicto
submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses. (See AAA v.
Carbonell, 524 SCRA 496) 2. Hot pursuit arrests
3. Arrest of a prisoner who escaped from custody serving final
• Hearing is not necessary for the determination of probable judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending
cause

In flagrante delicto arrests Warrantless search
• Search and seizure can be made without a warrant and the
Two requisites for a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following
delicto to be valid: instances (See People v. Molina, G.R. 133917, 2001)
a. Search incidental to a lawful arrest
b. Search of a moving motor vehicle
1. Person arrested must execute an overt act indicating he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime c. Search in violation of customs laws
d. Seizure of evidence in plain view
2. Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the e. When the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable
arresting officer searches and seizures
f. Stop and frisk situations (Terry search)
Search incidental to a lawful arrest

• Warrantless search may be conducted when it is an incident to • In a case where a motorcycle rider was flagged down for not
a valid warrantless arrest wearing a helmet, a search of his jacket yielded shabu. The
Supreme Court ruled that the search was illegal as it was not
• If there are valid reasons to conduct a lawful search and seizure, and it pursuant to a lawful warrantless arrest. A traffic violation, even
is shown that the accused is currently committing a crime, the accused
may be lawfully arrested in flagrante delicto without need for a warrant if in the nature of a crime, does not result in arrest or
of arrest (See People v. Laguio, G.R. 128587, 2007) imprisonment. Hence, a search incidental thereto is illegal. (Luz
v. People, 29 February 2012)
Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 83 Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 84

Legality of the arrest affects only jurisdiction Waiver of illegal warrantless arrests
of the court over the person
• The legality of the arrest must be raised before entering plea • A waiver of the illegality of the arrest does not carry with it the
inadmissibility of the evidence seized during the arrest.
• Otherwise, it is deemed waived and the accused would be deemed to
have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court (See People v. Alunday, • Although the admissibility of evidence was not raised as an
G.R. 181546, 2008) issue, the Court has the power to correct any error, even if
unassigned, if such is necessary in arriving at a just decision,
• Any defect in the arrest must be deemed cured when the especially when the transcendental matter of life and liberty is at
accused voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction (See stake (See People v. Martines)
People v. Escordial, G.R. 138934-35, 2002)
Right to counsel in custodial

investigations
Rights of a person under custodial investigation
1. Right to be informed of his right to remain silent
2. Right to have competent and independent counsel preferably
of his own choice Rule 114 - Bail
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel
Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 87 88

Meaning, nature, and purpose of bail
• It is not intended to cover the civil liability of the accused in
the same criminal case, but the money deposited may be
• Bail is the security given for the release of a person in the applied to the payment of fines and costs while the excess
custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to will be returned to the accused or whoever made the
guarantee his appearance before any court as required under deposit (See Rule 114, Section 14)
certain specified conditions. (See Rule 114, Section 1)
• Grant or denial or bail has no impact on the civil liability of the
accused. (See Heirs of Burgos v. CA, 612 SCRA 1)
Rule 114 - Bail 89 Rule 114 - Bail 90
Constitutional basis of the right to bail As a matter of right

• Section 13, Article III of the Constitution 1. Before conviction by the RTC, offense not punishable by
• All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by Reclusion Perpetua/Death/Life Imprisonment
reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on 2. Before conviction by MTC/MeTC/MCTC
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is 3. After conviction by the MTC/MeTC/MCTC
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

As a matter of discretion
• Existence of high probability that defendant will abscond
1. Before conviction by the RTC of offenses punishable by
confers upon the court no greater discretion than to increase
reclusion perpetua/death/life imprisonment
the bond to such an amount as would reasonably tend to
assure the presence of the defendant when it is wanted. (See • Andres v. Beltran, it is a misconception that when an accused is
San Miguel v. Judge Maceda; Yap v. CA, 2001) charged with murder, he is not entitled to bail AT ALL or that the crime
of murder is non-bailable, for the grant of bail to an accused charged
with offense carrying the penalty of R/D/L is discretionary on the part of
the trial court
Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 93 Rule 114 - Bail 94
• Discretion of the court in cases involving capital offenses may be

exercised only after hearing to ascertain weight of evidence • After conviction of an offense punishable by Reclusion
against accused
Perpetua/Death/Life Imprisonment, bail should be denied
• An accused cannot be released from detention until there is a hearing because this means that his evidence of guilt is not just
of his application for bail and a resolution that the evidence of his guilt strong, but proven beyond reasonable doubt (See People v.
is not strong Nitcha, 240 SCRA 283)
2. Upon conviction by the RTC of offenses not punishable by • Discretion of the court may be exercised only after the hearing
reclusion perpetua/death/life imprisonment and there is no called to ascertain the degree of guilt of the accused for the
bail-negating circumstance present. purpose of whether he should be granted provisional liberty

