of the inherent clash between the interest of the State to preserve public order, and the interest of
the individual to have his rights protected. A discussion of criminal procedure would therefore be
incomplete without a discussion of the Bill of Rights.
This reviewer therefore integrates the important points of the Bill of Rights together with
the details of remedial criminal procedure in order to give the reader a more holistic
understanding of criminal procedure. Substantive law, particularly criminal law, is likewise
discussed when necessary.
Although the rights of the accused as enumerated under Rule 115, Sec. 1 pertain to the
trial stage of the criminal prosecution, they are discussed here at the start of this reviewer in order
to set the subsequent discussion of criminal procedure within the perspective of protection of the
rights of the accused.
Right to discovery
Is there a right of discovery for the accused in criminal cases?
See the following provisions:
It was held in the case of People v. Webb that a denial of discovery procedures to an
accused in a criminal case is tantamount to a deprivation of the accuseds right to compulsory
process which is guaranteed in the Constitution.
Is there a right of discovery for the prosecution in criminal cases?
Yes. See Rule 119, Sec. 15 (examination of witnesses for the prosecution)
Why is it that the right of discovery cannot be the same for both prosecution and
accused?
It might violate the accuseds right against self-incrimination.
Effect of violation
When the privilege against self-incrimination is violated outside of court (e.g., by the
police), then testimony is not admissible under the exclusionary rule.
When the privilege is violated by the court itself, i.e. by the judge, the court is ousted of its
jurisdiction, and all its proceedings are null and void, and is as if no judgment has been rendered.
(See Chavez v. CA, 34 SCRA 663)
CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION
INTRODUCTION
Constitutional basis
suspected to have committed. This shall be without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer
for any violation of law.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
2.
Must the suspect be informed that his silence will not be used against him? Must he
be given a mini-lecture on Crim. Pro?
Nowhere in the consti or ROC is it provided that the suspect must be informed that his silence
does not bear any adverse consequence. However, it is believed that for a suspect to be
considered as truly informed of his constitutional right to silence, he must be advised that
such silence will not be taken against him. This is due to the fact that in many instances,
persons arrested feel that it looks worse for them if they remain absolutely silent.
3.
Is the right to be informed of the above rights satisfied if they are typewritten?
No. In People vs. Galit, it was held that each right must be explained to the accused in
simple words in his own dialect/language. Such is the requirement for warnings to be valid
and effective.
Police line-ups
shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory as when police investigation does
not elicit a confession, the accused may not yet avail of the services of his
lawyer.
The Gamboa ruling was reiterated in the case of People v. Santos (236
SCRA 686; 1993), wherein the Court noted that there was nothing in the records
of the case that would show that in the course of the line-up, the police
investigators sought to extract any admission or confession from the accused.
In the US case of US v. Wade (908 U.S. 218; 1957) however, which
involved a post-indictment line-up, it was held that the absence of counsel during
the line-up was violative of the accused's rights. The Court held that the postindictment line-up was a critical stage of the prosecution at which the accused
was as much entitled to the aid of counsel as at the trial itself.
Miranda Doctrine
could be held as the commencement of the adversarial criminal process that mandates the
right to counsel. This is inapplicable to the Ayson case which involved an administrative
investigation by PAL management of a ticket clerk for alleged irregularities in the sale of
tickets.
5. When do the Miranda rights apply?
From the moment of arrest.
6.
Are Miranda rights available in checkpoints and Stop and Frisk situations?
No. There is as yet no arrest. The fact that one consents to the search in the face of armed
military men does not constitute waiver of the right against Illegal Search (the person
searched may still question the legality of the search).
7.
Police ran after a suspect who later hid himself in a building. The police sealed off all
points of ingress and egress and later talked to the suspect by megaphone. The police
used the information given against him later. Was the suspect deprived of Miranda
rights? When is a person considered under detention?
Bautista said: A DOJ circular stated that when the questioning is already removed from infield questioning, one the person is restricted in his physical movements in any significant
way, then the rights arise already Theres no need to put the persons in a cell for him to be
considered under detention. Going by the said definition, it is submitted that in the problem
above, the suspect is effectively under detention as he is already surrounded by the police
with no possible means of escape.
8.
Bautista says:
Not that the scope of exclusion regarding the Privilege against Self-Incrimination and Miranda
Rights is not as broad as that afforded when there is a violation of the Right against Privacy
of Correspondence and Communication. In the latter, any evidence obtained in violation of
said right will be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
9.
Exclusionary rule
(2) Res gestae statements (People v. Dy, 158 SCRA 111; 1988)
The declaration of the accused acknowledging guilt made to the police desk
officer after the crime was committed may be given in evidence against him by
the police officer to whom the admission was made, as part of the res gestae.
(People v. Dy)
(3) Statements given in administrative investigations (People v. Ayson, 175 SCRA 216;
1989)
(4)
Official forms prepared and accomplished in the normal course of audit regularly
conducted by the Commission on Audit (Kimpo v. Sandiganbayan, 235 SCRA 53);
(5) X-ray examinations of the body (People v. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455)
ARREST
NOTES:
The 2000 Rules changed the power of an RTC judge to issue warrants of arrest. See Rule 112,
Sec. 6 of the old and new rules.
In general
Arrest defined
Kinds of arrests
With warrant
Without warrant
The only ground for issuance of a warrant of arrest is probable cause. Probable cause
refers to such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man
to believe that an offense had been committed by the person sought to be arrested.
Time of arrest
An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night. (Rule 113, Sec.
6)
Method of arrest
No violence of unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest. The arrested shall
not be subject to a greater restraint than is necessary for his detention. (Rule 113, Sec. 2, 2nd
paragraph)
Warrantless arrests
Grounds
Who may effect; how effected
By peace officer
By private person
When is a warrant of arrest not necessary?
(1) When the accused is already under detention pursuant to a warrant issued by the MTC
judge in Rule 112, Sec. 6 (b);
(2) When the complaint or information was filed pursuant to Rule 112, Sec. 7, i.e. a valid
warrantless arrest;
(3) When the offense is penalized by fine only. (Rule 112, Sec. 6 (c))
(4) When the accused lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued (Rule 113, Sec. 13)
Bail (but then you dont really go into the validity of the arrest here Note that
under the new rules, an application for or admission to bail is no longer a bar to
challenge the validity of an arrest)
Standing to challenge
Time to challenge
Sanctions
How much time between the commission of the offense and the arrest, a week ago? IN
determining whether a warrantless arrest is valid or not do we inquire into whether there
was adequate opportunity to obtain a warrant? Is the existence of opportunity and time a
consideration in determining the validity of a warrantless arrest?
