Anda di halaman 1dari 107

A2015 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE REVIEWER PART 2 (SY12-13) PROF.

CHRYSILLA BAUTISTA
VII. COMPLAINT AND INFORMATION CONTINUATION RULE 110 (BY KATZ RIVERA & OYIE JAVELOSA)

VII-D. AMENDMENT

A. STATUTES AND RULES

1.) RULE 110, SEC. 14


Sec. 14. Amendment or substitution. A complaint or information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court and when it can be done
without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of the offense charged in or excludes any accused from the complaint or information, can
be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court. The court shall state its reasons in resolving the motion and
copies of its order shall be furnished all parties, especially the offended party.
If it appears at anytime 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 section 19, Rule 119, provided the accused shall not be placed in double
jeopardy. The court may require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance at the trial.

2.) RULE 120, SEC. 4

Sec. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and
that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is
included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.

3.) RULE 117, SEC. 7


Sec. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. When an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and
substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be
a bar 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.
However, 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 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;
(b) the facts constituting the graver charge became known 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 except as provided in
section 1(f) of Rule 116.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
1
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.

4.) RULE 119, SEC. 19

Sec. 19. When mistake has been made in charging the proper offense. When it becomes manifest at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made
in charging the proper offense and the accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged or any other offense necessarily included therein, the accused shall
not be discharged if there appears good cause to detain him. In such case, the court shall commit the accused to answer for the proper offense and dismiss the
original case upon the filing of the proper information.

B. CASES

TITLE (YEAR) QUICK FACTS HELD DOCTRINE


Arevalo v. Nepomuceno An information for murder against petitioners Amendment was one of form, and is Amendments as to matters of form
(1936) Bruno and Cecilio Arevalo alleged that Bruno hence valid. It did not affect the are those which do not substantially
was armed with a knife, and Cecilio a revolver. nature of the crime, as the crime alter the information nor affect the
During trial, a witness testified that it was the would still be the same whether it rights of the accused.
other way around, saying that it was Bruno was Bruno or Cecilio who inflicted
armed with a revolver and Cecilio the knife. the mortal wound. Both would be They neither affect nor alter the
Fiscal thus filed an amended information liable to the same extent there being nature of the crime, and are hence
reflecting the changes, which the TC admitted. conspiracy. valid.
People v. Casey (1981) An information for murder was filed against Amendment was one of form, hence Re-arraignment will be required only
petitioner Casey, for which he was arraigned. re-arraignment was not needed. in cases of substantial amendment.
Upon the subsequent arrest of his co-
conspirator Felix, an amended information The amendment only referred to the TEST as to whether an accused is
naming Felix as co-accused was filed by the inclusion of Felix as co-accused. It prejudiced by an amendment:
Fiscal. Both were found guilty. did not change the nature of the - WoN a defense under the
crime, nor did it change the original information would be
Petitioner argues that he was illegally tried, as attendant circumstances already available after the amendment
he was never arraigned on the amended alleged in the first information. is made
information, prejudicing his right to be informed - WoN any evidence the
of the charge against him. defendant has is equally
applicable to both the original
and amended informations.
Buhat v. CA (1996) An information for HOMICIDE was filed Amendments were of form, hence The real nature of a criminal charge is
against petitioner Buhat, which alleged that he valid. The addition of determined not from the
stabbed and killed someone with the help of (1) new defendants as co- caption/preamble of the information or
John Does who held the victim during the act. conspirators; and the technical name of the crime, but

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
2
He was arraigned, where he pleaded not (2) changing the appellation of the from the actual recital of facts alleged
guilty. crime from homicide to murder, in the body of the same.
was only a formal amendment
Upon motion of the victims widow, DOJ Sec permissible after arraignment. In the event that the appellation of the
ordered the amendment of the offense crime does not correspond to the
charged to MURDER. Fiscal filed a motion for Buhat was charged as principal in actual crime constituted by the acts
leave to amend information, elevating the the first information, and the addition described, the latter prevails.
crime to murder through conspiracy and abuse of co-conspirators or direct
of superior strength, and also impleading 3 allegation of conspiracy does not
persons as co-accused. change the nature of his
participation as principal in the
Petitioner argues that the amendments killing.
impleading additional defendants and
changing the crime from homicide to murder The original information already
are substantial, and are hence proscribed after described the existence of abuse of
arraignment and prejudicial to his rights. superior strength (i.e. John Does
held the victim) an allegation
which qualifies a homicide to
murder. Having already been
alleged, adding its appellation was
only a formal amendment.
Fronda-Baggao v. People 4 separate informations for illegal recruitment Amendment is valid. Petitioner has Before the accused enters his plea, a
(2007) were filed against petitioner Fronda-Baggao. not yet entered plea. Prior to formal or substantial amendment can
Upon her arrest 10 years after the filing, fiscal arraignment, 4 informations can be be made without leave of court.
moved to amend, consolidating the 4 separate lumped into one. Her rights were not
informations into one for illegal recruitment in prejudiced as the amendment was Maam: Only one information should
large scale. TC granted the motion. made before entering plea. be amended. The proper course of
action should have been to try the
Petitioner argues that changing the complaint That the rules use the singular four separate informations jointly.
into illegal recruitment in large scale prejudices words complaint and information
her rights, and that Rule 110, Sec. 4, only is no bar to consolidation. In the
contemplates amendments to single interest of speedy disposition of
informations and not multiple ones. cases, a liberal construction of the
rule must be applied.

C. NOTES/RIANO

Information magic words:


"that on or about..."

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
3
"willfully, feloniously, maliciously"
"within the jurisdiction of this court"
"with intent to kill.."

Motion to amend- any time before plea (without leave)


After plea- with leave of court; but not if prejudicial to the accused

mistake in making the proper charge -rule 119, sec 19


Dismiss the present case and file the proper one, no double jeopardy

Formal amendment- can be done anytime; motion by prosec and notice to party
Motion to amend WITH LEAVE

With leave- only means you have to ask prior permission

Remedies of prosec if info is defective:


1. Motion to withdraw
2. Motion to amend

Remedies of the accused:


1. Motion to suspend arraignment
2. Motion to hold in abeyance issuance of warrant of arrest
3. Motion to quash
4. motion to determine probable cause
5. Motion for re-investigation

Test to determine whether the amendment is formal or substantial:


If prejudicial- substantial (whether a defense under the info as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is made)
Whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the info in the one form as in the other

Ma'am: Nature of offense, penalty


Will the defense of the accused be the same, will the accused use the same evidence as part of his defense

Kinds of amendment:
1. Those contained in the allegations found in the info (formal, substantial) r110, sec4
2. Difference in allegation and proof; amendment in allegation to conform to the evidence presented (r120, sec4)

Formal-
Before plea: allowed, without leave
After pea/ during trial: allowed, leave of court

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
4
Substantial-
Before plea- allowed, without leave(general rule) [exceptions: with leave (1) downgrades the offense (2) excludes an accused]
After plea/ during trial: not allowed (subject to double jeopardy which will not attach if a grave offense results)

R120, sec4: difference in offense charged and offense proved


Convict offense proved if included in the offense charged
Convict in offense charged if it is included in the offense proved
How to know: elements of crime (r120, sec5)

Change in date of offense:


Substantial amendment: defense of accused will change

Change in nature of crime/ penalty: formal amendment

VIII. CIVIL ASPECT RULE 111 (BY JAMIE CHAN)

STATUTES

RULE 111
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes
the civil action prior to the criminal action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances
affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages without specifying the
amount thereof in the complaint or information, the filing fees therefore shall constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding such damages.
Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party
upon the filing thereof in court.
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be required for actual damages.
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been the
subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action.
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action
separately shall be allowed.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which
shall be considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary
damages, the offended party shall pay additional filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages are

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
5
subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with
the court trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation
of the civil and criminal actions.

Sec. 2. When separate civil action is suspended. After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be
instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action.chan robles virtual law library
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever state it may be found before
judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits rendered in
the civil action, the same may, upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying the criminal action. In case of
consolidation, the evidence already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to the right of the
prosecution to cross-examine the witness presented by the offended party in the criminal case and of the parties to present additional evidence. The consolidated
criminal and civil actions shall be tried and decided jointly.
During the pendency of the criminal action, the running period of prescription of the civil action which cannot be instituted separately or whose proceeding has
been suspended shall be tolled.
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if
there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.

Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently. In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the
independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of
evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action.

Sec. 4. Effect of death on civil actions. The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil
liability arising from the delict. However, the independent civil action instituted under section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising
from other sources of obligation may be continued against the estate or legal representative of the accused after proper substitution or against said estate, as the
case may be. The heirs of the accused may be substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may
appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (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.chan robles virtual law library
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.

Sec. 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar. A final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the defendant from civil liability is not a bar to a criminal action
against the defendant for the same act or omission subject of the civil action.

Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a
civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial,
the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
6
Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question. The elements of a prejudicial questions are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed.

RULE 110 SEC 16


Sec. 16. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action. Where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule
111, the offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.

CIVIL CODE ARTS 29-36


Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for
damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the court may
require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.

If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be
inferred from the text of the decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.

Art. 30. When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the
pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of.

Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently
of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.

Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of
the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:

(1) Freedom of religion;

(2) Freedom of speech;

(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;

(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;

(5) Freedom of suffrage;

(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;

(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use;

(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
7
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;

(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;

(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;

(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law;

(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances;

(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;

(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;

(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and
public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf;

(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or
reward to make such confession, except when the person confessing becomes a State witness;

(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been
judicially declared unconstitutional; and

(19) Freedom of access to the courts.

In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to
commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution
(if the latter be instituted), and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.

The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.

Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the
injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.

Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace
officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be
independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
8
Art. 35. When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges another with the same, for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or
any special law, but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to
institute criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender. Such civil action may be supported by a
preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant's motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should
be found to be malicious.

If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be presented by the prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of
the criminal proceedings.

Art. 36. Pre-judicial questions which must be decided before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed, shall be governed by rules of court which
the Supreme Court shall promulgate and which shall not be in conflict with the provisions of this Code.

CIRCULAR NO. 57-97


TO: COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, ALL MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT PROSECUTION SERVICE AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES
SUBJECT: RULES AND GUIDELINES IN THE FILING AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL CASES UNDER BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22.
Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the following rules and guidelines shall henceforth be observed in the filing and
prosecution of all criminal cases under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 which penalizes the making or drawing and issuance of a check without funds or
credit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1] The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to necessarily include the corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file
such civil action separately shall be allowed or recognized.
[2] Upon the filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil action, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based upon the amount of the check involved,
which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed, in accordance with the schedule of filing fees in Section 7(a) and Section 8(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court, as last amended by Administrative Circular No. 11-94 effective August 1, 1994. Where the offended party further seeks to enforce against the accused civil
liability by way of liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, he shall pay the corresponding filing fees therefor based on the amounts thereof as
alleged either in his complaint or in the information. If not so alleged but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the Court, the amount of such fees
shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.
[3] Where the civil action has heretofore been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon
application with the Court trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with the pertinent procedure
outlined in Section 2(a) of Rule 111 governing the proceedings in the actions as thus consolidated.

CIRCULAR NO. 70-97 October 21, 1997


TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, SHARIA CIRCUIT COURTS, THE MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE AND THE
MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE AND THE MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUBJECT: PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES IN THE COLLECTION OF THE FILING FEES SUBJECT OF SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR NO. 57-
97 DATED 16 SEPTEMBER 1997 AND OTHER LEGAL FEES INVOLVED; AND THE DOCKETING OF THE CRIMINAL CASE/S ON THE
VIOLATION OF BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22
In implementation of the provisions of Circular No. 57-97 dated 16 September 1997 prescribing rules and guidelines in the filing and prosecution of criminal cases

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
9
under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 ("An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds of Credit and For Other Purposes"),
the following procedures shall be followed in (a) the collection of the filing fees subject of said Circular No. 57-97 and other legal fees involved; and (b) the
docketing of the criminal case or cases on the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22:
1. The Office of the Clerk of Court shall receive the information filed by the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor or the Provincial/City Prosecutor
Office. Upon receipt, the information shall be entered in a separate record book and assigned an undocketed number (UDK No.) consisting of (a)
the Investigation Slip No. ("I.S. No.") appearing on the said information for easy identification; and (b) a number, starting with No. 1 (Example:
UDK No. 6789-1);
2. Thereafter, the Clerk of Court shall, by form letter (Annex "A"), notify and advise the complainant of (a) the filing of the information; and (b) the
requirement as to the payment in full of the filing fees under Circular No. 57-97 based upon the computation stated therein. The State
Prosecutor, the Provincial/Assistant Provincial Prosecutor or the City/Assistant City Prosecutor who filed the information and the respondent
shall be furnished with copies of the accomplished form letter sent by the Clerk of Court;
3. The complainant shall have a period of ten (10) days from receipt of the letter within which to pay the filing fees. Should the complainant fail to
pay the filing fees within the ten (10)-day period stated herein, the case folder shall be archived. After the lapse of two (2) months, the records
may be disposed of
4. Upon receipt of the filing fees under Circular No. 57-97, the information shall be entered in the court's general docket book and assigned the
court case number. Thereafter, the Clerk of Court shall cause the inclusion of the case in the raffle of cases.
The filing fees and other legal fees shall be processed in accordance with the flowchart attached herewith as Annex "B."
5. In the event that the amount of the actual damages claimed exceeds the maximum amount of P200,000.00, the filing fees to be collected in
excess of the aforementioned amount shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 (a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.

