Anda di halaman 1dari 48

Criminal Procedure Midterms Reviewer UP Law Block B2015 I. Prosecution of Offenses 1. How do you initiate criminal actions a.

Definition Complaint & Information Case Summary Tumang vs. Private respondent Emilio Javier filed a sakdal, which was Bautista unaccompanied by an English translation, against Enrique Tumang and his daughter Georgia Tumang para Danyos Purhisyo. The petitioners filed a motion asking the Court to order the private respondent to file the sakdal in English and to attach a copy of the acquittal of Javier in the criminal complaint filed against him for Unjust Vexation. **Note: sakdal = complaint, according to Court. Ebarle vs. Bienvenido Ebarle, Governor of Zamboanga del Sur, sought injunctive Sucaldito relief in 2 separate petitions, to enjoin further proceedings in a series of criminal prosecutions filed by the Anti-Graft League for alleged violation of various provisions of the Anti-Graft Law and the RPC. Ebarle opines that the non-compliance of the procedures laid down by E.O. 264 regarding complaints of irregularities against government officials is fatal to the criminal actions filed. He also argues that the Anti-Graft League has no standing in filing the complaints since it is not the offended party. 2. Who must prosecute a. Criminal Actions in General Del Rosario vs. Mercado People vs. Beriales Republic vs. Sunga Mercado was killed by the petitioners who are police officers. The complaint of murder was filed by Mercados wife. The petitioners are asserting that the complaint should be considered void as it was instituted not by the offended party. Three men charged with murder, were arraigned, tried and convicted without the presence of the Fiscal or his representatives. The widow of a murdered person has a right to file a complaint for murder as an offended party.

Doctrine The complaint must be written in English, which is almost exclusively used, and not Filipino because the latter is still a gestating language

E.O. 264 is not applicable in this case since it has exclusive application to administrative complaints, not criminal. As a general rule, a criminal action is commenced by complaint or information, both of which are filed in court. In case of a complaint, it must be filed by the offended party; with respect to an information, it is the fiscal who files it. But a complaint filed with the fiscal prior to a judicial action may be filed by any person.

Though the Fiscal may turn over the active conduct of a trial to a private prosecutor, his duty to direct and control the prosecution of criminal cases requires that he must be present during the proceedings. Petition for review on certiorari filed by the provincial fiscal seeking Court held that while the trial court is the sole judge on clarification on whether or not a criminal case can be dismissed by the whether a criminal case should be dismissed, the fiscals trial court on the basis of an affidavit of desistance executed by the view on the matter should be heard by said court first before

offended party but without motion to dismiss filed by the prosecuting making such decision of dismissal fiscal. Court held that while the trial court is the sole judge on whether a criminal case should be dismissed, the fiscals view on the matter should be heard by said court first before making such decision of dismissal. Ingco vs. Sandiganbayan Domondon vs. Sandiganbayan A man accused of graft and corruption as a Sr VP for PNB claims that since the information alleged against him was not filed in the proper court before the ten-year prescription period, liability for such wrongdoing has prescribed. Several informations were filed against the petitioner and several others connected with a violation of the Anti-Graft Law RA 3019. Petitioner filed a motion for consolidation and reconsideration of an order of the Ombudsman including him in the information for Crim Case 20574, which was denied by the Ombudsman. Judge Ayco allowed the presentation of evidence of the defense in a criminal case without the presence of the state prosecutor, Ringcar Pinote, who filed the present case. Filing an information for preliminary investigation, even in a Court or Office with no proper jurisdiction of the crime alleged, suspends the prescription period. Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the fiscal or Ombudsman in their investigatory and prosecutory power to determine probable cause, unless there is a finding of grave abuse of discretion. As a general rule, all criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the control and direction of the public prosecutor. This transgression could not be rectified by subsequently giving the prosecution a chance to cross-examine the witnesses.

Pinote vs. Ayco

b. Crimes of Adultery, Concubinage and Chastity Tan, Jr. vs, Private prosecutors take a contrary position to Solicitor Generals Gallardo stand. The Court held that private prosecutors intervention in a criminal case is subject to the control of the SolGen, in fact, their role in this particular case to cooperate with the SolGen, hence, they cannot take a position contrary to his.

In a criminal case, the public prosecutor represents the Republic, due to this interest; the prosecution is placed under his direction, control and responsibility. The private prosecutor, on the other hand, represents the offended party with respect to the civil action for recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense; his intervention is always subject to the control and direction of the prosecuting official.

c. Revised Penal Code, Arts, 344 and 360, last paragraph d. Cases People vs. A complaint was filed by a member of the police force charging Liggayu Liggayu for having killed one Teresita Young de Dyogi. Another complaint was filed which charged Liggayus companion Franco of the same crime. The fiscal, after conducting an investigation, filed a motion to dismiss the case against Franco, citing that it was Liggayu who was on the wheel when Teresita was run over.

All criminal actions either commenced by complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. The offended party may, as of right, intervene in the prosecution of a criminal action, but only when from the nature of the offense, he is entitled to indemnity and that he has not waived or expressly reserved the action. If the criminal action is dismissed by the court, on

Bernabe vs. Bolinas

Wife of the deceased wanted the charge for the death of her husband changed from homicide to murder with aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle. The Provincial Fiscal and Assistant Provincial Fiscal refused to do so claiming that there was no treachery involved in the stabbing of the victim. City Attorney recommended that the complaint for estafa be dismissed for lack of merit so CFI accordingly dismissed it. Complainants appealed to SC through a petition for mandamus to compel City Attorneys to file the case of estafa against Pangilinan

motion of the fiscal, on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, the offended party cannot appeal from the order of dismissal. A prosecuting officer is sworn, under his oath of office, not merely to file charges against an accused, but to file the corresponding information in accordance with the facts and/or evidence obtaining in the case. The remedy in case city attorneys recommended dismissal is not that of mandamus but the filing with the proper authorities or court of criminal or administrative charges if the alleged offended parties believe that the former maliciously refrained from instituting actions for the punishment of violators of the law

Bagatua vs. Revilla

Crespo vs, Mogul

Sta. Rosa Mining Co. vs. Zabala

Banal vs. Tadeo

A Circuit Criminal Court Judge refused to grant a motion to dismiss (a Once a complaint or information is filed in Court, the criminal case) filed by a Provincial Fiscal upon instructions by the acquittal/dismissal/conviction rests solely on the discretion Secretary of Justice. of the Court. It is within the Courts discretion to deny a motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal or the Secretary of Justice. Even if he does not believe that there is a basis for prosecution, the fiscal or prosecutor still has the legal duty to continue with the presentation of evidence in order for the Court to arrive at an objective judgment of the case. Criminal information was filed with the Court of First Instance. Upon A fiscal has the power to institute a criminal action. However, request of accused private respondents, the Secretary of Justice once a case has already been filed, the fiscal loses power over reviewed the case. The Secretary later reversed the findings of the the case and must continue prosecuting it, as his duty of the case and directed prosecution to move for dismissal. Such motion was Government. denied by the Court. Now, petitioner files for mandamus to compel Respondent Fiscal to continue prosecuting the criminal case. Atty. Bustos was not allowed by the court to appear as private A private prosecutor can intervene in the prosecution of a prosecutor in a criminal case for violation of BP 22 on grounds that criminal case if the same felonious act or omission results in such was a crime against public order and not against property. He direct damage of injury to another, giving rise to civil filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus to compel the court to liability. allow him to appear in behalf of his client who was the injured party. The court said that his intervention in the case was allowed since not only the State but the petitioner too is entitled to relief. It could not have been the intention of BP 22 to leave the offended party defrauded by excluding the civil liability of the offended. Also, it will

facilitate the speedy and inexpensive administration of justice eliminating the burden of having to file a separate civil case Perez vs. Hagonoy Rural Bank Perez as officer in charge, cashier and teller of Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc. was charged with estafa thru falsification of commercial documents. Private respondent bank questions the ruling of the RTC judge in dismissing the criminal case by a petition for certiorari. SC held that the private respondent, as private complainant, had legal personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal case against the petitioner on the ground that the order of dismissal was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Private respondent Ledesma filed an administrative complaint against petitioner for violation of the RPC and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act with the PCGG. A full-page advertisement was subsequently caused to be published by private respondents in daily newspapers. An open letter to OPMC stockholders was also issued private respondent. Both articles were said to impute illegal and unauthorized acts to petitioner Jalandoni, relative to the sale of OPMC shares. Because of this, two separate complaints for the crime of libel were filed by petitioner Jalandoni against private respondents. After the filing of affidavits, the Asst. Prosecutor issued a Memorandum, approved by the Provincial Prosecutor, and two separate informations for the complaints were filed in two different branches of the Makati RTC. After the respondents appeal, Secretary Drilon issued a DOJ Resolution ordering withdrawal of the informations Complaint for libel was filed by Cerezo. QC Prosecution Office filed by the corresponding information. Defendants filed a motion to reconsider the prosecutors evidence. The prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw the information so the RTC withdrew it. Upon Cerezos Motion and upon review by the DOJ, the RTC revived the case. While it is only the Solicitor General that may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal proceedings pending in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the private offended party retains the right to bring a special civil action for certiorari in his own name in criminal proceedings before the courts of law. It is a well-settled rule that the Secretary of Justice has the power to review resolutions and decisions of the city or provincial prosecutor or the Chief State prosecutor upon petition by a proper party. The Revised Administrative Code gives the Secretary of Justice the power of direct control and supervision over said prosecutors. Given this, he may then affirm, nullify, modify or reverse their rulings as he may see fit

Jalandoni vs. Drilon

Cerezo vs. People

Once the case is filed in court, the Court must make its own determination of whether to proceed with the case. It must not solely rely on the prosecutors motion or orders.

3. Formal requisites of complaint & information a. Sufficiency of Complaint or Information, Sec. 6, Rule 110 b. Constitutional Basis, Art. III, Sec. 14 (2) L987 Constitution - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. c. Statutory Basis, Sec. 1 (b), Rule 115

d. Name of the accused/offended party - Sec. 12 People vs. Guevarra Armed men robbed the Cruz family. Priscilla, the wife of Luisito Cruz, was forcibly boarded onto her own care and driven away. Priscilla was told that she would be held for ransom but the men changed their minds and left her. Luisito informed the police; subsequently, Vergel Bustamante alias Dan Saksak was investigated and detained. Affirmed with modification Bustamante sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua. Defendants were convicted in the CFI of robbery with homicide, however, the complaint charges that the property taken was Roman Escribas, while the proof shows that they were Juanas. The SC acquitted the defendants of the crime of robbery but convicted them of homicide of all four victims. Amendment of Information to include a defendant cannot be without basis. Examples: previously-issued subpoenas, return of service for subpoenas as answered by jail warden, order of other courts, letters of transmittal of case records. In the crime of robbery, among others, the property taken must be that of another, and an indictment or complaint for such offense must name the owner. A variance in this respect between the indictment (allegation in the complaint) and the proof (evidence) will be fatal and the accused cannot be convicted.

U,S. vs. Lahoyhoy & Madanlog

e. Designation of offense Sec. 8 People vs. Petitioners did not allege in the informations that they filed all the The Information must allege all the facts(elements) which Purisima elements constituting the crime of illegal possession of deadly weapons constitute the offense for such information to constitute a punished under PD9 paragraph 3. sufficiently valid charge. The sufficiency of an information is determined solely by the facts alleged therein. If the facts are incomplete and do not convey the elements of the crime, the quashing of the accusation is in order. f. Duplicity of offense Sec. 13 People vs. Frederico Conrado and Melquiades Fernandez were sentenced to suffer Fernandez two death penalties for the rape of Rebecca Soriano. Both appealed the decision, alleging that the lower court erred in convicting them for the two crimes of rape. During the pendency of the appeal, Fernandez withdrew his appeal. Conrado alleges that the trial court erred in allowing two offenses to be charged under a single information, contrary to Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.

There should only one offense charged in a single information. If multiple offenses were charged, this would be a ground for a motion to quash the complaint. Failure to object constitutes a waiver.

g. Act or omission complained of Sec. 9 Matilde vs. While the preamble of the information contained in relation to PD 330, The body of the information should contain the factual Jabson its body did not contain the factual allegations which would qualify the allegations that would qualify the offense. In relation to PD theft as an offense under PD 330. Such failure to make the allegations falls 330 is not enough. short of the requirement of the constitutional guarantee that the accused be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation. Absent such

allegations, the PD 330 penalties cannot be validly imposed. Accused was charge with the crime of estafa through misappropriation. Every element of which the offense is composed must be Accused moved to strike out the complaining witnesss testimony alleged in the complaint or information. What facts and because it was at variance with the allegation in the Information. circumstances are necessary to be stated must be determined by reference to the definition and essentials of the specific crimes. People vs. A sworn complaint was filed by Neddy Calayca against his father, Artemio The 7 circumstances that raises the penalty of rape to death Calayca Calayca, for rape in the MCTC of Balingasag, Misamis Oriental. The MCTC are qualifying circumstances, which must be alleged in the Judge found sufficient ground for prosecution and the Office of the Information to afford the accused the right to be informed of Provincial Prosecutor had the same findings. Subsequently, an the charges against him and the right to due process. The information was filed with the RTC accusing Artemio Calayca of RAPE. failure to allege all the qualifying circumstances is fatal but if Artemio Calayca was found guilty by the RTC for QUALIFIED RAPE the circumstance is proved, it is considered as an aggravating (victim was a minor + accused was the father) and was sentenced to circumstance. death. h. Place of Commission Sec. 10 Balitaan vs. CFI i. Time of Commission Sec. 11 U.S. vs. An information was filed charging Dichao of the crime of rape committed Javier during the interval between Oct 1910 and Aug 1912. Dichao moved for Dichao the information to be demurred on the ground, among others, that the complaint is vague, ambiguous, and does not conform substantially to the prescribed form. The demurrer was granted by the lower court. The allegations of an information should, if possible, be sufficiently explicit and certain as to inform the defendant of the date on which the criminal act is alleged to have been committed. Without this information about the day, the accused may be, to an extent, deprived of the opportunity to defend himself. In this case, the statement of the time when the crime is alleged to have been committed is so indefinite an uncertain that it does not give the accused the information required by law There was no need to dismiss the case without prejudice to the filing of the new complaint. It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise time at which the offense was committed except when time is a material ingredient of the offense, but the act may be alleged to have been committed at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed as the information or complaint will permit.