No. See People v. Amundin.
Bautista: take note of the crimes referred to in R. 113 Sec. 5a as continuing crimes laid
down by Umil v. Ramos: rebellion, subversion, conspiracy/proposal to commit such
crimes, and crimes/offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith.
A.
Yes. R113 S7. The officer need not have the warrant of arrest in his possession at the time
of the arrest, but after the arrest, if the person arrested so requires, the warrant shall be
shown to him as soon as practicable.
Q.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
The prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is imposed only upon the
government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. It does not extend to acts
committed by private individuals.
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is personal; it may be invoked only
by the person entitled to it.
Waiver of right
Waiver of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures may be express or
implied, but only by the person whose right is invaded, not by one who is not duly authorized to
effect such waiver.
A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the
Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for
personal property described therein and bring it before the court. (Rule 126, Sec. 1)
To leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles
they should seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures
may not be made and abuses may not be committed.
SUFFICIENCY: The description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with
the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place
intended to be searched. (Prudente v. Dayrit)
Failure to state with particularity the place to be searched and items to be seized makes
the warrant used for fishing evidence a general warrant which is void.
However, it was held in the case of Kho v. Judge Makalintal (April 21, 1999) that the
failure to specify detailed descriptions in the warrant does not necessarily make the warrant a
general warrant. The description of the property need not be technically accurate nor necessarily
precise, and its nature will necessarily vary according to whether the identity of the property or its
character is a concern. Further, the description is required to be specific only insofar as
circumstances will allow.
Where filed
Examination
(3) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. (Rule 126,
Sec. 3)
It is not necessary that the property to be searched or seized should be owned by the
person against whom the warrant is issued; it is sufficient that the property is within his control or
possession. (Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800)
Procedure
(1) Admittance to the place of directed search
The officer, upon reaching the place of directed search, must give notice of his
purpose and authority to conduct the search to the lawful occupant of the place.
If the officer is refused admittance, he may break open any outer or inner door or
window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the
warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully
detained therein. (Rule 126, Sec. 7)
(2) Conduct of search
Upon admittance, the officer must conduct the search in the presence of the
lawful occupant of the premises or any member of his family, or in the absence of
the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same
locality. (Rule 126, Sec. 8) Failure to comply with this requirement invalidates
the search. (People v. Gesmundo)
(3) Seizure of property and issuance of receipt for the property seized
Once the property described in the warrant has been found and seized, the
officer must give a detailed receipt for such property to the lawful occupant of the
premises. In the absence of such occupant, the officer must leave a receipt in
the place in which he found the seized property in the presence of at least two
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. (Rule
126, Sec. 11)
(4) Delivery of property and inventory to the court
The officer must then make a return on the warrant and deliver forthwith the
property seized to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a true
inventory thereof duly verified under oath. The judge shall ascertain whether the
seizing officer complied with Rule 126, Sec. 11 (as regards issuance of the
detailed receipt).
The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of the
log book on search warrant s who shall enter therein the date of the return, the
result, and other actions of the judge. (Rule 126, Sec. 12)
A violation of these requirements shall constitute contempt of court. (Rule 126,
Sec. 12)
WARRANTLESS SEARCHES
(1) A weapon held by the arrested person may be turned against his captor; and
(2) The accused may destroy the proof of the crime if the arrested officer has to
first apply for a search warrant.
You arrested a person without a warrant in the first floor of his house. Can you search the
second floor without a search warrant?
No. The Nolasco v. Pano [ 139 SCRA 152] ruling was reconsidered in Nolasco v. Pano [147
SCRA 509] which held that a warrantless search made as an incident to a lawful arrest is to be
strictly applied and absolutely limited only to a search of the person and of the place where the
arrest was made.
Plain View
Requisites for a valid warrantless search under the plain view doctrine:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be
where they are;
The evidence must be immediately apparent;
Plain view justified the seizure of the evidence without any further search;
The thing itself is illegal or prohibited.
The plain view doctrine is not applicable in cases wherein the subject items are not illegal per se,
e.g. boy scout uniforms that are suspected to be counterfeit items.
Suppose there is a warrant for the search of the premises of B for shabu but they find
betamax tapes which are pirated. Can they seize the tapes which are displayed?
No. Plain view doctrine presupposes that the criminal nature of the articles is clear at
that point without further search. Perhaps, if they were armalites, yes, because B cannot possibly
be licensed to have an armalite as he is not a soldier.
Private Searches
In the case of People v. Marti (193 SCRA 57; 1991), it was held that if a search is made
at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private
purposes and without the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable
searches and seizures cannot be invoked.
PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
INTRODUCTION
Definition and attributes of a corporation
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
I.
PURPOSE
II.
ENTITLEMENT AS OF RIGHT
A.
III.
IV.
V.
Effect of denial
By MTC judge
By prosecutor / Ombudsman
The primary objective of preliminary investigation is to free the respondent from the
inconvenience, expense, ignominy and stress of defending himself in the course of a formal trial,
until the reasonable probability of his guilt has been passed upon in a more or less summary
proceeding by a competent officer designated for that purpose.
Preliminary investigation serves as a sieve, funnel, in which you can filter cases which
cannot stand the rigorous test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The overriding consideration is
that the accused should not be subjected to hasty, ill-considered or malicious prosecution.
(Bautista)
ENTITLEMENT AS OF RIGHT
Is P.I. part of due process? What about those not entitled to P.I.? Are they denied of due
process?
If it is granted by statute but denied, then there is violation of due process. If not granted by
statute, then there is no denial of due process.
Is P.I. a constitutional right?
No, it is only a statutory right.
regardless of the fine. (Rule 112, Sec. 1) Note that this is to be taken together with Rule 112,
Sec. 7 (which deals with warrantless arrests).
Judges of the MTC and MCTC judges (note that Metropolitan Trial Court judges
are not included)
3.