CASES
CIVIL ACTION FOR CIVIL LIABILITY EX DELICTO
CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE DOCTRINE
U.S. V. HEERY The trial court found Joseph Heery was to WON remanding a criminal case Because civil liability is not part of the punishment of the
have committed the crime of maliciously for the determination of civil crime, double jeopardy does not attach if the case were
inflicting serious injury on Alex Sternberg; damages is to be considered as a to be remanded. Here, the guilt of the accused and
he was sentenced to 1 year and 3 months modification of the punishment, and therefore his criminal liability was established, and his
of prision correccional. therefore tantamount to double civil liability was established as well; the only question
On appeal, the decision was affirmed but jeopardy. No was the amount of civil damages
the case was remanded because it did not Where a judgment appealed from consists of distinct
include the evidence of the civil damages and independent matters, so that an erroneous portion
suffered by the party thereof can be segregated from the parts that are
The lower court restated the conviction (1 correct, the court will not set aside the entire judgment,
year and 3 months) and also included Php but only so much as is erroneous, leaving the reside
50,500 for indemnity undisturbed.

YAKULT V. CA Camaso was sideswiped by a Yamaha Can a civil action instituted after the The civil action for the recovery of civil liability is
motorcycle owned by Yakult Philippines criminal action was filed prosper impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless the
and driven by Larry Salvado even if there was no reservation to offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
10
Camaso's dad instituted a separate civil file a separate civil action? YES. to institute it separately OR institutes the civil action
case against Salvado. Court in the civil prior to the criminal action.
case ordered Yakult and Salvado to pay The civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the
Camaso jointly. Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32,
Yakult and Salvado file a petition for 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code arising from the same
certiorari arguing that the civil action for act or omission of the accused.
damages for injuries arising from alleged The civil liability sought arising from the act or omission
criminal negligence of Salvado, being of the accused in this case is a quasi-delict under Article
without malice, cannot be filed 2176 of the Civil Code.
independently of the criminal action under Although the separate civil action filed in this case was
Article 33 Civil Code. Aside from this, without previous reservation in the criminal case,
defendants argue that under Section 1 Rule nevertheless since it was instituted before the
111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal prosecution presented evidence in the criminal action,
Procedure, a separate action may not be and the judge handling the criminal case was informed
filed unless reservation thereof is expressly thereof, then the actual filing of the civil action is even
made. far better than a compliance with the requirement of an
express reservation that should be made by the
offended party before the prosecution presents its
evidence.
The purpose of this rule requiring reservation is to
prevent the offended party from recovering damages
twice for the same act or omission.
RAFAEL REYES The truck of Rafael reyes hit and bump a WON petitioner as owner of the Rafael Reyes Trucking Corporation, as employer of the
TRUCKING Nissan Pick-up driven by Feliciano Balcita truck involved in the accident may accused who has been adjudged guilty in the criminal
CORP. V. and Francisco Dy, Jr causing the death of be held subsidiarily liable for the case for reckless imprudence, can not be held
PEOPLE the two. damages awarded to the offended subsidiarily liable because of the filing of the separate
The private respondents opted to pursue parties in the criminal action civil action based on quasi delict against it. In view of
the criminal action but did not withdraw the against the truck driver despite the the reservation to file, and the subsequent filing of the
civil case quasi ex delicto they filed against filing of a separate civil action by civil action for recovery of civil liability, the same was not
petitioner corporation. the offended parties against the instituted with the criminal action. Such separate civil
They eventually withdrew the reservation to employer of the truck driver. NO action was for recovery of damages under Article 2176
file a separate civil action against the of the Civil Code, arising from the same act or omission
accused driver and manifested that they of the accused
would prosecute the civil aspect ex delicto Pursuant to the provision of Rule 111, Section 1,
in the criminal action. However, they did not paragraph 3 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure,
withdraw the separate civil action based on when private respondents, as complainants in the
quasi delict against petitioner as employer criminal action, reserved the right to file the separate
arising from the same act or omission of civil action, they waived other available civil actions
the accused driver. predicated on the same act or omission of the accused-
driver. Such civil action includes the recovery of

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
11
indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages
under Articles 32, 33, and 34 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the
accused
However, in the case, the withdrawal is ineffective to
reverse the effect of the reservation earlier made
because private respondents did not withdraw the civil
action against petitioner based on quasi delict.
RODRIGUEZ V. Information for estafa was filed separate WON private prosecutor can The private prosecutor can intervene and participate in
PONFERRADA from the information for violation of BP 22. intervene and participate in the the proceedings of the estafa cases for the purpose of
Separate QC courts handled the cases. proceedings of the estafa cases for prosecuting the attached civil liability.
Rodriguez filed an Opposition to the the purpose of prosecuting the An offended party may intervene in the prosecution of a
Formal Entry of Appearance of the Private attached civil liability arising from crime, except in the following instances:
Prosecutor. However, this was struck down the issuance of the checks involved When, from the nature of the crime and the law
by the Court. which is also the subject matter of defining and punishing it, no civil liability arises
Rodriguez claims that the civil action the pending BP 22. Yes. in favor of a private offended party
necessarily arising from the criminal case When, from the nature of the offense, the
pending for violation of BP 22 precludes the offended parties are entitled to civil indemnity,
institution of the corresponding civil action but
in the criminal case for estafa. They waive the right to institute a civil
action
Expressly reserves the right to do so
The suit has already been instituted.
It appearing that the present case does not fall in any of
these exemptions, the private prosecutor cannot be
barred from intervening in the estafa suit.
OBITER BUT MAY BE RELEVANT
Every such act of issuing a bouncing check involves
only one civil liability for the offended party who has
sustained a single injury. At the present stage, no
judgment on the civil liability has been rendered in either
criminal case. There is as yet no call for the offended
party to elect remedies and after choosing one of them,
be considered barred from other available to her.

PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE DOCTRINE
ROJAS V. PEOPLE 5 estafa cases were filed against Whether or not there is a prejudicial Zapata vs Montesa: A prejudicial
petitioner - in the proceedings, question involved. NO. question is that which arises in a
petitioner was up for arraignment and case, the resolution of which is a

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
12
then trial. logical antecedent of the issue
Petitioner opposed this as there was involved therein, and the
a civil case pending against petitioner cognizance of which pertains to
for revocation of a management another tribunal. The prejudicial
contract - this involved the execution question must be determinative of
by petitioner of a chattel mortgage on the case before the court and
a Caterpillar tractor which was not jurisdiction to try the same must be
free from encumbrance because it lodged in another court.
was already mortgaged to Davao Pisalbon vs Tesoro: supposing
Lumber Company. that both the civil and criminal case
Petitioner claims that he cannot be involve the same question, it
tried pending the termination of the should be the civil case which
civil suit as this gave rise to a should be suspended rather than
prejudicial question. the criminal, to await the result of
the latter.
Justice Barredo in Isip vs
Gonzales: there is a prejudicial
question only when the matter that
has to be priorly decided by
another authority is one the
cognizance of which pertains to
that authority and not be passed
upon by the court trying the
criminal case.
Article 33 of the CC states that In
cases of defamation, fraud, and
physical injuries a civil action for
damages, entirely separate and
distinct from the criminal action,
may be brought by the injured
party. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of the
criminal prosecution, and shall
require only a preponderance of
evidence necessitates that the
civil case can proceed
independently. This case is an
instance whereby a codal provision
of undoubted applicability should
prevail. Invocation of doctrine of

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
13
prejudicial question is attended
with futility.
JIMENEZ V. AVERA Respondents received money to buy WON there is a prejudicial question. Prejudicial question - one which
a fishing boat. They were supposed NO. arises in a case, the resolution of
to return the money if they are not which, is a logical antecedent of
able to buy the boat. They the issued involved in said case,
misappropriated the money instead. and the cognizance of which
The criminal case was for estafa pertains to another tribunal.
Before arraignment of the criminal The question claimed to be
case, accused filed a civil action vs. prejudicial in nature must be
Jimenez contesting the validity of a determinative of the case. The
certain receipt signed by them jurisdiction to try and resolve the
wherein they acknowledge having said question is lodged in another
received the money with an obligation tribunal. The question at hand was
to return it. not determinative.
Respondents filed a motion to Even if the execution of the receipt
suspend the proceedings in the was vitiated by fraud, deceit,
criminal case because the issue in duress or intimidation, their guilt
the civil case was a prejudicial could still be established by other
question. It was granted. evidence showing, to the degree
required by law, that they had
actually received from the
complainant the amount and that
they misappropriated it.
It would have been a prejudicial
question if the crime charged was
falsification of the receipt involved
in the civil action.

RAS V. RASUL Pichel filed a civil case against Ras WON there is a prejudicial question. For a civil case to be considered
and Martin for the nullification of Yes. prejudicial to a criminal case, it
the deed of sale executed by Ras must appear (a) that the civil case
in favor of Martin, and for the involves the same facts upon
declaration of the deed of sale in which the criminal prosecution is
his favor by Ras as valid. based, and (b) that the resolution
While the civil case was being tried of the issues raised in said civil
in Basilan, the Provincial Fiscal of action would be necessarily
Basilan filed an information for determinative of the guilt or
estafa in the same court against innocence of the accused.
Ras, arising from the same alleged Prejudicial question arises in a

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
14
double sale subject matter of the case, the resolution of which is a
civil case. logical antecedent of the issue
Ras filed a Motion for Suspension involved therein, and the
of Action in the criminal case. He cognizance of which pertains to
claimed that the same facts and another tribunal. The prejudicial
issues were involved in both the question must be determinative of
civil and criminal cases. He the case before the court but the
averred that the resolution of the jurisdiction to try and resolve the
issues in the civil case would question must be lodged in
necessarily be determinative of his another court or tribunal.
guilt. It is a question based on a fact
separate from the crime but
intimately connected with it that it
determines the guilt or innocence
of the accused. If a civil case is
prejudicial to a criminal case, it will
cause the suspension of the
criminal action until its resolution.
There is a prejudicial question.
Ras defense of nullity and forgery
of the deed of sale in the civil case
is based on the very same facts
which would be determinative of
the guilt or innocence of Ras as
accused in the criminal case.
If the first sale in favor of Pichel is
void or fictitious, then there would
be no double sale and Ras would
be innocent of estafa.

PEOPLE V. CONSING PBI bought a lot from the dela WON the pendency of the civil cases is No prejudicial question if civil and
Cruzes. Dela Cruz did not have the a prejudicial question justifying the criminal action can proceed
right to sell the lot. PBI ousted from suspension of the proceedings in the independently of each other
possession of lot by Juanito and Po. criminal case for estafa. NO. If both civil and criminal cases
The dela Cruzes never returned PBI's have similar issues or the issue in
money. one is intimately related to the
Consing filed with RTC Pasig (Br.88) issues raised in the other, then a
action for Injunctive Relief claiming prejudicial question would likely
that he was merely an agent of his exist, provided the other element

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
15
mom and was not under obligation to or characteristic is satisfied. It
PBI. must appear not only that the civil
PBI filed against Consing and mom a case involves the same facts upon
complaint for Damages and which the criminal prosecution
Attachment (Civil Case No. 99-95381) would be based, but also that the
Criminal case for Estafa through resolution of the issues raised in
falsification of public document was the civil action would be
filed against Consing and mom at necessarily determinative of the
RTC Imus. guilt or innocence of the accused.
Consing filed motion to defer If the resolution of the issue in the
arraignment on ground of prejudicial civil action will not determine the
question (pendency of the civil criminal responsibility of the
cases). This was denied by the Trial accused in the criminal action
Court. based on the same facts, or there
is no necessity that the civil case
be determined first before taking
up the criminal case, therefore, the
civil case does not involve a
prejudicial question.
There is no prejudicial question
because in the civil cases, the
question is whether Consing and
mom are liable to pay damages
and return amount paid by PBI.
Even if Consing is declared merely
an agent in the civil case, he
cannot be adjudged free from
criminal liability because an agent
or any person may be held liable
for conspiring to falsify public
documents. Thus, one of the
requirements for a prejudicial
question is missing because
determination of the issue involved
in the first civil case is irrelevant to
the guilt or innocence of the
Consing in the criminal case for
estafa. Also, a ruling of the court in
the civil case that PBI should not
be paid will not necessarily

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
16
absolve Consing of liability in the
criminal case where his guilt may
still be established under penal
laws as determined by other
evidence.
ARK TRAVEL EXPRESS, INC. V. Ark Travel filed a civil case for WON there is a prejudicial question. When the criminal action has been
ABROGAR Collection of sum of money, torts and YES filed in court for trial, the petition to
damages against New Filipino suspend by reason of prejudicial
Maritime Agencies, Inc. question shall be filed in the same
Private respondents, as witnesses for criminal action at any time before
NFMAI, executed their respective the prosecution rests.
sworn statements and testified before To constitute the crime of False
the trial court that NFMAI has no Testimony in a Civil Case under
outstanding obligation with Ark Travel Article 182 of the RPC, the
as the same had been paid in full. following requisites must concur: 1.
Ark Travel filed with the City the testimony must be given in a
Prosecutor of Makati a criminal civil case; 2. the testimony must
complaint for False Testimony in a relate to the issues presented in
Civil Case under Article 182 of the the case; 3. the testimony is false;
Revised Penal Code against herein 4. the false testimony must be
private respondents Baguio and Ira. given by the defendant knowing
the same to be false; and 5. such
testimony must be malicious and
given with and intent to affect the
issues presented in the case. The
first two requisites are extant in
this case.
At the time of the filing of the
criminal complaints, the civil case
filed by Ark Travel is still pending
decision.
It is only after trial that the RTC
can assess the veracity or falsity of
the testimony and correspondingly
render a decision. Thus, the civil
case is so intimately connected
with the subject crime that it is
determinative of the guilt or
innocence of the respondents in
the criminal cases. In other words,

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
17
whether or not the testimonies of
private respondents in the civil
cases are false is a prejudicial
question.
Hence, pending determination of
the falsity of the subject
testimonies of private respondents
in the civil case, the criminal action
for false testimony must perforce
be suspended.