Bail-negating circumstances “Evidence of guilt is strong”
• When penalty imposed is not R/D/L, the Court must take into
consideration the following circumstances (Rule 114, Section 5) • Does not mean that the evidence establishes guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, but rather, shows evident guilt or
1. Recidivism, quasi-recidivism, habitual delinquency or commission of a
crime aggravated by reiteration
presumption of guilt
2. Previous escape from legal confinement, evasion of sentence, violation of • Court is ministerially bound to decide which circumstances and factors
conditions of previous bail without a valid justification are present which would show the evidence of guilt or presumption of
guilt (See People v. Cabral, 303 SCRA 361)
3. Commission of an offense while under probation, parole, or conditional
pardon
• “Strong” does not mean proof beyond reasonable doubt
4. Circumstances of the case indicate a probability of flight if released on bail
5. Undue risk of committing another crime during the pendency of appeal
• Bail may be furnished by the bail applicant himself or by a

bondsman • Bail may also be used to guarantee the appearance of a
material witness
• Bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for the execution of
final judgment • When a person is not yet charged with any offense in court, but
• Bondsman may arrest the accused or cause the arrest of the accused in custody, he may apply for bail with any court in the province,
• An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without a city, or municipality where he is held (See Rule 114, Section
warrant if he attempts to depart the Philippines without 17(c)).
permission of the court where the case is pending
• Failure of an accused to appear in trial without justification
• An applicant for bail must be under the custody of the law despite due notice is tantamount to a waiver of his right to be
• A free man is not entitled to bail present and the trial may proceed in absentia (See Rule 114,
• A fugitive may not apply for bail unless he gives himself up first so he Section 2(c)).
may be placed under the custody of law

Before conviction After conviction
Bail as a matter of No bail/automatic Bail as a matter of No bail/automatic
Bail as a matter of right Bail as a matter of right
discretion cancellation discretion cancellation
• Cases cognizable by • Cases cognizable by • Offenses punishable by • Cases cognizable by • Conviction by the RTC • Convicted by the RTC
MTC/MeTC/MCTC RTC and punishable by death, reclusion MTC/MeTC/MCTC not punishable by death, and any of the bail-
• Cases cognizable by the death, reclusion perpetua, or life reclusion perpetua, or negating circumstances
RTC but not punishable perpetua, or life imprisonment and the life imprisonment and under Section 5, Rule
by death, reclusion imprisonment where the evidence of guilt is none of the bail-negating 114 is present
perpetua, or life evidence of guilt is not strong circumstances are • Convicted with offenses
imprisonment strong present punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment
Arraignment is not a pre-requisite for the Duties of a judge when an application of

grant of bail bail is filed
• To condition the grant of bail on the arraignment would be to put
the accused in a position where he would choose between filing • In all cases whether bail is a matter of right or discretion,
a motion to quash (delaying his release until resolution of the notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail
motion) or foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so he can be
or require him to submit his recommendation (Section 18,
arraigned at once and post bail
Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended);
(See Lavides v. Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 321)

• Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the
• Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of summary of evidence of the prosecution;
the application for bail regardless of whether or not the • If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused
prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the upon the approval of the bail bond (Section 19, id); otherwise,
guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the the petition should be denied.
court to exercise its sound discretion (Sections 7 and 8, id.);
-
(See Taborite v. Sollesta citing Cortez v. Catral)
Forms of bail
Property Bond
Undertaking constituted as lien on the real property given as
Corporate Surety security for the amount of bail (Rule 114, Section 11)
Bail furnished by a corporation(Rule 114, Section 10)

Cash Deposit Recognizance
Accused or any person acting on his behalf may deposit cash Obligation of record entered into before a court or a
with the nearest revenue collector, municipal, city, provincial magistrate promising the appearance of the accused for
treasurer, or clerk of court where case is pending (Rule 114, trial (Rule 114, Section 15)
Section 14)
Guidelines in fixing the amount of bail

• Cash bond, under Section 14 -- shall be applied to the payment
of fine and costs, and the excess, if any, shall be returned to the • Basic rule: Excessive bail shall not be required
accused or to any person who made the deposit.
• High enough to assure the presence of the accused when such
• Rule treats cash bond differently from other forms of bail bonds, presence is required but no higher than is reasonably necessary to
it can be applied in payment of any fine and costs that may be fulfill the purpose
imposed by the Court . Right of the government is in the nature • Probability of appearance of the accused, or of his flight to
of a lien on the money deposited. (See Esteban v. Alhanbra, avoid punishment
2004)
(See Villaseñor v. Abano, 21 SCRA 312)

