ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA

4. ACCUSED PLEAD GUILTY TO CAPITAL OFFENSE, WHAT THE COURT SHOULD

DO
It is the formal mode of implementing the constitutional right of the accused to be informed S3 R116. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence.-
of the nature of the accusation against him. Arraignment is an indispensable requirement of When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a
due process. (1) searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea and
Arraignment is the proceeding in a criminal case, whose object is to fix the identity of the (2) shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of
accused, to inform him of the charge, and to give him an opportunity to plead. culpability. (3) The accused may present evidence in his behalf.

Schedule of arraignment and pre-trial 5. SEARCHING INQUIRY

Once the court has acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused, the To determine whether the plea of guilty was made voluntarily and whether the accused had
ARRAIGNMENT and the PRE-TRIALshall be set within 10 calendar days from date of full comprehension of the consequences of his plea.
the court’s receipt of the case for a detained accused, and within 30 calendar days from the
date the court acquires jurisdiction (either by arrest or voluntary surrender) over a non- Duty of the judge in conducting searching inquiry
detained accused(Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases).Under the 1. The accused is entering the plea voluntarily and with full comprehension;
revised guidelines, the arraignment and the pre-trial are held on the same day. 2. There exists a rational basis for finding of guilt based on accused’s testimony; and
3. Inform the accused of the exact length of imprisonment and the certainty that he will
2023 NOTES: The court must set the arraignment of the accused in the commitment serve it in a national penitentiary.
order, in the case of detained accused, or in the order of approval of bail, in any
other case. For this purpose, where the Executive Judge and Pairing Judges act on
bail applications in cases assigned to other courts, they shall coordinate with the 6. IMPROVIDENT PLEA
courts to which the cases are actually assigned for scheduling purposes.
It is a plea without information as to all the circumstance affecting it. It is based upon a
mistaken assumption or misleading information or advice.
Notice of arraignment and pre-trial
S5 R116. Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty.-
Notice of arraignment and pre-trial shall be sent to the accused, his/her counsel, private At any time before the judgment of conviction becomes final, the court may permit an
complainant or complaining law enforcement agent, public prosecutor, and witnesses whose improvident plea of guilty to be withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not guilty.
names appear in the information for purposes of plea-bargaining, arraignment, and pre-trial
(Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases).
MAR MATTER 2023 IN RE: ARRAIGNMENT AND PRE-TRIAL

1. HOW MADE
(a) Waiver of Reading of the Information. -In multiple cases, the court, upon personal
How is arraignment made examination of the accused, may allow a waiver of the reading of the information
upon the full understanding and express consent of the accused and his/her counsel,
The accused must be arraigned before the court where the complaint or information was filed which consent shall be expressly stated in both the minutes/ certificate of
or assigned for trial (Sec. 1 (a), Rule 116). arraignment and the order of arraignment. The court shall explain the waiver to the
accused in the language or dialect known to him/her, and ensure the accused's full
The arraignment shall be made in open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused understanding of the consequences of the waiver before approving the same.
with a copy of the complaint or information, reading the same in language or dialect known
to him, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. The prosecution may call at the
trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or information (Sec. 1 (a), Rule 116). (b) Arraignment Proper

Reading of the information may be waived a. Plea Bargaining Except in Drug Cases. -If the accused desires to
enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense, plea bargaining shall
4BLUE 95: In multiple cases, the court, upon personal examination of the accused, may immediately proceed, provided the private offended party in private
ALLOW A WAIVERof the reading of the information upon (1) the full understanding and crimes, or the arresting officer in victimless crimes, is present to give
(3) express consent of the accusedand his counsel, which consent shall be (3) expressly stated his/her consent with the conformity of the public prosecutor to the
in both minutes/ certificate of arraignment and the order of arraignment. The court shall plea bargaining. Thereafter, judgment shall be immediately rendered
explain the waiver to the accused in the language or dialect known to him and ensure the in the same proceedings.
accused’s full understanding of the consequences of the waiver before approving the same
(Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases). b. Plea of Guilty to the Crime Charged in the Information. -If the
accused pleads guilty to the crime charged in the information,
How is plea made judgment shall be immediately rendered, except in those cases
involving capital punishment.
The accused must be present at the arraignment and must personally enter his plea. Both
arraignment and plea shall be made of record, but failure to do so shall not affect the validity c. Where No Plea Bargaining or Plea of Guilty Takes Place. -If the
of the proceedings (Sec. 1 (b), Rule 116). accused does not enter a plea of guilty, whether to a lesser offense or
to the offense charged in the information, the court shall immediately
proceed with the arraignment and the pre-trial, in accordance with the
succeeding provisions on pre-trial.

2. HOW SHOULD PLEA OF NOT GUILTY BE ENTERED The schedule of the trial dates, for both the prosecution and the
accused, shall be continuous and within the periods provided in the
1. When the accused refuses to plead or makes a condition plea, a plea of not guilty Regular Rules/ Special Rules. The trial dates may be shortened
shall be entered for him (Sec. 1 (c), Rule 116). depending on the number of witnesses to be presented. In this regard,
2. When the accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence, his plea shall a flowchart shall be prepared by the court which shall serve as the
be deemed withdrawn and a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him (Sec. 1 (d), final schedule of hearings.
Rule 116).

(c) Arraignment and Preliminary Conference of Mediatable Cases subject to the

3. WHEN MAY ACCUSED ENTER A PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE Rule on Summary Procedure

The private offended party shall be required to appear at the arraignment for purposes of (1) The arraignment and preliminary conference shall be simultaneously held, and the
plea bargaining,(2) determination of civil liability, and (3) other matters requiring his court shall take up all the matters required under Sec. 14, Rule on Summary
presence. In case of failure of the offended party to appear despite due notice, the court Procedure during the preliminary conference.
may allow the accused to enter plea of guilty to a lesser offensewhich is necessarily included
in the offense charged with the conformity of the trial prosecutor alone(Sec. 1 (F), Rule 116). a. If the accused pleads guilty to the crime charged in the information,
subheading III, item no. 8, subparagraph (d) ii (Plea of Guilty to the
The plea bargaining shall proceed provided the private offended party in private crimes, or Crime Charged n the Information) shall be followed.
the arresting officer in victimless crimes, is present to give his consent with the conformity of
the public prosecutor to the plea bargaining (Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of b. If the accused pleads guilty to a lesser offense, subheading III, item
Criminal Cases). no. 8, subparagraph (d) 1 (Plea Bargaining except in Drug Cases)
shall be followed.
S2 R116. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense.-
At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may c. If the accused does not enter a plea of guilty, whether to a lesser
be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included offense or to the offense charged in the information, the court shall
in the offense charged.After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to immediately proceed with the arraignment and the preliminary
plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of conference, and thereafter refer the case to mediation.
the complaint or information is necessary.

1
PRE-TRIAL
BAR MATTER 2023
Pre-trial is mandatory in all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbaya, RTC, and MTC.
FLOW CHART (4BLUE 95):
Once the court has acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused, the arraignment and
the pre-trial shall be set within 10 calendar days from date of the court’s receipt of the case
for a detained accused, and within 30 calendar days from the date the court acquires A.REGULAR COURTS
jurisdiction (either by arrest or voluntary surrender) over a non-detained accused(Revised
Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases).Under the revised guidelines, the
arraignment and the pre-trial are held on the same day.

1. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED IN PRE-TRIAL

B. SPECIAL LAWS
1. Plea bargaining;
2. Stipulation of facts;
3. Marking for identification of evidence of the parties; B.1 DRUG CASES
4. Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
5. Modification of the order if trial of the accused admits the charge but interposes a
lawful defense;
6. Such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil
aspects of the case.

2. WHAT THE COURT SHOULD DO WHEN PROSECUTION AND OFFENDED PARTY

AGREE TO THE PLEA OFFERED BY THE ACCUSED
B.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
The court shall:

1. Issue anorder which contains the plea bargaining arrived at;

2. Proceed to receive evidence of the civil aspects of the case; and
3. Render and promulgate judgment of conviction, including the civil liability or
damages duly established by the evidence (A.M. No. 03-01-09-SC).

B.3 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

3. PRE-TRIAL AGREEMENT

All agreements made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing
and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused.
The agreements covering the matters in pre-trial conference shall be approved by the court.
B.4 ARRAIGNMENT & PRE-TRIAL OF CASES REFERRED FOR MEDIATION

4. NON-APPEARANCE AT PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE

If the counsel for the accused or the prosecutor does not appear at the pre-trial conference and
does not offer an acceptable excuse for his lack of cooperation, the court may impose proper
sanctions or penalties.
NOLLE PROSEQUI
4BLUE 95: The court may cite counsel for contempt or impose fines upon him.
The voluntary dismissal or withdrawal of a criminal information by the prosecution. It
requires court approval.
If the accused had not yet been arraigned, the criminal case can later be refiled as the accused
would not be placed in double jeopardy. It is not equivalent to acquittal and does not bar a
5. PRE-TRIAL ORDER subsequent prosecution for the same offense. It is not a final disposition of the case.
If the accused has already been arraigned, the criminal case cannot be later refiled as it
After the pre-trial conference, the court shall issue and order reciting the (1) actions taken, the would place the accused in double jeopardy, unless the accused expressly consented to the
(2) facts stipulated, and (3) evidence marked. Such order shall (1) bind the parties, (2) limit dismissal or withdrawal of the information.
the trial to matters not disposed of, and (3) control the course of the action during the trial,
unless modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice. B.P. BLG. 22 VS ESTAFA

Violation of BP 22 is not necessarily included in the crime of estafa under Art. 315 (2) (d).
Conduct of Pre-trial the offense of fraud under RPC is malum in se, whereas BP 22 is a special law which
punishes the issuance of bouncing checks, a malum prohibitum. Fraud of estafa under the
a. Absence of parties. -The court shall proceed with the pre-trial RPC is a distinct offense from the violation of BP 22 with anti-absorption clause. They are
despite the absence of the accused and/ or private complainant, different offenses, having different elements.
provided they were duly notified of the same, and the counsel for the
accused, as well as the public prosecutor, are present. BAR: D was charged with theft of an article worth P15,000.00. Upon being arraigned, he pleaded
not guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter, before trial commenced, he asked the court to allow
b. Stipulations. -Proposals for stipulations shall be done with the active him to change his plea of not guilty to a plea of guilty but only to estafa involving P5,000.00. Can
participation of the court itself and shall not be left alone to the the court allow D to change his plea? Why? (2002 Bar)
counsels. A: No, because a plea of guilty to a lesser offense may be allowed if the lesser offense is
necessarily included in the offense charged (Sec. 2, Rule 116). Estafa involving P5,000.00 is not
c. Marking of evidence. -The documentary evidence of the prosecution necessarily included in theft of an article worth P15,000.00.
and the accused shall be marked.
BAR: Mr. W was charged with raping his neighbor's seventeen (17)-year old daughter, AAA.
d. Pre-trial Order. -The Pre-trial Order shall immediately be served When he was arraigned, Mr. W expressed his desire to plead "guilty," provided that his sentence be
upon the parties and counsel on the same day after the termination of substantially reduced. Both AAA's mother and the prosecutor were amenable to the proposal.
the pre-trial. Consequently, the judge entered a plea of guilty for Mr. W and sentenced him to serve a reduced
straight penalty of only ten (10) years of imprisonment, as agreed upon. (a) Did the judge properly
e. Compliance with Rules. -Courts must strictly comply with the enter a plea of guilty for Mr. W? Explain. A: No. The act of Mr. W is a conditional plea, meaning,
Guidelines to be Observed in the Conduct of Pre-Trial under A.M. subject to the condition that he be punished to a certain penalty. In that case, the trial court should
No. 03-1-09-SC. have vacated such a plea and entered a plea of not guilty for a conditional plea of guilty, or one
subject to the proviso that a certain penalty be imposed upon him. A conditional plea of guilty is
equivalent to a plea of not guilty and would, therefore, require a full-blown trial before judgment
may be rendered.

2
MOTION TO QUASH

S1 R117. Time to move to quash.-

At any time BEFORE ENTERING HIS PLEA, the accused may move to quash the complaint
or information. 4. EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT SUSTAINING THE MOTION TO QUASH IS NOT
A BAR TO ANOTHER PROSECUTION
S2 R117. Form and contents.-
The motion to quash shall be in (1) writing, (2) signed by the accused or his counsel and shall S6 R117. Order sustaining the motion to quash not a bar to another prosecution;
(3) distinctly specify its factual and legal grounds. The court shall consider no ground other exception.-
than those stated in the motion, except lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged.
An order sustaining the motion to quash is not a bar to another prosecution for the same
offense unless the motion to quash is grounded on
1. The criminal action or liability has been extinguished; or
1. GROUNDS 2. The accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or
the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds: consent (double jeopardy).

1. That the facts charged do not constitute and offense;

2. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
- May be raised at any stage; May not be in writing; May be considered by 5. DOUBLE JEOPARDY
the court even if not raised in a motion to quash.
- Requisites:
(a) The offense charged is one which the court is by law conferred to take S7 R117. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy.-
cognizance of (subject-matter jurisdiction);
(b) The offense must have been committed within the court’s territorial (1) When the accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him
jurisdiction (venue). dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent
(2) by a court of competent jurisdiction,
3. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused; (3) upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and
- The rule is that, if the accused precisely and exclusively objects to the substance to sustain a conviction and
jurisdiction of the court over his person, he may move to quash the (4) after the accused has pleaded to the charge (there was arraignment and plea)
information, but only on that ground. If the accused raises other grounds in
the motion to quash, he is deemed to have waived that objection and to the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a BAR to
have submitted his person to the jurisdiction of that court. (a) another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any
- The application for bail does not result in the waiver of objections to the (b) attempt to commit the same or
illegality of the arrest. (c) frustrationthereof, or for
(d) any offense which necessarily includes or is
4. That the officer who filed the information has no authority to do so; (e) necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information.
- An information filed by a qualified and authorized officer is required for the
jurisdiction of the court over the case; consequently, the objection that the However, the conviction of the accused shall NOT BE A BAR to another prosecution for a
officer who filed the information has no authority to do so may still be GRAVER OFFENSE which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former
raised after plea as the issue of jurisdiction is involved. complaint or information under any of the following circumstances:

5. That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; 1. The graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or
omission constituting the former charge (arose after plea);
6. That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various 2. The facts constituting the graver charge became known were discovered only after a
offenses is prescribed by law; plea was entered in the former complaint or information (arose before plea;
discovered after plea); or
7. That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; 3. The plea of guilty to a lesser offense was made without the consent of the prosecutor
and of the offended party except:
8. That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or In case of failure of the offended party to appear at the arraignment
justification; and despite due notice(Sec. 1 (F), Rule 116).