PEOPLE V. DELIZO Ng loaned respondent money on the Is there a prejudicial question? MI or Ng were not parties in the
pretense that he will convert it into case against respondent as Pres
shares of stock of his company. of the corp.
Respondent ran away with the The money subject of criminal
money. case of estafa was not subject of
AHCII/CM/HCI which was formerly SEC Case. SEC talked about
headed by Ng filed a complaint with injunction on respondent as pres of
SEC as they wanted to replace Ng as his corp. Ng was not even a
president of the corporation. stockholder of the corporations
AHCII/CM/HCI filed a complaint These issues are not, in any way,
against the China Banking determinative of the guilt or
Corporation as respondent took out a innocence of the respondent in the
loan from the bank but it failed to pay criminal case for estafa. Whether
so the lot that was mortgaged was the said meeting and elections will
sold in a public auction. be declared null and void by the
Estafa was field against respondent. SEC will not result in the conviction
or acquittal of the respondent for
estafa, for swindling Ng of
P12,000,000.

NOTES
MAY A SINGLE ACT GIVE RISE TO MANY LIABILITIES (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL?)
A single act can give rise to many liabilities.

REMEDIES AVAILABLE FOR THE OFFENDED PARTY (EXAMPLES)


a. If breach of contract of carriage civil liability
b. If for negligence direct liability of the driver CC 2176
Employer may be liable CC 2180 is vicarious liability liability is direct
If both employer and employee are impleaded in the action, both are solidarily liable

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
18
c. If for reckless imprudence
Civil liability arising from the offense is called the ex-delicto
At what instance will the accused have any liability? Subsidiary liability vs. principal liability

What is the legal basis for any liability that is civil in nature arising from the offense?
Art 104 civil liability ex delicto
1. Reparation
2. Restitution
3. Indemnification for inconsequential damages

MAY OFFENDED PARTY AVAIL OF SEVERAL REMEDIES ON INDEMNITY?


Offended party may choose any of the remedies available. But at no point is he allowed to recover twice.

Section 1. INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL ACTIONS.

GENERAL RULE:
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action.

PROCEDURE
FILE COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT PI FILING OF THE INFORMATION (IT WILL SAY THAT THE CASE HAS BEEN FILED) THE CIVIL LIABILITY EX
DELICTO IS PROSECUTED BY THE PRIVATE PROSECUTOR ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA PRE-TRIAL (ISSUE ON CIVIL LIABILITY) TRIAL
JUDGMENT (RULE 120 SEC 2 CONTENTS OF THE JUDGMENT)

IF ACCUSED IS ACQUITTED, CAN THE PROSECUTION APPEAL?


No, as it would constitute double jeopardy. If there is a finding on the civil liability, private prosecutor can appeal decision only with the respect of the award of the
civil liability. It is a correct statement to say that when there is acquittal, no appeal. The more correct statement is with respect only to the criminal aspect as the
civil aspect can still be the subject of appeal.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE OF INSTITUTING CIVIL CASE WITH CIRMINAL CASE:
1. When the offended party WAIVES the civil action
No form and time when it could be made.
There can be a waiver at any time but necessarily before judgment
Ex. Release waiver
What happens when the victim enters into an amicable settlement with the accused? Prosecutor moves for dismissal of the case as they no longer have
any evidence.
2. When the offended party RESERVES his right to institute a separate civil action
Make reservation in the criminal action without the civil action separate civil action ex-delicto is instituted after the final judgment in the criminal action
A civil action based on 2176 (quasi delict) - at what time can a civil action based on this be filed? At anytime. If it is instituted after, the civil case is on hold
during the criminal case. You make a signal to the accused that you will waive.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
19
WHEN RESERVATION SHALL BE MADE
1. Before the prosecution starts to present its evidence (pre-trial) and
2. Under circumstances affording the offended party to a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.
3. When offended party INSTITUTES A CIVIL ACTION PRIOR to the criminal action.

IF CIVIL CASE IS INSTITUTED FIRST


Civil case is instituted first separate criminal action

WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF FILING A CIVIL ACTION FIRST? WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE CIVIL ACTION UPON FILING OF THE INFORMATION?
It MAY be suspended. It is not ipso facto suspended It may be asked to be suspended by the accused as the accused benefits from the suspension.

CONSOLIDATION OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES IF CIVIL CASE WAS FILED FIRST
The offended party may have the option to request that both the criminal and civil cases be consolidated.
Who benefits from the consolidation? The offended party as the trial is sped up and the accused as he only needs to defend himself in one case.
What happens to the evidence that has already been presented in the civil case? It shall be presented again subject to the right of the accused to cross-examine.
It is suspended in theory only

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE CIVIL LIABILITY IS INSTITUTED SIMULTANEOUSLY BUT NOT TOGETHER? WHAT HAPPENS? WHEN IS A CRIMINAL
CASE DEEMED INSTITUTED?
Upon filing of a complaint or information. Civil case will overtake the criminal action; What scenario will apply? The civil action is then deemed instituted prior to the
criminal action.

These are exceptions to the general rule instituted together. But there is a carved out exception BP 22. You cannot opt out. In BP 22 cases, no reservation to file
the civil action separately shall be allowed. For BP 22, always follow the general rule. No exceptions.

WHY IS THE CIVIL ACTION SUSPENDED OR INSTITUTED WITH THE CRIMINAL CASE?
The criminal case will not rule on the civil liability of the accused because if the civil action of the civil liability has been instituted prior, that civil case is suspended
therefore there is no civil liability to speak of in the criminal action. You do not prosecute the same cause of action in both cases. This is done because you cannot
have conflicting decisions and what will take precedence is the criminal action.

INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS


ONLY the civil liability arising from the crime charged as a felony is now deemed instituted. Civil liability arising from other sources of obligations are no longer
deemed instituted like those under Article 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code which can be prosecuted even without reservation.

RULES ON FILING FEES OF CIVIL ACTION DEEMED INSTITUTED WITH THE CRIMINAL ACTION
FILING FEES
If civil case is filed with the criminal case then filing fees are due. If separate, then no need. If damages is stated then clerk of court will just assess and collect. But
if the amount of damages to be claimed by the claimant are yet to be determined by the complainant, the filing fees will constitute as first lien. Before execution of
judgment, before being entitled to monetary award, the amount of filing fees should first be paid.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
20
Filing fees should be paid in court. Otherwise if you are the private party you pay in OCP and when information is filed.

1. NO filing fees are required for amounts of ACTUAL DAMAGES, EXCEPT with respect to criminal actions for violation of BP 22, in which case, the
offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the face value of the check as the actual damages;
2. Damages other than actual (moral, exemplary and other damages) if specified in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid,
otherwise the court will not acquire jurisdiction over such damages;
3. Where moral, exemplary and other damages are NOT specified in the complaint or information, the grant and amount thereof are left to the sound
discretion of the trial court, the corresponding filing fees need not be paid and shall simply constitute a first lien on the judgment.

Counterclaims, cross-claims, third party complaints are no longer allowed in a criminal proceeding. Any claim which could have been the subject thereof may be
litigated in a separate civil action.

Under Rule 111, if civil liability is prosecuted with criminal action, corresponding fees have to be filed with the clerk of court upon the filing of the info. For civil
cases which will then necessary include the civ aspect, payment of filing fees is jurisdictional. If you do not pay filing fees, the court does not have jurisdiction or
will not have power or authority to issue on civil liability. However, if civil liability ex delicto instituted with a crim action then it is not that relevant. However, if you
are the accused you have the option to have the civ liability dismissed or prevent private prosecutor from prosecuting civil liability arising from the offense if amount
of claim is clear from info/complaint and despite assessment of the clerk of court, no filing fees have been made. Therefore, it should also apply when you
prosecute civ liability as part of the crim action. Controlling jurisprudence on these facts would be Manchester.

Example: File a complaint affid determination of probable cause resolution recommending the filing of two info BP 22 and filed in MTC and then Estafa
filed likely in RTC. These are two distinct info. Civ liability arising from BP 22 is prosecuted with the crim case. Can the civ liability arising from estafa be
prosecuted together with estafa? Yes. Can it be instituted after a judgment of the crim action? Yes, provided that a reservation was made. Because mere
institution of remedies available to private party is not tantamount to a rule against double recovery. But since you are already prosecuting civ liability arising from
BP 22 will you also prosecute the civ liability for estafa? Yes, you could.

Section 2. When separate civil action is suspended.

PRIMACY OF CRIMINAL ACTION OVER CIVIL ACTION


1. After the filing of the criminal action, the civil action which has been reserved CANNOT be instituted until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal
action.
2. If the civil action is instituted BEFORE the filing of the criminal action and the criminal action is subsequently commenced, the pending civil action shall be
suspended until final judgment in the criminal action has been rendered.
EXCEPTIONS:
a) In cases of independent civil actions based upon Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code;
b) In cases where the civil action presents a prejudicial question;
c) In cases where the civil action is consolidated with the criminal action; and
d) Where the civil action is not one intended to enforce the civil liability arising from the offense.

ACQUITTAL IN A CRIMINAL CASE DOES NOT BAR THE FILING OF THE CIVIL CASE WHERE:

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
21
1. the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, if the civil case has been reserved
2. the decision contains a declaration that the liability of the accused is not criminal but only civil in nature and
3. the civil liability is not derived from or based on the criminal act of which the accused is acquitted (Sapiera vs. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA 370).

EFFECTS OF AN EXTINCTION OF PENAL ACTION


Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action, UNLESS the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the
fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.

The extinction of the civil liability refers exclusively to civil liability arising from crime; whereas, the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict is not
extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused.

Where the criminal case was dismissed before trial because the offended party executed an affidavit of desistance, the civil action thereof is similarly dismissed.

SECTION 3. WHEN CIVIL ACTION MAY PROCEED INDEPENDENTLY.

The institution of an independent civil action against the offender under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code may proceed independently of the criminal
case and at the same time without suspension of either proceeding.

Recovery of civil liability under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code arising from the same act or omission may be prosecuted separately even without a
reservation. The reservation and waiver herein refers only to the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged (DMPI Employees
Credit Coop vs. Velez, G.R. No. 129282, Nov. 29, 2001).

PURPOSE
To prevent the offended party from recovering damages twice for the same act or omission.

Section 4. EFFECT OF DEATH ON CIVIL ACTIONS.

AFTER arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action - extinguishes the civil liability arising from the delict.

BEFORE arraignment - the case shall be DSMISSED without prejudice to any civil action the offended party may file against the estate of the deceased.

However, the independent civil action instituted under Section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising from other sources of
obligation may be continued against the estate or legal representative of the accused after proper substitution or against said estate, as the case may be.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
22
SECTION 7. PREJUDICIAL QUESTION.

Prejudicial Question - that which arises in a case, the resolution of which is the logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which
pertains to another tribunal. It must be determinative of the case before the court but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another court
or tribunal.

Rationale: to avoid two conflicting decisions.

ELEMENTS OF A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION


1. The civil action must be instituted prior to the criminal action.
2. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action.
3. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

WHERE TO FILE PETITION FOR SUSPENSION BY REASON OF PREJUDICIAL QUESTION


1. Office of the prosecutor; or
2. court conducting the preliminary investigation; or
3. court where the criminal action has been filed for trial at any time before the prosecution rests.