People vs. Molero

The daughter of Molero filed a rape case against him. In her first complaint, the date was Feb. 13, 1976 when the real date was Feb. 5, 1976. The first complaint was dismissed for the purpose of changing date in the complaint.

People vs, Lualhati

Lualhati convicted of raping the 11 year old daughter of his common-law It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information wife. He appeals on the grounds that the complaint was ambiguous the precise time at which the offense was committed, except regarding the specific time of the offense, and the number of offenses. when time is an essential ingredient of the offense.

People vs. Razonable

Benjamin Razonable was found guilty by the lower court of raping his daughter 3 times. He appealed the case claiming that the information was in violation of sec 6, rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court (requires that the time of commission must be alleged as near to the actual date as the information will permit) hence defective. The information stated that the offense was committed sometime in the year 1987. Court held that the procedure for questioning the information was not followed by the accused and moreover he never objected or brought this up during trial.

Section 11, rule 110 of the Rules of Court requires that the time of the commission of the offense must be as near to the actual date as the information or complaint will permit. But this contention could only be brought up through a motion to quash information or a motion for bill of particulars. However, if the defense went ahead with presenting their evidence and the accused even gave an alibi on where he was at that particular time, then he could not raise this defense on appeal.

People vs, Cristobal

A woman convicted by the RTC and CA of qualified theft appeals, on the The date on the information need not be specific, as long as it basis that the alleged date she committed the crime was wrong. places the crime within reasonable time boundaries of the critical moments the alleged crime was committed. Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. approximate time of the commission of the offense the

Section 11. Time of the commission of the offense. - It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise time at which the offense was committed except when time is a material ingredient of the offense, but the act may be alleged to have been committed at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed as the information or complaint will permit. 4. Amendment of complaint or information a. Amendment or Substitution - Sec. 14; Relate to Rule 120, Section 4 b. Cases Almeda vs. Petitioner is charged with crime of qualified theft of motor vehicle. The Villaluz bond recommended was Php 15,000 which was required to paid in cash entirely. An amended information was admitted by the court, even on the basis of an oral motion to amend information. This imputed habitual delinquenct and recidivism on Almeda.

Under sec 13 (presently sec 14) of rule 110 of Rules of Court, the trial court has discretion to allow amendments to the information on all matters of form after the defendant has pleaded and during the trial when the same can be done without prejudice to the rights of the defendant. What are prohibited are amendments in substance, which in a complaint or information, is the recital of facts constituting the offense and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. Under sec 2 rule 115 of Rules of Court, all motions shall be made in writing except motions for continuance made in the

People vs. Casey

Joseph Casey alias Burl and Rizardo Felix alias Carding Tuwad killed Alfredo Valdez. An information for murder against Casey was filed while Feliz was still at-large. When Felix was already arrested, an amended information was filed to include him as an accused. The only sentence changed was from together with one Ricardo Felix alias Carding Tuwad who is then armed with a firearm to together with the accused Ricardo Felix alias Carding Tuwad who was then armed with a firearm. They both pleaded not guilty. They were sentenced to deat h and thus this automatic review. The counsel de officio for the accused raised that the trial of Casey was illegal since the information was amended without arraignment. The Court held that the amendment of the information did not prejudice Casey and is therefore not prohibited under Sec. 13, Rule 100 of the Revised Rules of Court. An information for qualified theft stating that it was committed in 1969 is sought to be changed to 1964 by the Fiscal through a verbal motion done on the day of the trial. The judge denied the motion and the SC affirmed the judges decision on the ground that is it be allowed, the substantial rights of the accused would be prejudiced. Petitioner charged with homicide. After pleading not guilty, the prosecution filed a motion for leave to amend the information, charging the accused with murder qualified with treachery and evident premeditation instead. Respondent judge granted the motion. The State Prosecutor was not allowed to amend his original informations to allege conspiracy and include two new defendants. After arraignment of the accused (charged: as accessories-after-the-fact in the robbery of a convicted minor) in which they plead not guilty, fiscal filed a Motion to Admit Amended Information (1)changing the offense charged from "Robbery" to "Robbery in an Uninhabited Place," (2) alleging conspiracy among all the accused, and (3) deleting all items, articles and jewelries alleged to have been stolen in the original

presence of the adverse party, or those made in the course of hearing or trial. Test to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amended information: whether a defense under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in the other.

People vs, Reyes

Sec. 113, Rule 110, Rules of Court, the complaint of information in a criminal case where the accused had been arraigned and had pleaded, may be amended only as to all matters of form when the same can be done without prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused. The information or complaint may be amended, in substance or form, without leave of court, at any time before the defendant pleads; and thereafter and during the trial as to all matters of form, by leave and at the discretion of the court, when the same can be done without prejudice to the rights of the defendant. An amendment to an information to include new defendants and allege conspiracy is allowed. For as long as the proposed changes are merely formal and do not change the theory of the prosecution then the information can be amended. The test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or information is when a defense under the complaint or information, as it originally stood, would no longer be available after the amendment is made, and when any evidence the accused might have, would be inapplicable to the complaint or information as amended.

Dionaldo vs. Dacuycuy

People vs, Medealdea People vs. Montenegro

Information and substituting them with a different set of items valued at P71,336.80. CFI denied the motion because the amendments were substantial. SC affirmed CFIs decision 5. Remeday against a defective complaint or information a. Amendment Sec. 14, Rule 110 b. Motion to Quash Sec.4, Rule 117 c. When defect becomes apparent during trial but before judgment Sec. 11, Rule 119 6. Interruption of Prescriptive Period a. When reckoned - Sec. 1 (b), last par., Rule 110 b. Computation of Prescription, Art. 91, RPC - Computation of prescription of offenses. - The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him. The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago. II. PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION (Rule 111) 1. Civil liabilities that may arise from a criminal act a. Revised Penal Code Art. 100 113 Restitution, Reparation and Indemnification of Damages. b. Damages under the civil code Arts 29, 32, 33,34 &2176 2, How civil actions are instituted in criminal cases a. Civil action deemed instituted with criminal action Garcia vs. The bus driven by the accused figured in an accident with the vehicle Florido carrying the petitioners. The accused was charged criminally by the Chief of Police of Zamboanga del Norte with double serious and less serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence. A civil action for damages was subsequently filed by the petitioners against the accused and the owner of the bus and the driver and owner of their vehicle. The accused and the owner of the bus filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the civil action could proceed only upon final adjudication of the criminal case. No reservation was made by petitioners for the filing of a civil action. b. Separate institution of civil action. 1) Reservation to institute civil action separately - Sec. 1 (a) Effect of Waiver - Sec. 1, par, 3

An offended party loses his right to intervene in the prosecution of a criminal case, not only when he has waived the civil action or expressly reserved his right to institute, but also when he has actually instituted the civil action.

(b) When to reserve- Sec. 1, par.4 (c) Prohibition against double recovery - Sec. 1, par. 5 2) Prior institution of civil action - Sec. 1 (a) When civil action is suspended, - Sec. 2 (a) (b) When civil action may be consolidated with subsequent criminal action - Sec. 2 (a) Naguiat vs. IAC There was a dispute as to whether or not full amount of price for 4 plots of land has been paid by vendee. Vendee filed a civil complaint for specific performance and damges fo vendor to deliver ownership of lands. A criminal complaint for violation of PD 957 against vendor was also filed. Court ruled that these cases could be consolidated. Civil actions not arising from ex delicto may still be consolidated with criminal actions, in accordance with Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court. They may be tried together when they arise from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that the court has jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated and that a joint trial will not give one party an undue advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties.

c. Independent Civil Actions Sec. 2 and 3, Rule 111 Corpus vs. An accident between a bus driven by the accused, and a jeepney driven Paje by a relative of the plaintiffs caused the latter's death. After filing a criminal action for homicide, the heirs reserved the right to institute a separate civil action for damages. The accused was found guilty in the lower court. He appealed from such judgment to the CA. During the pendency of his appeal, the heirs instituted the civil action. The CA granted the appeal of the accused and found him innocent. The accused now wishes to dismiss the civil action against him, on the ground of his acquittal in the criminal case. Bordas vs. Canadalla Reyes vs. J, Sempio, Diy

Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide comes under the general rule that the acquittal of the accused in the criminal action is a bar to his civil liability. It is not embraced under the exception for cases of physical injuries, where independent civil actions may be instituted because Reckless Imprudence and Physical Injuries/ Homicide are two different crimes.

While the criminal case against Canadalla was pending before the court, Separate civil action based on quasi-delict may be filed Bordas filed a separate civil action based on quasi-delict. pending criminal action (not a violation of Rule III Section 2 of the Rules of Court) Cristina Malicsi was charged with the crime of intriguing against honor; NO, plaintiff is not barred. The mere appearance of a private Zenaida Cruz Reyes (petitioner) was the aggrieved party. Malicsi prosecutor in the criminal case does not necessarily pleaded guilty to the information. Reyes, represented by a private constitute such intervention on the part of the aggrieved prosecutor, was not able to make a reservation of her right to file a party as could only import an intention on her part to press separate civil action for damages. Thereafter,, she filed a civil action her claim for damages in said criminal case and a waiver of against Cristina Malicsi for damages arising from defamatory words her right to file a separate civil action for damages. which were the subject of the information in the Criminal action. The issue is whether the intervention of private prosecution and its failure to

make a reservation bars plaintiff from filing a separate civil action for damages against the accused Aberca vs. Ver Aberca, et al. filed a Civil action for damages based on Art. 32 against Maj. Gen. Ver because of illegal searches conducted by military personnel and other violations of rights and liberties guaranteed under the Constitution. Article 32 of the Civil Code which renders any public officer or employee or any private individual liable in damages for violating the Constitutional rights and liberties of another, as enumerated therein, does not exempt the respondents from responsibility. Only judges are excluded from liability under the said article, provided their acts or omissions do not constitute a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. The judgment of acquittal does not operate to extinguish the civil liability of the defendant based on the same incident. The civil action is entirely independent of the criminal case. But this rule is not without exception. Under Section 2(c) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, [e]xtinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil UNLESS the extinction proceeds from a declaration from a final judgment that the fact from which the civil action might arise did not exist. From a judgment convicting the accused, two appeals may be taken. 1. 2. The accused may seek a review of said judgment, as regards both civil and criminal actions The complainant may appeal with respect only to the civil action, either because the lower court has refused to award damages or because the award made is unsatisfactory to him.

Castillo vs. C.A

Occena vs. Icamina

Petitioners and private respondents got into a vehicular accident which caused injuries to their persons and damage to their respective vehicles. Petitioners filed a civil case for recovery of damages against private respondents. Subsequently, a criminal case against respondent was also filed. Respondent was convicted by the trial court in the criminal case but the CA acquitted him on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Given this acquittal (and together with evidence), the CFI, in the civil case, dismissed the complaint. The CA affirmed this dismissal. A barangay captain filed a criminal case for Grave Oral Defamation. The defendant therein was convicted of Slight Oral Defamation with a fine of 50 pesos

When the complainant appeals only the civil aspect in a criminal case where he didnt reserve his right to file a separate civil action, only the unappealed decision becomes final. The civil aspect, which he appealed from, may still be adjudicated upon timely appeal. d. Effect of Participation Bonite vs. Bonite hit by truck, resulting in his death. Heirs filed a criminal Reservation is not a requirement for a civil action for Zosa complaint against driver Abamonga. Heirs did not reserve right to file damages in case of an acquittal due to reasonable doubt in a

separate civil action and participated actively through private criminal case based on NCC 29. Active participation is also prosecutor. TC acquitted due to reasonable doubt. Heirs filed separate not a bar, because civil action based on NCC 29 is different civil action for damages. TC dismissed and denied motion for recon. SC and independent from civil action based on criminal liability. reversed. e. Cases U.S. vs. Heery

Parker vs. Panlilio

Both defendant and complainant appealed to the SC from the judgment of the lower court - the former as regards the decision finding him guilty, and the latter, as regards the refusal of the lower court to admit evidence as to the damages he suffered. The SC affirmed the former judgment and remanded the case for completion of its civil branch, and accordingly, the lower court ordered defendant to indemnify complainant. The former appealed raising the question of double jeopardy. The SC held that the finding of civil liability after the case has been remanded did not put defendant twice in jeopardy. Husband dies in plane bombing. Widow sues airline company for damages. CFI judge suspends trial in civil case until resolution of the criminal case. Widow opposes that their cause of action is based on contract.

Despite the fact that civil liability is determined in the criminal action, it is not transformed into criminal liability and made a part of the punishment of the crime. Civil damages are no part of the punishment for the crime; therefore, there could be no question of double jeopardy.