Factors to be considered (Rule 114, Section 9) When bail is not required
1. Financial ability of the accused
2. Nature and circumstances of the offense • When the law or the rules of court so provide (Rule 114, Section 16)
3. Penalty of the charged offense • When a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more
4. Character and reputation of the accused than the possible maximum imprisonment prescribed for the
offense charged
5. Age and health of the accused
• If maximum penalty is destierro, he shall be released after 30 days of
6. Wealth of evidence against the accused preventive imprisonment
7. Probability of the accused appearing at trial • Bail shall not be required if the charge is a violation of a
8. Forfeiture of other bail municipal/city ordinance, light felony, or a criminal offense with a
9. If accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested penalty of imprisonment not greater than 6 months and/or a fine of
Php2,000 or both
10. Pendency of other cases where accused is on bail
Effect of posting bail Remedy for the denial of bail

• Shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his • File a petition for certiorari if the trial court committed grave
arrest or legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from assailing abuse of discretion (See People v. Gomez, 325 SCRA 61)
the regularity of questioning the absence of PI of the charge
against him • When bail is a matter of right, it cannot be denied
• Probability that accused will escape or not appear in trial is not a
• Filing of motion for lifting the hold departure order and for leave ground for the denial of the right to bail but a reason to increase the
to go to another country is a waiver of the right to assail validity amount of bail
of arrest warrant • Existence of a high degree or probability that accused will abscond confers upon
the court no greater discretion than to increase the bond to assure the presence
(See Okabe v. Gutierrez, 2004) of the defendant when wanted, subject to the provision that excessive bail shall
not be required. (See San Miguel v. Maceda, 520 SCRA 205)

Rights of the accused at the trial
Under Rule 115, Section 1:
1. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond
reasonable doubt
Rule 115 – Rights of the 2. To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
Accused him
3. To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage
of the proceedings
4. To testify as witness in his own behalf subject to cross-examination
on matters covered by the direct examination
117 Rule 115 - Rights of the Accused 118
Presumption of innocence
5. To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against
himself • Presumption of innocence imposes upon the People the burden
6. To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the of proving beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the crime
trial
and the identity of the accused as the criminal
7. To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of • Presumption of innocence prevails over the presumption of
witnesses and production of evidence in his behalf regularity in the performance of official duty (See People v. Sy,
590 SCRA 511)
8. To have speedy, impartial, and public trial
• Presumption of regularity obtains only when there is no deviation from
9. To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law the regular performance of duty (See People v. Alejandro, 655 SCRA
279)
Rule 115 - Rights of the Accused 119 Rule 115 - Rights of the Accused 120
“Proof beyond reasonable doubt”
Equipoise rule
• Does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding the
possibility of error, produces absolute certainty
• When the evidence is evenly balanced, constitutional
• What is required is moral certainty, or that degree of proof presumption of innocence tips the scale in favor of acquittal
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind
• When there is reasonable doubt, acquittal must follow
• Conviction of the accused must stand on the strength of the

evidence of the prosecution not on the weakness of the defense
of the accused (See People v. Guzon, 707 SCRA 384)
Effect of a plea of self-defense Right to be informed of the nature and

cause of the accusation
• The order of trial is changed
• Acts or omissions complained of constituting the offense,
• Accused must prove self-defense by clear, satisfactory and including the aggravating and qualifying circumstances must be
convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal stated in ordinary and concise language, in terms sufficient to
aggression on his part enable a person of common understanding to know what
offense is being charged
Rule on variance
• If the circumstances alleged in the information vary from those
proven in trial, the appreciation of the same would be
dependent on whether the information/circumstance is • Failure of the information to identify the subject of the
material to the crime
offense deprives the accused of the right to be informed of
• BP 22 – variance in the check number is material to the conviction of the nature of the offense being charged.
the accused
• When carnapping is alleged in the information but it was proven that it
was made with violence against, or intimidation of, any person, or force
upon things, the qualifying circumstance cannot be appreciated
because it was not alleged in the information and would violate the
right to be informed of the accused
Right to counsel
• Purpose of the rule is to curb police-state practice of
• Every person under the custody of the law enjoys the right, and
not only those who are already accused
extracting a confession that leads suspects to make
self-incriminating statements
• Every person under investigation for an offense has the right to have a
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice • Confession in writing without aid of counsel and which is
then sought to be admitted against the accused during trial
• Included is the right to be informed of his right to counsel
is inadmissible
When does the right to counsel attach?
• An amicable settlement between the parties would abort the
• Preliminary Investigation
custodial investigation or inquiry on the crime (See Aquino v.
• Arrest Paiste, G.R. 147782, 2008)
• Custodial Investigation
• Arraignment to rendition of judgment • By settling amicably, accused waives her right to counsel
despite the recital of her constitutional rights by the police in the
• Appeal presence of a lawyer
• Not mandatory in administrative investigations
(See People v. Serzo, G.R. 118435, 1997)
No right to counsel in police line-ups Waiver of right to counsel
• Process has not yet shifted from investigatory to the • The right to counsel may be waived but to ensure that the
accusatory and it’s the complainant who is interrogated and waiver is voluntary and intelligent the waiver must be made
who gives the statement during the line-up
1. In writing
• Police line-up is not the starting point of custodial
investigation 2. In the presence of the counsel of the accused
Custodial investigation
• Custodial investigation refers to the critical pre-trial stage
when investigation is no longer a general inquiry into
• Any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities the crime but focuses on a particular person as a suspect
after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of
his freedom of action in any significant manner • RA 7438 reinforced the constitutional mandate protecting the rights of
the persons under custodial investigation
• Includes police investigations and INVITATIONS FOR
• Issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in connection with an
QUESTIONING offense he is suspected to have committed is included in the definition of
custodial investigation (See Lumanog v. People, G.R. 182555, 2010)
Right to speedy trial