HOW TO KNOW WHEN THERE IS A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION


Given that civil liability is instituted prior to the criminal action, there is no prejudicial question as they have the same facts. What then gives rise to a prejudicial
question? Here, the civil action is suspended. It is different from a judicial question wherein the criminal case is the one that is suspended. The rational for a
prejudicial question is totally different. In the civil action, there must be a fact that when decided will affect the outcome of the criminal action. Criminal action
cannot proceed without the civil action being terminated.

If the resolution of the issue in the civil action will not determine the criminal responsibility of the accused in the criminal action based on the same facts, the civil
case does not involve a prejudicial question or if both can proceed independently of each other

WHEN DOES THE DOCTRINE OF PREJUDICIAL QUESTION BECOME RELEVANT? TO WHOSE INTEREST IS THIS DOCTRINE IMPORTANT?
The accused because the outcome is the criminal action will be suspended. This is beneficial for him because it is a criminal case is delayed and any delay in a
criminal case benefits the accused as he waits for all pieces of evidence and witnesses are presented or until the offended party loses interest

CIVIL CASE BASES ON CC 2176 AND A CRIMINAL ACTION


If there was a civil case for 2176 and there is a criminal action, there might be no prejudicial question as the facts to be litigated on are the same

WHAT TO DO WHEN THERE IS A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION


Suspend criminal case as there is a factual issue that has to be decided. The issue is related to the factual issue in the criminal case. It is not the same as the
factual issue in the criminal case only goes into the guilt of the accused.

Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
23
A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the
court conducting the preliminary investigation.
When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests.

WHY DO THE RULES EVEN ALLOW SUSPENSION OF THE CRIMINAL ACTION?


To avoid conflicting decisions

IMPT THING TO REMEMBER FOR A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION TO BE PRESENT


Civil action must have ALWAYS been instituted first.

EXAMPLES WHERE A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION MAY ARISE:


If it involves status (paternity), it does not involve a civil case, but a special proceeding.
Civil cases on usurpation of immovable property, unless the criminal case is for theft
There was a write-up about the City Mayor of Manila in a newspaper. The newspapers publishers office is in Makati City, what are the different causes of
action available to the Mayor? How will he go about the different causes of action?
o Civil case under Art 33 which is an independent civil action. It proceeds independently from the crim action, instituted at any time and not subject
to reservation.
o Crim case for libel with civil liability. Is the City Mayor barred from instituted from instituting an action for civil liability with the criminal case of libel
considering that he has filed an independent civil action? Yes.
Where will it be filed?
Publishers office
Where it was printed
o A civil action for the liability arising from the criminal case of libel may be instituted prior or with reservation.
o Will the Art 33 independent civil action give rise to a prejudicial question? No as it will most likely have the same facts as the criminal case.

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
STATUTES
RULE 127
Section 1. Availability of provisional remedies. The provisional remedies in civil actions, insofar as they are applicable, may be availed of in connection with the
civil action deemed instituted with the criminal action.

Sec. 2. Attachment. When the civil action is properly instituted in the criminal action as provided in Rule 111, the offended party may have the property of the
accused attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered from the accused in the following cases:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) When the accused is about to abscond from the Philippines;
(b) When the criminal action is based on a claim for money or property embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted to the use of the accused who
is a public officer, officer of a corporation, attorney, factor, broker, agent or clerk, in the course of his employment as such, or by any other person in a
fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation of duty;

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
24
(c) When the accused has concealed, removed, or disposed of his property, or is about to do so; and
(d) When the accused resides outside the Philippines.

RA 9262 (2004) SEC 22


SECTION 22. Applicability of Protection Orders to Criminal Cases. The foregoing provisions on protection orders shall be applicable in impliedly instituted with
the criminal actions involving violence against women and their children.

NOTES
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
Availability of provisional remedies. [ROC, Rule 127, Sec 1]
o The provisional remedies in civil actions, insofar as they are applicable, may be availed of in connection with the civil action deemed instituted
with the criminal action.
o Look at Rules 57-61 for rules on provisional remedies.
o Because of the Anti-VAWC Look at Sec 22
This special statute by itself has special remedies not provided in the Rules of Court
Ex: temporary protection orders applicable under crim case sunder VAWC

ATTACHMENT. [ROC, RULE 127, SEC 2]


o When the civil action is properly instituted in the criminal action as provided in Rule 111, the offended party may have the property of the
accused attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered from the accused in the following cases:
(a) When the accused is about to abscond from the Philippines;
(b) When the criminal action is based on a claim for money or property embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted to the use of
the accused who is a public officer, officer of a corporation, attorney, factor, broker, agent or clerk, in the course of his employment as
such, or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation of duty;
(c) When the accused has concealed, removed, or disposed of his property, or is about to do so; and
(d) When the accused resides outside the Philippines.
o Private offended party is not automatically entitled to a writ of preliminary attachment
o It is to obtain security for a favourable judgment. The idea is the judgment at least pertaining to any award on any civil liability will not result in
empty judgment. There will be any prop attached, levied or garnished.
o The most common would be attachment.
Examples
Bank accounts are garnished and the accused will not be able to withdraw from it upon favourable judgment.
The private offended party may also have first lien on the property of the accused as the property will have been already
annotated in the Registry of Deeds.
You have to apply for a writ of preliminary attachment to be able to secure the case.
As to Cielos question: Have you ever heard of an action to nullify a deed of sale in front of creditors? This is a remedy available if there is an insolvency
proceeding. Insolvency proceedings may be voluntary or involuntary. Look at: cleavage period - all other sales for a certain period of time may be clawed
back. This is studied in civ pro, not in crim pro.
When you want to apply for a writ of preliminary attachment may be filed is at anytime before entry of judgment.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
25
FROM INTEGRATION: RELEVANCE OF PROVISIONAL REMEDY
Provisional remedy is supposed to be applied in so far as civil liability arising from the offense is proseucted with the criminal action

IX. BAIL RULE 114 (BY PATRICK MANALO)

A. CONST., Art. III, Sec. 13


Sec. 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of writ of habeas
corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

B. Statutes / Rules
1. Circular No. 2-92 (Jan. 20, 1992): Cancellation of bail bond of accused convicted of capital offense in RTC
An accused who is charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua shall no longer be entitled to bail as a matter of right even if he
appeals the case to SC since his conviction clearly imports that the evidence of his guilt of the offense charged is strong.

1. If accused (who is out on bail) charged with an offense punishable by a penalty lower than reclusion perpetua at the time of the commission of
the offense and at the time of application for bail, and after trial, he is convicted of the offense charged or of a lesser offense,
o he may be allowed to remain free on his original bail pending the resolution of his appeal
unless the proper court directs otherwise (pursuant to Rule 114, Sec. 2[a])

2. If accused (who is out on bail) is charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua at the time of the commission of
the offense and at the time of application for bail, and after trial, he is convicted of a lesser offense,
o he may be allowed to remain free on his original bail pending the resolution of his appeal
unless the proper court directs otherwise (pursuant to Rule 114, Sec. 2[a])

3. If accused (who is out on bail) is charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua at the time of the commission of
the offense and at the time of application for bail, and after trial, he is convicted of the offense charged,
o his bond shall be cancelled, and
he shall be placed in confinement pending resolution of his appeal

Rule on criminal cases covered by No. 3 (which are now pending appeal before SC where the accused is still on provisional liberty)

1. The Court, to order bondsman to surrender the accused within 10 days from notice to the court of origin.
a. The bondsman, to inform SC of the fact of surrender
i. After which, the cancellation of the bond shall be ordered by SC
b. If accused not surrendered within 10 days
i. His bond shall be forfeited, and
ii. An order of arrest shall be issued by SC

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
26
iii. The appeal taken by the accused shall be dismissed (per Sec. 8, Rule 124)
1. he shall be deemed to have jumped his bail

2. RTC to order transmittal of the accused to National Bureau of Prison thru PNP
a. The accused to remain under confinement pending resolution of his appeal

2. RA 6036: Act providing that bail shall not, with certain exceptions, be required in cases of violations of municipal or city ordinances and in criminal
offenses when the prescribed penalty is not higher than arresto mayor and / or a fine of two thousand pesos or both
Who are not required to post bail (Sec. 1)
- a person charged with violation of a municipal or city ordinance
- a person charged with a light felony, and / or
- a person charged with criminal offense penalty for which is not higher than 6 months imprisonment and / or a fine of 2k, or both

When bail not required (Sec. 1)


- if any of the abovementioned person has established to the satisfaction of the court (or any appropriate authority hearing his case) that he is
unable to post the required cash or bail bond

Exceptions (bail is required) (Sec. 1)


- when he is caught committing the offense in flagrante
- when he confesses to the commission of the offense
o unless later on repudiated by him in a sworn statement or in open court as having been extracted thru force or intimidation
- when he is found to have previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or jumped bail
- when he is found to have violated what Sec. 2 (infra) provides
- when is found to be a recidivist or habitual delinquent
o or has previously been convicted for an offense which the law or ordinance attaches an equal or greater penalty or
o for 2 or more offenses to which it attaches a lighter penalty
- when he commits the offense while on parole or under conditional pardon, and
- when he has previously been pardoned by municipal city or mayor for violation of municipal or city ordinance for at least 2 times

As to persons not required to post bail; what is required (Sec. 2)


- to sign a sworn statement binding himself, pending final decision of his case, to report to Clerk of Court hearing his case, periodically every 2
weeks
o in the presence of 2 witnesses of good standing in the community
o violation of sworn statement (including infra sworn statement)
the court will be justified to order his immediate arrest
unless he files bail in the amount fixed by court
o but if failure to report is for justifiable reasons including circumstances beyond his control (to be determined by the court)
he shall be excused
- court may require further that he be placed under the custody and subject to authority of a responsible citizen in the community who may be
willing to accept the responsibility

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
27
o in the discretion of the court, and
o with consent of the person charged
additional requirement: affidavit of the person charged to include a statement that he binds himself to accept the authority of
the citizen so appointed by the court

3. RA 9344 (2006): Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (Sec. 34-36)


Bail, amount (Sec. 34)
- in recommending amount of bail, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority shall be considered

If child is detained pending trial, duty of court (Sec. 35)


- order the release of the minor on recognizance to his parents and other suitable person
- order of the release of the minor on bail, or
- order the transfer of the minor to a youth detention home / youth rehabilitation center

Detention in jail, not allowed (Sec. 35)


- court shall not order detention of the child in a jail pending trial or hearing of his case

Alternative measures to those provided above, in other cases and whenever possible (Sec. 36)
- close supervision
- intensive care, or
- placement with a family or
- placement in an educational setting or home

Detention, when necessary (Sec. 36)


- child to be detained in youth detention homes established by local governments per Sec. 8, Family Courts Act, in the city or municipality where
child resides
o if no youth detention home
child may be committed to care of DSWD or a local rehabilitation center recognized by government in the province, city, or
municipality within the jurisdiction of the court
in which case, DSWD or center concerned shall be responsible for childs appearance in court
- to be used only as a measure of last resort
- for the shortest time possible only

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
28
C. Cases

CASE TITLE QUICK FACTS HELD DOCTRINE


Stack v. Boyle (1951) Stack et al. (all 12 of them) were Motion to reduce bail must be granted Bail set at a figure higher an amount
charged with a crime and bail was as said bail fixed by the trial court was reasonably calculated to fulfill its
fixed for each of them at different excessive. purpose is excessive.
amounts. Subsequently, bail was
uniformly fixed for all of them at $50k. Bail guarantees the right to freedom The function of the bail is limited,
Petitioners contended that said bail before conviction, which permits the hence the fixing of its amount for every
was excessive. Their motion to unhampered preparation of a defense, individual defendant must be based
reduce bail was denied. and serves to prevent the infliction of upon standards relevant to the
punishment prior to conviction. Bail purpose of assuring the presence of
also furthers the presumption of that defendant at trial. Standards must
innocence. be applied to each defendant
individually or on a case-to-case basis.
The right to release before trial is
conditioned upon the accuseds giving In fixing the amount of bail, the courts
adequate assurance that he will stand have to consider not only the offense
trial and submit to sentence if found charged, but also the personal and
guilty. financial circumstances of the
defendant.
Yap v. CA (2001) Yap was convicted of estafa by RTC Bail must be reduced. Excessive bail Bail is not intended as a punishment. It
and sentenced to at least 4 years and is not allowed by the Constitution as it is also not intended to satisfy an
2 months to 8 years of imprisonment. would render the right against accuseds civil liability, which would
He filed a motion to fix bail pending excessive bail meaningless. If the necessarily await judgment on the
appeal before CA which was granted. amount is excessive, provisional merits.
His bail was fixed at 5.5M and the liberty can never be had.
appellate court also required him to The purpose for bail is to guarantee
surrender his passport, aside from But CAs HDO and order of the appearance of the accused at the
issuing a hold departure order (HDO) surrendering Yaps passport are valid trial, or whenever so required by the
as there was a high probability that as they are lawful. Yap was not court.
Yap would go out of the country. He prohibited from changing abodes but
moved for the amount of bails merely to inform the court if he does Courts have a wide latitude in fixing
reduction, which was denied. Yap so. the amount of bail. Where they fear
alleged that said bail was equivalent that the accused may jump bail, they
to his civil liability and that this is are not precluded from installing
prohibited, and that his right to travel devices to ensure against the same.
and right to change abodes are Options may include increasing the
impaired by the HDO. bail bond to an appropriate level, or
requiring the person to report

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
29
periodically to the court and to make
an accounting of his movements.
Manotoc v. CA (1986) Manotoc was charged with estafa. He Manotoc cannot leave the country. His An accused who is out on bail does
was admitted on bail on surety. He purpose of traveling was not urgent. not have an unrestricted right to travel.
then filed a Motion for Permission to Courts can issue such an order. This The constitutional right to travel is not
Leave the Country because he is a necessary consequence of the absolute.
wanted to go to US for business nature and function of the bail bond.
transactions and opportunities. This The condition that an accused make
was denied. himself available at all times whenever
the court requires his presence
operates as a valid restriction on his
right to travel.

