Anda di halaman 1dari 119

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty.

Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005


C!"!NA# P$C%&'% C!"!NA# P$C%&'%
ATT(. TAN)'!# SA#*A&$ ATT(. TAN)'!# SA#*A&$
+ +!ST !ST S S%"%ST% %"%ST% A( ,005-,00. A( ,005-,00.
!. &%+!N!T!$NS / P%#!"!NA( C$NS!&%AT!$NS
A. Definition
1. Concerned with the procedural steps through which a criminal case
passes, commencing with the initial investigation of a crime and
concluding with the unconditional release of the offender.
2. A network of rules, which governs the procedural administration of
criminal justice, that is, laws and courts rules (Blacks Law
Dictionar!.
3. "ethod prescri#ed # law for the apprehension and prosecution of
persons accused of an criminal offense and for their punishment
in case of conviction (Clarks Criminal $rocedure!
B. %ources
1. $hilippine &ules of Criminal $rocedure (&ule ''( to &ule ')*! of
the &ules of Court (took effect on +anuar ', ',-.!. /he &ules
were revised three more times. /he latest took effect on
Decem#er (', )(((!.
2. ',0* Constitution under Article 111 (Bill of &ights!
3. various acts passed # the legislature like B$ Blg. '),
4. $residential decrees
5. 23ecutive 4rders
6. Decisions of the %upreme Court
C. Criminal Law vs. Criminal $rocedure
Criminal #a0 Criminal Procedure
Both relates to crimes Both relates to crimes
%u#stantive5 it defines crimes,
treats of their nature and
provides for the their punishment
&emedial5 provides for the
method # which a person
accused of a crime is arrested,
tried and punished
Declares what acts are punisha#le $rovides how acts are punished.
D. %stems of Criminal $rocedures
Systems &e1inition
a. 1n6uisitorial $rosecutions of crimes are wholl in the hands of
prosecuting officers and the court.
/he procedure is characteri7ed # %2C&2C8.
$resence of accused #efore the magistrate is not a
re6uirement thus, magistrate can proceed with in6uir
and judgment even in the a#sence of the accused.
+udgment does not #ecome final until it has #een
ratified and confirmed # the court of last resort (9% vs.
%amio!.
During the %panish period.
#. Accusatorial &e6uires all crimes e3cept private offenses (must #e
commenced # the complainant of the offended part!
to #e prosecuted # a pu#lic prosecutor
Accused has a right to #e heard personall or #
counsel
$u#lic trial, right of accused against self:incrimination is
guaranteed.
Accused enjos presumption of innocence; guilt must
#e proven #eond reasona#le dou#t
/here is a right to appeal
+udgment does not re6uire the imprimatur of the court
of last resort #efore t ma attain finalit.
/here should #e moral certaint of guilt to defeat the
constitutional presumption of innocence ($eople vs.
2got!.
c. "i3ed
sstem
Contemplates of two contending parties #efore the
court, which hears them impartiall and renders
judgment onl after trial (<ueto vs Catolico!.
"i3 of the last two sstems (e3. our law provides that
preliminar e3amination must #e conducted # a judge
#efore he issues a warrant of arrest which is an aspect
of in6uisitorial sstem while accused has a right to #e
heard, which is an aspect of the accusatorial sstem!
=ote5 Courts proceeding in our +udicial %etup is accusatorial or adversarial and
not in6uisitorial in nature. But there are opinions that our countr su#scri#es
to the third sstem.
*ena *. *erga 1

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
2. Construction of rule
1. &ules will #e li#erall construed, enough to protect the su#stantial
rights of the accused (section -, &ule ' of the &ules of Court!.
2. &ules of Court should not #e interpreted as to sacrifice the
su#stantial rights of the litigants at the altar of technicalities to the
conse6uent impairment of the sacred rules of justice (Alon7o vs.
>illamor!.
!!. 2'!S&!CT!$N
A. Definition
1. Came from the Latin words ?juris@ and ?dico@ (1 speak # the law!
which means ?the power or the capacit given # the law to a
court or tri#unal to entertain, hear and determine controversies@
($eople vs. "ariano!
2. /he right to put the wheels of justice in motion and to proceed to
the final determination of a cause upon the pleading of evidence.
3. the power and authorit to hear and determine matters in
controvers according to esta#lished rules of law and to carr the
sentence or judgment of the court into e3ecution ("orando vs.
&ovira!.
4. >ested in the courts, not in the judges. /his when a complaint is
filed #efore one #ranch or judge (of the same court, e3. &/C!
jurisdiction does not attach to said #ranch or judge alone. /rial
ma #e had or proceeding ma continue # and #efore another
#ranch or judge.
B. Distinguished from venue
/he particular countr or geographical area, which a court with
jurisdiction ma hear and determine a case; place of trial.
2urisdiction *enue
/reats the power of the court to
decide the case on the merits
Deals with localit, the place where
the suit ma #e had
%u#stantive (defines and regulates
rights or duties which gives rise to a
cause of action!
$rocedural ($rescri#es methods of
enforcing rights or o#tains redress for
their invasion!
1n civil cases, venue can #e waived or
#e a su#ject of agreement.
1n criminal actions, venue cannot #e
waived or stipulated upon #ecause it is
an element of jurisdiction.
C. Ahen does jurisdiction attach
+urisdiction attaches when law has given a tri#unal capacit to
entertain the complaint against the person or thing sought to #e
charged or affected, and that such complaint has actuall #een
preferred, and that such person or thing has #een properl #rought
#efore the tri#unal to answer the charge therein contained (&epu#lic
vs. %unga!.
D. 23ercise of +urisdiction
/he authorit to decide a cast and not the decision therein is what makes up a
jurisdiction. Ahere the jurisdiction over the person and su#ject matter, the
decision of all other 6uestions arising in the case is #ut an e3ercise of the
jurisdiction (de >era vs. Avila!.
A court ma act, first, without jurisdiction (makes the judgment void!; and
second, having power or jurisdiction, ma e3ercise it wrongl (decision is
wrong and must #e reversed upon error!; or third, irregularl (must #e
corrected # motion!.
2. %ource
1. +urisdiction must #e conferred #5
('! Constitution
()! Law in force at the time of the institution of the action
($eople vs. Adolfo!
2. Cannot #e fi3ed # the will of the parties or diminished # the
omission or act of said parties
3. Apportionment of jurisdiction is vested in the legislature; ma not
#e conferred on the court # the parties involved in the offense.
B. Criminal +urisdiction
1. Definition5 the power of the tri#unal to hear and tr a particular
offense and impose the punishment for it ($eople vs. "ariano!.
2. Ahile a court has a#stract jurisdiction to and decide criminal cases
committed within its territorial jurisdiction, it cannot do so unless a
complaint or information has #een filed in court.
3. re6uisites
(a! the offense is one which the court is # law authori7ed to take
cogni7ance of (+9&1%D1C/14= 4>2& %9B+2C/ "A//2&!.
(#! the offense must have #een committed within its territorial
jurisdiction (+9&1%D1C/14= 4>2& /2&&1&/4&8!.
(c! person charged with the offense must have #een #rought to
its presence for trial, forci#l # warrant of arrest or upon his
voluntar su#mission to the court. (+9&1%D1C/14= 4>2& /C2
$2&%4= 4B /C2 ACC9%2D!.
*ena *. *erga ,

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
=4/25 1t is a general rule that jurisdiction of a court over the su#ject matter
of the action is a matter of law and ma not #e conferred # consent or
agreement of the parties (98 vs. CA!
D. +urisdiction over continuing crimes
=ote5 Bor continuous crime to e3ist, there should #e pluralit of acts
performed separatel during a period of time; unit of the penal provision
infringed upon or violated and unit of criminal intent or purpose. /his is
means that two or more violations of the same penal provision are unite in one
and the same intent leading to the perpetuation of the same criminal purpose
($eople vs. Eapata and Bondoc!
3%N%A# '#%5 /he accused in a continuing or transitor offense ma #e
tried in an jurisdiction in which he is found (9% vs. Cunanan!. But the court
where the case was first filed ac6uires jurisdiction over the same to the
e3clusion of all other courts, provided it has custod of the accused or has first
ac6uired jurisdiction over his person.
C. /erritorial +urisdiction
1. Determined # the allegations in the information as to the situs of
the crime and this determines, in the first instance, whether said
court has jurisdiction to tr this case.
D2=2&AL &9L25 the offender must #e prosecuted in the territor where the
offense was committed.
2. 23ceptions5
).' Ahere the offense was committed under the e3ceptional
circumstance provided in Article ) of the &$C (although committed
outside $hilippine jurisdiction, these crimes are tria#le in $hilippine
courts!5
).'.' should the crime #e committed while on $hilippine
ship or airship
).'.) should the crime consist of counterfeiting or forger of
an coin or currenc note of the $hilippine 1sland or
o#ligations and securities issued # the Dovernment
of the $hilippines.
).'.F %hould the accused #e lia#le for acts connected with
the introduction into these 1sland of the 4#ligations
and securities mentioned in the preceding num#er
).'.. Ahile #eing pu#lic officers or emploees, should
commit and offense in the e3ercise of their functions
).'.G %hould commit an of the crimes against national
securit and the law of nations
).) Cases of $irac
&eason5 /he law considers pirates ?hostes humani generis@. 1t is
committed not against an particular state #ut against all mankind
($eople vs. Lol:Lo and %arao!
).F Ahere the offense is committed on a railroad train, in an aircraft
or in an other pu#lic or private vehicle while in the course of its
trip. /he criminal actions ma #e instituted and tried in the court
of an municipalit or territor where such vehicle passed during
such trip including the place of departure and arrival (%ection '.,
&ule ''(!.
).. Crime was committed on #oard a vessel in the course of its
voage. Action ma #e tried in the proper court of the first power
of entr or an municipalit or territor through which the vessel
passed su#ject to the generall accepted principles of international
law.
).G Ahen the %upreme Court, in the interest of truth and impartial
justice, transfers the place of trial from one place to another.
(Article Hiii, %ection G(.!!
).- 1n cases of written defamation (Act .F-F!
Criminal action will #e filed in the CB1 of the province or cit where
the li#elous article is printed and first pu#lished or where an of
the offended parties reside. 1f one of the parties is a pu#lic officer
who office in the cit of "anila, the action shall #e filed in the CB1
of "anila or where he holds office.
1. +urisdiction over person of the accused I ac6uired upon either his
apprehension with or without a warrant or his voluntar su#mission to
the jurisdiction of the court (which ma #e effect # posting #ail or
filing a motion to 6uash.! But this ma #e waived.
+. Criminal +urisdiction5 how determined
+urisdiction is determined # the fine and imprisonment prescri#ed #
law or e3tent of the penalt which the law imposes together with other
o#ligations on the #asis of the facts as recited in the complaint or
information constitutive of the offense charged.
J. Apportionment of +urisdiction
1. 23tent of jurisdiction is ascertained #5
'.' $ower conferred # e3press or implied provision of a statute
'.) Constitution (article >111, %ection ' and )!5 Congress shall have the
power to define, prescri#e and apportion the jurisdiction of the various
court su#ject to the proviso that it ma not deprive the %C of its
jurisdiction over cases set forth in Article >111 section G.
2. Criminal +urisdiction of courts
*ena *. *erga 4

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
(a! "etropolitan /rial Courts, "unicipal trial Courts and "unicipal
Circuit /rial Courts
%ection F) of the +udiciar &eorgani7ation Act of ',0(5 e3cept in
cases falling within the e3clusive original jurisdiction of the &/C
and %andigan#aan, these courts shall e3ercise e3clusive
jurisdiction over
(i! all violations of cit and municipal ordinances
committed within their respective jurisdiction
(ii! offenses punisha#le with imprisonment of not
e3ceeding - ears irrespective of the amount of fine
and other accessor penalties. $rovided that in
offenses involving damage to propert through
criminal negligence, the shall have original
jurisdiction
(iii! offenses involving damage to propert through
criminal negligence.
9nder $D '-(- as amended # &A 0).,, "/C, "C/C, "e/C over
government officials and emploees where the penalt is not more
than - ears and officers charged do not fall under the jurisdiction
of the %andigan#aan (%alar grade )* and a#ove!
=ote5 9nder &A *-,'5 fine is no longer a factor in determining jurisdiction.
(#! &egional trial Courts
>ested the e3clusive jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the
e3clusive original jurisdiction of an court tri#unal or #od with
penalt higher than - ears,
Court with general jurisdiction
23ercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided # the first
level courts in their respective territorial jurisdiction
(c! Bamil Courts I created under the Bamil courts Act of ',,*
Cas e3clusive jurisdiction over cases5
(i! Criminal cases where one or more of the accuse is
#elow '0 #ut not less than ,.
(ii! Cases against minors cogni7a#le under the Dangerous
Drugs Act.
(d! Court of Appeals
(e! %andigan#aan
23clusive jurisdictions over all cases involving
(i! >iolations of the Anti:Draft and corrupt $ractices Act,
&A 'F*, and Chapter 11, section ) of /itle >11 of the
&$C where one or more principal accused are officials
occuping positions in the government (national and
Local officials with salar grade )* or higher!
Appellate jurisdiction over accused whose position is lower than
salar grade )*.
(f! %upreme Court
!. CAS%S
L. Deneral $rinciples
P%$P#% *S. "A!AN$
D.&. =o L:.(G)* F( +une ',*-
Bacts5 Cermogenes "arioano, a Liason officer # then incum#ent municipal
maor =olasco of %an +ose del "onte Bulacan, was authori7ed to receive from
9%A1D for the use and #enefit of the said municipalit electric ca#les
measuring 'G( ft and )G( feet and a ca#le power measuring G)G ft. with a
total value of K*'*.G(. 1nstead of delivering the said materials to the maor,
he appropriated the same to his personal use to the prejudice of the
municipalit. /he provincial Biscal of Bulacan then filed an information for
2stafa against the accused with the Court of Birst 1nstance of Bulacan. /he
accused filed a motion to 6uash on the ground contending that the court has
no jurisdiction over him considering that the militar commission had alread
taken cogni7ance of the malversation case against "aor =olasco involving the
same su#ject matter. /he judge granted the motion, hence this appeal.
1ssue5 AL= the civil courts and militar commissions e3ercise concurrent
jurisdiction over the offenses of 2stafa of goods allegedl committed # a
civilian.
Decision5 +urisdiction is the #asic foundation of judicial proceeding, which
fundamentall means the power or capacit given # the law to court or
tri#unal to entertain, hear and determine certain controversies. 1t is the
authorit to hear and tr a particular offense and impose the punishment for it.
/he jurisdiction of courts is derived from the constitution and statutes in force
at the time of the commencement of the action. 9nder the +udiciar Act of
',.,, courts of Birst 1nstance shall have jurisdiction over all crimes in which
the penalt provided # the law is imprisonment for more than si3 months, or
a fine of more than two hundred pesos. /he crime committed # "ariano is
punished # imprisonment from . months to two ears. /his falls under the
original jurisdiction of courts of first instance.
/he rule is that the court which first take cogni7ance of the case ac6uires
jurisdiction thereof e3clusive of the other applies onl where #oth courts have
concurrent jurisdiction over particular case charged. /he situation does not
involve two tri#unal vested with concurrent jurisdiction over a particular crime
so as to appl this rule. As specificall stated in Deneral order no .,, which
redefined the jurisdiction of militar tri#unals, the militar commission, is not
vested with jurisdiction over the crime of 2stafa.
*ena *. *erga 5

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
'N!T%& STAT%S *S. 2'%*%S
D.&. =o. -,,) F( August ',')
Bacts5 4n several instances several men entered towns, all within the
jurisdiction of Am#os Camarines (which at the date of the commencement of
the action were alread part of the province of /aa#as!, ro##ing, kidnapping
and killing several persons. /he were charged with the crime of #rigandage
and their guilt has #een esta#lished #eond reasona#le dou#t. /he appellants
counsel insists however that the court of /aa#as had no jurisdiction to tr the
accused for the reason that the territor where the acts complained of were
committed #elonged to the $rovince of Am#os Camarines at the time of the
commission of the acts although it has #een since transferred to the $rovince
of /aa#as and that %ection F of Act =o G'0 is invalid as opposed to the
$hilippine Bill.
1ssue5 AL= a court has jurisdiction over crimes committed in a particular
localit prior to the time such localit was included within the jurisdiction of
such court
Decision5 the general rule is that jurisdiction of a court is determined # the
('! geographical limits of the territor over which it presides, and ()! the
actions it is empowered to hear and decide. A court has inchoate right of
jurisdiction over all crimes committed within its jurisdiction, which is perfected
on the institution of the action. 1f however, it loses jurisdiction over a
particular action #ecause its territorial limits are restricted prior to the
institution of the action, it also loses this inchoate right to jurisdiction in favor
of the court to which the territor is transferred since it is unnecessar to
prolong a courts e3istence indefinitel after #eing legall a#olished.
/he territor where the acts complained of in the case at #ar were committed
having #een transferred to the $rovince of /aa#as prior to the institution of
this action, the court of the that province where the units have #een
transferred shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the case. /he
assumption of jurisdiction over crimes committed #efore jurisdiction was
conferred is not a violation of the e3 post facto clause.
/he decision was affirmed.
"AN!#A A!#$A& C$"PAN( *S. ATT$N%(-3%N%A#
D.&. =o. -)0* (' Decem#er ',,'
Bacts5 $laintiff filed an action for condemnation of certain real estate lands in
the CB1 of /arlac. 1t is alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff is authori7ed
# law to construct a railroad line from $ani6ui to /aug in the province of
/arlac. After filing the complaint. /he plaintiff, pending final determination of
the action, took possession of and occupied the lands descri#ed in the
complaint, #uilding its line and putting the same in operation. 4n the .
th
of
4cto#er, plaintiff gave notice to the defendants that a motion would #e made
to the court had no jurisdiction of the su#ject matter, #ecause as determined
# the plaintiff, the land sough to #e condemned was situated in the $rovince
of =ueva 2cija instead of $rovince of /arlac as alleged in the complaint.
1ssue5 AL= the CB1 of /arlac has jurisdiction over the case
Decision5 %ection GG and G- of Act =o 'F- of the $hilippine Commission confer
jurisdiction upon the Courts of Birst 1nstance of these island with respect to
real estate stating that the jurisdiction of the CB1 shall #e of two kinds5 4riginal
and Appellate. 1t was the intention of the $hilippine commission to give to the
CB4 the most perfect and complete jurisdiction possi#le over the su#ject
matters mentioned in connection therewith. /here is no suggestion of
limitation. /he jurisdiction is universal. %o far as jurisdiction over su#ject
matter is concerned, the CB1 of one province ma, if there is no o#jection #
an of the parties, take cogni7ance of an action in reference to real estate
located in another province,
Certain statues confer jurisdiction, others provide for the procedure # which
that jurisdiction is made effective. /he purpose of procedure is not to restrict
the jurisdiction to the court #ut to give it effectiveness.
/he laing of venue is procedural rather than su#stantive. 1t relates to the
jurisdiction of the court over the person rather than the su#ject matter. /he
esta#lish a relation, not #etween the court and the su#ject matter, #ut
#etween the plaintiff and the defendant.
/he $hilippine Commission has in fullest phrase given the CB1 unrestricted
jurisdiction over real estate in the 1sland # act no 'F- and that jurisdiction
ought not to #e held to #e withdrawn e3cept # virtue of an act e6uall e3press
or so clearl inconsistent therewith as to amount of the same thing.
>enue is not connected with jurisdiction over the su#ject matter. 1f the parties
consent thereto there is no legal reason wh the CB1 of "anila ma not
cogni7ance of and determine a controvers affecting the tile to or an interest in
real estate situated in another province. Aith the consent of the defendants,
e3press or implied, the venue ma #e laid and the action tried in an province
selected # the plaintiff. An one of the defendants who have lands ling in
another province ma also choose the venue. 1n such case, the action as to all
the defendants not o#jecting would continue as to the o#jecting defendants.
*ena *. *erga 5

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
/he plaintiff having #rought the action must su#mit itself to the jurisdiction of
the court. 1t took advantage of the situation itself created and took possession
of the land while the case is #eing litigated. 1t is estopped from alleging that
the court has no jurisdiction over it.
%"!#!$ %(%S *S. &!A6
D.&. =o. .0*GF )- =ovem#er ',.'
Bacts5 /he protestee is 6uestioning whether the protestants certificate of
candidac has #een dul filed. %uch will eventuall determine whether the
court has jurisdiction over the matter. /he parties are in agreement that if
indeed the protestee filed his candidac, then the court has jurisdiction over
the case. 4therwise, the court will have to dismiss the case. /he are
therefore not 6uestioning whether the trial court has jurisdiction according to
the law.
1ssue5 AL= the trial court has or has no authorit to pass upon the validit of
the #allots adjudicated to the protestant, which have not #een challenged #
the protestee in his counter protest.
Decision5 1t has #een held that the word ?jurisdiction@ as used in the
contri#ution and in the statues means ?jurisdiction as to the su#ject:matter
onl, unless an e3ception arises # reason of its emploment in a #roader
sense. +urisdiction over the su#ject:matter is the power to hear and determine
cases of the general class to which the proceedings in 6uestion #elong and is
conferred # the sovereign authorit which organi7es the court and defines its
powers.
1n order that the court ma validl tr and decide the case, it must have
jurisdiction over the su#ject matter and jurisdiction over the persons of the
parties. But in some instances, it is said that the court should also have
jurisdiction over the issue, meaning there# that the issue #eing tried and
decided # the court within the issues raised in the pleadings.
+urisdiction over the issue is different from jurisdiction over the su#ject:matter.
/he latter #eing conferred # law and the former # the pleadings. +urisdiction
over the issue ma #e conferred # consent either e3press of implied of the
parties. Although an issue is not dul pleaded, it ma #e validl #e tried and
decided if no timel o#jection is made thereto # the parties, this cannot #e
done when jurisdiction over su#ject matter is involved. +urisdiction over the
issue is an e3ception of a principle that is involved in jurisdiction over the
persons of the parties.
/he original 6uestion posed # the court was not answered.
*%#'NTA vs. C7!%+8 P7!#!PP!N% C$NSTA9'#A(
D.&. =o. L:*'0GG )( +anuar ',00
Bacts5 $etitioner, a mem#er of the 1ntegrated =ational $olice of /aclo#an, was
directing traffic at around -$" in the intersection of Burgos:/arcela:Lucente
%treets in /aclo#an Cit when he apprehended one &omeo Lo7ano, a motori7ed
triccle driver, for a traffic violation. An altercation ensued which resulted in
the death of the latter. Cis widow filed an administrative complaint with the
=A$4LC4", which found petitioner guilt of less grave misconduct and
suspended him for si3 months without pa.
$ending the case, &amons widow also filed another case for homicide at the
Biscals office in /aclo#an. Binding prima facie evidence, the Birst Assistant Cit
Biscal recommended that the case #e referred to the /anod#aan which
endorsed the filling of the homicide case. /he said case was referred to the
militar authorities pursuant to $D '0G(. /he general court "artial was
convened #ut petitioner assailed its jurisdiction over the case alleging that 24
'(.( in relation to 24 '()( transferred jurisdiction over mem#ers of the $=$
to the =A$4LC4".
1ssue5 AL= the Deneral Court "artial has jurisdiction over the case.
Decision5 +urisdiction is the power with which courts are invested for
administering justice fore hearing and deciding cases. Courts in the $hilippines
have no common law jurisdiction or power, #ut onl those e3pressl conferred
# the Constitution and statues and those necessaril implied to make the
e3press powers effective.
1t is e3pressl stated under 24 '(') that it is onl the operation supervision
and direction over all units of the 1ntegrated =ational $olice force stationed or
assigned in the different cities and municipalities that was transferred from the
$hilippine Consta#ular to the cit or municipal government concerned.
Likewise, 24 '(.( transferred merel the e3ercise of administrative control
over all units of the 1ntegrated =ational $olice throughout the countr to the
$resident. /his is not the same as transferring of jurisdiction or authorit of a
court:martial to hear, tr and decide a criminal proceeding against a police
officer.
Ahen the case was filed in ',0), there can #e no 6uestion that the respondent
Deneral Court "artial had jurisdiction. %ince jurisdiction had properl #een
e3ercised from the start, it remains with the militar court martial unless a law
e3pressl divests it of the jurisdiction. 1t is a rule that once jurisdiction is
*ena *. *erga .

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
ac6uired, it remains until validl transferred # the proper authorit according
to law.
1t is not intended # the legislators to repeal $D '0G(, thus, the court martials
jurisdiction remains.
'( *S. SAN&!3AN9A(AN
D.&. =o. '(G,-G:*( (, August ',,,
Bacts5 $etitioner Deorge 9 was the deput comptroller of the $hilippine =av
designated to act on #ehalf of Captain Bernande7, the latters supervisor, on
matters relating the activities of the Biscal Control Branch. %i3 informations for
2stafa through falsification of official documents and one information for
violation of %ection F of &A F(', (anti:graft and corrupt practices act! were
filed with the %andigan#aan against the petitioner and ', other accused for
alleged. /he petitioner was said to have signed a $.4. stating that the unit
received ',((( pieces of seal rings when in fact, onl '(( were ordered. /he
%andigan#aan recommended that the infomations #e withdrawn against some
of the accused after a comprehensive investigation.
$etitioner filed a motion to 6uash contending that it is the Court "artial and
not the %andigan#aan which has jurisdiction over the offense charged or the
person of the accused. $etitioner further contends that &A '0G( which
provides for the jurisdiction of court martial should govern in this case.
1ssue5 AL= the %andigan#aan has jurisdiction over the su#ject criminal cases
or the person of the petitioner
Decision5 /he fundamental rule is that the jurisdiction of a court is determined
# the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. /hus,
%andigan#aan has no jurisdiction over the petitioner at the time of the filing
of the informations and as now prescri#ed # law. &A 0).,, the latest
amendment of $D '-(- creating the %andigan#aan provides that such will
have jurisdiction over violations of &A F(', of mem#ers of the $hilippines
Arm and air force colonels, naval captains and all officers of higher rank.
1n the case at #ar, while the petitioner is charged with violation of &A F('0, his
position as Lieutenant Commander of the $hilippine =av is a rank lower than
?naval captains and all officers of higher rank@. 1t must #e noted that #oth the
=A/9&2 of the 4BB2=%2 and the $4%1/14= 4CC9$12D B8 /C2 ACC9%2D are
conditions %1=2 <9A =4= #efore %andigan#aan can validl take cogni7ance of
the case. /hus, regular courts shall have e3clusive jurisdiction over the person
of the accused as provided # the %andigan#aan Law which states that ?in
case where none of the accused are occuping positions corresponding to
%alar Drade )* or higher, e3clusive original jurisdiction shall #e vested in the
proper &/C, "/C, "C/C or "2/C pursuant to B$ Blg. '),.
Conse6uentl, it is the &/C which has jurisdiction over the offense charged
since under %ection , of &A F(',, the commission of an violation of said law
shall #e punished with imprisonment for not less than %i3 ears and 4ne
month to B1B/22= ears. /he indictment of the petitioner therefore cannot fall
within the jurisdiction of the "/C, "2/C or "C/C.
". +urisdiction determined # the position
S'9!&$ *S. SAN&!3AN9A(AN
D.&. '))-F' )( +anuar ',,*
Bacts5 Baani %u#ido, then B1D Commissioner and &ene $arina, then B1D
%pecial Agent conspired and caused the issuace of a warrant of arrest against
+ames "aksimuk. /he accused knew hat "aksimuks deportation order was
not et final and e3ecutor pending a "otion for &econsideration, resulting in
the detention of the latter which caused him undue injur. A case for ar#itrar
detention was filed against the accused with the %andigan#aan. /he
petitioners filed a motion to 6uash contending that in view of the effectivit of
&A *,*G, which is an act to %trengthen the Bunctional and %tructural
4rgani7ation of the %andigan#aan, the %andigan#aan had no jurisdiction
over the offense charged and the person of the accused. %aid motion was
denied, hence this petition.
1ssue5 AL= the %andigan#aan has jurisdiction over the case at #ar
Decision5 /he court dismissed the case. 1t is true that the crime committed no
longer falls within the purview of &A *,*G. Cowever, &A *,*G onl took effect
one ear after the commission of the crime charged. 1t must #e remem#ered
that for purposes of %ection . of &A '-(- which provides that %andigan#aan
has e3clusive jurisdiction over cases committed # pu#lic officer and
emploees in relation to their office, the reckoning point is the time of the
commission of the crime.
9nder $D '-(-, the %andigan#aan has jurisdiction over persons who at the
time of the commission of the crime is occuping a position having a %alar
Drade )* or higher. 1t is true that $arina held a position with a salar grade of
less than ?)*@. Cowever, he is #eing prosecuted as co:conspirator of the
principal accused who held a position higher that grade ?)*@ thus, section . of
$D '-(- which provides that ?in cases where none of the principal accused are
occuping the position to salar grade )* or higher, &/C, "/C, "2/C or "C/C
shall have e3clusive jurisdiction@ will appl.
*ena *. *erga :

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
1t must #e noted that #efore the enactment of &A *,*G, what matters is not
the kind of offense so long as it is alleged in the crime committed in relation to
the office of the pu#lic official, %andigan#aan has jurisdiction tr and hear the
case. /his has #een cured # %ection . of &A *,*G # limiting its jurisdiction
onl to persons (principal accused! having a salar grade of ?)*@. /his, #eing
a curative statute, ma #e given retroactive effect.
$etition was denied.
C'(C$ *S. SAN&!3AN9A(AN
D.&. =o 'F*('*:'0 (0 Be#ruar )(((
Bacts5 the Draft 1nvestigation 4fficer found pro#a#le cause against &amon
Cuco for violation of %ection F, of &A F(', as well as %ection F2 of the same
act. /wo informations were recommended against Cuco and the other
respondents. /he 4m#udsman approved the recommendation and the
prosecution filed he information with the %andigan#aan. $etitioner filed a
motion to 6uash for lack of jurisdiction contending that at the time of the
commission of the offense in ',,), he was occuping the position of Director
11, %alar Drade )-, thus &/C has jurisdiction over the case. /he prosecution
did not oppose such action. /he %andigan#aan however denied the motion,
hence, this appeal.
1ssue5 AL= the %andigan#aan has jurisdiction.
Decision5 /he %andigan#aan has no jurisdiction over violation of %ection Fa
and e of &A F(', unless committed # pu#lic officials and emploees
occuping position of regional director and higher with %alar Drade ?)*@ and
higher. $etitioner admittedl occupied the position of Director 11 with salar
Drade ?)-@ under the Compensation and $osition Classification Act of ',0,
thus, %andigan#aan incurred serious error of jurisdiction entitling petitioner to
the relief praed.
$etition was granted.
=. +urisdiction determined # the allegations of the complaint.
9'A(A *S. P$#$
D.&. =o. *G(*, )- +anuar ',0,
Bacts5 $etitioner %olemnidad Buaa was an insurance agent of Countr
Bankers 1nsurance Corporation who was authori7ed to transact insurance
#usiness and collect premiums in #ehalf of the corporation. %he was re6uired
to make periodic reports and accounting of her transactions and remit premium
collections to the principal office of private responded located in the Cit of
"anila.
An audit was conducted on petitioners account which showed a shortage of
$hp F((/. As a result, she was charged with 2stafa #efore the &/C with
respondent Con. $olo. $etitioner filed a motion to dismiss which motion was
denied # respondent +udge. /he su#se6uent motion for reconsideration of
this order of denial was also denied.
$etitioner contends that &/C in "anila has no jurisdiction #ecause she is #ased
in Ce#u Cit and the funds she allegedl misappropriated with collected in
Ce#u Cit.
1ssue5 AL= the &/C in "anila has jurisdiction
Decision5 /he general rule that the denial of a motion to dismiss or to 6uash,
#eing interlocutor in character cannot #e 6uestioned # certiorari and cannot
#e su#ject of appeal. Cowever, this rule is su#ject to certain e3ceptions. /he
reason is that it would #e unfair to re6uire the defendant or accused to
undergo the ordeal and e3pense of a trial of the court had no jurisdiction over
the su#ject matter or offense or it is not the court of proper venue.
1t is a general rule that averments in the complaint or information characteri7e
the crime to #e prosecuted and the court #efore which it must #e tried.
%ection ''( of the &evised &ules of Court provides5 1n all criminal prosecution
the action shall #e instituted and tried in the court or municipalit or province
wherein the offense was committed or an of the essential elements thereof
took place.
/he su#ject information charges the petitioner with 2stafa committed during
the period ',0( to +une ',0) inclusive in the Cit of "anila. Clearl them.
Brom the allegations of the information the &/C of "anila has jurisdiction.
Besides, the crime of 2stafa is a continuing crime, which ma #e prosecuted at
the place where an of he essential elements of the crime took place. /he
petitioner clearl prejudiced private respondents in "anila and therefore, the
crime was committed here.
$etition was dismissed.
'S *S. 3A##%2$S
D.&. =o. ')*F, (0 Decem#er ','*
*ena *. *erga ;

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
Bacts5 Brom =ovem#er ','. to 4cto#er ','- in the municipalit of Ce#u, the
accused "ariano Dallejos and complainants wife Benita Antio6uia had illicit
relations and #egot a child. /he complainant filed a complaint against the two
of the +ustice of $eace of the "unicipalit of Ce#u. "ariano was arrested #ut
Benita remained at large. "ariano was arraigned and was found guilt of
adulter. Cowever, "ariano filed a motion to suspend the trial until his co:
defendant is arrested and #rought to the court. /he motion was denied.
&ecord shows that the complaint included #oth defendants.
1ssue5 AL= the court could proceed with the trial of "ariano even if Benita is
not present.
Decision5 Ahile the complaint for the crime of adulter must #e presented
against #oth of the culprits and # the offended person, et the law permits
separate trials for each. =ot onl is there no law re6uiring that the should #e
tried separatel, #ut there is a positive provision of law permitting them, to #e
tried separatel. %eparate trials ma #e had5 ('! when either of the parties
re6uest it; (#! when the government is satisfied that the man did not know
that the woman was married; (c! when one of the parties has died #efore the
time of the trial; and (d! when one of the parties escaped the jurisdiction of
the court and has not #een arrested.
"oreover, the law clearl provides that in furtherance of justice, the court ma
grant either of the parties the right and opportunit to adduce additional
evidence #earing upon the main issue in 6uestion. /he 6uestion of jurisdiction
of the court is alwas a 6uestion of importance; and if the evidence is
necessar to prove the fact, as it is in all criminal cases, so far as the place of
the commission of the crime is concerned, and the prosecution fails to prove
that fact, in the interest of justice the court ma alwas admit additional
evidence.
%entence of lower court was affirmed.
4. +urisdiction ac6uired for the person of the accused.
%P'9#!C *S. S'N3A
D.&. =o. L:F0-F. )( +une ',00
Bacts5 /he complainant +ose Dadis filed a case for the attempted homicide
against Ariston and &afael Anadilla. Ahile the case is pending, +ose Dadis filed
an affidavit of desistance and was no longer interested in the prosecution of
the case. +ose said that he had forgiven the accused and that his material
witness could no longer #e contracted the court then lifted the order of arrest,
cancelled the #ail #ond and ordered the release of the accused.
/he $rovincial Biscal moved for the reconsideration of the order of dismissal,
which was denied, hence this appeal.
1ssue5 AL= the court ma dismiss a criminal case on the #asis of an affidavit
of desistance e3ecuted # the offended part, #ut without the motion to
dismiss filed # the prosecuting fiscal.
Decision5 /he filing of a complaint or information in the Court initiated a
criminal action. /he Court there# ac6uires jurisdiction over the case. Ahen
after the filing of the complaint or information a warrant of arrest of the
accused is issued # the trial court and the accused either voluntaril
su#mitted himself to the Court or was dul arrested, the court there#
ac6uired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
A motion to dismiss the case filed # the fiscal should #e addressed to the
court which has the option to grant or den the same. /he rule therefore in
this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in court an
disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or ac6uittal of the
accused rests in the sound discretion of the court. Although the fiscal retains
the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the
case is alread in court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court #ecause
the determination of the case is within its e3clusive jurisdiction and
competence. /he onl 6ualification is that the action of the court must not
impair the su#stantial rights of the accused or the right of the $eople to due
process of law.
But to avoid similar situation, the court takes the view tat while Cespo doctrine
has settled that the trial court is the sole judge on whether a criminal case
should #e dismissed, still, an move on the part of the complainant or offended
part to dismiss the criminal case even if without o#jection of the accuse,
should first #e referred to the prosecuting fiscal for his own vie on the matter.
Ce is after all, in control of his prosecution of the case and he ma have his
own reasons wh the case should not #e dismissed.
$. +urisdiction is conferred # law and not # waiver
'N!T%& STAT%S *S. &% #A SANTA
D.&. =o. F'0' '( 4cto#er ',(*
Bacts5 /he complainant /eofila %evilla charges the defendant with the crime of
seduction under a promise of marriage at the time when she was less than )'
ears of age. /he complaint was filed # her father when she was alread ).
ears old. /he court contends that the alleged seduction could onl #e
*ena *. *erga <

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
instituted and maintained at her instance since she was alread of legal age,
otherwise the trial court shall have no jurisdiction over the offense charged.
1ssue5 AL= the court has jurisdiction over a complaint.
Decision5 as provided # the &$C, complainant can institute criminal action
against the defendant in cases of seduction should it #e proven that she is
alread of the majorit age. Although the parents and guardians are
mentioned disjunctivel, still, the right to institute criminal proceedings in
cases of seduction is e3clusivel and successivel reposed in these persons in
the order in which the are named so that no one of them has authorit to
proceed if there is an other person previousl mentioned therein with legal
capacit to appear and institute action.
9nder the Civil code, a woman )F ears of age is alread in the full possession
of her civil rights, save onl in certain e3ceptional cases e3pressl prescri#ed in
the code. /he right to appear and prosecute or defend an action in the court is
not one of these e3ceptions and, indeed, it is inherent to the full e3ercise of
civil rights.
9nder the provision of the &$C, jurisdiction over the crime of seduction is
e3pressl denied the trial court unless such jurisdiction #e conferred # one of
certain persons specified in the law, in this case, # the offended person
herself. /his is important not onl for the sufficienc of the complaint #ut goes
directl to the jurisdiction of the court over the crime. Lack of jurisdiction over
the su#ject:matter is fatal and su#ject to the o#jection at an stage of the
proceedings, either in court #elow or on appeal. Ahere the su#ject matter is
not within the jurisdiction, the court ma dismiss the proceeding e3 mero
motu.
+urisdiction over su#ject matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred # the
sovereign authorit, which organi7es the court; it is given onl # law and in
the manner prescri#ed # law and an o#jection #ased on the lack of such
jurisdiction cannot #e waived # the parties.
+udgment was reversed and the complaint was dismissed.
<. +urisdiction not conferred # consent
'S *S. %(%S
D.&. =o..*) )0 April ',()
Bacts5 the complaint charges the defendant with the crime of 2stafa and
falsification and alleges the former, #eing an emploee of the "anila Dagupan
&ailwa issued a ticket to a passenger who was going from "anila to Caloocan
and continued his trip to "alolos. /he difference in the fare is ' peso and ))
cents. /he ticket issued simulated that the tip was from "anila to Boacau and
the charge onl '0 cents, rendering the said amount to the compan while
appropriating the #alance of the sum.
/he complaint was not a#le to precisel designate the place where the
falsification was committed not where the appropriation occurred.
1ssue5 AL= the court of /arlac has jurisdiction to tr the case
Decision5 /he crime of 2stafa was committed at the where his account was
rendered and the stu# of the false ticket was turned it. 1n this case, the stu#s
and false tickets were turned in /arlac. /he court in /arlac therefore has
jurisdiction since it is within this territor that the accused made use of the
document alleged to #e false and where the falsification was committed.
/he fact that the CB1 took jurisdiction of the offense charged, #ecause in the
opinion of the court, the place of the commission of the crime was not clearl
shown, is not an o#stacle to the courts declaration itself to #e without
jurisdiction as soon as the lack of jurisdiction appeared from the proceedings
su#se6uentl had. +urisdiction over criminal cases cannot #e conferred #
consent.
/he appeal was granted.
&. 2stopped # laches to #ar attacks on jurisdiction
P%$P#% *S. %3'#A!$
D.&. =o. '('.G' )F "arch )F, ',,F
Bacts5 Accused together with several others murdered on "enardo Darcia in
Lucena. During arraignment, the appellants entered a plea of not guilt
however, #efore the prosecution rested its case, &egalario and his accomplice
$a#illar, changed their plea to guilt. After trial, all appellants were found
guilt of the offense charged. Appellants counsel filed a motion for
reconsideration on the '.
th
da of the 'G:da period for appeal, which was
denied, # the trial court. /he then filed a notice of appeal, which was denied
for having #een filed out of time ('( das after the receipt of the first denial!.
1ssue5 AL= the court can still e3ercise jurisdiction over the case considering
that the appeal was filed out of time.
Decision5 /he trial court was correct in rejecting appellants notice of appeal
since it was filed #eond the reglamentar period. Cowever, as in $eople vs.
/amani, although the appeal of the accused was demonstra#l filed out of
*ena *. *erga 10

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
time, to o#viate the miscarriage of justice, the court nevertheless reviewed the
case and rendered judgment on the merits thereof in view of the fact that the
filing of the appeal out of time was due to the inadvertence of the defense
counsel. /he same ma also #e granted in the present case adopting the
principle of estoppel # laches to #ar attack on jurisdiction.
T!2A" vs. S!9$N37AN$(
D.&. =o. L:)'.G( 'G April ',-0
Bacts5 %pouses %erafin and Belicitas commenced a civil case against spouses
%i#onghano to recover from them a sum of $hp '/M with legal interest. A
writ of attachment was issued # the court against the defendants properties
#ut the same was soon dissolved. After trial, the court rendered judgment in
favor of the plaintiffs and after the same had #ecome final and e3ecutor, the
court issued a writ of e3ecution against the defendants. /he writ #eing
unsatisfied, the plaintiffs moved for the issuance of writ of e3ecution against
the %urets #ond. %u#se6uentl, the %uret moved to 6uash the writ on the
ground that the same was issued without summar hearing. /his was denied
# the &/C. %uret appealed in the CA, which was against denied. /his time,
the suret just asked for an e3tension in order for them to file the motion for
reconsideration. But instead of filing for a motion for reconsideration, it file a
motion to dismiss saing that # virtue of &A ),- which is the +udiciar
&eorgani7ation Act of ',.0, section 00 of t which placed within the original
e3clusive jurisdiction of inferior courts all civil actions were the value of the
su#ject matter does not e3ceed $hp ),(((.(( CB1 therefore has no jurisdiction
over the case. /he 6uestion of jurisdiction was filed # the %uret onl 'G
ears from the time the action was commence in the CB1.
1ssue5 AL= the case should #e dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.
Decision5 After voluntaril su#mitting a cause and encountering an adverse
decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to 6uestion the jurisdiction or
power of the court.
/he rule is that jurisdiction over the su#ject matter is conferred upon the
courts e3clusive # law and as the lack of it affect the ver authorit of the curt
to take cogni7ance of the case, the o#jection ma #e raised at an stage of the
proceedings. Cowever, considering the facts and circumstance of the present
cases, a part ma #e #arred # laches from involving this plea for the first
time on appeal for the purpose of annulling everthing done in the case. A
part cannot invoke a courts jurisdiction and later on den it to escape a
penalt.
%. Adherence of +urisdiction
&%#A C'6 vs. "$(A
D.&. L:-G',) )* April ',00
Doctrine5 4nce jurisdiction is vested in the court, it is retained up the end of
the litigation.
Bacts5 &odolfo de la Cru7 is a mem#er of the Armed Borce of the $hilippines
assigned to the 1ntelligence and 4peration %ection of the $C Compan,
together with other $C me, received a mission order to proceed to Davao for
the purpose of verifing and apprehending persons who were engaged in illegal
cockfighting which the complied with. /he operators of the illegal cockfights,
including the deceased 2use#io Ca#ilto followed the soldiers on their wa #ack
to the head6uarters. Bighting ensued and in the scuffled, dela Cru7 shot
Ca#ilto.
/he petitioner was charged with homicide in the CB1. Claiming that the crime
for which he was chaged was committed in relation to the performance of his
duties, petitioner filed a motion to transfer the case to the militar authorities
so he could #e tried in a court martial. /he motion was denied.
1ssue5 AL" the civil courts have jurisdiction over the su#ject matter of the
case at #ar.
Decision5 4ne of the essential re6uisites of a valid court proceeding is that the
court hearing the case must have jurisdiction over the su#ject matter of the
case. 1f the court is acting without jurisdiction, then the entire proceedings are
null and void. +urisdiction over the su#ject matter is determined # the statute
in the force at the time of the commencement of action.
/he case was filed on August ), ',*,. 4n such date, # virtue of Deneral
4rder =o G,, militar tri#unals created under general order =o. 0, e3ercised
e3clusive jurisdiction over all offenses committed # militar personnel of the
AB$ while in the performance of their dut provided that a certificate from the
%ecretar of =ational defense for the purpose of determining whether the
offense was reall committed while in the performance of a dut. /his proviso
does not in an wa preclude the courts from making an finding as to whether
an offense is dut:connected. =or doe it make the certificate a condition
precedent for the e3ercise # either civilian courts or militar tri#unals of their
jurisdiction over offenses committed.
/he fact that there was a mission order and that the victim was shot while
petitioner was e3ecuting the mission order compels the court to declare that
respondent court was without jurisdiction.
*ena *. *erga 11

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
$etition was granted.
P%$P#% *S. "A3A##AN%S
D.&. =o. ''0('F:'. '' 4cto#er '', ',,G
Doctrine5 +urisdiction once ac6uired is not affected # su#se6uent legislative
enactment placing jurisdiction in another tri#unal. 1t remains with the court
until the case is finall terminated. %andigan#aan or the court as the case
ma #e cannot #e divested of jurisdiction over cases filed #efore them #
reason &A *,*G. /he retain their jurisdiction until the end of litigation.
Bacts5 /he Dumancas spouses complained with the police saing that a certain
&ufino Dargar and Danilo Lumngao swindled them. /he accused together
with civilian agents arrested and a#ducted the swindling suspects and forced
them to produce the mone the got from the spouses. /he two were found
dead a few das after. /wo informations for kidnapping for ransom with
murder were filed with the &/C against mem#ers of the $=$ and nine other
civilians who confederated with each other for the purpose of e3torting mone
through kidnapping the two victims. $etitioner contends that the crime was
committed in the course of the performance of duties of the accused, thus,
%andigan#aan should have jurisdiction # virtue of $D '-(-.
1ssue5 AL= the &/C of Bacolod or the %andigan#aan that has jurisdiction
over the two criminal cases for kidnapping for ransom with murder wherein
some of the accused implicated as principals are mem#ers of the $=$.
Decision5 At the time the informations in the said cases were filed, the law
governing the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan was section . of $D =o '(-(
which provided that the %andigan#aan has original jurisdiction in all cases
involving pu#lic officers and emploees who committed felonies in relation to
their office, which must #e alleged in the complaint. An offense is considered
as committed in relation to the office if it cannot e3ist without the office or if
the office is the constituent element of the crime as defined in the statute.
1t is a fundamental rule that jurisdiction is determined # the allegations in the
complaint or information. 1n the case at #ar, the information in the court do
not indicate that the victims were killed in the course of the investigation.
Ahat was alleged is that the accused, for the purpose of e3tracting or
e3horting a sum of mone, a#ducted, kidnapped, detained and killed the two
victims. /he allegation of ?taking advantage of his position@ incorporated in
the information is not enough to #ring the offenses within the definition of
?offenses committed in relation to pu#lic office@.
/he %andigan#aan partl lost its e3clusive original jurisdiction in cases
involving violation of &A F(', as amended, &A =o. 'F*, and the &$C. 1t
retains onl cases where the accused are national and local officials classified
as Drade ?)*@ and higher under the Compensation and $osition Classification
Act of ',0,. &A =o *,*G cannot affect the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan
since jurisdiction once ac6uired is not affected # su#se6uent legislative
enactment placing jurisdiction in another tri#unal. 1t remains with the court
until the case is finall terminated. Cence, the %andigan#aan or an other
courts cannot #e divested of jurisdiction.
1n the case at #ar, %andigan#aan has not et ac6uired jurisdiction over the
su#ject criminal cases as the informations were filed #efore the &/C.
Assuming that the informations were filed with the said tri#unal, the
%andigan#aan can no longer proceed to hear the cases in view of the e3press
provision of %ection * of &A *,*G that all criminal cases in which the trial has
not et #egun in the %andigan#aan shall #e referred to the proper courts.
&/C was ordered to resume hearing the case.
'( *S. C$'T $+ APP%A#S
D.&. =o. '',((( )0 +ul ',,*
Bacts5 Ahile &osa 9 was helping her hus#and manage their lum#er #usiness,
she and a friend, Consolacion agreed to form a partnership wherein the latter
will contri#ute additional capital as industrial partner for the e3pansion of
&osas lum#er #usiness. >arious sums amounting to $hp G((,(((.(( were
claimed to have #een given # Consolacion for the #usiness, #ut no receipt was
ever issued. /he friendship of the two turned sour, thus, Consolacion
demanded the return of her investment #ut the checks issued # &osa were all
dishonored for insufficienc of funds.
Consolaction filed a complaint for 2stafa and for violation of B$ )). /he "anila
&/C ac6uitted the petitioner of 2stafa #ut convicted her of the charges under
B$ Blg. )).
$etitioner contents that the trial court never ac6uired jurisdiction over the
offenses under B$ )) and assuming arguendo that she raised the matter of
jurisdiction onl upon appeal, she cannot #e estopped from 6uestioning the
jurisdiction
1ssue5 AL= the &/C of "anila ac6uired jurisdiction over the violations of the
Bouncing checks Law.
Decision5 /erritorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territor where the
court has jurisdiction to take cogni7ance or to tr the offense allegedl
committed therein # the accused. /his it cannot take jurisdiction over a
person charged with an offense allegedl committed outside that of that limited
territor. +urisdiction of the court over a criminal case is determined # the
*ena *. *erga 1,

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
allegations in the complaint or information. 4nce it is shown, the court ma
validl take cogni7ance of the case. Cowever, if the evidence adduced during
the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court
should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.
1n the case at #ar, the crimes of 2stafa and violation of B$ are two different
offenses having different elements and necessaril, for the court to ac6uire
jurisdiction, each of the essential ingredients of each crime has to #e satisfied.
/he respondent court is wrong to conclude that inasmuch as the &/C of "anila
ac6uired jurisdiction over the 2stafa case then it also ac6uired jurisdiction over
the violation of B$ )).
=o proof has #een offered that the checks were issued, delivered, dishonored
or knowledge of insufficienc of funds occurred in "anila, which are essential
elements necessar for the "anila Court to ac6uire jurisdiction. B$ )) on the
other hand, as a continuing offense, ma #e tried in an jurisdiction where the
offense was in part committee.
$etitioner also timel 6uestioned the jurisdiction of the court
As provided # jurisprudence, we can see that even if a part fails to file a
motion to 6uash, he ma still 6uestion the jurisdiction of the court later on.
/he general rule is that the jurisdiction of a court over a su#ject matter of the
action is a matter of law and ma not #e conferred # consent or agreement of
the parties. /he lack of jurisdiction of a court, ma #e raised at an stage of
the proceeding, even on appeal.
Cowever, this rule has #een 6ualified in the case of /ijan vs, %i#onghano
wherein the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the court can #e held to #e #arred
# laches. /his case however cannot #e applied in the case at #ar since the
accused is not guilt of laches.
&/C of "anila has no jurisdiction over the case.
Exceptions to the General Rule of Adherence to Jurisdiction
9!NA( vs. SAN&!3AN9A(AN
41. SCA .5 01 $cto=er 1<<<
Bacts5
9!NA( CAS%
4n %ept. *, ',,., the office of the 4m#udsman filed #efore the %andigan#aan
one information for violation of art.))( of &$C (illegal use of pu#lic funds! and
) for violation of &AF(', (anti:graft!, which were amended on %ept 'G, ',,.,
against +ejomar Bina alleging that these were committed in ',,* during his
incum#enc as "aor of "akati, then a municipalit of "etro "anila. 4n +une
'F, ',,G, after &A *,*G, redefining the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan, took
effect ("a '-, ',,G!, Bina filed a motion to refer his cases to the ?proper
court@ for further proceedings, #ut was denied # the %andigan#aan. As such
he filed a petition for certiorari, prohi#ition and "andamus 6uestioning the
jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan #efore the %upreme Court.
"A3SA(SA( CAS%
"ario "agsasa is the maor of the "unicipalit of %an $ascual,
Batangas, all of his co:petitioners in this case are officials of the same
municipalit. 4n April '-, ',,., >ictor Cusi, >:maor of the same
municipalit, charged petitioners with violation of &AF(', for overpaing
>icente de la &osa (also petitioner herein! of /D& Construction for the
landscaping project of the %an $ascual Central %chool. A resolution # Draft
1nvestigation 4fficer Alarilla recommended the filing of the information with the
%andigan#aan. Cowever, it was filed in the &/C of Batangas instead,
peculiarl the information was signed # the same Alarilla.
%u#se6uentl, the Concerned Citi7ens of %an $ascual, #atangas, filed a
complaint #efore the 4m#udsman against the petitioners for the same
violation. /hereafter another information alleging the same offense was filed
#efore the %andigan#aan. $etitioners moved to 6uash the information alleging
that the %andigan#aan had no jurisdiction over the case.
Ahile the cases were pending, Congress enaceted &A0).,, redefining
the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan.
1ssue5 AL= the %andigan#aan e3ercises e3clusive original jurisdiction over
criminal cases involving municipal maors accused of violations of &AF(', and
Art.))( of the &$C. Considering that5
1. At the alleged commission of the crimes, municipal maors were
not classified as Drade )*
/o support this contention, the presented certifications saing that
the salar the received was #elow that of the salar received # a grade )*
officer. Bor Bina his salar was onl $'(, *,FLmonth e6uivalent to Drade ))
and for "agsasa $'', 0)0Lmonth e6uivalent to Drade )G. /he #ased this
on &A-*G0 (Compensation and $osition Classification Act of ',0,!.
2. "unicipal "aors are not included in the enumeration in %ec.
.a('! of $d'-(- as amended # &A *,*G.
$etitioners invoke the rule in statcon5 inclusion unius est e3clusion alterius5
what is not included in those enumerated is deemed e3luded.
*ena *. *erga 14

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
3. Congressional records reveal that the law did not intend municipal
maors to come under the e3clusive original jurisdiction of the
%andigan#aan
Decision5 /C2 %A=D1DA=BA8A= CA% +9&1%D1C/14=. Ahere a statute
changing the jurisdiction of a court has no retroactive effect, it cannot #e
applied to a case that was pending prior to the enactment of the statute.
/he Court does not su#scri#e to the manner # which petitioners classif
Drades. /he Constitution states that in providing for the standardi7ation of
compensation of government officials and emploees, Congress shall take into
account the nature of the responsi#ilities pertaining to and the 6ualifications
re6uired of their positions, thus &A-*G0 provides that the Drade depends upon
the nature of ones position relative to another position. 1t is the persons
grade that determines the salar not the other wa around.
1t is possi#le that a local govt officials salar ma #e less than that prescri#ed
for his Drade since his salar also depends on the financial capa#ilit
of his respective government unit. =evertheless, it is the law, which fi3es the
officials grade.
&A -*G0 instructs the Dept. of Budget and "anagement (DB"! to prepare an
1nde3 of 4ccupation %ervices listing the %alar Drades of Dovt officials. Both
the ',0, and ',,* version of said 1nde3 classifies municipal maors
under Drade )*, as such municipal maors come within the original
and e3clusive jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan.
&esort to %tatcon is not appropriate where the law is clear and unam#iguous.
/he enumeration under section .a('! is not e3clusive.
Again statcon does not appl where the law is clear.
"$% $N 9!NA(
9nder sec.* of &A *,*G5 upon effectivit of this Act, all criminal cases
in which trial has not #egun in the %andigan#aan shall #e referred to the
proper court. /he proper import of this section is laid down in Beng7on v.
1nciong5
/he rule is that where a court has alread o#tained and is
e3ercising jurisdiction over a controvers, its jurisdiction to proceed
the final determination of the cause is not affected # new legislation
placing jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tri#unal. /he
e3ception to the rule is where the stature e3pressl provided that it is
intended to operate to actions pending #efore its enactment. Ahere
the statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has no retroactive
effect, it cannot #e applied to a case that was pending prior to the
enactment of the statute.
/o this effect, &A *,*G is retroactive. 2ffects of %ection *5
'. 1f trial of cases #efore the %andigan has alread #egun as of the
approval of &A*,*G, then &A *,*G does not appl.
). 1f trial of cases #efore the %andigan has =4/ #egun as of the approval
of &A*,*G, then it applies.
a. if # virtue of sec.. of &A*,*G, the sandigan has jurisdiction
over the case, then the case shall #e referred to the sandigan.
#. 1f # virtue of sec.. of &A*,*G, the sandigan has no
jurisdiction, then the case shall #e referred to the regular
courts.
As the trial of Binay had not yet begun as of date of the approval of RA7975,
the andigan retains !urisdiction over the case"
"$% $N "A3SA(SA(
$etitioners invoke the rule that jurisdiction of a court one it attaches
cannot #e ousted # su#se6uent event, although of such character which would
have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. /he claim
that the filing of the info in the %andigan was a su#se6uent even which cannot
oust the &/C of its jurisdiction./his rule has no application here as the &/C had
no jurisdiction over the case in the first place. Burthermore, when the info was
filed with the &/C &A*,*G was alread in effect, thus the need to #e referred
to the %andigan.
$etitioners invoke that respondents are estopped from filing an info
with the %andigan considering that the had alread filed another info alleging
the same facts #efore the &/C. Ahile the court in certain cases has ruled that
estoppel prevents a part from 6uestioning the jurisdiction of the court that the
part himself invoked, estoppel remains the e3ception and not the rule, the
rule #eing that jurisdiction is vested # law. Burthermore, the respondent in
this case is the %tate and estoppel is not applied to the %tate.
SANC7%6 and "ANA3A( vs. SAN&!3AN9A(AN
414 SCA :,4
Bacts5 $etitioners are officers of the $hil. Arm. Lt.Col. Lino %anche7 was
Commanding 4fficer, ,
th
$ost 2ngineer Detachment, Cead6uarters and
Cead6uarters %upport Droup (CC%D!, while "ajor >icente "anaga was D:.,
CC%D. 4n +une '-, ',,F, court martial proceedings were initiated against
them and Daudencio &omualde7 #ased on a report stating that there was a
prima facie case against them for violation of Art. ,G of the articles of war for
causing the wrongful release of $hp G,,,G,.* for pament of repair of D'(
office of the $hil. Arm, e6uivalent to 00.GGN completion of the work, when in
fact onl )GN of the work had #een completed to the damage of the
government. /he judge advocate of the $hil. Arm referred the findings to the
*ena *. *erga 15

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
provincial $rosecutor of &i7al, recommending the filing of info with the
%andigan#aan
4n April 0, ',,., %anche7 was arraigned #efore the Den. Court "artial =o.)
while "anaga on +ul ', ',,.. /he #oth pleaded not guilt. "eanwhile on
April '0, ',,., an info was filed against them #efore the %andigan for violation
of &A F(',. $etitioners moved for the dismissal of the case #efore the
%andigan alleging that it has no jurisdiction over the case as the court martial
had ac6uired original and e3clusive jurisdiction and that the acts complained of
#efore the court martial and the %andigan are one and the same.
Decision5 Although the %andigan#aan has jurisdiction at the time the charge
was filed, it lost its jurisdiction upon the enactment of &A *,*G #ecause he falls
#elow the rank of full colonel and trial has not et #egun.
#ACS$N vs. %>%C'T!*% S%C%TA(
401 SCA ,<;
Bacts5 see subse#uent $acson digests
Decision5 /he amendment in &A no 0)., that in cases where none of the
accused are occuping positions corresponding to %alar grade ?)*@ or higher,
as prescri#ed in the said &A -*G0, or militar and $=$ officers mentioned
a#ove, e3clusive original jurisdiction thereof shall #e vested in the proper
&//C, "/C, "e/C, "/C/, as the case ma #e in pursuant to B$ '),. /he
previous law vests jurisdiction in the &/C where none of the principal accused
are occuping positions corresponding to %alar Drade )*. /he term principal
was deleted so that under the amendment, if an accomplice #elongs to %alar
grade )*, then jurisdiction is with the %andigan#aan even if none of the
principals #elong to a lower salar grade. /he amendment was applied
retroactivel.
/. Action of the Court when determined that is had no jurisdiction
1. 9nder its supervisor authorit, the %upreme Court, even the
Court of Appeals ma properl refer the case to the court of
proper jurisdiction.
2. Courts of the '
st
and )
nd
level are without authorit to order the
transfer. 1f the courts #elieve that it has no jurisdiction over the
su#ject matter, its jurisdiction is limited to simpl dismissing the
case.
'S *S. "$A#%S
. P?il 504
Bacts5 &osauro %a#ino, Brancisco $rimoso and &omualdo &amos were arrested
in Caloocan while Bal#ino "orales was arrested in "ala#on, #oth municipalities
are #eond the limits of the cit of "anila. /he were convicted in the CB1 of
"anila for the crime of Brigandage. 2vidence, however, discloses that the
offenses were committed in the $rovinces of Bulacan and &i7al.
Decision5 Ahen the record discloses that the crime as alleged in the complaint
was not committed in the province wherein the trial was had, and the accused
was not arrested in that province and defendant had not fled there from, the
Court of Birst 1nstance of that $rovince has no jurisdiction to impose sentence.
1n such cases, of the court has reasona#le ground to #elieve that the crime has
#een committed; the accused should #e remanded to the court of proper
jurisdiction for trial.
!6A# C$""%C!A# 9AN@!N3 vs. !SAN!
,5, SCA 15; 0. "arc? 1<<5
Bacts5 1n a complaint filed a few das after the effectivit of &A*-,'
(e3panding the jurisdiction of municipal and metropolitan trial courts! with the
"akati &/C, Lolita 2ncelan sought to recover from &CBC actual damages of
KG,((( or $'F*,-*G. &CBC moved for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction on
the ground that it is under the "etropolitan /rial Court ("/C! not the &/C, the
principal demand praed for not #eing in e3cess of $)((,(((. &espondent &/C
judge 1snani, instead of dismissing the complaint, transferred the entire
records of the case to the "/C.
Decision5 1t has #een held that where the court has no jurisdiction at the time
of the filing of the complaint, instead of ordering the transfer, the court should
dismiss the case.
%P'9#!C vs. AS'NC!$N
,41 SCA ,11
Bacts5 Ale3ander Dionisio "anio, mem#er of the $=$, was assigned to the
Central $olice District Command %tation ) in =ovaliches, when he was
dispatched to Dumala %treet to respond to a complaint that a person was
creating trou#le there. Dionioso proceeded to the place, where he
su#se6uentl shot to death /L%gt. &omeo %adang. Ahile trial for homicide was
alread in progress in the &/C of <C, the case was dismissed for refilling with
the %andigan#aan on the ground that it is the %andigan#aan which has
jurisdiction over the case. /he private prosecutor moved for dismissal citing
the opinion of the %ec of the D4+ that crimes committed # $=$ mem#ers are
not cogni7a#le # the %andigan#aan #ecause the fall within the e3clusive
jurisdiction of the regular courts as provided in &A -,*G and the
*ena *. *erga 15

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
%andigan#aan is not a regular court #ut a special court as stated in the ',*F
constitution and as the ',0* constitution provides that the present anti:graft
court shall continue to function and e3ercise it jurisdiction.
Decision5 /he Court sanctioned the transfer of cases from the &/C for lack of
jurisdiction to the %andigan#aan.
/he court ruled that the %andigan#aan is a regular court. Ahile it is a special
court, it is a regular court within the conte3t of &A -,*G #ecause ?it is a court
normall functioning with continuit within the jurisdiction vested on it@ and
that the term regular courts is used in %ec. .- of &A -,*G to distinguish the
said courts form courts:martial for it seeks to divest the latter of such
jurisdiction and mandates its transfers to the former pursuant to the polic of
the law to esta#lish a police force national in scope and civilian in character.
/he %andigan#aan is a regular court as stated in the Administrative Code of
',0*.
Cowever, for the %andigan#aan to have jurisdiction it is necessar that the
offenses were committed # pu#lic officers in relation to their office. 1n here,
there is no indication that the trou#le:maker was the victim and that he was
shot # Dionisio in the course of the latters mission. As such, the court
directed the &/C of <C to conduct a preliminar hearing within 'G from receipt
of decision, to determine if the crime was committed in relation to pu#lic office.
1f it #e determined in the affirmative, the case shall #e transferred to the
%andigan#aan as if the same were originall fined with it. 4therwise, the &/C
should proceed with the trial of the case and render judgment thereon.
C'NANAN vs. AC%$
,5, SCA ;;
Bacts5 Accused, a $=$ officer was on a mission at Canda#a $ampanga. Ce
went out of the police station after hearing a commotion and fired a warning
shot, with the intention of restoring peace and order which was distur#ed and
#roken # the fight #etween the victim and &ogelio Agustin and alter #etween
the victim and one $fc. Basa. An information for murder was filed against the
accused. $etitioner now contents that he committed the offense charged in
relation to his pu#lic office. &/C ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the case
since the offense charged was done in the performance of petitioners official
functions thus the judge dismissed the case. A month after, the decision was
modified stating that the same must #e transmitted with the %andigan#aan.
1ssue5 AL= the transfer was valid
Decision5 $etitioner contends that jurisdiction over the case was fi3ed in the
&/C as the Asuncion ruling is inapplica#le, since here trial had alread ended
and the case was su#mitted for decision when the Asuncion ruling was
promulgated. A transfer of his case to the %andigan#aan at this late state will
e3pose him to dou#le jeopard of punishment for the same offense.
/he &/Cs initial assumption of jurisdiction does not prevent it form
su#se6uentl declaring itself to #e without jurisdiction as it was found out in
the hearing that Cunanan had committed the offence while he was in the
performance of his duties as policeman. Ce shot the victim in the course of
tring to restore local pu#lic order which had #een #reached # a fistfight
#etween the victim and ) other individuals. /he a#sence in the info of an
allegation that Cunanan committed the offense charged in relation to his office
is immaterial and easil remedied. As the case had alread #een forwarded to
the %andigan#aan, the said info ma #e amended at an time #efore
arraignment #efore the %andigan#aan, considering that such amendment
would not affect the juridical nature of the offense charge, it would not
prejudice Cunanans su#stantive rights. /here is no dou#le jeopard as the &/C
was without jurisdiction and the dismissal of the info # the &/C was not
e6uivalent to ac6uittal, it simpl reflected that the proceedings therein was
terminated
#ACS$N vs. T7% %>%C'T!*% S%C%TA(
3.. No. 1,;0<. ,0 2anuary 1<<<
Bacts5 $etitioner Lacson is assailing the constitutionalit of %ections . and * of
&A =o. 0)., I an act which further defines the jurisdiction of the
%andigan#aan. Lacson was #eing held lia#le for the killing of the Juratong
Baleleng gang # elements of the Anti:Bank &o##er and 1ntelligence /ask
Droup. 1t was contended that it was a ru#:out and not a shoot:out which took
place on the night of "a '0, ',,G.
/he $=$ officers were originall a#solved from an lia#ilit #ecause of the
finding of the Blancaflor Commission that the incident was a legitimate police
operation. Cowever, after a review of 4m#udsman >illa, the findings were
modified thus Lacson and '' others were charged with murder. All of the
accused 6uestioned the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan saing that the &/C
should take cogni7ance of the case at #ar since # virtue of &A *,*G, the
jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan was onl to cases were the principal accused
is a pu#lic officer with salar Drade of ?)*@. 1t was contended that the highest
principal accused in the amended information has the rank of Chief 1nspector
onl, and none has the e6uivalent of %D )*.