9. That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused satisfies or serves in whole or in part the
charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated judgment, he shall be credited with the same in the event of conviction for the graver offense.
without his express consent.

2.DISTINGUISH FROM DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE 6. PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL (Time-bar rule)

A case shall NOT be provisionally dismissed except with the (1) express consent of the
AS FOR THE TIME TO FILE. A motion to quash should be filed before plea while a accused(provisional dismissal ONLY, not applicable to double jeopardy) and with (2) notice
demurrer to evidence is filed after the prosecution has rested its case. to the offended party.

AS FOR GROUNDS. A motion to quash may be filed on any of the grounds specified in The provisional dismissal of the offenses punishable by imprisonment NOT EXCEEDING 6
Sec3, Rule 117, while a demurrer to evidence is grounded on insufficiency of evidence alone. YEARSor a fine of any amount, or both, shall BECOME PERMANENT 1 yearafter
issuance of the order without the case having been revived. With respect to offenses
AS FOR LEAVE OF COURT. Leave of court is not required of a motion to quash while punishable by imprisonment of MORE THAN 6 YEARS, their provisional dismissal shall
leave of court is necessary if the accused wants to retain the right to present evidence in case BECOME PERMANENT 2 years after issuance of the order without the case having been
of the demurrer’s denial. revived.

Remedy of the accused if the criminal case is refiled after the provisional dismissal has
become permanent
The accused may file a MOTION TO QUASH ON THE GROUND OF DOUBLE
JEOPARDY. The reason is that the permanent dismissal shall amount to an adjudication of
the case on the merits.
3. EFFECT OF SUSTAINING THE MOTION TO QUASH
4BLUE 95 NOTE: Failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before
If the motion to quash is sustained, the court may order that another complaint or information plea shall be deemed a waiver of the grounds of the motion to quash not so asserted.
be filed except:
1. If the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; or Except:
2. That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, 1. That the facts charged do not constitute and offense;
or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express 2. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
consent (double jeopardy). 3. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused;
4. That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
If the order is made, the accused, if in custody, shall not be discharged unless admitted to 5. Double jeopardy- that the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the
bail. offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated
without his express consent.
If no order is made or if having been made, no new information is filed within the time
specified in the order or within such further tine as the court may allow for good cause, the
accused, if in custody, shall be discharged unless he is also in custody for another charge.

3
TRIAL

Time to prepare for trial. – After a plea of not guilty is entered, the accused shall have REMEDY WHEN ACCUSED IS NOT BROUGHT TO TRIAL WITHIN THE
at least fifteen (15) days to prepare for trial. The trial shall commence within thirty PRESCRIBED PERIOD
(30) days from receipt of the pre-trial order.
The information may be dismissed on motion of the accused on the ground of
INSTANCES WHEN PRESENCE OF ACCUSED IS REQUIRED BY LAW denial of his right to speedy trial.

1. During the arraignment; The accused shall have the burden of proving the motion but the prosecution shall
2. During the pre-trial conference, when required by the court; have the burden of going forward with the evidence to establish the exclusion of
3. During the trial, when required by the court for purposes of identification; time(period of delay shall be excluded in computing the time within which trial must
4. During the promulgation of the judgment, unless it is for a light offense in commence). The dismissal shall be subject to the rules on double jeopardy (dismissal
which case the accused may appear by counsel or representative. for the denial of right to a speedy trial is a dismissal on the merits and amounts to an
acquittal).
At such stages of the proceedings, the accused’s presence is required and
cannot be waived. Failure of the accuses to move for dismissal prior to trial shall constitute a waiver of
such right to dismiss (Sec.3, Rule 119).

TRIAL IN ABSENTIA

The trial of a criminal case which proceeds notwithstanding the absence of the RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHT TO SPEEDY
accused provided that the accused was (1)arraigned, (2) duly notified of the DISPOSITION OF CASES
hearing or trial, and his (3) failure to appear thereat is unjustified (Sec. 14 (2),
Art. III, Constitution). RECKONING PERIOD

1st Day of Trial Date when the Case is submitted for

Effects of trail in absentia judgment

The accused waives the right to present evidence and cross-examine the APPLICATION
witnesses against him. The accused’s waiver does NOT mean, however, that
the prosecution is deprived of the right to require the presence of the accused The information may be When considering delay for the
for purposes of identification by the witnesses which is vital for conviction of dismissed on motion of the purpose of dismissal on the ground
the accused, except where he unqualifiedly admits in open court after his accused on the ground of of violation of right to speedy
arraignment that he is the person named as a defendant in the case on trial. denial of his right to speedy disposition, delay pre-trial may be
trial. considered

WHEN MISTAKE HAS BEEN MADE IN CHARGING THE PROPER OFFENSE.

ORDER OF TRIAL.
When it becomes manifest at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made
in charging the proper offense and the accused cannot be convicted of the offense
charged or any other offense necessarily included therein, the accused shall not be The trial shall proceed in the following order:
discharged if there appears good cause to detain him. In such case, the court shall
commit the accused to answer for the proper offense and dismiss the original case
upon the filing of the proper information. (a) The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge and, in the proper
case, the civil liability.

(b) The accused may present evidence to prove his defense and damages, if any,
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PROSECUTOR. arising, from the issuance of a provisional remedy in the case.

When a prosecutor, his assistant or deputy is disqualified to act due to any of the
grounds stated in section 1 of Rule 137 or for any other reason, the judge or the (c) The prosecution and the defense may, in that order, present rebuttal and sur-
prosecutor shall communicate with the Secretary of Justice in order that the latter may rebuttal evidence unless the court, in furtherance of justice, permits them to
appoint an acting prosecutor. present additional evidence bearing upon the main issue.

(d) Upon admission of evidence of the parties, the case shall be deemed
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC. submitted for decision unless the court directs them to argue orally or to submit
written memoranda.
The judge may, motu proprio, exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence
to be produced during the trial is offensive to decency or public morals. He may also,
on motion of the accused, exclude the public from the trial except court personnel and (e) When the accused admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or
the counsel of the parties. information but interposes a lawful defense, the order of trial may be modified.

CONSOLIDATION OF TRIALS OF RELATED OFFENSES.

4BLUE 95: Trial of several accused. – When two or more accused are jointly charged
with an offense, they shall be tried jointly unless the court, in its discretion and upon
Charges for offenses founded on the same facts or forming part of a series of offenses
motion of the prosecutor or any accused, orders separate trial for one or more accused.
of similar character may be tried jointly at the discretion of the court.
4BLUE 95: Sec. 24. Reopening. – At any time before finality of the judgment of
conviction, the judge may, motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either
case, reopen the proceedings to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The proceedings
shall be terminated within thirty (30) days from the order granting it.