4.
Ombudsman;
Metropolitan Trial Court judges of chartered cities where their
charter allows them to do so;
COMELEC (Verify this!)
SEC (Verify this!)
SSS (Verify this!)
Suppose the MTC judge conducts the P.I. and he finds no probable cause. What will he
do?
Transmit to the fiscal the records of the case and recommend dismissal.
Suppose the fiscal disagrees with the judge, and he thinks that a case should be filed.
Can he base a review of the records sent up to him by the judge to file an information?
No, fiscal has to conduct his own preliminary investigation.
PROCEDURE
In what instances can an MTC judge issue summons instead of a warrant of arrest?
See Rule 112, Sec. 9 (b), last sentence: If the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for
(1) MTC judge still has to submit his findings to the provincial / city
prosecutor for approval.
(2) MTC judge can issue warrants of arrest. (Rule 112, Sec. 6 (b))
In what instances is the reviewing prosecutor required to make a written ruling / resolution
on the findings being reviewed?
See Rule 112, Sec. 5, par. 2:
In all cases.
JURISDICTION
INTRODUCTION
Definition and attributes of a corporation
VENUE
INTRODUCTION
Definition and attributes of a corporation
OLD RULES
Rule 110, Sec. 1. How
instituted. -- For offenses
not subject to the rule on
summary
procedure
in
special cases, the institution
of criminal actions shall be as
follows:
(a) For offenses falling
under the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Courts, by
filing the complaint with the
appropriate officer for the
purpose of conducting the
2000 RULES
COMMENTARY
Sec.
of
Rule
112,
(a)
FOR
OFFENSESpreliminary investigation is required
offenses
punishable
by
WHERE
A
PRELIMINARYfor
INVESTIGATION IS REQUIREDimprisonment of at least 4
PURSUANT TO SECTION 1 OFyears, 2 months and 1 day
(subject to the exception in Sec. 7 of
RULE 112, by filing theRule 112, i.e. lawful warrantless
complaint with the properarrests)
officer for the purpose of
requisite
preliminary conducting
the
requisite
investigation therein;
preliminary investigation
(b) For offenses falling
under the jurisdiction of the
MTCs and MCTCs, by filing
the complaint or information
directly with the said courts,
or a complaint with the
fiscal's office. However, in
Metro Manila and other
chartered
cities,
the
complaint may be filed only
with the office of the fiscal.
In
all
cases,
such
institution shall interrupt the
period of prescription of the
offense charged.
Rule
110,
Sec.
8.
Designation of the offense. Whenever
possible,
a
complaint
or
information
should state the designation
given to the offense by the
statute,
besides
the
statement of the acts or
omissions constituting the
same, and if there is no such
designation, reference should
be made to the section or
subsection of the statute
punishing it.
Rule
110,
Sec.
14.
Amendment.
The
information or complaint may
be amended, in substance or
form, without leave of court,
at any time before the
accused
pleads;
and
thereafter and during the
trial as to all matters of form,
by leave and at the discretion
of the court, when the same
can
be
done
without
prejudice to the rights of the
accused.
This is self-explanatory.
parents,
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Jurisdiction is determined by the extent of the penalty which the law imposes on the basis
of the facts as recited in the complaint or information. Note that it is the imposable penalty that
governs; not the penalty which the court may impose or actually imposes. (People v. Lagon, 185
SCRA 442)
Generally, the fiscal. However, in MTCs, MeTCs or MCTCs where the fiscal is not available, the
offended party or a peace officer or public officer may prosecute.
Note that once the complaint or information has been filed in court, the fiscal loses jurisdiction to
dispose of the case as he deems fit. (Republic v. Sunga, 162 SCRA 191)
Name of accused
Designation of offense
Acts / Omissions constituting offense
Name of offended party
Date of Commission of Offense
Place of Commission
Before arraignment:
After arraignment,
during trial:
Formal amendment: one that does not prejudice any essential right of the accused, nor affect the
essence of the crime charged.
Substantial amendment: one that would change the basic theory of the prosecution by alleging a
new way of committing the offense.
What is the test to determine whether an amendment is substantial or formal?
(1)
(2)
(3)
Note: Conspiracy is neither formal nor substantial per se. It depends on the circumstances of
the case.
OLD RULES
Rule
111,
Sec.
1.
Institution of criminal and
civil actions. - When a
criminal action is instituted,
the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability is
impliedly instituted with the
2000 RULES
COMMENTARY
in an award
damages.
for
No counterpart provision.
representative
or
representatives to appear
and be substituted within a
period of 30 days from
notice.
A final judgment entered
in favor of the offended
party shall be enforced in
the
manner
especially
provided in these rules for
prosecuting claims against
the estate of the deceased.
If the accused dies before
arraignment, the case shall
be
dismissed
without
prejudice to any civil action
the offended party may file
against the estate of the
deceased.
Rule
111,
Sec.
5.
Elements of prejudicial
question. - The 2 essential
elements of a prejudicial
question are: (a) the civil
action involves an issue
similar or intimately related
to the issue raised in the
criminal action; and (b) the
resolution of such issue
determines whether or not
the criminal action may
proceed.
Note that under the 2000 Rules, the only civil action deemed impliedly instituted with the
criminal action is that for civil liability arising from the offense charged. All other civil actions
arising from sources other than the delict are not impliedly instituted.
Note that under both the old and new rules, the exceptions to the general rule of the
implied institution of the civil aspect are:
(1) When the offended party waives the civil action;
(2) When the offended party reserves his right to institute it separately; and
(3) When he institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
Does the offended party have the absolute right to institute a civil action ex delicto
separately?
If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be dismissed without
prejudice to any civil action the offended party may file against the estate of the
deceased.
(2)
If the accused dies after arraignment and during pendency of the criminal action,
civil liability arising from the delict shall be extinguished. HOWEVER, an independent
civil action instituted under Rule 111, Sec. 3 or from other sources of obligation may
be continued against (a) the estate or (b) legal representative of the accused after
proper substitution, as the case may be. (Rule 111, Sec. 4)
FILING FEES
PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONS
As a general rule, criminal actions are preferred over civil actions, i.e. the civil action shall
be suspended when the criminal action has been filed.