*ena *. *erga 1.

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
Ahile the motions for reconsideration were pending, &A 0)., was passed #
the Congress, which e3pands the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan # deleting
the word ?principal@ from the phrase ?principal accused@ in %ection ) of &A
*,*G. /he new law now e3pands the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan to
cover Lacson.
/he amended information mere alleges that the offense charged was
committed # the accused pu#lic officer in relation to his office.
Decision5 /he court ordered the transfer of the cases from %andigan#aan for
lack of jurisdiction to the &/C which has e3clusive jurisdiction over said cases.
C'(C$ vs. SAN&!3AN9A(AN
3.. 14:01:-1; 0; +e=ruary ,000
Decision5 /he court ordered the %andigan#aan to dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction, #ut informed the 4m#udsman that it ma re:file the cases with the
court of proper jurisdiction, the &/C of Eam#oanga Cit.
Concurring Decision (Davide!5 /he case should #e referred to the &/C instead
of #eing dismissed.
+. +urisdiction 4ver Dangerous Drugs Cases
"$A#%S vs. CA
)0F %C&A )'' ') Decem#er ',,*
Bacts5 2rnesto "orales Cru7 was charged in the &/C of $asa with violation
of %ection 'G of the Dangerous Drugs Act involving onl (..G0* grams of
sha#u, as such the imposa#le penalt would at most #e onl prision
correctional (-mos.'da:- rs!. "orales moved to dismiss in light of the
+udiciar &eorgani7ation Act of ',0(, it is the "etropolitan /rial Court which
has jurisdiction over the case. /his was denied, so he filed with the Court of
Appeals a petition for certiorari under &ule -G. But the petition was dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction as the CA adjudges that onl the %upreme court has
jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari 6uestioning the jurisdiction
of an inferior court.
/he %upreme court held that the CA had jurisdiction in that the certiorari was
an original action and does not relate to the appellate jurisdiction of the CA.
9nder sec ,('! of B$ '),, the CA has concurrent original jurisdiction with the
%C pursuant to the constitution and the +udiciar Act of ',.0, to issue writs of
certiorari, mandamus, prohi#ition, ha#eas corpus and 6uo warranto. /hese are
original actions not modes of appeals.
1ssue5 AL= the &/C has jurisdiction
Decision5 /he CB1, Circuit Criminal Court and +uvenile and Domestic &elations
Court shall have concurrent original jurisdiction over all cases involving
offenses punisha#le under &A *-,'. $rovided that in cities or provinces where
there are +uvenile and Domestic &elations Courts, the said courts shall take
e3clusive cogni7ance of cases where the offenders are under '- ears of age.
J. Criminal +urisdiction of &egional /rial Courts. (%ection )(, +udiciar
&eorgani7ation Act of ',0( as amended # &A =o. *-,'!
>ested the e3clusive jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the
e3clusive original jurisdiction of an court tri#unal or #od with
penalt higher than - ears.
Court with general jurisdiction
23ercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided # the first
level courts in their respective territorial jurisdiction
L. Criminal +urisdiction of "etropolitan and "unicipal /rial Courts
1. %ection F) of the +udiciar &eorgani7ation Act of ',0( as
Amended # %ection ) of &A *-,'5 e3cept in cases falling within
the e3clusive original jurisdiction of the &/C and %andigan#aan,
these courts shall e3ercise e3clusive jurisdiction over
all violations of cit and municipal ordinances committed within their respective
jurisdiction
offenses punisha#le with imprisonment of not e3ceeding - ears irrespective of
the amount of fine and other accessor penalties. $rovided that in offenses
involving damage to propert through criminal negligence, the shall have
original jurisdiction
offenses involving damage to propert through criminal negligence.
2. 9nder $D '-(- as amended # &A 0).,, "/C, "C/C, "e/C has
jurisdiction over government officials and emploees where the
penalt is not more than - ears and officers charged do not fall
under the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan (%alar grade )* and
a#ove!
=ote5 9nder &A *-,'5 fine is no longer a factor in determining jurisdiction.
3. Duidelines for the implementation of &A *-,'
F.' &/C no longer has original jurisdiction over offenses commute # pu#lic
offices and emploees in relation to their office where the offense is
punisha#le # more than . ears, ) months up to - ears.
F.) Bine was alread disregarded however, in cases where the onl penalt is
fine, the amount thereof shall #e determined # the jurisdiction of the
court in accordance with the original provisions of %ection F)()!of B$ '),.
*ena *. *erga 1:

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
F.F 1f Bine is more than $hp .,(((, the &/C has jurisdiction including those
commute # pu#lic officers where amount of fine does not e3ceed %i3
/housand.
". %pecial +urisdiction of Courts (%ection FG, Bp '),!
=ote5 1n the a#sence of &/C judges, the "/C, "C/C and "e/C ma hear and
decide petitioner for writ of ha#eas corpus or application for #ail in criminal
cases in the province or cit where a#sent &/C judge sits.
=. +urisdiction over $=$ # &egular Courts (Article .-, &A -,*.!
'. Criminal cases involving $=$ mem#ers shall #e within e3clusive
jurisdiction of the regular courts
). Courts:martial appointed pursuant to $D '0G( shall continue to tr
$C:1=4 mem#ers who were alread arraigned in pursuant to
Commonwealth Act =o .(0 (Article of Aar! as amended # 24
'*0 or "anual for Courts:"artial
F. Criminal cases not et arraigned when &A -,*G took effect will #e
transferred to the regular courts.
(a! &egular Courts I civil courts
(b) Courts "artial is not regular court (%eople vs" Asuncion! for the
pertain to the e3ecutive department of the government and are
simpl instrumentalities of the e3ecutive power.
(c! $urpose of law5 remove jurisdiction over $=$ mem#ers from
courts marital that transfer it within the $hilippine +udicial
%stem.
4. +urisdiction 4ver Comple3 Crimes
A#+%&$ C'($S y. T'#$ vs. 3AC!A
3.. No. #-5.<45 15 AAril 1<;;
Bacts5 Alfredo Cuos was charged #efore the "unicipal court of %an Bernando,
$ampanga, with homicide with multiple serious phsical injuries and damage to
propert through reckless imprudence. Ce was a driver of a cargo truck which
had collided with a >olkswagen in a vehicular accident which resulted in the
death of ' person and phsical injuries to . others. Ce pleaded guilt at his
arraignment #ut #efore trial could commence he moved to remand the case to
the &/C alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part of the "unicipal Court. Ce
alleged that since under the &$C the fine for his crime would correspond to F3
the amount of damages and as the estimated damages was $hp '0,(((, he
would #e fine to up to $G.,(((. 9nder the +udiciar Act of ',.0, "unicipal
Courts onl had jurisdiction over cases punisha#le # a fine not e3ceeding $hp
-,((( and less than - ears imprisonment. /he "unicipal judge denied the
motion, hence this petition for Certiorari
Decision5 +urisdiction over the whole comple3 crime must logicall #e lodged
with the trial court having jurisdiction to impose the ma3imum and most
serious penalt imposa#le on an offense forming part of the comple3 crime. A
comple3 crime must #e prosecuted integrall as it were, and not split into its
component offenses and the latter made the su#ject of multiple information
possi#le #rought in different courts.
$. +urisdiction of the %andigan#aan (&A 0)., I An Act to %trengthen the
Bunctional and %tructural 4rgani7ation of the %andigan#aan, Amending
$D '-(-!.
%Bclusive 2urisdiction
1.1 *iolations o1 A 401< (anti:Draft and Corrupt $ractices Act!; *iolations
o1 14:< (Act declaring Borfeiture in Bavor of the %tate an propert Bound
to have #een unlawfull Ac6uired # an $u#lic 4fficer or 2mploee and
$roviding for the $roceeding /herefore! and C?aAter !!8 Section ,8 Title
*!! 9ooC !! o1 t?e PC (Article )'(5 Direct Bri#er; Article )''5 1ndirect
Bri#er and Article )')5 Corruption of $u#lic 4fficers!, where one of the
accused are officials occupying positions in the government
whether in a permanent or interim capacity at the commission of
the offense:
'.'.'. 4fficials of the e3ecutive #ranch occuping a salar grade of ?)*@ and
a#ove as classified # the Compensation and $osition Classification Act
of ',0,.
$hil arm, air force colonels, naval captains and all officers of
higher rank
$=$ officials with position of $rovincial director, senior
superintendent and higher.
Cit, special and provincial $rosecutors
$residents, Directors, trustees of D4CCs and %C9.
'.'.) "em#ers of Congress and officials classified as Drade ?)@.
'.'.F "em#ers of the judiciar without prejudice to the provisions of the
constitution
'.'.. "em#ers of the constitutional commissions
'.'.G All other national and local offices with %alar Drade ?)*@.
'.) 4ffenses and felonies whether simple or comple3ed with other crime
committed # pu#lic offices (salar grade of )* and a#ove!.
'.F Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to 24 ' (Creation of $CDD!, ) (1ll:
gotten wealth of the "arcoses!, '. (+urisdiction over cases involving 1ll
gotten wealth of the "arcoses! and '.:A (Amendment of 24 '.! issued in
',0-.
*ena *. *erga 1;

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
'.. $rivate 1ndividuals charged as co:principals, accomplice or accessories
with the pu#lic officers or emploees including those emploed in D4CCs.
2. %Bclusive AAAellate 2urisdiction over final judgments,
resolutions or orders of the &/C whether in the e3ercise of their own
original jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction
F. %Bclusive $riginal 2urisdiction
F.' writs of mandamus, certiorari etc. arising from cases filed under
24 ', ), '. and '.:A, provided that the jurisdiction over these
petitions shall not #e e3clusive of the %upreme Court.
P%$P#% *S. "A3A##AN%S
,5< SCA ,1,
Doctrine5 %andiganans jurisdiction would depend on the %alar Drade of the
pu#lic officer involved provided that when a private individual is an accomplice,
accessor or conspirator, the rule that ?accessor follows principal@ will #e
applied.
Bacts5 /he Dumancas spouses complained with the police saing that a certain
&ufino Dargar and Danilo Lumngao swindled them. /he accused together
with civilian agents arrested and a#ducted the swindling suspects and forced
them to produce the mone the got from the spouses. /he two were found
dead a few das after. /wo informations for kidnapping for ransom with
murder were filed with the &/C against mem#ers of the $=$ and nine other
civilians who confederated with each other for the purpose of e3torting mone
through kidnapping the two victims. $etitioner contends that the crime was
committed in the course of the performance of duties of the accused, thus,
%andigan#aan should have jurisdiction # virtue of $D '-(-.
1ssue5 AL= %andigan#aan has e3clusive jurisdiction over the case at #ar
Decision5 At the time the informations were filed, the law governing the
jurisdiction of %andigan#aan was section . of $D '-(-, as amended # $D
'0-'. /he %andigan#aan partl lost its e3clusive original jurisdiction in cases
involving violation of &A =o. F(', as amended, &A 'F*, and Chapter 11
%ection ), /itle >11 of the &$C. As conse6uences of these amendments, the
%andigan#aans jurisdiction is onl retained in cases where the accused are
those enumerated in su#section A and generall national and local officials
classified as Drade ?)*@ and higher under the Compensation and $osition
Classification Act of ',0, ,&A -*G0!. 1ts jurisdiction over other offenses or
felonies committed # pu#lic officials and emploees in relation to their office is
no longer determined # the prescri#ed penalt (that which is higher that
prision correctional or imprisonment for - ears or a fine of $hp -,(((.((!; it is
enough that the are committed # those pu#lic officials and emploees
enumerated. Cowever, it retains its e3clusive original jurisdiction over civil and
criminal cases filed pursuant to 24 ', ), '. and '.:A
/he $=$ officers onl has a %alar Drade of ?'0@ therefore, %andigan#aan has
no jurisdiction over the case.
(a! +urisdiction over $u#lic 4fficers
SANC7%6 *S. &%"%T!$'
,,: SCA .,: 0< N$*%"9% 1<<4
Bacts5 /he $residential Anti:Crime Commission re6uested the filing of
appropriated chareges against several persons including "aor Antonio
%anche7 of Calauan, Lagauna, in connection with the rape:sla of "ar 2ileen
%armenta and the killing of Allan Dome7. Acting on this re6uest, the $anel of
%tate $rosecutors of the Department of +ustice conducted a preliminar
investigation. %u#se6uentl, the prosecutors filed with the &/C of Calam#a *
info against %anche7 and the other persons accused. Cowever, to avoid
miscarriage of justice the venue of the seven cases was transferred to $asig,
where the were raffled to +udge Carriet Demetriou.
%ache7 now contends that the proceedings conducted # the D4+ are null and
void for want of jurisdiction, as such is vested in the 4ffice of the 4m#udsman
to conduct the investigation of all cases involving $u#lic 4fficers. /he Court,
however, held that as in the case of Aguinaldo v. Dumagas, this authorit is
not e3clusive #ut rather a shared or concurrent authorit in respect of the
offense charged. 1n fact, other investigator agencies of the government such
as the D4+ ma conduct the investigation.
%anche7 also contends that the case should come under the jurisdiction of the
%andigan#aan as most of the accused are pu#lic officials.
Decision5 /he court held that the crime of rape with homicide does not fall
under paragraph ' of $D'-(- as amended # $D'0-', which deals with the
jurisdiction of the %andigan in graft and corruption cases. =either does it fall
under paragraph ) #ecause it is not an offense committed in relation to the
office of the petitioner. /here is no direct relation #etween the commission of
the crime of rape with homicide and the petitioners office as municipal maor
#ecause pu#lic office is not an essential element of the crime charged. /he
offense can stand independentl of the office. "oreover, it is not even alleged
in the info that the commission of the crime charged was intimatel connected
with the performance of the petitioners official function. /hus, the case is
tria#le # the regular courts and not the %andigan#aan.
*ena *. *erga 1<

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
$rior to the amendment of &A *,*G, jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan for
felonies other than violation of &.A. =o F(', as amended, otherwise known as
the Anti:Draft and Corrupt $ractices Act, &A 'F*, and Chapter 11, %ection ),
/itle >11 of the &$C, em#race all other offenses provided, the offense was
committed in relation to pu#lic office and the prescri#ed penalt is more than
si3 ears
'( *S. SAN&!3AN9A(AN
4,1 SCA :: August 1<<<
Bacts5 $etitioner Deorge 9 was the deput comptroller of the $hilippine =av
designated to act on #ehalf of Captain Bernande7, the latters supervisor, on
matters relating the activities of the Biscal Control Branch. %i3 informations for
2stafa through falsification of official documents and one information for
violation of %ection F of &A F(', (anti:graft and corrupt practices act! were
filed with the %andigan#aan against the petitioner and ', other accused for
alleged. /he petitioner was said to have signed a $.4. stating that the unit
received ',((( pieces of seal rings when in fact, onl '(( were ordered. /he
%andigan#aan recommended that the infomations #e withdrawn against some
of the accused after a comprehensive investigation.
$etitioner filed a motion to 6uash contending that it is the Court "artial and
not the %andigan#aan, which has jurisdiction over the offense charged or the
person of the accused. $etitioner further contends that &A '0G(, which
provides for the jurisdiction of court martial should govern in this case.
1ssue5 AL= the %andigan#aan has jurisdiction over the su#ject criminal cases
or the person of the petitioner
Decision5 1n the case at #ar, while the petitioner is charged with violation of
&A F('0, his position as Lieutenant Commander of the $hilippine =av is a
rank lower than ?naval captains and all officers of higher rank@. 1t must #e
noted 9nder the present law, #oth /C2 =A/9&2 4B /C2 4BB2=%2 A=D /C2
$4%1/14=% occupied # the accused are the C4=D1/14=% %1=2 <9A =4=
#efore the %andigan#aan can validl take cogni7ance of the case. /hus,
regular courts shall have e3clusive jurisdiction over the person of the accused
as provided # the %andigan#aan Law which states that ?in case where none
of the accused are occuping positions corresponding to %alar Drade )* or
higher, e3clusive original jurisdiction shall #e vested in the proper &/C, "/C,
"C/C or "2/C pursuant to B$ Blg. '),.
(#! 4ffense deemed committed in relation to pu#lic office
P%$P#% *S. 9AT$#$"%
15, SCA 5.5
Bacts5 /he %andigan#aan convicted &olando Bartolome $ere7, %enior La#or
&egulation 4fficer and Chief of the La#or &egulations %ection of the "inistr of
La#or, and 2lino Coronel %antos, La#or &egulation 4fficer of the "inistr of
La#or, of the crime of Balsification of 4fficial Document where the made it
appear in the Civil %ervice $ersonal Data %heet of Bartolome that he had taken
and passed the Career %ervice with a rating of *F.GN in "anila and that he
was a .
th
ear AB student at B29, when in truth, as #oth accused knew,
Bartolome had not taken the said e3am nor was he a .
th
ear AB student in
B29.
Decision5 /he office must #e a constituent element of the crime as defined in
the statute. /he test is whether the offense cannot e3ist without the office.
Balsification of an official document is not within the jurisdiction of the
%andigan#aan unless committed in relation the pu#lic office of the pu#lic
officer.
/he information does not allege that there was an intimate connection #etween
the discharge of official duties and the offense, thus, it cannot #e #rought
under the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan.
NoteD E?en is an o11ense said to ?ave =een committed in relation to
o11iceD
Deneral &ule5 offense ma #e considered as committed in relation to accuseds
office if the offense cannot e3ist without the office such that the office is a
constituent element of the crime as defined and punished in &$C (%eople vs"
&ontilla!.
23ception5 Ahere the offense charged in the information is intimatel
connected with the respective offices of the accused and was perpetuated while
the were in the performance, through irregular or improper, of their official
functions and had no personal motive to commit the crime and would not have
committed it had the not held their pu#lic office and merel o#eed the
instruction of their superior office, the offense ma #e said to have #een
committed in relation to their office (the victi' in this case (as )illed (hiled
under custodial investigation in a police substation, 'urder (as charged!
(%eople vs" &onte!o!.
*ena *. *erga ,0

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
P%$P#% *S. "A3A##AN%S
,5< SCA ,1,
Doctrine5 1t is a fundamental rule that jurisdiction is determined # the
allegations in the complaint or information. 1n the case at #ar, the information
in the court do not indicate that the victims were killed in the course of the
investigation. Ahat was alleged is that the accused, for the purpose of
e3tracting or e3horting a sum of mone, a#ducted, kidnapped, detained and
killed the two victims. /he allegation of ?taking advantage of his position@
incorporated in the information is not enough to #ring the offenses within the
definition of ?offenses committed in relation to pu#lic office@. 1n the case of
&ontilla vs" *ilario +'urder (as co''ittee outside office house and for
personal or political 'otives,, such an allegation was considered merel as an
allegation of an aggravating circumstance, and not as one that 6ualifies the
crime as having #een committed in relation to pu#lic office
C'NANAN *S. AC%$
).) %C&A 00 (' "arch ',,G
Bacts5 accused, a $=$ officer was on a mission at Canda#a $ampanga. Ce
went out of the police station after hearing a commotion and fired a warning
shot, with the intention of restoring peace and order which was distur#ed and
#roken # the fight #etween the victim and &ogelio Agustin and alter #etween
the victim and one $fc. Basa. An information for murder was filed against the
accused. $etitioner now contents that he committed the offense charged in
relation to his pu#lic office. &/C ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the case
since the offense charged was done in the performance of petitioners official
functions thus the judge dismissed the case. A month after, the decision was
modified stating that the same must #e transmitted with the %andigan#aan.
1ssue5 AL= the modified decision is correct considering that the a#sence of
jurisdiction on the part of the &/C #ecame apparent to the &/C onl AB/2& the
trail and su#mission of the case decision.
Decision5 9nder $D '-() as amended # $D '0-', there are two re6uisites for
offenses to fall within the e3clusive and original jurisdiction of the
%andigan#aan5 ('! the offence must have #een committed # the accused
pu#lic officer in relation to his office and (#! the penalt prescri#ed for the
offense must #e higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for si3 (-!
ears of a fine of $hp -,(((.((.
Ahere the killing committed # a $=$ officer was committed while in the
course of tring to restore local pu#lic order, which had #een #reached # a
fistfight #etween the victim and two other individuals, the killing was
committed in relation to the accuseds pu#lic office.
/he transfer to %andigan#aan was valid.
#ACS$N *S. %>%C'T!*% S%C%TA(
F(' %C&A ),0
Bacts5 $etitioner Lacson is assailing the constitutionalit of %ections . and * of
&A =o. 0)., I an act which further defines the jurisdiction of the
%andigan#aan. Lacson was #eing held lia#le for the killing of the Juratong
Baleleng gang # elements of the Anti:Bank &o##er and 1ntelligence /ask
Droup. 1t was contended that it was a ru#:out and not a shoot:out which took
place on the night of "a '0, ',,G.
/he $=$ officers were originall a#solved from an lia#ilit #ecause of the
finding of the Blancaflor Commission that the incident was a legitimate police
operation. Cowever, after a review of 4m#udsman >illa, the findings were
modified thus Lacson and '' others were charged with murder. All of the
accused 6uestioned the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan saing that the &/C
should take cogni7ance of the case at #ar since # virtue of &A *,*G, the
jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan was onl to cases were the principal accused
is a pu#lic officer with salar Drade of ?)*@. 1t was contended that the highest
principal accused in the amended information has the rank of Chief 1nspector
onl, and none has the e6uivalent of %D )*.

Ahile the motions for reconsideration were pending, &A 0)., was passed #
the Congress, which e3pands the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan # deleting
the word ?principal@ from the phrase ?principal accused@ in %ection ) of &A
*,*G. /he new law now e3pands the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan to
cover Lacson.
/he amended information mere alleges that the offense charged was
committed # the accused pu#lic officer in relation to his office.
1ssue5 AL= such an allegation is enough
Decision5 Bor jurisdiction over crimes committed # pu#lic officers in relation
to pu#lic office to fall within jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan I the intimate
relation #etween the offense charged and the discharge of official duties must
#e alleged in the information. /here must #e specific factual averment of this
relation.
"ere allegation that the crime was committed in relation to pu#lic office is not
what determines the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan. Ahat is controlling is
*ena *. *erga ,1

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
the SPECIFIC FACTUA AE!ATI"#S in the information that would
indicate the close intimac #etween the discharge of the accusers official
duties and the commission of the offense charged, in order to 6ualif the crime
as having #een committed in relation to pu#lic office.
Ahere the information alleged that principal accused committed the crime in
relation to the pu#lic office, #ut no specific allegation of facts that the shooting
of the victim # said principal accused was intimatel related to the discharge
of their official duties as police officer, or does not indicate that the aid accused
arrested and investigated the victim and then killed the latter while in their
custod. /he offense charged in the su#ject criminal case is plain murder and
therefore, within the e3clusive original jurisdiction of the &/C, not the
%andigan#aan.
P%$P#% *S. CAE!#!N3
3.. N$. 11:<:0 ,; 2'#( 1<<;
Decision5 1n the a#sence of an allegations that the offense was committed in
relation to the office of the accused or was necessaril connected with the
discharge of their functions, the &/C not the %andigan#aan, has jurisdiction to
hear and decide the case
(c! +urisdiction not determined # allegations
%P'9#!C *S. AS'NC!$N
,41 SCA ,11 11 "arc? 1<<5
Bacts5 Ale3ander "anio, a mem#er of the $=$ assigned to the central $olice
District Command in <C was dispatched # his commanding officer to Dumala
%treet to respond to a complaint that a person was creating trou#le there.
Dionisio proceeded to that place, where he su#se6uentl shot to death %gt.
&omeo %adang. An information for the crime of homicide was filed against
him. &esponded judge, in view of the decision in Deloso vs. Domingo, which
sas that %andigan#aan has jurisdiction over offenses committed # pu#lic
officials when the penalt prescri#ed # law for the offense is higher than
prision correccional, ordered the dismissal of the case and refilling with the
%andigan#aan on the ground that the %andigan#aan and not the &/C which
has jurisdiction over the case. /he original information did not disclose that
the offense of homicide charged was committed in relation to the office of the
accused.
1ssue5 AL= the %andigan#aan has jurisdiction over the case.
Decision5 /he a#sence in an allegation that the crime was committed ?in
relation to his office@ was due to the erroneous doctrine in Deloso vs. Domingo,
which conveed the impression that such is not necessar. Cence the action of
the court to conduct a preliminar hearing to determine whether the crime
charged was committed # the respondents in relation to his office was valid.
%ince it was proven that the act was done in relation to the accuseds office,
the validit of the transfer of the case to the %andigan#aan cannot #e refuted.
Bor the purpose of determining jurisdiction, it is the allegations that shall
control and not the evidence presented # the prosecution at the trial.
=ote5 /he Asuncion case has not however departed from the rule that
!urisdiction is to be deter'ined by the allegations of the co'plaint. 4n the
contrar, it stressed that the pu#lic officers or emploees committed the crime
in relation to their office must, however #e alleged in the information for the
%andigan#aan to have jurisdiction over the case /he allegation is necessar
#ecause of the un#ending rule that jurisdiction is determined # the allegations
of the information.
C'NANAN *S. AC%$
,5, SCA ;; 01 "arc? 1<<5
Bacts5 /he information for murder against Cunanan contained no averment
that the offense charged was in relation to his pu#lic office, hence the court
proceeded to trial and after #oth parties presented evidence, the court
declared that the case must #e refilled to the %andigan#aan
1ssue5 AL= the refilling was valid
Decision5 +urisdiction over the offense charged is a matter that is conferred #
law. Aherever the two re6uisites O('! the offence must have #een committed
# the accused pu#lic officer in relation to his office and (#! the penalt
prescri#ed for the offense must #e higher than prision correccional or
imprisonment for si3 (-! ears of a fine of $hp -,(((.((.P are present,
jurisdiction is vested upon the %andigan#aan. /his is true even though the
information originall filed #efore the &/C did not aver that the accused pu#lic
officer committed the offense charged in relation to his office. 1n the a#sence
in the old information filed #efore the &/C of an allegation that petitioner
Cunanan has committed the offense in relation to his office is 1""A/2&1AL
insofar as determination of the locus of jurisdiction is concerned.
&%#$S$ *S. &$"!N3$
',' %C&A G.G
Bacts5 Dovernor Deloso of Eam#ales went to pre:wedding cele#ration when his
car was allegedl am#ushed. Ce was a#le to escape and later on learned that
*ena *. *erga ,,

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
the am#ushed were killed while his group suffered no casualties. Based
however on the testimonies of the eewitnesses, Delososs group was not
am#ushed #ut were the ones who am#ushed the persons killed. /hus, the
militar servicemen of the Dovernors securit force were charged with murder
while the civilians were investigated # the $rovincial Biscal. /he governor was
charged with multiple murder.
/he governor now seeks to stop respondent "anuel Domingo, deput
4m#udsman of Lu7on from conducting a preliminar investigation of the
charge against him of multiple murder contending that the om#udsman has no
jurisdiction over the case for the acts were not connected with the performance
of the governors duties.
1ssue5 AL= the om#udsman has jurisdiction to investigate the charge of
multiple murder allegedl committed # the petitioner as provincial governor.
Decision5 8es. /he constitution empowers the om#udsman to investigate an
act or omission of an pu#lic official without an 6ualification that said act or
omission must have #een committed or incurred in relation to his office.
/he 4m#udsman Act of ',0, vests in the 4m#udsman primar jurisdiction
over cases cogni7a#le # the %andigan#aan. A murder charged against the
petitioner carries the penalt of reclusion temporal in its ma3imum period to
death hence, it is cogni7a#le # the %andigan#aan and the 4m#udsman has
primar jurisdiction to investigate it.
/he %andigan#aan has jurisdiction over offense committed # pu#lic officials
when the penalt prescri#ed # law for the offense is higher than prision
correctional. /he murder charged against the petitioner carries the penalt of
reclusion temporal in its ma3imum period to death hence, it is cogni7a#le #
the %andigan#aan, and the 4m#udsman has primar jurisdiction to
investigate it.
/he law does not re6uire that the act or omission #e related to or #e connected
with or arise from the performance of official dut. %ince the law does not
distinguish, neither should the court distinguish.
-ote. /he doctrine in this case (hich provides that the (hen the penalty
prescribed by la( is higher than prision correccional, the andiganbayan has
!urisdiction, (ithout stating the offense (as co''itted in relation to the
offender0s office is a &1/A2E"
(d! Distinguished from +urisdiction of the 4m#udsman over $u#lic
4fficers
A3'!NA#&$ *S. &$"A3AS
,,: SCA .,:
Decision5 /he +urisdiction of the 4m#udsman to investigate and $rosecute
$u#lic 4fficers for an illegal act or omission is not e3clusive #ut a shared
concurrent authorit in respect of the offense charged.
NAT!*!&A& *S. +%#!>
D.&. =o. '''-'- (. Be#ruar (. ',,.
Doctrine5 /he 4m#udsmans primar power to investigate is dependent on the
cases cogni7a#le # %andigan#aan. /he 4m#udsmans primar jurisdiction is
dependent on the cases cogni7a#le # the former. But the authorit is
concurrent with other similarl authori7ed agencies. Cowever, the
4m#udsman ma take over the investigation of such case at an stage from
ant investigative agenc # the government. /his is onl director.
Bacts5 "rs. Lourdes A6uino wrote a letter to the $=$ re6uesting them to
investigate the "unicipal "aor of /arlac for the death of her hus#and %everino
A6uino. /he $=$ then re6uested the /arlac $rovincial $rosecutor to investigate
the petitioner for the death of the victim. $etitioner wrote to the secretar of
justice re6uesting the preliminar investigation #e done in "anila, #ut this was
denied. /he petitioner then moved to remand his case for preliminar
investigation contending that respondent judge has no jurisdiction over the
case #ecause it was the 4m#udsman and not the provincial prosecutor who
has jurisdiction to conduct the investigation. &espondent judge denied the
petition.
Decision5 1n Deloso vs. Domingo, it was said that the 4m#udsman has the
power to conduct preliminar investigation on an illegal act or omission of an
pu#lic official which is #road enough to encompass an crime committed # a
pu#lic official. Cowever, looking at the latest law on the %andigan#aan,
%ection . of said law provided that the %andigan#aan shall e3ercise e3clusive
jurisdiction in all cases involving5 a! offenses or felonies # pu#lic officers and
emploees in relation to their office and #! penalt prescri#ed #e higher than
prison correctional or imprisonment for - ears or fine of $hp -,(((.((. 1n the
case at #ar, the second re6uirement was met #ut the first is wanting.
"oreover, Deloso vs. Domingo has alread #een re:e3amined in the case of
Aguinaldo vs. Domagas and %anche7 vs. Demetriou which #oth provided that
the authorit of the 4m#udsman is not an e3clusive authorit #ut rather a
shared or concurrent authorit in respect of the offense charged. Accordingl,
the 4m#udsman ma take over the investigation of such case at an stage
from an investigative agenc of the Dovernment. Also, a careful reading of
%ection 'G of the 4m#udsman act would give us an idea an idea that the
*ena *. *erga ,4

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
4m#udsmans investigator powers are #ut director in nature. /he petition
was dismissed for lack of merit.
(e! Certiorari +urisdiction (conferred # &.A. *,*G!.
(f! $u#lic 4fficer charged as accomplice of private individual
T$TAAN *S. +%#!>
3.. No. ;1;5: 0: August 1<;;
Decision5 %ection . of $D =o. '-(- as amended # $D '0-' provides in part
that in case private individuals are charged as co:principals, accomplices, or
accessories with the pu#lic officers or emploees, including those emploed in
government owned or controlled corporations the shall #e tried jointl with
said pu#lic officers and emploees in ordinar courts. /he rule is that
?accessor follows the principal@. /hus, if the pu#lic officer or emploee is
mere accomplice and the private individual as principal, the former shall #e
tried jointl with the latter in the ordinar courts. /he rationale is justified #
the a#sence of a provision in $D '-(- directing that all criminal cases involving
pu#lic officers and emploees, without distinction, #e tried # the
%andigan#aan, even if the criminal involvement of the pu#lic officer is minor
or su#ordinate. /he jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan is not meant to #e all:
encompassing or #road.
(g! 23clusive +urisdiction over $CDD cases
$#A3'% vs. TC
3.. No. ;14;5 ,1 +e=ruary 1<;<
Bacts5 $etitioner 4laguer is 6uestioning the jurisdiction of the &/C in the case
at #ar. %ometime in ',**, $hilippine +ournalist 1nc, pu#lisher of several dail
periodicals, o#tained a loan from Development Bank of the $hilippines. Due to
some financial difficult, $+1 re6uested the restructuring of the Loan with DB$.
$+1 defaulted in its o#ligations, thus DB$ was a#le to control -*N of the stocks
and voting rights of the corporation, which ena#led 4laguer and four others to
sit in the #oard. 4laguer was elected president of the #oard and due to some
illegal acts done # him, private respondents filed for injunction and damages
in the &/C. 4laguer alleged that &/C has no jurisdiction over the case since
$+1 was under the investigation of $CDD in connection with "arcos ill:gotten
wealth.
1ssue AL= the $CDD has e3clusive jurisdiction over the case.
Decision5 /here is no dispute that the $+1 is under the se6uestration # the
$CDD and that Civil case ((FG was filed in the %andigan#aan wherein $+1 was
listed as among the corporation involved the "arcos ill:gotten wealth.
9nder %ection ) of 24 =o. '., the %andigan#aan has e3clusive and original
jurisdiction over all cases regarding the ?funds, mones, assets and properties
illegall ac6uired # former $resident Berdinand 2. "arcos, civil or criminal,
including incidents arising from such cases. /he decision of the %andigan#aan
is su#ject to review on certiorari e3clusivel # the %upreme Court.
1n the e3ercise if its functions, the $CDD is co:e6ual #od with the &/C and co:
e6ual #odies have no power to control the other. /he &/C and the CA have no
jurisdiction over the $CDD in the e3ercise of its powers under the applica#le 24
and section )-, Article H>111 of the ',0* Constitution and, therefore, ma not
interfere with the restrain or set:aside the orders and actions of the $CDD
acting for and in #ehalf of said Commission.
$etition was granted.
PC33 *S. P% FA
D.&. =4. **--F ') A$&1L ',00
Bacts5 $CDD ordered the free7ing of assets, effects, documents and records of
two e3port garment manufacturing firms named American 1nternational
Corporation and De %oleil Apparel "anufacturing Corporation. $roperties of
#oth companies were se6uestered and placed under the custodia legis of
$CDD. 4n ',0*, the officer in charge of said corporations withdrew $hp
.(((,(((.(( fro the "etropolitan Bank for the salaries of the emploees. After
some time, a case was instituted # the compans Cong Jong investors
against the Bank, $CDD and Commissioner Bautista who authori7ed "s. %aludo
(the 41C! to revoke authori7ations that were previousl issued to the Cong
Jong investors.
&espondent +udge issued e3:parte the 6uestioned temporar restraining order
enjoining the #ank, from releasing an funds of the companies without the
%ignature of 8im %hing, one of the Cong Jong investors;
/he Commission filed this petition for dismissal of aforesaid decision since the
trial court has no jurisdiction over the case at #ar.
1ssue5 AL= the &/C has jurisdiction over the petitioner $CDD and properties
se6uestered and placed in its cusotdia legis in the e3ercise of its powers under
24 ', ), and '..
AL= courts can set aside order of the Commission.
Decision5 /he courts have no jurisdiction over the $CDD as vested in the
commission and holds that jurisdiction over all se6uestration cases fall within
*ena *. *erga ,5

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
the e3clusive and original jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan, su#ject to review
e3clusivel # the %upreme Court.
/he commission e3ercise 6uasi judicial functions. 1n the e3ercise of 6uasi
judicial functions, the commission is a co:e6ual #od with &/C and ?co:e6ual
#odies have no power to control the other.@
/he creation of the $CDD is mandated # the people. $roclamation =um#er F
specificall gives priorit to the recover of ill:gotten wealth of the "arcoses
and their cronies and to protect the interest of the people through orders of
se6uestration or free7ing of assets or accounts. /he corporations, #eing
su#ject of said se6uestration proceedings comes within the jurisdiction of the
$CDD.
(h! +urisdiction to Annul +udgments
PC33 *S. SAN&!3AN9A(AN
3.. N$. 14,:4; ,4 +%9'A( ,000
Bacts5 Aorld 9niversal /rading and 1nvestment Co (A9/1C! was registered in
$anama #ut was not licensed to do #usiness in the $hilippines. /he trial court
rendered judgment in favor of A9/1C enforcing a foreign judgment and
ordering another compan, the Construction Development Corporation (CDC!,
which is a compan dul organi7ed in the $hilippines and under the
se6uestration # the $CDD, to pa the former K)".
CDC filed with the trial court an appeal from the decision of the said decision.
CA affirmed the decision.
$CDD contends that the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complain
and enforce a foreign judgment considering the case involved a se6uestered
corporation. $CDD then filed with %andigan#aan a petition to annul the &/Cs
decision. %andigan#aan dismissed the petition saing that it has no
jurisdiction to annul the judgment of the &/C since the case #efore the trial
court was for enforcement of a foreign judgment and not for recover of ill:
gotten wealth.
1ssue5 AL= the decision of %andigan#aan was correct.
Decision5 $ursuant to 24 '., the %andigan#aan has e3clusive jurisdiction over
all $CDD cases involving ill:gotten wealth whether civil or criminal, and all
incidents arising from, incidental to, or related to such cases.
/he %andigan#aan has jurisdiction to annul the judgments of the &/C in a
se6uestration related case, such as a judgment of the &/C for the enforcement
of a foreign judgment involving propert that has #een lawfull se6uestered.
$etition was granted. /he decision of the &/C was set aside.
(i! +urisdiction over "ilitar and $=$
&epu#lic Act. =o. *(GG (An act %trengthening civilian supremac over the
militar # returning to the civil courts the jurisdiction over certain
offenses involving mem#ers of the AB$ and other persons su#ject to
militar law and $=$!.
(1) 4ffenses defined under &$C, special laws, local
government ordinance regardless of whether a civilian is
co:accused, victim or offended parties shall #e tried in
proper civil court e$cept if offense is service
connected which shall %e tried %y court martial
()! /he president of the $hilippine ma order or direct at an
time #efore arraignment that the proper civil court tr
such a crime.
'( *S. SAN&!3AN9A(AN
F') %C&A ** August ',,,
Bacts5 $etitioner Deorge 9 was the deput comptroller of the $hilippine =av
designated to act on #ehalf of Captain Bernande7, the latters supervisor, on
matters relating the activities of the Biscal Control Branch. %i3 informations for
2stafa through falsification of official documents and one information for
violation of %ection F of &A F(', (anti:graft and corrupt practices act! were
filed with the %andigan#aan against the petitioner and ', other accused for
alleged. /he petitioner was said to have signed a $.4. stating that the unit
received ',((( pieces of seal rings when in fact, onl '(( were ordered. /he
%andigan#aan recommended that the infomations #e withdrawn against some
of the accused after a comprehensive investigation.
$etitioner filed a motion to 6uash contending that it is the Court "artial and
not the %andigan#aan, which has jurisdiction over the offense charged or the
person of the accused. $etitioner further contends that &A '0G(, which
provides for the jurisdiction of court martial should govern in this case.
1ssue5 AL= Court "artial has jurisdiction over the case
*ena *. *erga ,5

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
Decision5 /he law (&A *(GG! does not include violations of &A F(', (Anti:Draft
Law! even if the act is service connected. >iolations of &A F(', falls under the
jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan or the &/C depending on the nature of the
position of the offender and not the court martial.
<. +urisdiction of "ilitar Court
!N T7% "ATT% $+ T7% P%T!T!$N +$ 7A9%AS C$P'S $+ $#AN&$
N. A9A&!##A
D.&. =o. *,'*F (, +une ',00
Bacts5 A#adilla was said to #e one of the leaders of the unsuccessful mutin #
officers and enlisted men who sei7ed and control of the radio:television
#roadcasting facilities of the D"A:* and Bort Bonifacio for the purpose of
toppling the e3isting government. /he Board of 4fficers investigating the
matter recommended that the case of Colonel A#adilla #e endorsed for pre:trial
and that charges #e filed for violation of the Articles of Aar and the &$C.
Colonel A#adilla was at large when #oth investigations were conducted. Chief
of staff &amos issued general 4rders =o, F.) dropping herein petitioner form
the rolls of regular officers of the AB$.
"eanwhile a case for slight $hsical injuries was filed against A#adilla with the
"etropolitan /rial Court. Ahen he was arrested, his wife and children filed for
a petition for ha#eas corpus.
/he counsel of A#adilla now contends that in as much as A#adilla was arrested
after he had #ecome a civilian, the charge sheets prepared against him # the
militar authorities are null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the person of
the Colonel.
1ssue5 AL= the militar courts have jurisdiction over A#adilla after he was
dropper from the rolls.
Decision5 /he fact that Colonel A#adilla was dropped from the rolls should not
lead to the conclusion that he is now #eond the jurisdiction of the militar
authorities. 1f such a conclusion were to prevail, his ver own refusal to clear
his name and protect his honor #efore his superior officers in the manner
prescri#ed for and e3pected from a ranking militar officer would #e his shield
against prosecution. Cis refusal to report for dut or to surrender when
ordered arrested, which led to his name #eing dropped from the roll of regular
officers of the militar cannot there# render him #eond the jurisdiction of the
militar courts for the offenses he committed while still in the militar service.
/he militar authorities had jurisdiction over the person of A#adilla at the time
of the alleged offenses. /his jurisdiction having #een vested in the militar
authorities, it is retained up to the end of the proceeding against Colonel
A#adilla. 1t is a (ell settled rule that !urisdiction once ac#uired is not lost upon
the instance of the parties but continues until the case is ter'inated"
(a! =o jurisdiction over civilians
$#A3'% *S. "!#!TA( C$""!SS!$N
150 SCA 155
Bacts5 $etitioners, all civilians, were all arrested # militar authorities and
initiall detained at Camp Crame and later on, Camp Bagong Diwa. /he were
charged with su#version upon the recommendation of the respondent +udge
Advocate Deneral and the approval of the "inister of =ational defense. 4n
+une 'F ',0(, the chief of staff created the "ilitar commission no F. to tr
the criminal cases filed against the petitioners. An amended charge was filed
against petitioners stating that the tried to assassinate $resident "arcs,
2nrile, attempted murder and proposal to commit re#ellion among others.
$etitioners now seek to enjoin the militar tri#unal from taking cogni7ance of
their case contending that said commissions have no jurisdiction to tr civilians
for offenses alleged to have #een committed during the period of martial law.
1ssue5 AL= the militar commission has jurisdiction over the petitioners for
crimes allegedl committed during martial law.
Decision5 the trial contemplated in the constitution is a trial # judicial
process. "ilitar tri#unals are not courts within the $hilippine judicial sstem.
2ven during martial law, a militar commission or tri#unal cannot tr and
e3ercise jurisdiction over civilians for offenses allegedl committed # the
petitioners, as long as civil courts are open and functioning.
"ilitar tri#unals pertain to the 23ecutive Department and are merel
instrumentalities of the e3ecutive power. /his is provided # the legislature to
the $resident to aid him in properl commanding the arm, nav and enforcing
discipline therein. /he power and dut of interpreting laws reside within the
+udiciar and not with the e3ecutive #ranch.
A9A&!##A *S. A"$S
3.. No. :<1:4 01 &ecem=er 1<;:
Bacts5 A#adilla was said to #e one of the leaders of the unsuccessful mutin #
officers and enlisted men who sei7ed and control of the radio:television
#roadcasting facilities of the D"A:* and Bort Bonifacio for the purpose of
toppling the e3isting government. /he Board of 4fficers investigating the
matter recommended that the case of Colonel A#adilla #e endorsed for pre:trial
and that charges #e filed for violation of the Articles of Aar and the &$C.
*ena *. *erga ,.

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
Colonel A#adilla was at large when #oth investigations were conducted. Chief
of staff &amos issued general 4rders =o, F.) dropping herein petitioner form
the rolls of regular officers of the AB$.
"eanwhile a case for slight $hsical injuries was filed against A#adilla with the
"etropolitan /rial Court. Ahen he was arrested, his wife and children filed for
a petition for ha#eas corpus.
/he counsel of A#adilla now contends that in as much as A#adilla was arrested
after he had #ecome a civilian, the charge sheets prepared against him # the
militar authorities are null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the person of
the Colonel.
1ssue5 AL= the militar courts have jurisdiction over A#adilla after he was
dropper from the rolls.
Decision5 An judgment rendered # militar courts relating a civilian is null
and void for lack of jurisdiction. Cowever, months #efore Colonel A#adilla was
dropper from the rolls of officers, the militar authorities #egan the institution
of proceedings against him. As of that time, he was certainl su#ject to
militar law.
TAN *S. 9A!$S
1<0 SCA 1; $CT$9% 1<<0
Bacts5 4n the #asis of $roclamation =o '(0', $resident "arcos authori7ed the
AB$ Chief of %tage to create tri#unals to tr and decide cases of militar
personnel and such other cases as ma #e referred to them. 1n Deneral order
)', the militar tri#unals were vested with jurisdiction among others over
violations of the law on firearms, and other crimes which were directl related
to the 6uelling of re#ellion. Later on, the jurisdiction was enlarged to include
crimes defined under the &$C.
/he petitioners and twelve others were charged with murder through the use
of unlicensed firearm. /he militar courts took cogni7ance of this case which
ac6uitted the petitioners while convicting the other. 4n "a )), ',0*, the
court promulgated the 4laguer decision declaring that militar commission and
tri#unals have no jurisdiction over civilians.
1n ',00, the case was reopened for investigations # virtue of the courts
decision in Cru7 vs. 2nrile. Aithout conducting investigation, Biscal #arrios filed
two informations (illegal possession and murder! against the petitioners.
1ssue5 AL= the fiscal has authorit to re:file in the civil courts the criminal
actions against petitioner tried and ac6uitted # the "ilitar commission.
Decision5 /he courts pronouncement in Cru7 vs. 2nrile nullifing the
proceedings in militar courts against civilian petitioners therein and ordering
the refilling of informations against them in civil courts ma not affect the right
of persons who ere not parties in the case.
4laguer should, in principle, #e applied prospectivel onl to future cases and
cases still on going or not et final when the decision was promulgated.
Cence, there should #e no retroactive nullification of final judgments, whether
of conviction or ac6uittal, rendered # militar courts against civilians #efore
the promulgation of the 4laguer decision. %uch final sentences should not #e
distur#ed # the state.
4nl in particular cases were the convicted person or the state shows that
there was a serious denial of the constitutional rights of the accused, should
the nullit of the sentence #e declared and retrial #e ordered #ased on the
violation of the constitutional rights of the accused, and not on 4laguer
doctrine. 1f a retrial is no longer possi#le, the accused should #e released
since the judgment against him is null on account of the violation of his
constitutional rights and denial of due process.
$etition was granted.
(#! +urisdiction ac6uired # reason of arrest does not appl to militar
proceedings
!N T7% "ATT% $+ T7% P%T!T!$N +$ 7A9%AS C$P'S $+ $#AN&$
N. A9A&!##A
D.&. =o. *,'*F (, +une ',00
1ssue5 AL= jurisdiction over a person is ac6uired not # mere filing of charge
or # commencement of an investigation #ut # arrest of the defendant.
Decision5 /he rule that jurisdiction over a person is ac6uired # his arrest
applied onl to criminal proceedings instituted #efore the regular courts. 1t
does not appl to proceeding under the militar law. /hus, there is no merit to
the contention that since A#adilla was alread civilian when he was arrested,
the militar tri#unal has no jurisdiction over him.
!!. $t?er matters
*ena *. *erga ,:

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
9. 9nder %ection )-, &ule ''. of the )((( &ules on Criminal $rocedure,
#ail is not a #ar to o#jections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular
preliminar investigation
>. 1n applications for #ail however, the Accused must #e in custod of the
law to #e entitled to #ail (%ico vs" 3o'bong!
A. Custod how ac6uired5
1. B virtue of a warrant or warrantless arrest, or
2. when he voluntaril su#mitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
court # surrendering to the proper authorities (4inapol vs"
Baldado!
H. /he mere filing of an application for #ail is not sufficient (antiago vs"
5as#ue6!. /he application for admission to #ail of a person against
whom a criminal action has #een filed, #ut who is still at large is
premature (Guiller'o vs" Reyes,"
8. 23ceptions when mere filing of motion sufficient (%aderanga vs" 3A!
1. Couse arrests
2. Cospital Arrests
3. Being confined to 6uarters or restricted in militar camps
B. +urisdiction over the person of the accused # Arrest or >oluntar surrender
is not a condition for court to Drant Affirmative &elief (dismissal of the case!
(Allado vs" 4io)no!
'#% 110
Prosecution o1 $11enses
!. P$*!S!$NS AN& N$T%S
SECTI"# &: Institution of criminal actions
Criminal actions shall %e instituted as follows:
'a( For offenses where a preliminary investigation is
re)uired pursuant to section & and *ule+ %y filing the
complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of
conducting the re)uisite preliminary investigation,
'%( For all other offenses %y filing a complaint or
information directly with the municipal trial courts and
municipal circuit trial courts+ or the complaint with
office of the prosecutor, In -anila and other chartered
cities+ the complaint shall %e filed with the office of the
prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their charters,
The institution of criminal action shall interrupt the running of the
period of prescription of the offenses charged unless otherwise
provided in special laws,
Source
/he present rule covers all offenses e3cept those that ma #e provided in the
charter of cities and other special laws.
"odes o1 instituting criminal action.
'. "a #e commenced # an person presenting to a court a
complaint. Ahere complaint has #een alread presented, no other
further pleading on the part of prosecutor is necessar
). Commence # prosecutor # filing with the court an information
(such information is the process which institutes the action and
prosecution proceeds upon it as $eoples pleading!
F. Ahen preliminar investigation is re6uired (%ection ', &ule '')!,
criminal action must #e instituted # first filing the corresponding
complaint with the proper officer for purposes of preliminar
investigation.
=ote5 $reliminar investigation is re6uired. 23cept where the accused is under
arrest (penalt for the offense must at least #e for Bour ears, two months and
one da, without regard to the fine!.
.. Ahere offense falls under the jurisdiction of the "/C, "C/C
(penalt is less than . ears, ) months and ' da!, action ma #e
instituted through a complaint or information filed directl with
said courts or with the office of pu#lic prosecutor.
=ote5 23ception5 1n manila and other chartered cities where action is ALAA8%
commenced # a complaint filed in the officer of the prosecutor, unless the
charter provided otherwise.
"eaning o1 GProAer $11icerH
&efers to officers authori7ed to conduct the re6uired to conduct the re6uisite
preliminar investigation5
'. provincial or cit prosecutors and their assistants
). judges of the municipal trial courts, municipal circuit trial courts
F. national and regional state prosecutors
.. other officers authori7ed # the courts.
=ote5 /heir authorit to conduct $1 shall include all crimes cogni7a#le #
the proper curt in their respective jurisdiction
1nterruption of prescriptive period
'. B filing the criminal action either # complaint or information for
preliminar investigation or trial on the merit unless provided #
special laws.
). /his true even if the court where the complaint or information is
filed cannot tr the case on merits.
*ena *. *erga ,;

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
F. &eason5 /he mistake of the prosecutor in filing a compliant should
not operate to prejudice the interest of the state to prosecute
criminal offenses.
=ote5 /his rule does not appl to violations of municipal ordinances and
special laws.
1nstitution vs. Commencement
!nstitution Commencement
B filing of complaint with
the appropriate officer for
preliminar investigation
9pon filing of criminal
action in court
S%CT!$N ,D T?e comAlaint or in1ormation
The complaint or information shall %e in writing+ in the name of the
People of the Philippines against all persons who appear to %e
responsi%le for the offense involved,
A. =ecessit of formal accusation
/his re6uirement cannot #e waived #ecause no criminal proceeding can #e
#rought or instituted until a formal charge is openl made against the accused
# complaint or information.
B. Borm
'. Accusation must #e in writing
5ox e'issa volat7 litera scripta 'anet (the spoken word flies; written letter
remains!.
). Accusation must #e in the name of the people.
1rrespective of the mode # which the criminal proceeding is to #e commenced,
the action must #e under the name of the $eople, whose peace in legal theor
has #een #reached.
(a) &ationale5 /o prevent malicious or unfounded prosecutions #
private individuals (3hua8Burce vs" 3A!.
(b) Cowever, a criminal action instituted in the name of the
offended part or of a particular cit, although erroneous, ma
not #e 6uashed for the defect is merel in form (3ity of &anila
vs" Ri6al! which ma #e cured at an stage of the trial (-go
9ao /it vs" heriff of &anila!
=ote5 1f there is a mistake in jurisdiction, the private complainant, who has
interest in the civil aspect of the case! ma 6uestion jurisdiction. 1n doing so,
the action should not #e in the name of the $eople #ut in his name (Bernando
vs" 3A!.
F. Accusation must #e against all persons responsi#le for the offense
/his is demanded # the sound pu#lic polic, which would deprive prosecuting
officers to use their discretion in order to shield relatives and friends.
Cowever, the matter of determining whether the evidence is sufficient to
justif a reasona#le #elief that a person has committed an offense still lies in
the prosecuting officer.
=ote5 1f for an reason the fiscal failed to include the name of one or more
criminals in the information, such persons are not relieved of penal lia#ilit nor
escape penal lia#ilit just #ecause it develops in the course of the trial that
there were other guilt participants in the crime (%eople vs" 3atli!.
Corollar rule5 /he e3ercise of judgment and discretion of prosecuting officer
ma not #e controlled # mandamus (Don7ales vs. %errano! for where the law
demands that all persons who appear responsi#le for an offense shall #e
charged in the information, it also implies that those against whom no
sufficient evidence e3ist are not to #e included in the charge; and the
determination of whether or not there is, as against an person, sufficient
evidence of guilt to warrant his prosecution necessaril involves the e3ercise of
discretion # the prosecuting officer.
.. 23ceptions to the rule that fiscals cannot #e compelled #
mandamus (su#ject to judicial review in proper cases!
Ahere from the evidence su#mitted and gathered # the prosecuting
officer a person appearing responsi#le for the commission of an offense is
not included in the information (de 3astro vs" 3astaneda!
SECTI"# .: Complaint defined
Complaint is sworn written statement charging a person with an offense
su#scri#ed # the offended part, an peace officer or other pu#lic officer
charged with the enforcement of the law violated.
A. $erson authori7ed to file a complaint (e3haustive list!
'. T?e o11ended Aart
(a! Definition5 person against whom or against whose propert
the crime was committed.
(#! &ationale5
('! in principle, the declaration of the criminal lia#ilit carries
with it the declaration of the resulting civil o#ligation.
()! /here are crimes which cannot #e prosecuted other than
at the formal instance of the person injured.
(c! /he right however, to file a criminal complaint is personal. 1t is
a#ated upon complainants death and intransmissi#le to his
heirs.
). a Aeace o11icer
$ersons who are competent to file a criminal complaint (law enforcement,
agents of =B1 etc.!
F. a Au=lic o11icer c?arged 0it? t?e en1orcement o1 t?e la0
violated.
*ena *. *erga ,<