If sureties have the right to prevent the


principal, more so have the courts the
right to prohibit an accused from
leaving the country.
Esteban v. Alhambra (2004) Esteban posted a cash bond for her Esteban is wrong as the bail she Cash bail is treated differently from
brother-in-law. While out on bail, the posted earlier cannot be canceled other bail bonds as a cash bond may
brother-in-law was charged with anymore. be posted either by the accused or by
another crime for which he was any person in his behalf. As far as the
arrested and detained. So Esteban Esteban did not surrender her brother- State is concerned, the money
threw her hands in the air, gave up, in-law, which is a condition for deposited is regarded as money of the
and decided that because her brother- cancellation of the bail bond. accused which can be applied in
in-law was unbelievable, she would payment of any fine and costs that
not post another bail for him. Esteban Also, the bail bond posted was in the may be imposed by the court.
then filed an application to cancel the form of cash deposit which shall be
bail bonds she previously posted and applied to the payment of fine and Residue of the bail bond is not subject
said that she was doing so in lieu of costs, and the excess, if any, shall be to claim of creditor.
surrendering her brother-in-law who returned to the accused or to any
was already in jail. Her motion was person who made the deposit.
denied.
Taborite v. Sollesta (2003) Respondent Judge Sollesta granted It was error for Judge Sollesta to have In this jurisdiction, before a judge may
the accuseds petition for bail despite done so. grant an application for bail, whether
lack of notice to the public prosecutor. bail is a matter of right or discretion,
During the bail hearing, only the The hearing conducted was without prosecutor must be given reasonable
police and the private prosecutor were the presence of the public prosecutor. notice of hearing or he must be asked
present. The accused was charged Remember that the offense was a to submit his recommendation.
with murder. capital one (murder), and if the public
prosecutor were not present during Prosecution must be accorded an

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
30
the bail hearing, how could the opportunity to present evidence. It is
prosecution prove that the evidence of on the basis of such evidence that
guilt of the accused is strong, as judicial discretion is exercised in
required by the Rules, in order for the determining whether the evidence of
court to exercise its sound discretion guilt of the accused is strong.
in determining whether bail must be
granted or not? Granting bail in non-bailable offenses
without hearing is gross ignorance of
The evidence as to the accuseds guilt the law.
is strong. Judge Sollestas granting of
bail was not proper. This cannot be
countenanced in this jurisdiction.
Serapio v. Sandiganbayan (2003) Serapio, Jinggoy, Erap, et al. were It was error for SB to say that Serapio A person deprived of his liberty by
charged with plunder (jueteng). need be arraigned first before his bail virtue of his arrest or voluntary
Arraignment was set. Meantime, hearing could be had. surrender may apply for bail as soon
Serapio filed an urgent petition for bail as he is deprived of his liberty, even
before SB. Jinggoy filed a very urgent Serapio may apply for bail and at the before a complaint or information is
petition for bail. Then SB issued an same time file an MTQ as the two are filed against him. When bail is a matter
order declaring that no petition for bail not antithetical to each other. Their of right, an accused may apply for and
can and should be heard before purposes are different and not be granted bail even prior to
Serapios arraignment and even inconsistent with each other. arraignment.
before the other accused filed their
respective petitions for bail. The joinder of Serapios petition for
Ombudsman filed an urgent motion bail with the other accused is not
for early arraignment of Erap, proper. As nothing in the Rules (or SB
Jinggoy, and Serapio and a motion for internal rules) touch on this matter, as
joint bail hearings of the three. a rule, it is left with the discretion of
Serapio filed a manifestation the court. But said joinder would
questioning the propriety of including unduly delay Serapios cause, as
Erap and Jinggoy in the hearing of his during the hearing for bail, Erap may
petition for bail. insist on cross-examining Serapio and
his witnesses unnecessarily.
Before bail hearing, Serapio filed an
MTQ information. He agreed to The People did not waive their right to
withdraw his MTQ as the prosecution present evidence against Serapio
objected to the same. because the delay in the conduct of
hearings was mainly due to Serapio,
Before bail hearing and arraignment, as he filed several dilatory motions.
again, Serapio filed a habeas corpus Bail hearings could not be conducted
and certiorari petitions with SC. He because of the numerous motions

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
31
also prayed that the People be filed by Serapio. That is the reason
declared to have waived their right to why the prosecution has not yet
present evidence in opposition to his presented any evidence.
petition for bail.
Finally, habeas corpus is not the
In fine, Serapio filed several dilatory correct remedy for Serapios release,
motions to the point that SB could not so said writ cannot lie. The proper
proceed with his bail hearing and remedy is the hearing for his
arraignment because as said court application for bail.
was just about to begin with said
hearing, Serapio would file another
motion, which had to be settled first
before the bail hearing could be had.
Chua v. CA (2007) Chiok was convicted of estafa and The cancellation of bail was proper. Bail may be cancelled upon motion of
was sentenced to 12 years to 20 Chiok has no right to be freed on bail the prosecution (1) if the penalty
years imprisonment. He was out on pending his appeal from the judgment. imposed, after conviction, is not
bail. Then the prosecution, upon He was convicted, and the penalty reclusion perpetua, death, or life
Chioks conviction, moved to cancel imposed on him justifies the imprisonment [discretionary]; and (2)
the bail on the ground that Chiok cancellation of his bail pursuant to par. upon a showing that any of the
might flee or commit another crime. 3, Section 5 (b), (d) and (e) of Rule circumstances mentioned in par. 3,
This motion was granted. Also, Chiok 114. Sec. 5, Rule 114 is present.
did not appear during promulgation.
Chiok failed to appear despite notice
during the promulgation of judgment.
His inexcusable non-appearance not
only violated the condition of his bail
that he shall appear before the court
whenever required by the latter or
the Rules, but also showed the
probability that he might flee or
commit another crime while released
on bail.
Leviste v. CA (2010) Leviste was charged with murder but No, Leviste must not be admitted to Pending appeal of a conviction by
was convicted by RTC of homicide bail pending appeal. Considering the RTC of an offense not punishable by
and was sentenced to 6 years and 1 offense with which Leviste was death, reclusion perpetua, or life
day to 12 years and 1 day of charged and the penalty imposed by imprisonment, admission to bail is
imprisonment. Pending appeal to CA, RTC, bail becomes discretionary. discretionary.
he filed an urgent petition for
admission to bail, citing his advanced Notwithstanding the absence of any of The discretion to allow or disallow bail
age and health condition. CA denied the circumstances mentioned in par. pending appeal in a case where the

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
32
said application. Leviste brought the 3, Sec. 5, Rule 114, bail is still decision of RTC convicting the
matter to SC arguing that since none discretionary on the part of the accused changed the nature of the
of the circumstances enumerated appellate court. offense from non-bailable to bailable is
under par. 3, Sec. 5, Rule 114 are exclusively lodged with the appellate
present, he must be admitted to bail The enumeration under par. 3, Sec. 5, court.
pending appeal. Rule 114 is not exclusive. Moreover,
Levistes conviction is proof enough Bail is a matter of right when the
that the evidence as to his guilt is offense charged is not punishable by
strong, so it follows that bail must be death, reclusion perpetua, or life
denied. imprisonment. Bail becomes
discretionary (1) upon conviction by
RTC of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment; and (2) if RTC imposed
a penalty exceeding 6 years.

Bail shall be denied when any of the


circumstances under par. 3, Sec. 5,
Rule 114 is present.

X. ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA RULE 116 (BY PATRICK MANALO)

A. Cases

CASE TITLE QUICK FACTS HELD DOCTRINE


US v. Santiago (1916) Santiago was charged in an Santiago is correct. He may not be A plea of guilty admits only material
information with (slight physical sentenced to suffer imprisonment in facts alleged in the information. When
injuries). The information alleged the the maximum period since no the accused pleaded guilty to the
facts and circumstances as to how aggravating circumstance was alleged information under which he was
Santiago committed said crime, with in the information. Minimum penalty brought to trial, his plea did not admit
no aggravating circumstances only. the existence of an aggravating
whatever. He pleaded guilty. He was circumstance as none was alleged.
convicted with the maximum penalty.
Santiago questioned this.
People v. Chua (2001) Chua was charged in an information of Chua was not properly arraigned and When an accused enters a guilty plea,
(incestuous) rape. On the first his plea was invalid. Sec. 3, Rule 116 the court must determine the
information, he pleaded not guilty. But provides the procedure to be taken up voluntariness of the said plea and the
he manifested during pretrial that he by the court when the accused pleads accuseds comprehension of its

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
33
was withdrawing his earlier plea and guilty to a capital offense. Said consequences. To search means to
changing it to a plea of guilty. At the procedure is mandatory. But here, the look into or over carefully or
nd
2 pretrial, the court propounded trial judge failed to fully explain to thoroughly in an effort to find
several questions to Chua inquiring Chua the consequences of his guilty something. Said search must be
into the voluntariness of his change of plea. The judge also did not make a focused on: (1) the voluntariness of
plea and of his comprehension of its searching inquiry into the the plea; and (2) the full
consequences. Then Chua was circumstances surrounding Chuas comprehension of the consequences
rearraigned where he entered a plea plea of guilty. of said plea.
of guilty. Chua was sentenced to
death. Suggested procedure in inquiring into
the voluntariness of an accuseds
guilty plea to a capital offense:

1. Ascertain from the accused himself


(a) how he was brought into the
custody of the law; (b) whether he had
the assistance of a competent counsel
during the custodial and preliminary
investigations; and (c) under what
conditions he was detained and
interrogated during the investigations.

2. Ask the defense counsel a series of


questions as to whether he had
conferred with, and completely
explained to, the accused the meaning
and consequences of a plea of guilty.

3. Elicit information about the


personality profile of the accused,
such as his age, socio-economic
status, and educational background,
which may serve as a trustworthy
index of his capacity to give a free and
informed plea of guilty.

4. Inform the accused the exact length


of imprisonment or nature of the
penalty under the law and the certainty
that he will serve such sentence.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
34
5. Inquire if the accused knows the
crime with which he is charged and
fully explain to him the elements of the
crime which is the basis of his
indictment.

6. All questions posed to the accused


should be in a language known and
understood by the latter.

7. The trial judge must satisfy himself


that the accused, in pleading guilty, is
truly guilty. The accused must be
required to narrate the tragedy or
reenact the crime or furnish its missing
details.
People v. Durango (2000) Durango was charged with rape (2 It was error for RTC to have allowed It is essential that a searching inquiry
counts). He pleaded not guilty. Months Durango to reenter another plea. is conducted after the accused pleads
later, after the prosecution had barely Initially, Durango entered a plea of not guilty to a capital offense, and it must
started with the presentation of its guilty. Just as the victim was called to focus on: (1) the voluntariness of the
witnesses, the defense counsel the witness stand, the defense plea; and (2) a complete
manifested to the court that Durango manifested its intention to change comprehension of the legal effects of
wanted to withdraw his earlier plea of pleas. This was a case of an the plea so that the plea of guilt can be
not guilty and to substitute it with a improvident plea. truly said as being based on a free
plea of guilty. So Durango was and informed judgment.
rearraigned and he pleaded guilty. Durango was deprived of due process.
Then the case was already submitted He was not apprised of the A plea of guilt to a capital offense can
for decision. consequences of his guilty plea at all, be held null and void where TC has
let alone specifically warned that, inadequately discharged the duty of
given his plea of guilt, the death conducting the prescribed searching
sentence would nevertheless have to inquiry.
be imposed. There must have been a
searching inquiry (see People v. No valid judgment can be rendered
Chua). upon an invalid arraignment.
People v. Magat (2000) Magat was found guilty of raping his The plea bargaining was improper, but Convictions based on a plea of guilty
daughter (2 informations). On Magats subsequent rearraignment to a capital offense because of
arraignment, he pleaded guilty but cured said defect, hence the trial that improvidence would be set aside only
bargained for a lesser penalty. The ensued was valid and the penalty if such plea is the sole basis of the
complainants mother (Magats wife) imposed upon Magat was proper. He judgment.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
35
and the public prosecutor agreed. must die.
Magat was then sentenced to 10 years When the judge receives evidence to
imprisonment for each case. The plea bargaining that happened determine precisely whether or not the
was not the plea bargaining accused has erred in admitting guilt,
Months later, the cases were revived contemplated and allowed by the law. the manner in which the plea of guilty
as complainant complained that the The only instance where a plea is made loses legal significance
penalty imposed was too light. So bargaining is allowed is when an because the conviction is predicated
Magat was rearraigned where he accused pleads guilty to a lesser not on the plea alone but on the
entered a plea of not guilty. Trial offense, per Sec. 2, Rule 116. Here, evidence proving the commission of
ensued. Then Magat entered a plea of Magat did not plead to a lesser the offense charged.
guilty again. A searching inquiry was offense but pleaded guilty to the rape
made. Magat chose not to present any charges and only bargained for a
evidence, so he was then sentenced lesser penalty. He did not plea bargain
to death penalty for each case. but made conditions on the penalty to
be imposed. In other words, it was a
conditional plea.