However, there are exceptions to this rule of preference, namely:
(1) Independent civil actions, i.e. Art. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil
Code;
(2) When the civil case is subsequently consolidated with the criminal
action (Sec. 2, Rule 111); and
(3) A civil action involving a prejudicial question
What is a prejudicial question?
A prejudicial question is understood in law as that which must precede the criminal action
and which requires a decision before a final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action with
which said question is closely connected. (Berbari v. Concepcion, 40 Phil. 837) A civil question is
prejudicial when it refers to a fact separate and distinct from the offense but intimately connected
with it, which question determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. (De Leon v. Mabanag,
70 Phil. 202)
The doctrine of prejudicial question comes into play generally in a situation where the civil
and criminal actions are pending and in the former an issue must be preemptively resolved before
the criminal action may proceed. This does not apply where no civil, but only an administrative,
case is involved. (Manikad, et al. v. Tanodbayan, G.R. No. 65097, Feb. 20, 1984)
What are the elements of a prejudicial question?
(1)
The previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to
the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and
(2)
The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed. (Rule 111, Sec. 7)
If the criminal action has not yet been filed in court for trial, it may be filed in
the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary
investigation. Note that this is the earliest time.
(2)
If the criminal actions has already been filed in court, it may be filed in the
same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests. (Rule 111,
Sec. 6) Note that this is the latest time.
Criminal action. This is because the issue in a civil action is intimately connected to the
issue in the criminal action and thus needs to be determined first before the criminal action may
proceed.
Examples of prejudicial questions:
Civil action for annulment of marriage filed by the woman, where there is a criminal
action for abduction and filed by her against he male contracting party. The dismissal
of said action and the consequent declaration of the validity of said marriage
constitutes a defense or mode of extinction of said criminal case under Art. 344 of the
Revised Penal Code. (Montilla v. Yatco, 61 O.G. 8376)
Civil action brought by plaintiff to annul the sale of land by defendant to a 3 rd person,
and a criminal case for estafa, where plaintiff alleged that the same land was
previously sold by defendant to him but where defendant raised the defense that his
signature appearing on the deed of sale to the plaintiff was falsified. (Ras v. Rasul,
Sept. 18, 1980)
Civil action for the annulment of a certificate of title issued upon the basis of a
falsified affidavit of adjudication, where the criminal offense is falsification (De la Cruz
v. City Fiscal of Dagupan, 106 Phil. 851)
Civil case for quieting of title to property alleged to have been the subject of a
falsified deed of sale, where the criminal offense is falsification (Dasalla, et al. v. City
Attorney of Quezon City, May 30, 1962)
Civil case for annulment of the second marriage brought by the second wife, where
the first wife has filed a criminal case against the husband for bigamy (People v.
Aragon, 94 Phil. 357; Landicho v. Relova, Feb. 23, 1968)
However, where the husband was charged with bigamy by the second wife
and the husband filed a civil action against the second wife for the annulment
of the marriage on the ground that he was forced to contract said subsequent
marriage, such civil action is prejudicial since annulment on that ground
would establish that his act in contracting the second marriage was
involuntary, and hence, no criminal liability would attach. (Zapanta v.
Montesa, Feb. 28, 1962)
Is it possible for the accused to be acquitted, and yet to be civilly liable for the act charged
to be criminal?
Yes, if the court made no finding in the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or
omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. Extinction of the penal action
generally does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. (Rule 111, Sec. 2)
Said query whether an action for breach of contract arising from the same act or omission
as the basis of the criminal charge, is impliedly instituted you think that the express
mention of the articles of the CC excludes culpa contractual?
The way I read it, the 2 nd paragraph amplifies the general statement in the first paragraph. The
civil liability in the first paragraph consists of the 5 mentioned in the 2 nd par.
That may be so because of the wording. I think you are right. However, it may be a failure to
consider the intention really is to assimilate all the civil actions based on the same act or
omission. I think the express enumeration may have left open the matter of culpa contractual. In
fact, culpa contractual is not mentioned among those actions, which may be prosecuted
independently and separately and concurrently with the criminal action. But it can. That also
pulls the rug under your expressio unios argument. I think that this one can also be prosecuted
separately. It should be impliedly instituted.
Sir: We have a private prosecutor in a criminal proceeding and have a civil litigation together
with a criminal case.
The accused has a right to refuse to take the witness stand. Can the private prosecutor
call him to the stand as an adverse party witness in respect to the civil liability? Since we have
fused/merged trial. You notice the provision which speaks of the civil action being consolidated if
it was already pending before, it would be consolidated with the criminal action although you can
ask additional evidence and also in defining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
What is the peculiarity in cases before the Sandiganbayan about the civil aspect of
offenses being tried by the Sandiganbayan? All cases bearing on the civil aspect of the crime
should be jointly tried in the Sandiganbayan proceeding and if not so tried, then it should be
waived.
Cannot be expressly reserved, be separately instituted. Perhaps Apples point may
acquire some added validity when reckoned with the Sandiganbayan decree ecause in those
cases, it would be extremely unfair for an accused who has a cause of action for breach of
contract not to be able to institute an independent action for breach of contract because theres a
criminal case filed in Sandiganbayan because in that case, there is absolute prohibition for a
separate action. What is the rationale for giving priority to this criminal aciton over the civil
action? Why do we say, go ahead first with the criminal action and let us suspend the civil action
except in those cases where an independent civil action may be prosecuted.
You remember the Seneris doctrine?
A:
There could be a finding in the criminal action that the fact from which the civil liability
might arise did not exist.
Sir:
Good. But also what if there could be a finding? So you save time so there is no need
for a civil case. You may be able to save the time and expenditure for a civil case. You may be
able to save the time and expenditure for a civil case. Give me an instance of a case where such
a finding may be made that he basis for civil liability does not exist.
A:
2 women claiming to be wife of one person. The first files criminal charge of bigamy, but
in a civil case, the issue of validity of the first marriage comes up.
Sir:
The right to reserve the institution of a separate civil action is given in all cases. True or
false?
A:
True, except Sandiganbayan.
Sir:
R 111, S 1, 2nd par. When you have the right to independent action, you have a right to
reserve. What does that mean? They can be instituted concurrently?
These are the different concepts. One is the right to reserve. That is given in all cases.