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
23. 1nternal revenue agents, customs agents etc.
B. Complaint ma #e filed with the court or the office of the fiscal.
9nlike an information, a complaint need not necessaril #e filed with the court
and ma therefore #e laid #efore the Cit Biscal for investigation.
C. Lack of oath is not a fatal defect
D. Biling of complaint does not re6uire mediation of prosecutor.
/hus, lack of mediation of prosecuting attorne is not a ground for dismissal of
complaint (/rinidad vs" Jarabe!
2. Ahen complaint is not re6uired.
'. Ahen the offense is one which cannot #e prosecuted de oficio
(must #e #rought at the instance of and upon complain e3pressl
filed # the offended part I those enumerated in /itle H1, Book 11
of &$C I adulter, concu#inage, seduction, a#duction or acts of
lasciviousness, including defamation!.
). when offense is private in nature
F. where it pertains those cases which need to #e endorsed #
specific pu#lic officers (e3. those concerning immigration that is
under the e3clusive jurisdiction of the Commission on
1mmigration!.
=ote5 the right to commence criminal prosecution is confined to
representatives of the government and persons injured; otherwise, it shall #e
dismissed.
F. General rule 5 Criminal $rosecutions cannot #e enjoined
$u#lic interest calls that writs of injunction or prohi#ition to restrain a criminal
prosecution are generall not availa#le
23ceptions5 when the writ is necessar5
(a! Bor orderl administration of justice and to avoid multiplicit
of suits
(#! Ahen there is a prejudicial 6uestion
(c! /o afford ade6uate protection to constitutional rights of the
accused
(d! Ahere the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or
regulation
(e! Ahen dou#le jeopard
(f! Ahere court has no jurisdiction over the offense
(g! Ahere it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
(h! Ahere the charges are manifestl false and motivated # the
lust for vengeance
(i! Ahen there is clearl no prima facie case against the accused
and a motion to 6uash on the ground has #een denied.
(j! Ahen acts of officer are without or in e3cess of authorit
(k! /o prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners.
!!. +uridical person cannot #e impleaded in the accusation
1n cases of corporation, the officer through whim the corporation acts, answers
criminall for his acts.
SECTI"# /: Information defined
An information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense,
su#scri#ed # the prosecutor and filed with the court.
B. Complaint vs. 1nformation
Both are written accusation of the commission of a criminal offense.
Difference5
ComAlainant !n1ormation
%igned # the offended part, an
peace officer or other pu#lic officer
charged with the enforcement of the
law violated.
%igned # the fiscal or an authori7ed
prosecuting officer.
%worn to # the person signing it =eed not e under oath since the
prosecuting officer filling it is
charged with the special dut in
regard thereto and is acting under
the special responsi#ilit of his oath
of office.
"a #e filed either with the fiscals
office or the court
Alwas filed with the court.
=ote5 where the accused underwent preliminar investigation pursuant to
%ection '(d! of $D ,'', the certification must #e under oath.
An information not properl signed cannot #e cured # silence or even e3press
consent.
C. $ersons authori7ed to filed information
'. cit or provincial prosecutor and their assistants
). dul appointed special prosecutors
F. a lawer appointed # the secretar of +ustice (pursuant to
%ection '-,- of the &evised Administrative Code!.
SECTI"# 0: 1ho must prosecute criminal actions
All criminal actions either commenced %y complaint or %y information
shall %e prosecuted under the direction and control of a pu%lic
prosecutor, In case of heavy wor2 schedule of the pu%lic prosecutor+
or in the event of lac2 of pu%lic prosecutors+ the private prosecutor
may %e authori3ed in writing %y the Chief of the prosecutor office or
the *egional state Prosecutor to prosecute the case su%4ect to the
*ena *. *erga 40

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
approval of the court, "nce so authori3ed to prosecute the criminal
action+ the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up
to the end of the trial even in the a%sence of a pu%lic prosecutor+
unless the authority is revo2ed or otherwise withdrawn,
The crimes of adultery and concu%inage shall not %e prosecuted e$cept
upon a complaint filed %y the offended spouse, The offended party
cannot institute criminal prosecution without including the guilty
parties+ if %oth are alive not+ in any case+ if the offended party has
consented to the offense or pardoned the offenders,
The offenses of seduction+ a%duction and acts of lasciviousness shall
not %e prosecuted e$cept upon a complaint filed %y the offended party
or her parents+ grandparents or guardian+ not+ in any case+ if the
offender has %een e$pressly pardoned %y any of them, If the offended
party denies or %ecomes incapacitated %efore she can file the
complaint+ and she has no 2nown parents+ grandparents+ or guardian+
the state shall initiate the criminal action in her %ehalf,
The offended party+ even if a minor+ has the right to initiate the
prosecution of the offenses of seduction+ a%duction and acts of
lasciviousness independently of her parents+ grandparents+ or
guardians+ unless she is incompetent or incapa%le of doing so, 1here
the offended party+ who is a minor+ fails to file the complaint+ her
parents+ grandparents+ or guardian may file the same, The right to file
the action granted to parents+ grandparents+ or guardians shall %e
e$clusive of all other persons and shall %e e$ercised successively in
the order herein provided+ e$cept as stated in the preceding
paragraph,
=o criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of an of the
offenses mentioned a#ove shall #e #rought e3cept at the instance of and upon
complaint filed # the offended part.
The prosecution for violation of special laws %e governed %y the
provisions thereof,
A. Deneral rule5 all criminal actions either commenced # complaint or #
information shall #e prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal.
/he right of the offended part to institute the criminal prosecution or the
commission of a pu#lic offense ceases upon the filing of the complaint in court,
the fiscal taking charge of the prosecution of the suit in the name of the $eople
until the termination of the case.
B. "otion to dismiss case in court should #e addressed to the discretion of
the trial court
&ule5 Ahere the information has alread #een filed in court, the court steps in
and takes control of the case until the same is finall disposed of, so that the
fiscal has no more control over it.
=ote5 1f court refuses to dismiss the case at the instance of the fiscal, the
least the fiscal can do is continue appearing for the prosecution and then turn
over the presentation of evidence to another fiscal or a private prosecutor
su#ject to his supervision and control.
C. Ahen prosecution ma #e controlled # a person other than the pu#lic
prosecutor
$rivate prosecutor, in case of heav load, with authori7ation in writing # the
Chief of the $rosecution 4ffice of the &egional %tate $rosecutor to prosecute
the case su#ject to the approval of the prosecutor (ma #e withdrawn!.
=ote5 /here is no need for pu#lic prosecutor to give his authori7ation unless
the written authorit re6uires it. /he written authorit must #e clear especiall
when it covers plea #argaining, amendment of the information or the dismissal
of the case.
Cowever, the private prosecutor5
1. 1s not entitled to #e served with copies of the pleadings as a
matter of right since a notice of the court to the fiscal is a notice
to the prosecutor (ese vs" &ontesa!. =ote however that failure
to serve pleadings and orders upon government counsel renders
the court orders issued upon such such petitions or motions of an
accused as void.
). Cannot make a stand inconsistent with the state.
F. Cannot appeal from an order dismissing the case on motion of the
fiscal.
.. "a not continue to take part in the proceeding after the death of
the offended part since the latter is the principal and the private
prosecutor, merel an agent.
D. 23clusive right of the %olicitor Deneral to handle criminal cases in the
Court of Appeals and the %upreme Court.
1t is onl the %olicitor general that is authori7ed to #ring and defend action in
#ehalf of the $eople of &epu#lic of the $hilippines once the case is #rought
#efore the %upreme Court or CA in cases concerning5
'. writs of error
). petition for review
F. automatic appeal
.. special civil actions where the $eople of the $hilippines
23ception5 cases elevated in the %upreme Court # wa of petition for review
against decisions or final orders of the %andigan#aan, it is the 4ffice of the
*ena *. *erga 41

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
4m#udsman through its %pecial $rosecutor, which shall represent the $eople of
the $hilippines.
E. Control of $rosecution and Control of Court
Control =y Arosecution Control o1 Court once case is 1iled
Ahat case to file
Ahom to prosecute
"anner of prosecution
&ight of prosecution to withdraw
information #efore arraignment
even without notice and hearing
%uspension of Arraignment
&einvestigation
$rosecution # Biscal
Downgrading 4ffense or dropping
of accused even #efore pea
Dismissal
F. Limitations on Control of Court
'. $rosecution entitled to notice and hearing
). Court must alwas result of petition for review
F. $rosecutionOs stand to maintain prosecution should #e respected
# the court
.. 9ltimate test of courts independence is where fiscal files a motion
to dismiss or withdraw information
G. Court has authorit to review %ecretars recommendation and
reject it if there is grave a#use of discretion.
-. /o reject or grant motion to dismiss court must make own
independent assessment of evidence
*. +udgment is void if there is no independent assessment and
finding of grave a#use of discretion.
G. 1ntervention of the aggrieved part (a matter of right!
&ule5 Aggrieved part ma intervene #ecause5
'. the declaration of the criminal lia#ilit carries with it the
declaration of resulting civil o#ligation and
). there are crimes which cannot #e prosecuted other than at the
formal instance of the person injured.
23ception5
'. /he accused pleaded guilt #efore the commencement of the trial
). 4ffended part waives the right to the civil action or e3pressl
reserves his right to institute it after the terminal of the criminal
action.
F. 4ffense is one of those, which do not necessaril produce civil
lia#ilit.
Corollar &ule5 /he aggrieved part is prevented from dictating to the fiscal as
to the conduct of the case since government prosecution must alwas #e under
the control of the fiscal (he ma not appeal an order of dismissal # the court
entered upon motion of the fiscal since to permit him would #e tantamount to
giving said part a right to control the criminal proceeding :: Gon6ales vs" 3:1!.
H. $rosecution of a private crime (enumerated in /itle H1, Book 11 of &$C
and defamation! comple3ed with a pu#lic offense
Ahere one of the component is a private crime and the other a pu#lic offense,
the fiscal ma initiate the proceeding de oficio.
&ationale5 %ince one of the component offenses is a pu#lic crime, the latter
should prevail, pu#lic interest #eing alwas paramount to private interest.
*ules:
'. =o crime of adulter and concu#inage shall #e prosecuted e3cept
upon a complaint filed # the offended part. 4ffended spouse
cannot instituted criminal prosecution without including #oth the
guilt parties and if heLshe consented or pardoned the offenders.
=ote5 #igam is an offense against civil status, which ma #e prosecuted at
the instance of the state.
). Crime of seduction, a#duction and acts of lasciviousness shall not
#e prosecuted e3cept upon a complaint filed # the offended
part, or her parents, grandparents or guardians (mandator
re6uirement!.
3. 1f the offended part dies or #ecomes incapacitated #efore she
was a#le to file the complaint and she has no known parents,
grandparents or guardians, the state shall initiate the action in her
#ehalf, pursuant to the doctrine of %ARE- %A/R1AE.
.. =o criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation
of a private crime can #e #rought e3cept at the instance of and
upon complaint # the offended part.
5. Defamation which consists in the imputation of a pu#lic crime (e3.
$rostitution! can #e prosecuted de oficio"
SECTI"# 5: Sufficiency of complaint or information
A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the
designation of the offense given # the statute; the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended part; that
appro3imate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the
offense was committed.
1hen an offense is committed %y more than one person+ all of them
shall %e included in the complaint or information,
!. $urpose of the rule
'. to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him
). to notif the defendant of the criminal acts imputed to him so that
he can dul prepare his defense
B. /est of sufficienc
*ena *. *erga 4,

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
/he complaint or information must set out5
'. the names of the accused
). the designation of the crime charged
F. the acts complained of as constituting the crime in ordinar and
concise language
.. the offense committed within the jurisdiction of the court
G. the name of the offended part
/wo criteria in measuring sufficienc5
'. whether the indictment contains the elements of the offense
intended to #e charged and sufficientl apprises the defendant of
what he must #e prepared to meet.
). whether the records show with accurac to what e3tent he ma
plead a former ac6uittal or conviction (in case an proceedings are
taken against him for a similar offense!
F. 1t is the num#er of acts charged and not counts that is controlling.
G. Defects in the complaint
Deneral &ule5 an defect in the accusation other than lack of jurisdiction ma
#e cured # good and sufficient evidence.
23ception5 %u#stantial defects cannot #e cured # evidence for such would
jeopardi7e the accuseds right to #e informed of the true nature of the offense
he is #eing charged with.
S%CT!$N :D Name o1 t?e accused
The complaint or information must state the name and surname of the
accused or any appellation or nic2name %y which he has %een or is
2nown, If his name cannot %e ascertained+ he must %e descri%ed
under a fictitious name with a statement that his true name is
un2nown,
If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed %y him or
appears in some other manner to the court+ such true name shall %e
inserted in the complaint or information and record,
A. &ationale
/o make a specific identification of the person to whom the commission of an
offense is #eing imputed and to preclude the possi#ilit of having a wrong
person apprehended and #rought to trial while in the meantime the real culprit
goes scot free.
B. 2rror in name is not reversi#le as long as his identit is sufficientl
esta#lished (%eople vs" Ra'os!. /his defect is cura#le at an stage of the
proceeding.
SECTI"# 6 7esignation of offenses
/he complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given #
the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specif its
6ualifing and aggravating circumstance. 1f there is no designation of the
offense, defense shall #e made to the section or su#section of the statute
punishing it.
A, *ationale
The accused has a right to %e informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation to give him opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly
'PeoAle vs. Purisima).
8, The designation of the offense is not mandatory
The accusation is good so long as the facts are alleged and set out in
such a manner as to ena%le a person of common understanding to
2now what is intended+ and the court to pronounce 4udgment
according to right,
A complaint is sufficient if it descri%es the offense in the language of
the statue+ if the statute contains all of the essential elements
constituting the particular offense,
There is no law which re)uires that in order that an accused may %e
convicted+ the specific provision which penali3es the act charged %e
mentioned in the information,
General Rule: -ere deficiency in form 'erroneous classification of an
act+ mista2e in caption of indictment etc( is not fatal and may %e cured
at any stage %ecause it is the facts alleged therein that determines the
nature of the crime,
%2C/14= ,5 Cause of accusation
/he acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the
6ualifing and aggravating circumstances must #e stated in ordinar and
concise language and not necessaril in the language used in the statute #ut in
terms sufficient to ena#le a person of common understanding to know what
offense is #eing charged as well as its 6ualifing and aggravating
circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.
A, *ationale
The constitution guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions+ the
accused shall %e informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him,
*ena *. *erga 44

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
8, Clarity of allegations re)uired 'no need to follow the language of
the statute(
'. to ena%le a person of common understanding to 2now what
offense is intended to %e charged
). to ena%le the court to pronounce proper 4udgment,
C, A complaint or information is not defective simply %ecause it
contains irrelevant or evidentiary matters,
7, Every element must %e alleged,
'. -atters of evidence as distinguished from the facts
essential to the description of the offense need not %e
averred, All that is re)uired is that the offense charged %e
set forth with particularity as will ena%le a person to
prepare his defense,
). Elements of the offense must %e in the %ody of the
information
7, Allegations in comple$ crimes
Allegations contained therein do not necessarily have to charge a
comple$ crime as defined %y law, It is sufficient that the information
contains allegations+ which state that one offense was a necessary
means to commit the other 'PeoAle vs. Alagao( otherwise+ the
complaint or information charges two crimes or offenses independent
from one another 'Parulan vs. odas(,
E, 7efect in complaint or information
An accused person cannot %e convicted of any offense+ unless it is
charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried+ or
necessarily included therein, 1here the information does not state all
the essential facts and ingredients of the crime+ the accusation cannot
stand 'Sugay vs. Pamaran(,
F, #egative allegations and E$ceptions
*ule: If a statute e$empts certain persons+ or classes of persons from
lia%ility+ the complaint should show that the person charged does not
%elong to the class ''.S. vs. PomAeya(,
G. 7efendant cannot %e convicted of an offense graver than that
alleged or an offense of which he has not %een informed no matter
how conclusive the evidence of guilt may %e 'PeoAle vs. Austria(,
H. Allegations of aggravating and )ualifying circumstances must %e
alleged in the complaint or information otherwise+ they cannot %e
properly appreciated 'PeoAle vs. 3ano(,
#ote: 1hile circumstances which were not specifically alleged in the
information may not aggravate the crime+ insofar as the civil aspect of
the case is concerned they may %e considered to determine e$emplary
damages in accordance with Article 99.: of the Civil Code,
%2C/14= '(5 $lace of commission of the offense
/he complaint or information is sufficient if it can #e understood from its
allegations that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients
occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular
place where it was committed constitutes an essential element of the offense
charged or is necessar for its identification.
A, *ationale
This provision serves dou%le purpose:
'. Sufficiency of allegation informs the defendant of the
nature and cause of the accusation and
). Fi$es the 4urisdiction and venue,
8, Allegation of specific place
It is not re)uired+ save in certain instances+ that the complaint or
information state with particularity the place where the crime was
committed, *e)uirement is satisfied when it was alleged that the
offense occurred at some place within the 4urisdiction of the court,
E$ceptions:
The place need %e averred:
'. when the place of the commission of the offense
constitutes an essential element of the offense 'e$, ro%%ery
in an inha%ited house+ pu%lic worship etc,(
). where the offense charged is the doing of an unlicensed act
and the e$act location is essential to individuate the
offense 'e$, violation of a 3oning ordinance(
%2C/14= ''5 Date of commission of the offense
1t is not necessar to state in the complaint or information the precise date the
offense was committed e3cept when it is a material ingredient of the offense.
/he offense ma #e alleged to have #een committed on a date as near as
possi#le to the actual date of its commission.
A, !eneral *ule
1hen time is not an element of the offense+ the precise time at
which the offense is charged to have %een committed is not
material, ;owever+ this rule does not authori3e the total omission
of a date or such an indefinite allegation,
#ote: It is important that the act should %e alleged as having %een
committed at some time %efore the filing of the complaint or
information,
8, E$ception
1hen time is a material ingredient of the offense charged+ it %ecomes
mandatory to allege the same with precision or particularity 'e$,
offense is infanticide < 2illing of a child less than three days old(,
*ena *. *erga 45

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
%2C/14= ')5 =ame of the offended part
/he complaint or information must state the name and surname of the person
against whom or against whose propert the offense was committed, or an
appellation or nickname # which such person has #een or is known. 1f there
is no #etter wa of identifing him, he must #e descri#ed under a fictitious
name.
(a! 1n offense against propert, if the name of the offended part is
unknown, the propert must #e descri#ed with such particularit as to
properl identif the offense charged.
(#! 1f the true name of the person against whom or against whose
propert the offense was committed is thereafter disclosed or
ascertained, the court must cause such true name to #e inserted in
the complaint or information and the record.
(c! 1f the offended part is a juridical person, it is sufficient to state its
name, or an name or designation # which it is known or # which it
ma #e identified., without need of averring that it is a juridical person
or that it is organi7ed in accordance with law.
General Rule
#ame of the party should %e alleged in the complaint especially in
crimes against property where ownership must %e alleged a matter
essential to the description of the offense, This is also true in the
case of defamation cases,
%2C/14= 'F5 Duplicit of offenses
A complaint or information must charge onl one offense, e3cept when the law
prescri#es a single punishment for various offenses.
A, 7efinition
7uplicity is the 4oinder of two or more distinct and separate offense in
the same count of an indictment or information, A complaint or
information is duplicitous if it charges two or more different offenses,
8, !eneral rule: Complaint or information must charge only one
offense,
C, Test of duplicity
Test should not %e depended upon the evidence presented at the trial
%ut upon the facts alleged in the information,
E$ceptions:
the right under this provision may %e waived when accused fails
to o%4ect to the multiplicity of crimes,
Comple$ crimes 'a single act constitutes two or more grave or
less grave felonies(
Special comple$ crimes
Continuous crimes or delito continuado 'a single crime
consisting of a series of acts arising from a single
intent,
Crimes suscepti%le of %eing committed in various modes
Crimes of which another offense is an ingredient,
%2C/14= '.5 Amendment or su#stitution
A complaint or information ma #e amended, in form or in su#stance, without
leave of court, at an time #efore the accused enters his plea. After the plea
and during the trial, a formal amendment ma onl #e made with leave of
court and when it can #e done without causing prejudice to the rights of the
accused.
Cowever, an amendment #efore plea, which downgrades the nature of the
offense charged in or e3cludes an accused from one complaint or information,
can #e made onl upon motion # the prosecutor, with notice to the offended
part and with leave of court. /he court shall state its reasons in resolving the
motion and copies of its order shall #e furnished all parties, especiall the
offended part.
1f it appears at an time #efore judgment that a mistake has #een made in
charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original complainant or
information upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in
accordance with section ',, &ule '',, provided the accused shall not #e placed
in dou#le jeopard. /he court ma re6uire the witnesses to give #ail for their
appearance at the trial
CAS%S
##%N%S *S. &!C&!CAN
D.&. =o. ')))*G F' +ul ',,-
&octrineD T?e rule t?at 1iling o1 comAlaint 0it? 1iscalIs o11ice interruAts
t?e ArescriAtion o1 t?e o11ense c?arged also aAAlies to cases 1iled 0it?
t?e $m=udsman 1or Areliminary !nvestigation.
Bacts5 4n 4cto#er 'F, ',,F, >ivian Dinete, then 41C of the $hsical 2ducation
and %chool %ports Division of the regional 4ffice of region >11 in Ce#u (D2C%!
filed a complaint for grave an doral defamation with the deput 4m#udsmand
for the >isaas against %usan Llenes, an 2ducation %upervisor 11 of the same
office.
*ena *. *erga 45

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
/he information was filed with the "/C on )0 "arch ',,. upon
recommendation and approval of the investigation officer and the cit
prosecutor respectivel.
$etitioner filed a motion to 6uash the information on the ground that the
offense of grave oral defamation prescri#ed in - months and that since the
information was filed - months and das after the alleged commission, the
crime alread prescri#ed.
$rivate respondent contends that &ule ''( of the &ules of court provides that
for offenses not su#ject to ther ile on summar procedure, the filing of the
complaint in "/C or "/C/ interrupt the period of prescription of the offense
charged.
/he motion to 6uash was denied # the "/C and said decision was affirmed #
the &/C, hence this petition.
1ssue5 AL= the filing of a criminal complaint with the 4m#udsman interrupts
the prescription period.
Decision5 8es. 1n the case of $eople vs. 4larte, it was said that the filing of the
complaint with the "/C even for purposes of preliminar investigation onl
suspends the running of the prescriptive period. /his decision was further
#roadened # the case of Brancisco vs. CA where the court reiterated that the
filing of the complaint in the fiscals office for preliminar investigation also
suspends the running of the prescriptive period.
/he constitution vests upon the om#udsman powers to initiate or conduct
preliminar investigations in criminal cases filed against pu#lic officers or
emploees. /he 4m#udsman:>isaas then has authorit to conduct preliminar
investigation of the private respondents complaint against Llenes. /he
rationale of the 4larte and Brancisco cases must then #e applied to the present
case. %ince the complaint was filed on ') 4cto#er ',,F, or #arel )( das
from the commission of the crime charged, the filing of the information was
ver well within the si3 moth prescriptive period.
/he petition was dismissed.
!N3C$ *S. SAN&!3AN9A(AN
D.&. =o. '))G0. )F "a ',,*
&octrineD T?e rule t?at 1iling o1 comAlaint 0it? 1iscalIs o11ice interruAts
t?e ArescriAtion o1 t?e o11ense c?arged also aAAlies to cases 1iled 0it?
t?e $m=udsman 1or Areliminary !nvestigation.
Bacts5 $=B >ice $resident Domingo 1ngco was charged on "a )-, ',0* along
with top officials of Cresta "onte %hipping Corporation # the $=B #efore the
$residential Blue &i##on Committee for violation of &A F(', (Anti:Draft and
Corrupt $ractices Act!. /he matter was referred at once to the 4m#udsman.
1n ',** and ',*0, 1ngco allegedl conspired with officials of Cresta for the
immediate grant of loans amounting to K'F.." for the purchase of cargo
vessels under grossl disadvantageous terms and conditions prejudicial to the
$=B (e.i, loan approval without project feasi#ilit, notwithstanding the adverse
comments of the credit department on this particular loan!.
An information was filed with the %andigan#aan on )' +ul ',,F. $etitioners
moved to 6uash the information on the ground of prescription #ut the same
was denied # the %andigan#aan, hence this petition.
1ssue5 AL= the offense alread prescri#ed
Decision5 /he prescription period for the offense allegedl committed # 1ngco
is ten ears. Although more than ten ears have elapsed from the time of the
alleged commission of the offense on %eptem#er ',** and "arch ',*0 to the
date of the filing of the information on )' +ul ',,F, the prescriptive period
has #een effectivel suspended # the filing of the complaint on )- "a ',0*
with the 4m#udsman.
Appling the case of 4larte and Brancisco, the complaint filed on )- "a ',0*
#efore the 4m#udsman is deemed to have tolled the running of the
prescriptive period. /hus, the filing of the information on )' +ul ',,F is
within the ten:ear prescriptive period.
P%$P#% *S. %(%S
D.&. =o. *.))-:)* )* +ul ',0,
&octrineD Civil #a0 rules on ArescriAtion is aAAlica=le to criminal cases
Bacts5 %pouses +ulio &i7are and $atricia $ampo owned a parcel of land in Lipa
Cit. /he were survived # their children, the accused "i7pah &ees and the
complaints Cristina "asikat, +ulieta >ergara and Aurora >da de 2#ue7a.
4n +une ',0F, complainant discovered from the records of the &egister of
Deeds of Lipa Cit that the said propert was alread transferred to "i7pah
&ees and that the signature of their parents in the sale was falsified. /he =B1
found that the said signatures were forged. Conse6uentl, two informations
for falsification of pu#lic document and for making an untruthful statement of
fact in the deed of sale were filed on '0 4cto#er ',0.. /he crime of
falsification prescri#es in '( ears and commences to run ?from the da on
*ena *. *erga 4.

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
which the crime was discovered # the offended part, the authorities or their
agents (Article ,', &$C!.
Before the arraignment, the accused filed a motion to 6uash on the ground of
prescription and non:compliance with the pre:conciliation re6uirement. /he
trial court granted the same which was later on affirmed # the CA, hence this
appeal.
1ssue5 AL= the offense alread prescri#ed
Decision5 Ahere a notarial document recorded with the &egistr of Deeds was
sought to #e annulled, the court, interpreting the phrase ?from the time of
discover@ found in the provisions of the civil code, ruled that in legal
contemplation, discover must #e reckoned to have taken place fro the time
the document was registered in the &egister of Deeds, for the rules is that
&2D1%/&A/14= 1% A =4/1C2 /4 /C2 AC4L2 A4&LD.
/he court will not hesitant to appl the rules of construction in civil cases in the
interpretation of criminal statues of the factual and legal circumstances so
warrant especiall if it is favora#le to the accused.
1n the case at #at, the deed of sale was registered on )- "a ',-'. /he
criminal actions having #een filed onl on 4cto#er '0, ',0., or more than ten
ears from "a )-, ',-', the crime for which the accused was charged has
prescri#ed.
/here was no error in the decision of the CA.
N3$ (A$ T!T AN& C7!A %N3 C7%N3 *S. S7%!++ $+ "AN!#A
D.&. =o. ,-', and ,-)( )0 "arch ','.
&octrineD A mere de1ect or error cura=le at any stage o1 t?e action
does not deArive t?e court o1 t?e Ao0er to Aronounce a valid Judgment
and imAose a valid sentence.
Bacts5 Before the court is an application for the writ of ha#eas corpus.
$etitioners were charged of visiting a house (A Chinese Clu#! where opium was
smoked in violation of %ection F of 4rdinance =o. 'G). /he accused alleged
that there was no crime committed since there was no evidence that the lived
in that place since the were emploed # the clu# as clerk, cashier, collector
and cook. /he also contend that the case should have #een in the name of
the 9nited %tates and not in the cit of "anila. /he action having #een
wrongl entitled, the court ac6uired no jurisdiction of the person or the su#ject
matter of the action, makings its decision void.
1ssue5 AL= the court has jurisdiction to tr the case.
Decision5 1t is not a jurisdictional defect and one which deprives the trial court
of its authorit to tr, convict, and pass sentence, that a criminal action is
#rought in the name of the cit of "anila instead of the 9nited %tates. /hat
fact constitutes a mere defect or error cura#le at an stage of the action does
not deprive the court of the power to pronounce a valid judgment and impose
a valid sentence. 4ffenses committed in the $hilippines are crimes against the
people of the $hilippines.
&%# $SA!$ *S. *&A &% "%CA&$
D.&. =o L:)G*'( )0 August ',-,
&octrineD A 0ido0 may =e considered an o11ended arty 0it?in t?e
meaning o1 t?e aAAlica=le rule o1 court entitled to 1ile a comAlaint 1or
t?e murder o1 ?er ?us=and.
Bacts5 A6uilino del &osario, +r and A6uilino %r.. were confined on the municipal
jail in La 9nion as of +ul '', ',-G until the filing of a petition for ha#eas
corpus. /he former was detained #ased on a criminal complaint for murder
filed # the widow. Del &osario contends that the complaint is null since the
widow was not authori7ed to file the same, she #eing merel the heir of the
offended part and not the offended part herself. Conse6uentl, his warrant
of arrest is also void, hence his confinement should #e declared as ar#itrar
and unlawful.
/he lower court sustained the writ, hence this petition.
1ssue5 AL= a widow ma #e considered as an offended part
Decision5 A widow ma #e considered an offended art within the meaning of
the applica#le rule of court entitled to file a complaint for the murder of her
hus#and. /he injur to the widow I loss of right and consortium and material
support I should #e sufficient to consider her an offended part within the
meaning of the &ules of Court provision. A contrar holding is likel to #e
attended with deplora#le conse6uences.
P%$P#% *S. AC!##A
D.&. =o. ''-)F* 'G "a ',,-
&octrineD T?e a=sence o1 a Arosecutor cannot =e raised =y an accused
to invalidate t?e testimony o1 a state 0itness i1 ?e cannot Arove
Aersonal AreJudice.
*ena *. *erga 4:

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
Bacts5 /he accused Be Arcilla Corejo and victim Antonio Arcillal were
married. Antonio developed an illicit affair with Lilia Lipio. During this
amorous union, Antonio and Lilia had two children. Ahen Be learned of this
infidelit, he went to Al#a and looked for Antonio. A fight #etween them
ensued which resulted in Be sta##ing Antonio with a fan knife which led to his
death. /he accused contends that she was merel protecting herself when she
sta##ed Antonio. Be was charged with parricide #efore the &/C of Daraga,
Al#a which found her guilt. /he court did not give credence to the testimon
of the accused.
1ssue5 AL= the trial court erred in admitting the testimon of Lilia Lipio
despite the a#sence of a pu#lic prosecutor in the taking thereof
Decision5 /he presence of a pu#lic prosecutor in th trial of crimnal cases is
necessar to protect vital state interests at stae in the prosuction of crimes,
foremost of which is its interest to vindicate the rule of law. As the
representative of the state, the pu#lic prosecutor has a right and dut to take
all steps to protect the rights of the people in the trial of the accused. 1t ought
to #e self:evident that the right #elongs to the pu#lic prosecutor and not to the
accused. /he a#sence of a prosecutor cannot therefore #e raised # an
accused to invalidate the testimon of a state witness if she cannot prove
personal prejudice as in the case at #ar.
Decision of the trial court was affirmed.
SANC7%6 *S. &%"%T!$'
))* %C&A -)* (, =ovem#er ',,F
Bacts5 %ee previous notes
Decision5 As a general rule, the prosecutor cannot #e compelled to include in
the information a person against whom he #elieves no sufficient evidence of
guilt e3ists. Ahile the prosecuting officer is re6uired # law to charge all those
who, in his opinion, appear to #e guilt, he nevertheless cannot #e compelled
to include in the information a person against whom he #elieves no sufficient
evidence e3ists.
/he possi#le e3ception to this rule is where there is unmistaka#le showing if a
grave a#use of discretion that will justif judicial intrusion into the precints of
the e3ecutive. But in such a case, the proper remed to call for such e3ception
is a petition for mandamus, not certiorari or prohi#ition. "oreover, #efore
resorting to this relief, the part seeking the inclusion of another person as a
co:accused in the same case must first avail itself of other ade6uate remedies
such as the filing of a motion for such inclusion.
D1"A/9LAC >%. >1LL4=
),* %C&A -*, (',,0!
Bacts5 %$4F Dimatulac was said to have spoken against "aor 8a#ut thus, on
=ovem#er F, ',,G, the accused, led # the maor went to "asantol,
$ampanga for the purpose of killing the victim. &iding a truck, the first went
to the "unicipal Call and then to the house of "asantols maor. Binall, the
cruised to Dimatulacs place. Ahen the got there, some of the accused
positioned themselves around the house while the leader of the pack, the
maor, staed in the truck protected # the love of his #odguard. %ome of the
accused went inside the house to ask Dimatulac to go down to apologi7e to the
maor. 2nticed # the invitation, Dimatulac went down. But as he descended,
he was shot # a certain Dann. Cis son $eter $aul was unsure who of the
accused shot his father #ut he was sure it was someone from the part who
went to their house. Before Dimatulac e3pired, he was a#le to point at the
part of 8a#ut as the ones responsi#le.
+udge David issued warrants of arrest for the accused after finding pro#a#le
cause that a crime of murder has #een committed. Cowever, even #efore the
accused was #rought into the custod of the law, $ampanga Assistant
$rosecutor Alfonso:Blores conducted a reinvestigation" 1n a resolution dated
+anuar ',,-, Blores found that the 8a#uts and assailant Dann, e3cluding all
the other accused, were in conspirac for the offense of ?omicide, and not
murder as concluded # +udge David. /his finding was #ased on Blores
conclusion that although there was treacher, the assailant did not consciousl
adopt the position of the victim at the time he fired the shot. Ce also
recommended a #ail of $hp )(,((( for all the accused. An information for
homicide was filed # Blores against the accused.
Before the filing of the said information, Dimatulacs appealed the Blores
resolution to the D4+ %ecretar. Blores was given a cop of this appeal and et
he still filed the information. /he 8a#uts, contended that the pendenc of the
appeal to the D4+ %ecretar was not a ground to defer arraignment, and that
the Dimatulacs should have filed the motion to defer with the office of the
$rovincial $rosecutor or sought from the D4+ %ecretar an order directing the
$rovincial $rosecutor to defer the filing of the information in court. /he
prosecution also filed a petition with the CA to enjoin +udge &oura of the &/C
from proceeding with the arraignment. =evertheless, &oura voluntaril
inhi#ited himself and was replaced # +udge >illon.
Despite the fact that an appeal in the D4+ was on:going, +ustice >illon
proceeded with the arraignment where the accused pleaded not guilt saing
that the 8a#uts has a right to a speed trial and that the petitioners did not
o#tain conformit of the prosecutor #efore the filed the motion to defer the
proceedings considering that the case should #ut under the control of the
*ena *. *erga 4;

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
prosecution. +ustice %ecretar Duingona resolved the appeal in favor of the
petitioners saing that the crime must #e murder and not just homicide Ce
#asicall said that the crime must #e murder and not just homicide. Aith this
development, the Dimatulacs through an e3:parte manifestation called the
attention of the &/C to the D4+ ruling. /he 8a#uts opposed this, saing that
the would #e placed in dou#le jeopard. Later, the D4+ %ecretar set aside his
order to amend the information from homicide to murder as this was alread
rendered moot # the arraignment. &/C +udge >illon denied the motion to set
aside arraignment. Cence, this petition for CertiorariL$rohi#ition and
"andamus.
1ssue5 AL= the prosecutor was wrong in ('! opening a reinvestigation
considering that even if the warrants of arrest were issued, the accused still
were not #rought under the custod and ()! filing the information for homicide
despite knowledge of the appeal to the %ecretar of +ustice.
AL= +udge >illon acted in e3cess of jurisdiction for dening the
motions to set aside the arraignment considering that the pendenc of the
appeal in the D4+.
Decision5
82%. /he reinvestigation was uncalled for since the accused were never
#rought into the custod of the law, notwithstanding the warrants of arrest
given # the "C/C. Although under the &ules of court ('')! a prosecutor ma
disagree with the findings of the judge, this difference in opinion must #e
#ased on the evidence on record transmitted # the judge. 1t is also apparent
that Blores is #iased, favoring the 8a#uts since he allowed them to su#mit
counter affidavits without first demanding their surrender. /he $hp )(,(((
#ond is clearl inappropriate considering that the crime charged was murder.
"oreover, despite knowledge of the appeal, Blores did not inform the &/C of
the pending appeal in the D4+ thus, arraignment was not suspended. /he
pu#lic prosecutor was also wrong in saing that he will no longer allow the
presence of the private prosecutors (lawers of the offended part!. %ince the
offended parties never waived the civil action nor e3pressl reserved their right
to institute it separatel from the criminal action, then the have the right to
intervene in the criminal case pursuant to %ection '- &ule ''( of the rules of
Court.
82%. Although +udge >illon was not #ound to wait for the D4+ resolution, he
should have noticed that the offense committed was murder and not homicide.
/he fact that he rushed the arraignment negates prudence on his part thus,
he gravel a#used his discretion.
D4+ order ))F recogni7ed the right of #oth the offended parties and ten
accused to appeal from resolutions in preliminar investigations and
reinvestigations.
P%$P#% *S. P!N%&A
)( %C&A *.0
Bacts5 /eofilo and >aleriana were asleep when guns were fired in rapid
successions from outside their house. /eofilo died instantl. After which, the
accused went inside the house of the couple killing three of their minor children
and wounding >aleriana. /he accused =ar#asa, Borres and Alindo were then
indicted #efore the CB1 of Lanao del =orte as principals in five cases (four for
murder and one for frustrated murder!. =ar#asa and Alindo moved for the
consolidation of the case into one since the said that the cast arose from the
same incident, which was motivated # one single impulse. %uch motion was
granted # the judge stating that since the crime stemmed from series of
continuing acts the should #e treated as one crime. /his decision was
6uestioned # the cit fiscal saing that since more than one gun was used and
more than one shot was fired, killing more than one person.
1ssue5 AL= there should #e onl one information, either for the comple3
crime of murder and frustrated murder or for the comple3 crime of ro##er
with multiple homicide and frustrated homicide
AL= the decision of the judge should prevail considering that it
clashed with that of the fiscal.
Decision5 /he prosecuting attorne, #eing the one charged with the
prosecution of offenses, should determine the information to #e filed and
cannot #e controlled # the offended part. Although there was an affidavit
from the witnesses that the real intention of the accused was to commit
ro##er and that the acts consisting of murder were committed in pursuance to
the original intent which would #ring the crime within the purview of comple3
crimes as provided in %ection .0, it is within the power of the fiscal to
disregard such an affidavit.
Ahen various victims e3pire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate
and distinct crimes. /his however, is not to discount the possi#ilit of a#uses
on the part of the prosecutor.
/he 6uestion of instituting a criminal charge is one addressed to the sound
discretion of the investigating fiscal. /he info he lodges in court must have to
#e supported # facts #rought a#out # an in6uir made # him. A clash of
views #et the judge who did not investigate and the fiscal who did or #etween
*ena *. *erga 4<

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
the fiscal and the offended part or the defendant, those of the fiscals should
normall prevail. /his doctrine however, is su#ject to several e3ceptions, to
wit5
'. Bor orderl administration of justice;
). $revent the use of strong arm of the law in an oppressive and
vindictive manner;
F. /o avoid multiplicit of actions; and
.. /o afford ade6uate protection to constitutional rights
P%$P#% *S. &%*AAS
,,; SCA 5;, (1<<4)
&igest =yD Tim &avid
BAC/%5 A pedica# driver and his passenger were attacked without provocation
# two men who hacked them to death and later threw their #odies over the
#ridge with the help of another. /he were su#se6uentl accused of murder
alleging that the committed the offense in conspirac and with treacher and
a#use of superior strength.
/he principal witness, &aul Animos, claimed that at a#out *5(( in the evening,
the appellants were drinking tu#a with him and thereafter joined him in his
dut as #anta:#aan. Ahile making the rounds at Daguitan #ridge, the saw
a 7ig7agging pedica# approach. Ahen it was halfwa the #ridge, Blademir who
was then carring a #olo suddenl attacked the driver. At the same time,
&onilo attacked the passenger with his #olo. $a#lo did not participate in the
slaing #ut later helped in throwing the #odies over the #ridge. &aul himself
was ordered to help and, although initiall hesitated, had to compl #ecause he
was threatened with death. /he a#andoned pedica# was reported, curiousl
enough, to the F accused who went to see the #aranga captain. 9pon noticing
the #lood on the #ack of &auls shirt, #rg. chairman notified the police.
Blademir and &onilo were sentenced reclusion perpetua while $a#lo was
convicted as an accessor.
-ote. 4id not identify the assign'ent of errors" /hose in + , are 'ost probably
the errors raised
C49&/5
'. +/he offense should be ho'icide only (ithout the attendance of treachery,
2vidence clearl shows Bladimer and &onilo suddenl attacked their unarmed
victims with #olos, there# insuring commission without risks to themselves
). +Raul Ani'os should li)e(ise have been charged,
T?e determination o1 t?e Aerson to =e Arosecuted on t?e =asis o1
evidence rests Arimarily 0it? t?e Arosecutor. As an eBceAtion8 t?e
Arosecutor can =e comAelled =y mandamus i1 ?e a=uses ?is discretion
and re1use include co-accused against 0?om t?ere aAAears to =e at
least Arima 1acie evidence. T?is8 ?o0ever8 is availa=le only i1 Aetitioner
s?o0s t?at all remedies ?ave =een eB?austed8 suc? as motion 1iled
0it? t?e trial court 1or t?e indictment o1 Aerson(s) eBcluded =y t?e
Arosecutor. !t does not aAAear t?at suc? a motion 0as 1iled =y
aAAellants
/he Court agree that there was no conspirac as there is no evidence that
Blademir and &onilo had earlier come to an agreement to kill the victims.
?Brom #anta:#aan, the turned into #anta:salaka in an incomprehensi#le
rampage that needlessl wasted ) innocent lives. Aas it the li6uor in their
#rain that urged them to kill, or was it simple, ine3plica#le wickednessQ /he
answer lies in the dark recesses of their minds, and of their prison cells@
Decision of /rial Court affirmed.
P%$P#% *. NA6A%N$8
,.0 SCA ,5. (1<<.)
+actsD &omulo Bune 11 hailed ?stainless@ triccle to drive him to "olina %t..
9nknown to him, two men who were waiting outside his house and hailed
another triccle to follow him. Bune then alighted at the corner of /. "olina
and "endiola %treets in Ala#ang, "untinlupa and crossed the street. %hortl
after, the other triccle arrived and stopped in front of ?stainless@ triccle
carring Bune. 4ne of the men jumped out the triccle and shot Bune at the
#ack of the head. Ahen Bune fell face down, two more shots were fired, one
from the assailant and another from the other accused, all directed at Bunes
head.
/he incident was witnessed # the two triccle drivers who e3ecuted a sworn
affidavit and another passenger.
/he accused &amil &egala, =arciso =a7areno, 4rlando ?Bo@ Cular, and "anuel
Laureaga were all arrested. /he first two were identified # the triccle drivers
in the police line:up.
&egala e3ecuted affidavits admitting participation in the slaing of Bune
however, claimed that a certain Cular paid him $hp F(,((( to kill the
victimthat the had #een hired # Cular to kill the victim.Cowever, &egala and
Cular who #oth claims #eing tortured recanted their earlier admission of the
crime.
*ena *. *erga 50

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
Cular and Larureaga were ac6uitted for lack of evidence against them.
=a7areno and &egala however, were found guilt.
1ssue5 AL= the arrest without warrant was illegal.
AL= the non:inclusion of the supplier of the guns would nullif the proceeding.
Decision5 =4. =a7areno and &egala waived o#jections #ased on the alleged
irregularit of their arrest, considering that the pleaded not guilt and
participated in the trial. An defect in their arrest must #e deemed cured when
the voluntar su#mitted to the jurisdiction of the court. Bor the legalit of an
arrest affects onl the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused .
Conse6uentl, if o#jections #ased on this ground are waived, the fact that the
arrest was illegal is not a sufficient cause for setting aside an otherwise valid
judgment.
=4. /he manner # which prosecutions of a case is handled is within the
sound discretion of the prosecutor and the non:inclusion of other guilt parties
is irrelevant to the case against the accused.
+udgment of &/C which found =a7areno and &egala Duilt was affirmed
&$N!$-T%*%S vs. *A"%NTA 2.
144 SCA .1. (1<;5)
Bacts5 $etitioner "ilagros Donio /eves 6uestions the criminal proceeding
initiated against her # her hus#and for the crime of Adulter. /he complaint
was filed # +ulian /eves, the petitioners hus#and stating that on the months
of " ',0( to Decem#er, his wife has #een having se3ual intercourse with a
certain "anuel "oreno. "ilagros filed a motion to 6uash on the contention
that the court has no jurisdiction over her case since there was an a#sence of a
valid complaint.
1ssue5 AL= there was an invalid complaint.
Decision5 =4. adulter, #eing a private offense, cannot #e prosecuted e3cept
upon a complaint filed # the offenses spouse who cannot institute the criminal
prosecution without including #oth the guilt spouses, if the are #oth alive,
not in an case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders. /he law
leaves it to the option of the aggrieved spouse to seek judicial redress for the
affront committed # the erring spouse. /he complaint filed # the offended
spouse was the one necessar to start the re6uired preliminar investigation
# the fiscals office.
/he complaint was also sufficient for it stated the name of the defendants; the
designation of the offense # the statute; the acts or omissions complained of
as constituting the offense; the name of the offended part; the appro3imate
time of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was
committed which is in a#solute compliance with %ection G, &ule ''(.
$etition was dismissed.
P%$P#% *S. 9'#A$N3
3.. No. 4:4;.8 10. SCA 455 (2uly 418 1<;1)
4ne afternoon, Delena %egapo, '., and her sister, =ena, 0 (#oth Bilaans!, left
their house at Barrio Landan, $olomolok, %outh Cota#ato, to perform an errand
for their father. After walking, the #oarded a passenger jeepne and arrived
in the pu#lic market of Deneral %antos Cit at -pm. /he were going to collect
an account from /amigo. But, Claudio Bulaong, a FG:ear:old married man
with five children, pointed his gun at the two sisters and forci#l took them to
the =ew Ba >iew Cotel in the cit where Bulaong raped Delena 0 times at the
sight of her sister and with death threats. /he sisters knew him since he
administered his famil lands in Barrio Landan where man Bilaans resided
/he following da, the went to his parentsR #ungalow in Barrio Landan which
was then unoccupied. /he were locked in a room guarded # Bonso Laurecio,
a house#o armed with a gun. Bulaong raped Delena in that place. "eanwhile,
=ena was a#le to escape through the ceiling. %he told her parents what
happened who was accompanied # &ud Ante, a #arrio councilor, to
accompan him to BulaongRs house. /he were a#le to retrieve Delena who
was found to #e raped # an e3amination of the cit health officer.
A complaint for forci#le a#duction with rape, signed # Delena and Dalama,
was filed in the cit court against Bulaong. /he judge interrogated the sisters.
Bulaong and Laurecio surrendered voluntaril and waived the preliminar
investigation. /he cit fiscal filed in the Court of Birst 1nstance an information
for forci#le a#duction with rape against Bulaong and Laurecio where the two
pleaded not guilt.
Claudio Bulaong was convicted of eight comple3 crimes of forci#le a#duction
with rape. Alfonso Laurecio was convicted as an accomplice. Both were
sentenced to pa indemnities to Delena %egapo. Bulaong alleged in his appeal
that the lower court did not ac6uire jurisdiction over the case #ecause the
information was fatall defective for the information should have #een signed
# the girl and not # her father.
1ssue5 AL= Bulaong committed 0 counts of forci#le a#duction with rape.
*ena *. *erga 51

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
AL= the information was defective
Decision5 Bulaong who a#ducted the victim and had se3ual intercourse with her
for several das is not guilt of separate offenses #ut of a continuing offense of
a#duction with rape.
1n this case, the complaint for a#duction with rape against Bulaong was filed in
the cit court # the offended girl and her father. /hat complaint was sworn to
#efore the cit judge which was the #asis of the preliminar e3amination. /he
judge e3amined the witnesses under oath. /he e3amination was reduced to
writing in the form of searching 6uestions and answers. 4n the #asis of that
e3amination, a warrant of arrest was issued.
/he accused waived in writing the second stage of the preliminar
investigation. 1n such a case, the fiscal is not called upon to conduct another
preliminar investigation. Ce could file an information on the #asis of the
preliminar investigation conducted # the inferior court #ecause the
prosecution of the offense is under his direction and control. Ce could not have
certified that he held a preliminar investigation #ecause the preliminar
e3amination was actuall conducted # the cit court and the second stage of
the preliminar investigation was waived # the accused.
1n cases involving crimes against chastit, the prosecution ma #e conducted
# the fiscal on the #asis of the complaint filed in the inferior court. /here is
no need to file an information. /hus, the &ules of Court does not re6uire that
the offended girl in a crime against chastit should sign the information filed #
the fiscal.
P%$P#% *S. TAFA&A
1.. SCA 4.1 (1<;;)
Digest #5 Don Dieta
+actsD
An information was filed charging one &omulo $ostrero of rape in the CB1 of
Ce#u. A sworn letter:complaint for rape filed # >ictoria Capillan was attached
to the said information. Capillan alleged that &omulo $ostrero induced her to
consume a #ottle of seven:up that caused her to feel drows and weak and
that $otrero then #rought her to <ueen Cotel where $ostrero raped her.
Cowever, accuseds motion to dismiss the information was granted # the
judge on the ground that the court did not ac6uired jurisdiction over the
offense charged since the information filed # the judge is not a complaint
signed # the offended part as re6uired # Article F.. of &$C and %ec. ., &ule
''( of the rules of Court.
!ssueD AL= the letter:complaint filed # the offended part is a valid
complaint as re6uired # Article F.. of &$C and %ec. ., &ule ''( of the rules of
Court.
7eldD 1t was a valid complaint. /he %upreme Court held that the rule of
?complaint:filed:in:court@ enunciated in the case of $eople vs. %antos was
alread modified # >aldepeSas vs. $eople which held that the provisions of
Art. F.. of &$C do not determine or confer the jurisdiction of the courts over
offenses enumerated therein since the same is alread governed # the
+udiciar Act of ',.0. /he re6uired complaint is onl a condition precedent to
the e3ercise # the proper authorities of the power to prosecute the guilt
parties. /he letter:complaint filed # the offended part contained all the
elements of a valid complaint re6uired # %ec. G, &ule ''( of the &ules of
Court. /hus the said letter:complaint is a valid complained as re6uired #
Article F.. of &$C and %ec. ., &ule ''( of the rules of Court.
P%$P#% vs. &!"AP!#!S
400 SCA ,;, (1<<;)
Bacts5 %haron Degala, '' ears old alleged in her complaint affidavit that
sometime in %eptem#er, ',,., Be#ruar ',,- and "a ',,-, the e3act dates
alread unknown to her, she was forced # the common law spouse of her
mother, using a knife, to undress. /hereafter, she was raped # the said man
on five different occasions while her mother was gam#ling. %he told her
mother a#out the incidents #ut here mother merel dismissed them as
?lam#ing@. %he then went to her grandmother who took her to the =B1 for
medico:legal e3amination. 1t was found that indeed, she was raped on several
times.
1t was the contention of the petitioner that informations filed against him were
defective for failing to allege the specific dates of commission of the three
cunts of rape.
1ssue5 AL= the informations were defective.
Decision5 %ection '' of &ule ''( provides that it is not necessar to state in
the complaint or information the precise time at which the offense was
committed e3cept when the time is material ingredient of the offense. 1n the
case at #ar, the time of commission is not a material ingredient of the offense.
/he dates provided in the information alread suffice if the acts complained of
area led to have taken place ?as near to the actual date at which the offenses
are committed as the information will permit.@
*ena *. *erga 5,

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
/he decision was affirmed with modifications since the fact the accused is the
common law spouse of the mother, which should have 6ualified the offense
was not alleged in the complaint.
P%$P#% *S. NA*A%S
5< P?il. :4; (1<45)
Bacts5 $etitioner and victim had a heated altercation when the later told the
former that he should #e ashamed of himself for still threshing pala despite
the fact that all others were alread plowing the land. /he accused said that
he was em#arrassed # said statement of the victim. A fight ensued with the
petitioner sta##ing the victim with a penknife. 1t was the contention of the
petitioner that the information and the trial proceeded against him was void for
he was $edro =aravaes, and not $rimo =arvaes as stated in the complaint.
1ssue5 AL= the mistake in name is fatal.
Decision5 1n the at #ar, the mistake in the name was not fatal since the onl
difference relates to the name of the father ($edros name was Lucio while
$rimos father was Leoncio!. /his, according to the court has no conse6uence
to the case at #ar. Burthermore, when the appellant was arraigned under the
name of $edro =arvaes, which is the name appearing in the information, he
entered the plea of not guilt under such name. /hus, it is alread too late to
6uestion the discrepanc in the name.
$etition was dismissed.
'S *S. PAN#!#!$
No. <;:.8 ,; P?il .0; (&ec ;8 1<15)
4n or a#out ) Be# ','F, all of the cara#aos of Adriano $anlilio were ordered
6uarantined in a corral in "asamat, "e3ico, $ampanga # a dul authori7ed
agent of the Dept of Agriculture after having #een e3posed to rinderpest, a
dangerous and contagious disease. 4n said date, $anlilio, who #eing authori7ed
and the 6uarantine still in effect, ordered said cara#aos taken from the corral
and drove them from one place to another for the purpose of working them in
the hacienda. An information was filed charging $anlilio of violation of sec - Act
=o '*-(. it was amended #ut it failed to specif the particular law violated. /he
accused alleged that the facts alleged in the information do not constitute a
violation of said law.
1%%92%5 A4= $anlilio committed a violation of Act '*-(.
A4= $anliklio counld #e convicted of violation of Art G0'()! &$C even if it was
not alleged in the information.
C2LD5 the acts committed # $anlilio is not violative of the Act '*-( or an
provisions thereof. /here was neither importation nor transfer of the said
cara#aos. /he law nowhere makes it a penal offense to refuse to compl with
its sections, nor is it phrased as a Openal statute. =owhere in the law states
that it is prohi#ited or unlawful to violate the orders of the Bureau of Agri nor is
there an punishment provided for violation of such orders.
/he acts of $anlilio is a violation of Atr G0' par ) of the &$C. /he fact that the
information charged a violation of Act '*-( does not prevent the court from
finding the accused guilt of the &$C. 1t is not a violation of his right to #e
informed of the charges against him #ecause the allegations re6uired under Act
'*-( include those re6uired under Art G0'. /he accused could have defended
himself in no different manner if he had #een e3pressl charged with a
violation of Art G0'.
P%$P#% *S. A"9A(
3 1,:1::8 404 SCA .<: (+e= ,58 1<<<)
"elanie Cernande7, an '' ear old, is the daughter of >inia Cernande7, the
common law spouse of the accused &omeo Am#ra. /he, including "elanies
half #rother &o#in and F other children, rented a single room with one #ed with
the children sleeping on the floor. Cer mother leaves the house #efore dawn
everda and goes to the $asig market. 4ne da at around )am, she woke up
when the accused carried her to the #ed. %he tried to shout #ut her mouth was
6uickl covered. /he accused then se3uall a#used her. %he fell asleep still
feeling the pain. Ahen she woke up, she left to pick up the laundr from her
grandmothers place. 9na#le to locate her mother to reveal her ordeal, she
went to her Aunt >ilma $ere7 who accompanied her to the police, /he went to
their house where "elanie pointed to Am#ra as her rapist. /he medico:legal
e3amination revealed that she had lacerations in her vagina #ut with no trace
of sperm cells. Am#ra denied the allegations alleging that he could not have
raped her #ecause the slightest movement could awaken his other children and
that it was just false charges #ecause >ilma wanted to end their common law
relationship #ecause he is a gam#ler. 4thers also testified that "elanie tells her
ordeal to others while laughing, /he /C found Am#ra guilt of rape with a
penalt of death.
1%%92%5 A4= the testimon of the complainant is credi#le and the defense not
credi#le
A4= the statutor rape was proved #eond reasona#le dou#t.
C2LD5 /he testimon of the victim was a truthful account of what transpired
during the incident. 1t is impossi#le for her to concoct such a stor since she
allowed her private parts to #e e3amined and pu#licl e3pose her se3ual
*ena *. *erga 54

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
a#use. /he denial of the accused is unsu#stantiated and cannot #e given
greater evidentiar weight than the testimon of "elanie. &ape is no respecter
of time and place. 1t is not impossi#le for the mem#ers of the famil to #e in
deep slum#er when the assault was #eing committed.
Cowever, the penalt should have #een reclusion perpetua. /he special
6ualifing circumstance that the accused is the common law spouse of the
victims mother was not alleged in the information. %uch failure is fatal and
#ars conviction of its 6ualified form which is punisha#le with death. 6ualifing
circumstances must #e pleaded.
P%$P#% *S. 2A*!%
3 1,.0<.8 411 SCA 1,, (2uly ,.8 1<<<)
+ulia &atunil, a minor of '- ears of age, was held and pulled # his father,
Amado %andrias +avier, # means of force, into the conjugal room while her
mother was out doing laundr work. %he was #o3ed and hit in the stomach
which resulted in her #eing unconscious after she refused and shouted for help.
/he accused then raped her. Ahen she woke up, she had no panties and she
felt pain in her private parts. /he incident took place at around 'pm at Eone G
Baikingan, CD4. 1t maws again repeated twice in =ov and Dec ',,.. Ahen she
can no longer #ear the pain, she confessed to her grandmother and with
mother, the reported the matter to the police and filed F separate complaints
of rape against the accused. /he e3amination of the =B1 revealed that she was
raped and pregnant. "eanwhile, he was charged with illegal possession of
firearms and was sentenced accordingl. /he accused pleaded not guilt and
alleged that he was working as a mason during those times and that the
damages were engineered # his mother:in:law who despises him for #eing a
drunkard and that +ulia was an errant daughter who at age '., started
attending dances and ac6uired sweethearts. /he &/C found him guilt of rape
and 6ualified seduction and sentenced him to death and an indeterminate
sentence of prision correcional minimum to prision maor ma3imum. Accused
appealed.
1%%92%5 A4= the ali#is of the accused can hold.
A4= he was found guilt and sentenced accordingl.
C2LD5 /he ali#is of the accused cannot hold. 1t is highl inconceiva#le that
complainant would impute a crime so serious as rapeee against her own father.
%he cannot #e faulted for her dela in reporting the rape and it does not
undermine the charges where it is grounded on the death threats of the
accused. Burther, the place where he supposedl was is merel )(( meters
from his house, a distance which could #e covered # a Gmin walk. Bor ali#is to
serve as a #asis for ac6uittal, it must #e esta#lished with clear and convincing
evidence. /he re6uisites of time and place must #e strictl met. 1n rape
committed # a father against her daughter, the formers moral ascendanc
and influence over the latter ma su#stitute for actual phsical violence and
intimidation. /he accused charged with rape cannot #e convicted of 6ualified
seduction under the same information. &ape and 6ualified seduction are not
identical offenses. Lastl, the victim is '- ears old which 6ualifies rape.
Cowever, the prosecution failed to present her #irth certificate. 1n this case,
age is vital and essential and should #e proved. Cence, the accused is lia#le
onl of simple rape with a penalt of reclusion perpetua.
A39A(AN! *S. SA($
No. #-5:;;08 ;< SCA .<< (AAr 408 1<:<)
Conrado "ahinan was the manager of the Cagaan #ranch of the D%1% in
Cauaan, 1sa#ela. Ailson Ag#aani, Carmel Bautista, $a#lo $Ascula and &enato
Duga were his su#ordinates. /he affidavits of $ascual and Bautista were
signed at Cauaan, the latters letter asking for "ahinans dismissal.
Ag#aanis unusual incident report was su#scri#ed and sworn to #efore a
"anila notar with evidence to support malversation and falsification against
"ahinan. /he documents depicted "ahinan as an incorrigi#le managerial misfit,
despoiler of pu#lic office, spendthrift ofD%1% funds, invetereate gam#ler,
chronic falsifier and an unreformed e3:convict. "ahinan then field a complaint
for written defamation against his su#ordinates with the fiscal at Baom#ong,
=ueva >i7caa. /wo das later, he was terminated # the Board of /rustees of
D%1% #ut was reinstated on appeal to the C%C. /he provincial fiscal filed an
information for li#el against the four in the CB1 of =ueva >i7caa. /he .
accused filed a motion to 6uash on the ground that the said court has no
jurisdiction over the case #ecause "Ahinan was a pu#lic officer holding office at
Cauaan when the alleged li#el was committed and that the fiscal of =. >. had
no authorit to conduct preliminar investigation and to file the information.
/he court denied it on the ground that he was not a pu#lic officer since the
insurance #usiness of D%1% is not an inherentl governmental function. Cence,
his residence in Baam#ang, =. >. would #e the criterion for determining the
venue.
1%%92%5 A4= "ahinan is a pu#lic officer.
A4= the CB1 of =. >. has jurisdiction over the case.
C2LD5 "ahinan is a pu#lic officer. As D%1% #ranch manager, he is
un6uestiona#l a pu#lic officer.
/he proper venue of "ahinans criminal action for written defamation is the CB1
of 1sa#ela since as a D%1% #ranch manager, he was a $4 stationed at Cauaan
and the alleged li#el was committed when he was in the pu#lic service. /he
preliminar investigation should have #een conducted # the provincial fiscal of
*ena *. *erga 55

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
1sa#ela or municipal judge of 1lagan, the provincial capital, or # the CB1 of the
same province. 1t could have also #een filed in the CB1 of the province or in the
cit court where the li#el was printed and first pu#lished.
/he information is defective or deficient #ecause it does not show that the CB1
of =. >. where it was filed has jurisdiction to entertain the criminal action for
written defamation and that the provincial fiscal of that province had the
authorit to conduct the preliminar investigation.
SANT!A3$ *S. 3AC7!T$%NA
3.. No. 10<,..8 ,,; SCA ,15 (&ec. ,8 1<<4)
$etitioner was charged in the %andigan#aan with violation of %ection F(e!
of the Anti:Draft and Corrupt $ractices Act, when she allegedl favored
Tun6ualifiedT aliens with the #enefits of the Alien Legali7ation $rogram.
$etitioner filed with the Court a petition for certiorari and prohi#ition, to
enjoin the %andigan#aan from proceeding with the Criminal Case on the
ground that said case was intended solel to harass her as she was then a
presidential candidate. %he filed a motion for inhi#ition of $residing +ustice
Darchitorena which the %C granted and directed to reset the arraignment
pending resolution of the inhi#ition of Darchitorena and the #ill of particulars.
/he %B denied the motion for dis6ualification. /he %B admitted the F)
informations and the arraignment was set. Cence, the filing of the instant
petition.
1%%925 A4= petitioners case is a continuous crime warranting the filing of a
single information and not F) separate informations.
C2LD5 Ae find that, technicall, there was onl one crime that was committed
in petitionerRs case, and hence, there should onl #e one information to #e file
against her. /he F) Amended 1nformations charge what is known as delito
continuado or Tcontinuous crime.T
Bor delito continuado to e3ist there should #e a pluralit of acts performed
during a period of time; unit of penal provision violated; and unit of criminal
intent or purpose, which means that two or more violations of the same penal
provisions are united in one and same instant or resolution leading to the
perpetration
1n the case at #ench, the original information charged petitioner with
performing a single criminal act U that of her approving the application for
legali7ation of aliens not 6ualified under the law to enjo such privilege.
/he F) Amended 1nformations aver that the offenses were committed on
the same period of time, i.e., on or a#out 4cto#er '*, ',00. /he strong
pro#a#ilit even e3ists that the approval of the application or the legali7ation of
the sta of the F) aliens was done # a single stroke of the pen, as when the
approval was em#odied in the same document. Cence, the said informations
should #e consolidated.
C%SP$ *S. "$3'#
No #-544:48 151 SCA 5., (2une 408 1<;:)
Asst Biscal $roceso de Dala, with the approval of the provincial fiscal, filed an
information for estafa against "ario Crespo in the circuit criminal court of
Lucena Cit. /he accused filed a motion to defer arraignment on the ground
that there was a pending petition for review with the %ec of +ustice. /he judge
denied it #ut deferred the arraignment. 9pon petition, the CA restrained the
judge from proceeding with the arraignment until the D4+ has resolved the
petition for review. /he +ustice 9ndersecretar directed the fiscal to move for
the dismissal of the information for insufficienc of evidence #ut the judge
denied it. /he CA issued a /&4 #ut later lifted it. Cence, this appeal.
1%%925 A4= the /C ma refuse to grant the motion to dismiss and proceed
with the trial of the case despite a motion to dismiss filed # the fiscal upon
order of the %ec of +ustice.
C2LD5 4nce an information is filed in court, the courts prior permission must
#e secured if the fiscal wants to reinvestigate the case. Ahether the accused
had #een arraigned or not and whether it was due to a reinvestigation # the
fiscal or a review # the +ustice %ecretar where# a motion to dismiss was
su#mitted to the court, the court in the e3ercise of its discretion ma grant the
motion or den it and re6uire that the trial on the merits proceed for the
proper determination of the case. 1n this regard, the fiscal should continue to
appear in the case although he ma turn over the presentation of evidence to
the private prosecutor #ut still under his discretion and control.
P%$P#% *S. PAN#!#!$
3 11451<-,0 ,55 SCA 504 ("ar ,<8 1<<.)
At a#out ''5.(am, Leah "arie +ordan, a '( ear old student, was waiting for
her ounger sister outside of %t. +ude %chool in "alinta, >alen7uela. /hen,
Danilo $anlilio approached her and in6uired of a certain Aling &osa. %he replied
that she did not know her. Danilo then suddenl poked a knife, concealed
inside a hat, at the right side of the neck and handed her a cigarette pack with
a note and ordered her to give it to Aling &osa. /hen, the walked, with the
knife still at her neck. /he #oarded a jeepne where he forci#l took her
earrings. /he were the onl passengers on #oard. 9pon reaching =avotas,
*ena *. *erga 55

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
the alighted and he dragged her to a vacant lot where he let her chose
#etween rape and death. %he then struggled and ran. %he saw policemen and
shouted for help. Danilo ran #ut the police caught up with him and #oth were
#rought to the =avotas police station. Cer parents arrived and #rought her to
the >alen7uela police station where the filed a complaint against the accused.
/he accused alleged that the &/C of >alen7uela where the case was #eing
heard has no jurisdiction over the case since the ro##er was not perpetrated
in =avotas.
1%%925 A4= the >alen7uela &/C has jurisdiction.
C2LD5 Ahere an offense is committed on a railroad train, aircraft or in an
other pu#lic or private vehicle while in the course of its trip, the criminal action
ma #e instituted and tried in the court an municipalit where such train,
aircraft or other vehicle passed during such trip, including the place of
departure and arrival. 1n the case at #ar, it would seem that the prosecution
failed to esta#lish the precise place where the highwa ro##er was supposedl
committed other than =avotas. Cence, the >alen7uela &/C had no jurisdiction
over the offense.
Leah "arie did not know the placeLs where their vehicle passed, the e3act
place where the #oarded the jeep and the e3act place where $anlilio took her
earrings. $anlilio was however correctl found guilt of kidnapping.
P%$P#% *S. (A9'T
:. SCA .,5
Digest #5 Bong "ali#iran
J28A4&D%5 8a#ut /ransit Line; Breewa /ires %uppl; "alolos BulacanLCaloocan
B&12B5 &espondent issued a check in "alolos, Bulacan, drawn against "erchants
Banking Corporation in Caloocan Cit where it was dishonored for lack of
funds. Continuing offense.
BAC/%5 (CCA&AC/2&%5 Cecilia <ue 8a#ut, /reasurer of 8a#ut /ransit Line;
Deminiano 8a#ut,+r., $resident of 8a#ut /ransit Line &espondent; Alician $.
Andan, owner and operator of Breewa /ires %uppl and Breewa Calte3
%tation Complainant; ',*(s, Decision $romulgated April ),, ',**!
%ometime Be#ruar ',*G, Cecilia 8a#ut and hus#and Deminiano
8a#ut, +r., treasurer and president of 8a#ut /ransit Line respectivel,
issued checks in favor of Breewa /ires %uppl, drawn against
"erchants Banking Corporation.
o /he amounts of the checks were $-,G-0.,. and $F*,)(-.(( as
paments for ?articles and merchandise delivered to and
received # accussed@ () informations!
Both 8a#ut /ransit Line and Breewa /ires %uppl were doing #usiness
in Bulacan, while the #ank was located in Caloocan cit.
/he checks #ounced #ecause of insufficient funds, hence, the accused
were charged with estafa. (B.$. Blg. )) Bouncing Checks Law took
effect onl on April '0,',*,!
&espondents filed a motion ?to 6uash the information on two grounds5
('! the facts recited do not constitute an offense #ecause the checks
were issued in pament of pre:e3isting o#ligation; and ()! the venue
(as i'properly laid@ #ecause the information was filed in Bulacan, #ut
the damage was done in Caloocan Cit.
&2L2>A=/ 1%%925 AL= the information was filed at the proper venue (Bulacan!Q
C49&/ &9L1=D5 8es.
&A/145 ($4=2=/25 "A&/1=, +.!
?2stafa # postdating or issuing a #ad check under Art. F'GV)(d! of
the &$C 'ay be a transitory or continuing offense. 1ts #asic element of deceit
and damage ma independentl arise in separate places. 1n the even of such
occurrence, the institution of the cri'inal action in either place is legally
allo(ed" %ection '.(a!, &ule ''( of the &evised &ules of Court
'
provides5 W1n all
criminal prosecutions the action shall #e instituted and tried in the Court of the
municipalit or province wherein the offence was committed or any one of the
essential ingredients thereof too) place. 3 3 3 /he estafa charged in the two
informations involved in the case #efore 9s appears to #e transitor and
continuing in nature. Deceit has taken place in "alolos, Bulacan, while the
damage in Caloocan Cit, where the checks were dishonored # the drawee
#anks there. +urisdiction can, therefore, #e entertained # either the "alolos
court or the Caloocan court.
%2C4=DA&8 1%%925
?Ad interim, Ae hold that the facts charged in the information against
private respondents, contrar to their claim, constitute estafa 3 3 3. 1n
considering a motion to 6uash #ased on the ground Wthat the facts charged do
not constitute an offense, the point of resolution is whether the facts alleged,
if hpotheticall admitted, would meet the essential elements of the offense as
defined in the law. /he facts alleged in the criminal charge should #e taken as
the are.@
P%%6 *S. 7A3$N$( 'A# 9AN@8 !NC.
3 1,.,108 4,: SCA 5;; ("ar <8 ,000)
1
No0 Section 15(a) o1 ule 110.
*ena *. *erga 5.