But the subsequent rearraignment


was valid, and it cured whatever
procedural infirmity the first
arraignment had. Also, the
prosecution already presented its
evidence. Even if there were an
improvident plea of guilt, the evidence
on record can sustain the conviction.
People v. Madraga (2000) Madraga was charged with rape on 2 Madraga was properly arraigned even Searching inquiry is not necessary if
informations. He pleaded guilty to the if there was no searching inquiry the crime is not a capital offense, even
st
1 information (the information did not made, but he must not die as the if the accused pleads guilty thereto.
properly allege the circumstances, offense for which he was charged was
namely age and relationship, as not a capital one. The circumstances
Madraga raped his minor daughter, of age and relationship, which would
which would make said crime a capital make said offense capital, were not
offense). Then the prosecution alleged in the body of the information
presented its evidence. Madraga was at all.
found guilty as charged, and was
sentenced to death penalty. Failure to allege the fact of filiation and
minority in the information for rape is
fatal and consequently bars conviction
of its qualified form which is
punishable with death.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
36
People v. Bello (1999) Bello was charged with 4 counts of Bello was not properly rearraigned. A searching inquiry means more
rape committed against his own (See the procedure above re: plea of than informing cursorily the accused
daughter. On arraignment, Bello guilty to a capital offense.) Here, the that he faces a jail term but so also,
pleaded not guilty. The prosecution court failed to explain to Bello the full the exact length of imprisonment
then presented its evidence. At trial, consequences of his guilty plea. No under the law and the certainty that he
Bello manifested that he wanted to searching inquiry was made. will serve time in prison. A plea of
withdraw his earlier plea of not guilty, guilty to a capital offense does not
and substitute a plea of guilty. This Bello said that he was afraid he might mean that an accused will be given a
was permitted by the judge. Bello was get killed that is why he entered a plea lesser penalty than what he really
then rearraigned. Later, however, of guilt. He was very adamant, deserves, or that his plea of guilty will
during the continuation of the trial, changing his mind every time. Clearly, be considered a mitigating
Bello moved for the reinstatement of he was not aware of the circumstance.
his plea of not guilty, but this was consequences of his plea, that even if
denied. Bello was then found guilty he pleaded guilty, he would still be A plea of guilty must be an
and was sentenced to death. sentenced to death penalty. This the unconditional admission of guilt. An
court below failed to make Bello accused may not foist a conditional
understand. plea of guilty in the sense that he
admits his guilt provided that a certain
penalty will be meted unto him.

A formal plea of not guilty should


properly be entered if an accused
admits the truth of some or all the
allegations of the information, but
interposes excuses or additional facts
which, if duly established would
exempt or relieve him in whole or in
part of criminal responsibility.

XI. QUASHAL RULE 117 (BY KATZ RIVERA & OYIE JAVELOSA)

A. STATUTES AND RULES

1.) RULE 117


Section 1. Time to move to quash. At any time before entering his plea, the accused may move to quash the complaint or information.

Sec. 2. Form and contents. The motion to quash shall be in writing, signed by 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, except lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
37
Sec. 3. Grounds. The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds:
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
(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;
(f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law;
(g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
(h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and
(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.
Sec. 4. Amendment of complaint or information. 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.
If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the prosecution shall be given by the court an opportunity to correct the defect by
amendment. The motion shall be granted if the prosecution fails to make the amendment, or the complaint or information still suffers from the same defect despite
the amendment.

Sec. 5. Effect of sustaining the motion to quash. If the motion to quash is sustained, the court may order that another complaint or information be filed except
as provided in section 6 of this rule. If the order is made, the accused, if in custody, shall not be discharged unless admitted to bail. If no order is made or if having
been made, no new information is filed within the time specified in the order or within such further time as the court may allow for good cause, the accused, if in
custody, shall be discharged unless he is also in custody of another charge.

Sec. 6. Order sustaining the motion to quash not a bar to another prosecution; exception. An order sustaining the motion to quash is not a bar to another
prosecution for the same offense unless the motion was based on the grounds specified in section 3 (g) and (i) of this Rule.

Sec. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. When an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and
substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be
a bar 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.
However, 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 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;
(b) the facts constituting the graver charge became known 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 except as provided in
section 1(f) of Rule 116.
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.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
38
Sec. 8. Provisional dismissal. A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except with the express consent of the accused and with notice to the offended
party.
The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any amount, or both, shall become permanent
one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. With respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6)
years, their provisional dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having been revived.

Sec. 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefore. The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he
pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a
waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of this Rule.

2.) CONST., ART. III, SEC. 21

Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal
under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

B. CASES

1. GENERALLY

TITLE (YEAR) QUICK FACTS HELD DOCTRINE


Lopez v. City Judge (1966) An information was filed by the City Fiscal Quashal was VALID. City Court of Former rule on denial of MTQ:
against petitioners for falsification of a private Angeles did not have jurisdiction to - Enter a plea of not guilty, go to
document before the City Court of Angeles. try the case, which is a ground for trial, and in case of adverse
Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss before the the issuance of an MTQ. decision, file an appeal using
Fiscal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the grounds alleged in the
the City Court of Angeles to try the case, as Respondent Judge mistakes MTQ.
the papers were made in Makati and QC. This quashal for demurrer, the former
was not acted on by the Fiscal. being broader in scope. MTQs are Court held that this is no longer the
not limited to defects apparent on rule, and CERTIORARI MAY NOW
Petitioners thereafter filed a Motion to Quash the face of the complaint, but may BE ISSUED TO ANNUL A DENIAL
before the City Court on the ground of lack of also extend to factual issues. OF MTQ.
jurisdiction, which was denied. Respondent
Judge argues that the filing of an MTQ The procedural rule that petitioners In the interest of substantial justice, it
assumes the truth of the allegations and may should have, upon denial of their would be unreasonable to compel an
not be used to question jurisdiction. MTQ, entered a plea of not guilty, accused to go through a trial that
gone to trial, and appealed an could later be found to have been
Petitioners challenge the denial on certiorari adverse decision on the grounds done in violation of his constitutional
before the SC. used in the MTQ, can now be rights.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
39
overlooked. Certiorari may issue.
People v. Nitafan (1999) 3 informations were filed against Imelda Quashal was INVALID. A judge Right to file an MTQ belongs only to
Marcos for violation of BSP Circulars before cannot moto proprio quash an the accused. Nothing in the rules
RTC Pasig. Prosecution later filed a motion to information without any motion by authorize the court to motu proprio
consolidate the above with 21 cases pending the accused. initiate a quashal if no motion was
before RTC Manila as they relate to a series of filed by the accused.
transactions. RTC Pasig granted the motion, Save for matters of jurisdiction, the
provided that RTC Manila did not object. rules only contemplate MTQs filed
by the accused. Nowhere in the
Respondent RTC Manila Judge, without any rules is a motu proprio quashal
motion from Marcos, denied the motion for contemplated.
consolidation and quashed 2/21 informations
pending before his sala, on the ground of the Respondent judge violated the right
BSP Circular allegedly violated was an ex post of the due process right of the
facto law, and that the filing of cases in RTC prosection, as his motu proprio
Pasig placed Marcos in double jeopardy. quashal led him to pre-judge the
case.
People v. Cadabis (1955) An information was filed against respondent Quashal was INVALID. That GENERAL RULE: Hearing of MTQs
policeman Cadabis for bringing a firearm in a Cadabis fell within the exception should only consider facts as are
polling place on the day of voting and under law was not for the alleged in the information and those
canvassing, in violation of election rules. In his prosecution to disprove at first admitted by the fiscal.
MTQ, he attached a document allegedly from instance, but for the defense to
the board of poll inspectors requesting him to prove during trial. That the Matters of defense cannot be
stay in the premises to maintain order, proving prosecution failed to dispute the produced during such hearings.
that his presence fell within an exception document is not a ground for
provided by law. Prosecution objected to the quashal. That the accused does not fall within
attachment. an exception provided for law is not a
Moreover, the document presented matter that must be included in an
MTQ was granted on the ground that the was a matter of defense of the information. It is for the defendant to
prosecution failed to dispute the alleged accused which should not be taken prove during trial.
document made by the board allowing or considered in hearing MTQs.
Cadabis to stay in the polling place, hence
also failing to prove that he did not fall under
the exception.

Prosecution challenges the MTQ for having


been granted on the basis of evidence (i.e. the
document) not presented during trial.
People v. dela Rosa (1980) Private respondent Edery was charged with Quashal was VALID. Respondent EXCEPTION TO GENERAL RULE
having brought into the country 28 gold bars judge validly considered the that hearings on MTQs should only

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
40
without declaring them to Customs for additional information (i.e. consider facts alleged in the
appraisal of duties and taxes. admissions made by prosecution) in information (see above):
deciding on the MTQ. - Additional facts not alleged in
Private respondent filed an MTQ on the the information but admitted by
ground that the facts contained in the Petitioners insistence that only the the prosecution may be
information did not constitute the offense strength of the information should be invoked in support of the MTQ.
charged (in that she was not covered by the considered in deciding MTQs and
rule allegedly violated), for which she used that the court should close its eyes
certain admissions made by the prosecution to evidence the petitioner itself
during presentation of evidence for her benefit. presented/admitted is a resort to
Respondent Judge granted the MTQ. technicality which is frowned upon
by the court in the interest of
Prosecution argues that MTQs must be substantial justice.
decided on the strength of the information, and
may not go beyond them to inquire into the It was a mistake for the prosecution
merits of the case. to make too many admissions during
pre-trial, as this will force the judge
to make judge an MTQ on the
merits, as the court cannot close its
eyes to evidence already brought
before the court.

2. DOUBLE JEOPARDY

TITLE (YEAR) QUICK FACTS HELD DOCTRINE


US v. Jenkins (1973) Defendant Jenkins was charged for refusing THERE IS DOUBLE JEOPARDY. Double jeopardy bars an appeal of a
and failing to submit to induction into the decision where a defendant has been
Armed Forces in violation of a US military The District Courts decision relied acquitted after trial on the merits or
conscription statute. The District Court on the precise circumstances of the when the trier of facts has rendered a
dismissed the case, finding that the SC defendants case in dismissing the determination of guilt or innocence on
decision the Government was invoking was case, the case being effectively the basis of facts adduced at the trial.
not applicable to Jenkins case. decided by trial on the merits.

Government now appeals the case. Having been decided on the merits,
double jeopardy clause bars an
appeal from the acquittal.
US v. Scott (1978) Respondent Scott was charged with 3 counts NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY. Double jeopardy bars an appeal from
of distribution of narcotics. He moved to Respondent sought the dismissal for acquittal when the acquittal
dismiss the first 2 on the ground of pre- a cause which did not depend on a represents a resolution on some or

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
41
indictment delay, and this was granted before determination of guilt or innocence, the factual elements of the offense
the end of presentation of evidence. and did so voluntarily. charged and rests upon a resolution
Government sought to appeal the dismissal, on the sufficiency of a case against a
but the court held that any further prosecution By choosing to seek termination of defendant.
of the respondent amounts to Double the trial without any submission as
Jeopardy. to his guilt or innocence, an appeal Double Jeopardy clause does not
by government from his successful relieve a defendant from the
effort to avoid trial is not barred. consequences of his voluntary choice.