Now, the right to proceed concurrently is limited to those 4 cases in 2 nd paragraph, without having
to wait. In all cases, you have the right to reserve. Its only a question if you can do it at the
same time or you have to wait.
Sir:
Is there a deadline for making a reservation in a criminal action?
A:
Yes, before prosecution starts to present its evidence.
Sir:
Unless? In other words, there might be a time even after the prosecution has started its
evidence, still you may be allowed to make your reservation.
Example?
A:
If fiscal instituted action without intervention of offended party. After arraignment,
proceeded to present its evidence without the private party having the chance to reserve.
Sir:
Possible. Or more commonly if the accused pleads guilty right away.
Sir:
An action based on contract may proceed independently. So, our conclusion a while ago
that only civil actions based on 32, 33, 34 and 2176 CC may proceed independently is not
completely correct.
A:
Yes, in that sense.
Sir:
A court in criminal case may issue a writ of preliminary attachment. How about MTC?
The civil liability arising from the offense on civil action impliedly instituted in the criminal action in
the MTC might involve more than P 20,000. May MTC issue writ of preliminary attachment to
secure claim for more than?
A:
Yes.
Sir:
So it has larger civil jurisdiction in a criminal case than it has in a civil case.
BAIL
INTRODUCTION
Constitutional basis
I.
II.
III.
When Allowed
(1) Matter of Right
(2) Matter of Discretion
B. When not allowed
C. When not required
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
Conditions
Entitlement
Application (includes who may grant)
Posting
Forfeiture
The right to bail flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. (De la
Camara v. Enage, 41 SCRA 1)
A.
B.
C.
D.
Surety Bond
Property Bond
Cash Bond
Recognizance - Personal underwriting by accused or good citizen of community.
Conditions
arraignment
for identification
promulgation of judgment, except if the case is one involving a light offense
Entitlement
Where does one apply for bail? (Rule 114, Sec. 17)
As a general rule, bail is applied for / filed with the court where the case is pending.
Exceptions:
1.
2.
3.
Posting
Forfeiture
What is the effect of failure of the accused out on bail to attend a hearing despite due
notice?
(1) Bond -- If the hearing is one wherein the accuseds presence is mandatory, the
bond is forfeited. (However, if his presence is not required, there will be
no effect on the bond.) Moreover, the Court will give the sureties 30 days
within which to produce their principal (or to give the reason for his nonproduction), and to show cause why no judgment should be rendered
against them for the amount of their bail (i.e., explain why the accused
did not appear before the court when first required to do so).
(2) Trial -- Trial in absentia, provided that accused has already been arraigned.
Question: Is the accuseds presence waived for that date only or for all other
dates thereafter?
2.
after conviction by the RTC imposing penalty of imprisonment exceeding 6 years but
not more than 20 years and any of the grounds enumerated
3.
Sirs view If you are convicted and penalty is more than 6 years, not as a matter of right
but discretionary if any of the 5 conditions
Matter of right
a. before or after conviction by MTC
Bail MTC
RTC; still good upon appeal
b.
SEC 24. If there is final judgment no bail because convicted, but can apply
for probation before finality
What are the stages of bail?
(1) applying
(2) fixing
(3) posting
Where to apply not the same as where to post
look at type of bond see sec 11 and sec 14
Court where you apply fixes amount of bail
but this is NOT necessarily the court which will release you but where you post bail
e.g. charged in RTC Manila. Fix bail at P30,000. Can you post bail in RTC QC? Yes, 2nd
paragraph sec 19
If post with treasurer get receipt and go to court
court
acquitted
dismissal
death
convicted and surrenders
If out on bail, can he travel abroad? No, unless with court permission may lose
jurisdiction impairs contract of bondsman
Is this not impairment of liberty? Still in jail although out on bail bondsman is
his jailer = bondman can arrest (no need for warrant) sec 23
Sir:
Who is not entitled to bail? Is there anyone not entitled to bail?
A:
No.
Sir:
Everybody is entitled to bail. There is no one not entitled to bail. Everybody is entitled
even those charged with reclusion perpetua and where evidence of guilt is strong. (?)
Sir:
A:
Even after conviction but pending appeal, they are entitled to bail?
Yes.
Sir:
What is the difference of (1) those accused with offenses punishable by lesser penalties
or RP where evidence of guilt is not strong; and (2) those accused with RP evidence is strong?
A:
(1) Bail is a matter of right. (2) Bail is discretionary upon court
Sir:
If you are charged with an offense in the RTC, may you apply for bail in the MTC of the
same province?
A:
R 114, S 14, 2nd sentence, ....bail may be filed also in MTC.
Sir:
I said applied. Here are the concepts. The court which fixes the bail. The court that
accepts the bail, and therefore releases the accused on bail.
Sir:
May the MTC of QC fix and release on bail a person not charged before it? I did not
say accept the bail.
A:
S 16, 2nd par. ...file xxx.
Sir:
But that provision presupposes that the bail was fixed. I am talking of QC-MTC fixing and
accepting bail of one not charged before it. In S 16, 2nd paragraph, why should he file bail when it
has not yet been fixed?
Sir:
A:
Read provision where accused is arrested and not yet charged, and he can put up bail?
R 114, S 14 (c) xxx apply
Sir:
Apply. That means is has not yet been fixed.
A:
But S 6 The judge who granted the application shall fix the bail. So in S 14 (c), if the
person applies for bail in court, necessarily the court who approves application must also fix the
bail. Thus, whoever approves application may fix the bail.
Sir:
But a bail already fixed may be filed in another court other than that which fixed it.
A:
Rules for fixing of baill and acceptance of bail is under S 14. Once bail is fixed, the
court authorized t accept bail should only be pending unless branch is unavailable, or arrested
somewhere else.
Sir:
A:
Sir:
A:
Sir:
So that is different now. The court will fix the bail. Who will fix the bail of person arrested
but not charged? Any court in the province where he is held.
Sir:
What are the kinds of bail? Can the court require of accused to fix bail at P 20,000
surety, but if case P 10,000 lang?
How about: the court required that if the bail be real property bond that if be real estate in
the province and must have been owned by surety for at least 5 years. Is that reasonable bail
requirement? The requirement that is must have been owned for at least 5 years has been held
to be unreasonable if the property is Torrens titled. The implication was that it was reasonable if
property was not titled.