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
Cagono &ural Bank, 1nc. owns Cagono "one %hop emploing Cristina $ere7
as 41C, Cashier and /eller, Al#erto Ba#ian as #ookkeeper, Cristina "edina and
"ilagros "artin as solicitorsLfield managers. /he Laa, "ana#at, %algado and
Compan, an independent management, consultanc and accounting firm,
conducted an audit of the financial affairs of the mone shop. 1t found
anomalies in more or less )0 saving accounts consisting of withdrawals
amounting to $hp 0*,,*)*(.(0, which were recorded in the su#sidiar ledgers
#ut not in the pass#ooks. /he signatures in the slips were forged. &espondent
then filed an affidavit Icomplaint for estafa against the said emploees and )
outsiders, %usan +ordan and Brigida "angahas. Binding prima facie evidence,
the Acting provincial prosecutor filed the corresponding information with the
"alolos &/C. /he charges against +ordan and "angahas were dismissed. 9pon
appeal to the D4+, the %ec of +ustice ordered the prosecutor to cause the
dismissal of the information against $ere7 for insufficienc of evidence. /he
judge granted the motion to dismiss on the #asis of the secretars
recommendation and that private respondent had no legal personalit to
6uestion the said dismissal.
1%%92%5 A4= the judge correctl dismissed the charges against $ere7.
A4= private respondent has personalit to 6uestion the said dismissal.
C2LD5 the judge acted with grave a#use of discretion when he granted the
motion to dismiss the criminal charges against $ere7 on the #asis solel of the
recommendation of the +ustice %ecretar. /he judge did not make an
independent evaluation Lassessment of the merits of the case. Cis reliance on
the recommendation of the %ecretar was an a#dication of the courts dut and
jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case.
$rivate respondent, as private complainant, has legal personalit to assail the
dismissal of the criminal case against $ere7. &espondent retains the right to
#ring a special civil action in his own name in criminal proceedings #efore the
courts of law. 1t follows that it could move for a reconsideration of the order of
the trial court dismissing the charges against $ere7.
'#% 111
CAS%S
%P'9#!C *S. CA
504 SCA 504 (,004)
Bacts5 $rivate &espondent =avotas 1ndustrial Corporation (=1C! was awarded
one of the dredging contract # D$AC worth $hp ',G" to #e completed within
a ear. =1C filed a complaint against the &epu#lic through the D$AC
maintaining that the accomplished ,GN of the work and et D$AC has paid
them onl *,N of the total amount due to them. 1n its answer, D$AC
contends that =1C is not entitled to the amount claimed since according to the
fact:finding committee of the former, the contract #etween them and the latter
was void. 1t was said that =1C started the work even #efore the contract was
awarded to them. 1t was clear therefore that the contract was awarded
without pu#lic #idding and through connivance with some D$AC officials.
D$AC later on filed a case at the 4ffice of the /anod Baan (2stafa through
falsification of pu#lic documents!and a case in the "ala#on &/C to recover the
sum alread paid to the =1C. 1n addition, petitioner &epu#lic then filed, also
#efore the "ala#on trial court a motion to consolidate the civil case (filed #
=1C! and the case in the %andigan#aan arguing that the civil case for
collection and the criminal cases arose from the same incidents and involve the
same facts. /he CA ruled that the %andigan#aan does not have an
jurisdiction over collection of sum of mone since the latter not involving
recover of civil lia#ilit arising from the offense charged. Cence this appeal.
1ssue5 AL= the CA erred in not ordering the consolidation of the Civil case
filed with the &/C and the criminal case that was filed with the %andigan#aan.
Decision5 =o. Consolidation is a matter of discretion of the court. 1t #ecomes
a matter of right onl when the cases sought to #e consolidated involve similar
6uestion of fact and law provided certain re6uirements are met. /he purpose
of consolidation is to avoid multiplicit of suits, prevent dela, clear congested
dockets, etc. %uch consolidation cannot #e ordered in this case since5 '! the
%andigan#aan has no jurisdiction over the collection case and )! the &ules of
court do not allow the filing of a counterclaim or a F
rd
part complaint in a
criminal case.
An essential re6uisite of consolidation is that the court must have jurisdiction
over all the cases consolidated #efore it. %ince %andigan#aan has no
jurisdiction over collection case, the same cannot #e consolidated with the
criminal cases even if these cases involve similar 6uestion of fact and law.
A counter claim in a criminal case must #e litigated separatel to avoid
complication and confusion in the resolution of the criminal cases. /his is the
rationale of %ection ' &ule '''. /his same rationale applies to =1Cs collection
case against the petitioner and D$AC. =1Cs case must #e litigated separatel
to avoid confusion in resolving the criminal cases with the %andigan#aan.
+ANC$ *S. !AC
3 :114:8 1:; SCA 441 ($ct 58 1<;<)
Bacts5 At around *F(pm, "acario 8uro, driver of Branco #us, swerved to the
left to avoid a truck with a trailer parked along the cemented pavement of
*ena *. *erga 5:

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
"acarthur Cighwa in Capas, /arlac, and collided with an incoming 1su7u "ini
Bus driven # "agdaleno Lugue. /he mini #us was a total wreck while the
Branco #us was also damaged #ut not as severe. /he two drivers died instantl
along with two other passengers of the mini #us, &omeo Bue and Bernando
Chua. /he registered owner of the mini #us, wife of victim Chua and wife of
driver Lugue filed an action for damages through reckless imprudence #efore
the CB1 of Angeles Cit against "r and "rs Bederico Branco, the owners and
operators of the Branco /ransportation Compan. /he defendants alleged that
the e3ercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of all of their
emploees which however was rejected # the trial court when it held that the
act of the Branco #us driver is a case of criminal negligence resulting in a civil
o#ligation. 4n appeal, the 1AC found 8uro guilt of reckless or criminal
imprudence resulting in the su#sidiar lia#ilit of the owners. /he 1AC
increased the award of damages.
1%%92%5 AL= Branco, as 2mploer, is lia#le for the acts dome # his driver.
AL= the 1AC ma increase the damages in favor of respondent
Chua and Lugue who did not appeal the said decision.
C2LD5 9nder Art '(F &$C, #efore the emploers lia#ilit ma #e proceeded
against, it is imperative that there should #e a criminal action where# the
emploees criminal negligence on delict and the corresponding lia#ilit
therefore are proved. 1n the case at #ar, no criminal action was instituted
#ecause the driver who is primaril lia#le died. $etitioners su#sidiar lia#ilit
cannot stand since it is merel secondar to the emploees primar lia#ilit.
Cowever, under Art )'*- and )'0(, =CC, petitioners lia#ilit is #ased on culpa
a6uiliana which holds emploer primaril lia#le for tortuous acts of its
emploees su#ject to the defense of the e3ercise of a good father of a famil in
the selection and supervision of its emploees. 1n the case at #ar, appellants
were not a#le to esta#lish the said defense. Cence, petitioners are lia#le for the
said damages pursuant to their primar lia#ilit under the =CC. /he 1AC erred
in increasing the amount of damages in favor of Chua and Lugue, neither of
whom appealed.
($NA7A *S. CA
3 11,45.8 ,55 SCA 4<: ("ar ,<8 1<<.)
Bacts5 At a#out ''5.Gam in Lapu:Lapu Cit, the accused 2lmer 4uano is
driving a /oota /amaraw registered in the name of &aul Ca#ahug and owned
# 2J %2A $roducts when he unlawfull maneuvered his vehicle in a reckless
manner, #umping Cector CaSete which resulted to the victims re6ath due to
multiple severe traumatic. /he accused pleaded guilt and was sentenced
accordingl. /hereafter, a writ of e3ecution was issued for the satisfaction of
the monetar award #ut the accused was una#le to pa for it. &espondents
then filed a motion for su#sidiar e3ecution with neither notice of hearing nor
notice to the petitioner. /he trial court issued the writ and the sheriff went to
petitioners residence to enforce it #ut petitioner filed a motion to recall the
writ for lack of prior notice and the emploers lia#ilit had et to #e
esta#lished.
1%%925 AL= the su#sidiar lia#ilit could #e enforced against the petitioner.
C2LD5 1t is a measure of due process to the emploer that a hearing #e set to
prove the su#sidiar lia#ilit of the petitioner. /he emploer must #e given his
full da in court.
/he emploer must #e afforded due process # holding a hearing to determine
his lia#ilit on the #asis of the conditions re6uired # law, namel5 (a! the
e3istence of an emploer:emploee relationship; (#! that the emploer is
engaged in some kind of agenc; (c! that the emploee is adjudged guilt of
the wrongful act and found to have committed the offense in the discharge of
his duties (not necessaril an offense he ma committee; and (d! that said
emploee is insolvent. All of these were not afforded to the petitioner.

/he orders of the CA should #e set aside and the case remanded for further
trial.
NA3'!AT *S. !AC
3.. No. :4;4.8 1.5 SCA 505 (August 1;8 1<;;)
Bacts5 /imog %ilangan Development Corporation is engaged in the #usiness of
developing and selling su#division lots in /imog $ark in Angeles Cit, with
"anuel $. La7atin as its $resident. $etitioner Antolin /. =aguiat purchased, on
installment #asis, . lots from /%DC, Lots =os. 'F, '., 'G and '-, of Block )-
of /imog $ark, each with F(( s6uare meters with a price of $-(.(( per s6uare
meter. $etitioner made a down pament of $*,)((.(( which is '(N of the total
price of $*),(((.((.
/he Contract to %ell #etween them stipulated a two:ear period within which to
pa. =aguiat full paid the price of Lot '-, after which, the title was issued. Ce
again paid the #alance of the F other lots. /hen, petitioner demanded that the
titles thereof #e issued #ut /%DC refused on the ground that the #alance was
not et full paid and non:compliance with the stipulations in the contract that
constructions on the lots #e finished within - months and that petitioner failed
to make constructions as to other lots. $etitioner was not entitled to the '(N
re#ate (since he was not a#le to finish #uilding within - months!, hence, the
previous paments did not amount to full pament.
*ena *. *erga 5;

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
$etitioner then filed a complaint for specific performance with damages, with
the &/C of Angeles Cit, praing for the deliver of the /C/s and damages. Ce
also filed with the Cit Biscal of Angeles Cit a criminal complaint against
respondent La7atin, for violation of $D =o. ,G*, %ection )G, which states that
the owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot upon full pament.
/hereafter, information was filed against La7atin. $etitioner filed a motion to
consolidate the Civil Case and Criminal Case, which the court granted.
Cowever, the CA reversed the decision on the consolidation issue,
1%%925 AL= the cases ma #e consolidated.
C2LD5 Civil Actions that ma #e consolidated under %ection F(a! of &ule ''' is
one for civil lia#ilit arising from the criminal offense or of e3:delicto and not
e3 contracto or one that is #ase on a contract to sell. 1n the case at #ar, the
civil action filed # the petitioner was for specific performance with damages.
/he main relief sought in the latter case, i.e., the deliver of the certificates of
title to the lots which petitioner had allegedl full paid for, was grounded on
the Contract to %ell #etween the petitioner and the private respondent. Cence
the civil action filed # the petitioner was for the enforcement of an o#ligation
arising from a contract, or e3 contractu and not one for the recover of civil
lia#ilit arising from an offense; hence, the law invoked # the petitioner is
inapplica#le.
But, as held in Canos v. $eralta, the consolidation of a criminal action with a
civil action arising not e3 delicto, ma still #e done, #ased upon the e3press
authorit of %ection ', &ule F' of the &ules of Court (actions involving a
common 6uestion of law or fact I court ma order a joint hearing!. 1n the case
at #ar, the nature of the issues involved, at least, the factual issues in the civil
and criminal actions are almost identical. /he evidence would virtuall #e the
same.
Cence, petitionerRs counsel ma act as counsel for the plaintiff in the civil case
and private prosecutor in the criminal case which will #e conducive to the earl
termination of the two ()! cases, and will redound to the #enefit and
convenience of the parties; as well as to the speed administration of justice.
Case ma #e consolidated not virtue of the provision of %ection F, &ule '''
#ut virtue of %ection ', &ule F'.
9'NA3 *S. CA
3.. No. 101:5<8 ,11 SCA 550 (2uly 108 1<<,)
Bacts5 4ne afternoon Conrado Bunag, +r. #rought Eenaida Cirilo, his )- ears
old sweetheart, to a motel where he deflowered her as his companion held her
feet. Later Bunag jr #rought her to his grandmothers house in $amplona, Las
$iSas, "etro "anila, where the lived together as hus#and and wife for )'
das. Bunag, +r. and Eenaida filed their respective applications for a marriage
license #ut the former withdrew the same. Bunag jr left her and never
returned. Ce also promised to marr her #ut did not fulfill it. A complaint for
damages for alleged #reach of promise to marr was filed # Eenaida Cirilo
against petitioner Conrado Bunag, +r. and his father, Conrado Bunag, %r.
praing for damages. Bunag, %r. was a#solved from an and all lia#ilit.
&espondent appealed decision a#solving Bunag, %r. from civil lia#ilit in the
case. Bunag, +r. field this appeal alleging that court failed to take into
consideration the alleged fact that he and private respondent had agreed to
marr.
1%%925 AL= the dismissal of the criminal case carries with it e3tinction of the
civil case.
C2LD5 A person criminall lia#le for a felon is also civill lia#le. 1n other
words, criminal lia#ilit will give rise to civil lia#ilit e3 delicto onl if the same
felonious act results in damage or injur to another, and is the direct and
pro3imate cause thereof. Cence, e3tinction of the penal action does not carr
with it e3tinction of civil lia#ilit, unless the e3tinction proceeds from a
declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did
not e3ist.
1n the case at #ar, the dismissal of the complaint for forci#le a#duction with
rape was # mere resolution of the fiscal at the preliminar investigation stage.
/here is no declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil
case might arise did not e3ist. Conse6uentl, the dismissal did not in an wa
affect the right of herein private respondent to institute a civil action arising
from the offense #ecause such preliminar dismissal of the penal action did not
carr with it the e3tinction of the civil action.
*!##%3AS *S. CA
3.. No. ;,5.,8 ,:1 SCA 15; (AAril 118 1<<:)
Bacts5 Assem#lman Antonio >. &a6ui7a filed a li#el suit against "anila "aor
Antonio +. >illegas, who pu#licl imputed to him acts in violation of the Anti:
Draft and Corrupt $ractices Act in a pu#lic statement, a radio:/> interview and
a pu#lic statement prior to his appearance #efore the %enate Committee on
$u#lic Aorks. /he Committee o#served that the allegations in the complaint
were #ased on the uncorro#orated testimon of a certain $edro 9. Bernande7,
whose credi#ilit turned out to #e highl 6uestiona#le.
*ena *. *erga 5<

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
After the investigation, &a6ui7a was cleared of all charges # the Committee.
/hen, an information for li#el was filed # the 4ffice of the Cit Biscal of "anila
with the then CB1 of "anila against >illegas who denied the charge. After losing
in the ',*' elections, >illegas left for the 9% where he staed until his death.
=evertheless, trial proceeded on absentia" /he court dismissed the criminal
aspect of the case and ordered that &a6ui7a #e paid damages # the heirs of
>illegas. /he CA affirmed the lower court. Cence, this appeal # >illegas heirs.
1%%925 AL= the death of >illegas #efore final judgment e3tinguished his civil
lia#ilit.
C2LD5 /he survival of the civil lia#ilit depends on whether the same can #e
predicated on sources of o#ligations other than delict. /he death of the accused
pending appeal of his conviction e3tinguishes his criminal lia#ilit as well as the
civil lia#ilit directly arising from and #ased solel on the offense committed.
Corollaril, his clai' for civil liability survives not(ithstanding the death of
+the, accused, if the sa'e 'ay also be predicated on a source of obligation
other than delict. ;here the civil liability survives, an action for recovery
therefor 'ay be pursued but only by (ay of filing a separate civil action
against the executor or ad'inistrator of the estate of the accused, depending
on the source of obligation"
1n the case, the source of >illegasR civil lia#ilit is the felonious act of li#el he
allegedl committed. 8et, this act could also #e deemed a 6uasi:delict within
the purview of Article FF in relation to Article ''G* of the Civil Code thus, civil
lia#ilit ma still #e enforced (Baotas Doctrine!. /he Baotas doctrine makes
enforcement of a deceased accuseds civil lia#ilit dependent on two factors5
that it #e pursued # filing a separate civil action and that it #e made su#ject
to section ' of rule '''.
1n the case at #ar, the civil action was deemed instituted with the criminal.
/here was no waiver of the civil action and no reservation of the right to
institute the same, nor was it instituted prior to the criminal action. Cence, the
court should have dismissed #oth actions against >illegas which dismissal will
not, however, #ar &a6ui7a as the private offended part from pursuing his
claim for damages against the e3ecutor or administrator of the formerRs estate,
notwithstanding the fact that he did not reserve the right to institute a civil
separate civil action #ased on Article FF of the Civil Code.
PA%&%S *S. SAN&!3AN9A(AN
,5, SCA .51 (1<<.)
Bacts5 /eofilo Delacio, then vice maor of %an Brancisco Agusan del %ur filed a
complaint against $aredes, then provincial governor and "ansueto Conrada for
alleged conspirac in making it appear # falsifing pu#lic documents that
arraignment has #een held in a case involving $aredes when in fact, no
arraignment was done. An information was filed # the %andigan#aan against
the $aredes and his accomplice. An administrative case for falsification was
also filed with the trial court # Delacio against "ansueto, the clerk of court
who made the certifications. /he second case was dismissed for insufficienc
of the evidence. But the Draft 1nvestigation found pro#a#le cause to proceed
against the defendants. $aredes now contends that the case in the
%andigan#aan should also #e dismissed invoking the ruling in the case of
"aceda vs. >as6ue7 that onl the regular courts has the power to oversee
court personnels compliance with laws and take the appropriate administrative
action against them for their failure to do so.
1ssue5 AL= the case in the %andigan#aan should also #e dismissed since the
administrative case was also dismissed.
Decision5 1t has #een held that one thing is administrative, 6uite another is the
criminal lia#ilit. /he determination of the administrative lia#ilit for
falsification of pu#lic documents is in no wa conclusive of his lack of criminal
lia#ilit. /he dismissal of the administrative case does not necessaril #ar the
filing of a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts, which were the
su#ject of the administrative complaint.
'#% 11,
CAS%S
'#% 11, CAS%S
PAN3AN&A"AN *S. CASA
No. #-:1:;,8 15< SCA 5<< (AAr 158 1<;;)
Bacts5 4n )* +ul ',0G, a shooting incident occurred in $antao, "asiu, Lanao
del %ur, leaving at least five persons dead and two wounded. /he ne3t da,
Att. "angurun Batuampar, representing the widow of one of the victims, filed
a letter:complaint with the $rovincial Biscal at "arawi Cit, asking for a Tfull
#last preliminar investigationT of the incident and the filing of the affidavits.
/he $rovincial Biscal indorsed it to the respondent +udge. Cowever, no case
was presented until '( August ',0G, when a criminal complaint for multiple
murder was filed # $.C. %gt. +ose L. Laruan. /he judge e3amined personall
all F witnesses reducing to writing the 6uestions witnesses and answers.
/hereafter, the +udge approved the complaint and issued the corresponding
*ena *. *erga 50

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
warrant of arrest against the '. petitioners and G( +ohn Does. Att. Batuampar
filed an e3:parte "& to recall the warrant and to conduct a thorough $1 on the
ground that the judges initial investigation was hast and with no searching
6uestions, which the judge denied. $etitioners alleged that the judge could not
have determined pro#a#le cause against the -. accused since the "/C is open
onl from 0am to 'pm. /he further alleged that the judge disregarded the
fiscal who had taken cogni7ance of the case and a#out to conduct its own $1
and that the warrant violates the constitution re6uiring that such warrants
should particularl descri#e the persons or things to #e sei7ed. Cence the
present petition.
1ssue5 AL= the judge had the power to issue warrant of arrest without
completing the $1.
Decision5 1n $1, a judge of an inferior court must o#serve the proceeding
prescri#ed in %ec F, &ule ''), ',0G &ules of Court. $i consists of two phases.
/he first phase consists of an ex8parte in6uir into the sufficienc of the
complaint and the affidavits and other documents offered in support thereof.
And it ends with the determination # the +udge either5 ('! that there is no
ground to continue with the in6uir, in which case he dismisses the complaint
and transmits the order of dismissal, together with the records of the case, to
the provincial fiscal; or ()! that the complaint and the supporting documents
show sufficient cause to continue with the in6uir and this ushers in the second
phase.
/his second phase is designed to give the respondent notice of the complaint,
access to the complainantRs evidence and an opportunit to su#mit counter:
affidavits and supporting documents. At this stage also, the +udge ma conduct
a hearing and propound to the parties and their witnesses 6uestions on
matters that, in his view, need to #e clarified. /he second phase concludes with
the +udge rendering his resolution, either for dismissal of the complaint or
holding the respondent for trial, which shall #e transmitted, together with the
record, to the provincial fiscal for appropriate action.
%uch procedure must #e followed #efore the filing of the complaint in the &/C.
4therwise, there is a denial of due process. 1n the case, no information has et
#een filed with the &/C. /here is no pretense that the $1 has #een completed
and the judge does not intend to undertake the )
nd
phase. 1n this situation, it
cannot #e said that he has failed to o#serve the procedure. Completion of the
entire procedure of the $1 is not re6uired #efore a warrant of arrest ma #e
issued. /he rule authori7es the "/C to order such arrest even #efore the
completion of the $1 if said court is satisfied that a pro#a#le cause e3ists.
Cence, the warrants were validl issued.
E%99 *S. &% #%$N
3 1,1458 ,5: SCA .5, (Aug ,48 1<<5)
Bacts5 4n ', +une ',,., the =B1 filed a letter:complaint with the D4+ charging
petitioners Cu#ert Ae##, "ichael Datchalian, Antonio Lejano and si3 others of
the crime of rape with homicide. /he D4+ formed a panel of prosecutors
headed # Asst. Chief $rosecutor +ovencio Euno to conduct the preliminar
investigation on the killing on F( +une ',,' of Carmela >i7conde, her mother
2strellita and her sister Anne "arie +ennifer in BB Comes, $araSa6ue.
1n the $1, the =B1 su#mitted sworn statements of +essica Alfaro, ) former
housemaids of the Ae## famil, ) of the >i7conde maids, a securit guard, and
a car engineer. An autops report was also su#mitted confirming the presence
of spermato7oa on Carmela. Before su#mitting his counter:affidavit, Cu#ert
filed a motion for production of evidences and documents with the D4+ which
was granted and the =B1 reproduced it. Cowever, the original statement of
Alfaro was lost #ut the were a#le to get a cop from Att "ercader, +r. Cu#ert
failed to get a cop of the BB1 report. Cu#ert claimed that he was in the 9% at
the time of the crime which was corro#orated # evidences and testimonies.
/he same was done # other accused.
/he D4+ found pro#a#le cause and recommended the filing of an information
for rape with homicide against the petitioners with the $araSa6ue &/C which
was eventuall presided # +udge Amelita /olentino who issued the arrest
warrants. /he accused voluntaril surrendered, #ut in their present petition,
the contend that the judge a#used their discretion when the failed to
conduct a $1 #efore issuing the warrant.
1%%925 AL= the judge should conduct its own $1 #efore issuing a warrant of
arrest.
AL= there is pro#a#le cause for the crime of rape with homicide.
AL= the warrant has #een properl issued.
C2LD5 /he investigating fiscal finds pro#a#le cause to hold respondent for trial.
Ce shall prepare the resolution and the information. 1n determining pro#a#le
cause, facts and circumstances are weighed without resorting to technical rules
of evidences, #ut rather #ased on common sense. $ro#a#le cause are the facts
and circumstances which would lead a reasona#l discreet and prudent man to
#elieve that an offense has #een committed and was committed # the
suspects. 1t need not #e #ased on clear and convincing evidences of guilt. 1n
the case, the D4+ panel did not a#use its discretion when it found pro#a#le
cause against the petitioners. 1t correctl adjudged that enough evidences had
#een adduced to esta#lish cause and clarificator hearing was unnecessar
since $1 is not part of trial.
*ena *. *erga 51

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
Before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merel determine personall the
pro#a#ilit, not the certaint of guilt of an accused. /he D4+Ws report satisfied
#oth judges that there is pro#a#le cause to issue such warrants. /he do not
conduct a hearing to determine the e3istence of pro#a#le cause. /he just
personall review the initial determination of the prosecutor finding pro#a#le
cause to see if it is supported # su#stantial evidences. /he fiscal need not call
the wirnesses for clarificator 6uestioning if the evidence on hand alread
ields pro#a#le cause. /he fact that it took respondent judges a few hours to
review and affirm the pro#a#le cause determination of the D4+ panel does not
mean that the made no personal evaluation of the evidences of the case.
&!#$N *S. CA AN& &. A3'!#A
3 115;,58 ,5; SCA ,;0 (2uly 58 1<<.)
Bacts5 Dodofredo ASonuevo was shot in the #ack # "anolo &amos and was
then #rought to a hospital for treatment of head injuries. Later, he was again
shot and treated after #eing confronted # "arcia &ees regarding his
revelation of her inde#tedness secret. After which, he was taken to a poultr
farm in Conception where was shot and su#se6uentl #rought to the Batangas
&egional Cospital where Dr. Aguila (which was said to #e an accomplice!
refused to treat him. ASonuevo gave F statements to narrate the whole crime.
Cis counsel then re6uested petitioner D4+ %ecretar Drilon to order the
transfer of the $1 from Batangas to the office of the %tate $rosecutor at the
D4+ which was granted. %tate $rosecutor &enaldo Lugtu conducted a $1 and
found a prima facie case for Jidnapping with frustrated murder against &amos,
Agapito &ees, "arca &ees, 2ga $ere7, Ariel Cu#illa, Dr Aguilar and
Adoracion "oraleja. An information was then filed with the Batangas Cit &/C.
%u#se6ue#tl, a petition for review and reinvestigation was denied # D4+
9%2C and D4+ %ecretar. /he case was reassigned and re:raffled to the "anila
&/C.
Dr. Aguila sought prohi#ition with /&4 and preliminar injunction to set aside
the resolution of Lugtu with the CA which was granted. 9naware that the raffle
had alread #een conducted, the accused filed a motion to hold in a#eance
the issuance of a warrant of arrest and to defer the raffle with the "anila &/C.
=ot knowing of the said motion, the "anila &/C issued the order of arrest. /he
CA enjoined the &/C from proceeding with the case. CA likewise e3cluded Dr
Aguilar from the information having found no pro#a#le cause against him.
1%%925 AL= the criminal prosecution can #e restrained upon the claim of
accused Dr. Aguila that there is no prima facie case against him.
C2LD5 the purpose of the $1 is to esta#lish $C, which implies pro#a#ilit of guilt
and re6uires more that #are suspicion #ut less than evidence which would
justif conviction. $C should #e determined in a summar #ut scrupulous
manner to prevent material damage to the constitutional rights of the accused
and guarantees of freedom and fair pla. Courts should give credence, in the
a#sence of clear showing of ar#itrariness, to the finding and determination of
$C # the prosecutors in the $1, who are vested with 6uasi:judicial discretion in
the discharge of said function. Cence, the state prosecutor did not a#use its
discretion in finding $C against Dr Aguilar. /he court directed his inclusion in
the information and the continuance of the case.
3$ *S. CA
3 101;4:8 ,0. SCA 14; (+e=. 118 1<<,)
Bacts5 &olito Dos car nearl collided with the car of 2ldon "aguan when the
latter entered a one:wa street in %an +uan, "". Do went to "aguan and shot
him, and then he left. A securit guard saw the plate num#er of Dos car which
the police verified that it was registered to 2lsa And Do. /he police also
retrieved an empt shell and a round of live ammunition for a ,mm pistol. /he
police also o#tained a facsimile of Dos credit card which it used in a #akeshop
#efore the incident and a positive verification # the securit guard. /he police
conducted a manhunt. Do surrendered and was positivel identified # the
witnesses. A complaint for frustrated homicide was then filed with the office of
the $rovincial $rosecutor of &i7al. Do e3ecuted a waiver of Art ')G of the &$C
to avail of a $1 #e $rosecutor Dennis >illa 1gnacio. "aguan died #efore the
information could #e filed. /he prosecutor filed instead an information for
murder with the &/C, wherein the prosecutor certified that there was no $1
since Do did not waive Art ')G. Counsel for petitioner then filed an omni#us
motion for immediate release and proper $1 alleging that no $1 was conducted
and the warrantless arrest was unlawful. Dos petition for #ail was approved
and his release was ordered. /he prosecutor filed a motion for leave to conduct
$1 and to suspend proceedings in the court which was granted. Cowever, the
judge recalled the #ail, $1, and immediate release and set aside the case for
arraignment. $etitioner was admitted at the &i7al $rovincial +ail. $etitioner was
arraigned and hearings were conducted. Do then filed a petition for ha#eas
corpus in the CA which was issued. /he CA also denied the deferment of the
arraignment and his other motions. Cence, this petition for review.
1%%925 AL= the warrantless arrest was lawful.
AL= petitioner effectivel waived his right to $1.
D2C1%14=5 Dos arrest took place - das after the shooting. /he arresting
officers had no personal knowledge of the facts indicating that petitioner was
the gunman. /he information upon which the police acted had #een derived
from statements of eewitnesses. 1t is clear that there was no lawful
warrantless arrest of petitioner. %ince he had not #een arrested, he was also
not entitled to #e released forthwith su#ject onl to his appearing at the $1.
/he prosecutor should have conducted the $1 upon the filing of the complaint
*ena *. *erga 5,

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
for frustrated homicide # the police since he should have #een accorded with
such right without an conditions.
/he court held that petitioner did not waive his right to $1. %uch right is a
su#stantive right. /o den him of such right would deprive him of his right to
due process. $1 is waived when the accused fails to invoke it #efore or at the
time of entering a plea at arraignment. 1n the case, Do insisted on his right to
$1 #efore his arraignment. Ce even asked for #ail in one motion. Cence, we
cannot reasona#l impl waiver of $1.
C%SP$ *S. "$3'#
No #-544:48 151 SCA 5., (2une 408 1<;:)
Bacts5 Asst Biscal $roceso de Dala, with the approval of the provincial fiscal,
filed an information for estafa against "ario Crespo in the circuit criminal court
of Lucena Cit. /he accused filed a motion to defer arraignment on the ground
that there was a pending petition for review with the %ec of +ustice. /he judge
denied it #ut deferred the arraignment. 9pon petition, the CA restrained the
judge from proceeding with the arraignment until the D4+ has resolved the
petition for review. /he +ustice 9ndersecretar directed the fiscal to move for
the dismissal of the information for insufficienc of evidence #ut the judge
denied it. /he CA issued a /&4 #ut later lifted it. Cence, this appeal.
1%%925 AL= the /C ma refuse to grant the motion to dismiss and proceed
with the trial of the case despite a motion to dismiss filed # the fiscal upon
order of the %ec of +ustice.
C2LD5 4nce an information is filed in court, the courts prior permission must
#e secured if the fiscal wants to reinvestigate the case. Ahether the accused
had #een arraigned or not and whether it was due to a reinvestigation # the
fiscal or a review # the +ustice %ecretar where# a motion to dismiss was
su#mitted to the court, the court in the e3ercise of its discretion ma grant the
motion or den it and re6uire that the trial on the merits proceed for the
proper determination of the case. 1n this regard, the fiscal should continue to
appear in the case although he ma turn over the presentation of evidence to
the private prosecutor #ut still under his discretion and control.
C'68 2. *S. P%$P#%
3 11054.8 ,44 SCA 54< (2une ,:8 1<<5)
Bacts5 D%1% filed ) separate complaints against &oman Cru7, +r., then
$resident and Deneral:"anager of D%1% and $resident of the "anila Cotel, for
violation of %ec F(e! of &A F(',. /he first was filed with the 4ffice of the
%pecial $rosecutor for violation of &A F(', while the second was filed with the
$CDD which was later endorsed to the 4m#udsman. $CDD filed an information
with the %andigan#aan after conducting a preliminar investigation. /he 4%$
likewise filed information for estafa through falsification of pu#lic documents
with the %andigan#aan. /he 4%$ earlier denied the motion to dismiss #
petitioner. %andigan#aan consolidated the two cases #ut remanded the same
to the 4m#udsman for reinvestigation. During the preliminar investigation,
petitioner su#mitted counter:affidavits and documents. /he prosecutor
recommended the withdrawal of the information #ut the 4m#udsman ordered
the prosecution to proceed. $etitioner filed an omni#us motion to 6uash the
information and for the 4m#udsman to conduct further proceedings #ut the
same was denied. Cence, this petition.
1ssue5 AL= the 4m#udsman should dismiss the information on the
recommendation of the prosecutor.
AL= the records of the preliminar investigation should #e reproduced.
Celd5 1t is discretionar upon the 4m#udsman if he will rel mainl on the
findings of fact of the investigating prosecutor in making a review of the
latters report and recommendation as the 4m#udsman can ver well make his
own findings of fact. /he 4m#udsman does not conduct another investigation
#ut merel determines the propriet and correctness of the recommendation of
the investigating prosecutor that is, whether or not pro#a#le cause e3ist.
Cence, the courts should not interfere in the e3ercise of the 4m#udsmans
discretionar power. /he fact that the information filed # the om#udsman
consists onl of two paragraphs is not sufficient to impute ar#itrariness on his
part, a#sent a clear showing that he a#used his discretion.
/he court is not tasked to review in detail the evidence su#mitted duing the
preliminar investigation. /he lim case wherein it was held that if a judge
relies entirel on the certification of the prosecutor , he or se has not
personall determined pro#a#le cause, is not applica#le in the case at #ar. 1t
is sufficient that the judge evaluates the report and supporting documents
su#mitted # the prosecutin in determining pro#a#le cause.
/here is no reason to den the reproduction of the records of the preliminar
investigation since there was good cause on the part of the accused for the
reason that he ma prepare for his defense.
&$#A#AS vs. $++!C% $+ T7% $"9'&S"AN
3.. No. 11;;0;8 ,.5 SCA ;1< (&ecem=er ,58 1<<.)
Bacts5 +udge Ana "aria 1. Dolalas, 2veln J. 4#ido and Ail#erto B. Carriedo U
$residing +udge, Clerk of Court and Clerk 11, respectivel of "C/C of
Ja#asalan, Eam#oanga del %ur, were administrativel charged # respondent
*ena *. *erga 54

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
Benjamin >illarante, +r. for Tmiscarriage of justice, dishonest, gross neglect of
dut, unnecessar dela in the administration of justice and for failure to
prosecute Criminal Case no. G00' for an unreasona#le length of time in the
4m#udsman:"indanao.
/he letter:complaint was due to a criminal case of alarms and scandals filed
against respondent # a police officer. &espondent alleged that after
su#mitting his counter:affidavit with the court, there has #een no pre:
conference, arraignment or pre:trial held or conducted # the judge. Ce further
alleged that it was maliciousl filed # $L%gt. %alutillo in connivance with
petitioner judge in order to discourage the former from instituting a criminal
complaint against said police officerRs men for a#use of authorit and police
#rutalit with phsical injur. /he case was delaed due to the failure to
prosecute within a reasona#le time. /he Draft 1nvestigation 4fficer 1 of the
4m#udsman directed petitioners to comment and denied the latters motion for
reconsideration. Cence the petition #efore this Court.
1ssue5 AL= the 4m#udsman has jurisdiction over petitioners for purposes of
investigation and prosecution.
Decision5 /his Court agrees with petitioner:judge. /he complaint against
petitioner:judge #efore the 4ffice of the 4m#udsman is #asicall administrative
in nature. 1n essence, petitioner:judge is #eing charged with having violated
&ule '.(), Canon '

and &ule F.(G, Canon F of the Code of +udicial Conduct.
1t must #e #orne in mind that the resolution of the administrative charge of
undul delaing the disposition of the said criminal case involves the
determination of whether, in resolving the alarms and scandals case,
petitioner:judge acted in accordance with the guidelines provided in the &ules
of Court and in the Administrative Circulars in pursuance of the ideals
em#odied in the Code of +udicial Conduct. %uch is clearl an administrative
matter. 9n6uestiona#l, this Court is mandated of the ',0* Constitution to
assume under section -, Article >111 of the ',0* Constitution to assume
administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. Cence,
the om#udsman has no jurisdiction over the case at #ar.
AC$P *S. $++!C% $+ T7% $"9'&S"AN
3 1,05,,8 ,5; SCA 5.. (SeA ,:8 1<<5)
Bacts5 4n '0 "a ',,G, '' suspected mem#ers of the Juratong Baleleng were
killed in a shootout # the =C& Command, /raffic "anagement Command,
$ACC, C$DC and Criminal 1nvestigation Command. Later, %$4) 2duardo de los
&ees of the Central 1ntelligence Command e3posed that there was no
shootout. /hen, the relatives of the slain suspects accused the policemen of
murder and asked the CC& to conduct an investigation. /he 4m#udsman
directed petitioner Deput 4m#udsman for "ilitar Affairs Casaclang to
monitor the investigations # the CC&, %enate and $=$. Casaclang re6uested
documents relative to the shootout from these #odies and agencies. %$4)
Cora7on de la Cru7 testified and corro#orated the statements of de los &ees.
Ce then created a panel of investigators which recommended the conduct of a
preliminar investigation after #eing furnished with documents and transcripts
of the %enates proceedings and the ?After 4perations &eport@ from $=$. Ce
ordered petitioners to su#mit counter:affidavits and evidences #ut the latter
neither complied nor moved for reconsideration. 1nstead, the 6uestioned the
preliminar investigation without the re6uired preliminar evaluation in their
respective petitions with the %C, which ordered #oth parties to comment.
Cowever, Acting 4m#udsman >illa ordered petitioner to file their counter:
affidavits, which caused petitioner to cite him in contempt. >illa likewise took
the petition from Casaclang who suspended the same pending resolution of the
petition # the %C. Cence, this petition.
1ssue5 A= the 4m#udsman of the 4%$ has jurisdiction over the complaint.
AL= the Deput 4m#udsman for "ilitar Affairs ma conduct $1.
Decision5 $etitioners, who are $=$ officers, are civilian personnel of the
government. /he Deput 4m#udsman for "ilitar Affairs is not prohi#ited from
performing other functions or duties affecting non:militar personnel. /he
4m#udsman ma refer cases involving non:militar personnel for investigation
# the Deput 4m#udsman for "ilitar Affairs. Cence, there is no irregularit
attending the referral # the Acting 4m#udsman of the case to Casaclang who
in turn created a panel of investigators.
Casaclang did not set the case for $1 without the preliminar evaluation
re6uired. 1n the case, Casaclang issued the 6uestioned order after the panel of
investigators su#mitted its evaluation report. /he conduct of such evaluation
involves the e3ercise of discretion which has not #een a#used in the case.
/hrough &A -**(, the 4%$ was made an organic component of the 4ffice of
the 4m#udsman. /he om#udsman was granted with the power to investigate
pu#lic officers and emploees over cases cogni7a#le # the %andigan#aan.
/he 4%$ is also authori7ed to conduct $1 over criminal cases within the
jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan under the supervision and control and upon
the authorit of the 4m#udsman.
$CA"P$8 !* vs. $"9'&S"AN
3.. Nos. 10455.-5:8 ,,5 SCA :,5 (August 408 1<<4)
*ena *. *erga 55

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
Bacts5 Dovernor "ariano 4campo 111 and his son, petitioner "ariano 4campo
1>, were charged with violation of %ec. F (h! of &epu#lic Act. =o. F(', in two
()! separate informations filed #efore the %andigan#aan. "ariano 4campo 111,
then /arlac Dovernor and $resident:Chairman of the Board of /rustees of the
Lingkod /arlac Boundation, 1nc. (L/B1!, connived with 4campo 1> in loaning
$G,.*-,(F'.(( and $*,(((,(((.(( out of the =ational Aid for Local
Dovernment Bunds (=ALDB! of /arlac to the 1"C4&, now the =ew /erritor
"anufacturing, 1nc., a private corporation where 4campo 1> is an incorporator
and stockholder, under terms and conditions grossl disadvantageous to the
government the same #eing interest:free, without collateral, and without, a
definite date of repament.
4campo 1> filed with the %andigan#aan a motion for reinvestigation which
was granted. After the reinvestigation, %pecial $rosecutors &oger C. Ber#ano,
%r. and &odolfo B. &enoso of the 4%$ found that 4campo 1> did not connive
with his father, Dov. 4campo 111. /he special prosecutors then recommended
that the informations against them #e dismissed and withdrawn. Cowever, the
4m#udsman disapproved the recommendation. Cence, this petition.
1ssue5 A4= the 4m#udsman a#used its discretion in proceeding with the case
despite the recommendation of dismissal # the special prosecutor.
Decision5 Criminal prosecutions ma not #e restrained, either through a
preliminar or final injunction or, a writ of prohi#ition, e3cept in some
instances. Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the fiscal or the
4m#udsman to determine the specificit and ade6uac of the averments of the
offense charged. Ce ma dismiss the complaint forthwith if he finds it to #e
insufficient in form or su#stance or if he otherwise finds no ground to continue
with the in6uir; or he ma proceed with the investigation of the complaint is,
in his view, in due and proper form.
/he petition failed to show a grave a#use of discretion on the part of the
4m#udsman, whose act of disapproving the recommendation of the special
prosecutors to dismiss the informations filed is not whimsical or capricious.
=either is it tainted with vindictiveness or ar#itrariness. Ce disapproved the
recommendation of the special prosecutors #ecause he sincerel #elieved that
there is sufficient evidence to indict #oth accused.
1t should however #e reiterated that, while it is the 4m#udsman who has the
full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should #e filed in the
%andigan#aan, once the case has #een filed with said court, it is the
%andigan#aan, and no longer the 4m#udsman, which has full control of the
case so much so that the informations ma not #e dismissed without the
approval of the said court.
$&!3'%6 *S. SAN&!3AN9A(AN
3 .14558 1,0 SCA .5< (+e= 1;8 1<;4)
Bacts5 4n ). +an ',-., "a3imo &odrigue7 was the provincial fiscal of "isamis
4riental when he was designated as 23:officio &egister of Deeds of "isamis
4riental and CD4 Cit upon the register of the former &egister of Deeds. Later,
respondent Digno &oa filed an affidavit complaint #efore the fiscal of CD4
charging &odrigue7 of estafa, falsification and usurpation of pu#lic functions. A
su#poena was issued to petitioner who su#mitted his counter:affidavit. %tate
$rosecutor Lilia Lope7, who assisted the fiscal conducted a $1. /wo months
later, he resigned from the service. /hen, Lope7 found pro#a#le cause against
petitioner with 1sidro 9dang and +osefa 2#ora $acardo. Before her resolution
could #e approved # the D4+, the office of the /anod#aan was created to
which the entire records of the case were transferred. /he /anod#aan
prosecutor Brancisco &a#anes set the case for $1 #ut later dismissed the case
for lack of $C # just considering the records and counter:affidavit su#mitted
# petitioner. /he /anod#aan legal officer however recommended the setting
aside of the resolution and the filing of an information for violation of &A F(',.
A team of special prosecutors conducted the $1 upon the recommendation of
the /anod#aan prosecution and investigation office. /he su#poena was served
upon petitioners wife since the former was in Catarman =orthern %amar
hospital attending to his sick mother and proceeding directl to "anila for an
appearance #efore the CA. /he $1 was conducted in the presence of petitioners
law partner and son, &ufus &odrigue7, #ut petitioner denied them as his
representative since he was unaware of such $1. Conse6uentl, an information
for violation of &A F(', was filed #efore the %B. $etitioners motion to 6uash
was denied. Cence, this petition.
1ssue5 AL= $D '-(- creating the /anod#aan is an e3:post facto law.
AL= the $1 was properl conducted.
Decision5 /he %andigan#aan is a national court stationed in "anila the fact
that an accused is placed to defraing greater e3penses #ecause the %B holds
courts in "anila onl does not work $D '-(- which created it an e3 post facto
law. 1t is not disputed that a su#poena was sent to petitioner as received # his
wife and that he was represented # his law partner and son who activel
participated in the proceedings. 2ven if he denied their representation, it
appears that petitioner had su#mitted a memorandum to the /anod#aan and
had ventilated his arguments at a hearing #efore the latter. /hus, petitioner
had ample opportunit to #e heard and was in fact heard. Burther, $D ,''
authori7es the holding of an e3 parte $1. 1f respondent does not appear, the $1
ma proceed without him. Cence, the $1 was properl conducted.
*ena *. *erga 55

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
'#% 114
A%ST
Section &, 7efinition of arrest, < Arrest is the ta2ing of a person into
custody in order that he may %e %ound to answer for the commission
of an offense,
E?at is arrestK
Arrest is the taking of a person into custod in order that he ma #e #ound to
answer for the commission of an offense
Sec, 9, Arrest= how made, < An arrest is made %y an actual restraint of
a person to %e arrested+ or %y his su%mission to the custody of the
person ma2ing the arrest,
NoteD No violence or unnecessary 1orce s?all =e used in maCing an
arrest. T?e Aerson arrested s?all not =e su=Ject to a greater restraint
t?an is necessary 1or ?is detention.
7o0 is an arrest madeK
Arrest is made # an actual restraint of the person to #e arrested or # his
su#mission to the custod of the person making the arrest
Sec, ., 7uty of arresting officer, < It shall %e the duty of the officer
e$ecuting the warrant to arrest the accused and deliver him to the
nearest police station or 4ail without unnecessary delay,

Ahat does it mean when jurisprudence sas that the officer, in making the
arrest, must ?stand his ground@Q
1t means that the officer ma use such force as is reasona#l necessar to
effect the arrest
E?at is t?e duty o1 t?e arresting o11icer 0?o arrests a AersonK
Ce must deliver the person immediatel to the nearest jail or police station
Sec, /, E$ecution of warrant, < The head of the office to whom the
warrant of arrest was delivered for e$ecution shall cause the warrant
to %e e$ecuted within ten '&:( days from its receipt, 1ithin ten '&:(
days after the e$piration of the period+ the officer to whom it was
assigned for e$ecution shall ma2e a report to the 4udge who issued the
warrant, In case of his failure to e$ecute the warrant+ he shall state
the reason therefore,

Eit?in 0?at Aeriod must a 0arrant o1 arrest =e servedK
/here is no time period. A warrant of arrest is valid until the arrest is effected
or until it is lifted. /he head of the officer to whom the warrant was delivered
must cause it to #e e3ecuted within '( das from its receipt and the officer to
whom it is assigned for e3ecution must make a report to the judge who issued
it within '( das from the e3piration of the period. 1f he fails to e3ecute it, he
should state the reasons therefore
Sec, 0, Arrest without warrant= when lawful, < A peace officer or a
private person may+ without a warrant+ arrest a person:
'a( 1hen+ in his presence+ the person to %e arrested has committed+ is
actually committing+ or is attempting to commit an offense=
'%( 1hen an offense has 4ust %een committed and he has pro%a%le
cause to %elieve %ased on personal 2nowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to %e arrested has committed it= and
'c( 1hen the person to %e arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
from a penal esta%lishment or place where he is serving final
4udgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending+ or has
escaped while %eing transferred from one confinement to another,
In cases falling under paragraphs 'a( and '%( a%ove+ the person
arrested without a warrant shall %e forthwith delivered to the nearest
police station or 4ail and shall %e proceeded against in accordance with
section > of *ule &&9,
E?en is an arrest 0it?out 0arrant la01ulK
A peace officer or private person ma arrest without warrant5
'. when in his presence, the person to #e arrested has committed, is
actuall committing, or is a#out to commit an offense
). when an offense has just #een committed, and he has pro#a#le cause
#ased on personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the
person to #e arrested has committed it
F. when the person to #e arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal esta#lishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
temporaril confined while his case is pending or has escaped while
#eing transferred from one confinement to another
NoteD t?e A?rase GJust =een committedH is used to hinder the a#use of
law enforcers
$ersonal Jnowledge5
'. facts #ased on information
). facts #ased on &easona#le Drounds of %uspicion &ule
F. of the death of victim and facts indicating that accused was the
assailant
*ena *. *erga 5.