4
PRE-TRIAL: BAR: Rodolfo is charged with possession of unlicensed firearms in an Information filed in
the RTC. It was alleged therein that Rodolfo was in possession of two unlicensed firearms:
BAR: Lilio filed a complaint in the MTC of Lanuza for the recovery of a sum of money a .45 calibre and a .32 calibre. Under Republic Act No. 8294, possession of an unlicensed
against Juan. The latter filed his answer to the complaint serving a copy thereof on Lilio. .45 calibre gun is punishable by prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of
After the filing of the answer of Juan, whose duty is it to have the case set for pre-trial? P30,000.00, while possession of an unlicensed .32 calibre gun is punishable by prision
Why? (2001 Bar) correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than P15,000.00. As counsel of
A: After the filing of the answer of Juan, the plantiff has the duty to promptly move ex the accused, you intend to file a motion to quash the Information. What ground or grounds
parte that the case be set for pre-trial (Sec. 1, Rule 18). The reason is REMEDIAL Law 90 should you invoke? Explain. (2005 Bar)
that it is the plaintiff who knows when the last pleading has been filed and it is the plaintiff A: The ground for the motion to quash is that more than one offense is charged in the
who has the duty to prosecute. Pre-trial agreement information (Sec. 3(f), Rule 117). Likewise, the RTC has no jurisdiction over the second
offense of possession of an unlicensed .32 calibre gun, punishable by prision correccional
BAR: Mayor TM was charged of malversation through falsification of official documents. in its maximum period and a fine of not less than P15,000.00. It is the MTC that has
Assisted by Atty. OP as counsel de parte during pre-trial, he signed together with exclusive and original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable by imprisonment not
Ombudsman Prosecutor TG a “Joint Stipulation of Facts and Documents,” which was exceeding six year. (B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691)
presented to the Sandiganbayan. Before the court could issue a pre-trial order but after
some delay caused by Atty. OP, he was substituted by Atty. QR as defense counsel. Atty
QR forthwith filed a motion to withdraw the “Joint Stipulation,” alleging that it is BAR: If the Information is not accompanied by a certification that a preliminary
prejudicial to the accused because it contains, inter alia, the statement that the “Defense investigation has been conducted. Is the Information void? (1998 Bar)
admitted all the documentary evidence of the Prosecution,” thus leaving the accused little or A: No. The certification which is provided in Sec. 4, Rule 112, Rules of Criminal
no room to defend himself, and violating his right against self-incrimination. Should the Procedure, is not an indispensable part of the information. (People v. Lapura, G.R. No.
court grant or deny QR’s motion? Reason. (2004 Bar) 94494, March 15, 1996)
A: The court should deny QR’s motion. If in the pretrial agreement signed by the accused
and his counsel, the accused admits the documentary evidence of the prosecution, it does
not violate his right against self-incrimination. His lawyer cannot file a motion to withdraw.
A pre-trial order is not needed. (Bayas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 143689- 91, November
12, 2002). The admission of such documentary evidence is allowed by the rule (Sec. 2,
Rule 118; People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 108028, July 30, 1996)

BAR: A criminal information is filed in court charging Anselmo with homicide. Anselmo
files a motion to quash the information on the ground that no preliminary investigation was
conducted. Will the motion be granted? Why or why not? (2009 Bar)
A: No, the motion to quash will not be granted. The lack of preliminary investigation is not ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW
a ground for a motion to quash. Preliminary investigation is only a statutory right and can
be waived. The accused REMEDIAL Law 86 should instead file a motion for BAR: The accused wants to have the case dismissed because he believes that the charge is
reinvestigation within five (5) days after he learn of the filing in Court of the case against confusing and the information is defective. What ground or grounds can he raise in moving
him. (Sec. 6, Rule 112, as amended) for the quashal of the information? Explain. (2016 Bar)
A: The accused may move to quash the information based on any of the following grounds:
BAR: Pedrito and Tomas, Mayor and Treasurer, respectively, of the Municipality of San (a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
Miguel, Leyte, are charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3 (e), (b) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; and
Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The information alleges, (c) That more that one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various
among others, that the two conspired in the purchase of several units of computer through offenses is prescribed by law (Sec. 3, Rule 117).
personal canvass instead of a public bidding, causing undue injury to the municipality.
Before arraignment, the accused moved for reinvestigation of the charge, which the court In People v. Dela Cruz (G.R. Nos. 135554-56, June 21, 2002) the Supreme Court ruled that
granted. After reinvestigation, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed an amended the phrase “by either raping her or committing acts of lasciviousness” does not constitute an
information duly signed and approved by the Special Prosecutor, alleging the same offense since it does not cite which among the numerous sections or subsections of R.A.
delictual facts, but with an additional allegation that the accused gave unwarranted benefits No. 7610 has been violated by accused-appellant. Moreover, it does not state the acts and
to SB Enterprises owned by Samuel. Samuel was also indicted under the amended omissions constituting the offense, or any special or aggravating circumstances attending
information. Before Samuel was arraigned, he moved to quash the amended information on the same, as required under the rules of criminal procedure.
the ground that the officer who filed the same had no authority to do so. Resolve the motion
to quash with reasons. (2009 Bar)
A: The motion to quash filed Samuel should be granted. Under R.A. No. 6770, also known
as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, the Special Prosecutor has the power and authority, under
the supervision and control of the Ombudsman, to conduct preliminary investigation and SINGLE LARCENY RULE
prosecute criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan and perform such other duties assigned
to him by the Ombudsman (Calingin v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 145743-89, August 10, 2007).
Absent a clear delegation of authority from the Ombudsman to the Special Prosecutor to BAR: Paz was awakened by a commotion coming from a condo unit next to hers. Alarmed,
file the information, the latter would have no authority to file the same. The Special she called up the nearby police station. PO1 Remus and P02 Romulus proceeded to the
Prosecutor cannot be considered an alter ego of the Ombudsman as the doctrine of qualified condo unit identified by Paz. PO 1 Remus knocked at the door and when a man opened the
political agency does not apply to the Office of the Ombudsman. (Perez v. Sandiganbayan, door, PO1 Remus and his companions introduced themselves as police officers. The man
G.R. No. 166062, September 26, 2006) readily identified himself as Oasis Jung and gestured to them to come in. Inside, the police
officers saw a young lady with her nose bleeding and face swollen. Asked by P02 Romulus
BAR: BC is charged with illegal possession of firearms under an Information signed by a what happened, the lady responded that she was beaten up by Oasis Jung. The police
Provincial Prosecutor. After arraignment but before pre-trial, BC found out that the officers arrested Oasis Jung and brought him and the young lady back to the police station.
Provincial Prosecutor had no authority to sign the information as it was the City Prosecutor PO1 Remus took the young lady's statement who identified herself as AA. She narrated that
who has such authority. During the pre-trial, BC moves that the case against him be she is a sixteen-year-old high school student; that previous to the incident, she had sexual
dismissed on the ground that the Information is defective because the officer signing it intercourse with Oasis Jung at least five times on different occasions and she was paid
lacked the authority to do so. The Provincial Prosecutor opposes the motion on the ground P5,000.00 each time and it was the first time that Oasis Jung physically hurt her. P02
of estoppel as BC did not move to quash the Information before arraignment. If you are Romulus detained Oasis Jung at the station's jail. After the inquest proceeding, the public
counsel for BC, what is your argument to refute the opposition of the Provincial prosecutor filed an information for Violation of R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) for
Prosecutor? (2000 Bar) physical violence and five separate informations for violation of R.A. No. 7610 (The Child
A: I would argue that since the Provincial Prosecutor had no authority to file the Abuse Law). Oasis Jung's lawyer filed a motion to be admitted to bail but the court issued
information, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused and over an order that approval of his bail bond shall be made only after his arraignment. Before
the subject matter of the offense charged (Cudia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110315, arraignment, Oasis Jung's lawyer moved to quash the other four separate informations for
January 16, 1998). Hence, this ground is not waived if not raised in a motion to quash and violation of the child abuse law invoking the single larceny rule. Should the motion to
could be raised at the pre-trial. (Sec. 9, Rule 117) Note: In Gomez v. People, G.R. No. quash be granted? (2015 Bar)
216824, November 10, 2020, the Supreme Court held that the lack of signature and A: No. The court should not grant the motion to quash, because the “single larceny rule”
approval of the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor on the face of the Information shall does not find application where the charges involve violations of R.A. 9262 (The VAWC
not divest the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused and the subject matter in a Law) and R.A. 7610 (The Child Abuse Law), considering that each criminal act is based on
criminal action. It is sufficient for the validity of the Information or Complaint, as the case a different criminal impulse and intent. In Santiago v. Garchitorena (G.R. No. 109266,
may be, that the Resolution of the investigating prosecutor recommending for the filing of December 2, 1993) the Supreme Court explained that the “Single Larceny doctrine” applies
the same in court bears the imprimatur of the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor only to criminal crimes committed delicto continuado, which exists if there should be
whose approval is required under Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. plurality of acts performed during a period of time; unity of penal provision violated; and
unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means that two or more violations of the same
penal provisions are united in one and same instant or resolution leading to the perpetration
of the same criminal purpose or aim.