• The moment a police officer tries to elicit admissions or • Must be invoked by the accused
confessions or even plain information from a suspect, the • Cannot be invoked by someone who is not an accused
latter should, be assisted by counsel, unless he waives this
right in writing and in the presence of counsel • He must show that he is ready to proceed with trial
• Speedy trial, however, is a relative term and necessarily
• Rights can only be waived in writing and with the assistance involves a degree of flexibility
of counsel • Essential ingredient is orderly, expeditious, and not mere speed
• Right to speedy trial does not preclude justifiable
(See Lumanog v. People, G.R. 182555, 2010)
postponements and delay when warranted by the situation
• Time limits set by the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 do not preclude
justifiable postponements and delays when warranted
Four Factors
• “Fixed-time period” approach – Constitution requires a criminal
defendant to be offered a trial within a specified period
• Length of Delay: triggering mechanism, until there is some
• “Demand waiver rule” – defendant waives any consideration of delay which is presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity
his right to speedy trial for any period to which he has not for the inquiry
demanded trial
• Prior demand as a necessary consideration of the right to speedy trial
• Reason for the delay: the reason of the government for such
• “Balancing test” – compels courts to approach speedy trial
delay
cases on an ad hoc basis
Right to speedy disposition of cases

• Assertion of right: failure to assert the right will make it difficult
for the defendant to prove that he was denied speedy trial
• Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that "all
persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative
• Prejudice to defendant: prevent oppressive pre-trial bodies." This protection extends to all citizens and covers the
incarceration, minimize anxiety and concern of the accused;
periods before, during and after trial, affording broader
and limit possibility that defense will be impaired
protection than Section 14 (2), which guarantees merely the
right to a speedy trial.
Motion to reopen the case
• It is consistent with delays and depends upon the
circumstances. What the Constitution prohibits are • Section 24, Rule 119 and existing jurisprudence stress the
unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive delays, which render
following requirements for reopening a case: (1) the reopening
rights nugatory.
must be before the finality of a judgment of conviction; (2) the
• A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not order is issued by the judge on his own initiative or upon
be sufficient motion; (3) the order is issued only after a hearing is conducted;
• Particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar (4) the order intends to prevent a miscarriage of justice; and (5)
to each case the presentation of additional and/or further evidence should be
terminated within thirty days from the issuance of the order.
Right against self-incrimination

• A motion to reopen may thus properly be presented only after
either or both parties had formally offered and closed their • Prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion, to extort
evidence, but before judgment is rendered, and even after communications from the accused
promulgation but before finality of judgment and the only
controlling guideline governing a motion to reopen is the • A prohibition against legal process to extract from the
paramount interest of justice. [accused]'s own lips, against his will, admission of his guilt.
(See Cabarles v. Maceda, G.R. 161330, 2007) • Privilege includes testimonial compulsion or compelled
testimony of a communicative nature
• It does not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an
incriminating statement but an object evidence
• Forced re-enactments are writing exemplars or samples are
• Protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably
incriminatory in nature
believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to
• Right is accorded to every person who gives evidence other evidence that might be so used
• Whether voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena • The right is not self-executing and must be claimed
• Attaches in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding • Right may be waived, if the accused testified in his own behalf,
he is subject to cross-examination on matters covered by the
• Can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, direct examination
administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory
Double jeopardy Miranda Rights