This is not a picture of an all-


powerful state pursuing a defendant
already acquitted that the double
jeopardy clause seeks to prevent.
Lockhart v. Nelson (1988) Respondent Nelson was found guilty of NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY. Reversal In cases where a conviction had to be
burglary. Having been previously convicted of of convictions due to ordinary trial set aside due to the erroneous
at least 4 felonies, an Arkansas habitual errors or incorrect reception of admission of evidence, and without it
criminal statute in such cases provided for the evidence has nothing to do with the there is insufficient evidence to
imposition of an enhanced term of guilt or innocence of the accused. support a conviction, but the sum of
imprisonment. During sentencing, State evidence presented (erroneous or
presented 4 previous felony convictions, but In this case, prior to the discovery of not) was enough to support the same,
unknown at the time to all parties, one of the the pardon, there was enough Double Jeopardy does not forbid a
convictions had been pardoned. Enhanced evidence to sustain a conviction. retrial.
prison term was applied. And parties having had no
knowledge of the pardon, all 4 Such retrial is not the evil sought to
Via writ of habeas corpus, respondent assailed convictions presented enjoyed be prevented. In fact, it affords the
his enhanced sentence as invalid for having probative value. A retrial recreates defendant an opportunity to obtain a
been partly based on a pardoned conviction. the situation where upon the fair adjudication of his guilt.
District Court invalidated the sentence. State showing of proof that one of the
sought to resentence him, using another prior convictions upon which the verdict
conviction not offered (as only 4 were was based was invalid, the trial court
necessary), but the court ruled that the Double should have excluded the pardoned
Jeopardy Clause prevented the State from conviction and allowed the State to
resentencing. produce additional evidence.
Cudia v. CA (1998) An information for illegal possession of NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY. Jeopardy Requisites for attachment of first
firearms in Mabalacat, Pampanga was filed did not attach in the first case jeopardy:
against petitioner Cudia by the City Prosecutor because the City Prosecutor did not 1. Court of competent jurisdiction
of Angeles. The case went before RTC have the authority to file the 2. Valid complaint or info
Angeles Branch 60, where petitioner pleaded information on which it was based 3. Arraignment
not guilty. This was later transferred to Branch due to lack of jurisdiction. The first 4. Valid plea
56 due to an internal arrangement Angeles information having been fatally 5. Acquittal/ conviction/ dismissal

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
42
courts where crimes committed outside defective for lack of the officer filing without consent of accused.
Angeles were to be tried by the said branch. it, a requisite to constitute double
jeopardy is lacking. Jeopardy does not attach where a
Another information for the same offense was defendant pleads to a defective
filed by the Provincial Prosecutor of It was the Provincial Prosecutor who information.
Pampanga, not knowing that one had already had the authority to file the
been filed, which was also heard by Branch information.
56. The City Prosecutor later on withdrew the
earlier case due to the duplication, which the While an internal arrangement of the
court allowed. RTC Branches caused the transfer
of the case to Branch 56, Branch 60
Petitioner alleges that he having been still had jurisdiction by proviso of
arraigned in the first case, prosecution under law. Hence, the arraignment and
the second information placed him under plea made there was valid.
double jeopardy.
People v. Alvarez (1923) Accused Alvarez was convicted of estafa for NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY. The acts TEST for determining WoN a
selling his car to another without informing the penalized by both laws are prosecution for one crime constitutes
latter that it was mortgaged. On appeal, he essentially different. While one act an obstacle to a subsequent action:
argues that the action for estafa (violation of that of selling a mortgaged - WoN the facts alleged in the
Art 537 of the Penal Code) placed him in property is common to both Act second information, if
double jeopardy as he had already been 1508 and Art 537, both require the proven, would have been
previously convicted for the same act under a concurrence of another act sufficient to support the
different law (violation of Act 1508). different in each case to commit former information, of which
any of the same. One of these laws the accused may have been
can be violated without violating the acquitted or convicted.
other. Hence, conviction in the first
case was no obstacle to the second.

People v. Relova (1987) The police discovered that electrical wiring, DOUBLE JEOPARDY BARS THE The constitutional protection against
devices and contraptions had been installed, SUBSEQUENT FILING OF double jeopardy is available so long
without the necessary authority from the city INFORMATION FOR THEFT. as the acts which constitute or have
government, in the building owned by Manuel given rise to the first offense under a
Opulencia. An information against him was There is an identity of offense municipal ordinance are the same
filed for violation of Ordinance No. 1, Series of between the two offenses charged. acts which constitute or have given
1974, Batangas City. He subsequently filed a The taking of electric current was rise to the offense charged under a
motion to dismiss on the grounds that the integral with the unauthorized statute.
crime has already prescribed and the civil installation of electric wiring and
indemnity sought to be recovered is beyond devices. The relevant acts for the The identity of offenses need not be
the jurisdiction of Batangas City Court. The two offenses took place within the absolute identity: the first and second
court granted his motion to dismiss. same time frame. The accused offenses may be regarded as same

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
43
Another information was filed against conceded that he effected or offense where the second offense
Opulencia for theft of electric power under Art permitted such unauthorized necessarily includes the first offense
308 of RPC. He filed a Motion to Quash installation for the very purpose of or is necessary included in such first
alleging that he had been previously acquitted reducing electric power bill. offense or where the second offense
of the offense charged in the second is an attempt to commit the first or a
information. frustration thereof.

People v. del Carmen An information for the crime of malicious THERE IS DOUBLE JEOPARDY. While the rule against double
(1951) mischief was filed against accused. Upon The act complained of in the case jeopardy prohibits prosecution for the
motion of counsel for accused, the court for coercion is the same which same offense, it seems elementary
dismissed the case on the ground that the formed the basis of the information that an accused should be shielded
prosecution failed to prove that the act for malicious mischief. against being prosecuted for several
charged was inspired by resentment, rancor or offenses made out of a single act.
desire for revenge.
Another information was filed for coercion.
Defendants filed a Motion to Quash on the
grounds of double jeopardy and insufficiency
of allegations.
People v. Gloria (1977) An information was filed in CFI of Nueva Ecija, DOUBLE JEOPARDY IS PRESENT.
Guimba Branch, against accused for theft of There is here an identity of offenses.
large cattle belonging to Jacinto Sebastian, The essential elements of theft of
Simeon Makasiki and Florentino Salcedo. After large cattle in the first case
trial the court found a variance between the constituted the same essential
allegations in the Information and the proof elements of the offense charged in
submitted. The Judge convicted him of theft of the second, and the evidence
large cattle belonging to Donato Corpuz supporting the conviction upon the
committed on April 18, 1971 in Sto. Domingo, first case was the same evidence
Nueva Ecija. which warranted conviction upon the
Another case of theft of large cattle was filed second.
against accused in CFI Branch VI The carabaos subject of the second
(Cabanatuan) in which he was accused of charge were the same carabaos
having stolen certain carabaos on April 18, object of the first conviction.
1971 belonging to Donato Corpuz in Sto.
Domingo, NE. Accused pleaded double
jeopardy invoking his previous conviction.
Esmea v. Pogoy (1981) Petitioners were charged with grave coercion REVIVAL OF THE CASE WOULD In order that legal jeopardy may exist,
having allegedly forced Reverend Father CONSTITUTE DOUBLE there should be (a) a valid complaint
Tibudan of the Jaro Cathedral to withdraw the JEOPARDY. The petitioners were or information (b) before a court of
sum of P5,000 from the bank and give it to placed in jeopardy by the provisional competent jurisdiction and (c) the
them because the priest lost it in a game of dismissal of the grave coercion accused has been arraigned and has

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
44
cards. The hearing for the case was case. It is not very clear that the pleaded to the complaint or
suspended for several occasions because petitioners consented to the information.
(1)fiscal lost his record; and (2) father was sick dismissal of the case. The judge
during the scheduled hearing. Petitioners should have taken the precaution of When these three conditions are
invoked their right to have a speedy trial. The making sure that the dismissal was present, the acquittal or conviction of
judge provisionally dismissed the case on the with their consent. The case should the accused or the dismissal of the
ground that the case has been dragging all not be revived. case without his express consent
along and the accused are ready for hearing constitutes res judicata and is a bar to
but the fiscal was not ready with his witness. another prosecution for the offense
The fiscal filed a motion for the revival of the charged.
case. The judge granted the motion.
Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss in the
ground of double jeopardy, arguing that they
did not consent to the provisional dismissal of
the case.
People v. Adil (1977) The first criminal complaint filed against NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY. It was People v Yorac: if after the first
accused was for slight physical injuries only later, after filing the first case, prosecution a new fact supervenes on
(requiring medical attendance from 5 to 9 that the wound on the face of the which defendant may be held liable,
days). Another complaint was filed for serious victim had already healed, that the resulting in altering the character of
physical injuries (would heal from 5-9 days and alleged deformity became apparent. the crime and giving rise to a new and
leaving a permanent scar and deforming on The deformity may be considered as distinct offense, the accused cannot
the right face). The first case was dismissed a supervening event. be said to be in second jeopardy if
because of several postponements. Accused indicted for the new offense.
moved for the dismissal of second case on the
ground of double jeopardy.
People v. Velasco (2000) Mayor Galvez was charged with one count of DOUBLE JEOPARDY BARS THE The general rule is that a remand to
murder and 2 counts of frustrated murder for SC FROM REVIEWING SUCH a trial court of a judgment of acquittal
the death of Alex Vinculado and for the injuries ACQUITTAL. Trial on the merits was brought before the SC on certiorari
sustained by Levi Vinculado and Miguel already held. The judge based his cannot be had unless there is a
Vinculado, Jr. Galvez was also charged with finding of acquittal upon evidence finding of a mistrial. In such cases,
unauthorized carrying of firearm. RTC presented by both parties. no double jeopardy attaches as said
absolved Galvez of all charges. The trials produce a void judgment
government appealed his acquittal. Galvez
raised the issue of double jeopardy.
People v. Obsania (1968) The victim and her parents filed a complaint for NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY WITH The application of the doctrines of
rape with robbery. Subsequently the fiscal filed THE APPEAL OF FISCAL. waiver and estoppel requires two sine
an information for rape against accused, Upon motion to dismiss of the qua non conditions: (1) dismissal
embodying the allegations of the first case, but accused, such dismissal is to be must be sought or induced by the
adding that the offense was committed with regarded as with the express defendant personally or through his
lewd designs. consent of the accused and counsel; and (2) such dismissal must

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
45
The accused moved for dismissal of the case consequently he is deemed to have not be on the merits and must not
because the complaint failed to allege lewd waived his right to plead double necessarily amount to an acquittal.
designs and the subsequent filing of jeopardy and/or he is estopped from
information by the fiscal did not cure the claiming such defense on appeal by
jurisdictional infirmity. The lower court granted the State in another indictment for
the motion to dismiss. Fiscal appealed. the same offense.
Green v. US (1957) Green was indicted by a grand jury in two THERE IS DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
counts. The first charged him with the Green was tried again for first
commission of arson by maliciously setting fire degree murder even though the
to a house. The second accused him if original jury had refused to find him
causing the death of a woman by this alleged guilty on that charge. The second
arson. Upon this second charge the jury has a trial placed Green in jeopardy twice
choice of convicting him either for first degree for the same offense in violation of
murder or second degree murder. After trial, the Constitution.
the jury found him guilty of arson and of
second degree murder*. He appealed the
conviction of second degree of murder. CA
reversed the conviction and remanded the
case for a new trial.
On remand, Green was tried again for first
degree murder. He raised the defense of
former jeopardy.

*second degree murder- killing of another with


malice
Ashe v. Swenson (1970) Six men playing poker game were robbed by THERE IS DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
3-4 men. Accused was charged with robbery The first trial has already answered
by one of the victims, Knight. The jury found the issue of whether or not accused
him not guilty due to insufficiency of evidence. was one of the robbers. This is the
Subsequently, accused was brought to trial same issue the second trial aims to
again this time for the robbery of another prove. The prosecution cannot treat
victim, Roberts. Accused filed a motion to the first trial as a mere dry run and
dismiss based on his previous acquittal. after refining his presentation, file a
subsequent case.
Alonto v. People (2004) Alonto was charged with violation of BP 22 NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY. The
because the check she issue das payment for subject of the previous cases of
jewelry she purchased was dishonoured. estafa and BP 22 was the check she
Petitioner was also charged with estafa. issued as payment for the jewelry.
Because Alonto promised that she would settle The subject of the 3 counts of BP 22
her obligations, respondent executed an subsequently filed were the checks

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
46
Affidavit of Desistance for the dismissal of both she issued as consideration for the
cases. Subsequently, Alonto issued 3 checks dismissal of the two prior cases.
which were subsequently dishonoured. 3
informations were filed with the RTC charging
her of violation of BP 22. The court found her
guilty for the 3 counts of violation of BP 22.
Accused appealed her conviction on the
ground that it constitutes double jeopardy.
Castro v. People (2008) Reedley IS dismissed Tans son for violating THERE IS DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
the terms of his disciplinary probation. Tan The CA erred in taking cognizance
filed a complaint in the DepEd and the latter of the petition. The appeal of OSG
ordered RIS to re-admit Tans son. questioned errors of judgment.
Tan talked to Ching, a fellow parent at RIS and However, in a Rule 65 petition for
he intimated that he was contemplating a suit certiorari, a court cannot review the
against the officers of RIS. Ching informed lower courts evaluation of the
Castro, the schools assistant headmaster, of evidence and factual findings.
Tans plan to sue its officers. Before hunging
up, Castro said, Okay, you too, take care and
be careful talking to Tan, thats dangerous.
Tan filed a complaint for grave oral
defamation. MeTC found Castro guilty of grave
oral defamation. On appeal, RTC found him
guilty of slight oral defamation, but because of
prescription, it acquitted Castro. CA reinstated
MeTCs decision.
Petitioner contends that CA should not have
entertained the appeal on the ground of double
jeopardy.
C. NOTES/ RIANO

Time for filing Motion to Quash:


1. At any time before accused enters his plea.
2. Generally not allowed in a summary procedure except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or failure to comply with the barangay
conciliation proceedings mentioned in Sec 18 of the 1991 Rule on Summary Procedure.