Yakult vs. CA

Roy Camaso was sideswiped by a Yamaha motorcycle driven by Larry Salvado, an employee of Yakult. The motorcycle was also owned by Yakult. On January 6, 1983, Salvado was charged with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries in the City Court of Manila. On October 19, 1984, Camaso filed a complaint for damages against Yakult and Salvado.

Maniago vs. CA

San Ildefonso Lines, Inc. vs. CA

A civil action is filed against the owner of a bus, the driver of which was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and multiple physical injuries, without reserving in the criminal case the right to institute an independent civil action. The SC dismissed the civil action for failing to make the reservation. A collision occurred between petitioners bus and Ms. Jaos van. Ms. Jao Section 3, Rule 111 does not do away with the reservation filed a complaint charging the buss driver with reckless imprudence requirement. Prior reservation of the institution of a civil resulting in damage to property and multiple physical injuries. Pioneer case is a condition sine qua non before any of independent

Failure on the part of Parker to reserve her right to institute the civil action in the criminal case cannot be deemed a waiver to institute a separate civil action based on contract liability or culpa aquiliana. But the court has inherent power to grant or refuse continuances unless expressly limited by statute and there is no abuse of discretion such as in this case where the main issues of the civil and criminal cases are the same. Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action...The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts to present its evidence... Even though this rule was enacted after the incident, it applies retroactively. The reservation requirement does not impair substantive rights. Rather, it regulates its exercise to achieve orderly procedure and implement the prohibition against double recovery.

Insurance, an insurer of the van subrogee, later filed a separate civil civil actions can be instituted and thereafter have a action against the bus company. continuous determination apart from or simultaneous with the criminal action. 3. Effect of extinction of penal action Sec. 2 Marcia vs. Victory Liner Bus, driven by Paje, collided with a jeep driven by C.A Clemente Marcia, which resulted in the death of Clemente and physical injuries to Edgar Marcia and Renato Yap. The criminal case filed against Paje was dismissed. The separate civil case instituted before the criminal case was also dismissed based on Sec 3(c), Rule 111 of the New Rules of Court. Bunag vs. Zenaida filed a criminal complaint for Forcible Abduction with Rape C.A against Bunag Jr. but this was dismissed by the Fiscal upon resolution at the preliminary investigation stage. Zenaida then instituted a civil case for damages for alleged breach of promise to marry. Bunag Jr. claims that the action for damages is not proper in light of the dismissal of the criminal complaint against him. Jarantilla It is settled doctrine that double jeopardy cannot be invoked against vs, C.A this Court's setting aside of the trial courts' judgment of dismissal or acquittal where the prosecution which represents the sovereign people in criminal cases is denied due process. Furthermore, double jeopardy attaches only if there is a valid judgment. If there is none, or the prior judgment is void, no double jeopardy attaches.

The acquittal of a person in a criminal case does not extinguish the civil case, unless the Court declares that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.

Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of civil liability unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil case might arise did not exist. A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he is also actually charged criminally, to recover damages on both scores; and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. In other words, the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (c) of Sec. 3 Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code; whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused The death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed. death of accused extinguishes criminal liability. His civil liability arising from crime is likewise extinguished by death since his appeal was still pending before this court, there was no final judgment of conviction upon which an award of civil indemnity could be based

People vs, Paniterce Datu vs. People

Paniterce rapes both minor daughters, incurring both civil and criminal penalties. During the pendency of the appeal to the SC, Paniterce dies. Datu was charged with acts of lasciviousness punishable under RA 7610 because he inserted his middle finger in the 5 year-old kids vagina. while on appeal in SC, accused died. His death extinguished both his criminal and civil liability

4. Judgment in civil action not a bar - Sec.4 5. Prejudicial question a. Elements Sec. 7 Jimenez vs. Two women accused of estafa claim that the civil case they filed A civil case regarding forged signatures and questioned receipts Judge Averia suspended the criminal case against them until a definitive ruling does not preclude the filing and resolving of a criminal case against in the civil case was granted. the petitioners in the civil case. Otherwise, unscrupulous individuals accused of estafa can file civil cases such as those mentioned to suspend the criminal cases against them. Rojas vs. Accused is charged with 5 counts of estafa for executing a new A prejudicial question is that which arises in a case, the resolution People chattel mortgage on personal property, in violation of Art 319 of of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the RPC. A separate civil suit was filed, with one of the causes of the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. action being the alleged chattel mortgage. Accused alleges that such civil suit is a prejudicial question, which should suspend the Art 33 of the Civil Code provides that In cases of defamation, criminal case against him. frauda civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. Ras vs. Rasul A civil case on an alleged double sale was filed by Pichel against Ras. The defense of Ras was that the alleged first deed of sale was a spurious. A criminal case for estafa was filed against Ras while the civil case was pending, with the same subject matter as the double sale in the civil case. The Court held that the criminal case raises a prejudicial question and the judge was restrained from trying the criminal case until the civil case is resolved. Librodo, lessee of the subject land, filed a criminal case of theft against the Guanteros. During the pendency of the criminal case, he also filed a civil case on damages against the same respondents. On the other hand, the land involved in the said case is also the subject of two other civil cases between the heirs: Ejectment Suit and Intestate Proceedings. The respondents moved for the suspension of the criminal case on the ground that the pending civil cases raise a prejudicial question to the criminal case. The SC ruled that the 3 civil cases are not determinative of the guilt of the party in the criminal case and ordered to proceed with the cases. There is a prejudicial question when two different cases lodged in different courts are based on facts and issues that are, although not the same, so intimately connected with each other that they will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Librado vs. Coscolluela

A prejudicial question is one based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. It comes into play generally in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.

Petitioners were charged with violating R.A. 3019 for unlawfully enforcing a writ of execution over a car. The plaintiff in a civil case which involved said car filed a complaint for the recission of the sale of the same. Subsequently, petitioners filed a motion to suspend proceedings in the criminal case against them on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question in the civil case for recission. This was denied by the Sandiganbayan. Umali vs. IAC Petitioners are the accused in a criminal case for estafa. Subsequently, they filed a civil case for annulment of the deed of sale for which they issued the checks that are the subject of the criminal case for estafa. The Court ruled that the matter in the civil case is not a prejudicial question to the issues in the criminal case. b. Suspension of Criminal Action - Sec.6 6. Provisional remedies in criminal cases (Rule 127) a. Provisional Remedies - Sec. 1, Rule 127 b. Rules on Attachment in Criminal Cases - Sec. 2, Rule L27 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction a. Regional Trial Court - Sec.20 ,23,35 and 36, Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (8.P. Blg. 129 as amended) Valdepeas vs. People Ester Ulsano, assisted by her mother filed a criminal complaint charging Valdepeas with forcible abduction with rape. CFI convicted him as charge. CA modified it by convicting him of abduction with consent. Upon motion for reconsideration, CA set aside its prior decision and remanded the case for reception of additional evidence. CFI reiterated CA and convict him of abduction with consent. Valdepeas appealed again to the CA which affirmed CFI. Again, he filed a motion for reconsideration questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court. SC held TC has jurisdiction. Accused Plateros and Lahoy were convicted of murder by CFI. Lahoy was also convicted of attempted muder. Plateros and Lahoy appealed the murder case to SC and Lahoy appealed the attempted murder case to CA. CA acquitted Lahoy. Sec. 17(1) provides that the attempted murder case should have been appealed to SC, not CA. Is the CA decision void?

Balgos vs. C.A.

The doctrine of prejudicial question comes into play usually in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be pre-emptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed, because whatsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The 2 elements for a prejudicial question to exist are: (1) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (2) the resolution of such issue in the civil action determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

Jurisdiction over the person of an accused is acquired upon either his apprehension, with or without warrant, or his submission to the jurisdiction of the court. Failure to raise the issue of jurisdiction and participating on proceedings are deemed to be waiver of whatever objection and submission to the jurisdiction of a court.

People vs. Plateros

Where, by allowing the Court of Appeals to decide a case involving an offense, which is not punishable by death or reclusion perpetua but which arose out of the same occurrence or was committed on the same occasion, as the case involving an offense punishable by death or reclusion perpetua pending in the SC, there will be no conflict between the decisions of SC and CA, the former case need

People vs. Sandiganbay an

Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a case against a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City, Province of Cebu for violation of PD 1445 with the Sandigandbayan. Accused alleges that Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over her position. SC rules that it does.

not be elevated to SC. In the offenses involved in Section 4(a) of PD 1606 (as amended), public office is essential as an element of the said offenses themselves, while in those offenses and felonies involved in Section 4(b), it is enough that the said offenses and felonies were committed in relation to the public officials or employees' office. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over them.

Circular No. 20 (August 20, L9B7) - Designation of Certain Branches of the RTC to Handle Exclusively Certain Criminal Cases b, Municipal Trial Court - Sec. 32, B.P. Blg . 129 Zaldavia vs. Reyes Petitioner Zaldivia was charged for a violation of a municipal For violations of municipal orders, being governed by the Rule on ordinance. Petitioner moved to quash the information filed against Summary Procedure and not Rule 110, the prescriptive period her on the ground that the crime had prescribed but the MTC and shall only be interrupted by the actual filing of a case in court. RTC denied. Petitioner now files this case against Respondent Judge Reyes of the RTC.

c. Katarungang Pambaranggay PD 1508, Sec. 2 [3], Sec. 3 d. Sandiganbayan (PD 1606 as amended by Exec. Order 164, RA 7975 [1995] and 8249 [1997]) e. Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) Sections 389-422 2. Venue a. Sec, 15, Rule 110 b. Cases Lopez vs. City Judge Lopez et. al., filed for recission of their contract with Lazatin and Terra Devt. In response, Lazatin and Terra filed a criminal complaint against Lopez et. al., resulting in the latter being charged with falsification of a private document. After the reinvestigation that the parties charged requested from the City Fiscal was terminated, they moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the City Court of Angeles had no jurisdiction over the case, considering that the offense was made outside the territorial limits of the city. After failing to act on the motion to dismiss, the petitioners filed a motion to quash, on the basis of the City Court having no jurisdiction. The motion was denied. Cecilia YABUT was accused of ESTAFA by means of false pretenses before the CFI Bulacan. Instead of entering a plea, YABUT filed a MOTION TO QUASH contending that venue was improperly laid because the checks were issued and received by complainant in Where the act of falsification of a private document- the signing of the document and the coetaneous intent to cause damage- was committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the city, its City Court will have no jurisdiction over the offense charged.

People vs. Yabut

Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check under Art. 315 par 2(d) of the RPC may be a transitory or continuing offense. Its basic elements of deceit and damage may independently arise in separate places. In the event of such occurrence, the institution of

Agbayani vs, Sayo

Caloocan, Yabuts office. Hence, the offense must be tried by the CFI the criminal action in either place is legally allowed. Caloocan. Criminal action for written defamation filed in the CFI Nueva The rules on venue in article 360 for written defamation: Vizcaya when it should have been filed in the CFI Isabela because he was a public official stationed at Isabela. 1. Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person, the criminal action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published. 2. If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province where he actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense. If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila.

3.

Catinguib vs. C.A People vs. Grospe

PCSO agent in Cagayan de Oro charged with malversation for failing to transmit money to the Manila head office. Venue of trial was in Manila. Accused questioned jurisdiction of CFI-Manila because crime occurred in Cagayan de Oro Two checks were issued by Parulan to San Miguel Corporation and both bounced for insufficiency of funds. He was charged with violation of BP 22 and Estafa under Art 315 (2d), RPC. The checks were received by the Sales Supervisor at Guiguinto, Bulacan and forwarded to the SMC Regional Office at San Fernando, Pampanga. The check was also deposited at BPI San Fernando, Pampanga where the notice of dishonor was received from the drawee bank, Planters Bank Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The cases were filed in Pampanga but the RTC dismissed the cases for lack of jurisdiction. SC held that both crimes are continuing offenses and may be filed in either Bulacan or Pampanga.

4. If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense. Action can be instituted where any of the essential ingredients of the crime took place. In malversation, crime is consummated in the place where the accused is required to render an accounting and failed to do so. A person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or province where the offense was in part committed. In transitory or continuing offenses in which some acts material and essential to the crime and requisite to its consummation occur in one province and some in another, the Court of either province has jurisdiction to try the case, it being understood that the first Court taking cognizance of the Case will exclude the others. However, if an the acts material and essential to the crime and requisite of its consummation occurred in one municipality or territory, the Court of that municipality or territory has the sole jurisdiction to try the case.

Bala vs. Martinez

People vs, Sola

Bala was convicted for falsification of a genuine public or official document. He was granted probation on August 11, 1982. According to the terms of the probation, it was to last for one year, ending on August 10, 1983. Bala changed his residence, from BF Homes to Phil-Am Life Subdivision, in Las Pias. The Order of Final Discharge was not issued because the probation officer had not yet submitted his Final Report. In December of 1983, the Assistant City Fiscal filed a Motion to Revoke the probation, which was granted by the RTC judge. Petitioner Bala opposed, but the RTC judge denied it. The Municipal Court of Kabankalan granted the accused right to bail without giving the prosecution an opportunity to prove that the evidence against the accused was strong. Witnesses filed a petition for change of venue and cancellation of bail bonds. SC granted the petition.

In criminal cases, venue is an element of jurisdiction. Change of abode does not compel a change of venue, and necessarily, control, over a person. Jurisdiction does not attach to the branch or judge, as it is vested in the court.