• Double jeopardy attaches only (1) upon a valid indictment, (2) • The arresting officers' alleged failure to inform them of their
before a competent court, (3) after arraignment, (4) when a
valid plea has been entered, and (5) when the defendant was Miranda rights or the nature of their arrest should have been
convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise raised before arraignment
terminated without the express consent of the accused • That the infractions of the so-called Miranda rights render
• A dismissal with the express consent or upon motion of the inadmissible "only the extrajudicial confession or admission
accused does not result in double jeopardy, except in two made during custodial investigation.
instances, to wit: (1) the dismissal is based on insufficiency of • The admissibility of other evidence, provided they are relevant to the
evidence or (2) the case is dismissed for violation of the issue and is not otherwise excluded by law or rules, is not affected
accused's right to speedy trial. even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial investigation." (See
(See Benares v. Lim, G.R. 173421, 2006) People v. Malimit, G.R. 109775, 1996)
Arraignment
• If there is a flaw in the arraignment:
Rule 116 – Arraignment and 1.There is no double jeopardy

2.The assailed decision will be archived
Plea
3.There would be no trial in absentia
149 Rule 116 - Arraignment and Plea 150
• Arraignment means that the criminal prosecution has

already reached the Courts • Required by procedural due process so that he may be
informed of the reason for his indictment, the specific
charges he is bound to face, and the corresponding
• Mechanism by which the accused is formally informed of the penalty that could possibly be meted against him
nature and cause of the accusation against him
• Purpose is to apprise the accused why he is being prosecuted by the
=
State
Rule 116 - Arraignment and Plea 151 Rule 116 - Arraignment and Plea 152
Duty of the court before arraignment
1. Inform the accused of his right to counsel
• During arraignment, accused is, for the first time, given 2. Ask him if he desires to have one
the opportunity to know the precise charge that 3. Assign a counsel de oficio to defend him UNLESS the
accused is:
confronts him
a. Allowed to defend himself in person; or
b. Employed a counsel of his choice
• Duty of the court Is mandatory
• Judge has the duty to protect the rights of the accused, even
against their wishes, when it’s clear that he is not in a position
to validly exercise or waive his rights
Options of the accused before

How arraignment and plea are made
arraignment and plea
• In open court where the complaint or information was filed
• Move for a bill of particulars – failure to do so amounts a
waiver of the defect or detail desired in the information • Judge or clerk of court furnishes the accused with the copy of
the information or complaint and reads the same in the
• Ask for a suspension of arraignment – accused appears to be language or dialect known the the accused
suffering from an unsound mental condition, prejudicial
question, petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor • Asks the accused whether he pleads guilty or not
• Arraignment must be made within 30 days from the date the
• Motion to quash – follow grounds under Section 3, Rule 117 court acquires jurisdiction over the accused
• Challenge the validity of the arrest or legality of the warrant • Excluding the pendency of the motion to quash, time for pendency of
issued, assail the integrity or regularity or question the the bill of particulars, other causes justifying suspension of the
absence of a preliminary investigation arraignment
Why is the presence of the offended
Arraignment after submission for decision party necessary
• An arraignment may be made after a case has been submitted 1. Plea bargaining
for decision
2. Determination of civil liability
• Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest
or voluntary surrender and not because of his arraignment 3. Other matters requiring his presence
• Absence of the offended party despite due notice gives the trial
court the power to allow the accused to plea bargain with the
conformity of the trial prosecutor
Plea of “not guilty” Plea of “guilty”

• A plea of “not guilty” shall be entered when
1. Accused refuses to plead
• Judicial confession of guilt
2. Makes a conditional plea
3. Pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence • Admission of all the material facts alleged in the information
including the aggravating circumstances alleged
• By entering a plea of not guilty, accused submits himself to the
jurisdiction of the court, curing any defect in his arrest
• Waiver of the right to question the legality of the arrest does not carry the
waiver of the right to question the admissibility of the evidence procured on
the occasion of or incidental to the illegal arrest (See People v. Pua, 415
SCRA 540)
Duty of the trial court if accused pleads
Plea of “guilty” guilty to a capital offense
• Capital offense – the prosecution must still prove the guilt of the 1. Conduct searching inquiry and ascertain
accused beyond reasonable doubt and the precise degree of • Voluntariness of the plea
his culpability • Whether accused has full comprehension of the consequences of his
plea
• Non-capital offense – court may receive evidence to determine
the penalty to be imposed 2. Require prosecution to prove
• Guilt of the accused
• Precise degree of culpability
3. Ask accused if he wishes to present evidence in his behalf
and be allowed to do so, if he desires
“Searching inquiry”
• Inform the accused of the length of imprisonment, nature of
• Ascertain from the accused himself penalty under the law
-
• How he was brought to the custody of the law