Sir:
P 500,000 bail for homicide charge where the accused is a government clerk?
Sir:
Regarding problem on P 20,000 surety bond or P 10,000 cash bond. Usually, to attain a
bail bond of P 20,000, you might be asked to put up collateral, even cash, sometimes for P
10,000. But there are time like right now where there are very few bonding companies that have
clearance to issue bail bonds about 5. If the accused is a government clerk only and he is
charged with homicide, half a million bail excessive? What is the test? What is the impact of his
financial capacity? Whether bail is excessive or not depends on the circumstances of the
accused and the crimes charged like where some crimes are very rampant, the Court may be
justified in fixing very stiff bail.
Purpose
Types
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
IV.
V.
VI.
Guilty
Not Guilty
Refusal to enter plea
Qualified or Conditional admission
Plea Bargain
Pre-Arraignment Remedies
Effects of Arraignment and Entry of Plea
Availability of Provisional Remedies
Procedure
Plea
Purpose of plea
Types of plea
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Guilty
Not Guilty
Refusal to enter plea
Qualified or Conditional admission
Plea Bargain
Guilty
Not guilty
Conditional plea of guilty (This is considered as not guilty.)
Pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence (Considered as not guilty)
Plea of guilty to a lesser offense
Mute (This is considered as not guilty.)
Evasive (considered as not guilty)
Yes. Under the Rules, a lesser offense is one that is necessarily included in the offense
charged. (Rule 116, Sec. 2) It is allowed to be made either during arraignment, or after
arraignment but before trial provided that the earlier plea of not guilty is withdrawn. It can also be
made by the trial prosecutor in the event that the accused fails to appear during the arraignment
despite due notice. (Rule 116, Sec. 1(f))
Note: An offense charged is deemed to be necessarily included in the offense
proved when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form
part of those constituting the latter. (Rule 120, Sec. 5)
It must be stressed, however, that a plea to a lesser offense or to one that is necessarily
included in the offense charged does NOT apply to crimes covered by special laws (e.g.
possession of drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Act)
When is a plea deemed improvident? What are its effects?
A plea is deemed improvident when the accused finds out that there was a mistake in the
admission. The Court may permit an improvident plea of guilty to be withdrawn and be
substituted by a plea of not guilty. (Rule 116, Sec. 5)
Note: If the accused pleaded guilty because he misappreciated the penalty to be
Imposed, this is not deemed an improvident plea.
Can a withdrawn plea of guilty be used as an admission?
No, doesnt make sense if used against him
Plea Bargaining
Pre-Arraignment Remedies
Even if pleads guilty if later on there is evidence to show incomplete self -defense
change to not guilty
Who are required to be present during arraignment? (Rule 116, Sec. 1 (f))
1.
2.
offended party for plea bargaining and civil liability. If the offended party fails to
appear despite due notice, a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily
included in the offense charged may be entered with the conformity of the trial
prosecutor alone.
Moreover,
Sec 7, Rule 117 (b) The conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another
prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the
former complaint or information if the facts constituting the graver charge became
known or were discovered only after a plea was entered in the former complaint
or information.
Jeopardy attaches, since one of the requirements is that the accused has been
arraigned.
Time Frame :
reserve action = reserve before prosecution starts presenting evidence (R111, sec 1
par2)
Can decisions of the RTC be reviewed by Sandiganbayan? Yes, if salary grade is below
27
Negotiated Plea Bargainin like blackjack favorable to both accused and prosecution
State conviction saves time/resources
Yes.
He cannot plead guilty to rape because it more serious offense than rebellion.
A:
Yes.
Sir:
A:
Even if the lesser offense is not within the jurisdiction of the Court?
Yes.
Sir:
A:
Even if the lesser offense is not necessarily included in the offense charged?
Yes.
Sir:
A:
Sir:
Regarding aggravating circumstance and plea of guilt. In that case of plea of guilt, I was
assuming that no evidence was received. Remember: generic aggravating although not alleged
may be proved because it is not an essential element of the offense. So, if not alleged nor
proved, cannot be taken into account. However, if not alleged nor proved, cannot be taken into
account because what is the basis.
Sir:
So if not alleged, pleaded guilty, but proved, it can be taken into consideration
Sir:
R 116, S 2. Conviction under plea is equivalent to conviction for double jeopardy. Is it
not absurd that ex. charge of murder, pleads guilty to unjust vexation, he cannot be prosecuted
for murder anymore?
Sir:
Only absurd if you do not understand the philosophy behind plea bargaining. State
encourages plea bargaining. Quid pro quo? The trade off? Saves time and resources of state.
Sir:
What is the status of Trono doctrine promulgated by RP SC under US period and
affirmed by US SC, but in recent decision of US SC now that we are no longer under US rule,
was reversed implicitly? The facts are like this supposed: supposed you are charged with murder
but convicted of homicide, and then you appeal, can the appellate court convict you of murder?
Same facts, charged with murder. Convicted of homicide. You appeal. On appeal, new
trial was ordered, New trial held. Convicted of murder. Pwede ba? Under Trono case, yes.
QUASHAL
QUASHAL PROPER
Comparison of old and new rules
OLD RULES
No counterpart provision.
2000 RULES
COMMENTARY
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Concept of quashal
Grounds for Motion to Quash
Concept of Double Jeopardy
Effect of Failure to Move to Quash
Remedies for Denial of Motion to Quash
CONCEPT OF QUASHAL
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
The court can consider this ground even if it has not been alleged in the complaint or
information. (Rule 117, Sec. 2)
(c)
That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the
accused;
(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;
(e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;
If the motion to quash is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or information which
can be cured by amendment, the court shall order that an amendment be made. (Rule
117, Sec. 4, 1st paragraph)
(f)
That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for
various offenses is prescribed by law;
(i)
That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense
charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated
without his express consent
What are the grounds for a motion to quash (MTQ) which are not barred even though not
raised before the accused pleads, in other words, grounds, which may be raised even after
plea?
(1) Lack of jurisdiction over the offence charged or the person of the accused;
(2) Extinction of the criminal action or liability;
Note: Prescription, pardon, and amnesty fall under extinction of criminal liability.