People vs, Gorospe

Agustin vs. Pamintuan Foz Jr. vs. People

The Supreme Court has the constitutionally mandated power to order a change of venue to avoid any miscarriage of justice. To compel the prosecution to proceed to trial in a locality where its witnesses will not be at liberty to reveal what they know is to make a mockery of the judicial process. The effect on the witnesses who will testify must always be considered and in case of doubt, it should be resolved in favor of a change of venue. A girl was abducted in one province and raped in another province. An offense may be tried in the court of the municipality or The complaint was filed in the Court of the place of abduction province wherein the offense was committed or any essential whose jurisdiction was challenged by the accused that the Court of ingredients of the crime took place. the place where the rape was committed was the one with jurisdiction. The SC held that the court of the place of abduction had jurisdiction. Victor Agustin filed a motion to quash the Informations of libel Amending an Information is not sufficient to cure defects in a against him because they did not allege the residence of the Courts jurisdiction. Failure to allege the requisite element of offended party, nor the place of printing and publication. venue gives the accused the right to have the Information quashed. An information for libel against a private individual failed to allege The information for a particular crime should allege the facts the place where the publication was printed or first published or which, as provided by law, vests jurisdiction to the court. the place of residence of the offended party. The SC held that such Otherwise, the court cannot validly decide for want of such information did not vest jurisdiction to the lower court. jurisdiction.

IV. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION (Rule 112) 1. Definition. Sec, 1, Rule 112 a. Purpose - See Annotations, 121 SCRA 233 b. Cases Hashim vs. Accused was caught red-handed in possession of counterfeit The right to a preliminary investigation is statutory, not Boncan treasury certificates. A preliminary investigation was conducted by constitutional. Its oft-repeated purpose is to secure the innocent the respondent Fiscal at which evidence was adduced warranting against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecutions, and to

Tandoc vs, Resultan

the filing of information against the accused. The information was protect him from open and public accusation of crime, from the filed in Court, and the presiding judge, upon the strength of the said trouble, expenses and anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect preliminary investigation and sworn information, issued a warrant the State from useless and expensive prosecutions. for the arrest of the petitioner. In a preliminary investigation, the investigating judge or prosecuting officer acts upon probable cause and reasonable belief, not upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The occasion is not for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence; it is for the presentation of such evidence only as may engender wellgrounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. A criminal complaint was filed with the Office of the City Fiscal by What is a preliminary investigation? the respondents for serious oral defamation, grave threats, and a. Intended to protect the accused from the inconvenience, physical injuries. The City Fiscal did not find any probable cause expense and burden of defending himself in a formal trial unless and dismissed the complaint. Subsequently, the respondents filed a the reasonable probability of his guilt shall have been first criminal complaint for serious physical injuries, trespass to ascertained in a fairly summary proceeding by a competent dwelling, serious physical injuries, and grave threats to kill with the officer. City Court of San Carlos City. b. Intended to protect the state from having to conduct useless and expensive trials.

2. Nature U.S. vs. Marfori

People vs. Ovilla

A complaint was filed against Marfori charging the latter of Aggravated Slander. The justice of the peace discharged Marfori after conducting the preliminary investigation and trial since the former did not find any probable cause. However, the trial judge, upon review of the records, did not agree with the justice of the peace and proceeded with the trial against Marforis objections. Marfori was convicted, hence this appeal. The provincial fiscal filed a motion praying for the dismissal of the criminal case herein.(no other information given) The court having found meritorious the reason of the provincial fiscal dismissed the case. Veloso sentenced to death. He alleges CFI decision void for lack of preliminary investigation. However he did not raise the issue in the CFI and he expressly waived his right to present evidence when contacted during the preliminary investigation stage. 4 informations were filed charging the accused with Estafa thru -

People vs. Veloso People vs,

The right of an accused to a preliminary investigation is a substantial one. Its denial is a prejudicial error. The discharge by the justice of the peace did not operate as a final acquittal and was not a bar to the rearrest and prosecution of Marfori. But proceeding with the trial, without an order by the proper magistrate remanding the accused for trial is not in accord with the law. After a criminal case has been remanded by the justice of peace to the CFI which has jurisdiction to try it on the merits, and before the provincial fiscal has filed the necessary information, the latter not only has the power but also the duty to investigate the facts upon which the complaint filed in the justice of peace court was based. The right to preliminary investigation is not a fundamental right and that the same may be waived expressly or by silence. Such waiver carries with it the waiver of any procedural error or irregularity that may have attended the preliminary investigation. Assuming that the informations did not contain the certificates

Gomez

Placer vs. Judge Villanueva

Go vs. CA

falsification of public document. after arraignment, accused that certified that a preliminary investigation was held, this assails the informations for failing to state that the requisite omission is not fatal. The court could always conduct an preliminary investigationw as conducted investigation to supplant the said omission. But the defendants did not question the validity of the said informations before they entered the plea of not guilty. They filed a motion to declare them null and void more than one year thereafter. They waived the right to a preliminary investigation when they failed to invoke it prior to or at least at the time of the entry of their plea in the CFI. A judge, before issuing warrants of arrest, still required the The judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause fiscals to submit the supporting affidavits and other supporting before issuing a warrant of arrest. If on the face of the information, evidences in the criminal cases, despite the certification of the the judge finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscals finding of probable cause by the latter. certification and require submission of the affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at the conclusion as to existence of probable cause. Petitioner Rolito Go was charged with the crime of murder Such prelim investigation is a component part of due process in without preliminary investigation. He insisted on the right, even criminal justice. It is a substantive right, since it is, in a sense, the though trial has started and the prosecution has already right of the accused to an opportunity to avoid a process painful to presented evidence in the case. any one, which entails anxiety, aggravation, humiliation, etc. The rule is that the right to a preliminary investigation is waived when the accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at arraignment. Even when the trial on the merits has started, the trial should be suspended to make way for the preliminary investigation. The right to a preliminary investigation cannot be denied. It is a substantial right and its denial constitutes a prejudicial error, in that it subjects the accused to the loss of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan

An information for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was filed against former PCGG Commissioner Quintin Doromal by the office of the Special Prosecutor. The information was annulled by the SC in view of the ruling in Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan. A preliminary investigation was already made in this case. A new information was filed, now certified by the Ombudsman. Doromal asks the Court to quash the information, having been filed without a preliminary investigation conducted first. The Court held that Doromal has the right to a preliminary investigation but the information cannot be quashed because the Sandiganbayan now has jurisdiction on the case. The trial by merits is suspended while a preliminary investigation is being conducted.

Allado vs. Diokno

Roberts vs. CA

The judge issued a warrant of arrest against Allado and Mendoza in connection with the crime of kidnapping with homicide charged against them. The two accused petitioned for review of the resolution of prosecutors that found probable cause against them. The SC found that the judge merely relied on the said resolution in issuing a warrant of arrest notwithstanding the insufficiency of evidence against the petitioners while the prosecutors merely relied on the findings of PACC. The warrant of arrest was set aside. Petitioners are officials of Pepsi. Despite only having the information, amended information, and joint resolution made by the prosecutors, the respondent judge denied the motion to hold in abeyance the issuance of warrants of arrest and the motion to defer the arraignment, while directing the issuance of warrants of arrest.

In both the preliminary investigation by the prosecutor, which ascertains if the respondent should be held for trial, or a preliminary inquiry by the trial judge which determines if an arrest warrant should issue, the bottom line is that there is a standard in the determination of the existence of probable cause, i.e., there should be facts and circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a prudent and cautious man to believe that the accused is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Section 2, Article III of the present Constitution provides that no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. The preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does not bind the Judge. It merely assists him to make the determination of probable cause. The Judge does not have to follow what the Prosecutor presents to him. The first kind of preliminary investigation is executive in nature. It is part of the prosecutions job. The second kind of preliminary investigation which is more properly called preliminary examination is judicial in nature and is lodged with the judge The determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor. It is an executive function, the correctness of the exercise of which the trial court may not be compelled to pass upon. The trial court cannot determine whether the prosecutor has made a correct ascertainment of the existence of probable cause in a case. As a general rule, the Supreme Court does not interfere with the Ombudsman's determination of the existence or absence of probable cause. A settled exception is when there is grave abuse of discretion. Note: For criminal cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, it is the Office of the Special Prosecutor, as an organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman, which exercises investigatory and prosecutory powers.

Republic vs. CA

A judge dismissed an information filed against an accused for want of probable cause.

Sistoza vs, Desierto

Siztoza and other officers of the Bureau of Correction involved in the preparation of the purchase order for the tomato paste as part of the food supply of the inmates were charged with the violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It was alleged that they give unwarranted advantage to Elias General Merchandising causing undue burden to the government when the order was awarded to it when in fact it was only the second lowest bidder. Eliseo, Co., a bidder who lose in the bidding, filed a complaint before the Ombudsman who found probable cause

Santos vs. Orda

Metrobank vs. Reynaldo

after conducting preliminary investigation. The Office of the Ombudsman filed the Information with the Sandiganbayan. Even after reinvestigation, the proceedings were continued and so Sistoza filed a petition with SC. SC held that there was no probable cause in the charged against Sistoza so Sandiganbayan was ordered to dismiss the case, The petitioners are among those charged of Murder for having allegedly participated in the killing of Francis Orda. The prosecution, upon the instruction of the DOJ Secretary, filed a motion to withdraw the Information since their witnesses had recanted their statements. RTC dismissed the case but SC remanded it, ordering RTC judge to make an independent assessment of probable cause. RTC found NO probable cause for the charge. CA reversed RTCs finding of lack of probable cause. Metrobank discovered that a fraud was perpetuated by its employees and a client, Universal Converter Phils. Inc. against them. They entered into a Debt Settlement Agreement with Universal, but sued their employees for estafa. The prosecutor recommended dismissal of the case, and the DOJ rules the same way.

The task of presiding judge when an Information is filed with the court is first and foremost to determine the existence or nonexistence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused. The purpose of the mandate of the judge to determine probable cause is to insulate from the very start those falsely charged with crimes from the tribulation, expenses and the anxiety of a public trial. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to determine if probable cause exists. Probable cause is defined as a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well-founded, such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so. The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. While probable cause demands more than "bare suspicion," it requires "less than evidence which would justify conviction."

3, Who are authorized Sec. 2 Castillo vs. Hon. Villaluz directed Castillo, Provincial Fiscal, to explain why Villaluz he should not be punished for contempt of court for not filing an information, pursuant to Hon. Villaluzs preliminary investigation of an estafa case. Balgos vs. Petitioners were charged with violating R.A. 3019 for unlawfully Sandiganbayan enforcing a writ of execution over a car. The plaintiff in a civil case which involved said car filed a complaint for the rescission of the sale of the same. Subsequently, petitioners filed a motion to suspend proceedings in the criminal case against them on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question in the civil case for rescission. This was denied by the Sandiganbayan. - Sec. 37, Rule on Summary Procedure - Pres. Dec, No. 1630 (Tanodbayan)

The conclusions derived by a judge from his own investigation cannot be superior to and conclusively binding on the fiscal or public prosecutor, in whom that function is principally and more logically lodged. Before a re-investigation of the case may be conducted by the public prosecutor, after the case was already filed in court, the permission or consent of the court must be secured. And if after such reinvestigation, the prosecution finds a cogent basis to withdraw the information or otherwise cause the dismissal of the case, such proposed course of action must be addressed to the discretion of the court.

- Sec. 265, Omnibus Election Code (COMELEC) 4. Cases Cognizable by RTC a. Procedure 1) When conducted by a prosecutor Filing of Complaint affidavit/s Investigation Proper Sec. 3 Rodil vs. Garcia During the preliminary investigation of a murder case, respondent judge denied petitioner and accused Reynaldo Rodil's application for bail and request to cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecution. The procedure to be followed in the hearing on an application for bail, while summary in character, is not to be a mere sham or pretense. If the Constitution requires the court to determine for itself whether or not the proof is evident or presumption great in a given case, all considerations of expediency or convenience, however potent they might be at the common law, must give way. Hence, a hearing on the application for bail must be conducted. During the preliminary investigation, the accused is not entitled to cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecution, this being a matter that depends on the sound discretion of the Judge or investigating officer concerned. Post Investigation, duties of prosecutor - Secs. 4, 8 2) When conducted by a judge, Sec. 5 b. Distinguished from Preliminary Examination 1) Sec.6 2) Cases Pangandaman An ambush happened and MTC Judge Casar conducted the vs. Casar preliminary investigation and issued the warrant of arrest being questioned. Petitioners contend that the Judge failed to conduct the investigation in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 3 (now section 6), Rule 112 of the Rule of Court. SC upheld the validity of the warrant of arrest Samulde vs. Salvani

There is no requirement that the entire procedure for preliminary investigation must be completed before a warrant of arrest may be issued. The present Section 6 of the same Rule 112 clearly authorizes the municipal trial court to order the respondent's arrest even before opening the second phase of the investigation if said court is satisfied that a probable cause exists and there is a necessity to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. There was a disagreement between investigating judge Samulde Under the 1985 ROC, it is not obligatory, but merely and provincial fiscal Salvani on whether it is mandatory for the discretionary, upon the investigating judge to issue a warrant for former to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused in view of the arrest of the accused, even after having personally examined

Tandoc vs, Resultas

his finding, after conducting a preliminary investigation, that there exists prima facie evidence that the accused committed the crime charged. Samulde did not issue the arrest warrant, while Salvani wanted him to do so. The RTC Judge in the mandamus action ordered Samulde to issue the warrant. The SC set aside this decision A criminal complaint was filed with the Office of the City Fiscal by the respondents for serious oral defamation, grave threats, and physical injuries. The City Fiscal did not find any probable cause and dismissed the complaint. Subsequently, the respondents filed a criminal complaint for serious physical injuries, trespass to dwelling, serious physical injuries, and grave threats to kill with the City Court of San Carlos City

the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers, for the determination of whether a probable cause exists.