5
DOUBLE JEOPARDY BAR: Juancho entered a plea of guilty when he was arraigned under an information for
homicide. To determine the penalty to be imposed, the trial court allowed Juancho to
BAR: SPO1 CNC filed with the MTC in Quezon City (MeTC-QC) a sworn written present evidence proving any mitigating circumstance in his favor. Juancho was able to
statement duly subscribed by him, charging RGR (an actual resident of Cebu City) with the establish complete self- defense. Convinced by the evidence adduced by Juancho, the trial
offense of slight physical injuries allegedly inflicted on SPS (an actual resident of Quezon court rendered a verdict of acquittal. May the Prosecution assail the acquittal without
City). The judge of the branch to which the case was raffled thereupon issued an order infringing the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy in favor of Juancho?
declaring that the case shall be governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure in Criminal Explain your answer. (2017 Bar)
cases. Soon thereafter, the Judge ordered the dismissal of the case for the reason that it was A: Yes, the Prosecution may assail the acquittal without infringing upon the constitutional
not commenced by information, as required by said Rule. Sometime later, based on the guarantee against double jeopardy. Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a requirement
same facts giving rise to the slight physical injuries case, the City Prosecutor filed with the for a first jeopardy to attach is that there must have been a valid plea by the accused. Said
same MeTC-QC an information for attempted homicide against the same RGR. In due time, rules also provide that when the accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence,
before arraignment, RGR moved to quash the information on the ground of double jeopardy his plea shall be deemed withdrawn and a plea of guilty shall be entered for him. Here
and after due hearing, the Judge granted his motion. Juancho’s plea of guilty was deemed withdrawn when he presented exculpatory evidence to
the effect that he acted in self-defense. Hence his plea of guilty was deemed withdrawn and
a. Was the dismissal of the complaint for slight physical injuries proper? A: Yes, the a plea of guilty should have been entered for him by the court, which however was not
dismissal of the complaint for slight physical injuries is proper because in Metropolitan done. Since there was no standing plea, a first jeopardy did not attach and thus the
Manila and in chartered cities, the case has to be commenced only by information. (Sec. 11, Prosecution may assail the acquittal without infringing upon Juancho’s right against double
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure) jeopardy. (People v. Balisacan, G.R. No 26376, August 31, 1966) Provisional dismissal

b. Was the grant of the motion to quash the attempted homicide information correct? (2004 BAR: In a prosecution for robbery against D, the prosecutor moved for the postponement of
Bar) A: No, the grant of the motion to quash the attempted homicide information on the the first scheduled hearing on the ground that he had lost his records of the case. The court
ground of double jeopardy was not correct, because there was no valid prosecution for granted the motion but, when the new date of trial arrived, the prosecutor, alleging that he
slight physical injuries. could not locate his witnesses, moved for the dismissal of the case. If D’s counsel does not
object, may the court grant the motion of the prosecutor? Why? (2002 Bar)
BAR: D was charged with slight physical injuries in the MTC. He pleaded not guilty and A: No, because a case cannot be provisionally dismissed except upon the express consent of
went to trial. After the prosecution had presented its evidence, the trial court set the the accused and with notice to the offended party. (Sec. 8, Rule 117)
continuation of the hearing on another date. On the date scheduled for hearing, the
prosecutor failed to appear, whereupon the court, on motion of D, dismissed the case. A
few minutes later, the prosecutor arrived and opposed the dismissal of the case. The court
reconsidered its order and directed D to present his evidence. Before the next date of trial BAR MATTER 2024
came, however, D moved that the last order be set aside on the ground that the
reinstatement of the case had placed him twice in jeopardy. Acceding to this motion, the an essential witness shall be considered unavailable whenever his whereabouts are known
court again dismissed the case. The prosecutor then filed an Information in the RTC, but his presence for trial cannot be obtained by due diligence.
charging D with direct assault based on the same facts alleged in the information for slight
physical injuries but with the added allegation that D inflicted the injuries out of resentment an Improvident Guilty plea is a Plea involuntarily made and without consent and It would
for what the complainant had done in the performance of his duties as chairman of the be considered if there was failure to conduct searching inquiry, failure of prosecution
board of election inspectors. D moved to quash the second information on the ground that to present evidence since it has no rational basis between testimony and guilt
its filing had placed him in double jeopardy. How should D’s motion to quash be resolved?
(2002 Bar) the Variance Doctrine connotes that in case of variance between the allegation and proof, a
A: D’s motion to quash should be granted on the ground of double jeopardy because the defendant may be convicted of the offense proved when the offense charged is included in
first offense charged is necessarily included in the second offense charged. (Draculan v. or necessarily includes the offense proved.
Donato, G.R. No. L44079, December 19, 1985)
res judicata in prison grey - the right against double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution of
BAR: For the multiple stab wounds sustained by the victim, Noel was charged with a person for a crime of which he has been previously acquitted or convicted. The purpose is
frustrated homicide in the RTC. Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of guilty to said crime. to set the effects of the first prosecution forever at rest, assuring the accused that he shall
Neither the court nor the prosecution was aware that the victim had died two days earlier on not thereafter be subjected to the danger and anxiety of a second charge against him for the
account of his stab wounds. Because of his guilty plea, Noel was convicted of frustrated same offense.
homicide and meted the corresponding penalty. When the prosecution learned of the It has been held in a long line of cases 24 that to constitute double jeopardy, there must be:
victim’s death, it filed within 15 days therefrom a motion to amend the information to (a) a valid complaint or information; (b) filed before a competent court; (c) to which the
upgrade the charge from frustrated homicide to consummated homicide. Noel opposed the defendant had pleaded; and (d) of which he had been previously acquitted or convicted or
motion claiming that the admission of the amended information would place him in double which was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent
jeopardy. Resolve the motion with reasons. (2005 Bar)
A: The amended information to consummated homicide from frustrated homicide does not Findings of regular prosecutors, with the conformity of the respective OCP and OPP, is
place the accused in double jeopardy. As provided in the second paragraph of Sec. 7, Rule appleable by way of verified petition for review before Sec. of Justice (Cariaga vs. Sapiago
117, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense citing DOJ DC. No. 018-14).
which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint or information
when:
a) the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or QUERY:san ka magpunta pagkatapos mo sa Sec of Justice tapos ayaw mo yong
omission constituting the former charge; or findings niya sa petition for review mo?
b) the facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered only after a
plea was entered in the former complain or information. Here, when the plea to frustrated it depends. If the case involves imposition of death penalty or reclusion perpetua,
homicide was made, neither the court nor the prosecution was aware that the victim had PWEDE ka dumaan sa Office of the President, if hindi rec per or death penalty ang
died two days earlier on account of his stab wounds. imposable penalty, you may go directly to the CA under Rule 65. The SC cited here
MC No. 58, s of 1993 (Mina vs. CA, 2019).
So mas mahaba ang proseso sa pag review ng findings ng regular prosecutor kesa sa
ombudsman in revieiwing their respective findings for probable cause. Anong rule
ang mag-apply sa determination ng probable cause of the regular prosecutors in
criminal cases filed against erring public officials for crimes committed in relation to
BAR: McJolly is a trouble-maker of sorts, always getting into brushes with the law. In one or pertaining to the exercise of their public function in view of the delegation of
incident, he drove his Humvee recklessly, hitting a pedicab which sent its driver and jurisdiction to regular courts from the Sandiganbayan under RA 10660? YEP.
passengers in different directions. The pedicab driver died, while two (2) of the passenger
suffered slight physical injuries. Two (2) Informations were then filed against McJolly. QUERY: Is it not concurrent ang Ombudsman & Prosecution on conduct of Prelim
One, for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property, and two, for Investigation? So you’re saying it would depend on the P1M Threshhold?
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injures. The latter case was scheduled for
arraignment earlier, on which occasion McJolly immediately pleaded guilty. He was meted Yes. Actually sa Ombudsman ang kaso referred to ng prosecutor, even if SG 27 or
out the penalty of public censure. A month later, the case for reckless imprudence resulting directorate ang position sa opisyal, kung di umabot ng P1M ang claim for damages,
on homicide was also set for arraignment. Instead of pleading, McJolly interposed the sa regular courts ang jurisdiction.
defense of double jeopardy. Resolve. (2014 Bar) IN addition, according to 4Blue 95, in Sec. 2 sa RA 10660 “..Provided, That the
A: McJolly correctly interposed the defense of double jeopardy. Reckless imprudence under Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the information:
Article 365 is a quasi-offense by itself and not merely a means to commit other crimes, (a) does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or (b) alleges
such that conviction or acquittal of such quasi-offense already bars subsequent prosecution damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related
for the same quasioffense, regardless of its various resulting acts. (Ivler v. Modesto-San transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding One million pesos (P1,000,000.00).”
Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010)