(3) Double jeopardy; and
(4) The facts charged do not constitute an offense (Rule 117, Sec. 8)
Is there evidentiary hearing in a motion to quash?
There is, (Note: In P. v. Qadabis the SC held that matters of defense can be produced when the
grounds for a motion to quash are extinction of criminal liability; prescription and double jeopardy.
In P. v. De La Rosa, the SC held that when the prosecution asks the court to present evidence; as
did the other party, the accused; the court cannot close its eyes on such evidence presented.
Sir:
The problematical ground is where the ground for the MTQ is that the
information does not allege facts sufficient to constitute the offense. In civil
procedure, the oft-repeated rule that motion for dismissal based on the ground that
the complaint does not allege a sufficient cause of action shall be resolved only on
the basis of the complaint is no longer absolutely true. The court may consider all
evidence already on record as that in the case of Tan v. Bureau of Forestry. The case
OLD RULES
2000 RULES
Rule
117,
Sec.
3.
Grounds.
- The accused
may move to quash the
complaint or information on
any of the following grounds:
COMMENTARY
No change.
(a)
the graver offense
developed due to supervening
The reckoning point is now
facts arising from the same act
or omission constituting thedate of entry of plea and no
longer the date of filing of the
former charge;
complaint or information.
(b) the facts constituting
the graver charge became
known or were discovered only
Sec. 1 (f) of Rule 116
after a plea was entered in
the
former
complaint
orprovides that in case of failure
of the offended party to
information; or
appear despite due notice,
(c) the plea of guilty to thethe court may allow the accused
lesser
offense
was
madeto enter a plea of guilty to a
offense
which
is
without the consent of thelesser
prosecutor and of the offendednecessarily included in the
charged
with
the
party, except as provided inoffense
conformity
of
the
trial
Sec. 1 (f) of Rule 116.
prosecutor alone.
In any of the foregoing cases,
where the accused satisfies or
serves in whole or in part the
judgment, he shall be credited
with the same in the event of
conviction
for
the
graver
offense.
Because of vast resources of the State, should give it only one chance; otherwise,
harassment
Sir: Jeopardy is the pillar of our criminal justice system. How important it is need not be
stressed. You can imagine what kind of system we will have if we do not have that rule. Perhaps
the best way to understand the provision if to quote it. Is it a long provision? Its only a sentence
isnt it except for that qualification about the ordinance. What are the critical words or phrases
in the provision? Actually, Jeopardy lang and same offense. So the questions to ask are:
When are you put in jeopardy of punishment first, when are you put in jeopardy at all, so that
you would know that the next time you are put twice. The next question is, is it for the same
offense? The rules of court in Rule 117; Sec. 7 refines and expands the constitutional provision.
First it expands the meaning of same offense to include if frustrated and attempted; necessarily
included and includes in the offense charged. The rules also define when you are put in jeopardy
for the first time. What are the instances that create jeopardy? In other words, what acts or
events in a criminal litigation will put a person in jeopardy without which he is not in jeopardy at
all? The Rules define that very clearly and enumerates several instances, which constitutes
jeopardy. What are they?
A. Conviction or Acquittal of the accused, dismissal or termination of the case without his express
consent and after he has pleaded. (Sec. 7 R. 117)
Same offense
Attempt of the same offense
Frustration of the same offense
Offense necessarily included in the 1st offense
Offense that necessarily includes the 1st offense
prescription
extinguished
double jeopardy
without consent of accused
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the SAME OFFENSE
2.
ATTACHMENT OF JEOPARDY
When is a person first put in jeopardy?
1.
2.
3.
1st case for estafa for selling property which is mortgaged without disclosing to buyer
RPC 316 (2)
NO
Chattel mortgage law
Jeopardy
Relova case electric meter and qualified theft under #2 same act
Rule on provisional dismissal accused must consent (no jeopardy since with consent)
If prosecution is not ready with the evidence and keeps on postponing remedy = move
for trial and if not ready then ask for dismissal for failure to prosecute
Accused cant say to court that jeopardy, must invoke that at the 2 nd court with prejudice
If you are charged with murder and convicted of homicide and you appeal, can you be
convicted of murder?
Trono Case: accused charged with murder convicted of homicide. CA convicted
him for murder ---no double jeopardy
reasoning of Green Case: when the conviction for 2nd degree murder (lesser offense), he
is acquitted of the higher offense
3 men barge into a house, robbed 4 poker players. One of the masked men, charged for
robbery of a poker player. Acquitted. Can the same robber be charged against other
player?
Theory: one chance only by State
Sir:
By the way, when we took up civil procedure, I dont think we discussed the Sibonghanoy
case (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy). Thats a civil case where plaintiff lost after trial. Later on, he
challenged the jurisdiction of the court.
When a party himself invokes the jurisdiction of the court and goes as far as judgment,
then later when he loses, turns around and wants to invalidate the judgment on the ground that
there was no jurisdiction applying equitable principle, the SC said in the particular situation, the
party is estopped from challenging jurisdiction. Whether they will apply in criminal cases, I dont
know.
Now, with respect to the qualification in the constitutional provision, which is the subject of the
Relova case In the Relova case, the accused was charged with tampering with the electric
meter of his ice plant so that the registration of the electric consumption was less. He was
charged with violating a municipal ordinance, but was acquitted on the ground of prescription.
Based on the same facts, he was charged again for theft under the Revised Penal Code. The
second charge was dismissed on the ground of jeopardy. applying the second clause of the
constitutional provision. The SC in the opinion written by Justice Feliciano claims that if an act is
punished by 2 different statutes, he can be charged of as many offenses as there are statutes or
sections of statutes violated. The test would be the identity of offenses test. But if the same act
constitutes a violation of the statute and also an ordinance, the test is identity of the acts, why
so? Whats the reason for the exception? Did I not tell you before that you could be convicted of
estafa and BP 22 at the same time after issuing a bouncing check same way you could be
convicted of theft of motor vehicle which is qualified theft of a motor vehicle and violation of the
anti-carnapping law(?) Why did these things happen, but not the one in Relova? What is the
reason for the proviso in the constitution?
The reason is because an ordinance and a statute are made by two different law-making bodies.