If the complaints could be filed directly with a Court empowered to conduct a preliminary examination for purposes of issuance of warrants of arrest, the preliminary investigation proper conducted by the Fiscal can be dispensed with. The earlier order of dismissal by the investigating fiscal cannot bar the filing of the complaints with the city court on the ground of double jeopardy because preliminary investigation is not a trial. It is merely intended to determine, before the presentation of evidence, whether or not there are reasonable grounds for proceeding formally against him.

Lim vs. Felix

As long as the offense charged has not prescribed, the city court has the power and authority to conduct a preliminary examination and proceed with the trial of the case properly within its jurisdiction. Makati RTC judge issued a warrant of arrest for a case from Preliminary Investigation determines whether there is sufficient Masbate transferred to him by the SC. Judge relied only upon ground for the filing of a criminal complaint or information; Fiscals certification and recommendation that probable cause Preliminary Examination determines whether there is probable exists. cause justifying the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Preliminary Investigation -> By Prosecution (i.e. Executive). For filing of complaint/information. Preliminary Examination -> By Judge. For issuance of warrant of arrest.

c. Preliminary Investigation in Cases of Arrests without warrant and "Inquests" 1) Without waiver Sec. 7, pars. 1 and 3 Art. 125, Rev. Penal Code DOJ Circ, No. 5, s. March 1, 1989, re Uniform Procedure for Disposition of Inquest Cases 2) With waiver, Sec, 7, par.2 5. Cases Cognizable by MTC, Sec. 9

V. ARREST, SEARCH AND SEIZURE (Rules 113 and 126) 1. Phil. Const., Art. IIL Secs. 2 and 3 2. Statutes a. Rep, Act No. 7438 (1992) b. B.P. t29, Sec, 37, pars, 2 & 3, (1980) c. Rev, Penal Code, Art, 129-130,269 d. Rules of Court, Rules 113 & 126; Rule 112, Secs.5, 6, 7 & 9(b); Appendix of Forms, Forms 25 to 27 e. Rev, Rules on Summary Procedure, Sec, 16 3. Cases on Arrest Luna vs. The accused filed a petition for habeas corpus alleging that the judge, Plaza in issuing a warrant for his arrest, violated RA 3828 because he did not personally examine the complainant and his witnesses with searching questions and answers and such examination by the judge was not in included in the records. He only adopted the questions propounded by the investigating officer. The SC affirmed the CFI which held that the judge fully complied with said law. Before a municipal judge issues a warrant of arrest, he must first satisfy himself that there is probably cause by examining the witnesses personally, and that the examination must be under oath and reduced to writing in the form of searching questions and answers. This is to prevent the issuance of a warrant against a person based simply upon affidavits of witnesses who made and swore to their statements before a person/s other than the judge before whom the complaint is filed. Strict compliance is required to avoid malicious and/or unfounded criminal prosecution of persons. Where petitioner has filed an application for bail and waived the preliminary investigation proper, he waived his objection to whatever defect, if any, in the preliminary investigation conduct prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest. Whether or not a judge can conduct preliminary investigation depends on the charter of the city where such court has jurisdiction. Arrests made without warrants may only be made under the exceptions enumerated by law. Otherwise, they are invalid. If an arrest without warrant is unlawful at the moment it was made, generally nothing that happened or discovered afterwards can make it lawful. Acting suspiciously and attempting to flee when police officers approach constitute a probable cause justifying a subsequent search.

Callanta vs. Villanueva

City judge conducted preliminary investigation and issued a warrant of arrest against Callanta. Callanta posted a bail bond and then assailed the validity of the issuance of the warrant arguing that it is only the Fiscal that can conduct preliminary investigation. The court held the a City Judge can also conduct a preliminary investigation. Ruben Burgos was convicted of Illegal Possession of Firearms in Furtherance of Subversion. He was arrested by officers of the PC-INP due to the testimony of Cesar Masamlok that he was a member of the NPA. They also discovered an unregistered firearm in his property. There was no valid warrant of arrest for Burgos at the time. Police officers approached Posadas (with a "buri" bag), who was acting suspiciously. He attempted to flee. The officers caught him, searched his bag, and found a gun, ammunitions, and a smoke grenade. The SC held that the search, while not incident to a lawful

People vs, Burgos

Posadas vs. CA

People vs. Musa

arrest, is valid. The trial court found Musa guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. He assailed the admissibility as evidence of a plastic bag containing marijuana which the agents found in his kitchen. Supreme Court held that the aforementioned evidence was inadmissible as it was not in the plain view of the agents.

People vs. Exala

Allado vs. Diokno

Bocalan, Exala, and Fernandez were on board a private jeep driven by Bocalan. There was a checkpoint and they were asked routine questions. Pfc Ricardo Galang, a member of the inspection team, noticed a black leather bag measuring 1 foot wide and 2 feet long. He asked them what the contents were but they did not respond and suddenly became fidgety. Galang ordered them to open the bag and saw more than 2 kilos of Indian hemp or marijuana. The 3 accused were charged with violation of Sec. 4, Art. II of RA 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). Boncalan was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment while Exala and Fernandez were sentenced to suffer lighter penalties. Bocalan alleges that the marijuana is not admissible as evidence because it was obtained without a valid search warrant. Allado and Mendoza were charged with the abduction and murder of a German national, Van Twest. A warrant of arrest was issued by Judge Diokno based on the resolution issued by the panel of prosecutors. Allado and Mendoza raises the case on certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion on Judge Dionkos part in issuing said warrants of arrest.

The general rule is stated in Rule 126, sec. 12 of the Rules of Court, authorizing a warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest. The warrantless search and seizure, incident to a suspects lawful arrest, may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. Objects in the PLAIN VIEW of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. The plain view doctrine will apply when it is immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. If there is a reasonable belief for the inspection team manning a valid checkpoint to suspect that the motorist is a law offender or that the contents were instruments in the commission of an offense, then the evidence obtained is admissible. Likewise, when one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made of his person or premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof.

Esquillo vs. People

The procedure for establishing probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest by the judges is outlined in Soliven v. Makasiar, which is emphasized in People v. Inting. Probable cause may not be established by simply showing that a trial judge subjectively believes that he has good grounds for his action. Good faith is not enough; the probable cause test is an objective one. The bottomline is that there is a standard in the determination of the existence of probable cause: there should be facts and circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a prudent and cautious man to believe that the accused is guilty of the crime which he is charged. TC found Esquillo guilty of illegal possession of shabu. On appeal she 1. Petitioner did not question early on her warrantless arrest raised the issue of warrantless arrest for the first time. Court before her arraignment. Neither did she take steps to quash the maintained her conviction--the issue should have been raised earlier Information on such ground. Verily, she raised the issue of

in trial. Court also said that there was a valid stop-and-frisk made on warrantless arrest for the first time only on appeal before the her. appellate court. By such omissions, she is deemed to have waived any objections on the legality of her arrest. 2. Exceptions on warrantless search: (1) consented searches; (2) as an incident to a lawful arrest; (3) searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration, customs, and drug laws; (4) searches of moving vehicles; (5) searches of automobiles at borders or constructive borders; (6) where the prohibited articles are in plain view; (7) searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary, and building regulations; and (8) stop and frisk operations. 3. In the instances where a warrant is not necessary to effect a valid search or seizure, the determination of what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is purely a judicial question, taking into account, among other things, the uniqueness of the circumstances involved including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured. 4. Stop-and-frisk practice serves a dual purpose: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behaviour even without probable cause;and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer. Criminal case dismissed by RTC for lack of probable cause, citing Sec. Sec. 6a Rule 112 does not relate only to the issuance of warrants 6a Rule 112. Petitioner claims RTC erred in relying on Sec. 6a Rule of arrest by the judge but also to the judicial duty of determining 112 since the said provision relates to the issuance of a warrant of probable cause independent of the findings of the prosecutor.

Ong vs. Genio

arrest, not the determination of probable cause for the filing of the Information. 4. Cases on Search and Seizure Stonehill vs, Diokno 43 search warrants were issued to search and seize things Exclusionary rule was laid down in this case. Things seized based that belonged to the petitioners and to the corporation, on a null and void search warrant are considered inadmissible which they were officers. The petitioners filed for an action evidence. for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and injunction in SC claiming that the search warrants were null and void because it contravenes the Constitution and the Rules of Court. SC declared that the search warrants and subsequent search and seizures were illegal. Rodriguez vs. Villamiel A warrant issued by a Justice of Peace was declared invalid after it has been shown that the affidavits relied on were insufficient in evidence and vague as to the place and particular objects subject to seizure. 2 search warrants issued by respondent Judge Ernani CruzPano, under which the premises known as No. 19, Road 3, project 6, QC, and 784 Units C&D, RMS Bldg, Quezon Avenue, known to be business addresses of the Metropolitan Mail and We Forum newspapers, were searched, and office machineries, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles alleged to be in possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos Jr, publisher, editor of We Forum newspaper, were seized. The judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest. If on the face of the information, the judge finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscals certification and require submission of the affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at the conclusion as to existence of probable cause. Sec 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, personal properties that may be seized under a search warrant (a) property subject of the offenses; (b) property stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense; (c) Property used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. This rule does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. Alih vs. Castro Military officers in Zamboanga City conducted a zosa on the A warrantless search and seizure operation on the premises of a compound of the petitioners. They collected various suspected criminal is unconstitutional. firearms and ammunitions and arrested the 16 male petitioners. The petitioners are filing this case for the recovery of the items seized and for their exclusion from

Burgos vs. Chief of Staff

Malaloan vs, CA

evidence against them. The court where the application for search warrant was filed and issued was the RTC of Kalookan while the said search was done in Fairview, Quezon City. It is contended that the search was illegal because the warrant is issued outside of the courts territorial jurisdiction. The SC ruled no law or rule invalidates the warrant

People vs. Court of Appeals

Valentino Ortiz was the subject of two searches, one in Makati, and one in Paranaque. The first search, the one that took place in Makati, was deemed by the investigating prosecutor as invalid for having violated his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The one that took place in Paraaque, however, was deemed valid. The latter was undertaken at the residence of Ortiz, at 7:30 PM in the evening, complete with a search warrant. Furthermore, it was conducted in the absence of Ortiz, not to mention that Ortizs wife and their childs nanny refused to be witnesses to the search. Accused were stopped at a checkpoint established pursuant to a COMELEC gun ban. Firearms were seized from them. When they proceeded to the polce station, a bag of hashish was found in the car. The Court ruled that the establishment of the checkpoint was valid. The search made on the car at the police station whcih yielded the hashish falls under one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement since it appears that the owner of teh car consente dto the search. However, his other two companions were acquitted of the charge of violation of the Dangeround Drugs Act.

1. Before the criminal action is filed with the appropriate court, a court which has no territorial jurisdiction over the crime may validly entertain an application for and thereafter issue a search warrant in connection with the commission of such crime; and 2. After the filing of the criminal action, the court with which it was filed has primary jurisdiction to issue search warrants necessitated by and for purposes of said case; however, under extreme and compelling circumstances, another court may issue a search warrant in connection with said case. The general rule is that search warrants must be served during the daytime. However, the rule allows an exception, namely, a search at any reasonable hour of the day or night, when the application asserts that the property is on the person or place ordered to be searched. In the absence of the lawful occupant of the premises or any member of his family, the witness-to-search rule allows the search to be made in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. There are 6 six generally accepted exceptions to the warrant requirement: (1) search incidental to an arrest; (2) search of moving vehicles; (3) evidence in plain view; (4) customs searches; (5) consented warrantless search; and (6) stop-and-frisk situations.

People vs. Usana(Exception to the warrant requirement in searches)

People vs. Doria

In a buy-bust operation, PO3 Manlangit acted as a poseur 1. Entrapment is not against public policy. It is instigation that is buyer and transact with Jun, later on known to be Florencio illegal and against public policy. Doria. After PO3 gave the marked bills to Doria, PO3 was asked to wait because Doria would get the marijuana. 2. Warrantless arrests are allowed in three instances as provided

When he returned, he was arrested but when frisked the marked bills were not found with him. Doria told them he gave it to Neneth (later on known to be Violeta Gaddao). When the police went to Gaddaos house, they saw a carton box under the dining table and noticed something wrapped in plastic inside the box which has 10 bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. Both were arrested. RTC of Pasig City convicted them of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act and sentenced them to death because of the finding of the existence of an "organized/syndicated crime group". Upon mandatory review by the SC, Dorias conviction was affirmed but was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, while Gaddao was acquitted.

by Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on CriminalProcedure, to wit: Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the police are not only authorized but dutybound to arrest him even without a warrant 3. Plain view doctrine: Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and maybe introduced in evidence Five generally accepted exceptions to the right against warrantless searches and seizures: (1) search incidental to lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs searches, and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of their right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

People vs. Elamparo

A team of police officers conducted a buy-bust operation following a report from an informant that some people are selling shabu and marijuana in Bagong Barrio, Kalookan City. The team was able to arrest one Edwin Spencer after cornering him in a bungalow house. Elamparo was inside the same bungalow house repacking marijuana. The police officers arrested Elamparo and charged him with illegal The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites possession of drugs. concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.