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
N$T%5
'. %ec G(a! I in flagrante delicto
Jnowledge must #e at the time of, not after, arrest
$ersonal knowledge is re6uired
). %ec G(#! I hot pursuit arrest
2lements
).' 4ffense have #een committed
).) 4ffense has just #een committed
).F $ro#a#le cause #ased on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that persons to #e arrested committed it
).F.' $ersonal knowledge of facts #ased on information allowed
).F.) $ersonal knowledge of facts #ased on reasona#le grounds of
suspicion rule is not the rule
Bu Bust operation
1t is a form of entrapment which has #een repeatedl accepted to #e a
valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. /he
violator is court in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting
the operation are not onl authori7ed #ut dut #ound to apprehend the
violator and to search him for anthing that ma have #een part of or
used in the commission of the crime
?o#jective test@ demands that the detail so the purported
transaction must clearl and ade6uatel shown5 the initial contact
#etween the poser:#uer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the
promise of pament of the consideration until the consummation of the
sale # the deliver of the illegal drug su#ject of the sale
#u:#ust must #e continuous
i. #u #ust operation and search rejected for =4/ #eing
continuous
Sec, 5, Time of ma2ing arrest, < An arrest may %e made on any day
and at any time of the day or night,
Sec, >, -ethod of arrest %y officer %y virtue of warrant,
< 1hen ma2ing an arrest %y virtue of a warrant+ the officer shall
inform the person to %e arrested of the cause of the arrest and the fact
that a warrant has %een issued for his arrest+ e$cept when he flees or
forci%ly resists %efore the officer has opportunity to so inform him+ or
when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest, The officer
need not have the warrant in his possession at the time of the arrest
%ut after the arrest+ if the person arrested so re)uires+ the warrant
shall %e shown to him as soon as practica%le,
Sec, 6, -ethod of arrest %y officer without warrant, < 1hen ma2ing an
arrest without a warrant+ the officer shall inform the person to %e
arrested of his authority and the cause of the arrest+ unless the latter
is either engaged in the commission of an offense+ is pursued
immediately after its commission+ has escaped+ flees+ or forci%ly
resists %efore the officer has opportunity to so inform him+ or when
the giving of such information will imperil the arrest,
&uty o1 t?e arresting o11icer to in1orm t?e accused o1D
t?e reason 1or t?e arrest and ?e must =e s?o0n t?e 0arrant o1
arrest8 i1 any
?is constitutional rig?ts to remain silent and to counsel8 and
any statement ?e mig?t maCe could =e used against ?im
rig?t to communicate 0it? ?is la0yer8 a relative or anyone ?e
c?ooses =y t?e most eBAedient means
arresting o11icer must see to it t?at t?is is accomAlis?ed.
No custodial investigation s?all =e conducted unless it =e in t?e
Aresence o1 counsel engaged =y t?e Aerson arrested or =y any
Aerson on ?is =e?al1 or aAAointed =y t?e court uAon Aetition
eit?er o1 t?e detainee ?imsel1 or =y anyone in ?is =e?al1
ig?t o1 counsel may =e 0aived =ut t?e 0aiver s?all N$T =e
valid unless made 0it? t?e assistance o1 counsel
A :54; adds
o T?e accused must =e in1ormed in a language ?e
understands
PeoAle vs. "a?inay L uAdating t?e "iranda case
'. %tating rights must #e made in a language known and understood #
accused
). &ight to #e assisted # a lawer
F. 1f indigent, a lawer will #e provided
.. &ight to remain silent
G. 1nformed that no custodial investigation in an manner ma #e
conducted without presence of accuseds counsel
-. At an time, he has the right to communicate or confer # the most
e3pedient means with his lawer, an immediate famil mem#er,
medical doctor, priest or minister chosen # him or # an one from
his immediate famil or # his counsel
*. &ight to waive rights; in writing, voluntar, knowingl and intelligentl
*ena *. *erga 5:

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
0. Aith the presence of counsel (this right was made effective on April
)-, ',0F!
,. "a indicate in an manner at an time or stage of the process that he
does not wish to #e 6uestioned I interrogation must cease
'(. Aaiver of right does not #ar accused from invoking it at an time
''. =ame if the arresting officer
'). Charge and reason for arrest
'F. 1nadmissi#le evidence
1t is onl the solicited confession that would #e inadmissi#le.
Aarrrantless searchLarrest are valid and admissi#le
Sec, ?, -ethod of arrest %y private person, < 1hen ma2ing an arrest+ a
private person shall inform the person to %e arrested of the intention
to arrest him and the case of the arrest+ unless the latter is either
engaged in the commission of an offense+ is pursued immediately after
its commission+ or has escaped+ flees+ or forci%ly resists %efore the
person ma2ing the arrest has opportunity to so inform him+ or when
the giving of such information will imperil the arrest,
Sec, &:, "fficer may summon assistance, < An officer ma2ing a lawful
arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to
assist him in effecting the arrest, Every person so summoned %y an
officer shall assist him in effecting the arrest when he can render such
assistance without detriment to himself,
Sec, &&, *ight of officer to %rea2 into %uilding or enclosure, < An
officer+ in order to ma2e an arrest either %y virtue of a warrant+ or
without a warrant as provided in section 0+ may %rea2 into any
%uilding or enclosure where the person to %e arrested is or is
reasona%ly %elieved to %e+ if he is refused admittance thereto+ after
announcing his authority and purpose,
Sec, &9, *ight to %rea2 out from %uilding or enclosure, < 1henever an
officer has entered the %uilding or enclosure in accordance with the
preceding section+ he may %rea2 out therefrom when necessary to
li%erate himself,
Sec, &., Arrest after escape or rescue, < If a person lawfully arrested
escapes or is rescued+ any person may immediately pursue or reta2e
him without a warrant at any time and in any place within the
Philippines,
Sec, &/, *ight of attorney or relative to visit person arrested, < Any
mem%er of the Philippine 8ar shall+ at the re)uest of the person
arrested or of another acting in his %ehalf+ have the right to visit and
confer privately with such person in the 4ail or any other place of
custody at any hour of the day or night, Su%4ect to reasona%le
regulations+ a relative of the person arrested can also e$ercise the
same right,
<92%/14=
A police officer was chasing a person who had just committed an offense. /he
person went inside a house, so the police officer followed. 1nside the house,
the police officer saw drugs ling around. Can he confiscate the drugsQ Can he
use them as evidenceQ
8es. /he plain view doctrine is applica#le in this case #ecause there was a prior
valid intrusion, the police officer inadvertentl discovered the evidence, he had
a right to #e there, and the evidence was immediatel apparent
Ahat if the officer merel peaks through the window of the house and sees the
drugs I can he confiscate thenX can he use them as evidenceQ
Ce can confiscate them without prejudice to his lia#ilit for violation of
domicile. Ce cannot use them as evidence #ecause the sei7ure cannot #e
justified under the plain view doctrine, there #eing no previous valid intrusion
E?en s?ould an arrest =e madeK
1t can #e made on an da at an time of the da and night
Can an officer arrest a person against whom a warrant has #een issued even if
he does not have the warrant with himQ
8es, #ut after the arrest, if the person arrested re6uires, it must #e shown to
him as soon as practica#le.
'#% 1,.
S%AC7 AN& S%!6'%
Section &, Search warrant defined, < A search warrant is an order in
writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines+ signed %y a
4udge and directed to a peace officer+ commanding him to search for
personal property descri%ed therein and %ring it %efore the court,
S%AC7 EAANT *S. EAANT $+ A%ST
S%AC7 EAANT EAANT $+ A%ST
*ena *. *erga 5;

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
/he applicant must show5
'. that the items sought are in fact
si7ea#le # virtue of #eing
connected with criminal activit;
and
). that the items will #e found in the
place to #e searched.
/he applicant must show5
'. pro#a#le cause that an offense has
#een committed; and
). that the person to #e arrested
committed it
/he judge must conduct a personal,
searching
e3amination of the applicant and his
witnesses
/he judge need not conduct a personal
e3amination of the applicant and his
witnesses. Ce ma rel on the affidavits
of the witnesses and the
recommendation of the prosecutor.
E?at is a searc? 0arrantK
1t is an order in writing issued in the name of the $eople of the $hilippines,
signed # a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search
for personal propert descri#ed therein and #ring it #efore the court.
E?y are t?e requirements 1or t?e issuance o1 a searc? 0arrant more
stringent t?an t?e
requirements 1or t?e issuance o1 a 0arrant o1 arrestK
/he violation of the right to privac produces a humiliating effect which cannot
#e rectified anmore. /his is wh there is no other justification for a search,
e3cept a warrant. 4n the other hand, in a warrant of arrest, the person to #e
arrested can alwas post #ail to prevent the deprivation of li#ert.
NoteD A searc? 0arrant requires strict comAliance 0it? t?e
Constitution
Sec, 9, Court where application for search warrant shall %e filed, < An
application for search warrant shall %e filed with the following:
'a( Any court within whose territorial 4urisdiction a crime was
committed,
'%( For compelling reasons stated in the application+ any court
within the 4udicial region where the crime was committed if the
place of the commission of the crime is 2nown+ or any court
within the 4udicial region where the warrant shall %e enforced,
;owever+ if the criminal action has already %een filed+ the
application shall only %e made in the court where the criminal
action is pending,
E?ere s?ould t?e aAAlication 1or searc? 0arrant =e 1iledK
As a general rule, it should #e filed with the court within whose territorial
jurisdiction the crime was committed. But for compelling reasons, it can #e
filed with the court within whose judicial region the offense was committed or
where the warrant is to #e served.
But, if the criminal action has alread #een filed, the application for a search
warrant can onl #e made in the court where the criminal action is pending.
Sec. 4. Personal property to %e sei3ed. L A searc? 0arrant may =e
issued 1or t?e searc? and seiMure o1 Aersonal AroAertyD
(a) Su=Ject o1 t?e o11enseN
(=) Stolen or em=eMMled and ot?er Aroceeds8 or 1ruits o1 t?e o11enseN or
(c) 'sed or intended to =e used as t?e means o1 committing an o11ense.
Su=Ject $1 A Searc? EarrantD Personal ProAerty8 E?ic? !s5
'. su#ject of the offense,
). stolen or em#e77led and other proceeds or fruits of the offense, or
F. used or intended to #e used as the means of committing an offense.
Sec, /, *e)uisites for issuing search warrant, < A search warrant shall
not issue e$cept upon pro%a%le cause in connection with one specific
offense to %e determined personally %y the 4udge after e$amination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witness he may
produce+ and particularly descri%ing the place to %e searched and the
things to %e sei3ed which may %e anywhere in the Philippines,
Sec, 0, E$amination of complainant= record, < The 4udge must+ %efore
issuing the warrant+ personally e$amine in the form of searching
)uestions and answers+ in writing and under oath+ the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce on facts personally 2nown to them and
attach to the record their sworn statements+ together with the
affidavits su%mitted,
equisites 1or issuing a searc? 0arrant
'. /here must #e pro#a#le cause
). Ahich must #e determined personall # the judge
F. upon personal e3amination in writing and under oath of the complainant and
his witnesses in the form of pro#ing and searching 6uestions and answers on
facts personall known to them
.. the pro#a#le cause must #e in connection with one specific offense
*ena *. *erga 5<

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
G. particularl descri#ing the place to #e searched and the items to #e sei7ed
-. the sworn statements together with the affidavits of the witnesses must #e
attached to the record.
E?en is t?e a11idavit or testimony o1 t?e 0itness said to =e =ased on
Aersonal Cno0ledgeK
/he test is whether perjur could #e charged against the witness.
!s it necessary t?at t?e Aerson named in t?e searc? 0arrant =e t?e
o0ner o1 t?e t?ings to =e seiMedK
=o. 4wnership is of no conse6uence. Ahat is relevant is that the propert is
connected to an offense.
E?at are t?e requisites o1 t?e Aersonal eBamination t?at t?e Judge
must conduct =e1ore issuing t?e searc? 0arrantK
/he judge must5
'. e3amine the witnesses personall;
). under oath;
F. and reduced to writing in the form of pro#ing and searching 6uestions and
answers.
E?at is t?e meaning o1 Aro=a=le causeK
$ro#a#le cause for a search is such facts and circumstances which could lead a
reasona#l discreet and prudent man to #elieve that an offense has #een
committed and that the o#jects sought in connection with the offense are in
the place sought to #e searched.
E?at is t?e meaning o1 Aersonal Cno0ledgeK
$ro#a#le cause must #e shown to #e within the personal knowledge of the
complainant or witnesses he ma produce and not #ased on mere heresa.
1hat is the meaning of pro%ing and searching )uestions and answers@
/he exa'ination 'ust be probing and exhaustive, not 'erely routinary or pro
for'a, not 'erely ans(erable by yes or no"
Can you issue t?e 0arrant =y claiming t?at t?e Ariest sa0 itK
=o. #ecause personal knowledge refers to personal knowledge of the applicant
for search warrant, andLor his witnesses, not of the facts merel reported # a
person whom one considers to #e relia#le.
the abode is sacred
1. once transgressed, cannot restore the transgressed right
2. violating rule on searches and sei6ures is actionable under the
3ivil 3ode because a 'an0s house is his castle
personal )no(ledge is re#uired so he can be liable for per!ury
there 'ust be a hearing to deter'ine probable cause
1. not 'erely 9es or -o ans(ers
2. cannot be base d 'erely on reliable infor'ation
search (arrant is severable, and those ite's not particularly described
'ay be cut off (ithout destroying the (hole (arrant
E?at is a Gscatter s?ot 0arrantHK
1t is a warrant of arrest that is issued for more than one offense. 1t is void,
since the law re6uires that a warrant
of arrest should onl #e issued in connection with one specific offense.
A 0arrant 0as issued 1or t?e seiMure o1 drugs connected 0it?
Gviolation o1 t?e &angerous &rugs #a0.H !s t?e 0arrant validK
/he warrant is valid. Although there are man was of violating the
Dangerous Drugs Law, it is not a scatter shot warrant since it is in
connection with onl one penal law.
Sec, 5, Issuance and form of search warrant, < If the 4udge is satisfied
of the e$istence of facts upon which the application is %ased or that
there is pro%a%le cause to %elieve that they e$ist+ he shall issue the
warrant+ which must %e su%stantially in the form prescri%ed %y these
*ules,
Sec, >, *ight to %rea2 door or window to effect search, < The officer+ if
refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice
of his purpose and authority+ may %rea2 open any outer or inner door
or window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to
e$ecute the warrant to li%erate himself or any person lawfully aiding
him when unlawfully detained therein,
Sec, 6, Search of house+ room+ or premises to %e made in presence of
two witnesses, < #o search of a house+ room+ or any other premises
shall %e made e$cept in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or
any mem%er of his family or in the a%sence of the latter+ two witnesses
of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality,
#ote: the 9 witnesses rule applies if there is no other occupant of the
home
*ena *. *erga .0

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
Sec, ?, Time of ma2ing search, < The warrant must direct that it %e
served in the day time+ unless the affidavit asserts that the property is
on the person or in the place ordered to %e searched+ in which case a
direction may %e inserted that it %e served at any time of the day or
night,
3eneral ule5 time of making the search is at the da time
%BceAtions5
1. if there are emergencies
2. propert is on the person or place to #e searched
Sec, &:, Aalidity of search warrant, < A search warrant shall %e valid
for ten '&:( days from its date, Thereafter+ it shall %e void,
NoteD unliCe a 0arrant o1 arrest8 0?ic? is valid until served =ut t?e
o11icer must maCe a reAort a1ter 10 days
Sec, &&, *eceipt for the property sei3ed, < The officer sei3ing the
property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to
the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and
sei3ure were made+ or in the a%sence of such occupant+ must+ in the
presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion
residing in the same locality+ leave a receipt in the place in which he
found the sei3ed property,
1. inventory must =e signed =y , 0itnesses
2. a Aeace o11icer cannot asC t?e accused to sign i1 t?ere are
no , 0itnesses =ecause t?at 0ould violate t?e rig?t against
sel1-incrimination
Sec, &9, 7elivery of property and inventory thereof to court= return and
proceedings thereon, < 'a( The officer must forthwith deliver the
property sei3ed to the 4udge who issued the warrant+ together with a
true inventory thereof duly verified under oath,
'%( Ten '&:( days after issuance of the search warrant+ the issuing
4udge shall ascertain if the return has %een made+ and if none+ shall
summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and re)uire him
to e$plain why no return was made, If the return has %een made+ the
4udge shall ascertain whether section && of this *ule has %een
complied with and shall re)uire that the property sei3ed %e delivered to
him, The 4udge shall see to it that su%section 'a( hereof has %een
complied with,
'c( The return on the search warrant shall %e filed and 2ept %y the
custodian of the log %oo2 on search warrants who shall enter therein
the date of the return+ the result+ and other actions of the 4udge,
A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court,
1. propert will #e in custodia legis
2. items in the search warrant will #e the onl items to #e sei7ed
e3cept5 if malum prohi#itum
3. particular description of5 to avoid a#uses
place to #e searched
things to #e sei7ed
4. if theres an error in the warrant, the should go to the court
to have it corrected
5. Anthing not included in the warrant cannot #e sei7ed 2HC2$/
if it is mala prohi#ita, in which case, the sei7ure can #e justified under
the plain view doctrine. 2ven if the o#ject was related to the crime,
#ut it is not mentioned in the warrant nor is it mala prohi#ita, it still
cannot #e sei7ed.
6. Aerson need not =e namedN may =e named 2o?n &oe as
long as descri=ed 0it? Aarticularity or 0it? descriAtio Aersonae
)'%ST!$NS
E?at s?ould t?e Aolice o11icer or court do to t?ings seiMed illegallyK
Anthing sei7ed illegall must #e returned to the owner unless it is mala
prohi#ita. 1n this case, it should #e kept in custodia legis.
E?en s?ould t?e searc? 0arrant =e eBecutedK
1f possi#le, it should #e e3ecuted during the datime. But in certain cases, such
as when the things to #e sei7ed are mo#ile or are in the person of the accused,
it can #e served during nighttime.
+or ?o0 long is t?e searc? 0arrant validK
1t is valid for '( das, after which the peace officer should make a return to
the judge who issued it. 1f the peace officer does not make a return, the judge
should summon him and re6uire him to e3plain wh no return was made. 1f the
return was made, the judge should determine if the peace officer issued a
receipt to the occupant of the premises from which the things were taken.
sei7ed.
*ena *. *erga .1

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
!1 t?e 0arrant 0as eBecuted even =e1ore t?e eBAiration o1 t?e ten-day
Aeriod8 can t?e Aeace o11icer use t?e 0arrant again =e1ore it eBAiresK
=o. 1f the purpose for which it was issued has alread #een carried out, the
warrant cannot #e used anmore.
/he e3ception is if the search was not finished within one da, the warrant can
still #e used the ne3t da, provided that it is still within the '(:da period.
Sec, &., Search incident to lawful arrest, < A person lawfully
arrested may %e searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may have %een used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense without a search warrant,
;arrantless earches and ei6ures.
<" incidental to la(ful arrest
search 'ust be conte'poraneous and (ithin i''ediate
vicinity=control of the person arrested
>" consented search
conditions.
a" right exists
b" person 'a)ing the consent )no(s that he has the right
c" in spite of )no(ledge of the right, he voluntarily and
intelligently gives consent
?" search of 'oving vehicles
search 'ust be cursory i"e", don0t 'a)e a thorough search7
!ust to have a loo) not to open trun)s
@" custo's
5" chec)points
A" RA re#uiring inspections or body chec)s in airports
7" stop8and8fris)
B" e'ergency
9" enforce'ent of health and sanitary la(s or ordinances
%lain 5ie( 4octrine
1. valid intrusion
2. ite' 'ust be visible C seen (ithout any further search7 e"g" in
a transparent bag
3. inadvertent discovery
e"g" police chasing a person, sees a box, ta)es a pea) and sees drugs
can #e sei7ed #ecause malum prohi#itum #ut cannot
#e introduced as evidence #ecause not in plain view
if detected through smell, not case of plain view #ut
pro#a#le cause (decided case!
if detected # canines : as if police themselves have
smelled it
if police chases a person, accidentall hits a jar,
where drugs pour out I not plain view
if mall I private place, ou waive our right against
unreasona#le searches and sei7ures
Sec, &/, -otion to )uash a search warrant or to suppress evidence=
where to file, < A motion to )uash a search warrant andBor to suppress
evidence o%tained there%y may %e filed in and acted upon only %y the
court where the action has %een instituted, If no criminal action has
%een instituted+ the motion may %e filed in and resolved %y the court
that issued search warrant, ;owever+ if such court failed to resolve the
motion and a criminal case is su%se)uently filed in another court+ the
motion shall %e resolved %y the latter court,
!. S'""A(
'. /he Constitution does not prohi#it all kinds of searches and sei7ures. 1t
onl prohi#its unreasona#le searches and sei7ures.
). A search and sei7ure is unreasona#le if it is made without a warrant,
or the warrant was invalidl issued.
F. A search and sei7ure without a warrant is still reasona#le if conducted
under the following circumstances5
a. 1ncident to a lawful arrest
i. 1t must #e made AB/2& the arrest. /he o#jective is to
make sure that the life of the peace officer will not #e
endangered.
ii. 1t must #e contemporaneous with the arrest in #oth
time and place.
#. %earch of moving vehicles
c. Consent searches
i. 4nl the person whose right ma #e violated can give
the consent; it is a personal right.
ii. /he re6uisites are5
'. /he person has knowledge of his right against
the search;
). Ce freel gives his consent in spite of such
knowledge.
d. 4#jects in plain view
*ena *. *erga .,

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
i. &e6uisites5
'. /here must have #een a prior valid intrusion,
and the officer must have had a right to #e at
the place searched at the time of the search;
). /he evidence was inadvertentl discovered;
F. /he evidence must #e immediatel apparent;
.. /here was no need for further search.
e. Customs searches
f. %top and BriskL 23igent circumstances
g. 2mergenc
CAS%SD
P%$P#% *S. $AN!S AN& 3A#ANTA
:5 P?il. ,5. ,, 2uly 1<54
Bacts5 Captain "onsod, Consta#ular $rovincial 1nspector at Ca#anatuan
received from "aor Duido a telegram stating that a certain Anselmo Balagtas,
an escaped convict, was living with a ertain 1rene in Ca#antauan. "onsod
immediatel ordered the arrest of Balagtas, dead or alive, should he offer
resistance or aggression. /he accused Chief of $olice 4anis and the
consta#ular soldier Dalanta were sent out to arrest Balagtas. /he accused
arrived at the house of 1rene who was supposedl the paramour of Balagtas.
Ahen the were there, the saw a certain person who resem#led Balagtas in
all his #odil appearance sleeping on a #am#oo #ed #ut facing the other
direction. /he accused, without going around the house, started firing at the
man. /he found out later on that the man was not reall Balagtas. /he
tried to invoke the justifing circumstance of having acted in fulfillment of a
dut.
1n support of their theor of non:lia#ilit # reason of honest mistake of fact,
the two relied on the case of 9.%. vs. Ah Chong were a cook accidentall
wounded a friend who was plaing a trick on the latter.
1ssue5 AL= the two accused should #e held lia#le.
Decision5 8es. Although an officer in making a lawful arrest is justified in
using such force as is reasona#le necessar to secure and detain the offender,
overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes, and
protect himself from #odil harm, et he is never justified in using unnecessar
force or in treating him with wanton violence or in resorting to dangerous
means when the arrest could #e affected otherwise. =o unnecessar or
unreasona#le force shall #e used in making an arrest, and the person arrested
shall not #e su#ject to an greater restraint than is necessar for his detention.
A peace officer cannot claim e3emption from criminal lia#ilit if he uses
unnecessar force or violence in making an arrest. Although it is true that
Anselmo is a notorious criminal, #ut such does not constitute an justification
for killing the man when in effecting his arrest, he offers no resistance or in
fact asleep.
3A#AN3 vs. CA
4,5 SCA 14< (,000)
Bacts5 /he victim, Carlos 4ro, coming from his #irthda cele#ration, went
home drunk. At around 05(( in the evening, he figured in an altercation with
one +ojo "arcelo. /he altercation reached the appellant who together with a
policeman proceeded to the place. 9pon seeing Carlos, appellant drew his gun
and pointed it at the victim. /he victim said that he will not fight #ack.
/hereafter, appellant gra# the right arm of Carlos and forced him to kneel on
the ground with his right hand #ehind his #ack still #eing held # the appellant.
1t was in that position that appellant pumped ) #ullets into Carlos which
caused his death.
Appellant claims self defense.
1ssue5 AL= the appellant should #e held guilt as charged.
Decision5 Denerall, the #urden lies upon the prosecution to Orove the guilt of
the accused. Cowever, if the accused admits killing the victim and pleads self:
defense, the #urden of evidence is shifted to him to prove such claim. Dalang
was unsuccessful in proving his claim #ecause the phsical evidence supports
otherwise.
Dranting form the sale of argument that unlawful aggression was attendant at
the initial stage, the same ceased when Carlos dropped his gun. /he threat to
appellants life is no longer attendant.
9nlawful aggression is a condition sine8#ua non for the justifing circumstance
of self:defense. /here can #e no self:defense complete or incomplete unless
the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the person defending
himself.
$olicemen are #ound # their dut to protect life, li#ert and propert. As their
position gives them great deal of advantage. A police officer is not justified in
using unnecessar force in enforcing arrest or in treating with wanton violence
*ena *. *erga .4

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
the arrested person or in resorting to dangerous means when the arrest could
#e affect otherwise.
'N!T%& STAT%S *S. "$2!CA
.) %C&A *0. (',))!
Bacts5 Artemio "ojica is a policeman in the cit of "anila. 4n the evening of
Decem#er 'F ',)(, a consta#ular soldier and a woman were arrested inside
the Aalled Cit # the police, which caused considera#le irritation among
consta#ular troops stationed at %anta Lucia Barracks. /he consta#ular
soldiers, Armed with rifles and #aonet, convinced that "ojica was with the
men who arrested their fellow soldier, threatened the appellant with death if he
will not produce the arrested soldier and woman. /he arrival of the patrol
wagon saved "ojica. /he following da, the consta#ular men returned.
"ojica, after calling for reinforcement, ran into a restaurant to avoid altercation
with the soldiers. Ahen the reinforcement arrived. Ce re:appeared. Cowever,
the victim and his two other companions resisted arrest. /he deceased
"acasinag struck the appellant with his clu#. Ahen he was a#out to sta#
"ojica, the latter drew a shot inflicting a wound from which "acasinag died a
few das later.
/he appellant contends that it was self defense.
1ssue5 AL= the appellant should #e held lia#le for the death of "acasinag.
Decision5 =o. /he appellant killed the victim in self:defense. /he revised
penal code provides that anone who acts in self:defense of his person shall #e
e3empt from criminal lia#ilit. $rovided that the following circumstances
concur5
'. 9nlawful aggression
). &easona#le necessit for the means emploed to prevent or repel it.
F. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.
/here was unlawful aggression on "acasinags part. A police officer, in the
performance of his dut, must %/A=D C1% D&49=D and cannot, like private
individual, take refuge in flight; his dut re6uires him to overcome his
opponent. 1t was the deceased who attacked the appellant. Ce had the #est
reason to #elieve that his life was in imminent danger.
1t ma #e argued that the appellant should have used his clu# instead #ut a
policemans clu# is not ver effective weapon against a drawn knife and a
police officer is not re6uired to afford a person attacking him the opportunit
for a fair an e6ual struggle.
'"!# vs. A"$S
D.&. =o. 0'G-* (, +ul ',,(
Bacts5 /hese are eight (0! petitions for ha#eas corpus filed #efore the Court.
1n 9mil v. &amos, the CA$C4" received information a#out a mem#er of the
=$A %parrow 9nit #eing treated for gunshot would at the %t. Agnes Cospital.
9pon verification, it was found out that the wounded person is &olando Dural,
a mem#er of the =$A li6uidation %6uad, responsi#le for the killing of ) capcom
soldiers the da #efore. As such Dural was transferred to the &egional "edical
%ervices of the CA$C4", where he was positivel identified # eewitnesses as
the gunman who killed the ) Capcom soldiers. /he arrest without warrant was
assailed in that Dural was not arrested while in the act of shooting, nor just
after the commission of the offense. Dural was arrested for #eing a mem#er of
the =$A, an outlawed su#versive organi7ation. %u#version #eing a continuing
offense, the arrest of Dural without warrant is justified as it can #e said that he
was committing an offense when arrested.
1n &o6ue v. De villa, &ogelio &amos 1#anes, a mem#er of the =$A who had
surrendered, confessed that the house occupied # &enato Constantino was
#eing used as a safehouse of =ational 9nited Bront Commission of the C$$:
=$A, as such the house was put on militar surveillance and a su#se6uent
search warrant was issued. Birearms, ammunition, radio and other
communication e6uipment were sei7ed. Constantino then admitted that he
was a staff mem#er of the e3ecutive committed of the =9BC. 4n the evening
of the same da, Ailfredo Buenao#ra arrived at the house of Constantino.
Ahen accosted, he admitted that he is a regular mem#er of the C$$:=$A and
was to deliver letters to the other mem#ers of the group. Bound in
Buenao#ras possession was a piece of paper containing a jum#led phone
num#er of Blorida &o6ue, %ister of Amelia &o6ue alias Ja =elia, at -,
Deronimo %t, Caloocan. Acting on the leads provided as to the wherea#outs of
Amelia &o6ue, militar agents went to the place the ne3t da. After seeking
permission to search the place, which was granted, the conducted a search in
the presence of the occupants of the house and the #rg. Capt. 4f the place.
/he found ledgers, journals, vouchers, su#versive documents, as well as live
ammunitions. Amelia admitted ownership of the articles. /heir arrests without
warrants were justified in that as mem#ers of the =9BC:C$$, the committed
su#version, which #eing a continuing offense, the were arrested while
committing an offense.
1n Anonuevo >. &amos, Domingo Anonuevo and &amon Casiple arrived of the
house of &enato Constantino, which was still under surveillance # the militar.
/he militar agents noticed #ulging o#jects on their waist lines. Ahen frisked,
the agent found them to #e loaded guns, for which the two did not possess
license to carr. /he were later identified as Ja /ed and Ja /oto of the C$$,
# their comrades who had alread surrendered to the militar. /heir arrest
*ena *. *erga .5

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
without warrant is also justified #ecause the were carring unlicensed
firearms and ammunitions in their person wh the were apprehended.
1n 4caa >, Aguirre, police officers, armed with a search warrant were
searching a house #elieved to #e occupied # Benito /iamson, head of the C$$:
=$A. 1n the course of the search, >ick 4caa arrived in a car driven # Dann
&ivera. %u#versive documents and several rounds of ammunition were found
in the car of 4caa and so the were #rought to the police head6uarters. >ick
4caa was arrested in flagrante delicto so that her arrest without warrant is
justified, since she had with her unlicensed ammunition when arrested.
1n 2spiritu v. Lim, $etitioner, who is the Deneral %ecretar of the
$inagkaisahang %amahan ng /super at 4perators nationwide, claims that at
a#out G am of )F =ov. ',,0, while he was sleeping in his home, he was
awakened # his sister who told him that a group of persons wanted to hire his
jeepne. Ahen he went down, he was immediatel put under arrest. Ahen he
asked for the warrant, none was presented. /he respondents claim that the
petitioner was lawfull arrested without a warrant since when arrested he had
in fact just committed a crime in that in the afternoon of )) =ov, ',,0, during
a press conference at the =ational $ress clu# he urged drivers and operators to
go on a nationwide strike, which is tantamount to inciting to sedition.
$olicemen waited for petitioner outside the =ational $ress Clu# in order to
investigate him, #ut he gave them the slip. $olice finall caught up with him
on )F =ovem#er and thus, he was invited after which an information was filed
against him.
1n =a7areno v. %tation Commander, in the morning of Decem#er .,
',00, &omulo Bune 11 was killed # a group of men near "endiola. 4ne of
the suspects was &amil &egala who was arrested # the police on )0 Decem#er
',00. 9pon 6uestioning, &2gala pointed to =a7areno as one of his companion.
As such, police officers, without warrant, picked up =a7areno and #rought him
to the police head6uarters. As held in $eople v. Ancheta, the o#ligation of an
agent of authorit to make an arrest # reason of a crime, does not
presuppose as a necessar re6uisite for the fulfillment thereof, the indu#ita#le
e3istence of a crime. Bor the detention to #e perfectl legal, it is sufficient that
the agent making the arrest has reasona#l sufficient grounds to #elieve the
e3istence of an act having the characteristics of a crime and that the same
grounds e3ist to #elieve that the person sought to #e detained participated
therein.
1ssue5 AL= the arrest without warrant is legal.
Decision5 8es. 1n all these petitions, the record shows that the persons in
whose #ehalf these petitions for ha#eas corpus have #een filed, had freshl
committed or were actuall committing an offense when apprehended so that
their arrest without a warrant were clearl justified.
'"!# vs. A"$S
"4/14= B4& &2C4=%1D2&A/14= (F 4cto#er ',,'
+actsD T?e Aetitioners seeC a reconsideration o1 t?e courtIs decision
uA?olding t?e validity o1 t?e 0arrantless arrest o1 t?e susAected NPA
mem=ers.
Decision5 /he court stressed that mere suspicion that one is a =$A mem#er is
not a valid ground for the arrest without warrant. Cowever, the court found no
merit to the motion for reconsideration. 1t was stressed that the writ of ha#eas
corpus #eing applied for # the petitioners e3ists as a speed and effective
remed to relieve the persons from unlawful restraint. Cowever, there is no
unlawful arrest in this case. Again, as a general rule, no peace officer has the
power or authorit to arrest anone without a warrant of arrest e3cept in those
cases e3pressl authori7e # law specificall # %ection G &ule ''F of the &ules
of court which provide that5
A peace officer or a private person ma without a warrant, arrest a person5
(a! Ahen, in his presence, the person to #e arrested has committed, is actuall
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(#! Ahen an offense has in fact just #een committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to #e arrested has committed it.
1n the case of &olando Dural, Dural was committing an offense when arrested
#ecause he was arrested for #eing a mem#er of a new peoples arm, an
outlawed organi7ation, where mem#ership is penali7ed and for su#version,
which like re#ellion is a continuing offense. Dural did not cease to #e a
su#versive simpl #ecause he was at the time of the arrest confined in %t.
Agnes. =or can it #e said that Durals arrest was grounded on mere suspicion
# the arresting officers of his mem#ership in the C$$:=$A. Cis arrest was
#ased on a pro#a#le cause as supported # actual facts. Durals arrest falls
under paragraph B of &ule which re6uires ) conditions for valid arrest without
warrant5 '! that the person to #e arrested has just committed an offense and
)! that the arresting peace officer or private person has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to #e arrested is the one who committed the
offense. /he grounds of suspicion are reasona#le when, in the a#sence of
actual #elief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to #e
arrested is pro#a#l guilt of committing the offense, is #ased on actual facts
such as in this case5 '! the da #efore, or on F' +anuar ',00, two ()!
CA$C4" soldiers were actuall killed # five (G! TsparrowsT including Dural, )!
a wounded person listed in the hospital records as T&onnie +avellonT was
actuall then #eing treated in %t. Agnes Cospital for a gunshot wound and F!
T&onnie +avellonT and his address entered in the hospital records were fictitious
*ena *. *erga .5

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
and the wounded man was in realit &olando Dural.. /hese re6uisites were
complied with in the 9"1L case.
As to the condition that Tpro#a#le causeT must also #e coupled with acts done
in good faith # the officers who make the arrest, the Court notes that the
peace officers who arrested Dural are deemed to have conducted the same in
good faith, considering that law enforcers are presumed to regularl perform
their official duties. Dural was also promptl placed under the judicial custod.
1n the case of Amelia &o6ue and Ailfredo Buenao#ra, Domingo Anonuevo and
&amon Casiple and >ick 4caa their arrests, without warrant, are also
justified. /he were searched pursuant to search warrants issued # a court of
law and were found with unlicensed firearms, e3plosives andLor ammunition in
their persons. /he were, therefore, caught inflagrante delicto which justified
their outright arrests without warrant, under %ec. G(a!, &ule ''F, &ules of
Court.
1t is to #e noted in the a#ove cases (&o6ue, Buenao#ra, Anonuevo, Casiple and
4caa! that the reason which compelled the militar agents to make the
arrests without warrant was the information given to the militar authorities
that two ()! safehouses (one occupied # &enato Constantino and the other #
Benito /iarn7on! were #eing used # the C$$L=$A for their operations, with
information as to their e3act location mid the names of &enato Constantino and
Benito /iam7on as residents. Also, there were several circumstances which
confirmed the #elief of the militar agents5 first5 search warrant was dul
issued to effect the search of the Constantino safehouse; second5 found in the
safehouse was a person named &enato Constantino, who admitted that he was
a ranking mem#er of the C$$, and found in his possession were unlicensed
firearms and communications e6uipment; third5 at the time of their arrests, in
their possession were unlicensed firearms, ammunitions andLor su#versive
documents, and the admitted ownership thereof as well as their mem#ership
in the C$$L=$A. And then, shortl after their arrests, the were positivel
identified # their former comrades in the organi7ation as C$$L=$A mem#ers.
An arrest is therefore in the nature of an administrative measure. /he power to
arrest without warrant is without limitation as long as the re6uirements of
%ection G, &ule ''F are met. /his rule is founded on an overwhelming pu#lic
interest in peace and order in our communities.
As in the case of =a7areno, the court held that the arrests of 2spiritu and
=a7areno were #ased on pro#a#le cause and supported # factual
circumstances.
$etition was denied.
"A#ACAT vs. CA
D.&. =o ')FG,G ') Decem#er ',,*
&$CT!N%D /here can #e no valid flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest
preceding the search in light of the lack of personal knowledge on the part of
the police officer that a crime had just #een committed, was #eing committed
or was going to #e committed.
/he search was neither within the allowa#le scope of a stop of frisk for such is
limited to protective search of outer clothing for weapons. Ahile in a stop and
frisk, pro#a#le cause is not re6uired, it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion
or hunch will not validate a stop and frisk. A genuine reason must e3ist in light
of the police officers e3perience and surrounding conditions.
Bacts5 $etitioner %amm "alacat $andar was charged with violating %ection
F of $D =o. '0-- which codified laws on illegalLunlawful ac6uisition and
disposition of ammunition and e3plosives. During the trial on the merits, the
prosecution presented police officers as witnesses. &odolfo 8u, the arresting
officer and +osefino %erapio, the investigating officer testified that on )*
August ',,( at a#out -5F( $", in response to #om# threats reported seven
das earlier, he was on foot patrol wit three other police officers, all in uniform,
along <ue7on Boulevard, in <uiapo near the "ercur Drug store in $la7a
"iranda. /he chanced upon two groups of "uslim looking men posted at
opposite sides of the corner of <ue7on Boulevard. 1t was said that the men
were acting suspiciousl with their ees moving ver fast. 8u positioned
themselves and o#served #oth groups for a#out thirt minutes. Ahen the
police approached one group, the all ran in different directions. As policemen
gave chase, 8u caught and apprehended the petitioner. 8u found
fragmentation grenade tucked inside petitioners ?front waist line@. 8us
companion apprehended one A#dul Casan from whom a cali#er revolver was
recovered. 8u added that he conducted the foot patrol due to a report that a
group of "uslims was going to e3plode a grenade somewhere in $la7a "iranda.
8u also recogni7ed the petitioner as the previous %aturda, )G August ',,(,
likewise in $la7a "iranda, he sa petitioner and two others detonate a grenade.
/he attempt was a#orted when 8u and other policemen chased petition and his
companions. Ce also admitted that petitioner and Casan were merel standing
on the corner of <ue7on Blvd. Ahen he saw them on )* August.
1t was the contention of them petitioner that he merel went to $la7a "iranda
to catch a #reath of fresh air when policemen arrived and ordered all males to
stand aside. /he police searched petitioner and two other men #ut found
nothing in their possession.
/rial court ruled that the warrantless search was akin to a stop and frisk where
a warrant and sei7ure can #e made without necessaril #eing preceded # an
*ena *. *erga ..

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
arrest and whose purpose is either to maintain status 6uo while police seeks to
o#tain more information.
1ssue5 AL= there was a valid search.
Decision5 =4. /here are serious dou#ts surrounding the stor of the police
officer. Bor one, the grenade that was supposedl found in "alacats
possession was not identified in court. %econd, if indeed the petitioner had a
grenade with him and that two das earlier he was in a group a#out to
detonate an e3plosive at $la7a "iranda, and 8u and fellow officers chased #ut
failed to arrest them, then considering that 8u and his companions were in
uniform, and therefore easil cogni7a#le as police officers, it was unnatural
that petitioner simpl stood there in pro3imit to the police officers.
/he search was invalid. %ection G, &ule ''F of the &ules of Court provides that
arrest without warrant is lawful if a police officer or private person, arrest a
person5
(a! when in his presence, the person to #e arrested has committed, is
actuall committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (in
flagrante delicto!
(#! when an offense has in fact just #een committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to #e arrested has
committed it (hot pursuit arrest!
(c! when the person to #e arrested is a prisoner who has escaped.
>alid warrantless searches are limited to5 '! customs searches; )! search of
moving vehicles; F! sei7ure of evidence in plain view5 .! consent searches; G!
a search incidental to a lawful arrest and -! stop and frisk. /he trial court
validated the warrantless search as a stop and frisk. 1t was noted that the trial
court confused the concept of stop and frisk and of a search incidental to a
lawful arrest. 1n the latter, a precedent arrest determines the validit of the
incidental search. 1n this instance, the law re6uires that there must first #e a
lawful arrest #efore search can #e made.
1n the present case, there can #e no valid flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest
preceding the search in light of the lack of personal knowledge on the part of
8u that a crime had just #een committed, was #eing committed or was going
to #e committed.
/he search was neither within the allowa#le scope of a stop of frisk for such is
limited to protective search of outer clothing for weapons. Ahile in a stop and
frisk, pro#a#le cause is not re6uired, it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion
or hunch will not validate a stop and frisk. A genuine reason must e3ist in light
of the police officers e3perience and surrounding conditions.
1n the case at #ar, stop and frisk was invalid for5 '! there are dou#ts as to 8us
claim that the petitioner was mem#er of the group which attempted to #om#
pla7a "iranda, )! there was nothing in petitioners #ehavior or conduct which
could have reasona#le elicited even mere suspicion other than that his ees
were moving fast which is hardl recogni7a#le considering that it was alread
-5F($", and F! there were no #ulges to even indicate the hidden weapon
inside the front waistline.
/he challenged decision was set aside.
P%$P#% vs. "%N3$T%
3.. No. ;:05< ,, 2une 1<<,
Bacts5 &ogelio "engote was convicted of illegal possession of firearms on the
strength mainl of the stolen pistol found on his person at the moment of his
warrantless search. 4n August 0, ',0*, the western police district received a
call from an informer that there were two suspicious looking persons at the
corner of +uan Luna and =orth Ba Boulevard in /ondo. A surveillance team of
plainclothesmen was then dispatched. /he officers o#served two men looking
from side to side, one of whom was holding his a#domen. /he police
approached them and identified themselves, the two men tried to run awa #ut
to no avail. /he were then searched and on "engote a .F0 cali#er %mith and
Aesson revolver with - live #ullets was found. /he were turned over to the
police head6uarters. 1t was found that the gun was owned # a certain
&igo#erto Danganan who identified the gun as among the articles stolen from
him during the ro##er of his house in "ala#on. Accused assails the
admissi#ilit of the revolver in evidence #ecause of its warrantless sei7ure.
%olicitor Deneral contends that "engotes acts created a reasona#le suspicion
on the part of the arresting officers and induced in them the #elief that an
offense had #een committed.
1ssue5 AL= the search and sei7ure as well as the arrest was lawful.
Decision5 /he re6uirements for a warrantless arrest were not satisfied in this
instance. At the time of the arrest, "engote was merel looking from side to
side and holding his a#domen. /here was apparentl no offense that had just
#een committed or was #eing actuall committed or at least #eing attempted
# "engote in their presence for what offense could have #een committed #
such unsinister acts. "engote was arrested at ''5F( A" and in a crowded
street shortl after alighting from a passenger jeep with his companion. Ce
was not skulking in the shadows nor was an clandestine a#out his #eing on
the street at that #us hour. "oreover,
1n the recent case of $eople vs. "almstedt, the Court sustained the warrantless
arrest of the accused #ecause there was a #ulge in his waist that e3cited the
*ena *. *erga .:

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
suspicion of the arresting officer and, upon inspection, turned out to #e a
pouch containing hashish. /his case is different #ecause there was nothing to
support the arresting officersR suspicions other than "engoteRs darting ees
and his hand on his a#domen. B no stretch of the imagination could it have
#een inferred from these acts that an offense had just #een committed, or was
actuall #eing committed, or was at least #eing attempted in their presence.
$ar. G(#! is no less applica#le #ecause its no less stringent re6uirements have
also not #een satisfied. /he prosecution has not shown that at the time of
"engoteRs arrest an offense had in fact just #een committed and that the
arresting officers had personal knowledge of facts indicating that "engote had
committed it. All the had was hearsa information from the telephone caller,
and a#out a crime that had et to #e committed. /he arresting officers had no
personal knowledge of facts indicating that "engote had committed an offense.
All the had was hearsa information from the phone caller. As the arrest was
illegal, the search incidental to it is likewise illegal and the item sei7ed is not
admissi#le in evidence.
As for the illegal possession of the firearm found on "engoteRs person, the
policemen discovered this onl after he had #een searched and the
investigation conducted later revealed that he was not its owners nor was he
licensed to possess it. As in the case of Burgos, it was reiterated that the
officer making the arrest must have personal knowledge of the ground
therefore. %uch personal knowledge is lacing in the case at #ar.
/he arrest and the search #eing unlawful, the pistol cannot #e admitted as
evidence.
Decision was reversed.
P%$P#% vs. 9'3$S
'.. %C&A ' (',0-!
&$CT!N%D Arrest 0it?out 0arrant is la01ul 0?en Aersons 0?o ?ave
committed8 are actually committing8 or attemAting to commit an
o11ense in Aresence o1 arresting o11icer. !n suc? cases8 t?ere can =e no
illegal detention. ule allo0ing arrest 0it?out 0arrant is strictly
construed. $n t?e ot?er ?and8 t?e usual cause o1 ar=itrary detention is
arrest 0it?out 0arrant.
Bacts5 &u#en Burgos appeals to the court to reverse the ruling of the Lower
court finding him guilt of illegal possession of firearms. 2vidence shows that
# virtue of intelligent information o#tained # the consta#ular stationed in
Digos Davao, Burgos was arrested and his house searched without warrant for
#eing an =$A mem#er and committing su#versive acts.
1ssue5 AL= the arrest and the search were valid.
Decision5 =o. /he trial court justified the warrantless arrest saing that at the
time of the arrest, the accused is committing a crime and therefore, the search
was also valid as #eing incidental to a lawful arrest. Cowever, the %upreme
Court held that the police had no personal knowledge of the fact that indeed
Burgos was committing a crime when he was arrested. Ahatever knowledge
the possessed was merel furnished # the informant. At the time of the
appellants arrest, he was plowing his field and was not even in possession of
an forearm or su#versive document. /here is also no compelling reason for
the police not to appl for a warrant of arrest or a search warrant. 9nder
%ection -(a( of &ule ''), the officer arresting a person who ahs just
committed, is committing or is a#out to commit an offense must have personal
knowledge of that fact. /he offense must also #e committed in his presence or
within his view. Considering that the firearm and the su#versive documents
were found in violation of the right of Burgos, the cannot #e admitted in
court. Conviction of the lower court was reversed.
P%$P#% vs. A"!NN'&!N
1.4 SCA 50, (1<;;)
Bacts5 Accused appellant claims that his #usiness was selling watches. Ce was
arrested on +une )G, ',0. shortl after disem#arking from "> Ailcon ,.
Based on the testimon of the police, the received a relia#le tip two das
#efore of a drug operation allegedl headed # the accused. Ce was alread
identified # name and the police knew e3actl the date of his arrival. Ahen
Aminnudin descended from the plank, he was immediatel arrested after an
informer had pointed to him. Cis #ag was found to contain three kilos of
marijuana leaves.
1ssue5 AL= the arrest was valid.
Decision5 =o. /here was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued # a
judge after personal determination # him of the e3istence of pro#a#le cause.
Contrar to the contention of the government, the appellant was not caught in
flagrante delicto nor was a crime a#out o #e committed or had just #een
committed to justif the warrantless search under &ule ''F of the &ules of
Court. /here was e3pedience to support the authorities contention. /he had
at least ) das to procure the warrant. /he authorities knew e3actl the name
of the accused and the date of his arrival thus it would have #een eas for
them to persuade the judge that pro#a#le cause e3isted. 8et the did nothing.
/he present case cannot #e categori7ed as a #u #ust operation either since
the culprit was not caught red handed. /he accused was not committing an
*ena *. *erga .;

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
crime when he was arrested. 1t was the authorities that determined pro#a#le
cause in this case and not the judge. "ere information or tip is not enough.
Accused was ac6uitted.
P%$P#% vs. ('"AN3
,,, SCA 11< (1<<4)
Bacts5 4n Be#ruar )G, ',,(, an informer reported to Jalookan $olice that
accused appellant Dil#erto 8umang was selling marijuana along Buklod ng
=aon st. in Jalookan. /he immediatel planned a #u #ust operation. Ahen
the team headed to the place, Darcia, approached 8uman and asked to #u
marijuana cigarettes. 8uman handed him three sticks and unfolded them
e3posing the marijuana leaves inside. Darcia immediatel arrested 8umang.
/he three sticks were marked # Darcia with his initials and su#mitted for
e3amination.
1ssue5 AL= there was a valid search.
Decision5 A #u #ust operation is a form of entrapment emploed # peace
officers to catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto. /he idea to commit the
crime originates from the accused and no#od induces him to commit the
offense. /he #u #ust operation was formed to test the veracit of the tip.
Caving caught the culprit red:handed, the peace officers are authori7ed to
apprehend the accused. 1t ahs not #een shown that the officers had ulterior
motive that prompted them to verif the false claim. /he decision finding the
appellant guilt was affirmed.
7A*%( vs. &%+%NS$-SANT!A3$
D.&. L:0)G.. )0 +une ',00
Bacts5 Andrew Carve and +ohn %herman are #oth American nationals while
Adriaan >an Den 2lshout is a Dutch citi7en. /he were residing in $agsanjan,
Laguna where the were apprehended # agents of the Commission on
1mmigration and Deportation. 4n "arch (* ',00, Aarrants of Arrest were
issued # respondent against petitioners for violation of the 1mmigration Act
and the &evised Administrative Code. %ei7ed during their arrests were rolls of
photo negatives and photos of suspected child prostitutes shown in salacious
poses as well as #os and girls engaged in the se3ual act. Deportation
proceedings were then instituted against them and warrants of arrest were
su#se6uentl issued. $etitioners contend that the arrests, searches and
sei7ures were unlawful as the C1D agents did not have valid warrants.
1ssue5 AL= the arrest, search and sei7ure were invalid.
Decision5 =o. /he arrests of petitioners was #ased on pro#a#le cause
determined after close surveillance for F months during which their activities
were monitored. /he e3istence of pro#a#le cause justified the arrest and the
sei7ure of articles, which were then sei7ed as incident to a lawful arrest, and
thus, admissi#le in evidence.
&ecords show that formal deportation charges have #een filed against them, as
undesira#le aliens, on . "arch ',00. Aarrants of arrest were issued against
them on * "arch ',00. A hearing was conducted # a Board of %pecial
1n6uir. /he restraint against their persons, therefore, has #ecome legal.
/hat petitioners were not caught in the act does not make their arrest illegal.
$etitioners were found with #os in their respective rooms, the ones with +ohn
%herman naked. 9nder those circumstances, the agents had reasona#le
ground to #elieve that petitioners had committed pedophilia defined as pscho:
se3ual pervasion involving children. Burther, the issuance of warrants of
arrests # the C1D commissioner, did not order petitioners to appear and show
cause wh the should #e deported. /he were issued for violation of the
immigration act and #efore that deportation proceedings had alread #een
commenced against them.
Arrest is a step preliminar to the deportation of the aliens who had violated
the condition of their sta in this countr. deportation proceedings do not
constitute a criminal action. /he order of deportation is not a punishment, it
#eing merel the return to his countr of an alien who has #roken the
conditions upon which he could continue to reside within our #orders
/he re6uirement of pro#a#le cause, to #e determined # a judge, does not
e3tend to this case for pro#a#le cause had alread #een shown to e3ist #efore
the warrants of arrest were issued. $etition was dismissed.
'#% 115
9A!#
I. Provisions and Notes
Section &, 8ail defined, < 8ail is the security given for the release of a
person in custody of the law+ furnished %y him or a %ondsman+ to
guarantee his appearance %efore any court as re)uired under the
conditions hereinafter specified, 8ail may %e given in the form of
corporate surety+ property %ond+ cash deposit+ or recogni3ance,
*ena *. *erga .<

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
A. Definition of Bail
Bail is the securit given for the release of a person in custod of the law,
furnished # him or a #ondsman, to guarantee his appearance #efore an
court as re6uired.
9. Borms of Bail
'. corporate suret
). propert #ond
F. cash deposit
.. recogni7ance
C. &ecogni7ance is an o#ligation of record, entered into #efore a court or
magistrate dul authori7ed to take it, with the condition to do some
particular act, the most usual condition in criminal cases #eing the
appearance of the accused for trial.
Section 9, Conditions of the %ail= re)uirements, < All 2inds of %ail are
su%4ect to the following conditions:
'a( The underta2ing shall %e effective upon approval+ and unless
cancelled+ shall remain in force at all stages of the case until
promulgation of the 4udgment of the *egional Trial Court+ irrespective
of whether the case was originally filed in or appealed to it=
'%( The accused shall appear %efore the proper court whenever
re)uired %y the court of these *ules=
'c( The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without
4ustification and despite due notice shall %e deemed a waiver of his
right to %e present thereat, In such case+ the trial may proceed in
a%sentia= and
'd( The %ondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for
e$ecution of the final 4udgment,
The original papers shall state the full name and address of the
accused+ the amount of the underta2ing and the conditions re)uired %y
this section, Photographs 'passport si3e( ta2en within the last six +A,
'onths sho(ing the face, left and right profiles of the accused 'ust be
attached to the bail"
Section ., #o release or transfer e$cept on court order or %ail, < #o
person under detention %y legal process shall %e released or
transferred e$cept upon order of the court or when he is admitted to
%ail,
Section /, 8ail+ a matter of right= e$ception, < All persons in custody
shall %e admitted to %ail as a matter of right+ with sufficient sureties+
or released on recogni3ance as prescri%ed %y law or this *ule 'a(
%efore or after conviction %y the -etropolitan Trial Court+ -unicipal
Trial Court+ -unicipal Trial Court in Cities+ or -unicipal Circuit Trial
Court+ and '%( %efore conviction %y the *egional Trial court of an
offense not punisha%le %y death+ reclusion perpetua+ or life
imprisonment,
A. Bail as a matter of right
"/C5 #ail is a matter of right #efore or after conviction, regardless of the
offense.
&/C5 #ail is a matter of right #efore conviction, e3cept for offenses
punisha#le # death, reclusion perpetua, or life sentence and the evidence
of guilt is strong, in which case it is discretionar. After conviction, #ail is
a matter of discretion regardless of the offense. /he application for #ail
ma #e filed and acted upon # the trial court as long as the original
record of the case has not #een transmitted to the appellate court.
Cowever, if the decision of the trial court changed the nature of the
offense from non:#aila#le to #aila#le, the application should #e addressed
and resolved # the appellate court.
Section 0, 8ail+ when discretionary, < Upon conviction %y the *egional
Trial Court of an offense not punisha%le %y death+ reclusion perpetua+
or life imprisonment+ admission to %ail is discretionary, The application
for %ail may %e filed and acted upon %y the trial court despite the filing
of a notice of appeal+ provided it has not transmitted the original
record to the appellate court, ;owever+ if the decision of the trial court
conviction the accused changed the nature of the offense from nonC
%aila%le to %aila%le+ the application for %ail can only %e filed with and
resolved %y the appellate court,
Should the court grant the application+ the accused may %e allowed to
continue on provisional li%erty during the pendency of the appeal
under the same %ail su%4ect to the consent of the %ondsman,
If the penalty imposed %y the trial court is imprisonment e$ceeding si$
'5( years+ the accused shall %e denied %ail+ or his %ail shall %e
*ena *. *erga :0

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
cancelled upon a showing %y the prosecution+ with notice to the
accuse+ of the following or other similar circumstances:
'a( That he is a recidivist+ )uasiCrecidivist+ or ha%itual delin)uent+ or
has committed the crime aggravated %y the circumstance of
reiteration=
'%( That he has previously escaped from legal confinement+ evaded
sentence+ or violated the conditions of his %ail without valid
4ustification=
'c( That he committed the offense while under pro%ation+ parole+ or
conditional pardon=
'd( That the circumstances of his case indicate the pro%a%ility of flight
if released on %ail= or
'e( That there is undue ris2 that he may commit another crime during
the pendency of the appeal,
T?e aAAellate court may8 motu proprio or on motion o1 any Aarty8
revie0 t?e resolution o1 t?e egional Trial Court a1ter notice to the
adverse part in either case.
1f the penalt imposed # the trial court is imprisonment greater than - ears,
the prosecution ma move for denial or cancellation of the #ail of the accused,
with notice to the accused, upon showing of the following circumstances5
'. Ce is a recidivist, 6uasi:recidivist, or ha#itual delin6uent, or has
committed the crime aggravated # the circumstance of reiteracion.
Art. '.(,! &$C A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime,
shall have #een previousl convicted # final judgment of another crime
em#raced in the same title of this Code.
)
A person, after having convicted # final judgment, shall commit a new felon
#efore #eginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same
F
/he offender has #een previousl punished # an offense to which the law
attaches an e6ual or greater penalt or for two or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalt
.
/he offender has alread served out sentence for prior offenses.
). /he he has previousl escaped from legal confinement, evaded
sentence, or violated the conditions of his #ail without valid
justification.
F. /hat he committed the offense while on pro#ation, parole or
conditional pardon
.. /hat the circumstances of his case indicate the pro#a#ilit of flight if
released on #ail; or
G. /hat there is undue risk that he ma commit another crime during the
pendenc of the appeal.
Section 5, Capital offense defined, < A capital offense is an offense
which+ under the law e$isting at the time of its commission and of the
application for admission to %ail+ may %e punished with death,
Section >, Capital offense or an offense punisha%le %y reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment+ not %aila%le, < #o person charged with
a capital offense+ or an offense punisha%le %y reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment+ shall %e admitted to %ail when evidence of guilt is
strong+ regardless of the state of the criminal prosecution,
Section 6, 8urden of proof in %ail application, < At the hearing of an
application for %ail filed %y a person who is in custody for the
commission of an offense punisha%le %y death+ reclusion perpetua+ or
life imprisonment+ the prosecution has the %urden of showing that
evidence of guilt is strong, The evidence presented during the %ail
hearing shall %e considered automatically reproduced at the trial %ut+
upon motion of either party+ the court may recall any witness for
additional e$amination unless the latter is dead+ outside the
Philippines+ or otherwise una%le to testify,
A. Ahen is #ail hearing re6uired
Bail hearing is mandator when #ail is a matter of discretion. 1t is incum#ent
upon the prosecution to show that the evidence of guilt is strong. 2ven if the
prosecution is a#sent or refuses to present evidence, the court cannot grant
#ail without conducting a hearing. /he court must first #e convinced that the
evidence does not warrant the denial of #ail.
Section ?, Amount of %ail= guidelines, < The 4udge who issued the
warrant or granted the application shall fi$ a reasona%le amount of
%ail considering primarily+ %ut not limited to+ the following factors:
'a( Financial lia%ility of the accused to give %ail=
'%( #ature and circumstance of the offense=
'c( Penalty for the offense charged=
'd( Character and reputation of the accused=
'e( Age and health of the accused=
'f( 1eight of the evidence against the accused=
'g( Pro%a%ility of the accused appearing at the trial=
'h( Forfeiture of other %ail=
*ena *. *erga :1

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
'i( The fact that the accused was a fugitive from 4ustice when
arrested= and
'4( Pendency of other cases where the accused is on %ail,
E$cessive %ail shall not %e re)uired,
Section &:, Corporate surety, < Any domestic or foreign corporation+
licensed as a surety in accordance with law and currently authori3ed
to act as such+ may provide %ail %y a %ond su%scri%ed 4ointly %y the
accused and an officer of the corporation duly authori3ed %y its %oard
of directors,
Section &&, Property %ond+ how posted, < A property %ond is an
underta2ing constituted as lien on the real property given as security
for the amount of the %ail, 1ithin ten '&:( days after the approval of
the %ond+ the accused shall cause the annotation of the lien on the
certificate of title on file with the *egistry of 7eeds if the land is
registered+ or if unregistered+ in the *egistration 8oo2 on the space
provided therefore+ in the *egistry of 7eeds for the province or city
where the land lies+ and on the corresponding ta$ declaration in the
office of the provincial+ city and municipal assessor concerned,
1ithin the same period+ the accused shall su%mit to the court his
compliance and his failure to do so shall %e sufficient cause for the
cancellation of the property %ond and his reCarrest and detention,
Section &9, Dualifications of sureties in property %ond, < The
)ualifications of sureties in a property %ond shall %e as follows:
'a( Each must %e a resident owner of real estate within the
Philippines=
'%( 1here there is only one surety+ his real estate must %e worth at
least the amount of underta2ing=
'c( If there are two or more sureties+ each may 4ustify in an amount
less than that e$pressed in the underta2ing %ut the aggregate of the
4ustified sums must %e e)uivalent to the whole amount of the %ail
demanded,
In all cases+ every surety must %e worth the amount specified in his
own underta)ing over and above all !ust debts, obligations and properties
exe'pt fro' execution"
Section &., Eustification of sureties, < Every surety shall 4ustify %y
affidavit ta2en %efore the 4udge that he possesses the )ualification
prescri%ed in the preceding section, ;e shall descri%e the property
given as security+ stating the nature of his title+ its encum%rances+ the
num%er and amount of other %ails entered into %y him and still
undischarged+ and his other lia%ilities, The court may e$amine the
sureties upon oath concerning their sufficiency in such manner as it
may deem proper, #o %ail shall %e approved unless the surety is
)ualified,
Section &/, 7eposit of cash as %ail, < The accused or any person acting
in his %ehalf may deposit in cash with the nearest collector of internal
revenue or provincial+ city+ or municipal treasurer the amount of %ail
fi$ed %y the court+ or recommended %y the prosecutor who
investigated or filed the case, Upon su%mission of a proper certificate
of deposit and a written underta2ing showing compliance with the
re)uirements of section 9 of this *ule+ the accused shall %e discharged
from custody, The money deposited shall %e considered as %ail and
applied to the payment of fine and costs while the e$cess+ if any+ shall
%e returned to the accused or to whoever made the deposit,
Section &0, *ecogni3ance, < 1henever allowed %y law or these *ules+
the court may release a person in custody on his own recogni3ance or
that of a responsi%le person,
Section &5, 8ail+ when not re)uired= reduced %ail or recogni3ance, < #o
%ail shall %e re)uired when the law or these *ules so provide,
1hen a person has %een in custody for a period e)ual to or more than
the possi%le ma$imum imprisonment prescri%ed for the offense
charged+ he shall %e released immediately+ without pre4udice to the
continuation of the trial or the proceedings on appeal, If the ma$imum
penalty to which the accused may %e sentenced is destierro+ he shall
%e released after thirty '.:( days of preventive imprisonment,
A person in custody for a period e)ual to or more than the minimum
of the principal penalty prescri%ed for the offense charged+ without
application of the Indeterminate Sentence aw or any modifying
circumstance+ shall %e released on a reduced %ail or on his own
recogni3ance+ at the discretion of the court,

Section, &>, 8ail+ where filed, < 'a( 8ail in the amount fi$ed may %e
*ena *. *erga :,

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
filed with the court where the case is pending+ or in the a%sence or
unavaila%ility of the 4udge thereof+ with any regional trial 4udge+
metropolitan trial 4udge+ municipal trial 4udge+ or municipal circuit trial
4udge in the province+ city or municipality, If the accused is arrested in
a province+ city+ or municipality other than where the case is pending+
%ail may also %e filed with any regional trial court of said place+ of if no
4udge thereof is availa%le+ with any metropolitan trial 4udge+ municipal
trial 4udge+ or municipal circuit trial 4udge therein,
'%( 1here the grant of %ail is a matter of discretion+ or the accused
see2s to %e released on recogni3ance+ the application may only %e filed
in the court where the case is pending+ whether on preliminary
investigation+ trial+ or appeal,
Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for
%ail with any court in the province+ city+ or municipality where he is
held,
Section &6, #otice of application to prosecutor, < In the application for
%ail under section 6 of this *ule+ the court must give reasona%le notice
of the hearing to the prosecutor or re)uire him to su%mit his
recommendation,

Section &?, *elease on %ail, < The accused must %e discharged upon
approval of the %ail %y the 4udge with whom it was filed in accordance
with section &> of this *ule,
1hen %ail is filed with a court other than where the case is pending+
the 4udge who accepted the %ail shall forward it+ together with the
order of release and other supporting papers+ to the court where the
case is pending+ which may+ for good reason+ re)uire a different one to
%e filed,
Section, 9:, Increase or reduction of %ail, < After the accused is
admitted to %ail+ the court may+ upon good cause+ either increase or
reduce its amount, 1hen increased+ the accused may %e committed to
custody if he does not give %ail in the increased amount within a
reasona%le period, An accused held to answer a criminal charge+ who
is released without %ail upon filing of the complaint or information+
may+ at any su%se)uent stage of the proceedings and whenever a
strong showing of guilt appears to the court+ %e re)uired to give %ail in
the amount fi$ed+ or in lieu thereof+ committed to custody,
Section 9&, Forfeiture of %ail, < 1hen the presence of the accused is
re)uired %y the court or these *ules+ his %ondsmen shall %e notified to
produce him %efore the court on a given date and time, If the accused
fails to appear in person as re)uired+ his %ail shall %e declared
forfeited and the %ondsmen given thirty '.:( days within which to
produce their principal and to show why no 4udgment should %e
rendered against them for the amount of their %ail, 1ithin the said
period+ the %ondsmen must:
'a( produce the %ody of their principal or give the reason for his nonC
production= and
'%( e$plain why the accused did not appear %efore the court when first
re)uired to do so,
Failing in these two re)uisites+ a 4udgment shall %e rendered against
the %ondsmen+ 4ointly and severally+ for the amount of the %ail, The
court shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the lia%ility of the
%ondsmen+ unless the accused has %een surrendered or is ac)uitted,
Section 99, Cancellation of %ail, < Upon application of the %ondsmen+
with due notice to the prosecutor+ the %ail may %e cancelled upon
surrender of the accused or proof of his death,
The %ail shall %e deemed automatically cancelled upon ac)uittal of the
accused+ dismissal of the case+ or e$ecution of the 4udgment of
conviction,
In all instances+ the cancellation shall %e without pre4udice to any
lia%ility on the %ail,
Section 9., Arrest of accused out on %ail, < For the purpose of
surrendering the accused+ the %ondsmen may arrest him or+ upon
written authority endorsed on a certified copy of the underta2ing+
cause him to %e arrested %y a police officer or any other person of
suita%le age and discretion,
An accused released on %ail may %e reCarrested without the necessity
of a warrant if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without
permission of the court where the case is pending,
Section 9/, #o %ail after final 4udgment= e$ception, < #o %ail shall %e
allowed after a 4udgment of conviction has %ecome final, If %efore
such finality+ the accused applies for pro%ation+ he may %e allowed
temporary li%erty under his %ail, 1hen no %ail was filed or the accused
*ena *. *erga :4

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
is incapa%le of filing one+ the court may allow his release on
recogni3ance to the custody of a responsi%le mem%er of the
community, In no case shall %ail %e allowed after the accused has
commenced to serve sentence,
Section 90, Court supervision of detainees, < The court shall e$ercise
supervision over all persons in custody for the purpose of eliminating
unnecessary detention, The e$ecutive 4udges of the *egional Trial
Courts shall conduct monthly personal inspections of provincial+ city+
and municipal 4ails and the prisoners within their respective
4urisdictions, They shall ascertain the num%er of detainees+ in)uire on
their proper accommodation and health and e$amine the condition of
the 4ail facilities, They shall order the segregation of se$es and of
minors from adults+ ensure the o%servance of the right of detainees to
confer privately with counsel+ and strive to eliminate conditions
inimical to the detainees,
In cities and municipalities to %e specified %y the Supreme Court+ the
municipal trial 4udges or municipal circuit trial 4udges shall conduct
monthly personal inspections of the municipal 4ails in their respective
municipalities and su%mit a report to the e$ecutive 4udge of the
*egional Trial Court having 4urisdiction therein,
A monthly report of such visitation shall %e su%mitted %y the e$ecutive
4udges to the Court Administrator which shall state the total num%er of
detainees+ the names of those held for more than thirty '.:( days+ the
duration of detention+ the crime charged+ the status of the case+ the
cause for detention+ and other pertinent information,