• Inquire if the accused knows the crime which he is charged
• Whether he had the assistance of a competent counsel during the custodial and fully explain the elements of the crime
and preliminary investigation
• Conditions of his detention and interrogation • All questions must be in a language known and understood by
• Ask defense counsel the accused
-
• Whether he has conferred with and explained the meaning and • Require accused to narrate the tragedy or reenact the crime or
consequences of the plea
furnish missing details
• Elicit information about the personality profile of the accused (age,
socio-economic status, educational background)
Improvident plea of guilty
• When an accused informs the court of his decision to change
plea from not guilty to guilty, the Court must conduct a
• At any time before judgment of conviction becomes final, the searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension
Court may permit an improvident plea of guilty to be withdrawn of the consequences of his plea (See People v. Ulit, G.R.
and be substituted by a plea of not guilty 131799-801, 2004)
• When trial court failed in the duty to conduct the searching inquiry, plea • Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside
of guilty is deemed made improvidently and rendered inefficacious
- -
only if such plea is the sole basis of judgment, but if trial
court relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict,
-
conviction must be sustained. (See People v. Janjalani, G.R.

(See People v. Bernas, G.R. 133583-85, 2002) 188314, 2011)
Plea bargaining “Necessarily includes”

• Usually involves the defendant’s pleading to a lesser offense or • When some of the essential elements or ingredients of the
to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in former charge, as alleged in the complaint or information
return for a lighter sentence than that for the graver charge constitute the lesser offense
• Requisites: lesser offense is necessarily included in the • When the essential ingredients of the former offense constitute
offense charged, plea must be with the consent of both the or form part of those constituting the new offense
offended party and the prosecutor (consent of offended party
may be dispensed with if he fails to appear despite due notice) • A person charged with robbery or theft cannot plead guilty to
estafa because the elements of the latter are not included in the
• Right to plea bargain is not demandable as a matter of right former
When a plea of guilty to a lesser offense Production or inspection of material
may be made evidence
• During arraignment • Rule 116 allows a mode of discovery
• After arraignment, after his prior plea of guilty is withdrawn • Authorizes court to issue an order to the prosecution to produce and
provided that the same be made before trial permit inspection and copying and photographing of any written
statement given by the complainant or any other witnesses in the
• It has been held that it may also be considered during trial investigation of the offenses conducted by the prosecution
proper
• Available upon motion of the accused with notice to the parties
• And even after the prosecution has finished presenting
evidence and rested its case (See Daan v. Sandiganbayan)
Nature of a motion to quash

• Mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal
complaint or information filed against him for insufficiency on
its face in point of law or for defects apparent in the fact of the
information
• Exceptions to the rule that court cannot consider allegations contrary to
Rule 117 – Motion to Quash those appearing on the face of the information (See Antone v. Beronilla,
G.R. 183824, 2010)
• When the new allegations are admitted by the prosecution
• When the rules so permit, such as upon the grounds of extinction of criminal
liability and double jeopardy
Rule 117 - Motion to Quash 171 Rule 117 - Motion to Quash 172
• Hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the information
• Fundamental test to determine the sufficiency: whether the facts • Omnibus motion: since the rule impliedly requires that all the
alleged, when hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential objections available at the time the motion was filed should be
elements of the crime defined by law invoked
• Based on defect in the information evident on its fact • Failure to assert any ground before a plea shall be deemed a waiver of
any objections
• If defect can be cured by amendment or if it is based on the ground that
the facts charged do not constitute an offense, prosecution is given the • Accused did not file a motion to quash
opportunity to correct the defect by amendment
• Accused filed a motion to quash but failed to allege the ground in said motion
• If the motion is granted, court may order that another complaint or
information be filed except when information is quashed on the ground
of extinction of criminal liability or double jeopardy
Grounds for a motion to quash