VI. BAIL (Rule 114) 1. Conditions of Bail (Section 2, Rule 114)

2. When bail a matter of Right? Section 4, Rule 114 3. When discretionary (Section 5, Rule 114) 4. Burden of Proof in Bail Application (Section B, Rule 114) 5, Guidelines for fixing Bail 6. Where filed 7. Cases People vs. During trial, the accused filed a petition for bail. The RTC did not Manes hear the petition, but neither did the accused invoke their right to bail at any stage. They were convicted, and now appeal to the SC, alleging the RTCs error in failing to hear the petition for bail. People vs. Trial court judge granted bail to Odiamar, who was charged with Cabral rape. It omitted certain evidence presented by the prosecution in its determination of whether evidence of guilt is strong.

Lavides vs. C.A.

Petitioner Lavides was arrested for child abuse under RA 7610. The trial court granted the right to post bail for each of his 10 criminal cases, but subjected the grant of bail to four conditions, one of which is that the approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after arraignment. Petitioner assails the validity of such condition.

When an accused is charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, and evidence of guilt is strong, bail must be denied, as it is neither a matter of right nor of discretion. In cases like rape, bail is DISCRETIONARY and NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT. Its grant or denial is dependent on whether the evidence of guilt is strong which the lower court should determine in a hearing called for the purpose. TEST is not whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether it shows evident guilt or a great presumption of guilt. Arraignment cannot be made the prerequisite to the grant of bail. To condition the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment would undermine his constitutional right not to be put on trial except upon valid complaint or information sufficient to charge him with a crime and his right to bail.

People vs. Mark Jimenez

The condition would be to place him in a position where he has to choose between (1) filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on bail because until his motion to quash can be resolved, his arraignment cannot be held, and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail. Extradition case against Mark Jimenez requested by USA. Jimenez After being taken into custody, potential extraditees may apply for sought that in case a warrant of arrest should issue, he be allowed bail. Since the applicants have a history of absconding, they have the to post bail. SC denied his request for bail burden of showing that (a) there is no flight risk and no danger to the community; and (b) there exist special, humanitarian or compelling circumstances. The grounds used by the highest court in the requesting state for the grant of bail therein may be considered, under the principle of reciprocity as a special circumstance. In extradition cases, bail is not a matter of right; it is subject to judicial discretion in the context of the peculiar facts of each case. By nature, extradition proceedings are not equivalent to a criminal

Almeda vs. Villaluz

Almeda, an accused in the crime of qualified theft of a motor vehicle, was requesting that he be allowed to post a surety bond instead of a cash bond for his provisional release. TC judge Villaluz denied his request, since the judge directed that the bond be posted entirely in cash, and on the ground that Almeda was a habitual delinquent and a recidivist. The SC held that Almedas request should have been allowed Leviste vs. Leviste was charged with murder but convicted of homicide for C.A. killing de las Alas. He appealed the conviction. Pending appeal, he applied for bail. CA denied his application. This impelled Leviste to go to the SC alleging grave abuse of discretion on the ground that since none of the 5 bail-negating circumstances (Sec 5, Rule 114) is present, bail must be granted.

case in which guilt or innocence is determined. Consequently, an extradition case is not one in which the constitutional rights of the accused are necessarily available. It is more akin, if at all, to a courts request to police authorities for the arrest of the accused who is at large or has escaped detention or jumped bail. The SC has held that "where conditions imposed upon a defendant seeking bail would amount to a refusal thereof and render nugatory the constitutional right to bail, we would not hesitate to exercise our supervisory powers to provide the required remedy." In the case at bar, the amount fixed for bail, while reasonable if considered in terms of surety or property bonds, may be excessive if demanded in the form of cash. If none of the bail-negating circumstances is present, the CA may grant or deny bail (matter of discretion). In this scenario, an application for bail pending appeal may still be denied. Denial of bail pending appeal does not by itself constitute grave abuse of discretion. If the any of the circumstances mention is present, CA must deny or revoke bail. If the CA grants bail, there will be grave abuse of discretion

VII. ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA (Rule 116) 1. Arraignment and Plea, Sec. 1 (a). Rule 116 a. Nature and Purpose b. Cases U.S. vs, Lavarias took part in a robbery along with Palisoc, Diadib, Valerio, Palasoc and Torres. Lavarias was not presented at the beginning of the trial, and did not appear until after the fiscal finished presenting the prosecutions witnesses. After it, the court discovered Lavarias was outside the courtroom. He was ordered inside, and the TC recalled one witness to be examined as to Lavarias. This was without arraignment, reading to him of the complaint, or informing him of his right to be represented by an attorney during trial. Lavarias was convicted by the TC. People vs. The CFI found the accused guilty of theft, with the judgment stating Carriaga that, Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of guilty. The accused contends that it was not shown when, where or how he was arraigned and that he waived his right to arraignment. The SC held

The provisions of General Orders No. 58 (on arraignment and the right to counsel during the stages of the trial) are mandatory in their terms.

The statement in the judgment that the accused had been arraigned and had pleaded guilty is sufficient compliance with the law, as it may be presumed from said statement that the law has been obeyed by causing the accused to appear before the court, and it is shown

that the statement was one of facts and that the records do not thereby that he has really been arraigned, his plea entered personally. have to show the details of his arraignment. What is important and essential is that the accused be arraigned and that he enters his plea. It is immaterial how or in what manner such facts are stated. In Motion for Reconsideration: Under Sec. 188 of GO 58, The arraignment must be made by the court or clerk If the judge may arraign the accused, it necessarily follows that when said judge states the judgment that upon arraignment, he entered the plea of guilty, he had arraigned the appell ant. The judge may state facts in the judgment and his statement on said matter requires no evidence in order to be taken into account as true fact. The statement of the judge relative to arraignment has so much weight that in case of discrepancy with the minutes of the clerk of court, the word of the judge prevails. 2. Procedure a. Notice b. Where made c. How done d. Duty of Court, Sec. 6 1) Right to counsel, Consti., Art, III, Sec. 11 2) De Officio counsel, Sec. B 3. Types of plea, Sec. 1 (a) a. Admission: "Guilty" 1. Plea of Guilty to a Capital Offense, Sec. 3 People vs, Serna Serna pleads guilty for the crime of Robbery with double murder. There are 2 aggravating( use of motorized banca and recidivism) and 1 mitigating circumstance(plea of guilty). Court sentences him to Death. If death penalty is imposed, the case is automatically elevated to the SC for review. In cases where there is a plea of guilty and death may be imposed, the court should make certain that the defendant fully understands the nature of the charge against him and character of the punishment. The trial court should call witnesses to determine the guilt and degree of culpability of the defendant to satisfy the trial judge and aid the SC in determining if the defendant really understood the significance and consequences of his plea. Rudy Tiongson, together with George dela Cruz and Rolando Santiago The norm that should be followed where a plea of guilty is entered escaped from prison. While escaping, Tiongson killed Zosimo Gelera by the defendant, especially in cases where the capital penalty may and Aurelio Canela. Tiongson was subsequently captured, and be imposed, is that the court should be sure that the defendant

People vs. Tiongson

Informations were filed against him for Murder. Upon arraignment, fully understands the nature of the charges preferred against him. he pleaded guilty. Where the penalty may be death, the trial court should call witnesses for the purpose of establishing the guilt and degree of culpability of the defendant. People vs. The accused in 4 counts of rape pleaded guilty in the trial court and When a guilty plea is entered to a capital offense, he trial court is Nadera was subsequently convicted. On review, the SC held that, since the enjoined to (1) conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness judge did not conduct a sufficient searching inquiry into the of the plea and full comprehension of the consequences thereof, voluntariness of the plea and full comprehension of the consequences (2) require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt thereof, the plea was given improvidently and that, since the counsel of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability, and (3) ask for accused only advocated for him half-heartedly, the cases had to be the accused if he desires to present evidence on his behalf and remanded. allow him to do so if he desires. 2. Plea of Guilty to a non-capital offense, Sec. 4 3. Plea of Guilty to a lesser offense b. Not Guilty c. Improvident plea (Section 5) d. Plea of guilty but accused presents exculpatory evidence Section 1 (d) 4. Suspension of Arraiqnment (Section 11) VIII. MOTION TO QUASH (Rute 117) 1. When to Move to quash a. Sec. 1 b. Consequences of failure to move or failure to allege, Sec. 8 2. Form and Content People vs. Esteban Beloncio and Juan Beloncio were detained by Juan Navarro Navarro and Anacleto Atienza, herein accused, upon orders of the commanding General, Western Visayan Task Force, United States Army. They were detained for several days (the case did not state the exact number of days) starting January 27, 1945 at the provincialjail of Mindoro. Thereafter, they filed the present case for arbitrary detention against Navarro and Atienza and an information was filed. The trial court held a trial by asking the accused and their counsels questions. Note: the court only considered the 1) answers to these questions and 2) statements made by the fiscals. The issues were not joined People vs. An information was filed charging Alagao et.al with the complex Alagao crime of incriminatory machinations through unlawful arrest. The information alleged that Alagao unlawfully arrested Marcial There is no motion filed by the fiscal regarding the statements he made and the court rightly considered such statements together with the information. Sec. 2 (a), Rule 113 permitting a motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense omits reference to the facts detailed in the information. Therefore, facts charged = those described in the complaint + other additional circumstances or statements made by the fiscal In resolving the motion to quash a criminal complaint or information, the facts alleged in the complaint or information should be taken as they are. For a criminal complaint or information

Lopez vs. City Judge

Gamboa vs. Judge Cruz

Apolonio and then planted a P1.00 marked bill on him, thereby imputing Marcial the crime of bribery. Alagao moved to quash the information on the ground, among others, that the there is no complex crime and that the information is actually charging him with two separate crimes of unlawful arrest and incriminatory machinations. The SC did not sustain the motion. Lopez et. al., filed for recission of their contract with Lazatin and Terra Devt. In response, Lazatin and Terra filed a criminal complaint against Lopez et. al., resulting in the latter being charged with falsification of a private document. After the reinvestigation that the parties charged requested from the City Fiscal was terminated, they moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the City Court of Angeles had no jurisdiction over the case, considering that the offense was made outside the territorial limits of the city. After failing to act on the motion to dismiss, the petitioners filed a motion to quash, on the basis of the City Court having no jurisdiction. The motion was denied. A man arrested and detained for vagrancy, was included in a police lineup and identified as being involved in a robbery. After prosecution rested their case, he files a motion to acquit.

to charge the commission of a complex crime, allegations contained therein do not necessarily have to charge a complex crime as defined by law. It is enough that the information contains allegations which show that one offense was a necessary means to commit the other. The motion to quash now provided for in Rule 117 of the Rules of Court is manifestly broader in scope than the demurrer, as it is not limited to defects apparent upon the face of the complaint or information but extends to issues arising out of extraneous facts, as shown by the circumstance that, among the grounds for a motion to quash, Section 2 of said Rule provides for former jeopardy or acquittal, extinction of criminal action or liability, insanity of the accused etc., which necessarily involve questions of fact in the determination of which a preliminary trial is required. An accused is deemed to have waived objections that are grounds for a Motion to Quash if he files after prosecution rests their case.

3. Grounds (Sec, 3. Rule 116) a. Fact charged do not constitute an offense 1) Secs. 6, 7, B, and 9 Rule 110 2) Cases People vs. Former AFP colonel Abadilla was charged with the offense of Illegal Asuncion Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. At the time he was charged, EO 107 as amended by EO 222 was in effect. These EOs provided for surrender of unlicensed firearms and ammunition without incurring criminal liability within the stipulated period except if used or carried. The information against Abadilla didnt stipulate that he used or carried the said firearms and ammunition. SC held that the information did not contain the essential ingredients that constituted the offense (that he used or carried them) hence the information was fatally defective. Go vs. BSP RTC dismissed an Information against Go claiming it was insufficient Information for the prosecution of the latter.

The essential ingredients of a crime should all be stipulated in the information. Failure to do so renders the information fatally defective. The presentation of evidence cannot have the effect of validating a void information or proving an offense which does not legally exist

An Information only needs to state the ultimate facts constituting the offense, not the finer details of why and how the illegal acts alleged amounted to undue injury or damage matters that are appropriate for the trial. The facts and circumstances necessary to be included in

the Information are determined by reference to the definition and elements of the specific crimes. The Information must allege clearly and accurately the elements of the crime charged. Lastly, even if it is incomplete, the RoC allows for the amending of insufficient Information, for justice to be truly served. Soriano vs. Several informations were filed against petitioners, each charging a Otherwise stated, there is duplicity (or multiplicity) of charges when People single crime, all based on 1 act by the petitioners. They filed a single Information charges more than one offense. motions to quash informations on the ground that more than 1 offense is charged, and that the facts do not constitute an offense. this Court had ruled that a single act or incident might offend against two or more entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law thus justifying the prosecution of the accused for more than one offense With regard to the question of the sufficiency of the allegations, the court said that the test is whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the offense as defined by law. Certiorari was not the proper remedy to assail the denial of motion to quash. The proper procedure is for the accused to enter a plea, go to trial without prejudice on his part to present the special defenses he had invoked in his motion to quash and if after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law. b. Court has no jurisdiction over offense charged or the person of the accused 1) Jurisdiction over the offense 2) Jurisdiction over the accused 3) Venue as an element of jurisdiction Lopez vs. City Judge Lazatin and Terra Development Corporation filed a case against the petitioners for falsification of a private document in the city court of Angeles. The accused moved to dismiss the case stating that the crime was committed outside outside the territorial jurisdiction of the city of Angeles. Daminador Layosa was a collector of customs. He was charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law. In the hearing for his suspension, no warrant of arrest was issued to him but he was notified of it and his counsel was present and cross-examined the prosecution's witnesses. Layosa assailed his Where the act of falsification of a private document- the signing of the document and the coetaneous intent to cause damage- was committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the city, its City Court will have no jurisdiction over the offense charged. Appearing in court through counsel gives jurisdiction over the person of the accused, even without a warrant of arrest.