Section 95, 8ail not a %ar to o%4ections on illegal arrest+ lac2 of or
irregular preliminary investigation, < An application for or admission
to %ail shall not %ar the accused from challenging the validity of his
arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefore+ or from assailing
the regularity or )uestioning the a%sence of a preliminary
investigation of the charge against him+ provided that he raises them
%efore entering his plea, The court shall resolve the matter as early as
practica%le %ut not later than the start of the trial of the case,
<92%/14=%5
Ahat is re6uired of the judge who denies an application for #ailQ
/he order should contain a summar of the evidence presented and the reason
for the denial, otherwise it shall #e void. /his is in order to safeguard the
constitutional right to presumption of innocence and also #ecause there is a
need for clear grounds #efore a person can #e denied of his li#ert.
&emed of the court when there is possi#ilit that a person will jump #ail5
'. 1ncrease the amount of #ail
). &e6uire periodic reports of the accused to court
F. Aarn him that the trial ma proceed in a#sentia
Duties of the trial judge in case an application for #ail is filed5
'. =otif the prosecutor of the hearing or re6uire him to su#mit his
recommendation
). Conduct a hearing
F. Decide whether the evidence of guilt is strong #ased on the summar
of evidence of the prosecution
.. 1f the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon
the approval of the #ail#ond. 1f evidence of guilt is strong, the petition
should #e denied.
Duidelines in setting the amount of #ail5
'. Binancial a#ilit of the accused
). =ature and circumstances of the offense
F. $enalt for the offense
.. Character and reputation of the accused
G. Age and health of the accused
-. Aeight of evidence against the accused
*. $ro#a#ilit of the accused appearing at the trial
0. Borfeiture of other #ail
,. /he fact that he was a fugitive from the law when arrested
'(. $endenc of other cases where the accused is on #ail
Ahere should #ail #e filed5
1t ma #e filed with the court where the case is pending. 1n the a#sence of the
judge thereof, #ail ma #e filed with an &/C or "/C judge in the province,
cit, or municipalit. 1f the accused is arrested in a province, cit, or
municipalit other than where the case is pending, #ail ma also #e filed with
and &/C of said place, or if no judge is availa#le, with an "/C judge therein.
But where #ail is a matter of discretion or where the accused seeks to #e
released on recogni7ance, #ail ma onl #e filed in the court where the case is
pending.
*ena *. *erga :5

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
An person in custod who is not et charged ma appl for #ail with an court
in the province, cit or municipalit where he is held.
&emed of the accused if he is denied #ail5
Ce should file a special civil action in the CA, not the %C within -( das.
11. Connection to Constitutional Law $rovisions and Cases
E3/1D- <?. A$$ %ERD-, EE33E%/ /*DE 3*ARGE4 ;1/* D::E-E
%F-1*AB$E B9 RE3$F1D- %ER%E/FA ;*E- E514E-3E D: GF1$/ 1
/RD-G *A$$ BE:DRE 3D-513/1D- BE BA1$AB$E B9 F::131E-/ FRE/1E
DR RE$EAE4 D- RE3DG-1GA-3E A &A9 BE %RD514E4 B9 $A;" /*E R1G*/
/D BA1$ *A$$ -D/ BE 1&%A1RE4 ;5;- ;*E- /*E %R151$EGE D: /*E ;R1/
D: *ABEA 3DR%F 1 F%E-4E4" EE3E15E BA1$ *A$$ -D/ BE
REHF1RE4"
A. &1DC/ /4 BA1L
LA>1D2% vs. CA
Bail should #e given #efore arraignment. Arraignment should not #e made a
condition to #ail.
$24$L2 vs. DAJ4 +&.
+udge did not hold hearing, merel #ased his decision to grant #ail from a
medical certificate , months old.
Bail is a matter of right with respect to persons charged with penalt of
reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death, when evidence is strong.
Before a #ail is granted, a hearing must #e conducted in order to determine
whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong or not.
8A$ vs. CA
1mposing #ail in e3cessive amount could render meaningless the right to #ail.
%etting the #ail in the amount of the civil lia#ilit is e3cessive.
BAC/4&% /4 C4=%1D2&2D 1= %2//1=D /C2 A"49=/ 4B BA1L ("AD%9CA=D
vs. BALD4%!
'. Binancial a#ilit of the accused
). =ature and circumstance of the offense
F. $enalt for the offense
.. Character and reputation of the accused
G. Age and health of the accused
-. Aeight of evidence against him
*. $ro#a#ilit of his appearance in trail
0. Borfeiture of their #onds # him
,. 1f the accused is a fugitive from justice when arrested
'(. $endenc of other cases where he is also under #ail.
%9L2 vs. B1/2=D
1n hearings for #ail, what should #e considered is the prima facie evidence and
not the penalt. 1n capital offenses, #ail would #e granted onl if the evidence
of guilt were not strong.
$AD2&A=DA vs. CA
4ne who is under the custod of the law either when he has #een arrested or
has surrendered to the jurisdiction of the court has a constitutional right to #ail
CC1= vs. D9%/1L4
2ven if #ail is a matter of right, there is still a need to give notice to the fiscal
for him to attend the hearing for #ail.
B. AA1>2& 4B /C2 &1DC/
$24$L2 vs. +9DD2 D4=A/4
Accused charged with re#ellion.
Compromise agreement is a valid waiver to the right to #ail
$24$L2 vs. "A$ALA4
An accused who escapes from confinement or jumps #ail or flees to a foreign
countr, loses his standing in court, and unless he surrenders or su#mits
himself to the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waives an right
to seek relief from the Court.
C. 2HC2%%1>2 BA1L
D2 LA CA"A&A vs. 2=AD2
*ena *. *erga :5

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
Ahere the right to #ail e3ists, it should not #e rendered nugator # re6uiring
a sum that is e3cessive. A #ail of one million is clearl e3cessive.
CC9 vs. D4LAL4%
Circular =o. 0 which provides that #ail should #e set at $hp '((( for ever
ear taking into consideration the ma3imum penalt for the offense is
instructive not onl to fiscals and their assistants #ut to the mem#ers of the
#ench as well.
D. $2&%4=% =4/ 2=/1/L2D /4 BA1L
C4"2=DAD4& vs. de >1LLA
A soldier under court martial does not enjo the right to #ail #ecause of the
different disciplinar structure of the militar as well as their capa#ilit of
causing havoc and chaos.
$24$L2 vs. =1/CCA
1f an accused who is charged with a crime punisha#le # reclusion perpetua is
convicted # the trial courts and sentenced to suffer such a penalt, #ail is
neither a matter of right on the part of the accused nor a matter of discretion
on the part of the court. Bail must not #e granted to accused during the
pendenc of his appeal #ecause his conviction clearl imports that the evidence
of his guilt of the offense charged is strong.
D4>2&="2=/ 4B 9% vs. $9&DA=A=
&ight to #ail is not applica#le in e3tradition proceedings. Constitutional #ail is
availa#le onl in criminal proceedings. 23tradition, #eing sui generis and not a
criminal proceeding, the accused therefore has no inherent right to #ail. /he
following are e3ceptions to this rule5
('! applicant is not flight risk
()! there e3ists a special humanitarian reason.
111. Case
S%AP!$ *S. SAN&!3AN9A(AN
F,- %C&A ..F
Bacts5 $etitioner 2dward %erapio was a mem#er of the Board of /rustees an
the legal counsel of the 2rap "uslim 8outh Boundation. %ometime )(((,
petitioner received on its #ehalf a donation in the amount of $hp )((" through
Chavit %ingson. $etitioner received he donation worth the Boundations
account. 1n )(((, Chavit %ingson pu#licl accused $resident 2strada and his
famil mem#ers and friends of engaging in several illegal activities which
triggered the filing with the 4ffice of the 4m#udsman several criminal
complaints against the petitioner, +oseph 2strada and his son.
4n April ., )((', 4m#udsman filed with the %andigan#aan 1nformations
against the former president, one of which, for plunder. =o #ail was
recommended for the provisional release of all the accused including the
petitioner. /he case was raffled to a special division which was su#se6uentl
created # the %upreme Court. 4n )G April )((', %andigan#aan issued a
resolution finding pro#a#le cause to justif the issuance of warrants of arrest
for the accused. Arraignment was set on )* +anuar )(('. 1n the meantime,
petitioner filed with %andigan#aan an 9rgent $etition for #ail, which was set
for hearing on "a ., )(('. $etitioners co:accused +inggo 2strada filed a
motion alleging that he was entitle to #ail as a matter of right.
During the hearing on "a ., )((' on petitioners 9rgent $etition for Bail, the
prosecution moved for the resetting of the arraignment of the accused earlier
than the +une )* schedule. Cowever, %andigan#aan denied the motion of the
prosecution and issued an order declaring that the petition for #ail can and
should #e heard B2B4&2 petitioners arraignment on )* +une. 4n +une ',
%andigan#aan issued a resolution re6uiring the attendance of petitioner as
well as all the other accused during the hearing on the petitioner for #ail
considering that under %ection 0, &ule ''G of the &evised &ules of Court,
whatever evidence adduced during the hearing shall #e considered
automaticall reproduced at the trial.
/he people insist that arraignment is necessar #efore #ail hearings ma #e
commenced #ecause it is onl upon arraignment that the issues are joined.
/he people further stress the it is onl when an accused pleads not guilt ma
he filed a petition for #ail and if he pleads guilt, then there would #e no need
for him to file said petition. 1t is also the contention of the people that it is
onl during arraignment that the accused is informed of the precise charge
against him. Ce must then #e arraign first prior to #ail hearings to prevent
him from late on assailing the validit of the #ail hearings on the ground that
he was not properl informed of the charge considering that under section 0 of
&ule ''., evidence presented during #ail hearings are reproduce in the trial.
Arraignment #efore #ail hearings also diminished the possi#ilit of accuseds
flight since trial in a#sentia ma #e had onl if an accused escapes after he has
#een arraigned.
Cowever, the #ail hearing again did not proceed #ecause the petitioner filed
with the information a motion to 6uash the amended information on the
*ena *. *erga :.

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
grounds that as against him, the amended information does not allege a
com#ination of series of over or criminal acts constitutive of plunder.
According to the prosecution, the motion to 6uash the amended information
was antithetical to his petition for #ail.
$etitioner also pras for the issuance of ha#eas corpus.
1ssues5
(a! AL= petitioner should first #e arraigned #efore hearings of his
petition for #ail ma #e conducted.
(#! AL= petitioner ma file a motion to 6uash the amended
1nformation during the pendenc of his petition for #ail.
(c! AL= a joint hearing of petition for #ail for all the accused is
mandator
(d! AL= petitioner should instead #e released through a writ of
ha#eas corpus.
Decision5
(a! Although the petitioner was alread arraigned, no plea has et #een
entered there# rendering the issue of whether an arraignment is necessar
#efore the conduct of #ail hearings in the petitioners case moot. =onetheless,
the court held that arraignment of an accused is not a pre:re6uisite to the
conduct of hearings on his petition for #ail. A person is allowed to petition for
#ail as soon as he is deprived of his of his li#ert # virtue of his arrest or
voluntar surrender.
1n Lavides vs. CA, the court ruled that in cases where it is authori7ed, #ail
should #e granted #efore arraignment otherwise the accused ma #e precluded
from filing a motion to 6uash. Cowever, this pronouncement should not #e
taken to mean that the hearing on a petition for #ail should at all times
precede arraignment, #ecause the rule is that a person deprived of his li#ert
# virtue of his arrest or voluntar surrender ma appl for #ail as soon as he
is deprived of li#ert even #efore a complaint or information is filed against
him. /he case of Lavides must #e understood in light of the fact that the
accused in said case filed a petition for #ail as well as a motion to 6uash.
Cence, in that case, the court held that to condition the grant of #ail to an
accused on his arraignment would #e to place him in a position where he had
to choose #etween filing a motion to 6uash and thus dela his petition for #ail
and forgoing the filing of the motion to 6uash so that he can #e arraign at once
ad therefore #e released on #ail. %uch would undermine the constitutional
right of the accused.
Ahen a #ail is matter of right, an accused ma appl for and #e granted #ail
even prior to arraignment. /he Lavides case also implies that an application
for #ail in a case involving an offense punisha#le # reclusion perpetua to
death ma also #e heard even #efore an accused is arraigned. %andigan#aan
therefore committed grave a#use of discretion amounting to e3cess of
jurisdiction in ordering the arraignment of petitioner #efore proceeding with the
hearing of his petition for #ail.
(#! Court dins no inconsistenc e3ists #etween an application of an accused for
#ail and his filing of a motion to 6uash. Bail, is the securit given for the
release of the person in custod of the law. A motion to 6uash on the other
hand is a mode # which an accused assails the validit of a criminal complain
filed against him for insufficienc on its fact in posit of law. /hese tow relied
have o#jectives which are not necessaril antithetical to each other. Cowever,
it is true that if a motion to 6uash a criminal complaint or information on the
ground that the same does not charge an offense is granted and the case is
dismissed and the accused is ordered released, the petition for #ail of an
accused ma #ecome moot and academic.
(c! $etitioner argues that a joint #ail hearing would negate his right to have his
petition for #ail resolved in a summar proceeding since said hearing might #e
converted into a full #lown trial. $rosecution on the other hand claims that
joint hearings will save the court form having to hear the same witnesses and
the parties from presenting the same evidences. /here is no provision in the
&ules of Court governing the hearings of two or more petitioner for #ail filed #
different accused or that a petition for #ail of an accused #e heard
simultaneousl with the trial of the case against the other accused. /he matter
should #e addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. 1n the e3ercise
of its discretion, the %andigan#aan must take into account not onl the
convenience of the sate, including the prosecution #ut also that of the
petitioner and the witnesses.
1n the case of 4campo vs. Berna#e, the court ruled that in a petition or #ail
hearing, the court is to conduct onl a summar hearing, meaning such #rief
and speed method of receiving and considering the evidence of guilt as is
practica#le and consistent with the purpose of the hearing which is earl to
determine the weight of evidence for purposes of #ail. /he court does not tr
the merits or enter into the in6uir as to the weight that ought to #e given to
the evidence against the accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome of the
trial or on what further such evidence as has reference to su#stantial matters.
1n the case at #ar, the case against former $resident 2strada is an entirel
different matter. Bor, with the participation of the former president in the
hearing of petitioners petition for #ail, the proceeding assumes completel
different dimension. /he proceeding will no longer #e summar since the
proceedings will #e full #lown which is antithetical to the nature of a #ail
hearing. /he joinder of the petitioners #ail will #e prejudicial to the petitioner
as it will undul dela the determination of the issue of the right of petitioner
to o#tain provisional li#ert and seek relief from his court. /he %andigan#an
*ena *. *erga ::

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
again committed a grave a#use of discretion in ordering a simultaneous
hearing of petitioners petition for #ail with the trial of the case against former
president.
(d! 1n the case at #ar, #ail is not matter of rights since the accused is charged
with a capital offense, #ut discretionar upon the court. 9nder %ection 0 of
rule ''., there must #e a showing that the evidence of guilt against a person
charged with a capital offense is not strong for the court to grant him #ail.,
thus, upon an application for #ail, # the person charged with a capital
offense, a hearing must #e conducted where the prosecution has the #urden of
showing that the evidence of guilt against an accused is strong. Ahen the
evidence of guilt is strong, #ail #ecomes a matter of right, which is not so in
the case at #ar.
1n e3ceptional cases, ha#eas corpus ma #e granted n the courts even when
the person concerned is detained pursuant to a valid arrest or his voluntar
surrender. /he writ ma #e issued where the deprivation of li#ert while
initiall valid under the lad had not later #ecome invalid. Cowever, there is no
#asis fir the issuance of the writ in the case at #ar. /he general rule is that the
writ does not lie where the person alleged to #e restrained of his li#ert is in
the custod of an officer under process issued # a court which had jurisdiction
to issued the same applied, #ecause petitioner is under detention pursuant to
the order of arrest. $etitioner in fact voluntaril surrendered himself to the
authorities.
'#% 115
!37TS $+ ACC'S%&
I. Codal Provision and Notes
Section &, *ights of accused at trial, < In all criminal prosecutions+ the
accused shall %e entitled to the following rights:
'a( To %e presumed innocent until the contrary is proved %eyond
reasona%le dou%t,
A. Definition of right of presumption of innocence5
/he right means that the presumption must #e overcome # evidence of guilt
#eond reasona#le dou#t. Duilt #eond reasona#le dou#t means that there is
moral certaint as to the guilt of the accused. Conviction should #e #ased on
the strength of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense. /he
significance of this is that accusation is not snonmous with guilt.
B. 23ceptions to the constitutional presumption of innocence5
$resumptions I 1f there is a reasona#le connection #etween the
fact presumed and the fact ultimatel proven from such fact
a. Ahen an accounta#le pu#lic officer fails to account for funds
or propert that should #e in his custod, he is presumed to #e guilt
of malversation;
#. $ersons in possession of recentl stolen goods are presumed
guilt of the offense in connection with the goods.
%elf:Defense I 4ne who invokes self:defense is presumed guilt.
/he #urden of proving the elements of self:defense (unlawful aggression,
reasona#le necessit of the means used to prevent or repel it; lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the one defending himself! #elongs to
the accused.
C. Definition of reverse trial
9suall, the prosecution first presents its evidence to esta#lish the guilt of the
accused. But a reverse trial happens if the accused admits the killing #ut
claims self:defense. Ce must first esta#lish the elements of self:defense in
order to overturn the presumption that he was guilt of the offense.
'%( To %e informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him,
'c( To %e present and defend in person and %y counsel at every stage
of the proceedings+ from arraignment to promulgation of the
4udgment, The accused may+ however+ waive his presence at the trial
pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his %ail+ unless his presence is
specifically ordered %y the court for purposes of identification, The
a%sence of the accused without 4ustifia%le cause at the trial of which
he had notice shall %e considered a waiver of his right to %e present
thereat, 1hen an accused under custody escapes+ he shall %e deemed
to have waived his right to %e present on all su%se)uent trial dates
until custody over him is regained, Upon motion+ the accused may %e
allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the
court that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of
counsel,
A. &e6uisites of a valid trial in a#sentia
*ena *. *erga :;

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
'. /he accused has alread #een arraigned;
). Ce has #een dul notified of the trial
F. Cis failure to appear at the trial is unjustifia#le.
&ight to #e present at the trial #e waived e3cept in the following
situations, where the presence of the accused at the trial is re6uired5
'. Arraignment;
). During promulgation of judgment, e3cept if it is for a light offense;
F. Ahen the presence of the accused at the trial is necessar for
purposes of identification, unless he admits #eforehand that he is the
same person charged.
'd( To testify as a witness in his own %ehalf %ut su%4ect to crossC
e$amination on matters covered %y direct e$amination, ;is silence
shall not in any manner pre4udice him,
=ote5 A testimon of a witness who testifies on his own #ehalf #ut refuses to
#e su#jected to cross:e3amination will not #e given weight. 1t will not have
pro#ative value #ecause the prosecution was not given a chance to test the
credi#ilit of the testimon through cross:e3amination.
(e) To =e eBemAt 1rom =eing comAelled to =e a 0itness against
?imsel1.
%cope of the right against self:incrimination
/he right against self:incrimination covers testimonial compulsion onl and the
compulsion to produce incriminating documents, papers, and chattels. 1t does
not cover the compulsion to produce real or phsical evidence using the #od
of the accused.
23ception to the right against self:incrimination
/he right cannot #e invoked when the %tate has the right to inspect documents
under its police power, such as documents of corporations.
&ationale for protecting the right against self:incrimination
Bor humanitarian reasons5 /o prevent the %tate, with all its coercive
powers, from e3tracting testimon that ma convict the accused.
Bor practical reasons5 /he accused is likel to commit perjur if he were
compelled to testif against himself.
$ersons who ma invoke the right against self:incrimination, and time when
the an invoke the right.

'. An ordinar witness ma invoke the right, #ut he ma onl do so as
each incriminating 6uestion is asked.
). /he accused himself ma invoke the right, and unlike the ordinar
witness, he ma altogether refuse to take the witness stand and refuse
to answer an and all 6uestions.
But, once the accused waives his right and chooses to testif in his
own #ehalf, he ma #e cross:e3amined on matters covered in his
direct e3amination. Ce cannot refuse to answer 6uestions during
cross:e3amination # claiming that the answer that he will give could
incriminate him for the crime with which he was charged.
Cowever, if the 6uestion during cross:e3amination relates to a crime
different from that with which he was charged, he can still invoke the
right and refuse to answer.
=ote5 1t would depend whether or not an accused or witness can invoke the
right against self:incrimination if he is asked a#out past criminalit. 1f he can
still #e prosecuted for it, 6uestions a#out past criminal lia#ilit are still covered
# the protection of the right against self:incrimination. But if he cannot #e
prosecuted for it anmore, he cannot invoke the right.
ig?ts o1 t?e accused in t?e matter o1 testi1ying or Aroducing evidence
Before the case is filed in Court #ut after he has #een taken into custod or
otherwise deprived of his li#ert
the right to #e informed of
his right to remain silent and to counsel
the right not to #e su#jected to force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or an other means which vitiate free will
the right to have evidence o#tained in violation of these rights
rejected
After the case is filed in court
to refuse to #e a witness
not to have an prejudice whatsoever result to him # such refusal
*ena *. *erga :<

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
to testif in his own #ehalf su#ject to cross:e3amination # the
prosecution
while testifing, to refuse to answer a specific 6uestion which
tends to incriminate his for some crime other than that for
which he is #eing prosecuted.
!mmunity statutes

/he immunit statutes are classified into two5
'. 9se immunit statutes :: prohi#its
the use of a witness compelled testimon and its fruits in an
manner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness.
(/herefore, the witness can still #e prosecuted, #ut the compelled
testimon cannot #e used against him.!
). /ransactional immunit statutes ::
grants immunit to the witness from prosecution for an offense to
which his compelled testimon relates. (/he witness cannot #e
prosecuted at all.! 23amples are state witnesses and those who
furnish information a#out violations of the 1nternal &evenue Code,
even if the themselves offered #ri#es to the pu#lic official.
2ffect of the refusal of the accused to refuse to testif in his #ehalf
As a general rule, the silence of the accused should not prejudice him.
Cowever, in the following cases, an unfavora#le inference is drawn from the
failure of the accused to testif5
'. 1f the prosecution has alread esta#lished a prima facie case, the
accused must present proof to overturn the evidence of the
prosecution.
). 1f the defense of the accused is ali#i and he does not testif, the
inference is that the ali#i is not #elieva#le.
=ote5 D=A testing is not covered # the right against self:incrimination
(1) To con1ront and cross-eBamine t?e 0itnesses against ?im at t?e
trial. %it?er Aarty may utiliMe as Aart o1 its evidence t?e testimony o1 a
0itness 0?o is deceased8 out o1 or can not 0it? due diligence =e 1ound
in t?e P?iliAAines8 unavaila=le8 or ot?er0ise una=le to testi1y8 given in
anot?er case or Aroceeding8 Judicial or administrative8 involving t?e
same Aarties and su=Ject matter8 t?e adverse Aarty ?aving t?e
oAAortunity to cross-eBamine ?im.
Definition of right of confrontation
1t means that the accused can onl #e tried using those witnesses that meet
him face to face at the trial who give testimon in his presence, with the
opportunit to cross:e3amine them.
&easons for the right
'. /o allow the court to o#serve the demeanor of the witness while
testifing.
). /o give the accused the opportunit to cross:e3amine the witness in
order to test their recollection and credi#ilit.
=ote5 the right of confrontation can #e waived either e3pressl or impliedl. 1t
is waived impliedl when an accused waives his right to #e present at the trial.
/he right of confrontation ma also #e waived # conduct amounting to a
renunciation of the right to cross:e3amine. Ahen the part was given an
opportunit to confront and cross:e3amine an opposing witness #ut failed to
take advantage of it for reasons attri#uta#le to himself alone, he is deemed to
have waived the right.
C. 2ffect when testimon of a witness who dies or #ecomes unavaila#le
1f the other part had the opportunit to cross:e3amine the witness #efore he
died or #ecame unavaila#le, the testimon ma #e used as evidence.
Cowever, if the other part did not even have the opportunit to cross:
e3amine #efore the su#se6uent death or unavaila#ilit of the witness, the
testimon will have no pro#ative value. (An opportunit to cross:e3amine is all
that is necessar in order to allow the use of the testimon of the witness.
/here need not #e an actual cross:e3amination, as long as there was an
opportunit to do so.!
'g( To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of
witnesses and production of other evidence in his %ehalf,
A. Definition of right to compulsor process
1t is the right of the accused to have a su#poena andLor a subpoena duces
tecu' issued in his #ehalf in order to compel the attendance of witnesses and
the production of other evidence.
=ote5 if a witness refuses to testif and his testimon is re6uired, the court
should order the witness to give #ail or even order his arrest, if necessar.
Bailure to o#e a su#poena amounts to contempt of court.
*ena *. *erga ;0

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
B. Availa#le onl if 5
('! witness is reall material
()! he is guilt of no neglect in previousl o#tained the
attendance of said witness
(F! /he witness will #e availa#le at the time desired
(.! =o similar evidence could #e o#tained
=ote5 /rial in a#sentia is onl allowed after arraignment, accused dul notified
of the trial and a#sence is unjustified
'h( To have speedy+ impartial and pu%lic trial,
A. Definition of the right to speed trial
/he right means that the trial should #e conducted according to the law of
criminal procedure and the rules and regulations, free from ve3ations,
capricious, and oppressive delas.
C. %peed /rial Act and Circular F0:,0
According to the %peed /rial Act and Circular F0:,0, arraignment and pre:trial
if the accused pleads not guilt should #e held within F( das from the date
the court ac6uires jurisdiction of the person of the accused. 1n no case shall
the entire period e3ceed '0( das from the first da of trial, e3cept as
otherwise authori7ed # the Court Administrator.
D. &emed of an accused whose right to speed trial is violated
1. Bile a motion to dismiss on the ground of violation of his right to
speed trial. (:or purposes of double !eopardy, this has the sa'e
effect as an ac#uittal", /his must #e done prior to trial, or else, it is
deemed a waiver of the right to dismiss.
). Bile for mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information.
F. 1f he is restrained of his li#ert, file for ha#eas corpus.
.. Ask for the trial of the case.
=ote5
/he limitation is that the %tate should not #e deprived of its da in
court. /he right of the %tateLthe prosecution to due process should #e
respected.
/he right to speed trial is violated when there are unjustified
postponements of the trial, and a long period of time is allowed to
elapse without the case #eing tried for no justifia#le reason.
right to a pu#lic trial means that anone interested in o#serving the
manner that a judge conducts the proceedings in his courtroom ma
do so. /he trial should #e pu#lic in order to prevent a#uses that ma
#e committed # the court to the prejudice of the defendant.
"oreover, the accused is entitled to the moral support of his friends
and relatives.
/he court ma #ar the pu#lic in certain cases, such as when the
evidence to #e presented ma #e offensive to decenc or pu#lic
morals, or in rape cases, where the purpose of some persons in
attending is merel to ogle at the parties.
/here is no violation of the right to a pu#lic trial if trial is held in the
cham#ers of the judge since the pu#lic is not e3cluded from attending
the trial.
/o warrant a finding of prejudicial pu#licit, there must #e allegations
and proof that the judges have #een undul influenced, not simpl that
the might #e, # the #arrage of pu#licit.
'i( To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescri%ed %y
law,
NoteD
/he right to appeal is a statutor right and not a fundamental one,
e3cept in the case of the minimum appellate jurisdiction of the
%upreme Court granted # the Constitution. Anone who seeks to
e3ercise the right to appeal must compl with the re6uirements of
the rules.
it can #e waived e3pressl or impliedl.
Ahen the accused flees after the case has #een su#mitted to the
court for decision, he will #e deemed to have waived his right to
appeal from the judgment rendered against him.
II. Constitutional #a0 Notes
&ights of the accused in criminal prosecutions
'. /o #e presumed innocent until the contrar is proved #eond
reasona#le dou#t;
*ena *. *erga ;1

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
). /o #e informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
F. /o #e present and defend in person and # counsel at ever stage of
the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of judgment;
.. /o testif as a witness in his own #ehalf #ut su#ject to cross:
e3amination on matters covered # direct e3amination;
G. /o #e e3empt from #eing compelled to #e a witness against himself;
-. /o confront and cross:e3amine the witnesses against him at the trial;
*. /o have compulsor process issued to secure the attendance of
witnesses and production of other evidence in his #ehalf;
0. /o have a speed, impartial, and pu#lic trial;
,. /o appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescri#ed # law.
/wo aspects of due process5
'. %u#stantive due process I this refers to the intrinsic validit of the law
). $rocedural due process I one that hears #efore it condemns, proceeds
upon in6uir, and renders judgment onl after trial and #ased on the
evidence presented therein.
/here is no need for trial:tpe proceedings in order to satisf due
process. Ahat is important is that there was an opportunit to #e
heard. =otice and hearing are the minimum re6uirements of due
process.
&e6uirements of procedural due process (in general!5
'. /here must #e an impartial and competent court with judicial power to
hear and determine the matter #efore it;
). +urisdiction must #e lawfull ac6uired over the person of the defendant
or over the propert su#ject of the proceeding;
F. /he defendant must #e given an opportunit to #e heard;
.. +udgment must #e rendered upon lawful hearing.
&e6uirements of procedural due process (in criminal cases!
'. /he accused must have #een heard # a court of competent
jurisdiction;
). Ce must have #een proceeded against under orderl processes of the
law;
F. Ce ma #e punished onl after in6uir and investigation;
.. /here must #e notice to the accused;
G. /he accused must #e given an opportunit to #e heard;
-. +udgment must #e rendered within the authorit of a constitutional
law.
&ight to counsel during custodial investigation and the right to counsel during
the trial
&ight to counsel during custodial
investigation
&ight to counsel during the trial
/he right to counsel can onl #e
waived in writing A=D with the
assistance of counsel.
/he right to counsel means the right
to effective counsel.
/he counsel re6uired in custodial
investigation is competent and
independent counsel, prefera#l of his
own (the suspects! choice.
/he re6uirement is stricter during
custodial investigation #ecause of
danger that confessions will #e
e3tracted against the will of the
defendant
/rial is in pu#lic thus, the danger
does not e3ist. During trial the
purpose of counsel is not so much to
protect him from #eing forced to
confess #ut to defend the accused
&ight to counsel afforded during trial #ecause it is em#raced in the
right to #e heard.
/he right to counsel ma #e invoked at an stage of the
proceedings, even on appeal. Cowever, it can also #e waived. /he
accused is deemed to have waived his right to counsel when he voluntaril
su#mits himself to the jurisdiction of the Court and proceeds with his
defense.
But in 9% v. 2scalante and $eople v. =ang Ja, the Court held that the
defendant cannot raise the 6uestion of his right to have an attorne for the
first time on appeal. 1f the 6uestion is not raised in the trial court, the
prosecution ma go to trial. /he 6uestion will not #e considered in the
appellate court for the first time when the accused fails to raise it in the
lower court.
/he dut to appoint counsel:do:oficio is mandator onl up to arraignment.
As a rule, the mistake of counsel #inds the client. /herefore, the client
cannot 6uestion a decision on the ground that counsel was an idiot.
Cowever, an e3ception to this is if counsel misrepresents himself as a
lawer, and he turns out to #e a fake lawer. 1n this case, the accused is
entitled to a new trial #ecause his right to #e represented # a mem#er of
the #ar was violated. Ce was thus denied of his right to counsel and to
due process.
*ena *. *erga ;,

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
/he right of choice must #e reasona#l e3ercised. /he accused cannot
insist on counsel that he cannot afford, one who is not a mem#er of the
#ar, or one who declines for a valid reason, such as conflict of interest.
Also, the right of the accused to choose counsel is su#ject to the right of
the state to due process and to speed and ade6uate justice.
/he accused can defend himself in person onl if the court is convinced
that he can properl protect his rights even without the assistance of
counsel.
111. Cases
S!)'$!N *S. P%$P#%
1:1 SCA ,,4 (1<;<)
Bacts5 1sa#ela "aor "anuel %i6uoin was charged with falsification of pu#lic
document for signing a false document appointing +esusa Carreon to the
position of clerk in the office of he "unicipal %ecretar and stating that such
position e3ists and with availa#le funds when in fact, there was no such
position nor availa#le funds allocated from the #udget. Carreon filed the
complaint when she did not receive her salaries for several months. /he trial
court found the petitioner guilt of falsification of pu#lic documents, which was
affirmed # the Court of Appeals, hence, this appeal. 1t was the contention of
the accused that he was deprived of due process when the trial proceeded in hi
a#sence despite a pending petition for change of venue which he filed with the
%upreme Court.
1ssue5 AL= there was deprivation of due process.
Decision5 $etitioner was afforded with due process when the trial court, in
view of the a#sence of petitioner, granted continuances to ena#le the defense
to present its evidence although the prosecution had rested its case alread. 1t
is a #asic postulate in aw that what is repugnant to due process is not lack of
previous notice #ut a#solute lack of opportunit to #e heard. 1f an accused has
#een heard in a court of competent jurisdiction and proceeded against under
the orderl processes of law, and onl pu#lished after in6uir and investigation,
upon notice to him, with an opportunit to #e heard, and a judgment awarded
within the authorit of a constitutional law, then he has had due process of
law.
/here was no denial of due process when an accused was afforded the chance
to present evidence on his #ehalf #ut due to his repeated, unjustifia#le failure
to appear at the hearings, the trial court ordered the case to #e deemed
su#mitted upon the evidence presented # the prosecution. 1t is true that he
filed a petition for change of venue with the %C, however, on the date set for
the hearing of the petitioners urgent motion to suspend the proceedings in the
trial court due to the pendenc of the petition for change of venue, he also
failed to appear.
2ven the counsel of the petitioner admitted that he lost contact with his client
when the latter went a#road. Cence, the trial court cannot #e faulted for
rendering its decision on the #asis solel of the evidence presented in the
prosecution.
P%$P#% *S. $T%3A
,:. SCA 1.. (1<<:)
Bacts5 /he victim "asangka, &omeo 4rtega, and several others were in a
drinking spree when "asangka e3cused himself in order to answer the call of
nature. Benjamin 4rtega followed him. /hereafter, the witnesses heard
shouts of help coming from "asangka. 4ne of the witnesses, <uitlong
testified that when he reached the scene of the crime, he saw Benjamin,
profusel sta##ing "asangka. %everal others went to fetch Benjamins father.
&omeo 4rtega went to the scene in order to pacif his #rother. <uitlong
further testified that he saw 4rtega, "asangka and their #rother in law Darcia
lift the victim and throw his #od inside a well. /he three then threw heav
stones at the #od to prevent it for resurfacing.
/he defendants however contend that "asangka was the first one who
attacked 4rtega and that the latter was merel defending himself against the
former.
Darcia on the other hand contends that "asangka was alread dead when he
assisted 4rtega, hence, he should onl #e lia#le as an accessor.
1ssue5 AL= 4rtega is guilt of mere homicide.
AL= Darcia should #e ac6uitted.
Decision5 4rtega should #e lia#le for homicide onl and not murder. /he court
noted that the victim "asangka si3:footer while 4rtega was onl five feet and
five inches tall. /he accused and the victim were alread grappling when
<uitlong arrived. =othing in the testimon or circumstances can #e interpreted
as a#use of superior strength, hence, 4rtega is lia#le onl for homicide.
Aith regards Darcia, it is true that Darcia merel assisted in concealing the
#od of the victim. But the autops conducted # the =B1 showed that tie
victim at the time he was thrown to the well, a still alive, and that he died of
drowning as evidenced # the mudd particles in the stomach and air tract of
the victim. /he drowning was the direct, natural, and logical conse6uence of
*ena *. *erga ;4

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
the felon that Appellant Darcia had intended to commit. Cowever, in spite of
the evidence showing that appellant Darcia would #e held lia#le as principal in
the crime of homicide. /here are two o#stacles #arring his conviction, even as
an accessor.
/he information accused appellant Darcia of attacking, assaulting and sta##ing
repeatedl with appointed weapon on the different parts of the #od of
"asangka. /he prosecutions evidence shows that Darcia has nothing to do
with the sta##ing which was solel perpetuated # 4rtega, an accused cannot
#e convicted of an offense, unless it is clearl charged in the complaint or
information. Constitutionall, he has a right to #e informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him. /o convict him of an offense other than
charged in the complaint or information would #e a violation of this
constitutional right.
1n all criminal proceedings, the accused shall #e presumed innocent until
proven guilt. Ce shall have the right to #e informed and cause of the
accusation again him, to have a speed trial, impartial, to meet witness face to
face.
Also, Darcia can enjo the e3emption provided for in Article ', and )( of the
civil code #eing the #rother in law of the principal 4rtega. /hus, he must #e
ac6uitted.
9$2A *S "%N&$6A
:: SCA 5,, (1<::)
Bacts5 "anuel Borja was accused of slight phsical injuries. /he cit court of
Ce#u proceeded the trial in a#sentia due to his failure to appear in the hearing
and Borja without #eing arraigned. /he court found him guilt. /he CB1
affirmed it without an notice to petitioner and without re6uiring him to su#mit
his memorandum. $etitioner contended that the failure to arraign him violates
his right to #e informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him and
his right to #e heard and counsel. /he %olicitor:Deneral agreed that the
procedural defect would render void the cit court decision.
1ssue5 AL= petitioner was denied due process.
Decision5 Arraignment is an indispensa#le means for #ringing the accused into
court and informing him of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
/he accused should also #e given the right to #e heard # himself and counsel.
After arraignment, trial ma proceed notwithstanding the a#sence of the
accused provided that he has #een dul notified and his failure to appear is
unjustified. Burther, the a#sence of arraignment can #e invoked at antime in
view of the re6uirements of due process to ensure a fair and impartial trial. 1n
the case, petitioner was denied due process. Ce was not informed of the
accusation against him via an arraignment. /he case is remanded for trial with
the o#servance of due process starting with an arraignment.
"AC$S *S. '!6
,14 SCA 1:: (1<<,)
Bacts5 After the preliminar investigation, the Acting Asst Cit Biscal Lopena
filed two informations with the Bohol &/C against Bienvenido "arcos for
violating B$ )) when he delivered to Bulgencio 4culam two checks in the
amount of $F,((( each in pament for assorted pieces of jewelr taken #
petitioners wife Anacleta "arcos knowing that he did not have sufficient funds.
$etitioner posted a suret #ond for his temporar li#ert. /he arraignment was
reset due to the withdrawal of petitioners lawer. Cowever, petitioner settled
his o#ligation with the offended part who e3ecuted an Affidavit of Desistance.
Biscal Lopena filed a "otion to Dismiss in lieu of the desistance.
/wo cases were filed. 1n one of the cases, neither petitioner nor his counsel
appeared in the hearing, #ut the court received a telegram from petitioners
wife that petitioner was indisposed. /he arraignment was then rescheduled
without an o#jections. 1n the arraignment, petitioner together with his counsel
pleaded not guilt the were notified in open court of the trial of the case. But,
#oth did not appear during the trial. /he court then forfeited the #ond of
petitioner, accepted the evidence of the prosecution and su#mitted the case for
decision.
/hereafter, the court received a motion from petitioner via registered mail for
the resetting of the case. /he counsel alleged that the #elieved that the
hearing would not proceed due to the desistance of the offended part and the
"otion to Dismiss filed # the Biscal Lopena. Both motion as well as the "otion
for &econsideration were denied. Both motions did not contain a notice of
hearing to the $rosecuting Biscal. A notice of promulgation of sentence was
then sent to the parties in the two cases. Cence, this petition.
1ssue5
AL= petitioner was denied the right to confront the witnesses of the
prosecution and to #e heard.
AL= the judge erred in forfeiting the #ond.
Decision5 /he judge a#used his discretion when he ordered the forfeiture of the
#ond despite the a#sence of the accused. Due notice should #e given to the
#ondsman to produce the accused #efore the court #ut there is no showing
that such was complied with.
*ena *. *erga ;5

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
/he accused is re6uired to personall enter his plea. 1n the case, this did not
happen. Cence, there was no valid arraignment in one of the criminal cases.
/he motion for resetting was a mere scrap of paper #ecause it did not contain
a notice of hearing to the $rosecution which is a violation of %ection G, rule ''G
of the &ules of Court. Aithout such notice, it is not even a motion for it does
not compl with the rules and should not have #een received # the clerk.
/he judge a#used his discretion when he considered one of the criminal case
#ecause there was no valid arraignment. Ce thus disregarded %ec )c of &ule
''. and %ec 'c of &ule ''G, which merel consider the accuseds non:
appearance during the trial :: in this case, April 0:: as a waiver if his right to
#e present for trial and not for the succeeding trial dates.

/he a#sence of the accused without notice shall #e considered a waiver of his
right to #e present on that trial. Ahen an accused under custod had #een
notified of the date of the trial and escapes, he shall #e deemed to have
waived his right to #e present on said date and on all su#se6uent trial dates
until custod is regained.
3!"%N%6 vs. NA6A%N$
1.0 SCA 1 (1<;;)
Bacts5 $rivate respondent /eodoro de la >ega and G others were charged with
the crime of murder. 4n August )), ',*F, all the accused were arraigned and
each of them pleaded not guilt. Bollowing the arraignment. /he respondent
=a7areno set the hearing of the case the following month. But #efore the
scheduled date of hearing, de la >ega escaped detention and failed to appear
in court. /he fiscals filed a motion to continue hearing the case and de la >ega
#e tried in a#sentia.
/he lower court proceeded with the trial of the case #ut gave the respondent
the opportunit to take the witness stand the moment he shows up in court.
/he lower court rendered a decision dismissing the case against the five
accused while holding in a#eance the proceedings against the private
respondent.
$etitioners filed a "otion for reconsideration 6uestioning the a#ove:mentioned
decision, hence this petitioner. 1t was the contention of the respondent court
that jurisdiction over private respondent de la >ega was lost when he escaped
and that his right to cross:e3amine and present evidence must not #e denied
him once jurisdiction over is person is reac6uired.
1ssue5 AL= the court lost its jurisdiction when the prisoner escaped from
detention.
Decision5 /he lowered ac6uired jurisdiction over the person of the accused:
private respondent when he appeared during the arraignment and pleaded not
guilt to the crime charged. 1n criminal cases, jurisdiction over the person of
the accused is ac6uired either # his arrest for voluntar appearance in court.
%uch voluntar appearance is accomplished # appearing for arraignment as
what accused respondent did in this case. +urisdiction, once ac6uired is no lost
upon the instance of parties #ut continues until the case is terminated.
Ahere the accused appears at the arraignment and pleads not guilt to the
crime charged, jurisdiction is ac6uired # the court over his person and this
continues until termination of the case, notwithstanding his escape from the
custod of law.
A valid trial in a#sentia has the following re6uisite5 ('! that there has #een an
arraignment; ()! that the accused has #een notified; and (F! that he fails to
appear and hi failure to do so is unjustified.
/he respondent was validl arraigned and he escaped. /he lower court
therefore correctl proceeded with the reception of the evidence of the
prosecution and the other accused in the a#sence of the private respondent.
But it erred when it suspended the proceedings as to private respondent and
rendered a decision as to the other accused onl.
9pon termination of the trial in a#sentia, the court has the dut to rule upon
the evidence presented in court. /he court need not wait for the one who
escaped to finall decide to appear. /he contention of the judge that the right
of the accused to #e presumed innocent will #e violated if a judgment is
rendered as to him 1 untena#le. Ce is still presumed innocent. A judgment of
conviction must still #e #ased upon the evidence presented in court.
/herefore, no violation of due process since the accused was given the
opportunit to #e heard.
B the failure of the accused to appear, he waived his rights to cross e3amine
and to present evidence on his #ehalf. %uch rights are personal right #ut ma
#e waived.
/here was valid trial in a#sentia in this case. /he judge should have proceeded
with the decision.
SA(S$N vs. P%$P#%
1.. SCA .;0 (1<;;)
Bacts5 $etitioner was charged with the crime of 2stafa through Balsification of
a Commercial Document. %ason, who was known as ?Biscal $ere7@ was
*ena *. *erga ;5

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
introduced to Anselmo Aguiling, secretar of 2rnesto &ufino of "ever Bilms. Ce
then presented a Bank of America check in the amount of K),)G(.(( paa#le
to the order of Att. $ere7 to #e e3changed for $esos. "ever Bilms readil
prepared a checking the amount of $hp '.,0G(.((.
%ason then went to Banco Bilipino where he opened an account, using the
check given # "ever as deposit. /he check (dollar! turned out to #e one of
the drafts surreptitiousl taken from a shipment to Bank of America. "ever
ordered to stop pament and %ason was charged with 2stafa.
Appellant raised the issue of due process alleging denial of his right to #e heard
and to present evidences. 1t turned out that after arraignment and the
prosecution was a#le to present evidence, the defense postponed the case
several times. At the hearing on Decem#er (,, ',*., when the defense was
scheduled to present evidences, onl the petitioner appeared. Ce said that his
counsel had another case in a different court. 1n the morning of the said da
the lawer of %ason sent a telegram to the court re6uesting cancellation of
the hearing #ecause he was sick. /he court denied the motion for
postponement and the case was considered su#mitted for decision without
petitioners evidence. /he trial court rendered judgment finding the accused
guilt as charged contending that the petitioner waived his right to #e heard #
counsel and to present evidence.
1ssue5 AL= there was a waiver on the part of the appellant.
Decision5 =o. Ahile the accused has the right to #e heard # himself and
counsel and to present evidence for his defense # direct constitutional grant,
such right is not e3cept form the rule on waiver as log as the waiver is not
contrar to law.
1n the case at #ar, there was a valid waiver. Birst of all, the petitioners motion
was not seasona#l filed as the three:da notice re6uired # the rules of court
was not complied with. "oreover, it was not accompanied # an affidavit nor a
medical certificate to support the allege illness of counsel contrar to &ule )),
%ection G of the rules of court which mandates that postponement on the
ground of illness ma #e granted if it appears upon affidavit that the character
of his illness is such as to render his non:attendance e3cusa#le.
/he conflicting stories advanced # the petitioner and his counsel onl indicate
the lack of good cause for the postponement.
/wo circumstances that should #e taken into account in granting a motion for
postponement5 the reasona#leness of the postponement and the merits of the
case of the movant. Both circumstances were not presented # the petitioner
thus, there can #e no a#use of discretion on the part of the court.
"oreover, petitioner plea that it was incum#ent upon the trial court to appoint
a counsel de officio for him is utterl without merit. /he dut of the court to
appoint a counsel de officio is mandator onl at the time of the arraignment.
/his is no longer so where the accused has proceeded with the arraignment
and the trial with a counsel of his choice #ut when the time for the
presentation of the evidence for the defense, he appears # himself alone and
the a#sence of the counsel is ine3cusa#le.
/he petitioners failure to appear with counsel of his choice at the time of the
hearing of the case, notwithstanding repeated postponement and warning that
failure to do so would #e deemed a waiver of his right to present his evidence
and the case would #e deemed su#mitted for decision upon the evidence
presented # the prosecution.
P%$P#% *S. "A)'%&A
,5, SCA 5.5 (1<<5)
Bacts5 "a6ueda was one of the accused in the slaing of Corace Ailliam
Barker, a Aorld Bank consultant and #atter of his wife, /eresita. /he spouses
were living at /u#a Benguet. 1n the morning of )* August ',,', &ichard
%everino, the spouses former house#o, entered the house of the spouses and
tried to strangle one of the maids. /he commotion woke up /eresita. Ahen
she went down and saw %everino and another unknown person, the former
house #o #eat her up. According to the two househelps, the heard Ailliam
#egging the two accused to stop #eating his wife. Ahen the two had courage
to go out from their hiding room, the asked for help. Ahen the returned to
the house with the authorities, the saw the dead #od of Ailliam. /he
authorities rushed /eresita to the hospital where she was comatose for two
das. Authorities concluded that the main motive of the accused was to ro#
the victims.
/wo other witnesses testified that the saw the two accused. 4ne of the
witnesses said that one of the accused had an amputated hand. /his, together
with the other descriptions given # the other witnesses fit the accused Cector
"a6ueda alias ?putol@
"a6ueda contends that on the da of the crime, he was in <ue7on Cit working
in a polvoron factor. &ecords show that after #eing informed of his rights,
"a6ueda signed a ?%inumpaang %alasa@ wherein he narrated his
participation in the crime at the Barker house. "a6ueda also filed a motion to
Drant Bail stating that he was willing to #e a state witness. $rosecutor Earate
asked the "a6ueda whether he was in the compan of %alvamante. 9pon
giving an affirmative answer, the prosecutor denied the motion. /he owner of
the factor contended that it was impossi#le for "a6ueda to have worked in his
*ena *. *erga ;.

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
shop when it was onl on F( August when he opened his shop. /he trial court
admitted the statement of the accused although it was taken without the
assistance of counsel #ecause it was of the opinion that since an information
had alread #een filed in court against him and he was arrested pursuant to a
warrant of arrest issued # the court, the statement was not therefore, taken
during custodial investigation.
1ssue5 AL= the statement of "a6ueda should #e admitted
Decision5 the e3ercise of the rights to remain silent and to counsel and to #e
informed under %ection ') ('! Article 111 of the Constitution are not confined to
that prior to the filing of a criminal complaint or information #ut are availa#le
at the stage when a person is ?under investigation for the commission of an
offense@.
/he court did recogni7e that once a criminal complaint or information has #een
filed in court and the accused is thereafter arrested # virtue of warrant of
arrest, he must #e delivered to the nearest police station or jail and the
arresting officer must make a return of the warrant to the issuing judge
(%ection F and . &ule ''F! and since the court has alread ac6uired
jurisdiction over his person, it would #e improper for an pu#lic officer or law
enforcement agenc to investigate him in connection with the commission of
the offense for which he was charged. 1f nevertheless, he is su#jected to such
investigation, then %ection ')('! Article 111 of the Constitution and the
jurisprudence thereon must #e faithfull complied with.
"'T'C *S CA
1<0 SCA 54 (1<<0)
BAC/%5 /he .
th
division of the CA promulgated a resolution fi3ing the amount of
the #ond for the provisional release of Bortunato "edina pending his appeal
#efore the said court. /he appellee filed a "&. /he %olicitor:Deneral filed an
opposition in "anila which was actuall received in Baguio Cit when the .
th
division was holding session there. /he "& was denied. But, #efore the CA
could act on his "&, a news article attri#uted to Att Amelito "utuc, counsel of
record of appellee, appeared in the "anila /imes wherein "utuc hit the Appeals
Court ruling in dening "edinas release without posting #ail since he is a
pauper and that his detention is illegal as found # the lower court. 1n the said
news item, "utuc advised "edina to escape from confinement. /he %olicitor:
Deneral in6uired if "utuc did reall made such advice and the latter affirmed
and further said that he is willing to #e imprisoned and dis#arred. /he .
th
division re6uired "utuc several times to show cause wh he should not #e
dealt with for contempt #ut to no avail. "utuc sought the inhi#ition of the
mem#ers of the division #ut was denied. Cence, this petition.
1%%925 AL= petitioner was deprived of due process.
D2C1%14=5 Due process does not alwas and in all situations re6uire a trial:
tpe proceeding. /he essence of due process is to #e found in the reasona#le
opportunit to #e heard and su#mit an evidence one ma have in support of
his defense. ?/o #e heard@ does not onl mean ver#al agreements in court.
4ne ma also #e heard through pleadings. Ahere opportunit to #e heard,
either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of
procedural due process. Cence, petitioner cannot allege lack of due process
since he was given ample time to e3plain wh he should not #e held in
contempt of court and suspended from the practice of law in all the four
6uestioned resolutions.
'#% 11.
AA!3N"%NT AN& P#%A

!. Provisions and Notes
Section &, Arraignment and plea= how made, C 'a( The accused must %e
arraigned %efore the court where the complaint or information was
filed or assigned for trial, The arraignment shall %e made in open court
%y the 4udge or cler2 %y furnishing the accused with a copy of the
complaint or information+ reading the same in the language or dialect
2nown to him+ and as2ing him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty,
The prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than those named
in the complaint or information,
'%( The accused must %e present at the arraignment and must
personally enter his plea, 8oth arraignment and plea shall %e made of
record+ %ut failure to do so shall not affect the validity of the
proceedings,
'c( 1hen the accused refuses to plead or ma2es a conditional plea+
a plea of not guilty shall %e entered for him,
'd( 1hen the accused pleads guilty %ut presents e$culpatory
evidence+ his plea shall %e deemed withdrawn and a plea of not guilty
shall %e entered for him,
*ena *. *erga ;:

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
'e( 1hen the accused is under preventive detention+ his case shall
%e raffled and its records transmitted to the 4udge to whom the case
was raffled within three '.( days from the filing of the information or
complaint, The accused shall %e arraigned within ten '&:( days from
the date of the raffle, The preCtrial conference of his case shall %e held
within ten '&:( days after arraignment,
'f( The private offended party shall %e re)uired to appear at the
arraignment for purposes of plea %argaining+ determination of civil
lia%ility+ and other matters re)uiring his presence, In case of failure of
the offended party to appear despite due notice+ the court may allow
the accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is
necessarily included in the offense charged with the conformity of the
trial prosecutor alone,
'g( Unless a shorter period is provided %y special law or Supreme
Court circular+ the arraignment shall %e held within thirty '.:( days
from the date the court ac)uires 4urisdiction over the person of the
accused, The time of the pendency of a motion to )uash or for a %ill or
particulars or other causes 4ustifying suspension of the arraignment
shall %e excluded in co'puting the period"
A. Cow and when arraignment is made
/he accused must #e arraigned #efore the court where the complaint was
filed or assigned for trial.
1t is made5
'. in open court
). # the judge or clerk
F. # furnishing the accused with a cop of the complaint or information
.. reading it in the language or dialect known to him, and
G. asking him whether he pleads guilt or not guilt.
/he accused must #e present at the arraignment and must personall
enter his plea.
1f the accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea, a plea of not
guilt shall #e entered for him.
1f the accused pleads guilt and esta#lishes self:defense, the court should
withdraw the plea and enter a plea of not guilt.
/he general rule is that the accused should #e arraigned within F( das
from the date the court ac6uires jurisdiction over the person of the
accused. /he time of the pendenc of a motion to 6uash or for a #ill of
particulars or other causes justifing suspension of the arraignment shall
#e e3cluded in computing the period.
Cowever, in the following cases, the accused should #e arraigned with a
shorter period5
'. Ahere the complainant is a#out to depart from the $hilippines with no
definite date of return, the accused should #e arraigned without dela
and his trial should commence within F das from arraignment.
). /he trial of cases under the Child A#use Act re6uires that the trial
should #e commenced within F das from arraignment.
F. Ahen the accused is under preventive detention, his case shall #e
raffled and its records transmitted to the judge to whom the case was
raffled within F das from the filing of the information or complaint.
/he accused shall #e arraigned within '( das from the date of the
raffle.
/he lawer of the accused cannot enter a plea for him. /he accused must
personall enter his plea.
B. 1mportance of arraignment5
Arraignment is the means for #ringing the accused into court and informing
him of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. During
arraignment, he is made full aware of possi#le loss of freedom or life. Ce is
informed wh the prosecuting arm of the %tate is mo#ili7ed against him. 1t is
necessar in order to fi3 the identit of the accused, to inform him of the
charge, and to give him an opportunit to plead.
C. Duplicitousness of information
/he judge has no o#ligation to point out the duplicitousness or an other defect
in an information during arraignment. /he o#ligation to move to 6uash a
defective information #elongs to the accused, whose failure to do so
constitutes a waiver of the right to o#ject.
D. Defects5 when a person is tried without #eing arraigned first
/he failure of the court to arraign a person #efore trial was conducted does not
prejudice his rights since he was a#le to present evidence and cross:e3amine
the witnesses of the prosecution during trial. /he error was cured # the
su#se6uent arraignment.
2. $resumption that there was an arraignment
1n view of the presumption of regularit in the performance of official duties, it
can #e presumed that a person accused of a crime was arraigned, in the
*ena *. *erga ;;

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
a#sence of proof to the contrar. Cowever, the presumption of regularit is
not applied when the penalt imposed is death. Ahen the life of a person is at
stake, the court cannot presume that there was an arraignment; it has to #e
sure that there was one.
=ote5 /he accused is not entitled to know in advance the names of all of the
prosecution witnesses. /he success of the prosecution might #e endangered if
this right were granted to the accused. /he witnesses might #e su#jected to
pressure or coercion. /he right time for the accused to know their identities is
when the take the witness stand. /he prosecution ma call at the trial
witnesses other than those named in the complaint or information.
B. Ahen a person pleads guilt
Ahen an accused pleads guilt, it does not necessaril follow that he will #e
convicted. Additional evidence independent of the guilt plea ma #e
considered # the judge to ensure that the plea of guilt was intelligentl made.
/he totalit of evidence should determine whether the accused should #e
convicted or ac6uitted.
<uestion5 H was charged with murder and entered a plea of guilt. Ce was
later allowed to testif in order to prove the mitigating circumstance of
incomplete self:defense. At the trial, he presented evidence to prove that he
acted in complete self:defense. /he court ac6uitted him. Later, H was again
charged with phsical injuries. H invoked dou#le jeopard. Can H #e
prosecuted again for phsical injuriesQ
H can again #e prosecuted for phsical injuries. /here was no dou#le jeopard.
1n order for dou#le jeopard to attach, there must have #een a valid plea to
the first offense. 1n this case, the presentation # H of evidence to prove
complete self:defense had the effect of vacating his plea of guilt. Ahen the
plea of guilt was vacated, the court should have ordered him to plead again, or
at least should have directed that a new plea of not guilt #e entered for him.
Because the court did not do this, at the time of the ac6uittal, there was
actuall no standing plea for H. %ince there was no valid plea, there can #e no
dou#le jeopard.
ection >" %lea of guilty to a lesser offense" C At arraign'ent, the accused,
(ith the consent of the offended party and prosecutor, 'ay be allo(ed by the
trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense (hich is necessarily included in the
offense charged" After arraign'ent but before trial, the accused 'ay still be
allo(ed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after (ithdra(ing his plea of not
guilty" -o a'end'ent of the co'plaint or infor'ation is necessary"
A. $lead guilt to a lesser offense
At arraignment, the accused ma plead guilt to a lesser offense, which is
necessaril included in the offense charged, provided that the offended part
and the prosecutor give their consent.
After arraignment B9/ B2B4&2 /&1AL, the accused ma still #e allowed to
plead guilt to a lesser offense, after he withdraws his plea of not guilt. 1n
such a case, the complaint or information need not #e amended.
Ahen the penalt imposa#le for the offense is at least - ears and ' da or a
fine e3ceeding $'),(((, the prosecutor must first su#mit his recommendation
to the Cit or $rovincial $rosecutor or to the Chief %tate $rosecutor for
approval. 1f the recommendation is approved, the trial prosecutor ma then
consent to the plea of guilt to a lesser offense.
ection ?" %lea of guilty to capital offense7 reception of evidence" C ;hen the
accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching
in#uiry into the voluntariness and full co'prehension of the conse#uences of
his plea and shall re#uire the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise
degree of culpability" /he accused 'ay present evidence in his behalf"
A. Courts action when the accused pleads guilt to a capital offense
/he court should5
'. conduct a searching in6uir into the voluntariness and full
comprehension of the conse6uences of the plea.
). re6uire the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt and the
precise degree of culpa#ilit of the accused for the purpose of
imposing the proper penalt.
F. ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his #ehalf and
allow him to do so if he desires.
=ote5 A plea of guilt results in the admission of all the material facts in the
complaint or information, including the aggravating circumstances. Because of
this, the court should onl accept a clear, definite, and unconditional plea of
guilt.
$lea of guilt #e considered a mitigating circumstance if made #efore the
prosecution starts to present evidence
*ena *. *erga ;<

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
B. "eaning of ?%earching in6uir@
1n all cases, the judge must convince himself5 ('! that the accused is entering
the plea of guilt voluntaril and intelligentl; and ()! that he is trul guilt
and that there e3ists a rational #asis for a finding of guilt #ased on his
testimon.
1n addition, the judge must inform the accused of the e3act length of
imprisonment and the certaint that he will serve it at the national penitentiar
or a penal colon. /he judge must dispel an false notion that the accused
ma have that he will get off lightl #ecause of his plea of guilt.
<uestions5
A. 1s it mandator for the prosecution to present proof of aggravating
circumstancesQ
8es. 1t is mandator in order to esta#lish the precise degree of culpa#ilit and
the imposa#le penalt. 4therwise, there is an improvident plea of guilt.
B. Can a court validl convict an accused #ased on an imprudent plea of
guiltQ
8es. 1f there is ade6uate evidence of the guilt of the accused independent of
the improvident plea of guilt, the court ma still convict the accused. /he
conviction will #e set aside onl if the plea of guilt is the sole #asis of the
judgment.
Section /, Plea of guilty to nonCcapital offense= reception of evidence+
discretionary, < 1hen the accused pleads guilty to a nonCcapital
offense+ the court may receive evidence from the parties to determine
the penalty to %e imposed,
=ote5
Courts action when the accused pleads guilt to a non:capital offense5 /he
court ma receive evidence from the parties to determine the penalt to #e
imposed. 9nlike in a plea of guilt to a capital offense, the reception of
evidence in this case is not mandator. 1t is merel discretionar on the
court.
Denerall, a plea of guilt cannot #e attacked if it is made voluntaril and
intelligentl. 1t can onl #e attacked if it was induced # threats,
misrepresentation, or #ri#es. Ahen the consensual character of the plea is
called into 6uestion or when it is shown that the defendant was not full
apprised of its conse6uences, the plea can #e challenged.
ection 5" ;ithdra(al of i'provident plea of guilty"C At any ti'e before the
!udg'ent of conviction beco'es final, the court 'ay per'it an i'provident
plea of guilty to be (ithdra(n and be substituted by a plea of not guilty"
=ote5
/he withdrawal of the plea of guilt is not a matter of strict right to the
accused #ut is within the discretion of the court. /he reason for this is that
trial has alread commenced; withdrawal of the plea will change the theor
of the case and will put all of the past proceedings to waste. /herefore, it
ma onl #e withdrawn with permission of the court.
"oreover, there is a presumption that the plea was made voluntaril. /he
court must decide whether the consent of the accused was, in fact, vitiated
when he entered his plea.
A 6ualified plea (e3. the accuse sas ?hindi ko sinasada@! is e6uivalent to
a plea of not guilt. 1n order to #e valid, the plea of guilt must #e
unconditional
ection A" 4uty of court to infor' accused of his right to counsel" C Before
arraign'ent, the court shall infor' the accused of his right to counsel and as)
hi' if he desires to have one" Fnless the accused is allo(ed to defend hi'self
in person or has e'ployed counsel of his choice, the court 'ust assign a
counsel de officio to defend hi'"
A. Action of the court when a defendant appears without an attorne during
arraignment5
/he court has a four:fold dut5
'. 1t must inform the defendant that he has a right to an attorne #efore
#eing arraigned;
). After informing him, the court must ask the defendant if he desires to
have the aid of an attorne;
F. 1f he desires and is una#le to emplo an attorne, the court must
assign an attorne de oficio to defend him;
.. 1f the accused desires to procure an attorne of his own, the court
must grant him a reasona#le time therefor.
B. &eason for this four:fold dut5 /he right to #e heard would #e of little avail
if it does not include the right to #e heard # counsel.
C. 2ffect of the failure of the court to compl with these duties5 1t is a
violation of due process.
*ena *. *erga <0