Under Rule 117, Section 3 General Rule: the grounds not asserted are considered waived.
a. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
b. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; Exceptions:
c. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused;
d. That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; • Facts charged do not constitute an offense
e. That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;
f. That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various • Court trying has no jurisdiction over the offense
offenses is prescribed by law;
g. That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
h. That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; • Extinction of criminal action or liability
and
i. That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or • Double jeopardy
the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent.
• Matters of defense cannot be raised in a motion to quash • When accused files a demurrer without leave of court – he is
deemed to have waived the right to present evidence and case
• Lack of prior written approval of the city, provincial, or chief shall be submitted for judgment
state prosecutor in the filing of an information renders the
information defective (See People v. Garfin, G.R. 153176, • MTD may be filed on the ground of the denial of his right to
2004) speedy trial
• Lack of authority prevented the court from acquiring jurisdiction over • Unreasonable, vexatious, and oppressive delays without the fault of the
the case accused, or by unjustified postponements which unreasonably
prolonged the trial (See Cabador v. People, G.R. 186001, 2009)
• Failure to raise an objection on the validity of information before
arraignment does not amount to a waiver
Double Jeopardy
• No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment
for the same offense.
• Requisites (See Antone v. Beronilla, G.R. 183824, 2010; Alonto
v. People, G.R. 140078, 2004) • A criminal case for estafa and violation of BP 22 are
1. There is a complaint or information or other formal charge different from a case involving 3 counts of violation of BP
sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction 22 filed with another RTC Branch (See Alonto v. People,
2. The same is filed before a court of competent jurisdiction G.R. 140078, 2004)
3. There is a valid arraignment or plea to the charges
4. The accused is convicted or acquitted or the case is otherwise
dismissed or terminated without his express consent
Provisional Dismissal
• Rules do not distinguish whether acquittal occurs at the level of
the trial court or on appeal from a judgment of conviction • Requisites (See People v. Lacson, G.R. 149453, 2003)
1. The prosecution with the express conformity of the accused or the
• Finality-of-acquittal rule in our jurisdiction – acquittal is final accused moves for a provisional (sin perjuicio) dismissal of the case; or
and unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy, whether both the prosecution and the accused move for a provisional dismissal of
it happens at the trial court level or before the CA (See the case;
Castro v. People, G.R. 180832, 2008) 2. The offended party is notified of the motion for a provisional dismissal of
the case;
3. The court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing the case
provisionally;
4. The public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of provisional
dismissal of the case
• Order of dismissal shall become permanent one year (or 2

years) after service of the order of dismissal on the public
prosecutor
Rule 118 – Pre-Trial
Rule 117 - Motion to Quash 183 184

Requisites of a valid stipulation
• Once validly entered into, stipulations will not be set aside
1. The agreement or admission must be in writing unless for good cause
2. It must be signed by both the accused and their counsel.
• When made before the court, they are conclusive
• The court's approval is not needed to make the stipulations
binding on the parties (See Bayas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 143689-91, 2002)
Rule 118 185 Rule 118 186
Conditions for the discharge to be state

witness
1. The discharge must be with the consent of the accused sought to
be a state witness;
2. His testimony is absolutely necessary;
3. No other direct evidence is available for the proper prosecution of
the offense committed except his testimony;
4. His testimony can be substantially corroborated in its material
Rule 119 – Trial points;
5. He does not appear to be the most guilty; and
6. He has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving
moral turpitude.
(Section 17, Rule 119)
187 Rule 119 - Trial 188

Demurrer to evidence
• Filing of a demurrer to evidence without leave of court is an
• Court cannot acquit accused who were never arraigned as the unqualified waiver of the right to present evidence for the
court never acquired jurisdiction over them accused
• If accused is a fugitive from justice, the Court cannot proceed with trial • When accused moves for dismissal on the ground of insufficiency of
in absentia unless he is previously arraigned evidence of the prosecution, he does so in the belief that said evidence
• Accused who were never arraigned could not validly file a is insufficient to convict, and any need for him to present evidence is
demurrer to evidence negated
• Judicial action on a motion to dismiss or demurrer to evidence is best

left to the exercise of sound judicial discretion (See People v. Sayaboc, G.R. 147201, 2004)
(see People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 137707-11, 2004)
Rule 119 - Trial 189 Rule 119 - Trial 190
Reopening of case
• Under Section 24, Rule 119 and existing jurisprudence, the
• Purpose behind the rule is to avoid the dilatory practice of requisites for reopening a case:
filing motions for dismissal as a demurrer to evidence, and 1. Reopening must be before finality of a judgment of conviction
2. Order is issued by the judge on his own initiative or upon motion
after a denial thereof, defense would claim right to present
3. Order is issued only after a hearing is conducted
evidence
4. Order intends to prevent a miscarriage of justice
5. Presentation of additional and/or further evidence should be terminated
within 30 days from the issuance of the order
(See People v. Tolentino, G.R. 176385, 2008)
• Controlling guideline is the paramount interest of justice
• Remedy of reopening was meant to prevent a miscarriage of justice
(See Cabarles v. Judge Maceda, G.R. 161330, 2007)

Conditional examination of a prosecution
witness • Conditional examination must be made before the court
where the case is pending
1. If witness is too sick or infirm to appear at the trial • Accused must be notified so he can attend the examination,
subject to his right to waive the same after reasonable notice
2. If the witness has to leave the Philippines with no definite date
of returning • As to the manner of examination, it must be conducted in the
same manner as an examination during trial (question and
(See Rule 119, Section 15) answer)
(See Cuenco vda. De Manguerra v. Risos, G.R. 152643, 2008)
Conditional examination of a witness for Where conducted?