Layosa vs. Rodriguez

suspension order, saying that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over him because no warrant of arrest was issued to him. The Court held that his appearance through his counsel was a waiver of questioning the jurisdiction of the court. - Section 20, Rule 14, The Revised Rules of Court c. Officer who filed information had no authority to do so. - Secs. 3,4, and 5, Rule 110, d. Complaint or information does not conform substantially to prescribed form,, Sec. 110. e. More than one offense is charged, Sec, 13, Rule 110, f. Criminal action or liability has been extinguished., - Art. 89 and 90, R.P.C. Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. Criminal liability is totally extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. 2. By service of the sentence; 3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects; 4. By absolute pardon; 5. By prescription of the crime; 6. By prescription of the penalty; 7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of this Code. Art. 90. Prescription of crime. Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty years. Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years. Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years. The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year. The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months. Light offenses prescribe in two months. When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the rules contained in the first, second and third paragraphs of this article. (As amended by RA 4661, approved June 19, 1966). g. Contains averments which, if true, would constitute legal excuse or justification, Art, 11, R,P.C, h. Double jeopardy 1) Constitutional basis. Sec. 21, Art. III, 1987 Consti. 2) Sec. 3 (h) and 7; Sec. 5, Rule 120 3) Cases People vs. City Gapay was charge with serious physical injuries thru reckless Where after the first prosecution a new fact supervenes for Court of Manila imprudence. On the same day of the filing of information, the victim which the defendant is responsible, which changes the Diolito died. 2 days later, Gapay was arraigned and pleaded guilty. character of the offense and, together with the facts existing

Galman vs. Sandiganbayan

Another 4 days later, an information for homicide thru reckless imprudence was filed against Gapay. This was dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy. Hence, this petition. SC affirmed the order of dismissal. An investigating committee was created to determine the facts on the case involving the assassination of Ninoy Aquino. It appears that majority and minority reports showed that they are unconvinced on the participation of Galman as the assassin of late Sen. Aquino and branded him instead as the fall guy as opposed to the military reports. Majority reports recommended the 26 military respondents as indictable for the premeditated killing of Aquino and Galman which the Sandiganbayan did not give due consideration. The office of the Tanodbayan was originally preparing a resolution charging the 26 military accused as principal to the crime against Aquino but was recalled upon the intervention of President Marcos who insist on the innocence of the accused. Marcos however recommended the filing of murder charge and to implement the acquittal as planned so that double jeopardy may be invoked later on. The petitioners filed an action for miscarriage of justice against the Sandiganbayan and gross violation of constitutional rights of the petitioners for failure to exert genuine efforts in allowing the prosecution to present vital documentary evidence and prayed for nullifying the bias proceedings before the Sandiganbayan and ordering a re-trial before an impartial tribunal.

at the time, constitutes a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the new offense. It is settled doctrine that double jeopardy cannot be invoked against this Court's setting aside of the trial courts' judgment of dismissal or acquittal where the prosecution which represents the sovereign people in criminal cases is denied due process. Furthermore, double jeopardy attaches only if there is a valid judgment. If there is none, or the prior judgment is void, no double jeopardy attaches.

People vs. Relova

Manuel Opulencia, owner of an ice plant, was charged with a violation of a city ordinance for installing wirings and devices for the purpose of reducing electricity cosumption without the authority of the city govt. The case was dismissed because the action had already prescribed. Subsequently, a second information was filed charging him with theft. The second case was dismissed for violating his right against double jeopardy. However, he was still held civilly liable.

The first sentence of Art IV (22) of the 1973 Constitution sets the general rule: No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. The second sentence is an exception to the general rule: If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. Our Bill of Rights deals with 2 kinds of double jeopardy: The first sentence prohibits double jeopardy of punishment for the same offense, whereas the second sentence prohibits double jeopardy of punishment for the same act.

People vs. Gorospe

Caniza vs. People

Que vs. Cosico

Caes vs. IAC

The extinction of criminal liability whether by prescription or by double jeopardy does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability. Two checks were issued by Parulan to San Miguel Corporation and An order dismissing a criminal case is not a decision on the both bounced for insufficiency of funds. He was charged with merits, it cannot bar as res judicata a subsequent case based violation of BP 22 and Estafa under Art 315 (2d), RPC. The checks on the same offense (People vs. Bellosillo, 1963) were received by the Sales Supervisor at Guiguinto, Bulacan and forwarded to the SMC Regional Office at San Fernando, Pampanga. The dismissal being null and void the proceedings before the The check was also deposited at BPI San Fernando, Pampanga where Trial Court may not be said to have been lawfully terminated. the notice of dishonor was received from the drawee bank, Planters There is therefore, no second proceeding which would Bank Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The cases were filed in RTC Pampanga subject the accused to double jeopardy which dismissed the cased due to lack of jurisdiction. Upon appeal, SC held that RTC Pampanga has jurisdiction because both are (not relevant, but Sir emphasized on this) Jurisdiction or continuing crime. The accused put up the defense of double venue is determined by the allegations in the Information, jeopardy. SC held there has been no decision based on merits and which are controlling the dismissal being void there is no second proceeding that would subject the accused to double jeopardy. An Information was filed against the petitioner for falsification of 1. Requisites for the defense of double jeopardy; public documents. The Information was dismissed since the allegations found therein did not constitute an offense and/or 2. An accused may waive the defense of double jeopardy by provided a legal excuse or justification if true. A second Information moving for the dismissal of the first criminal case. This against the petitioner was filed charging the petitioner with doctrine of waiver is subject to two sine qua non conditions: substantially the same offense as that charged in the previous (1) the dismissal must have been sought or induced by the Information. The petitioner moved to quash the second information defendant, either personally or through counsel; and (2) such and one of his grounds is double jeopardy. Respondent judge denied dismissal must not have been on the merits and must not the motion. necessarily amount to an acquittal. There was a criminal case for estafa filed against Que et al, but the The requisites that must concur for legal jeopardy to attach prosecution refused to present evidence because they wanted the are, to wit: 1) a valid complaint or information; 2) a court of judge to inhibit himself. After refusing to rule on the motion to competent jurisdiction; 3) the accused has pleaded to the inhibit, the judge dismissed the case, and it was re-raffled to another charge and 4) the accused has been convicted or acquitted or judge (Cosico). Que et al assail the re-opening of their case as a the case dismissed or terminated without the express violation of their right against double jeopardy. consent of the accused. The date for the trial against Caes was postponed and reset eleven The denial of speedy trial due to prosecutions own fault, times, sometimes because of the absence of the coupled with provisional dismissal of the case without the prosecutionwitnesses. The case was provisionally dismissed, but express consent of the accused, are sufficient to constitute then the prosecution witnesses moved to revive the case, claiming the final dismissal contemplated in the fourth requisite for that they were absent before double jeopardy. As such, there can be no revival of the case due to lack of notice. They furnished a copy to the City Fiscal, but not thereafter without infringing on the constitutional right to Caes. The judge granted the motion, which was challenged by against double jeopardy.

Samson vs, C.A

Caes. Samson facilitated the claim of 2 persons from Red Cross. It turned out that the 2 claimants were impostors. He was charged and convicted with falsification of 2 PNB checks in the CFI. Upon appeal to CA, he was convicted of falsification through gross imprudence.

When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information, and that proved or established by the evidence, and the offense as charged, is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the defendant shall be convicted of the offense proved included in that which is charged, or of the offense charged included in that which is proved. A conviction for a negligent act can be had under an information charging the commission of a willful offense upon the theory that the greater offense includes the lesser offense.

4) Provisional Dismissal People vs. Panfilo (May 2002 Facts) Lacson 11 members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang (KBG) were killed in a 2002, April shootout with the police. Policeman Eduardo delos Reyes along with and Oct. of several others executed affidavits wherein they stated that the shootout 2003 was in fact an execution made by the police. 11 informations where then filed against Panfilo Lacson and 25 other accused. Prosecution witnesses and private complainants recanted their affidavits, however, and expressed their disinterest in continuing the case. Upon motion to dismiss the case for lack of probable cause by Lacson et al, the cases were dismised by the RTC judge. However, upon new affidavits executed, 11 Informations for murder for the same were again filed. The CA characterized the termination of the previous criminal cases as "provisional dismissal," according to Section 8, Rule 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and considered the new criminal cases as mere revivals of the same. It ruled that the provisional dismissal became permanent because of the lapse of 2 years. Hence, the new cases were dismissed.

(May 2002 ratio) For Section 8, Rule 117 to bar the filing of informations that have been provisionally dismissed, there is need of proof of the following facts: 1. Whether the provisional dismissal of the cases had the express consent of the accused; 2. Whether it was ordered by the court after notice to the offended party; 3. Whether the 2-year period to revive has already lapsed; and 4. Whether there is any justification for the filing of the cases beyond the 2-year period. (April 2003 Ratio) The respondent is burdened to establish the essential requisites of the first paragraph of the Provisional Dismissal Rule, namely: 1. the prosecution with the express conformity of the accused or the accused moves for a provisional(sin perjuicio) dismissal of the case; or both the prosecution and the

(April 2003 Facts) Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated May 28, 2002. (October 2003 Facts) Lacson filed several motions in this case. One of which is the motion for reconsideration of the April 2003 Decision. He claims that the Informations in several criminal cases filed against him by petitioners were filed beyond the two-year period to revive provisionally dismissed cases. In arguing this, he in effect says that Section 8, Rule 117 of the RRCP, which provides such two-year period, should be applied retroactively. The SC holds that such rule should be applied prospectively. Hence, the Informations were filed within the period given by the court

accused move for a provisional dismissal of the case; 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. - The foregoing requirements are conditions sine quanon to the application of the time-bar in the second paragraph of the new rule. The raison d etre for the requirement of the express consent of the accused to a provisional dismissal of a criminal case is to bar him from subsequently asserting that the revival of the criminal case will place him in double jeopardy for the same offense or for an offense necessarily included therein. Although the second paragraph of the new rule states that the order of dismissal shall become permanent one year after the issuance thereof without the case having been revived, the provision should be construed to mean that the order of dismissal shall become permanent one year after service of the order of dismissal on the public prosecutor who has control of the prosecution without the criminal case having been revived. The public prosecutor cannot be expected to comply with the timeline unless he is served with a copy of the order of dismissal. (Oct 2003 Ratio) The Court is not mandated to apply Section 8 retroactively simply because it is favorable to the accused. (The SC also said that for Section 8 to apply, all the essential requisites in that section should be present express consent of the accused and notice to the offended parties.)

4. Procedure upon filino of the Motion a. Hearing the motion b. When motion to quash is denied Bulaong vs. CA Complaints were filed by Bulaong. A complaint was also filed against Petition for certiorari and prohibition are not the proper him. remedies in case of a denial of motion to quash. In his reply-affidavit, he said statements alleged to be libelous, prompting the other party to file a case for libel against him. He The defendant should instead go to trial without prejudice

moved to quash the information but this having been denied, he filed on his part to present the special defenses he had invoked in a petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus with preliminary his motion and, if after trial on the merits, an adverse injunction. decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law. An order denying a motion to acquit or a motion to quash is interlocutory and not a final order. It is therefore, not appealable. Neither can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari. It may only be reviewed by an appeal from the judgment after the trial. The accused, after the denial of his motion to quash, should have proceeded with the trial of the case and if final judgment is rendered against him, he could then appeal and present questions. Generally, when a Motion to Quash a criminal information is denied, certiorari is not the remedy, but for petitioners to go to trial without prejudice to raising the same special defenses invoked in the Motion to Quash. One exception to this is when the denial is without or in excess of jurisdiction, or is attended by grave abuse of discretion. This is an instance wherein Prohibition or Certiorari lies.

Javier was a board member of the National Book Development Board. She was granted a cash advance for attending an international book fair. She was not able to go. She did not return the money. An action for violation of the Anti-Graft Law was filed against her, as well as an action for Malversation under the RPC. The cases were consolidated. She pleaded not guilty to the charge against the Anti-Graft Law. She filed a Motion to Quash against the Information charging her with violation of the RPC provision on Malversation. Sandiganbayan denied her Motion to Quash, as well as her Motion for Recon. Javier Petitioned for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the SC. SC denied. c. When amendment available as a cure - Rule 110 1) Section 4 2) Section 14 5. Effect of Order granting Motion to quash a. Not a bar to another prosecution for the same offense. - Sec, 6 b. Exceptions, Secs. 3, 6 IX. PRE-TRIAL (Rule 118) 1. Purpose and Subject matter of pre-trial conference - Section 1, Rule 118 2. Requisites of Pre-trial agreements, Sec. 2 Fule vs. C.A. Fule was convicted by the RTC of violation of BP 22 on the sole basis of the Stipulation of Facts entered into by the prosecution and defense. The CA affirmed the conviction. A petition for review on certiorari was filed, the accused alleging that the Stipulation of Facts

Javier vs, Sandiganbayan

The rule requiring the signature of both the accused and his counsel in the agreement or admission made or entered during the pre-trial conference is mandatory, the absence of which would render the agreement or admission

People vs. Uy

was not signed by him and his counsel therefore he cannot be found guilty. The SC reversed and remanded the case, holding that the Stipulation of Facts was inadmissible in evidence. Ramon was caught selling shabu in a buy-bust operation. Ramon waived in the Pre-trial the testimony of the NBI chemist. The joint order of such pre-trial was not signed by Ramon and his counsel. Trial proceeded in the trial court. Ramon and his counsel did not object to the presentation of the NBI chemists report. The trial court convicted him. He appeals arguing that he did not waive the NBI chemists testimony.

inadmissible in evidence. The admissions in the pre-trial cannot be used against the accused if it is without his and his counsels signature. The exception is failure to object to the presentation of evidence whose supporting testimony to give it probative value was allegedly not waived in the pre-trial and failure to raise the issue in the trial court such as in this case where the issue of non-signing was only raised upon appeal to the SC.