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
Section >, Appointment of counsel de officio, < The court+ considering
the gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the )uestions that may
arise+ shall appoint as counsel de officio such mem%ers of the %ar in
good standing who+ %y reason of their e$perience and a%ility+ can
competently defend the accused, 8ut in localities where such mem%ers
of the %ar are not availa%le+ the court may appoint any person+
resident of the province and of good repute for pro%ity and a%ility+ to
defend the accused,
A. Definition of counsel de oficio
Counsel de oficio is counsel appointed # the court to represent and defend the
accused in case he cannot afford to emplo one himself. /he court,
considering the gravit of the offense and the difficult of the 6uestions that
ma arise shall appoint as counsel de oficio5
'. such mem#ers of the #ar in good standing
). who # reason of their e3perience and a#ilit, can competentl defend
the accused.
But, in localities where such mem#ers of the #ar are not availa#le, the court
ma appoint an person who is5
'. a resident of the province
). and of good repute for pro#it and a#ilit to defend the accused.
B. Difference #etween the dut of the court to appoint counsel de oficio
during arraignment and during trial
During arraignment, the court has the affirmative dut to inform the accused
of his right to counsel and to provide him with one in case he cannot afford it.
/he court must act on its own volition, unless the right is waived # the
accused.
4n the other hand, during trial, it is the accused who must assert his right to
counsel. /he court will not act unless the accused invokes his rights.
=ote5
A non:lawer cannot represent the accused during arraignment. During
arraignment, it is the o#ligation of the court to ensure that the accused is
represented # a lawer #ecause it is the first time when the accused is
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. /his is a
task which onl a lawer can do.
But during trial, there is no such dut. /he accused must ask for a lawer,
or else, the right is deemed waived. Ce can even defend himself
personall.
An accused #e validl represented # a non:lawer at the trial. 1f the
accused knowingl engaged the services of the non:lawer, he is #ound #
the non:lawers actions. But if he did not know that he was #eing
represented # a non:lawer, the judgment is void #ecause of the
misrepresentation.
C. Duties of the pu#ic attorne if the accused assigned to him is imprisoned
'. Ce shall promptl undertake to o#tain the presence of the prisoner for
trial, or cause a notice to #e served on the person having custod of
the prisoner, re6uiring such person to advise the prisoner of his right
to demand trial.
). 9pon receipt of that notice, the person having custod of the prisoner
shall promptl advise the prisoner of the charge and of his right to
demand trial. 1t at antime thereafter, the prisoner informs his
custodian that he demands such trial, the latter shall cause notice to
that effect to #e sent promptl to the pu#lic attorne.
F. 9pon receipt of such notice, the pu#lic attorne shall promptl seek to
o#tain the presence of the prisoner for trial.
.. Ahen the person having custod of the prisoner receives from the
pu#lic attorne a properl supported re6uest for the availa#ilit of the
prisoner for purposes of the trial, the prisoner shall #e made availa#le
accordingl.
ection B" /i'e for counsel de officio to prepare for arraign'ent" C ;henever
a counsel de office is appointed by the court to defend the accused at the
arraign'ent, he shall be given a reasonable ti'e to consult (ith the accused
as to his plea before proceeding (ith the arraign'ent"
ection 9" Bill of particulars" C /he accused 'ay, before arraign'ent, 'ove for
a bill of particulars to enable hi' properly to plead and prepare for trial" /he
'otion shall specify the alleged defects of the co'plaint or infor'ation and the
details desired"
A. Definition of #ill of particulars
*ena *. *erga <1

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
1t is a more specific allegation. A defendant in a criminal case who
#elieves or feels that he is not sufficientl informed of the crime with which
he is charged and not in a position to defend himself properl and
ade6uatel could move for a #ill or particulars or specifications.
B. Ahat it should contain and purpose
1ts purpose is to allow the accused to prepare for his defense.
/he accused must move for a #ill of particulars #efore arraignment.
4therwise, the right is deemed waived
1t should specif the alleged defects of the complaint or information and
the details desired.
ection <I" %roduction or inspection of 'aterial evidence in possession of
prosecution" C Fpon 'otion of the accused sho(ing good cause and (ith
notice to the parties, the court, in order to prevent surprise, suppression, or
alteration, 'ay order the prosecution to produce and per'it the inspection and
copying or photographing of any (ritten state'ent given by the co'plainant
and other (itnesses in any investigation of the offense conducted by the
prosecution or other investigating officers, as (ell as any designated
docu'ents, papers, boo)s, accounts, letters, photographs, ob!ect, or tangible
things not other(ise privileged, (hich constitute or contain evidence 'aterial
to any 'atter involved in the case and (hich are in the possession or under
the control of the prosecution, police, or other la( investigating agencies"
A. &ight to modes of discover
1t is the right of the accused to move for the production or inspection or
material evidence in the possession of the prosecution. 1t authori7es the
defense to inspect, cop, or photograph an evidence of the prosecution in
its possession after o#taining permission of the court.
/he purpose is to prevent surprise to the accused and the suppression or
alteration of evidence.
1t is availa#le during preliminar investigation in order to protect his
constitutional right to life, li#ert, and propert. (Ae## v. de Leon!
ection <<" uspension of arraign'ent" C Fpon 'otion by the proper party,
the arraign'ent shall be suspended in the follo(ing cases.
+a, /he accused appears to be suffering fro' an unsound 'ental condition
(hich effectively renders hi' unable to fully understand the charge against
hi' and to plead intelligently thereto" 1n such case, the court shall order his
'ental exa'ination and, if necessary, his confine'ent for such purpose7
+b, /here exists a pre!udicial #uestion7 and
+c, A petition for revie( of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either
the 4epart'ent of Justice, or the Dffice of the %resident7 provided, that the
period of suspension shall not exceed sixty +AI, days counted fro' the filing of
the petition (ith the revie(ing office"
A. Drounds for suspending arraignment
'. 1f the accused appears to #e suffering from an unsound mental
condition, which renders him una#le to full understand the charge
against him and to plead intelligentl thereto. /he court should order
his mental e3amination and his confinement, if necessar.
). 1f there e3ists a prejudicial 6uestion.
F. 1f a petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending
either at the D4+ or the 4ffice of the $resident. Cowever, the period
of suspension shall not e3ceed -( das counted from the filing of the
petition for review.
B. /est to determine whether the insanit of the accused should warrant the
suspension of the proceedings
/he test is whether the accused will have a fair trial with the assistance of
counsel, in spite of his insanit. =ot ever a#erration of the mind or e3hi#ition
of mental deficienc is sufficient to justif suspension.
11. Cases
"A3S'CAN3 *S. 9A#3$S
4<; SCA 15; (,004)
Bacts5 $epito Lim, owner of Ace Bishing Corporation, filed a complaint for
6ualified theft against complainants daughter, &osalie "agsucang, for
misappropriating $'',)(( with grave a#use of confidence. /he respondent
judge who conducted the $1 issued a warrant of arrest and set the #ail at
$F(,(((. &osalie was arrested #ut complainant posted #ail for his daughter.
Later, more cases for 6ualified theft were filed # Lim. After $1, warrants of
*ena *. *erga <,

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
arrest were issued and #ail set at $).,(((. Complainant had no mone to post
#ail.
Complainant faults judge for the irregularities in the $1 when the judge
administered the oath to Lim and having sent &osalie to prison without
hearing, and for re6uiring e3cessive #ail. A letter:complaint was referred to the
4ffice of the Court Administrator. /he judge maintained that he followed the
procedure in filing criminal complaints. Ce further said that he found pro#a#le
cause to hold her lia#le for 0 counts of 6ualified theft. /he Court Administrator
found the judge innocent of the charges e3cept as to the e3cessive #ail.
1ssue5 AL= the judge a#used his discretion in granting e3cessive #ail.
Decision5 /he charges on #ias and partialit were not su#stantiated # the
complainant. /he were mere allegations, which were not supported #
evidence to prove that the judge overstepped the parameters of his
prerogative.
A judge enjos the presumption of regularit in the performance of his function
unless overcome # convincing evidence to the contrar.
/he judge did grant e3cessive #ail. /he judge failed to consider that &osalie is
illiterate, the daughter of a poor fisherman and has ver limited financial a#ilit
to post #ail. 1n fi3ing #ail at $).,(((, it is clear that he disregarded the
guidelines provided in the &ules of Court. /he e3cessive #ail onl means that
her provisional li#ert would #e #eond her reach.
P%$P#% vs. $ST!A
4<; SCA 14, (,004)
Bacts5 &o#erto 4stia was convicted of murder for the slaing of a four:ear:
old child. According to a witness, he saw &o#ert, with the victim Beverl,
perched on his right shoulder walking towards the direction of the po#lacion.
Ahen the child failed to return home, her parents asked the assistance of the
authorities. /he #od of Beverl was found in a grass area. According to the
medico:legal report, the child was raped and that her death was due to
hemorrhage.
During the arraignment, &o#erto pleaded not guilt to the charge of rape with
homicide. 9pon talking to his counsel de officio, he agreed to plead guilt to
murder, which was a lesser offense. /he accused was re:arraigned and
pleaded guilt to the crime of murder. Ce was assisted # his counsel and the
information was read and translated to him in the wara dialect. Ce was also
informed that as a result of his plea of guilt, he admitted all the facts alleged in
the information which were alread read and translated to him.
/he judge rendered a decision finding &o#erto guilt and sentencing the
penalt of death.
&o#erto appealed the %upreme Court contending that the lower court erred in
convicting him of the crime of murder despite hi improvident plea of guilt, in
violation of %ection F, &ule ''- of the rules of court.
1ssue5 AL= the court erred in accepting the plea of guilt without conducting
searching in6uiries as provided for in %ection F, &ule ''-.
Decision5 %ection F of rule ''- provides that when the accused enters a plea
of guilt to a capital offense the trial court is mandated to5 ('! conduct a
searching in6uir into the voluntaries thereof; ()! re6uire the prosecution to
present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of
his culpa#ilit and (F! ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his
#ehalf and allow him to do so if he desires. /his procedure is mandator and a
judge who fails to o#serve with fealt the said rule commits grave a#use of
discretion.
1n the case at #ar, it was proven that the accused did not even know how to
read or write. /he trial court failed to e3plain to the accused the nature of the
crime of murder nor even asked his reasons for changing his plea. =o
searching 6uestions were asked, thus the judge a#used his discretion.
=onetheless, as held in the case of $eople vs. +a#ien. Ahere the trial court
receives evidence to determine precisel whether or not the accused has erred
in admitting his guilt, such plea loses its significance. Cowever, even without
considering the plea, he ma still #e convicted if there is ade6uate evidence on
record on which to predicate his conviction. %uch is true in the case at #ar.
&o#erto was convicted # the %C #ut modified the penalt.
P%$P#% vs. S$#A"!##$
505 SCA ,10 (,004)
Bacts5 %olamillo and three others were convicted for the crime of ro##er with
homicide for the slaing of Ale3ander Duiro, the proprietor of Li#ert Baker
and Drocer, with whom the three worked as emploees. /he victim suffered
)' hack wounds. 1t was also found that around $hp )(,(((.(( was stolen #
the accused together with the victims wallet and watch.
*ena *. *erga <4

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
After the decision was rendered # the court convicting all the accused, +ulian
%olamillo appealed to the court sating that the court erred in disregarding his
tacit withdrawal of his guilt plea during arraignment. Ce claims that
policeman Baa#os threatened to kill him if he will pleat not guilt.
1ssue5 AL= the plea should #e disregarded.
Decision5 =o. %ection G of rule ''- of the &evised &ules of Criminal $rocedure
provides that at na time #efore the judgment of conviction #ecomes final;, the
court ma permit an improvident plea of guilt to #e withdrawn and #e
su#stituted # a plea of not guilt.
/here is nothing in the records to show that +ulian filed a motion to withdraw
his plea of guilt or that he, in an manner manifested une6uivocall that he
was withdrawing his plea. Cis statement during the trial that he was
threatened # Baa#os, is not a positive and categorical declaration that
appellant +ulian was withdrawing his plea of guilt. Aithout an une6uivocal
act on his part, the trial court could not assume the he was withdrawing his
original plea.
2ven assuming that +ulian made an improvident plea of guilt and
su#se6uentl withdrew it, such fact does not operate to automaticall
e3culpate him from criminal lia#ilit. Convictions #ased on an improvident plea
of guilt are set aside onl if such plea is the sole #asis of the judgment. 1f the
trial court relied on sufficient and credi#le evidence to convict the accused, the
conviction must #e sustained #ecause then it is predicated not merel on the
guilt plea of the accused #ut on evidence proving his commission of the
offense charged.
Ahether or not the plea of guilt was improvident. 1s inconse6uential for the
simple reason that his conviction was #ased on other evidence proving his
culpa#ilit for the offense charged.
P%$P#% *S. &(
4<5 SCA ,5. (,004)
Bacts5 /he accused Bran D and Diovani Bernardino filed separate motions
of reconsideration 6uestioning the decision of the lower court finding them
guilt of rape and acts of lasciviousness. Bernardino contends that the were
not accorded their right to a fair, un#iased resolution of the preliminar
investigation. Ce also 6uestions the speed manner # which the trial was
conducted and the lack of arraignment stating that the right to #e arraigned is
not among the rights that are suscepti#le to waiver or estoppel. /hus the lack
of arraignment cannot #e deemed cured # their participation in the trial.
1ssue5 AL= there was violation of rights on the part of the appellants.
Decision5 =one5 /he right to #e informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation ma not #e waived. Cowever, it is a different matter when it was
the accused themselves who refused to #e informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation. 1t was esta#lished that the accused refused to #e arraigned,
thus, it was not the courts fault that no arraignment was held.
/he records show that the proceedings were not hastil conducted. Ahile the
proceedings might have #een of short duration than usual, the were
nevertheless conducted with due regard to the right of each part to due
process. /he trial court should even #e commended for conducting a speed
trial, which should #e the rule, rather than the e3ception.
Ahat is the prime consideration is not the speed # which the trial was
conducted #ut the matter # which the procedural and su#stantial re6uirement
were complied with. /he records show that these re6uirements were
ade6uatel met.
P%$P#% vs. "A"A!$N
51, SCA 54; (,004)
Bacts5 "amarion and several others were convicted of kidnapping with ransom
for the kidnapping of &o#erta Cokin, a wealth #usiness woman in Bacolod
cit. &o#erta was kidnapped # the group after she attended a cockfight. A
ransom of two:million was asked of her sister. Cowever, the recover
operation of the =B1 failed. /he were onl a#le to recover the )" #ut not
&o#erta. &o#erta was then found dead in a shallow grave.
4ne of the accused Dale #ecame the state witness and was allowed to plea on
a lesser offense. /he accused "amarion 6uestions the decision of the court
allowing Dale to plead guilt to a lesser offense (slight illegal detention! in
consideration of testifing as a prosecution witness.
1ssue5 AL= the court erred in allowing Dale plead to a lesser offense.
Decision5 =o. Dale was validl discharged as a state witness. Dale was allowed
to change his plea pursuant to the then prevailing %ection ) &ule ''- of the
&ules of court. As stated in the said rule, the accused with the consent of the
offended part and the fiscal ma #e allowed # the trail court to plead guilt to
a lesser offense, regardless of whether or not it is necessaril included in the
crime charges or is cogni7a#le # a curt of lesser jurisdiction.
*ena *. *erga <5

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
1t is immaterial that said plea was not made during the pre:trial stage or that it
was made onl after the prosecution alread presented several witnesses.
$lea:#argaining in criminal cases is a process where# the accused and the
prosecution work out a mutuall satisfactor disposition of the case su#ject to
court approval. 4rdinaril, plea:#argaining is made during the pre:trail stage
of the criminal proceeding. Cowever, the law still permits the accused
sufficient opportunit to change his plea thereafter.
%uch a situation is addressed entirel to the sound discretion of the court. /he
court did not err in allowing Dale to plead to a lesser offense since his
testimon is crucial to the case at #ar.
'#% 11:
"$T!$N T$ )'AS7

!. Provisions and Notes
Section &, Time to move to )uash, < At any time %efore entering his
plea+ the accused may move to )uash the complaint or information,
Section, 9, Form and contents, < The motion to )uash shall %e in
writing+ signed %y the accused or his counsel and shall distinctly
specify its factual and legal grounds, The court shall consider no
ground other than those stated in the motion+ e$cept lac2 of
4urisdiction over the offense charged,
A. +orm required 1or a motion to quas?
1. !t must =e in 0riting.
,. !t must =e signed =y t?e accused or ?is counsel.
4. !t must sAeci1y its 1actual and legal grounds.
NoteD A court generally8 cannot dismiss t?e case =ased on grounds
t?at are not alleged in t?e motion to quas?. T?e court cannot consider
any ground ot?er t?an t?ose stated in t?e motion to quas?. T?e
eBceAtion is lacC o1 Jurisdiction over t?e o11ense c?arged. !1 t?is is t?e
ground 1or dismissing t?e case8 it need not =e alleged in t?e motion to
quas? since it goes into t?e very comAetence o1 t?e court to Aass uAon
t?e case.
Section ., !rounds, < The accused may move to )uash the complaint
or information on any of the following grounds:
'. /hat the facts charged do not constitute an offense7
). /hat the court trying the case has no !urisdiction over the offense
charged7
F. /hat the court trying the case has no !urisdiction over the person of
the accused7
.. /hat the officer (ho filed the infor'ation had no authority to do so7
G. /hat it does not confor' substantially to the prescribed for'7
-. /hat 'ore than one offense is charged except (hen a single
punish'ent for various offenses is prescribed by la( +duplicitous,7
*. /hat the cri'inal action or liability has been extinguished7
0. /hat it contains aver'ents (hich, if true, (ould constitute a legal
excuse or !ustification7
9. /hat the accused has been previously convicted or ac#uitted of the
offense charged, or the case against hi' (as dis'issed or other(ise
ter'inated (ithout his express consent" +double !eopardy,
NoteD
"atters o1 de1ense are generally not a ground 1or a motion to
quas?. T?ey s?ould =e Aresented at t?e trial.
&enial o1 due Arocess is not one o1 t?e grounds 1or a motion to
quas?.
A motion to quas? on t?e ground o1 lacC o1 Jurisdiction over t?e
Aerson o1 t?e accused must =e =ased only on t?is ground. !1 ot?er
grounds are included8 t?ere is a 0aiver8 and t?e accused is deemed
to ?ave su=mitted ?imsel1 to t?e Jurisdiction o1 t?e court.
A. "eaning o1 t?e statement t?at Ga motion to quas? ?yAot?etically
admits allegations o1 1act in t?e in1ormationH.
1t means that the accused argues that assuming that the facts charged are
true, the information should still #e dismissed #ased on the ground invoked #
the defendant. /herefore, since the defendant assumes that the facts in the
information are true, onl these facts should #e taken into account when the
court resolves the motion to 6uash. 4ther facts, such as matters of defense,
which are not in the information should not #e considered. 23ceptions to this
rule are when the grounds invoked to 6uash the information are e3tinction of
criminal lia#ilit, prescription, and former jeopard. 1n these cases, additional
facts are allowed.
*ena *. *erga <5

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
9. %11ect o1 an in1ormation t?at 0as signed =y an unaut?oriMed Aerson
1t is a >AL1D information signed # a competent officer which, among other
re6uisites, confers jurisdiction over the person of the accused and the su#ject
matter of the accusation. /hus, an infirmit in the information such as lack of
authorit of the officer signing it cannot #e cured # silence, ac6uiescence,
e3press consent, or even amendment.
C. &e1endant enters ?is Alea =e1ore 1iling a motion to quas?
9y entering ?is Alea =e1ore 1iling t?e motion to quas?8 t?e de1endant
0aives +$"A# o=Jections to t?e comAlaint or in1ormation.

9ut i1 t?e ground 1or t?e motion is any o1 t?e 1ollo0ing8 t?ere is no
0aiver. T?e ground may =e raised at any stage o1 t?e AroceedingD
1. 1ailure to c?arge an o11ense
,. lacC o1 Jurisdiction over t?e o11ense
4. eBtinction o1 criminal lia=ility
5. dou=le JeoAardy
&. %Btinction o1 criminal lia=ility
'nder Article ;< o1 t?e PC8 criminal lia=ility is eBtinguis?ed =yD
1. deat? o1 t?e convict8 and as to Aecuniary Aenalties8 lia=ility
t?ere1or is eBtinguis?ed only 0?en t?e deat? o1 t?e o11ender
occurs =e1ore 1inal JudgmentN
,. service o1 sentenceN
4. amnestyN
5. a=solute AardonN
5. ArescriAtion o1 t?e crimeN
.. ArescriAtion o1 t?e AenaltyN
:. marriage o1 t?e o11ended 0oman8 as Arovided in Article 455 o1
t?e PC.
%. Partial eBtinction o1 criminal lia=ility
1. Conditional Aardon
,. Commutation o1 sentence
4. +or good conduct8 allo0ances 0?ic? t?e culArit may earn 0?ile
?e is serving ?is sentence
<uestion
A. Ahile the case for adulter was #eing tried, H died. Ahat happens to the
criminal lia#ilit of H and 8Q
T?e criminal lia=ility o1 > is eBtinguis?ed. T?e criminal lia=ility o1 (
su=sists. T?e deat? o1 one o1 several accused 0ill not =e a cause 1or
dismissal o1 t?e criminal action as against t?e ot?er accused.
B. Ahat is the effect of the death of the offended part on the criminal lia#ilit
of the accusedQ
E?ere t?e o11ense c?arged in a criminal comAlaint or in1ormation is
one against t?e state8 involving Aeace and order8 t?e deat? o1 t?e
o11ended Aarty =e1ore 1inal conviction o1 t?e de1endant 0ill not a=ate
t?e Arosecution. Neit?er does t?e deat? o1 t?e o11ended Aarty in
Arivate crimes a=ate t?e Arosecution.
+. &istinctions =et0een Aardon and amnesty
A"=2%/8 $A&D4=
/8$2 4B 4BB2=%2 Political o11enses !n1ractions o1 t?e
Aeace (common
crimes)
B2=2B1C1A&8 Classes o1 Aersons An individual
C4=C9&&2=C2 4B
C4=D&2%%
Necessary Not necessary
ACC2$/A=C2 9ene1iciary need not
acceAt
Need 1or distinct acts
o1 acceAtance on t?e
Aart o1 t?e Aardonee
+9D1C1AL =4/1C2 Courts taCe Judicial
notice =ecause it is a
Au=lic act
Courts do not taCe
Judicial notice =ecause
it is a Arivate act o1
t?e President.
T?ere1ore8 it must =e
Aroved in court.
2BB2C/ A=olis?es t?e o11ense
(looCs =acC0ard)
elieves t?e o11ender
1rom t?e
consequences o1 t?e
o11ense (looCs
1or0ard)
AC2= 1/ "A8 B2 9e1ore or a1ter $nly a1ter conviction
*ena *. *erga <.

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
D&A=/2D Arosecution =y 1inal Judgment
3. %11ect o1 a=solute Aardon uAon criminal lia=ility
A=solute Aardon =lots out t?e crime. !t removes all disa=ilities
resulting 1rom t?e conviction8 suc? as t?e Aolitical rig?ts o1 t?e
accused.
7. %11ect o1 Aardon =y t?e o11ended Aarty uAon criminal lia=ility
As a general rule8 Aardon =y t?e o11ended Aarty does not eBtinguis?
criminal lia=ility. $nly civil lia=ility is eBtinguis?ed =y eBAress 0aiver
o1 t?e o11ended Aarty.
7o0ever8 Aardon granted =e1ore t?e institution o1 t?e criminal
Aroceedings in cases o1 adultery8 concu=inage8 seduction8 a=duction8
and acts o1 lasciviousness s?all eBtinguis? criminal lia=ility.
!. %11ect o1 marriage o1 t?e o11ender 0it? t?e o11ended Aarty in
Arivate crimes
!t s?all eBtinguis? t?e criminal action or remit t?e Aenalty already
imAosed. T?is aAAlies even to co-ArinciAals8 accomAlices8 and
accessories.
7o0ever8 0?ere multiAle raAe is committed8 marriage o1 t?e o11ended
Aarty 0it? one de1endant eBtinguis?es t?e latterIs lia=ility and t?at o1
?is accessories or accomAlices 1or a single crime o1 raAe cannot eBtend
to t?e ot?er acts o1 raAe.
NoteD !1 t?e o11ender in raAe is t?e legal ?us=and o1 t?e o11ended Aarty
t?e su=sequent 1orgiveness =y t?e 0i1e s?all eBtinguis? t?e criminal
action or t?e Aenalty. 9ut t?e Aenalty s?all not =e a=ated i1 t?e
marriage is void a= initio.
+. $rescription a ground for a motion to 6uash
T?is is meant to eB?ort t?e Arosecution not to delayN ot?er0ise8 t?ey
0ill lose t?e rig?t to Arosecute. !t is also meant to secure t?e =est
evidence t?at can =e o=tained.
J. $rescriptive periods of crimes
4BB2=%2 $&2%C&1$/1>2 $2&14D
Punis?a=le =y deat?8
reclusion AerAetua8 or
reclusion temAoral
,0 years
Punis?a=le =y ot?er a11lictive
Aenalties
10 years
Punis?a=le =y arresto mayor 5 years
#i=el or ot?er similar o11enses , years
$ral de1amation and slander
=y deed
. mont?s
#ig?t o11enses , mont?s
NoteD T?e accused can still raise ArescriAtion as a de1ense even a1ter
conviction. T?e de1ense cannot =e 0aived. T?is is =ecause t?e
criminal action is totally eBtinguis?ed =y t?e eBAiration o1 t?e
ArescriAtive Aeriod. T?e State t?ere=y loses or 0aives its rig?t to
Arosecute and Aunis? it.
T?e AroAer action 1or t?e court is to eBercise its Jurisdiction and to
decide t?e case uAon t?e merits8 ?olding t?e action to ?ave Arescri=ed
and a=solving t?e de1endant. T?e court s?ould not in?i=it itsel1
=ecause it does not lose Jurisdiction over t?e su=Ject matter or t?e
Aerson o1 t?e accused =y ArescriAtion.
#. %11ect o1 ArescriAtion o1 t?e o11ense on t?e civil lia=ility o1 t?e
accused
T?e eBtinction o1 t?e Aenal action does not carry 0it? it t?e eBtinction
o1 t?e civil action to en1orce civil lia=ility arising 1rom t?e o11ense
c?arged8 unless t?e eBtinction Aroceeds 1rom a declaration in a 1inal
Judgment t?at t?e 1act 1rom 0?ic? t?e civil lia=ility mig?t arise did not
eBist.
". Courts action i1 t?e accused moves to quas? t?e comAlaint or
in1ormation on grounds t?at can =e cured =y amendment
(duAlicitous)
T?e court s?ould order t?at t?e amendment =e made.
N. Courts action i1 t?e accused moves to quas? on t?e ground t?at t?e
1acts c?arged do not constitute an o11ense
T?e court s?ould give t?e Arosecution t?e oAAortunity to correct t?e
de1ect =y amendment. !1 t?e Arosecution 1ails to maCe t?e
amendment8 or i18 a1ter it maCes t?e amendment8 t?e comAlaint or
in1ormation still su11ers 1rom t?e same de1ect8 t?e court s?ould
grant/sustain t?e motion to quas?.
$. %11ect i1 a motion to quas? is sustained
*ena *. *erga <:

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
T?e court may order t?at anot?er comAlaint or in1ormation =e 1iled
against t?e accused 1or t?e same o11ense8 eBceAt i1 t?e ground 1or
sustaining t?e motion to quas? is eit?erD
1. eBtinguis?ment o1 t?e criminal lia=ility o1 t?e accused8 or
,. dou=le JeoAardy.
T?e grant o1 a motion to quas? on t?ese t0o grounds is a =ar to
anot?er Arosecution 1or t?e same o11ense.
!1 t?e order is made8 t?e accused8 i1 in custody8 s?all not =e disc?arged
unless admitted to =ail.
!1 no order is made8 or i1 no ne0 in1ormation 0as 1iled 0it?in t?e time
sAeci1ied =y t?e court8 t?e accused8 i1 in custody8 s?all =e disc?arged.
P. emedy o1 t?e accused i1 t?e court denies ?is motion to quas?
T?e accused cannot aAAeal an order overruling ?is motion to quas?.
T?is is =ecause an order denying a motion to quas? is interlocutoryN it
does not disAose o1 t?e case uAon its merits. T?e accused s?ould go to
trial and raise it as an error on aAAeal later.
). T0o Cinds o1 JeoAardy
1. No Aerson s?all =e t0ice Aut in JeoAardy 1or t?e same offense.
2. E?en an act is Aunis?ed =y a la0 and an ordinance8 conviction
or acquittal under eit?er s?all constitute a =ar to anot?er
Arosecution 1or t?e same act.
&e6uisites for the accused to raise the defense of dou#le jeopard
To raise t?e de1ense o1 dou=le JeoAardy8 t?e 1ollo0ing requisites must
=e AresentD
1. a first !eopardy must ?ave attac?ed Arior to t?e secondN
2. t?e 1irst JeoAardy must ?ave =een validly ter'inated7
3. t?e second !eopardy must =e 1or t?e sa'e offense or t?e second
o11ense includes or is necessarily included in t?e o11ense c?arged in
t?e 1irst in1ormation8 or is an atte'pt or a frustration t?ereo1.
&e6uisites for the first jeopard to attach
1. *alid comAlaint or in1ormation
,. Court o1 comAetent Jurisdiction
4. Arraignment
5. *alid Alea
5. T?e de1endant 0as acquitted8 convicted8 or t?e case 0as
dismissed 0it?out ?is eBAress consent.
NoteD +or AurAoses o1 dou=le JeoAardy8 a comAlaint or in1ormation is
valid i1 it can suAAort a Judgment o1 conviction. !t t?e comAlaint or
in1ormation is not valid8 it 0ould violate t?e rig?t o1 t?e accused to =e
in1ormed o1 t?e nature and cause o1 t?e accusation against ?im. !1 ?e
is convicted under t?is comAlaint or in1ormation8 t?e conviction is null
and void. !1 t?e conviction is null and void8 t?ere can =e no 1irst
JeoAardy.
<uestions5
A. A crime was committed in Batangas #ut case was filed in "indoro. Ahen
the prosecution reali7ed that the complaint should have #een filed in
Batangas, it filed the case in Batangas. Can the accused invoke dou#le
jeopardQ
No. T?e court in "indoro ?ad no JurisdictionN t?ere1ore8 t?e accused
0as in no danger o1 =eing Alaced in JeoAardy. T?e 1irst JeoAardy did
not validly attac?.
B. H was charged with theft. 4n the da of the trial, the prosecution could
not go to trial #ecause important witnesses were una#le to appear.
Counsel for the accused moved to dismiss the case. /he court dismissed
the case provisionall. %u#se6uentl, H was charged with theft again. Can
H invoke dou#le jeopardQ
No. T?e case 0as dismissed uAon motion o1 counsel 1or t?e accused8
so it 0as not dismissed 0it?out ?is eBAress consent. "oreover8 t?e
dismissal 0as only Arovisional8 0?ic? is not a valid termination o1 t?e
1irst JeoAardy. !n order to validly terminate t?e 1irst JeoAardy8 t?e
dismissal must ?ave =een unconditional.
C. H was charged with 6ualified theft. H moved to dismiss on the ground of
insufficienc of the information. /he case was dismissed. %u#se6uentl,
the prosecution filed a corrected information. Can H plead dou#le
jeopardQ
No. T?e 1irst JeoAardy did not attac? =ecause t?e 1irst in1ormation 0as
not valid.
*ena *. *erga <;

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
D. /he estafa case against H was dismissed, #ut the dismissal contained a
reservation of the right to file another action. Can another estafa case #e
filed against H without placing him in dou#le jeopardQ
(es. To raise t?e de1ense o1 dou=le JeoAardy8 t?e 1irs JeoAardy must
?ave =een validly terminated. T?is means t?at t?ere must ?ave =een
eit?er a conviction or an acquittal8 or an unconditional dismissal o1 t?e
case. A Arovisional dismissal8 suc? as t?is one8 does not validly
terminate t?e 1irst JeoAardy.
Note8 ?o0ever8 t?at in t?e second Cind o1 JeoAardy (one act Aunis?ed
=y a la0 and an ordinance)8 t?e 1irst JeoAardy can only =e terminated
eit?er =y conviction or acquittal8 and not =y dismissal o1 t?e case
0it?out t?e eBAress consent o1 t?e accused.
2. H was charged with theft. During the trial, the prosecution was a#le to
prove estafa. H was ac6uitted of theft. Can H #e prosecuted for estafa
later without placing him in dou#le jeopardQ
(es. +or JeoAardy to attac?8 t?e =asis is t?e crime c?arged in t?e
comAlaint or in1ormation8 and not t?e one Aroved at t?e trial. !n t?is
case8 t?e crime c?arged in t?e 1irst in1ormation 0as t?e1t. > 0as
t?ere1ore Alaced in JeoAardy o1 =eing convicted o1 t?e1t. Since esta1a
is not an o11ense 0?ic? is included or necessarily includes t?e1t8 > can
still =e Arosecuted 1or esta1a 0it?out Alacing ?im in dou=le JeoAardy.
B. H was charged with slight phsical injuries. 4n his motion, the case was
dismissed during the trial. Another case for assault upon a person in
authorit was filed against him. Can H invoke dou#le jeopardQ
No. T?e 1irst JeoAardy 0as not terminated t?roug? eit?er conviction8
acquittal8 or dismissal 0it?out t?e eBAress consent o1 >. T?e 1irst case
0as dismissed uAon motion o1 > ?imsel1. T?ere1ore8 ?e cannot invoCe
dou=le JeoAardy.
D. H was charged with theft. During trial, the evidence showed that the
offense committed was actuall estafa. Ahat should the judge doQ
T?e Judge s?ould order t?e su=stitution o1 t?e comAlaint 1or t?e1t 0it?
a ne0 one c?arging esta1a. 'Aon 1iling o1 t?e su=stituted comAlaint8
t?e Judge s?ould dismiss t?e original comAlaint.
!1 it aAAears at any time =e1ore Judgment t?at a mistaCe ?as =een
made in c?arging t?e AroAer o11ense8 t?e court s?all dismiss t?e
original comAlaint or in1ormation uAon t?e 1iling o1 a ne0 one c?arging
t?e AroAer o11ense.
C. H was charged with homicide. 4n the first da of trial, the prosecution
failed to appear. /he court dismissed the case on the ground of violation
of the right of the accused to speed trial. H was later charged with
murder. Can H invoke dou#le jeopardQ
No. T?e 1irst JeoAardy 0as not validly terminated. T?e Judge 0?o
dismissed t?e case on t?e ground o1 violation o1 t?e rig?t o1 > to
sAeedy trial committed grave a=use o1 discretion in dismissing t?e
case a1ter t?e Arosecution 1ailed to aAAear once. T?is is not a valid
dismissal =ecause it deArives t?e Arosecution o1 due Arocess. E?en
t?e Judge gravely a=uses ?is discretion in dismissing a case8 t?e
dismissal is not valid. T?ere1ore8 > cannot invoCe dou=le JeoAardy.
. equisites 1or a valid su=stitution o1 a comAlaint or in1ormation
1. No Judgment ?as =een renderedN
,. T?e accused cannot =e convicted o1 t?e o11ense c?arged or any
ot?er o11ense necessarily included in t?e o11ense c?argedN
4. T?e accused 0ill not =e Alaced in dou=le JeoAardy.
S. &ismissal and acquittal.
Dismissal Ac6uittal
&ismissal does not decide t?e case on t?e
merits8 nor does it determine t?at t?e
accused is not guilty
Acquittal is al0ays =ased
on t?e merits.
&ismissals terminate t?e Aroceedings8
eit?er =ecause t?e court is not a court o1
comAetent Jurisdiction or t?e evidence
does not s?o0 t?at t?e o11ense 0as
committed 0it?in t?e territorial
Jurisdiction o1 t?e court8 or t?e comAlaint
or in1ormation is not valid or su11icient in
1orm and su=stance.
T?e accused is acquitted
=ecause t?e evidence
does not s?o0 ?is guilt
=eyond reasona=le dou=t.
T. E?en dismissal equivalent to acquittal
A dismissal uAon motion o1 t?e accused or ?is counsel negates t?e
aAAlication o1 dou=le JeoAardy =ecause t?e motion o1 t?e accused
amounts to eBAress consent8 %>C%PTD
*ena *. *erga <<

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
1. i1 t?e ground is insu11iciency o1 evidence o1 t?e Arosecution
(demurrer to evidence)8 or
,. denial o1 t?e rig?t to sAeedy trial.
!n t?ese t0o cases8 even uAon motion o1 t?e accused8 t?e dismissal
amounts to an acquittal and 0ould =ar a second JeoAardy.
9ut i1 t?e accused moves to dismiss on t?e 1ollo0ing grounds8 ?e can
still =e Arosecuted 1or t?e same o11ense =ecause ?e is deemed to ?ave
0aived ?is rig?t against a second JeoAardyD
1. #acC o1 Jurisdiction (9ecause i1 you move to dismiss on t?e
ground o1 lacC o1 Jurisdiction8 it means t?at you could not ?ave
=een validly convicted =y t?at court. (ou are later estoAAed
1rom claiming t?at you 0ere in danger o1 conviction).
,. !nsu11iciency o1 comAlaint or in1ormation (Same reason. (ou
could not ?ave =een validly convicted under t?at de1ective
in1ormation8 so you are estoAAed 1rom claiming t?at t?ere 0as
a 1irst JeoAardy).
'. T?e conditions 0?en dismissal or termination 0ill not Alace t?e
accused in dou=le JeoAardy areD
1. T?e dismissal must =e soug?t =y t?e de1endant Aersonally or
t?roug? ?is counselN and
,. Suc? dismissal must not =e on t?e merits and must not
necessarily amount to an acquittal.
*. T?ere 0as no dou=le JeoAardy in case =e1ore t?e Arosecution could
1inis? Aresenting its evidence8 t?e accused 1iled a demurrer to
evidence and t?e court granted t?e motion and dismissed t?e case
on t?e ground o1 insu11iciency o1 evidence o1 t?e Arosecution. T?e
reason 1or t?is is t?at t?e court eBceeded its Jurisdiction in
dismissing t?e case even =e1ore t?e Arosecution could 1inis?
Aresenting evidence. !t denied t?e Arosecution o1 its rig?t to due
Arocess. 9ecause o1 t?is8 t?e dismissal is null and void and cannot
constitute a AroAer =asis 1or a claim o1 dou=le JeoAardy.
&ou=le 2eoAardy 7yAot?etical )uestions
A. /he prosecutor filed an information against H for homicide. Before H could
#e arraigned, the prosecutor withdrew the information, without notice to H.
/he prosecutor then filed an information against H for murder. Can H
invoke dou#le jeopardQ
No. > ?as not yet =een arraigned under t?e 1irst in1ormation.
T?ere1ore8 t?e 1irst JeoAardy did not attac?. A nolle prose)ui or
dismissal entered =e1ore t?e accused is Alaced on trial and =e1ore ?e
Aleads is not equivalent to an acquittal and does not =ar a su=sequent
Arosecution 1or t?e same o11ense.
B. 1f the accused fails to o#ject to the motion to dismiss the case filed # the
prosecution, is he deemed to have consented to the dismissalQ Can he still
invoke dou#le jeopardQ
No. Silence does not mean consent to t?e dismissal. !1 t?e accused
1ails to o=Ject or acquiesces to t?e dismissal o1 t?e case8 ?e can still
invoCe dou=le JeoAardy8 since t?e dismissal 0as still 0it?out ?is
eBAress consent. 7e is deemed to ?ave 0aived ?is rig?t against
dou=le JeoAardy i1 ?e eBAressly consents to t?e dismissal.
C. H was charged with murder. /he prosecution moved to dismiss the case.
Counsel for H wrote the words ?=o o#jection@ at the #ottom of the motion to
dismiss and signed it. Can H invoke dou#le jeopard later onQ
No. > is deemed to ?ave eBAressly consented to t?e dismissal o1 t?e
case 0?en ?is counsel 0rote GNo o=Jection at t?e =ottom o1 t?e motion
to dismiss. Since t?e case 0as dismissed 0it? ?is eBAress consent8 >
cannot invoCe dou=le JeoAardy.
D. H was charged with murder. After the prosecution presented its evidence, H
filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove
that the crime was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
/he court dismissed the case. /he prosecution appealed. Can H invoke dou#le
jeopardQ
No. > cannot invoCe dou=le JeoAardy. T?e dismissal 0as uAon ?is o0n
motion8 so it 0as 0it? ?is eBAress consent. Since t?e dismissal 0as
0it? ?is eBAress consent8 ?e is deemed to ?ave 0aived ?is rig?t
against dou=le JeoAardy. T?e only time 0?en a dismissal8 even uAon
motion o1 t?e accuse8 0ill =ar a second JeoAardy is i1 it is =ased eit?er
on insu11iciency o1 evidence or denial o1 t?e rig?t o1 t?e accused to
sAeedy trial. T?ese are not t?e grounds invoCed =y >8 so ?e cannot
claim dou=le JeoAardy.
2. H was charged with homicide. H moved to dismiss on the ground that the
court had no jurisdiction. Believing that it had no jurisdiction, the judge
dismissed the case. %ince the court, in fact, had jurisdiction over the case, the
prosecution filed another case in the same court. Can H invoke dou#le
jeopardQ
*ena *. *erga 100

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
No. > is estoAAed 1rom claiming t?at ?e 0as in danger o1 =eing
convicted during t?e 1irst case8 since ?e ?ad ?imsel1 earlier alleged
t?at t?e court ?ad no Jurisdiction.
B. H was charged with homicide. /he court, #elieving that it had no
jurisdiction, motu propio dismissed the case. /he prosecution appealed,
claiming that the court, in fact, had jurisdiction. Can H invoke dou#le
jeopardQ
(es. E?en t?e trial court ?as Jurisdiction =ut mistaCenly dismisses t?e
comAlaint or in1ormation on t?e ground o1 lacC o1 it8 and t?e dismissal
0as not at t?e request o1 t?e accused8 t?e dismissal is not aAAeala=le
=ecause it 0ill Alace t?e accused in dou=le JeoAardy.
D. H was charged with rape. H moved to dismiss on the ground that the
complaint was insufficient #ecause it did not allege lewd designs. /he court
dismissed the case. Later, another case for rape was filed against H. Can H
invoke dou#le jeopardQ
No. #iCe t?e Arevious Aro=lem8 > is estoAAed 1rom claiming t?at ?e
could ?ave =een convicted under t?e 1irst comAlaint. 7e ?imsel1
moved to dismiss on t?e ground t?at t?e comAlaint 0as insu11icient.
7e cannot c?ange ?is Aosition and no0 claim t?at ?e 0as in danger o1
=eing convicted under t?at comAlaint.
C. H was charged with murder, along with three other people. H was
discharged as a state witness. Can H #e prosecuted again for the same
offenseQ
!t deAends. As a general rule8 an order disc?arging an accused as a
state 0itness amounts to an acquittal8 and ?e is =arred 1rom =eing
Arosecuted again 1or t?e same o11ense. 7o0ever8 i1 ?e 1ails or re1uses
to testi1y against ?is co-accused in accordance 0it? ?is s0orn
statement constituting t?e =asis 1or t?e disc?arge8 ?e can =e
Arosecuted again.
1. Can a person accused of estafa #e charged with violation of B$)) without
placing him in dou#le jeopardQ
(es. E?ere t0o di11erent la0s de1ine t0o crimes8 Arior JeoAardy as to
one o1 t?e is no o=stacle to a Arosecution o1 t?e ot?er alt?oug? =ot?
o11enses arise 1rom t?e same 1acts8 i1 eac? crime involves some
imAortant act 0?ic? is not an essential element o1 t?e ot?er. $t?er
eBamAlesD !llegal recruitment and esta1a8 illegal 1is?ing and illegal
Aossession o1 eBAlosives8 alarm and scandal and illegal disc?arge o1
1irearms8 =rigandage and illegal Aossession o1 1irearms8 consented
a=duction and quali1ied seduction.
9ut taCe note o1 t?e 1ollo0ingD
Possession o1 a s?otgun and a revolver =y t?e same Aerson at t?e
same time is only one act o1 Aossession8 so t?ere is only one violation
o1 t?e la0.
Conviction 1or smoCing oAium =ars Arosecution 1or illegal Aossession o1
t?e AiAe. 7e cannot smoCe t?e oAium 0it?out t?e AiAe.
T?e1t o1 14 co0s at t?e same time and in t?e same Alace is only one
act o1 t?e1t.
Conviction 1or less serious A?ysical inJuries =ars Arosecution 1or
assault uAon a Aerson in aut?ority.
ecCless imArudence resulting in damage to AroAerty and serious or
less serious A?ysical inJuries is only one o11ense. !1 it is slig?t A?ysical
inJuries8 it can =e =roCen do0n into t0o o11enses8 since a lig?t o11ense
cannot =e comAleBed.
+. H installed a jumper ca#le which allowed him to reduce his electricit #ill.
Ce was prosecuted for violating a municipal ordinance against
unauthori7ed installation of the device. Ce was convicted. Can he still #e
prosecuted for theftQ
No. 'nder t?e second tyAe o1 JeoAardy8 0?en an act is Aunis?ed =y a
la0 and an ordinance8 conviction or acquittal under once 0ill =ar a
Arosecution under t?e ot?er. (9ut remem=er8 t?at t?ere ?as to =e
eit?er conviction or acquittal. &ismissal 0it?out t?e eBAress consent
o1 t?e accused is not su11icient).
E. %BceAtions to dou=le JeoAardy
T?e conviction o1 t?e accused s?all not =e a =ar to anot?er Arosecution
1or an o11ense 0?ic? necessarily includes t?e o11ense c?arged in t?e
1ormer comAlaint or in1ormation under any o1 t?e 1ollo0ing
circumstancesD
1. t?e graver o11ense develoAed due to supervening facts arising
1rom t?e same act or omission constituting t?e 1ormer c?argeN
*ena *. *erga 101

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
2. t?e 1acts constituting t?e graver c?arge beca'e )no(n or (ere
discovered only after a plea 0as entered in t?e 1ormer comAlaint
or in1ormationN
3. t?e plea of guilty to the lesser offense (as 'ade (ithout the consent
o1 t?e Arosecutor and t?e o11ended Aarty eBceAt i1 t?e o11ended
Aarty 1ails to aAAear at t?e arraignment.
>. &octrine o1 suAervening 1act
!18 a1ter t?e 1irst Arosecution8 a ne0 1act suAervenes on 0?ic? t?e
de1endant may =e ?eld lia=le8 altering t?e c?aracter o1 t?e crime and
giving rise to a ne0 and distinct o11ense8 t?e accused cannot =e said to
=e in second JeoAardy i1 indicted 1or t?e ne0 o11ense.
&ou=le 2eoAardy 7yAot?etical questions
A. H was charged with frustrated homicide. /here was nothing to indicated
that the victim was going to die. H was arraigned. Before trial, the victim
dies. Can H #e charged with homicideQ
!t deAends. !1 t?e deat? o1 t?e victim can =e traced to t?e acts o1 >8
and t?e victim did not contri=ute to ?is deat? 0it? ?is negligence8 >
can =e c?arged 0it? ?omicide. T?is is a suAervening 1act. 9ut i1 t?e
act o1 > 0as not t?e AroBimate cause o1 deat?8 ?e cannot =e c?arged
0it? ?omicide.
B. H was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and was
ac6uitted. /he heirs of the victim appealed the civil aspect of the
judgment. H claims that the appeal will place him in dou#le jeopard. 1s H
correctQ
No. T?ere 0as no second JeoAardy. E?at 0as elevated on aAAeal 0as
t?e civil asAect o1 t?e case8 not t?e criminal asAect. T?e eBtinction o1
criminal lia=ility 0?et?er =y ArescriAtion or =y t?e =ar o1 dou=le
JeoAardy does not carry 0it? it t?e eBtinction o1 civil lia=ility arising
1rom t?e o11ense c?arged.
C. H was charged with murder and was ac6uitted. Can the prosecution
appeal the ac6uittalQ
No. T?e Arosecution cannot aAAeal t?e acquittal8 since it 0ould Alace
t?e accused in dou=le JeoAardy.
%ven i1 t?e decision o1 acquittal 0as erroneous8 t?e Arosecution still
cannot aAAeal t?e decision. !t 0ould still Alace t?e accused in dou=le
JeoAardy.
=oteD As a general rule8 t?e dismissal or termination o1 t?e case a1ter
arraignment and Alea o1 t?e de1endant to a valid in1ormation s?all =e a
=ar to anot?er Arosecution 1or t?e same o11ense8 an attemAt or
1rustration t?ereo18 or one included or 0?ic? includes t?e Arevious
o11ense. T?e eBceAtions areD
1. i1 t?e dismissal o1 t?e 1irst case 0as made uAon motion or 0it?
t?e eBAress consent o1 t?e de1endant8 unless t?e grounds are
insu11iciency o1 evidence or denial o1 t?e rig?t to sAeedy trialN
,. i1 t?e dismissal is not an acquittal or =ased uAon consideration
o1 t?e evidence or o1 t?e merits o1 t?e caseN and
4. t?e question to =e Aassed uAon =y t?e aAAellate court is Aurely
legal so t?at s?ould t?e dismissal =e 1ound incorrect8 t?e case
0ould ?ave to =e remanded to t?e court o1 origin 1or 1urt?er
Aroceedings to determine t?e guilt or innocence o1 t?e accused.
(. %11ect o1 t?e aAAeal =y t?e accused
!1 t?e accused aAAeals8 ?e 0aives ?is rig?t against dou=le JeoAardy.
T?e case is t?ro0n 0ide oAen 1or revie0 and a Aenalty ?ig?er t?an
t?at o1 t?e original conviction could =e imAosed uAon ?im.
6. Action o1 t?e accused do i1 t?e court denies t?e motion to quas? on
t?e ground o1 dou=le JeoAardy
7e s?ould Alead not guilty and reiterate ?is de1ense o1 1ormer
JeoAardy. !n case o1 conviction8 ?e s?ould aAAeal 1rom t?e Judgment8
on t?e ground o1 dou=le JeoAardy.
Section /, Amendment of complaint or information, < If the motion to
)uash is %ased on an alleged defect of the complaint or information
which can %e cured %y amendment+ the court shall order that an
amendment %e made,
If it is %ased on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an
offense+ the prosecution shall %e given %y the court an opportunity to
correct the defect %y amendment, The motion shall %e granted if the
prosecution fails to ma2e the amendment+ or the complaint or
information still suffers from the same defect despite the amendment,
Section 0, Effect of sustaining the motion to )uash, < If the motion to
)uash is sustained+ the court may order that another complaint or
information %e filed e$cept as provided in section 5 of this rule, If the
*ena *. *erga 10,

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
order is made+ the accused+ if in custody+ shall not %e discharged
unless admitted to %ail, If no order is made or if having %een made+ no
new information is filed within the time specified in the order or within
such further time as the court may allow for good cause+ the accused+
if in custody+ shall %e discharged unless he is also in custody of
another charge,
Section 5, "rder sustaining the motion to )uash not a %ar to another
prosecution= e$ception, < An order sustaining the motion to )uash is
not a %ar to another prosecution for the same offense unless the
motion was %ased on the grounds specified in section . 'g( and 'i( of
this *ule,
Section >, Former conviction or ac)uittal= dou%le 4eopardy, < 1hen an
accused has %een convicted or ac)uitted+ or the case against him
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his e$press consent %y a
court of competent 4urisdiction+ upon a valid complaint or information
or other formal charge sufficient in form and su%stance to sustain a
conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge+ the
conviction or ac)uittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall
%e a %ar to another prosecution for the offense charged+ or for any
attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof+ or for any offense
which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense
charged in the former complaint or information,
;owever+ the conviction of the accused shall not %e a %ar to another
prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense
charged in the former complaint or information under any of the
following instances:
'a( the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from
the same act or omission constituting the former charge=
'%( the facts constituting the graver charge %ecame 2nown or were
discovered only after a plea was entered in the former complaint or
information= or
'c( the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the
consent of the prosecutor and of the offended party e$cept as provided
in section &'f( of *ule &&5,
In any of the foregoing cases+ where the accused satisfies or serves in
whole or in part the 4udgment+ he shall %e credited with the same in
the event of conviction for the graver offense,
Section 6, Provisional dismissal, < A case shall not %e provisionally
dismissed e$cept with the e$press consent of the accused and with
notice to the offended party,
The provisional dismissal of offenses punisha%le %y imprisonment not
e$ceeding si$ '5( years or a fine of any amount+ or %oth+ shall %ecome
permanent one '&( year after issuance of the order without the case
having %een revived, 1ith respect to offenses punisha%le %y
imprisonment of more than si$ '5( years+ their provisional dismissal
shall %ecome permanent two '9( years after issuance of the order
without the case having %een revived,
=ote5
A case can only =e dismissed Arovisionally i1 t?e accused eBAressly
consents8 and 0it? notice to t?e o11ended Aarty. Provisional
dismissal does not Alace t?e accused in dou=le JeoAardy. 9ut8 11
t?e accused o=Jects to t?e Arovisional dismissal8 a revival o1 t?e
case 0ould Alace ?im in dou=le JeoAardy.
T?e Arovisional dismissal o1 o11enses Aunis?a=le =y imArisonment
eBceeding . years or a 1ine o1 any amount s?all =ecome Aermanent
a1ter 1 year 0it?out t?e case ?aving =een revived.
+or o11enses Aunis?a=le =y imArisonment o1 more t?an . years8 t?e
Arovisional dismissal s?all =ecome Aermanent a1ter , years
0it?out t?e case ?aving =een revived.
A1ter t?e Arovisional dismissal =ecomes 1inal8 t?e accused cannot
=e Arosecuted anymore.
Section ?, Failure to move to )uash or to allege any ground therefore,
< The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to )uash
%efore he pleads to the complaint or information+ either %ecause he did
not file a motion to )uash or failed to allege the same in said motion+
shall %e deemed a waiver of any o%4ections e$cept those %ased on the
grounds provided for in paragraphs 'a(+ '%(+ 'g(+ and 'i( of section . of
this *ule,
!!. Constitutional #a0 Notes
*ena *. *erga 104

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
S%CT!$N ,1 N$ P%S$N S7A## 9% TE!C% P'T !N 2%$PA&( $
P'N!S7"%NT +$ T7% SA"% $++%NS%. !+ AN ACT !S P'N!S7%& 9(
#AE AN& AN $&!NANC%8 C$N*!CT!$N $ AC)'!TTA# 'N&%
%!T7% S7A## C$NST!T'T% A 9A T$ AN$T7% P$S%C'T!$N +$
T7% SA"% ACT.
2eoAardy means danger
equisites 1or a valid de1ense o1 dou=le JeoAardyD
'! B1&%/ +24$A&D8 "9%/ A//ACC2D $&14& /4 /C2 %2C4=D
(a! upon a valid information or indictment
('! comAlaint
()! in1ormation
NoteD =ot? su=stance and 1orm must =e validD
(1) su=stance L 0?en t?e comAlain adequately in1ormed t?e
accused o1 t?e nature and cause o1 t?e accusations 0?ic?
means t?atD
1.1 t?e essential 1acts are alleged
1., t?e legal descriAtion o1 t?e o11ense is alleged
1.4 in ordinary and concise language
(,) 1orm
NoteD i1 de1ective8 t?e remedy is to quas? t?e in1ormation
(b) there must #e a competent court with jurisdiction to hear and
decide the case (geograA?ical L AroAer AlaceN and
Jurisdictional L ?as Jurisdiction over t?e crime asAects)
NoteD i1 1iled in imAroAer court8 remedy is dismissal
(c! After arraignment I without this, the court has no jurisdiction
over the #od of the accused
(d! After a valid plea I there must #e no withdrawal of original
plea.
('! t?e accused must Cno0 enoug? a=out t?e
cause and nature o1 t?e o11ense c?arged
against ?im/?er
()! i1 t?e guilty Alea is entered8 t?e court cannot
summarily convict t?e accused on t?e =asis o1
evidence to Arove mitigating circumstance8 to
do so 0ould deArive t?e state o1 due Arocess L
1irst JeoAardy does not attac?.
)! B1&%/ +24$A&D8 "9%/ CA>2 /2&"1=A/2D
(a! upon ac6uittal
('! 1ailure to Arove =eyond reasona=le dou=t
()! erroneous Judgment t?at ?as attained 1inality
(F! dismissed on ArescriAtion
(.! dismissal 0as due to violation o t?e
de1endantIs rig?t to sAeedy trial
NoteD Acquittal8 t?e case 0as decided =ased on merits =ut t?e
Arosecution 0as not a=le to Arove guilt =eyond reasona=le dou=t.
&ismissal is =ased on t?e allegation o1 t?e courtIs Jurisdiction8 or any
ot?er ground t?at does not decide t?e merits o1 t?e issue.
(#! Binal Conviction
('! aAAeal Aeriod eBAires
()! service o1 sentence ?as =een totally or
Aartially served
(F! eBAress 0aiver in 0ritting
(.! aAAlied 1or Aro=ation
(c! dismissal of the case #ased on the merits I lack of evidence
F! %2C4=D +24$A&D8 "9%/ B2 B4& /C2 %A"2 4BB2=%2
(a! identical
(#! when it is an attempt or frustration of the other
(c! when it is necessaril included in the first offense or when it
includes the first offense
(d! su#ject to the doctrine of supervening factLevent
4ne ma #e charged for the same act if it constitutes at least two
different offenses under two statutes or two ordinances as provided #
the elements of committing the crime. Conviction or ac6uittal in one
will serve as a #ar to prosecution under the other. /his does not appl
to continuing crimes.
D4C/&1=2 4B %9$2&>2=1=D BAC/ I where after the first prosecution,
a new fact supervenes, for which the defendant is responsi#le, which
together with the e3isting facts, changes the character of the offense,
such constitutes a new and distinct offense I and the accused cannot
#e said to #e in dou#le jeopard if indicted for the new offense.
&A/14=AL25 the rule of identit of offense does not appl when the second
offense was not in e3istence at the time of the first prosecution Ifor the simple
reason that in such case, there is no possi#ilit of convicting the accused
during the first prosecution for et ine3istent second offense.
A. A//ACC"2=/ 4B +24$A&D8
P%$P#% vs. (#A3AN
Arraignment and plea constitute the final step in the commencement of
jeopard. 1t is at the arraignment and plea that issues are joined. +eopard
attaches (a! upon a good indictment, (#! #efore competent court, (c! after
arraignment, (d! after plea.
*ena *. *erga 105

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
P%$P#% vs. 9A#!SACAN
/he nature of Balicasacans evidence amounted to withdrawal of his plea of
guilt, and since no new plea was entered, there was no jeopard, which the
ac6uittal could terminate.
C!NC$ vs. SAN&!3AN9A(AN
$etitioners apprehension that the might #e put in +24$A&D8 of #eing charged
with informations or crimes other than the crime imputed is #aseless. =o
D49BL2 +24$A&D8 as the have not et pleaded to the offense. A preliminar
investigation is not a trial for which dou#le jeopard attaches. 1t is merel
in6uisitorial, and is often the onl means of discovering the persons who ma
#e reasona#l charged with a crime, to ena#le the fiscal to prepare his
complaint or information.
NA*A##$ vs. SAN&!3AN 9A(AN
$.D. '-(- is e3plicit and clear. /he %andigan#aan has jurisdiction over the
case of petitioner.
Ahen all elements are present, a second prosecution for (a! same offense,
or (#! an attempt to commit the said offense, or (c! a frustration of the said
offense, or (d! an offense which necessaril includes, or is necessaril
included in the first offense charged, can rightl #e #arred.
1n the case at #ench, the &/C was devoid of jurisdiction when it conducted
an arraignment of the accused, which # then had alread #een conferred on
the %andigan#aan. "oreover, neither did the case there terminate with
conviction or ac6uittal nor was it dismissed.
C'NANAN vs. AC%$
(murderN trans1er to Sandigan=ayan =e1ore TC made a decision)
T?e dismissal o1 t?e !n1ormation =y t?e TC 0as not equivalent to8 and
did not oAerate as an acquittal o1 Aetitioner o1 t?at o11ense. T?e
GdismissalH (later deleted =y t?e TC) ?ad simAly re1lected t?e 1act
t?at t?e Aroceedings =e1ore t?e TC 0ere terminated8 t?e TC ?aving
ascertained t?at it ?ad not Jurisdiction to try t?e case at all. No dou=le
JeoAardy 0?en case trans1erred to Sandigan=ayan a1ter trial =ut
=e1ore decision 0as rendered at t?e TC. TC ?ad no Jurisdiction8
t?ere1ore accused 0as not in JeoAardy.
P%$P#% vs. "$NT%SA
4nce a criminal complaint or information is filed in court, an disposition
(dismissal or conviction!, rests in the sound discretion of the court. Ahile the
prosecutor retains the discretion and control of the prosecution of the case, he
cannot impose his opinion on the court. Accordingl, a motion to dismiss the
case filed # the prosecutor after a reinvestigation should #e addressed to the
discretion of the court. /he action of the court must not, however, impair the
su#stantial rights of the accused or the right of the $eople to due process of
law.
/he decision of the judge #ased on his #elief that arraignment which was
immediatel followed # the dismissal of the case would forever #e foreclosed,
on the ground of dou#le jeopard, an reopening of the case, is void.
&%#A $SA vs. CA
Dou#le jeopard cannot appl in the instant case. /he re6uisites that must
occur for legal jeopard to attach are5 (a! a valid complaint or information; (#!
a court of competent jurisdiction; (c! the accused has pleaded to the charge;
and (d! the accused has #een convicted or ac6uitted or the case dismissed or
terminated without the e3press consent of the accused. /he fourth re6uisite is
lacking. /he dismissal of the case was upon the motion of the petitioner as
shown # the records.
P%$P#% vs. CAEA#!N3AAAAellants 0ere never arraigned8 t?ey never
Aleaded =e1ore t?e 2udge Advocate 3eneralIs $11ice8 t?ere 0as no trial8
and no Judgment on t?e merits ?ad =een rendered. T?ere1ore8 1irst
JeoAardy never attac?ed.
C'&!A vs. CA
(cure 1or de1ective Jurisdiction and 1iling o1 in1oN valid comAlaint)
T?ere is no =reac? o1 t?e constitutional Aro?i=ition against dou=le
JeoAardy 1or t?e reason t?at t?e a=sence o1 t?e aut?ority o1 t?e city
Arosecutor.
P%$P#% vs. "A)'!#!N3
An aAAeal or a Aetition 1or revie0 o1 a Judgment o1 acquittal is =arred
=y t?e rule on dou=le JeoAardy.
B. /2&"1=A/14= 4B +24$A&D8
9'#A#$N3 vs. P%$P#%
1t is the conviction, ac6uittal of the accused or dismissal or termination of the
case that #ars further prosecution for the same offense or an attempt to
commit the same or frustration thereof, or for an offense which necessaril
includes or is necessaril included in the offense charged in the former
complaint or information.
9'STA"ANT% vs. "AC%%N
*ena *. *erga 105

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
As a general rule, where the defendant has e3ecuted or entered upon the
e3ecution of a valid sentence, the court cannot, even during the 'G:da period,
set aside and render a new sentence.
A judgment of conviction ma onl #e modified or set aside #efore it has
#ecome final or appeal has #een perfected. A judgment #ecomes final when no
appeal is filed or the defendant has totall or partiall satisfied the sentence.
$24$L2 vs. 4B%/A=%1A
/he application of the sister doctrines of waiver and estoppel re6uires two sine
#ua non conditions5 first, the dismissal must #e sought or induced # the
defendant personall or through his counsel; and second, such dismissal must
not #e on the merits and must not necessaril amount to an ac6uittal.
1ndu#ita#l, the case at #ar falls s6uarel within the peripher of the said
doctrines, which have #een preserved unimpaired in the corpus of our
jurisprudence. Cence, the accused cannot plead dou#le jeopard.
&1>2&A vs. $24$L2
>er#al dismissal is not final until written and signed # the judge
$24$L2 vs. B2LLABL4&
$rotection against dou#le jeopard is not availa#le where the dismissal of the
case was effected at the instance of the accused.
"2&C1AL2% vs. CA
/he ac6uittal of the accused # the court a 6uo was done without due regard to
due process of law, the same is null and void. 1t is as if there is no ac6uittal at
all, and the same cannot constitute a claim for dou#le jeopard.
$4%4 vs. "2+1A&2%
Lowering of the penalt to 6ualif the accused for pro#ation, the authori7ation
for temporar li#ert on recogni7ance and finall the grant of pro#ation, the
orders of the respondent judge arising from these proceedings do not
constitute res judicata or even dou#le jeopard.
$24$L2 vs. ALB2&/4
=o dou#le jeopard has attached when order made # the trial court was not
valid.
C4=&ADA vs. $24$L2
Deneral rule5 following re6uisites must #e present for dou#le jeopard to
attach5
'! a valid indictment
)! #efore a court of competent jurisdiction
F! the arraignment of the accused
.! a valid plea entered # him
/he ac6uittal or conviction of the accused, or the dismissal or termination of
the case against him without his e3press consent
/wo e3ceptions to the foregoing rule5
'. insufficienc of charge against the accused
). unreasona#le dela in the proceedings (violation of rt. /o speed
disposition of trial!
$24$L2 vs. &4"2&4
/here can #e no dou#le jeopard where dismissal was granted on the ground
of denial of the right to a speed trial. /he dismissal in this case was with the
consent of the accused.
$24$L2 vs. $ABL4
Ahen dismissal constitutes a#use of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction, the dismissal is invalid and is therefore no #at to reinstatement of
the case.
C. &9L2 4= %9$2&>2=1=D AC/%
"2L4 vs. $24$L2
/he rule for the identit if offenses do not appl when the second offense was
not in e3istence at the time of the first prosecution. Ahere after the fist
prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the defendant for which the
defendant is responsi#le, which changes the character of the offense and
together with the facts e3isting at the time, constitute a new and distinct
offense, the accused cannot #e said to #e in dou#le jeopard of indicted for the
new offense.
$24$L2 vs. B9L1=D
Ahere the e3act nature of the injur could have #een discovered, #ut was not,
#ecause of the incompetence of the phsician, the su#se6uent discover of the
real e3tent of the injur would not #e supervening fact which could warrant the
"elo doctrine.
D. %A"2 4BB2=%2%
$24$L2 vs. /14E4=
Dou#le jeopard can #e invoked onl if the offenses committed are the same
and identical. 4ffenses committed arising from the same set of facts #ut
defined in ) different laws or provisions of the same law, where the elements
of one of the offenses are not essential elements of the other, prior jeopard as
to one of them does not #ar the prosecution.
D4=EAL2E vs. CA
*ena *. *erga 10.