the accused
• Before a judge
1. If witness is too sick or infirm to appear at the trial
• If not practicable, before a member of the bar in good standing
2. The witness resides more that one hundred kilometers from
the place of trial and has no means to attend the same
(Rule 119, Section 13)
3. Other similar circumstances
(See Rule 119, Section 12)
Rule 119 - Trial 195 Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 196

Effect of failure to appear
• If an accused fails to appear at the promulgation of the decision,
he loses all the remedies available to him under the Rules.
• In Tolentino v. People, the Court held that the MR was denied

because the accused has lost his remedy for failure to appear
Rule 120 – Judgment during the promulgation of the decision (See Tolentino v. People
G.R. 170396, 2006)
Rule 120 - Judgment 197 Rule 120 - Judgment 198
When offense includes or is included in

Promulgation in absentia another
• Even when the 2 charges stem from the same transaction, the
• Under Section 6, Rule 120, a decision may be promulgated in act may give rise to two or more separate and distinct
absentia by recording the judgment in the criminal docket offenses
and serving a copy thereof upon the counsel of the
accused • No double jeopardy attaches as long as there is variance between the
elements of the offenses charged
• Constitutional right against double jeopardy protects from a

(See Cea v. Paguio, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1479, 2003) second prosecution for the same offense, not for a
different one
(See Suero v. People, G.R. 156408, 2005)

Contents of the judgment
• The essential elements of each are not included among or do • The parties to a litigation should be informed of how it was
not form part of those enumerated in the former. decided
• For there to be double jeopardy, the elements of one • With an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to
offense should — like the ribs of an umbrella — ideally the conclusions of the trial court.
encompass those of the other.
• The losing party is entitled to know why he lost, so he may
appeal to the higher court, if permitted, should he believe that
(See Suero v. People, G.R. 156408, 2005) the decision should be reversed.
• There is nothing illegal in the act of the trial court to completely

copy the memorandum submitted by a party, provided the
decision clearly and distinctly states sufficient findings of fact
and the law on which they are based (See BPI v. Leobrera)
• Memorandum decisions were also upheld by the Court in
E N D
several other cases, but the judges are reminded that it is still ---000---
desirable to endeavor to make issues clearer and use his own
perceptiveness in unravelling the rollo and his own discernment
in discovering the law

Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses: Criminal Procedure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses: Criminal Procedure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Procedure Rule 110 – Prosecution of

Atty. George S.D. Aquino

Effect of filing of the complaint to

prosec Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 4

Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 5 Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 6

Effect of the absence of a private Crimes prosecuted upon complaint of the

Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 7 Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 8

Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 9 Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 10

Authority of the prosecutor is subject to Authority of the prosecutor is subject to control by

• When confronted with a motion to withdraw an Information

Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 11 Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 12

Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 13 Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 14

Validity of the information

Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 15 Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 16

Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 17 Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 18

Date and time of commission of the

Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 19 Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 20

Amendment prejudicial to the interest of

(See Mendez v. People, G.R. 179962, 2014)

Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 23 Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 24

• Formal and substantial to murder, only formal and not substantial.

Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 25 Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 26

Distinction between amendment and

Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 29 Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 30

Duplicity of offenses Venue in criminal cases

• When the venue is chosen, exclusionary rule shall apply

Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 31 Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 32

Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 33 Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 34

First port of entry

Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 35 Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 36

Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 37 Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 38

RTC of the province or city

Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 39 Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 40

(See Rigor v. People, GR 144887, 2004; Morillo v. People, G.R. 198270,

Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 41 Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses 42

General Rule: when a criminal action is filed, the civil

Rule 111 – Prosecution of Civil Exceptions: warp

3. When the offended party institutes the civil action -

43 Rule 111 - Prosecution of Civil Action 44

Culpa contractual or obligations arising

Effect of judgment in civil action or

2. Civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue

or innocence of the accused in the criminal action (See

Effect of the death of accused on his civil

57 Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 58

Right to a preliminary investigation Purpose:

Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 59 Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 60

Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 61 Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 62

Probable cause Decision to dismiss a criminal case rests on

Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 63 Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 64

Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 65 Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 66

• Complaint for PI need not exhibit the attending structure of a

Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 69 Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 70

2. Within 10 days from the receipt of the subpoena, Inquest

Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 71 Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 72

Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 73 Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 74

Effect of the absence of PI on validity of

(See Villaflor v. Vivar)

Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 75 76

Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 77 Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 78

Personal determination of probable cause Lawful warrantless arrests

Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 79 Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation 80