3. Pre-Trial Order, Sec. 3 X. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED (Rule 115) 1. Presumption of Innocence People vs. Pableo Dramayo and Paterno Ecubin, along with 5 other men, were Dramayo accused of killing Estelito Nogaliza, a witness to a robbery committed by the two. Dramayo and Ecubin were found guilty of the crime of murder. Of their 5 co-accused, 2 were utilized as state witnesses. The other 3 were acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.

Accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt. It is incumbent on the prosecution to demonstrate that culpability lies. The proof against the accused must survive the test of reason. Conscience must be satisfied that the accused is responsible for the offense charged, he perpetrated the act, and that it amounted to a crime. People vs. The accused was charged with abduction with rape. The Acting When the evidence does not sustain conviction, the Quiazon Solicitor General filed a Manifestation, which, instead of supporting presumption of innocence may be relied upon to effect the prosecution, prayed for acquittal, based on the improbability of acquittal. the evidence presented. The SC acquitted. U.S. vs. Luling Defendant was accused of violating Act 355 of United States It has been frequently decided, in case of statutory crimes, Philippine Commission. Defendant interposed the defense that a that no constitutional provision is violated by a statute portion of that act was unconstitutional because they allow the providing that proof by the state of some material fact or State to establish facts which shall constitute prima facie facts shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt, and that evidence of guilt. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of then the burden is shifted to the defendant for the purpose of Act 355. showing that such act or acts are innocent and are committed without unlawful intention. Castillo vs. Filtex Petitioner Castillo was charged with slight physical injuries for his Under Sec. 7, Rule 123 of the Rules of Court, the judgment of alleged involvement in a mauling and stoning incident which the lower court is vacated upon perfection of the appeal and occurred at the height of a strike called for by SAMAHAN (Samahan to be tried de novo as if it were originally instituted therein. ng Malaya Manggagagawa sa Filtex). During the pendency of the case, When the case was dismissed, the constitutional he was suspended from his job at Filtex (Respondent). Respondent presumption of innocence must be applied to Castillo. His and SAMAHAN entered into a Return to Work Agreement wherein innocence need not

it was stated that employees with pending criminal cases related to be proved, since the Constitution makes a presumption that the mauling and stoning incident will be reinstated with back wages he is innocent. if they are found innocent by the courts. Otherwise, they will be dismissed. Castillo was found guilty by the Municipal Court of Makati but on appeal, the CFI of Makati dismissed the case. Nonetheless, Filtex refused to reinstate Castillo. 2. Right to be informed of accusation Borja vs, Borja was charged with the crime of slight physical injuries. The City Mendoza Court proceeded with a trial in absentia without the benefit of an arraignment. On appeal, the CFI affirmed the CC decision without any notice to Borja nor requiring him to submit his memorandum. The SC nullified these decisions due to the violation of Borjas constitutional right to due process. People vs. Crisologo Crisologo is a deaf-mute charged with robbery with homicide. He was not afforded by the court with an interpreter of sign language in all stages of the proceedings. He was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced to be electrocuted. SC ruled that the omission of the interpreter amounts to a denial of due process.

Arraignment is that stage were an accused, for the first time, is granted the opportunity to know the precise nature of the charge against him. An arraignment thus becomes dispensable as the means for bringing the accused into court and notifying him of the cause he is required to meet. The absence of an arraignment can be invoked at any time in view of the requirements of due process to ensure a fair and impartial trial. The absence of an interpreter in sign language who could have conveyed to the accused, a deaf-mute, the full facts of the offense with which he was charged and who could also have communicated the accused's own version of the circumstances which led to his implication in the crime, deprived the accused of a full and fair trial and a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

People vs. Corral Corral rapes Josephine twice, evidence corroborates 2 acts of rape. It matters not how convincing the evidence of guilt may be, Complaint by victim only alleges 1 act of rape. Corral convicted of an accused person cannot be convicted in the courts of any only 1 count of rape. offense, unless it is charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried, because he has a right to be informed as to the nature of the offense with which he is charged before he is put on trial. People vs. Alicando was charged and convicted of the crime of rape with the requirement that the complaint/information be read to Alicando homicide of 4 year old Khazie Mae Penecilla by the trial court. The the appellant in the language and dialect known to him supreme court remanded the case back to the trial court because it implements the constitutional right of the accused to be was not shown in the decision that the reading of the informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against complaint/information to the appellant was not done in the dialect him. known to him. Dico vs. CA A man was charged with three counts of BP 22 and was convicted by The right to be informed of the accusation includes the right the CA of two of them. He appeals, pleading non-notice of dishonor, to know the specifics of the crime charged and also proper and SC acquits him of all the two charges appealed. timing as to when he should be informed. The Court can also

look into the issues of the case even though they were not raised on appeal. 3. Right to be present at every stage of proceedings U.S. vs. Beecham Convict was sentenced to death and the lower court ordered the execution of the judgment without the accused being present there. The accused tried to impugn the validity of the order by invoking his right to be present thereat.

The SC said that these provisions should be understood as securing the accused merely the right to be present during every step in the trial in the CFI; the phrase "at the trial" is to be taken "to include everything that is done in the course of the trial, from the arraignment until the sentence is announced, which clearly refers to the proceedings had in the nisi prius court. It was not the intention of the legislature to extend the right to be present beyond limits just indicated, and we are confirmed in our conclusions in this regard by a review of the decisions of the various courts of last resort in the United States construing similarly worded constitutional and statutory provisions touching the right of accused persons to be present in the course of criminal proceedings instituted against them Upon the authority and the reasoning of the foregoing citations there can be no question that the language of the Philippine Bill of Rights in which it secures to the accused the right to be heard by himself and counsel in all criminal prosecutions, and the language of General Orders, No. 58, which secures to the accused the right "at the trial" to be present in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, and specifically "at the time of pronouncing judgment," must be understood to be limited to the proceedings in the trial court, that is to say the Court of First Instance, and to extend only to the actual trial therein, and not to appellate proceedings or to proceedings subsequent to the entry of final judgment looking merely to the execution of the sentence. As a general rule, any constitutional or statutory right may be waived if such waiver is not against public policy. An accused may waive his presence at the trial, subject to the following conditions set forth in Diaz v. U.S and People v. Francisco: (1) In cases of felony, the accused has the right to be present

Aquino vs. Military Commission No. 2

Benigno Aquino Jr. was arrested during the Martial Law and was to be tried by the Military Commission. He filed petitions questioning the constitutionality of the Martial Law and the jurisdiction of the Military Commission over him. Later on he withdrew his petitions but the Court denied his petition to withdraw. One of the issues in the petition is on the right of Aquino to waive his presence at his trial in

the Military Commission.

Borja vs. Mendoza

Borja was convicted by the city court without being arraigned. He appealed to the CFI affirmed the conviction. He raised the said defect to the SC. The SC ruled that his constitutional rights were violated and ruled that the judgment be nullified.

People vs. Presiding Judge of Urdaneta

People vs. Macaraeg

Respondent Valdez is charged with murder. He is out on bail, with the condition that he will appear and answer the charge abovementioned in whatever Court it may be tried, and will at all times hold himself amenable to the orders and processes of the Court. After arraignment, Valdez manifested his waiver of the rght to be present during the trial. The prosecuting fiscal moved that Valdez be compelled to be present during the trial so he could be identified by the prosecution witnesses. Respondent Judge upheld position of Valdez, saying that he cannot be validly compelled to be present during the trial. : Accused Valdez was charged with Homicide and was granted bail. While the accused has the right to waive his presence during His bail included a waiver which stipulated that the trial can proceed the proceedings, his presence may be compelled for in his absence. During trial, a prosecution witness claimed that he identification purposes. could identify the accused. The Court said that the presence of the accused can be compelled for identification purposes. Abong was charged with homicide, but before arraignment, the case was reinvestigated and an amended information was filed, with no bail recommended, to which he pleaded not guilty. While trial is in progress, Abong took advantage of the first information for homicide and deceived the court into granting him bail, and so he escape. The The right to be present at one's trial may now be waived except only at that stage where the prosecution intends to present witnesses who will identify the accused. Under Section 19, the defendant's escape will be considered a waiver of this right and the inability of the court to notify

at every stage of the trial, inclusive of the arraignment and pronouncement of judgment; (2) Where the offense is capital the right of the accused to be present at every stage of the trial is indispensable and cannot be waived (3) Even in felonies not capital, if the accused is in custody, his right to be present at every stage of the trial is likewise indispensable and cannot be waived; (4) Where the offense is not capital and the accused is not in custody, his presence is indispensable only: (a) at arraignment, (b) at the time the plea is taken, if it be one of guilt, and (c) at the pronouncement of the judgment The right of the accused to be present at the arraignment assures that he is fully acquainted with the nature of the crime imputed against him and the circumstances of which it is allegedly committed. It is a vital aspect of the constitutional rights guaranteed him. Violation of which, is of such gravity as to nullify the whole proceeding. The 1973 Constitution now unqualifiedly permits trial in absentia even of capital offenses, provided that after arraignment he may be compelled to appear for the purpose of Identification by the witnesses of the prosecution, or provided he unqualifiedly admits in open court after his arraignment that he is the person named as the defendant in the case on trial. (Relevant constitutional provision has been reproduced in the 1987 Constitution verbatim.)

People vs. Salas

judge ordered his re-arrest but he was gone. Prosecution wants to him of the subsequent hearings will not prevent it from continue the proceedings, but the judge ordered the suspension of all continuing with his trial. He will be deemed to have received proceedings until the return of the accused. SC ordered respondent due notice. judge to continue hearing the case against Abong in absentia as long as he has not reappeared, until it is terminated. Gimenez vs. Nazareno Private Respondent dela Vega, along with five other persons, were charged with the crime of murder. They pleaded not guilty in the arraignment but dela Vega escaped before the scheduled first date of hearing. Trial against all the accused proceed with dela Vega being tried in absentia. The case was dismissed with respect to the five coaccused but the proceedings were held in abeyance with respect to dela Vega. The trial court opined that dela Vega must be given the opportunity to present evidence in his own behalf and to crossexamine the witnesses against him the moment he shows up in court. 1. Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of parties but continues until the case is terminated, notwithstanding the escape of the accused from the custody of law. 2. The unjustified absence of the accused during trial of which he had notice, after he has been arraigned, is deemed as a waiver of his right to present evidence in his own behalf and to cross-examine the witnesses against him. 3. Requisites for trial in absencia: a. That there has been arraignment; b. That the accused has been notified; c. That he fails to appear and his failure to do so is unjustified.

4. Riqht to counsel of choice People vs. Frieto Eduardo Prieto was tried for 7 counts of treason. In his appeal, he seeks reversal based on the trial courts failure to assign another counsel de oficio in spite of the manifestation of his attorney (who defended him at the trial) that he would like to be relieved because he did not share the cause of the accused. Johnson vs. Zerbst Petitioner was tried, convicted, and sentenced without assistance of counsel for uttering and possessing counterfeit Federal Reserve notes. He contends that it was impossible for him to appeal, as he did not know what to do or how to go about his situation. While imprisoned, he was denied habeas corpus. The District Court said that he was deprived his right to counsel, but that this was not sufficient to make the trial void, and could be corrected on appeal. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.

The Court will indulge reasonable presumptions in favor of the legality and regularity of all the proceedings of the trial court, including the presumption that the accused was not denied the right to have counsel. It is presumed that the procedure prescribed by law has been observed unless it is made to appear expressly to the contrary. The Sixth Amendment constitutionally entitles one charged with a crime to the assistance of counsel, compliance with which is an essential jurisdiction prerequisite to a federal courts authority. When this right is properly waived, the assistance of counsel is no longer a necessarily element to the courts jurisdiction. If, however, the accused is not represented by counsel and has not competently and intelligently waived his constitutional right, the Sixth Amendment stands as a jurisdictional bar to a valid conviction and sentence. The judgment of conviction

People vs. Holgado

pronounced by a court without jurisdiction is void, and one imprisoned thereunder may obtain release by habeas corpus. Holgado was charged with Slight Illegal Detention to which he The right to be assisted by counsel is deemed so important pleaded guilty but unaided by counsel. He was sentenced however that it has become a constitutional right and it is so under article 267 of the RPC for kidnapping and serious illegal implemented that under our rules of procedure it is not detention. enough for the Court to apprise an accused of his right to have an attorney, it is not enough to ask him whether he desires the aid of an attorney, but it is essential that the court should assign one de oficio if he so desires and he is poor grant him a reasonable time to procure an attorney of his own

Anda mungkin juga menyukai