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
&ape and 6ualified seduction are not identical offenses. Ahile the two felonies
have one common element, i.e. carnal knowledge of a woman, the
significantl var in all other respects.
$24$L2 vs. "A=9DA%
A person who violates an of the provisions under Article 'F(#! and Article F.
of the La#or Code can #e charged and convicted separatel of illegal
recruitment and estafa O&$C, Art F'G, )(a!P #ecause illegal recruitment is a
'alu' prohibitu' where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessar for
a conviction while estafa is a 'alu' in se where criminal intent of the accused
is necessar for a conviction.
$24$L2 vs. <91+ADA
1n the present case, the are separate offenses, the first punished under the
&$C and the second under a special law.
Ahen the offenses charged are penali7ed # different sections of the same
statute or # different statutes, the important in6uir relates to the identity of
offenses charged" /he elements of illegal possession of firearm in its
aggravated form are different from the elements of homicide or murder; these
crimes are defined and penali7ed under different laws and the former is malum
prohi#itum while the latter are mala in se. =o violation of the constitutional #ar
against dou#le jeopard
$24$L2 vs. BALLABA&2
ComicideLmurder committed through use of unlicensed firearm is punished in
the aggravated form of illegal possession of firearm under $D '0-- #ut
$eople v. <uijada states that the person can #e guilt of ) separate offenses
(under &$C and $D '0-- sec.' par.)!
$24$L2 vs. %AL28
Conviction for various offenses under the La#or Code does not #ar the
punishment of the offender for estafa in &$C.

2. =4 A$$2AL B&4" AC<91//AL
%A= >1C2=/2 vs. $24$L2
/he grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion of
the trial court, and its ruling on the matter will #e respected a#sent an grave
a#use of discretion. A grant of demurrer is effectivel an ac6uittal and an
further prosecution of the accused would violate the Constitutional prohi#ition
on dou#le jeopard" /his is an e3ception to the rule that the dismissal of a
criminal case made with the e3press consent of the accused or upon his own
motion #ars a plea of dou#le jeopard. /he call this the ?Binalit of Ac6uittal
&ule@.
B. $A&/12%
"2/&4BA=J vs. "2&1D1A=4
/hat there is no indication that the trial was a sham, a review and conse6uent
setting aside of /Cs decision amounts to dou#le jeopard
D. 4&D1=A=C2 A=D %/A/9/2
$24$L2 vs. &2L4>A
Ahen the offenses charged are penali7ed either # different section of the
same statue or # different statutes the important in6uir relates to the
identit of the offenses charged. Ahen the offense is charged under a
municipal ordinance while the other is penali7ed # a statute. /he critical
in6uir is to the identit f the acts which the accused is said to have
committed. 1f the acts are the same.
'#% 11;
P%-T!A#

Section &, PreCtrial= mandatory in criminal cases, < In all criminal
cases cogni3a%le %y the Sandigan%ayan+ *egional Trial Court+
-etropolitan Trial Court+ -unicipal Trial Court in Cities+ -unicipal Trial
Court and -unicipal Circuit Trial Court+ the court shall+ after
arraignment and within thirty '.:( days from the date the court
ac)uires 4urisdiction over the person of the accused+ unless a shorter
period is provided for in special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court+
order a preCtrial conference to consider the following:
'a( plea %argaining=
'%( stipulation of facts=
'c( mar2ing for identification of evidence of the parties=
'd( waiver of o%4ections to admissi%ility of evidence=
'e( modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge
%ut interposes a lawful defense= and
'f( such matters as will promote a fair and e$peditious trial of the
criminal and civil aspects of the case,
=ote5
$re:trial is mandator in all criminal cases cogni7a#le # the
%andigan#aan, &/C, "/Cs and "unicipal Circuit /rial Courts.
1t should #e conducted after arraignment and within F( das from the date
the court ac6uires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
*ena *. *erga 10:

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
/he following things are considered during a pre:trial5
1. Alea =argaining
,. stiAulation o1 1acts
4. marCing 1or identi1ication o1 evidence o1 t?e Aarties
5. 0aiver o1 o=Jections to admissi=ility o1 evidence
5. modi1ication o1 t?e order o1 trial i1 t?e accused admits t?e
c?arge =ut interAoses a la01ul de1ense
.. ot?er matters t?at 0ill Aromote a 1air and eBAeditious trial o1
t?e criminal and civil asAects o1 t?e case
Section 9, PreCtrial agreement, < All agreements or admissions made
or entered during the preCtrial conference shall %e reduced in writing
and signed %y the accused and counsel+ otherwise+ they cannot %e
used against the accused, The agreements covering the matters
referred to in section & of this *ule shall %e approved %y the court,
NoteD Any agreement or admission entered into during t?e Are-trial
con1erence s?ould =eD
'. in 0riting
). Signed =y t?e accused
F. Signed =y counsel
.. $t?er0ise8 it cannot =e used against t?e accused.
Section ., #onCappearance at preCtrial conference, < If the counsel for
the accused or the prosecutor does not appear at the preCtrial
conference and does not offer an accepta%le e$cuse for his lac2 of
cooperation+ the court may impose proper sanctions or penalties,
Section /, PreCtrial order, < After the preCtrial conference+ the court
shall issue an order reciting the actions ta2en+ the facts stipulated+ and
evidence mar2ed, Such order shall %ind the parties+ limit the trial to
matters not disposed of+ and control the course f the action during the
trial+ unless modified %y the court to prevent manifest in4ustice,
A. &e1inition o1 a Are-trial order
!t is an order issued =y t?e court a1ter t?e Are-trial con1erence
containingD
1. a recital o1 t?e actions taCen8
,. t?e 1acts stiAulated8 and
4. t?e evidence marCed.
T?e Are-trial order =inds t?e Aarties8 limits t?e trial to matters not
disAosed o18 and controls t?e course o1 t?e action during t?e trial8
unless modi1ied =y t?e court to Arevent mani1est inJustice.
&e1inition o1 Plea 9argaining
!t is t?e disAosition o1 criminal c?arges =y agreement =et0een t?e
Arosecution and t?e accused. !t is encouraged =ecause it leads to
AromAt and 1inal disAosition o1 most criminal cases. !t s?ortens t?e
time =et0een c?arge and disAosition and en?ances 0?atever may =e
t?e re?a=ilitative ArosAects o1 t?e guilty 0?en t?ey are ultimately
imArisoned.
!t is not allo0ed under t?e &angerous &rugs Act 0?ere t?e imAosa=le
Aenalty is reclusion AerAetua to deat?.
+'#% *S CA
1., SCA 55. (1<;;)
BAC/%5 /he accused "anolo Bule was an agent of the /owers Assurance
Corporation on or #efore )' +anuar ',0' drawn in favor of &o =adera in
remittance of collection #ut the same was dishonored #ecause the account was
alread closed. At the hearing, petitioner waived the right to present evidence
and in lieu thereof, su#mitted a "emorandum affirming the stipulated facts.
/he trial court convicted him of violation of the B$)) on the #asis of the facts
stipulated # #oth parties in the pre:trial conference. /he CA affirmed the
decision. Cence, this petition.
1%%925 AL= the lack of signature of the accused and his counsel in the
stipulation of facts during the pre:trial conference is admissi#le in evidence.
D2C1%14=5 &ule ''0, %ection . is mandator #ecause of the use of the word
?shall.@ /he omission of the signature of the accused and his counsel renders
the %tipulation of facts inadmissi#le in evidence. /he fact that the lawer
confirmed the stipulation of facts in the memorandum did not cure the defect
#ecause &ule ''0 re6uires the signature of #oth the accused and his counsel.
Ahat the prosecution should have done was to present evidence to prove the
crime. Aithout said evidences, the guilt f the accused cannot #e esta#lished.
Cence, the CA decision is set aside and the case remanded for further trial.
P%$P#% *S 7%NAN&%6
,.0 SCA ,5 (1<<.)
*ena *. *erga 10;

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
BAC/%5 /he accused Cristina Cernande7, the general manager of the $hil:/hai
Association, 1nc. in 2rmita, "anila, recruited '. people to work in /aipeh
without the re6uired license or authorit from the $42A. %he asked for
placement and passport fees which the complainants gave in installments.
After receiving the full amount, the were not a#le to leave for /aipeh despite
the assurance of the accused. /he demanded the return of their mone #ut to
no avail. /he accused was then charged with the crime of illegal recruitment in
large scale. %he pleaded not guilt in the arraignment and trial on the merits
endued. /he trial court found her guilt of the said crime. Cence, this petition.
1%%925 AL= the agreement or admission during the trial should #e reduced
into writing and signed # the accused and his counsel, and should #e allowed
in the trial.
D2C1%14=5 =o, the admission during the trial need not #e in writing and
signed. A stipulation of facts in criminal cases is now e3pressl sanctioned #
law pursuant to &ule ''0. A stipulation of facts # the prosecution and defense
counsel during trial in open court is automaticall reduced into writing in the
transcript of proceedings of the court. /he signature of the accused is
unnecessar #ecause his lawer has authorit to make admissions #
pleadings, whether oral or written, and such are conclusive unless withdrawn.
Bor this purpose, the counsel acts as agent of the accused and the acts of the
former #inds the latter. /he stipulation of facts should #e allowed during the
trial to e3pedite the trial # dispensing with the presentation of evidence on
matters that the accused is willing to admit.
1t is evident in the case that the prosecution and the defense counsel
stipulated that the accused is neither licensed nor authori7ed # the $42A to
recruit overseas workers and that this fact ma #e confirmed # the
representative of the $42A should he take the witness stand.
P%$P#% *S TAC-AN
4<; SCA 4:4 (,004)
BAC/%5 /he accused "ario Austria was the 41C $rovincial Aarden of the
Batangas $rovincial +ail when he took advantage of his position in falsifing a
"emorandum &eceipt for 26uipment %emi:23penda#le and =on:23penda#le
$ropert, a pu#lic document of the said office, # stating that a Colt pistol with
.( rounds of ammunitions is a provincial government propert issued to a
civilian agent in connection with the performance of his official duties.
4nl three of the '. witnesses were notified of the arraignment and pre:trial
#ut none of them appeared. 9pon motion of the accused and o#jection of the
pu#lic prosecutor, the trial court dismissed the case on the ground that
witnesses should #e present during the trial to participate in the plea
#argaining and stipulation of facts. /he CA dismissed the "& on the ground
that the reinstatement of the case will place the accused in dou#le jeopard.
Cence, this petition.
1%%925 AL= the a#sence of the witnesses in the pre:trial is a ground for
dismissal.
D2C1%14=5 /he a#sence during pre:trial of an witnesses for the prosecution
listed in the information, whether or not said witnesses is the offended part or
the complaining witness, is not a valid ground for the dismissal of a criminal
case. 2ven the presence of the accused is not re6uired unless directed # the
trial court. 1t is enough that the accused is represented # his counsel.
2ven if none of the witnesses appeared, the trial should proceed since the
pu#lic prosecutor appeared for the %tate. Cence, the trial court acted without
jurisdiction when it dismissed the case. Cowever, the witnesses ma #e cited in
contempt of court if their a#sence was unjustified.
'#% 11<
CAS%S
P%$P#% *S C7A*%S
4<: SCA ,,; (,004)
BAC/%5 1nformations for "ultiple "urder for the killing of the Bucag famil
were filed against eight accused. 4nl Belipe Dalarion was tried and convicted.
/wo ears later, an amended information was filed impleading Beli7ardo &o3as
as a co:accused. Ce engaged the services of Att "iguel $aderanga. 1n the
preliminar investigation, he implicated the lawer as the mastermind. An
amended information was again filed. 1n the trial, the prosecution presented
&o3as as its first witness which $aderanga o#jected to. /he court sustained the
o#jection in a hearing for the discharge as a state witness on the ground that it
will violate his right to self:incrimination and that &o3as must first #e
discharged as a state witness. Burther, onl the sworn statement of &o3as ma
#e admitted as evidence. /he 4%D filed a petition or certiorari which was
denied # the CA. Cence, this petition for review.
1%%925 AL= the prosecution ma present the testimon of &o3as as a hostile
witness.
D2C1%14=5 /he accused cannot #e made a hostile witness for the prosecution,
for to do so would compel him to #e a witness against himself. Cowever, he
ma testif against a co:defendant where he has agreed to do so, with full
knowledge of his right and the conse6uences of his acts. 1t is not necessar
that the court discharges him first as state witness. According to &ule '',,
*ena *. *erga 10<

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
%ection '*, the trial court ma direct the accused to #e discharged with their
consent after re6uiring the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn
statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the
discharge. /here is no distinction as to what evidence the prosecution ma
present. 1n addition to the sworn statement, other evidences ma #e presented
to determine the e3istence of the conditions of the discharge. /here is no
indication that the testimon of the accused ma #e e3cluded. Cowever, it is
still premature for private respondent to raise this 6uestion in the instant
petition. Cence, the petition is granted.
SANT$S *S P%$P#%
4<5 SCA 50: (,004)
BAC/%5 Complainant '0 ear old /ransuelo de +esus was a#out to #u a
mos6uito coil in the store of "arina A#la7a when she was gra##ed # the
accused >irgilio %antos and pulled her to a vacant lot. Ce covered her mouth,
em#raced, kissed, touched her private parts and poked the victims vagina with
his penis while holding a #laded weapon and threatening to kill her. /he
accused left when her mother called her. /he ne3t morning, she told the
incident to her mother. /he then filed a complaint with the #aranga
chairman, "/C and the $rovincial $rosecutor #ut the same was dismissed.
/he appealed to the +ustice %ecretar who ordered the prosecutor to file a
criminal complaint against the accused for attempted rape. /he trial court
found the accused guilt. Later, the accused filed a motion for new trial or
reconsideration attaching sworn statements of desistance of /ransuelo and
witness 2meteria de +esus. Cowever, the court still found him guilt, which
decision was affirmed # the CA. Cence, this appeal.
1%%925 AL= the affidavit of desistance # a witness after conviction of the
accused ma #e a ground for the dismissal of the case.
D2C1%14=5 An affidavit of desistance made # a witness after conviction of the
accused is not relia#le and deserves onl scant attention. /he affidavits of
desistance filed # the private complainant and her witnesses were e3ecuted
') das after the promulgation of judgment of conviction and are clearl mere
afterthoughts. Cence, the cannot have the effect of negating a previous
credi#le declaration.
=ot all kinds of discrepancies and inconsistencies in testimonies have the effect
of discrediting a witness. 1n the case at #ar, the discrepancies and
inconsistencies refer to the time and place when the private complainant met
and told her mother:in:law a#out the incident. /hese are mere collateral
matters inconse6uential in the determination of the criminal lia#ilit of the
accused. "ore important is the spontaneous, categorical and straightforward
testimon of the private complainant on the violation against her person. %he
never faltered in her narration of the essential elements of the su#ject offense,
whether #efore the investigating judge or prosecutor, or the trial judge.
#'C%S *S P%$P#%
4<5 SCA 5,5 (,004)
BAC/%5 Dante &eginio, =elson "ag#anua and Clemente dela Dracia were on
their wa to the house of Dido 2lican when the accused +oel Luces collared
Dela Dracia and sta##ed him in the chest which caused his death shortl
thereafter. /he place was illuminated # a street light. &eginio and "ag#anua
e3ecuted sworn statements identifing the accused as the culprit. 1n the cross
e3amination, an affidavit of desistance of &eginio was su#mitted #ut its
e3istence was denied # him. "eanwhile, "ag#anua was presented as hostile
witness for the defense and e3ecuted an affidavit of desistance stating that the
culprit was not Luces and might #e other persons. /he accused pleaded not
guilt in the arraignment. Cowever, the trial court still found the accused guilt
of homicide, which was affirmed # the CA. Cence, this petition for review.
1%%925 AL= the affidavits of desistance should #e considered # the court.
D2C1%14=5 /he affidavits of desistance relied upon # the petitioner as a
means to e3culpate himself from criminal lia#ilit was sufficientl impeached #
the testimonial evidence of the ver same persons who allegedl e3ecuted the
same. &eginio declared that the signature found therein was not his, while
"ag#anua merel signed it out of pit for petitioners wife. As #etween the
affidavits of desistance and the sworn testimonies of the witnesses #efore the
court, the latter should prevail. An affidavit of desistance o#tained as an
afterthought and through intimidation or undue pressure attains no pro#ative
value in light of the affiants testimon to the contrar.
Burther, the testimon of the notar pu#lic whose onl participation was to
administer the oath to the persons who signed the affidavits and who did not
ascertain if the persons who appeared #efore her and represented themselves
as the affiants were indeed the same persons cannot outweigh the testimon
of said persons dening the veracit of said affidavit.
SA#A6A *S P%$P#%
511 SCA 5<; (,004)
BAC/%5 An information for estafa was filed against Anamer %ala7ar and =ena
+aucian /imario with the Lega7pi &/C which alleged that the two conspired in
that the latter issued a check in favor of +. 8. Brothers "arketing Corporation
and the former endorsed and negotiated it as pament for the F(( cavans of
rice o#tained from the +. 8 Brothers knowing that the same had no sufficient
funds. /he check was dishonored and the accused refused to pa despite
*ena *. *erga 110

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
demands to the prejudice of +. 8 Brothers. After the prosecutor rested its case,
petitioner filed a Demurrer to 2vidence with Leave of Court on the ground that
she could not #e charged since she is merel an indorser and onl the issuer is
punished # the law; that there was no evidence of conspirac; and that the
dishonored check was replaced # a second one, which is a novation of the first
transaction. "oreover, the dishonor of the second check was a result of Drawn
against uncollected deposit which means that there are sufficient funds #ut is
restricted since the check was not et cleared. /he trial court ac6uitted
petitioner of the crime #ut ordered her to remit the amount to the complainant.
Conspirac was also not proved. $etitioner then filed a "& of the civil aspect
with a plea that he #e allowed to present evidence that she was not civill
lia#le.
1%%925 AL= the Demurrer to 2vidence ma #e granted.
D2C1%14=5 1f demurrer is granted and the accused is ac6uitted # the court,
the accused has the right to adduce evidence in the civil aspect of the case
unless the court also declares that the act or omission from which the civil
lia#ilit ma arise did not e3ist.
1n the case, petitioner was charged with estafa. /he civil action arising from
the delict was impliedl instituted since there was no waiver # the private
offended part of the civil lia#ilit nor a reservation of the criminal action. /he
petitioner was granted leave of court to file a demurrer on its finding that the
lia#ilit of the petitioner was not criminal #ut onl civil. Cowever, the court
rendered judgment on the civil aspect of the case and ordered the petitioner to
pa for her purchases from the complainant even #efore the petitioner could
adduce evidence thereon. $atentl, therefore, the petitioner was denied her
right to due process.
P%$P#% *S TAC-AN
4<; SCA 4:4 (,004)
BAC/%5 /he accused "ario Austria was the 41C $rovincial Aarden of the
Batangas $rovincial +ail when he took advantage of his position in falsifing a
"emorandum &eceipt for 26uipment %emi:23penda#le and =on:23penda#le
$ropert, a pu#lic document of the said office, # stating that a Colt pistol with
.( rounds of ammunitions is a provincial government propert issued to a
civilian agent in connection with the performance of his official duties.
4nl three of the '. witnesses were notified of the arraignment and pre:trial
#ut none of them appeared. 9pon motion of the accused and o#jection of the
pu#lic prosecutor, the trial court dismissed the case on the ground that
witnesses should #e present during the trial to participate in the plea
#argaining and stipulation of facts. /he CA dismissed the "& on the ground
that the reinstatement of the case will place the accused in dou#le jeopard.
Cence, this petition.
1%%925 AL= the trial of the case should continue.
D2C1%14=5 /he accused is entitled to a speed trial. /he accused cannot use
the a#sence of the witnesses as a ground for violation of his right to a speed
trial. 2ven if none of the witnesses appeared, the trial should proceed since the
pu#lic prosecutor appeared for the %tate and the case ma not #e dismissed on
the ground that no witnesses appeared #efore the court.
P%$P#% *S T%%
4<5 SCA 51< (,004)
BAC/%5 $rosecution witness Danilo A#rati6ue, a ta3i driver, was hired #
appellant "odesto /ee to transport #o3es of #lue seal cigarettes which were in
fact marijuana to the rented house owned # Al#ert Ballesteros. Ballesteros
asked for its removal. A#rati6ue was again hired to transport the contra#and to
a room in his grandmothers house which was managed # his aunt. Bothered
# the nature of the goods, A#rati6ues aunt, =a7area A#reau, confided the
matter to her daughter Alice who disclosed the same to his #rother:in:law who
was an =B1 agent. /he =B1 and $=$ =A&C4" conducted a joint operation. Aith
permission of =a7area, the entered the room, searched the premises and
found therein . #o3es and 'F sacks of marijuana totaling FF-.,F kilograms.
Later in the evening, the =B1 special agent and A#rati6ue as witness applied
for a search warrant from +udge &ees at his residence. Ahen the Clerk of
Court arrived, the judge 6uestioned them and then issued a warrant to search
the house of appellant for marijuana in Baguio. /he agents served the warrant
to the appellant himself. /he were a#le to sei7e )- #o3es and a sack of dried
marijuana in the water tank, garage, and store room of the residence with the
presence of appellant, mem#ers of his famil, #aranga officials and the
media. Appellant alleged that the evidences were illegall ac6uired, hence,
inadmissi#le. Burther, the search warrant was too general and did not follow
the constitutional re6uirements for the issuance of a search warrant. /he trial
court held that the evidence was illegall o#tained hence, inadmissi#le. /he /C
ac6uitted him of the charge #ut convicted him illegal possession of marijuana.
Cence, this automatic review.
1%%925 AL= the a#sence of the prosecution witness violated appellants right
to a speed trial.
D2C1%14=5 /here is no showing that the prosecution capriciousl caused the
a#sences of the prosecution witness A#rati6ue which totaled )( hearing das
so as to ve3 or oppress appellant and den him his rights. A#rati6ue repeatedl
failed to show up for the taking of his testimon. /he prosecution even praed
*ena *. *erga 111

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
for the courts order for A#rati6ues arrest to compel his attendance. /he
prosecution tried to get the =B1 to produce him #ut to no avail. 2ventuall, the
trial court ordered the prosecution to waive its right to present A#rati6ue and
rest its case. /he dela of )( hearing das is not an unreasona#le length of
time. Burther, "odesto /ee did not o#ject to the ina#ilit of the prosecution to
produce its witnesses. Appellant could have moved to re6uire the witness to
post #ail, or to hold him in contempt. 1t is too late for the appellant to invoke
now his right to a speed trial. 1n the a#sence of a showing that delas were
unreasona#le and capricious, the %tate should not #e deprived of a reasona#le
opportunit of prosecuting an accused. Cence, appellants right to a speed
trial was not violated.
P%$P#% *S 3A*!N$
4<< SCA ,;5 (,004)
BAC/%5 Aenna Davino, a nine: ear old minor, was ordered # appellant to
sleep #eside him. Cer #rothers slept in the living room while her mother was
out on a teaching jo#. At a#out midnight, appellant hit her thrice and made her
lie on the #ed with her #ack against him. Ce inserted his fingers into her organ
#efore penetrating her. Appellant left her in pain and threatened to kill her if
she disclosed the same. /he se3ual assaults continued until Aenna was 'G.
%he was again raped. %he then decided to tell her science teacher that
appellant was #eating her up #ut did not disclosed the se3ual a#uses. %he was
#rought to the D%AD where she finall disclosed her ordeal. %he e3ecuted a
statement to the police and had a medical e3amination. After the filing of the
rape charges, Aennas mother and two others fetched her and proceeded to
Att Demecillo where she signed a document which was an affidavit of
desistance. %he was prevented to read its contents. Later, she went to the =B1
and e3ecuted an affidavit of retraction deposing that she signed the desistance
under duress. /he defense presented several witnesses. After trial, the court
found him guilt of 6ualified rape and sentenced him to death. Cence, this
automatic review.
1%%925 AL= the affidavit of desistance was valid.
D2C1%14=5 /he prosecution dul esta#lished that Aenna signed Affidavit of
retraction under duress. Cer relatives accosted her in school while she was
under the custod of the D%AD and took her to Agusan to sign the said
affidavit. 1ts content was not e3plained to Aenna nor was she given a chance
to read it. %he was forced to sign the affidavit as she was threatened that she
could not return to Cagaan de 4ro cit if she refused.
'#% 1,0
CAS%S
P%$P#% *S 9$N
4<. SCA 50. (,004)
BAC/%5 "aricris Bonode, then - ears old, is staing at their house along with
the accused =emesio Bon, a #rother of her mother >ioleta. 4ne afternoon,
>ioleta saw the accused ling on top of her daughter. /he accused was wearing
pants while "aricris was wearing sando and shorts. >ioleta in6uired #ut
"aricris cried. %he learned from her oungest daughter that accused se3uall
a#used "aricris # poking her private part. 1nstead of confronting the accused,
the transferred to <ue7on $rovince. Ahen >ioleta learned that the accused
was in jail for acts of lasciviousness, she revealed to her hus#and that the
accused molested their daughter. /he $=$ "edico:Legal 4fficer e3amined the
victim and found that she is not anmore a virgin #ut there were no e3ternal
signs of violence. An information for rape was then filed against the accused.
/rial on the merits ensued. /he trial court found the accused guilt of rape and
sentenced him to death. Cence, this automatic review.
1%%925 AL= the accused could #e convicted of acts of lasciviousness on an
information charging rape.
D2C1%14=5 Article )--:A of the &$C, as amended # &A 0FGF, interpreting the
insertion of ones finger into the genitals of another as rape through se3ual
assault does not appl at the case at #ar. /he governing law during the
commission of the crime was Article FFG of the &$C, as amended # &A *-G,,
where insertion of ones finger into the genitals of another does not amount to
rape. =evertheless, the accused is not completel without lia#ilit. Although
the information charged the crime of rape, the accused can #e convicted of
acts of lasciviousness #ecause it is included in rape and all the elements for the
said crime were esta#lished. /he judgment is then modified such that the
accused is found guilt of acts of lasciviousness.
P%$P#% *S 7A"T$N
4<5 SCA 15. (,004)
BAC/%5 %pouses /eofilo and Leonida Darcia were the sole distri#utors of %inger
%ewing "achines under the #usiness name Darmer 1ndustrial "achines. 4ne
morning, +un =otarte and &enold 8am#ot, #oth armed entered their office and
announced a hold:up. After empting the drawer of cash, the took /eofilo into
a light gra "itsu#ishi Lancer where Arnold Lope7 and Arthur $angilinan were
waiting. /eofilo was #lindfolded in the #ack seat. Cis a#ductors took his gold
ring, #racelet necklace, and cash. Ahen he was led out of the office, Leonida
arrived and saw her hus#and. Ce approached the car and asked the a#ductors.
/he appellant hit her instead on the nose with a gun. /he car sped awa. Ce
was transferred into a trimo#ile where he was taken into room with no
windows and his left wrist chained into an iron grill. /he appellant Adan "analo
*ena *. *erga 11,

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
called Leonida asking for '( million pesos as ransom. After several calls and
negotiations, the a#ductors agreed to a $',)((,((( ransom. /he told her to
#ring the mone at the "agallanes flover #efore .pm, open the hood to make
it appear that the pajero has engine trou#le. Appellant would then stop #eside
her car and after identifing himself as Adan, she should hand over the ransom
to him. Cowever, she coordinated with the $ACC under Col. "ichael &a
A6uino who instructed her to go on with the pa:off and wear a green dress.
/he pa:off took place. After assuring that the would drop him and give him
$F(( for his ta3i fare, the noticed a white =issan %entra pursuing them. Ahen
the reached the intersection of Duadi3 and ADB Avenues, the a#ductors fired
at the $ACC agents. =otarte escaped #ut $angilinan and 8am#ot were
captured. /eofilo was rescued and the ransom mone and the unlicensed
firearms were recovered. Antonio Camton was separatel apprehended
#ecause he negotiated with Leonida for the ransom at the same time with the
true a#ductors. Ce was a#le to e3tort $G(,((( from her.
An information for kidnapping and ransom was filed against the a#ductors.
Later, a second information for illegal possession of firearms was filed. /he
pleaded not guilt #ut the court found them guilt of kidnapping for ransom
and serious illegal detention and illegal possession of firearms. Camton was
found guilt of ro##er. /he appellants appealed alleging that the prosecution
failed to esta#lished conspirac and that the were in phsical and constructive
possession of the firearms.
1%%925 AL= the judgment was valid.
D2C1%14=5 /he fact that the judge who penned the decision was not the same
one who had heard the testimonies of all the witnesses is not a compelling
reason to jettison the findings of the court a 6uo. /his circumstance does not
ipso facto render the judgment erroneous, more so when it appears to #e full
supported # the evidence on record. Ahile a judge in such a situation has no
wa to test the credi#ilit of all the witnesses, since he did not have the uni6ue
opportunit of o#serving their demeanor and #ehavior under oath, the trail
courts findings are nonetheless #inding on this court when these are a#l
supported # the evidence on record. 9nless there is a clear showing of grave
a#use of discretion, the validit of a decision is not necessaril impaired # the
fact that its ponente onl took over from a colleague who had earlier presided
at the trial.
'N!&A& *S CA
4<< SCA ,: (,004)
BAC/%5 $etitioner &enaldo Criste 9nidad, the Chief 4perations 4fficer of the
A$D was charged with homicide in an information filed #efore the court.
/estimonies and evidences revealed that the victim was kneeling or sitting in
front of the accused who was then standing when the latter shot the former.
/he trial court promulgated its decision on F' August ',,., #ut amended the
same on G %eptem#er ',,.. Both contained the same dispositive portion.
$etitioner claimed that the amended decision was promulgated on '-
%eptem#er ',,. after he had perfected his appeal. /he CA affirmed the lower
courts amended decision. Cence, this petition for certiorari.
1%%925 AL= the amended decision was validl done # the trial court.
D2C1%14=5 A comparison of the decision and amended decision of the trial
court readil shows that no su#stantial variance e3ists. /he trial court merel
made more clear which side presented which witness, #ut the contents of their
testimonies remained the same. As stated, the dispositive portions are
identical, and the same is consistent with the rest of #oth the decision and the
amended decision. 1t can, therefore, #e concluded that no prejudice resulted to
an part from the amendment, and that it referred onl to insu#stantial
matters. /he same is clearl well within the inherent powers of courts to
amend and control their processes and orders to make them conforma#le to
law and justice. Burthermore, there is no showing that the records had #een
forwarded to the CA at the time said amendment was effected.
P%$P#% *S $"%$
4<< SCA 4;. (,004)
BAC/%5 After drinking tu#a in his house, &odolfo "oreno and Augusto &u#a
went to the house of the #rother of the appellant to drink #eer and gin. Later,
the two left and while in the national road, the saw appellant $a6uito &omero
in a s6uatting position #ecause the place was illuminated # a fluorescent light
two meters awa. As &u#a passed, appellant stood and struck him with an air
pump at the #ack of the head. "oreno ran. Ce related the incident to &u#as
father. Ahen the returned to the scene and #rought him to the hospital, the
victims sister Cora7on +unsa said the name of $a6uito with whom the victim
replied with a clenched fist. /he investigating officer went to the hospital and
asked the victim the identit of the appellant. /he victim replied that it was
$a6uito &omero. /he 6uestions and answers were reduced into writing and was
thum#marked # the victim and signed # the doctor and the victims sister as
witnesses. An information for murder was then filed against the appellant. /he
parties agreed that the appellant would enter a plea of guilt to a lesser
offense of homicide. /he court issued an order that the prosecution accepted
the plea under the conditions that there would #e no modifing circumstances,
reim#ursement of e3penses and civil indemnit and recommendation of the
penalt of prision maor. Before the court rendered a decision, the prosecution
moved for the re:opening of the case on the ground that appellant violated the
conditions when he refused to pa the victims father. /he court granted it and
commenced with the trial. Appellant however filed a motion to dismiss on the
*ena *. *erga 114

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
ground of dou#le jeopard which was denied and later convicted the accused of
murder. Cence, this appeal.
1%%925 AL= there was alread a judgment when the court issued the order
granting the lesser plea.
D2C1%14=5 /he trial court was correct in holding that there was no dou#le
jeopard in the case considering that it was terminated as a result of
appellants ac6uittal, conviction or dismissal. /he order approving the guilt
plea to homicide, with conditions, was not a judgment of conviction. /he
dispositive portion of the said order which in part reads ?Aherefore, in view of
the foregoing, this case is dee'ed sub'itted for decision@ clearl shows that
the trial court still had to render a decision on the criminal and civil lia#ilities of
the appellant. /he said order merel approved the agreement #etween the
parties on the new plea to a lesser offense # the appellant and the conditions
attached to it. /he trial court neither sentenced the accused nor made an
ruling on the civil indemnit in favor of the heirs of the victim.
'#% 1,1
CAS%S
A"A!##$ *S SAN&!3AN9A(AN
4<. SCA 545 (,004)
BAC/%5 $etitioners who are all officials of the D$AC Aurora 2ngineering District
together with Carolina <uerijero, a private contractor were charged with
falsification of pu#lic documents. /he simulated a contract for the repair of the
$ugo and Dos #ridges which were damaged # flashfloods. 1n the preliminar
investigation, the investigator considered the certifications of the Bg
chairperson and kagawad, social welfare officer and the "unicipal agriculturist.
/he certificates in effect averred that no repair was made and that the
flashfloods occurred on Dec. )., ',,G. $etitioner <uerijero su#mitted a
photocop of the letter of the re6uest of the maor to utili7e the crane and
#oom of 1ndustrial Development Corporation and a letter of the 1DC Deneral
"anager granting the said re6uest. Binding sufficient ground, an information
for estafa through falsification of official documents was filed with the
%andigan#aan. /he information was amended to cure some defects such as
the non:inclusion of the phrase ?committing the offense in relation to office.
$etitioners filed a motion for leave of court to file a motion for reinvestigation
on the ground of newl discovered evidence consisting of an affidavit of the
administrative officer of 1DC that the maor re6uested 1DC for the utili7ation of
its e6uipments for the repair of the #ridges. /he %andigan#aan denied the
motion. Cence, this petition.
1%%925 AL= the motion for reinvestigation ma #e granted on the ground of
newl discovered evidence.
D2C1%14=5 /aduos affidavit is not newl discovered evidence. 1t could have
easil #een produced during the investigation of the case. /here was no
showing of /aduos non:availa#ilit at the time of the investigation or the
a#sence of the correspondence #etween the "aor and 1DC. Also, assuming
that said affidavit could not have #een reasona#l produced during the
investigation still it can not 6ualif as newl discovered evidence #ecause it
was not material to the issue. 1t merel stated the letter re6uest. /here was no
allegation that he actuall saw or had personal knowledge of the repairs #
petitioners through Caroline Construction. Cence, the %andigan#aan correctl
dismissed the motion for reinvestigation.
P%$P#% *S &AT'
4<: SCA .<5 (,004)
BAC/%5 Appellant &omeo Datu is engaged in selling hardware and construction
materials in Aurora, 1sa#ela which is also the line of #usiness of the victim
Antonio Chan in Burgos, 1sa#ela. Datu sold an 1su7u dump truck to Chan for
$.0(,(((, the latter issuing . postdated checks as pament. /hree of the
checks were encashed #ut Chan stopped pament for the fourth check to
accommodate Amadeo 8ap for unpaid lum#er which Datu #ought from 8ap.
Datu confronted Chan a#out the dishonored check and refused to entertain
Chans e3planation. Ce hurled threats against Chans emploees. Ce emploed
several persons including Batuelo and witness "adaag whom he promised to
pa $'(,(((. /he assailants #oarded a white "itsu#ishi L:F(( van, went to
Chans compound and hid. Ahen Chan came out, the rushed to him. Chan
was a#le to struck "adaag with a wood in the forehead. Batuelo spraed tear
gas on Chan until he was finall su#dued. 4ne of the assailants tied a rope
around the victims neck and hung him in the #asement of the house. %usan,
the victims wife, stood up from her sleep, saw the appellants and her
hus#and, shouted for help and then collapsed. /he appellants left. After his
wound healed, "adaag returned to Datu to collect the #alance of $,,((( #ut
his sister told him that F men were looking for him. Ce then decided to disclose
the crime to his wife and then to his wifes second cousin, %gt. Blordelito
%a#uas who arranged a meeting with his camps provost marshal, Col.
Cernani Acosta. "adaag agreed to e3ecute a statement implicating the
appellants in e3change for the forgiveness of %usan. /he appellants raised the
defense of denial and ali#i. An information for murder was then filed. As
directed # the court, the information was amended to include "adaag as one
of the accused. Later, "adaag was discharged as a state witness. /he
appellants were convicted as charged. /he appellants filed a motion for new
trialLmistrial on the ground that witness %gt. %a#uas e3ecuted an affidavit of
retraction that %usan and "adaag framed up the appellants which motion was
*ena *. *erga 115

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
denied. Another motion for new trial was filed in light of an affidavit #
&oosevelt %alvador that "adaag was phsicall manhandled to testif for the
prosecution, which motion was again denied. Cence, this automatic review.
1%%925 AL= the motion for new trial ma #e granted on the ground of newl
discovered evidence.
D2C1%14=5 /he affidavit of %alvador declaring that he and other militar men
including %a#uas a#ducted, manhandled and phsicall a#used "adaag to
admit complicit in the killing of Chan, and as a state witness, to implicate
appellant Datu. %alvador further said that "adaag agreed to cooperate after
%usan offered him a reasona#le financial package for his testimon. %uch
statement after the trial was finished is evidence which appellants could not
have secured during the trial such that it must #e considered as newl
discovered evidence that ma #e presented in a new trial. As a rule,
recantations are regarded with disfavor as it can #e easil secured from a poor
and ignorant witness for monetar consideration. Cowever, since the penalt
imposed is death, the testimon of %a#uas is worth of note and ke to the
solution of the case. /here should #e no of shadow of dou#t in the case that
ma vitiate the result. 2ver piece of pertinent evidence must #e adduced
#efore the trial court. Cence, the new trial ma #e granted and the case
remanded for further proceedings.
'#% 1,,
CAS%S
P%$P#% *S P!N'%#A
4<. SCA 5.1 (,004)
BAC/%5 4ne morning, %alvador Dalve7 was talking to Cenr Cualde in front of
his store. David Dalve7 and &odne Al#ito were cleaning their trisikad while
>ictor $enasales was a near# water vendor. %uddenl, the accused alighted
from a trisikad and shot David at the head. Ce then fired G times at %alvador
hitting him in the a#domen and right thigh. %alvador fired #ack #ut missed.
Both were taken to the hospital #ut onl %alvador survived. /wo informations
for frustrated murder and murder were filed against the accused. /he two
cases were jointl tried. /he trial court convicted him of murder and frustrated
homicide. Cence, this appeal.
1%%925 AL= the appellate court ma correct errors in the judgment of the
lower court on appeal.
D2C1%14=5 Ahen an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he
waives his constitutional safeguard against dou#le jeopard and throws the
whole case open for to the review of the appellate court, which is then called
upon to render such judgment as the law and justice dictate whether favora#le
or unfavora#le to him, and whether the are assigned as errors or not. %uch an
appeal confers upon the appellate court full jurisdiction and renders it
competent to e3amine the records, revise the judgment appealed from,
increase the penalt and cite the proper provision of the penal law.
/he identit of the accused was clearl and positivel esta#lished not onl #
%alvador Dalve7, +r., who knew the accused for man ears, #ut also # the
prosecution witness &odne Al#ito, who was not known to have an
misunderstanding or grudge against him. /his finding of the trial court is
#inding and conclusive on the appellate court unless some facts of weight and
su#stance have #een overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.
/he Court agrees with the trial court that the killing of David Dalve7 was
attended # treacher #ecause it was esta#lished that there was a sudden
attack without provocation on Dalve7 who was s6uatting on one side of the
road with his head #ent down. Dalve7 was not in a position to defend himself.
4n the other hand, the trial court erred in finding that the attack on %alvador
was not treacherous. /he sudden and une3pected attack without provocation
on %alvador, who was just talking to Cenr Cualde in front of his store, showed
that treacher attended the shooting. Ce could not defend himself from such
assault. /rue, the victim was a#le to fire #ack at his assailant. Cowever, he
was a#le to do so onl after he was mortall wounded # the treacherous
attack made # the accused. Cis recover due to the timel medical
intervention does not diminish the treacherous character of the attack. Cence,
the accused is guilt of murder, 6ualified # treacher, for the killing of David
Dalve7. Ce also guilt of frustrated murder for the near fatal shooting of
%alvador Dalve7, considering that the same was attended # treacher.
P%$P#% *S "AN#'CTA$
505 SCA 5;0 (,004)
BAC/%5 "arcelina "anluctao was then 'F ears old when she was first raped
# her father, &omeo "anluctao. /he rape took place when the appellant
ordered her si#lings to go out and told her to go to her room. 1n her room, the
appellant kissed her, touched her private parts, inserted his penis and did a
push and pull movements. %he cried and resisted #ut she could not do
anthing #ecause she was threatened # a knife. /his was repeated three more
times #ut "arcelina did not give an details or particulars on the third incident.
Appellant was charged with . counts of rape in separate charge sheets. Ce
pleaded guilt to all . charges with the assistance of a counsel de officio. /he
defense admitted the minorit of the victim, the child of the victim, his
paternit and his identit. 4nl the prosecution presented its evidences. /he
trial court convicted the appellant in all four cases with death as penalt in
each of them. Cence, this automatic review.
*ena *. *erga 115

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
1%%925 AL= the appellate court ma correct errors in the judgment of the
lower court on appeal.
D2C1%14=5 An appeal or automatic appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the
whole case open for review, and it is the dut of the reviewing court to correct
errors as it ma find in the lower courts judgment, regardless of whether it is
assigned as an error or not.
/he Court agrees with the trial court that complainants testimon alone is
sufficient in the conviction of appellant. /he cring of the victim on the witness
stand is evidence of the truth of the rape charges, for the displa of such
emotions indicates the pain that she feels as she recounts the details of her
sordid e3perience.
1n the third incident of rape, the victim did not provide details, #ut the
elements of rape on that incident have #een sufficientl esta#lished. Cowever,
#oth the 6ualifing circumstances of age of the victim and her relationship with
the accused were not alleged in the information. %uch failure is fatal and #ars
conviction of the accused in its 6ualified form which is punisha#le # death.
Cence, he could onl #e convicted of simple rape with the penalt of reclusion
perpetua, not death.
P%$P#% *S PAA&%6A
4<: SCA 151 (,004)
BAC/%5 4ne evening, Lailani Daas was at their house in Eam#ales with her
ounger #rother who was watching />. %he was a#out to go out of their house
when she was gra##ed # &omeo $arade7a #ack into the house. Ce laid her in
a #am#oo #ed, undressed her, took out a knife, fondled her #reasts, and had
carnal knowledge with her while covering her mouth. After satiating his lust, he
went home. Daas, who was )- ears old #ut has the mental a#ilit of a - or *
ear old child, told her mother and grandmother a#out the incident. %he was
e3amined and was found to #e mentall retarded. Ce was then charged with
rape. Ce pleaded not guilt with the assistance of a counsel de parte. /he trial
court convicted him of the crime charged. Appellant filed a notice of appeal.
Both the appellant and appellee filed their #riefs. Cowever, the $u#lic
Attornes 4ffice filed a motion to withdraw appeal.
1%%925 AL= the court ma grant the motion to withdraw the appeal filed #
the appellant.
D2C1%14=5 /he withdrawal of an appeal is a matter of right #efore the filing of
the appellees #rief. After that, withdrawal ma #e allowed in the discretion of
the court. /he appellants motion to withdraw his appeal was made onl after
the 4%D had filed the Brief for appellee. Cowever, the Court had re6uired
appellant to file his repl #rief. 1t could therefore #e said that the appellant had
not et completed the process of filing #riefs when he moved to withdraw his
appeal, a situation which ma call for a more li#eral rule. Appellant is a hardl
illiterate functionall and of ver low socio:economic standing as a mere
#angus fr catcher. 1n making his appeal, he is actuall wagering his life as
against his sentence #elow. &egardless of his reasons, it is within his rights to
seek such withdrawal. Cence, in the interest of justice and in the e3ercise of
sound discretion of the court, the withdrawal of the appeal ma #e granted. Ce
will thus remain in custod and serve the sentence imposed upon him # the
lower court.
NA(A *S A9!N3
4<; SCA 4.5 (,004)
BAC/%5 4rlando =aa, as seller, and A#raham and Duillerma A#ing, as #uers,
entered into a contract to sell two parcels of land for $-(,((( paa#le in
monthl installments of $',('G.*. for five ears after paing a downpament
of $)(,(((. =aa #ound himself to e3ecute a deed of sale and deliver the title
free from encum#rances and liens upon full pament of the price. =aa paid
$),((( a month even in e3cess of the amount agreed upon. 9nknown to A#ing,
=aa sold his lots including the disputed lots to Ailliam $o for $)((,(((, =aa
represented that he is the owner of the same. A#ing continued remitting
paments to which =aa issued the corresponding receipts until the spouses
had paid $G.,(((. =aa consented to the construction of a fence and a house
or warehouse # A#ing. /he spouses #ought hollow #locks worth $.(,(((.
Cowever, he were evicted from the propert # $o and the hollow #locks
remained unused. %u#se6uentl, the spouse learned of the second sale. An
information for estafa was then filed against =aa after a preliminar
investigation. After the prosecution had presented its evidence, the court set
the case for continuation for =aa to present its evidence. Cowever, his
counsel failed to appear. /he court then issued an order that the accused had
waived his right to adduce evidences. /he court convicted him of estafa which
was affirmed # the CA. Cence, this appeal.
1%%925 AL= the appellate court ma correct errors in judgment whether
assigned or not.
D2C1%14=5 An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for
review and the appellate court is mandated to correct an error in the appealed
judgment whether this is assigned as an error or has not assigned as error the
issue of whether or not under the information petitioner was charged with and
ma #e convicted of estafa under Article F'-()! of the &$C.
*ena *. *erga 11.

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
/here was no allegation in the information that petitioner e3pressl
represented in the sale of the su#ject propert to $o that the said propert was
free from an encum#rance. 1rrefraga#l, petitioner was not charged with
estafa under Art F'-()!. Cence, the trial court committed error in finding him
guilt of estafa and the CA likewise erred in affirming the same.
=otwithstanding his ac6uittal, he is nevertheless lia#le to the spouses A#ing to
return the purchase price and reim#urse the amount of the hollow #locks.
P%$P#% *S S'9%
501 SCA 1.< (,004)
BAC/%5 +ulio %olis and his #rother =icanor were resting inside their house
which was illuminated # a dou#le rechargea#le lamp. Later, +ulio heard shouts
that Bo#ot, also +ulio, will #e killed. Ce saw Lastide %u#e, &olando "en7on,
Beli7ardo 4ntog, Benedicto Acala and Dino Aala outside carring flashlights
and #laded weapons. Ce tried to rouse =icanor #ut the latter was ill and could
not get up. Ce ran out and hid #ehind some trees G meters awa from the
house. Ce saw the five accused enter the house and hit his #rother with his
fathers airgun. /hen, he saw the five accused came out with =icanors hands
#ound with a nlon cord. /hereafter, he reported the incident to his father and
to the police. /he went to the house of %u#e #ut the were refused. /he
returned to the crime scene #ut found no #od. A few das later, %u#e was
turned over # Col 4#illo to the Antipolo $olice C<. %u#e disclosed the incident
and where =icanor was #uried. "en7on was also arrested. An information was
then filed against %u#e and "en7on and the other accused. /he trial court
convicted %u#e, "en7on and 4ntog for the murder of =icanor and archived
with respect to Aala and Acala. Cence, this appeal.
1%%925 AL= the accused 4ntog ma withdraw his appeal and thereafter #e
#enefited from the modification of the trial courts judgment.
AL= the findings of the trial court are #inding on the appellate court.
D2C1%14=5 4ntog indicated his desire to withdraw his appeal. /he re6uest was
treated as a motion to the same effect and granted. Cence, 4ntogs appeal was
dismissed in a &esolution. Cowever, in light of the fact that we have seen fit to
modif the trial courts judgment in a manner that is favora#le to the accused:
appellants, then such modification should appl to 4ntog as well.
As a general rule, the findings of the trial court on matters of credi#ilit are
#inding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or
circumstances of weight and su#stance have #een overlooked,
misapprehended or misinterpreted. 1n the case at #ar, the trial court gave
more credence to the testimon of +ulio over the com#ined testimonies of the
appellants. +ulios testimon was straightforward and convincing. Ce gave a
chilling account of the incident and positivel identified the five accused. Ce
maintained his stor and did not waiver even when he was su#jected to
rigorous pro#ing during the cross:e3amination.
'#% 1,5
CAS%S
*!TT$ *S CA
505 SCA 40: (,004)
BAC/%5 Bredelito >itto, >ic $i7arro and Danilo $ajaron were charged with
homicide under an information filed with the &/C. /he court convicted all the
accused. /he appealed to the CA #ut remained at large for failure to post #ail
on appeal. /he CA re6uired them to e3plain wh their appeal should not #e
a#andoned in view of their failure to su#mit themselves to the proper
authorities. $etitioner, through counsel, e3plained that he was not aware that
he should surrender. Cis counsel re6uested an additional period to contact the
accused in "indoro, to su#mit him to the jurisdiction of the CA and to file the
appellants #rief. Cowever, the accused did not appear and the #rief was not
filed. /he court then dismissed the appeal. $etitioner filed a motion for leave of
court to file appellants #rief, which motion was denied on the ground that the
dismissal of the appeal has alread #ecome final and e3ecutor. Cence, this
petition.
1%%925 AL= the CA ma dismiss the appeal for a#andonment, failure to
prosecute and failure to file appellants #rief.
D2C1%14=5 $etitioner, through counsel, asked for an e3tension within which to
su#mit himself and to file the appellants #rief. Cowever, petitioner failed to
compl which is fatal to his appeal. /he CA considered his appeal as having
#een a#andoned and conse6uentl dismissed the same. /he motion for leave
to file appellants #rief filed two months after the finalit of the dismissal of the
appeal was correctl denied. Cis insolent refusal to su#mit himself to the
jurisdiction of the court cannot #e countenanced.
Ce should have informed his lawer of his wherea#outs and in the same
manner, his lawer should have ac6uainted him regarding the proceedings in
the CA.
'#% 1,.
CAS%S
P%$P#% *S SAAP
4<< SCA 504 (,004)
*ena *. *erga 11:

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
BAC/%5 %$4. Duarino and $4) =avida, armed with a search warrant, raided
the house of Conrado &icaforte at &i7al %t, $o#lacion, Banga, Aklan due to the
reported sale of marijuana # its occupants. /he occupants were apprehended
for illegal possession of marijuana and were detained in Banga police station.
1n the investigation, the police learned that a certain "ell and &oger were the
suppliers and will #e #ack later. 4ne da, the caretaker of the house told the
police that two strangers were looking for the occupants of the house. /he
police arrived and saw "ell %arap and &oger Amar. 9pon seeing them, %arap
threw her #lack canvass #ag which &oger picked up. Duarino sei7ed %arap and
gra##ed her green plastic #ag which upon inspection, contained ) #locks of
marijuana. =avida pursued and arrested Amar. An information was filed
charging the appellants with sale of prohi#ited drugs. /he court ac6uitted Amar
and convicted %arap of the crime charged. Cence, this appeal.
1%%925 AL= the warrantless search and arrest was illegal.
D2C1%14=5 /he Banga police officers were not armed with a warrant of arrest.
%arap cannot #e said to #e committing a crime. =either was she a#out to
commit one nor had she just committed a crime. %he was merel walking in
the alle near the house of &icaforte. Duarino would not have apprehended her
were it not for 1gui7s identification. /he Banga police could have secured a
search warrant when the house occupants disclosed that a certain "ell and
&oger would #e #ack. /he persons intended to #e searched were particulari7ed
and the thing to #e sei7ed specified. /he time was also ascertained although it
was uncertain when the would arrive. /hese particulars would have provided
sufficient grounds to secure a search warrant. 1nstead, the police acted onl
upon the information of the caretaker. /he cannot dispense with a warrant on
the #asis of urgenc since the have ). hours to do so. /he had prior
knowledge of %araps alleged activities. Cence, the police could not effect a
warrantless search and sei7ure since there was no pro#a#le cause and %arap
was not lawfull arrested.
/he instant case does not also fall within the purview of the plain view doctrine
#ecause the marijuana contained in the green plastic #ag was not visi#le and
not apparent. /hat the search disclosed marijuana confirming the polices initial
information and suspicion did not cure its patent illegalit. /hus, %arap is
ac6uitted.
P%$P#% *S S!"9A7$N
501 SCA <5 (,004)
BAC/%5 4ne earl morning, the police, with the #g chairman and the media,
served a search warrant upon Danilo %im#ahon, "aricar "orgia and Charito
"angula#nan at their residence in %ampaloc, "anila. Aith slight resistance, the
police gained entr. /heir search ielded a #rick of dried flowering tops
wrapped in a newspaper and placed in a plastic #ag and a #lack #ullet pouch
containing - ammunition, al of which were found under the #ed of %im#ahon
and "angula#nan. /he police found a pencil case containing sha#u and
ammunition in the room of "orgia. /he also found a red and #lack snthetic
case containing sha#u, sniffing paraphernalias such as improvised #urner,
tooter, scissors, aluminum foil, plastic sachets with residue, and empt plastic
sachets in the living room. An inventor receipt was issued and signed #
%im#ahon. /he three were arrested and #rought to the precinct for
investigation. %eparate informations were filed against against the three for
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act and illegal possession of firearms. /he
charges against "angula#nan were dismissed upon motion of the prosecution.
/he court ac6uitted "orgia #ut convicted %im#ahon.
1%%925 AL= the search conducted prior to the arraignment of the appellant
was valid.
D2C1%14=5 /he case should #e dismissed on the ground of manifest violations
of the constitutional right of the accused against illegal search and sei7ure.
Ahile appellant ma #e deemed to have waived his right to 6uestion the
legalit of the search warrant and the admissi#ilit of the evidence sei7ed for
failure to raise his o#jections at the opportune time, however, the record
shows serious defects in the search warrant itself which rend the same null and
void. /he caption, as well as the #od of the search warrant, shows that it was
issued for more than one offense, for violation of the DDA and illegal
possession of firearms. Burther, the warrant failed to descri#e the place to #e
searched with sufficient particularit. /he search warrant issued # the court
merel referred to appellants residence as premises without specifing its
address. Burthermore, the sei7ed marijuana was not mentioned in the search
warrant. /he sei7ure # the police conducting the search of articles not
descri#ed therein was #eond the parameters of their authorit under the
search warrant. Cence, the search was illegal and %im#ahon should #e
ac6uitted of the crime charged.
P%$P#% *S T%%
4<5 SCA 51< (,004)
BAC/%5 see rule <<9
1%%925 AL= the search warrant satisfied the constitutional re6uirement.
D2C1%14=5 /he thing si7ed is a propert of a specific character, marijuana, an
illicit drug. A further description would #e unnecessar and ordinaril
impossi#le, e3cept as to such character, the place, and circumstances. /he
description ?illegall n possession of undetermined 6uantit of dried marijuana
leaves and sha#u and sets of paraphernalia@ particulari7es the things to #e
*ena *. *erga 11;

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005
sei7ed. /he search warrant has satisfied the constitutional re6uirements on
particularit of description.
Burther, it was not disputed that +udge &ees personall e3amined =B1 %pecial
Agent 1nvestigator 11 Lising, the applicant for the search warrant as well as his
witness, Danilo A#rati6ue, who personall saw and handled the marijuana. /he
non:attachment of the depositions of the two is not fatall defective as long as
there is evidence on record showing what testimon was presented and that
such was never raised # appellant.
/he =B1 su#mitted a detailed sketch of the premises prepared # A#rati6ue
ensuring that there would #e no mistake. /he e3ecuting officer, can with
reasona#le effort, ascertain and identif the place intended and distinguish it
from other places in the communit. Cence, the description of the place was
sufficient.
Cence, the search warrant complied with the constitutional re6uirements.
*ena *. *erga 11<