Problem: Casino barges into his classroom He pulls his .38 calibre gun and fires at him (Jose
Rizals portrait), doing it while we are having a class. He was charged and convicted of alarms
and scandals. Then he is charged again for the same act of illegal discharge without intention to
kill. Is the second charge barred by jeopardy?
A. No, Since the 2 charges fall under the same law, the penal code; Casino is not being
prosecuted for the same offense.
Now about that famous Del Carmen case involving the media agua and banguera ? First,
accused was charged in the information in the inferior court with malicious mischief for removing
and destroying with resentment, hate, revenge the banguera of complainant. He was acquitted
for lack of proof. Based on the same act, he was charged with grave coercion for allegedly having
prevented complainant from keeping his agua and banguera. Is there Double Jeopardy?
A. SC: There is jeopardy, - single act giving rise to malicious mischief and grave coercion.
(Handwritten)
No. There is no identity of offenses (Typewritten)
See Rule 117 how it defines identity of offenses. In that case, it was held that there is jeopardy
because you cannot segment an offense into integral parts and make out several, as many
offenses a part of each may make. Thats what the rules of court say. Otherwise, according to
Justice Paras, in prosecution for rape, you can again prosecute the same act for preventing the
girl from keeping her virginity intact. Puede mo rin gawin grave coercion yung rape. You think
about that.
Accused is first charge with violation of the chattel mortgage law for allegedly having sold a
property, which is mortgaged, to the complainant without the written consent of the mortgagee.
Convicted. Thereafter, he is charged again based on the same act, for estafa for selling the same
property without telling the buyer that the property is encumbered. Will the second prosecution
survive an attack on the ground of jeopardy? One is under the chattel mortgage law, the other is
estafa under the Revised Penal Code.
A. No.
To understand jeopardy, obviously you have to know the elements of the offense. (Draws on the
board)- The violation of the chattel mortgage law is the act of selling the property. Also, yung
violation on estafa is the act of selling. There is a common element the act of selling. (shaded
area in the drawing) But they have non-common elements. In violation of the mortgage law, there
is an additional element of not obtaining the consent of the mortgagee. Estafa is for the
protection of the buyer, the additional element is not telling the buyer of prior encumbrances and
selling the property and unencumbered . While there is a common element, they are not the
same offense in order to constitute necessarily includes. What is the definition of necessarily
includes?
A. Rule 120 Sec. 5
So it does not mean situations like this. It means those situation like Casinos.
You remember the Melo doctrine (P.v. Melo)? Accused hurled a stone at complainant, wounding
the latter. On the basis of that act, information for slight physical injuries was filed, stating that the
wound took 5 to 9 days to heal. Tried, convicted. Later, found out there was going to be a
deformity or a scar. The accused was charged with serious physical injuries. Is there jeopardy?
This is now covered by specific codal provision.
No. Basis is Rule 117, Sec. 7 (b)
PRE-TRIAL
PRE-TRIAL
Pre-Trial Order
Mandatory
must be conducted with a certain period
but no time period as to when court acquires jurisdiction --- up to law enforcement
agencies
TRIAL
INTRODUCTION
I.
Order of Trial
II.
III.
Discharge of Accused
IV.
Provisional Dismissals
ORDER OF TRIAL
I.
a.
b.
compulsory process
c.
discovery
d.
right to counsel
e.
presumption of innocence
demurrer to evidence insufficient evidence
If granted, it amounts to an acquittal.
When filed? After prosecution rests
Is it a matter of right?
with leave or without leave if without and denied= waives
opportunity to present evidence
deadline 10 days
If motion for leave is denied, what is his remedy? present
evidence, no more certiorari or appeal
Sir doubts constitutionality that no remedy if denied motion for leave of court
It emasculates your right to test sufficiency of the prosecutions evidence
If you allow state to cross-examine accused, gives state a chance to improve on its case
If court denies demurrer to evidence means evidence of guilt is strong (with regard to
bail)
Webb v. De Leon: What was sought to be discovered? Affidavit of Alfaro, lab reports
Webb claimed witnesses in California wanted to depose. Trial court denied. CA allowed.
SC said no need since evidence is merely corroborative
Davide concurring said the issue must be resolved (citing several rules) If
allowed in civil cases, all the more allowed in criminal cases
Puno - alluded to Webb v De Leon, even at PI stage allowed; suppression =
denial of due process
Prosecution witnesses allowed since doesnt get info from the accused
DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED
What if most guilty but discharged nonetheless or other evidence is available, will
this amount to an acquittal? If not hearing = void not acquitted (Flores v
Sandiganbayan)
Can the prosecution withdraw the information during the pendency of the case?
It depends:
(1) If accused has already been arraigned and it appears at any time before judgment that a
mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original
complaint or information upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in
accordance with Sec. 19, Rule 119, provided the accused shall not be placed in double
jeopardy. (Rule 110, Sec. 14, last paragraph)
(2) If the accused has not yet been arraigned, the complaint or information can be amended
or withdrawn without leave of court. (Rule 110, Sec. 14)
Note however that double jeopardy attaches if the new information includes the
original information. (?)
What are the 2 instances when the Court can dismiss on motion of the prosecution?
(1) Rule 110, Sec. 14, par. 2 -- An accused may be excluded from the complaint or
RA 6981, Sec. 10
Immunity granted
Transactional immunity
Transactional immunity
Only an accused
Effect of discharge
Is
threat
necessary?
to
life No.
Yes.
Note that under the Rules of Court, to be discharged, there must still be a hearing.
Which is better: to be discharged under the Rules of Court or under the Witness
Protection Program?
The Witness Protection Program. For one, you do not need to be charged. The
advantage there is that the prescriptive period runs, and you have no criminal record.
Provisional Dismissals
(though placed under Motion to Quash, I think its more properly
placed here)
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
Judgment defined
General rules on Judgments
Form and Content
Rules in case of variance between allegation and proof
Promulgation of judgment
Modification of judgment
A.
B.
C.
VII.
Judgment defined
Promulgation of judgment
Modification of judgment
new evidence
see R121 sec 3, R 124 sec 14
effect of Death criminal liability extinguished, civil liability arising from crime also
extinguished
Acquittal can use R 65, Why? theory judgment VOID, grave abuse of discretion or no
jurisdiction