6
CONTINUOUS TRIAL UNTIL TERMINATED; POSTPONEMENTS.
(f) Any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of an ESSENTIAL
WITNESS.
Trial once commenced shall continue from day to day as far as practicable until terminated.
It may be postponed for a reasonable period of time for good cause. For purposes of this subparagraph, an essential witness shall be considered absent when
his whereabouts are unknown or his whereabouts cannot be determined by due
The court shall, after consultation with the prosecutor and defense counsel, set the case for diligence. He shall be considered unavailable whenever his whereabouts are known but
continuous trail on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at the earliest possible time so his presence for trial cannot be obtained by due diligence.
as to ensure speedy trial. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed one hundred eighty
(180) days from the first day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by the Supreme Court. 4BLUE 95 NOTE: He shall be considered unavailable whenever his
whereabouts are known but his presence for trial cannot be obtained by due
The time limitations provided under this section and the preceding section shall not apply diligence.
where special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court provide for a shorter period of trial.

Effect of absence of witness

EXCLUSIONS (SECTION 3) Any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of an essential
witness shall be excluded in computing the time within which trial must
commence (Sec.3, Rule 119).
The following periods of delay shall be excluded in computing the time within which trial
must commence:
WITNESSES:

(a) Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the accused, including Sec. 12. Application for examination of witness FOR ACCUSED before trial.
but not limited to the following:
When the accused has been held to answer for an offense, he may, upon motion with
(1) Delay resulting from an examination of the physical and mental condition of the notice to the other parties, have witnesses conditionally examined in his behalf. The
accused; motion shall state:
(a) the name and residence of the witness;
(2) Delay resulting from proceedings with respect to other criminal charges against the (b) the substance of his testimony; and
accused; (c) that the witness is sick or infirm as to afford reasonable ground for believing
that he will not be able to attend the trial, or resides more than one hundred (100)
(3) Delay resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders; kilometers from the place of trial and has no means to attend the same, or that
other similar circumstances exist that would make him unavailable or prevent him
(4) Delay resulting from pre-trial proceedings; provided, that the delay does not exceed from attending the trial. The motion shall be supported by an affidavit of the
thirty (30) days; accused and such other evidence as the court may require.

(5) Delay resulting from orders of inhibition, or proceedings relating to change of

venue of cases or transfer from other courts; Sec. 13. Examination of DEFENSE witness; how made.

(6) Delay resulting from a finding of existence of a prejudicial question; and If the court is satisfied that the examination of a witness for the accused is
necessary, an order shall be made directing that the witness be examined at a
(7) Delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty (30) days, during specific date, time and place and that a copy of the order be served on the
which any proceeding concerning the accused is actually under advisement. prosecutor at least three (3) days before the scheduled examination. The
examination shall be taken before a judge, or, if not practicable, a member of the
Bar in good standing so designated by the judge in the order, or if the order be
made by a court of superior jurisdiction, before an inferior court to be designated
therein. The examination shall proceed notwithstanding the absence of the
prosecutor provided he was duly notified of the hearing. A written record of the
testimony shall be taken.
(b) Any period of delay resulting from the mental incompetence or physical inability of the
accused to stand trial.
Sec. 14. Bail to secure appearance of material witness.
(c) If the information is dismissed upon motion of the prosecution and thereafter a charge is
filed against the accused for the same offense, any period of delay from the date the charge When the court is satisfied, upon proof of oath, that a material witness will not
was dismissed to the date the time limitation would commence to run as to the subsequent testify when required, it may, upon motion of either party, order the witness to
charge had there been no previous charge. post bail in such sum as may be deemed proper. Upon refusal to post bail, the
court shall commit him to prison until he complies or is legally discharged after
(d) A reasonable period of delay when the accused is joined for trial with a co-accused over his testimony has been taken.
whom the court has not acquired jurisdiction, or, as to whom the time for trial has not run
and no motion for separate trial has been granted.
Sec. 15. Examination of witness for the PROSECUTION.

When it is satisfactorily appears that a witness for the prosecution is too sick or
infirm to appear at the trial as directed by the court, of has to leave the Philippines
with no definite date of returning, he may forthwith be conditionally examined
before the court where the case is pending. Such examination, in the presence of
the accused, or in his absence after reasonable notice to attend the examination
has been served on him, shall be conducted in the same manner as an examination
(e) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any court motu proprio, or at the trial. Failure or refusal of the accused to attend the examination at the trial.
on motion of either the accused or his counsel, or the prosecution, if the court granted the Failure or refusal of the accused to attend the examination after notice shall be
continuance on the basis of its findings set forth in the order that the ends of justice served by considered a waiver. The statement taken may be admitted in behalf of or against
taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the accused in a speedy trial. the accused.

Factors for granting continuance.

The following factors, among others, shall be considered by a court in determining

whether to grant a continuance under section 3(f) of this Rule. TIME LIMIT FOLLOWING AN ORDER FOR NEW TRIAL.

If the accused is to be tried again pursuant to an order for a new trial, the trial shall
(a) Whether or not the failure to grant a continuance in the proceeding would likely commence within thirty (30) days from notice of the order, provided that if the period
make a continuation of such proceeding impossible or result in a miscarriage of becomes impractical due to unavailability of witnesses and other factors, the court
justice; and may extend but not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days. For the second twelve-
month period, the time limit shall be one hundred eighty (180) days from notice of
(b) Whether or not the case taken as a whole is so novel, unusual and complex, due said order for new trial.
to the number of accused or the nature of the prosecution, or that it is unreasonable
to expect adequate preparation within the periods of time established therein.
EXTENDED TIME LIMIT.
In addition, no continuance under section 3(f) of this Rule shall be granted because
of congestion of the court’s calendar or lack of diligent preparation or failure to the time limit with respect to the period from arraignment to trial imposed by said
obtain available witnesses on the part of the prosecutor. provision shall be one hundred eighty (180) days. For the second twelve-month
period, the time limit shall be one hundred twenty (120) days, and for the third twelve-
month period, the time limit shall be eighty (80) days.

7
BAR: Enumerate the requisites of a "trial in absentia" and a "promulgation of judgment in
absentia" (1997, 1998, 2010 Bar) PROHIBITED AND MERITORIOUS MOTIONS

A: The requisites of a valid trial in absentia are:

(1) accused's arraignment;
(2) his due notification of the trial; and PROHIBITED MOTIONS
(3) his unjustifiable failure to appear during trial. (Bemardo v. People, G.R. No.
166980, April 4, 2007) Prohibited motions shall be denied outright before the scheduled arraignment without need of
comment and/ or opposition.
The requisites for a valid promulgation of judgment in absentia are: 1. Motion for judicial determination of probable cause.
a. A valid notice of promulgation of judgment,
b. Said notice was duly furnished to the accused, personally or thru counsel; 2. Motion for preliminary investigation filed beyond the 5 day reglementary period in
c. Accused failed to appear on the scheduled date of promulgation of judgment despite inquest proceedings under Sec. 6, Rule 112, or when preliminary investigation is
due notice; required under Sec. 8, Rule 112, or allowed in inquest proceedings and the accused
d. Such judgment be recorded in the criminal docket; and failed to participate in the preliminary investigation despite due notice.
e. Copy of said judgment had been duly served upon the accused or his counsel
3. Motion for reinvestigation of the prosecutor recommending the filing of information
once the information has been filed before the court
BAR: If an accused who was sentenced to death escapes, is there still a legal necessity for (1) if the motion is filed without prior leave of court;
the Supreme Court to review the decision of conviction? (1998 Bar) (2) when preliminary investigation is not required under Sec. 8, Rule 112;
and
A: Yes. There is still a legal necessity for the Supreme Court to review the decision of
(3) when the regular preliminary investigation is required and has been
conviction sentencing the accused to death, because he is entitled to an automatic review of actually conducted, and the grounds relied upon in the motion are not
the death sentence. (Secs. 3(e) and 10, Rule 122; People v. Esparas, G.R. No. 120034, meritorious, such as issues of credibility, admissibility of evidence,
August 20, 1996) Remedy when accused is not brought to trial within the prescribed period innocence of the accused, or lack of due process when the accused was
actually notified, among others.

BAR: At the Public Attorney's Office station in Taguig where you are assigned, your work 4. Motion to quash information when the ground is not one of those stated in Sec. 3,
requires you to act as public defender at the local Regional Trial Court and to handle cases Rule 117.
involving indigents.
5. Motion for bill of particulars that does not conform to Sec. 9, Rule 116.
(a) In one criminal action for qualified theft where you are the defense attorney, you
learned that the woman accused has been in detention for six months, yet she has not 6. Motion to suspend the arraignment based on grounds not stated under Sec. 11, Rule
116.
been to a courtroom nor seen a judge. What remedy would you undertake to address
the situation and what forum would you use to invoke this relief? 7. Petition to suspend the criminal action on the ground of prejudicial question, when
no civil case has been filed, pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 111.
A: Sec. 7, Rule 119 provides, if the public attorney assigned to defend a person
charged with a crime knows that the latter is preventively detained, either because he
is charged with bailable crime but has no means to post bail, or is charge with a
nonbailable crime, or, is serving a term of imprisonment in any penal institution, it MERITORIOUS MOTIONS
shall be his duty to do the following:
a. Shall promptly undertake to obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial or cause a Motions that allege plausible grounds supported by relevant documents and/or competent evidence,
notice to be served on the person having custody of the prisoner requiring such person except those that are already covered by the Revised Guidelines, are meritorious motions, such as:
to so advise the prisoner of his right to demand trial.
b. Upon receipt of that notice, the custodian of the prisoner shall promptly advise the 1. Motion to withdraw information, or to downgrade the charge in the original
information, or to exclude an accused originally charged therein, filed by the
prisoner of the charge and of his right to demand trial.
prosecution as a result of reinvestigation, reconsideration, and review;
If at anytime thereafter the prisoner informs his custodian that he demands such trial,
the latter shall cause notice to that effect to send promptly to the public attorney. 2. Motion to quash warrant of arrest;
Moreover, Section 1 (e), Rule 116 provides, when the accused is under preventive
detention, his case shall be raffled and its records transmitted to the judge to whom the 3. Motion to suspend arraignment on the ground of an unsound mental condition under
case was raffled within three (3) days from the filing of the information or complaint. Sec. 11(a), Rule 116;
The accused shall be arraigned within ten (10) days from the date of the raffle.
The pre-trial conference of his case shall be held within ten (10) days after 4. Motion to suspend proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question where a civil
arraignment. On the other hand, if the accused is not under preventive detention, the case was filed prior to the criminal case under Sec. 11 (b), Rule 116;
arraignment shall be held within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the accused. (Sec. 1 (g), Rule116) Since the accused 5. Motion to quash information on the grounds that the facts charged do not constitute
has not been brought for arraignment within the limit required in the aforementioned an offense, lack of jurisdiction, extinction of criminal action or liability, or double
jeopardy under Sec. 3 (a), (b), (g), and (i), Rule 117;
Rule, the Information may be dismissed upon motion of the accused invoking his right
to speedy trial (Sec. 9, Rule 119) or to a speedy disposition of cases. (Sec. 16, Art. III, 6. Motion to discharge accused as a state witness under Sec. 17, Rule 119;
1987 Constitution)
7. Motion to quash search warrant under Sec. 14, Rule 126 or motion to suppress
(b). In another case, also for qualified theft, the detained young domestic helper has evidence; and
been brought to court five times in the last six months, but the prosecution has yet to
commence the presentation of its evidence. You find that the reason for this is the 8. Motion to dismiss on the ground that the criminal case is a Strategic Lawsuit
continued absence of the employer- complainant who is working overseas. What Against Public Participation (SLAPP) under Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure for
remedy is appropriate and before which forum would you invoke this relief? (2013 Environmental Cases.
Bar)
The comment of the adverse party shall be filed within a non-extendible period of 10
A: I will file a motion to dismiss the information in the court where the case is calendar days from notice/ receipt of the order of the court to file the same, and the court
shall resolve the motion within a non-extendible period of 10 calendar days from the
pending on the ground of denial of the accused right to speedy trial. (Sec. 9, Rule 119;
expiration of the 10-day period, with or without comment. The court, at its discretion, may
Tan v. People, G.R. No. 173637, April 21, 2009) This remedy can be invoked, at any set the motion for hearing within a non-extendible period of 10
time, before trial and if granted will result to an acquittal. Since the accused has been
brought to Court five times and in each instance it was postponed, it is clear that her
right to a speedy trial has been violated. Moreover, I may request the court to issue calendar days from the expiration of the 10-day period to file comment, in which case the
subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum to the witness, so in case he disobeys same shall be submitted for resolution after the termination of the hearing, and shall be
same, he may be cited in contempt. I may also file a motion to order the witness resolved within a non-extendible period of 10 calendar days thereafter. Reply and
employer-complainant to post bail to secure his appearance in court (Sec. 14, Rule memorandum need not be submitted.
119).
I can also move for provisional dismissal of the case. (Sec. 8, Rule 117) In case of a motion to discharge accused as state witness under Sec. 17, Rule 119, where the
prosecution is required to present evidence in support thereof, such motion shall be
submitted for resolution from the termination of the hearing, and shall be resolves within a
non-extendible period of 10 calendar days thereafter.

The motion for reconsiderationof the resolution of a meritorious motion shall be filed
within a non-extendible period of 5 calendar days from receipt of such resolution, and the
adverse party shall be given an equal period of 5 calendar days from receipt of the motion
for reconsideration within which to submit its comment. Thereafter, the motion for
reconsideration shall be resolved by the court within a non-extendible period of 5 calendar
days from the expiration of the 5-day period to submit the comment.

4BLUE 95: Motions that do not conform to the requirements stated above shall be
considered unmeritorious and shall be denied outright.

8
 BAR: Facing a charge of Murder, X filed a petition for bail. The petition was opposed
REQUISITES FOR DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED TO BECOME A STATE by the prosecution but after hearing the court granted bail to X. On the first scheduled
WITNESS hearing the merits, the prosecution manifested that it was not adducing additional
evidence and that it was resting its case. X filed a demurrer to evidence without leave
S17 R119. Discharge of accused to be state witness.- of court but it was denied by the court.

When 2 or more persons are jointly charged with the commission of any offense, upon a. Did the court have the discretion to deny the demurrer to evidence under the
motion of the prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or more of the circumstances mentioned above?
accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses for the state A: Yes. The Court had the discretion to deny the demurrer to the evidence,
when, after requiring the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement of each because although the evidence presented by the prosecution at the hearing for
proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge, the court is satisfied that: bail was not strong, without any evidence for the defense, it could be sufficient
for conviction.
1. There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge
is requested; b. If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative can X adduce
2. There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the evidence in his defense after the denial of his demurrer to evidence?
offense committed, except the testimony of said accused; A: No. Because he filed the demurrer to the evidence without leave (Sec. 15,
3. The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material Rule 119). However, the trial court should inquire as to why the accused filed
points; the demurrer without leave and whether his lawyer knew that the effect of filing
4. Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and it without leave is to waive the presentation of the evidence for the accused.
5. Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving (People v. Fores, G.R. 106581, March 3, 1997)
moral turpitude.
c. Without further proceeding and on the sole basis of the evidence of the
prosecution, can the court legally convict X for Murder? (1998 Bar)
Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. If A: Yes. Without any evidence from the accused, the prima facie evidence of the
the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, his sworn prosecution has been converted to proof beyond reasonable doubt.
statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.

Sec. 18. Discharge of accused operates as acquittal. – The order indicated in the preceding
section shall amount to an acquittal of the discharged accused and shall be a bar to future
prosecution for the same offense, unless the accused fails or refuses to testify against his co-
accused in accordance with his sworn statement constituting the basis for his discharge.
BAR: The information for illegal possession of firearm filed against the accused
specifically alleged that he had no license or permit to possess the calibre .45 pistol
mentioned therein. In its evidence-in-chief, the prosecution established the fact that
the subject firearm was lawfully seized by the police from the possession of the
accused that is, while the pistol was tucked at his waist in plain view, without the
accused being able to present any license or permit to possess the firearm. The
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE prosecution on such evidence rested its case and within a period of five days
therefrom, the accused filed a demurrer to evidence, in sum contending that the
prosecution evidence has not established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of doubt and so prayed that he be acquitted of the offense charged. The trial court denied
insufficiency of evidence the demurrer to evidence and deemed the accused as having waived his right to
(1) on it own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or present evidence and submitted the case for judgment on the basis of the prosecution
(2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of evidence. In due time, the court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty of the
court. offense charged beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly imposing on him the
penalty prescribed therefore. Is the judgment of the trial court valid and proper?
Reason (2001, 2004 Bar)
If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may A: Yes. The judgment of the trial court is valid. The accused did not ask for
adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave leave to file the demurrer to evidence. He is deemed to have waived his right to
of court, the accused waives his right to present evidence and submits the case for present evidence (Sec. 23, Rule 119; People v. Flores, G.R. 106581, March 3,
judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution. 1997). However, the judgment is not proper or is erroneous because there was no
showing from the proper office that the accused has a permit to own or possess
the firearm, which is fatal to the conviction of the accused. (Mallari v. Court of
The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically state its Appeals, G.R. No. 110569, December 9, 1996)
grounds and shall be filed within a non-extendible period of 5 days after the
prosecution rests its case. The prosecution may oppose the motion within a non- BAR: AA, a twelve-year-old girl, while walking alone met BB, a teenage boy who
extendible period of 5 days from its receipt. befriended her. Later, BB brought AA to a nearby shanty where he raped her. The
If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file a demurrer to evidence within a non- Information for rape filed against BB states: "On or about October 30, 2015, in the
extendible period of 10 days from notice. The prosecution may oppose the demurrer City of S.P. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, a minor,
to evidence within a similar period from its receipt. fifteen (15) years old with lewd design and by means of force, violence and
intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had sexual
intercourse with AA, a minor, twelve (12) years old against the latter's will and
The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or consent." At the trial, the prosecutor called to the witness stand AA as his first witness
demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment and manifested that he be allowed to ask leading questions in conducting his direct
(purpose is to prevent delay). examination pursuant to the Rule on the Examination of a Child Witness. BB's
counsel objected on the ground that the prosecutor has not conducted a competency
examination on the witness, a requirement before the rule cited can be applied in the
4BLUE 95 NOTE: The dismissal of a case upon a demurrer to evidence is equivalent case. After the prosecution had rested its case, BB's counsel filed with leave a
to an acquittal upon the merits and is immediately final. Hence, the prosecution cannot demurrer to evidence, seeking the dismissal of the case on the ground that the
file anew the same charge, nor may the prosecution appeal from the order granting the prosecutor failed to present any evidence on BB's minority as alleged in the
demurrer, nor move for reconsideration for that would place the accused in double Information. Should the court grant the demurrer? (2015 Bar)
jeopardy. A: No, the court should not grant the demurrer. While it was alleged in the
information that BB was a minor at the time of the commission of the offense,
the failure of the prosecutor to present evidence to prove his minority is not a
basis for the granting of the demurrer, because minority of the accused is not an
BAR: After the prosecution had rested and made its formal offer of evidence, with the element of the crime of rape. Be that as it may, the Court should not consider
court admitting all of the prosecution evidence, the accused filed a demurrer to minority in rendering the decision. After all, the failure of the prosecutor to
evidence with leave of court. The prosecution was allowed to comment thereon. prove the minority of AAmay only affect the imposable penalty but may not
Thereafter, the court granted the demurrer, finding that the accused could not have absolve him from criminal liability.
committed the offense charged. If the prosecution files a motion for reconsideration
on the ground that the court order granting the demurrer was not in accord with the
law and jurisprudence, will the motion prosper? Explain your answer. (2009 Bar)
A: No, the motion will not prosper. With the granting of the demurrer, the case shall
be dismissed and the legal effect is the acquittal of the accused. A judgment of
acquittal is immediately executory and no appeal can be made therefrom. Otherwise,
the constitutional protection against double jeopardy would be violated.