Form and contents of the motion to quash:


a. Must be in writing
b. shall be signed by the accused OR his counsel; and
c. shall distinctly specify the factual and legal grounds of the motion

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
47
[Rule 117, Sec 3] General rule: grounds not asserted in the motion to quash are waived, except for the following grounds:
a. that the facts charged do not constitute an offense
b. that the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged
c. that the criminal action or liability has been extinguished
d. double jeopardy

Jeopardy- danger of conviction and punishment which the defendant in a criminal action incurs when a valid indictment has been found. The constitution does not
prohibit placing a person in double jeopardy. It prohibits putting an accused in double jeopardy in which he is put in danger of punishment for the same offense
more than once.

First jeopardy requisites:


1. Valid complaint or information
2. Competent court
3. Arraignment
4. Valid plea
5. Dismissed/terminated

Second jeopardy requisites


1. That the first jeopardy attached
2. That first jeopardy validly terminated
3. Defendant is either:
-acquitted
-convicted
-case dismissed without consent of the accused
4. Second offense includes/necessarily includes same information or an information for attempt or frustration

The only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Existence of plea is an essential requisite to double jeopardy.

Provisional dismissal- dismissal of the criminal action is not permanent and can be revived within the period set by the Rules of Court.

XII. PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE AND PRE-TRIAL RULE 118 (BY KATZ RIVERA & OYIE JAVELOSA)

A. STATUTES AND RULES

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
48
1.) RULE 118
Section 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. In all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the court shall, after arraignment and within thirty (30) days from the date the
court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a shorter period is provided for in special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court, order a pre-trial
conference to consider the following:
(a) plea bargaining;
(b) stipulation of facts;
(c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties;
(d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
(e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense; and
(f) such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects of the case.
Sec. 2. Pre-trial agreement. All agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the
accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused. The agreements covering the matters referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be
approved by the court.
Sec. 3. Non-appearance at pre-trial conference. If the counsel for the accused or the prosecutor does not appear at the pre-trial conference and does not offer
an acceptable excuse for his lack of cooperation, the court may impose proper sanctions or penalties.
Sec. 4. Pre-trial order. After the pre-trial conference, the court shall issue an order reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated, and evidence marked. Such
order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of, and control the course f the action during the trial, unless modified by the court to prevent
manifest injustice.

2.) REV. RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE (1991), SEC. 14

Sec. 14. Preliminary conference. Before conducting the trial, the court shall call the parties to a preliminary conference during which a stipulation of facts may
be entered into, or the propriety of allowing the accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense may be considered, or such other matters may be taken up to
clarify the issues and to ensure a speedy disposition of the case. However, no admission by the accused shall be used against him unless reduced to writing and
signed by the accused and his counsel. A refusal or failure to stipulate shall not prejudice the accused.

3.) ADMIN. CIRC. NO. 03-1-09-SC dated 13 JULY 2004, I.B. CRIMINAL CASES

I. PRE-TRIAL
B. Criminal Cases
1. Before arraignment, the Court shall issue an order directing the public prosecutor to submit the record of the preliminary investigation to the Branch
COC for the latter to attach the same to the record of the criminal case.
Where the accused is under preventive detention, his case shall be raffled and its records transmitted to the judge to whom the case was raffled
within three days from the filing of the complaint or information. The accused shall be arraigned within ten days from the date of the raffle. The pre-
11
trial of his case shall be held within ten days after arraignment unless a shorter period is provided for by law.
2. After the arraignment, the court shall forthwith set the pre-trial conference within thirty days from the date of arraignment, and issue an order: (a)
requiring the private offended party to appear thereat for purposes of plea-bargaining except for violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
49
12
Act of 2002, and for other matters requiring his presence; (b) referring the case to the Branch COC, if warranted, for a preliminary conference to be
set at least three days prior to the pre-trial to mark the documents or exhibits to be presented by the parties and copies thereof to be attached to the
records after comparison and to consider other matters as may aid in its prompt disposition; and (c) informing the parties that no evidence shall be
allowed to be presented and offered during the trial other than those identified and marked during the pre-trial except when allowed by the court for
good cause shown. A copy of the order is hereto attached as Annex "E". In mediatable cases, the judge shall refer the parties and their counsel to
the PMC unit for purposes of mediation if available.
3. During the preliminary conference, the Branch COC shall assist the parties in reaching a settlement of the civil aspect of the case, mark the
documents to be presented as exhibits and copies thereof attached to the records after comparison, ascertain from the parties the undisputed facts
and admissions on the genuineness and due execution of documents marked as exhibits and consider such other matters as may aid in the prompt
disposition of the case. The proceedings during the preliminary conference shall be recorded in the Minutes of Preliminary Conference to be signed
by both parties and counsel. (Please see Annex "B")
The Minutes of Preliminary Conference and the exhibits shall be attached by the Branch COC to the case record before the pre-trial.
4. Before the pre-trial conference the judge must study the allegations of the information, the statements in the affidavits of witnesses and other
documentary evidence which form part of the record of the preliminary investigation.
5. During the pre-trial, except for violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the trial judge shall consider plea-bargaining
13
arrangements. Where the prosecution and the offended party agree to the plea offered by the accused, the court shall:
a. Issue an order which contains the plea bargaining arrived at;
b. Proceed to receive evidence on the civil aspect of the case; and
14
c. Render and promulgate judgment of conviction, including the civil liability or damages duly established by the evidence.
6. When plea bargaining fails, the Court shall:
a. Adopt the minutes of preliminary conference as part of the pre-trial proceedings, confirm markings of exhibits or substituted photocopies and
admissions on the genuineness and due execution of documents and list object and testimonial evidence;
b. Scrutinize every allegation of the information and the statements in the affidavits and other documents which form part of the record of the
preliminary investigation and other documents identified and marked as exhibits in determining farther admissions of facts, documents and
15
in particular as to the following:
1. the identity of the accused;
2. court's territorial jurisdiction relative to the offense/s charged;
3. qualification of expert witness/es;
4. amount of damages;
5. genuineness and due execution of documents;
6. the cause of death or injury, in proper cases;
7. adoption of any evidence presented during the preliminary investigation;
8. disclosure of defenses of alibi, insanity, self-defense, exercise of public authority and justifying or exempting circumstances; and
9. such other matters that would limit the facts in issue.
c. Define factual and legal issues;
d. Ask parties to agree on the specific trial dates and adhere to the flow chart determined by the court which shall contain the time frames for the
different stages of the proceeding up to promulgation of decision and use the time frame for each stage in setting the trial dates;
e. Require the parties to submit to the Branch COC the names, addresses and contact numbers of witnesses that need to be summoned
16
by subpoena; and
f. Consider modification of order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
50
7. During the pre-trial, the judge shall be the one to ask questions on issues raised therein and all questions must be directed to him to avoid hostilities
between parties.
8. All agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel,
otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused. The agreements covering the matters referred to in Section 1 of Rule 118 shall be approved
by the court. (Section 2, Rule 118)
9. All proceedings during the pre-trial shall be recorded, the transcripts prepared and the minutes signed by the parties and/or their counsels.
10. The trial judge shall issue a Pre-trial Order within ten (10) days after the termination of the pre-trial setting forth the actions taken during the pre-trial
conference, the facts stipulated, the admissions made, evidence marked, the number of witnesses to be presented and the schedule of trial. Said
Order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of and control the course the action during the trial.

4.) REP. ACT. NO. 8493 (1998) SPEEDY TRIAL ACT OF 1998, SECS. 2-5

Section 2. Mandatory Pre-Trial in Criminal Cases. - In all cases cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court,
Regional Trial Court, and the Sandiganbayan, the justice or judge shall, after arraignment, order a pre-trial conference to consider the following:

(a) Plea bargaining;

(b) Stipulation of Facts;

(c) Marking for identification of evidence of parties;

(d) Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; and

(e) Such other matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial.

Section 3. Pre-Trial Agreement. - All agreements or admissions made or entered into during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced to writing and signed by the
accused and counsel, otherwise the same shall not be used in evidence against the accused. The agreements in relation to matters referred to in Section 2 hereof
is subject to the approval of the court: Provided, That the agreement on the plea of the accused to a lesser offense may only be revised, modified, or annulled by
the court when the same is contrary to law, public morals, or public policy.

Section 4. Nonappearance at Pre-Trial Conference. - Where counsel for the accused or the prosecutor does not appear at the pre-trial conference and does not
offer an acceptable excuse for his/her lack of cooperation, the pre-trial justice or judge may impose proper sanctions or penalties.

Section 5. Pre-Trial Order. - After the pre-trial conference, the court shall issue an order reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated, and evidence marked. Such
order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of and control the course of action during the trial, unless modified by the court to prevent
manifest injustice.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
51
5.) SC CIRC. NO. 38-98-SC dated AUGUST 11, 1998

IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8493, ENTITLED "AN ACT TO ENSURE A SPEEDY TRIAL OF ALL CRIMINAL CASES BEFORE
THE SANDIGANBAYAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."

SECTION 1. PURPOSE OF CIRCULAR. This Circular is promulgated for the purpose of implementing the provisions of Republic Act No. 8493, otherwise
known as the "Speedy Trial Act of 1998," as directed in Section 15 hereof.

Sec. 2. TIME LIMIT FOR ARRAIGNMENT AND PRE-TRIAL. The arraignment and the pre-trial, if the accused pleads not guilty to the crime charged, shall be
held within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The period of the pendency of a motion to quash, or for a
bill of particulars, or other causes justifying suspension of arraignment shall be excluded.

Sec. 3. MANDATORY PRE-TRIAL IN CRIMINAL CASES. In all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the court shall, after arraignment, order a pre-trial conference to
consider the following:

(a) Plea bargaining;

(b) Stipulation of facts;

(c) Marking for identification of evidence of the parties;

(d) Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; and

(e) Such other matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects of the case.

If the accused has pleaded not guilty to the crime charged, he may state whether he interposes a negative or affirmative defense. A negative defense shall require
the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, while an affirmative defense may modify the order of trial and require the accused to
prove such defense by clear and convincing evidence.

Sec. 4. PRE-TRIAL AGREEMENT. All agreements or admissions made or entered into during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced to writing and signed
by the accused and counsel, otherwise the same shall not be used against the accused. The agreements in relation to matters referred to in Section 3 hereof are
subject to the approval of the court; Provided, That the agreement on the please of the accused should be to a lesser offense necessarily included in the offense
charged.

Sec. 5. NON-APPEARANCE AT PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE. Where counsel for the accused or the prosecutor does not appear at the pretrial conference and
does not offer an acceptable excuse for his lack of cooperation, the court may impose proper sanctions or penalties.

Sec. 6. PRE-TRIAL ORDER. After the pre-trial conference, the court shall issue an order reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated, and the evidence

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
52
marked. Such order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of and control the course of action during the trial, unless modified by the court to
prevent manifest injustice.

Thereafter, where a plea of not guilty is entered, the accused shall have at least fifteen (15) days to prepare for trial which shall commence within thirty (30) days
from receipt of the pre-trial order.

Sec. 7. EXTENDED TIME LIMIT. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding sections 2 and 6 for the first twelve-calendar-month period following its
effectivity, the time limit with respect to the period from arraignment to trial imposed by said provision shall be one hundred eighty (180) days. For the second
twelve-month period, the time limit shall be one hundred twenty (120) days, and for the third twelve-month period the time limit shall be eighty (80) days.

Sec. 8. TIME LIMIT FOR TRIAL. In criminal cases involving persons charged with a crime, except those subject to the Rule of Summary Procedure, or where
the penalty prescribed by law does not exceed six (6) months imprisonment, or a fine of one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) or both, irrespective of other imposable
penalties, the court shall, after consultation with the public prosecutor and the counsel for the accused, set the case for continuous trial on a weekly or other short-
term trial calendar at the earliest possible time so as to ensure speedy trial. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the
first day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by the Court Administrator pursuant to Section 2, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court.

Sec. 9. EXCLUSIONS. The following periods of delay shall be excluded in computing the time within which trial must commence:

(a) Any period resulting from other proceedings concerning the accused, including but not limited to the following:

(1) delay resulting from an examination of the physical and mental condition of the accused;

(2) delay resulting from proceedings with respect to other criminal charges against the accused;

(3) delay resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders;

(4) delay resulting from pre-trial proceedings; Provided, that the delay does not exceed thirty (30) days;

(5) delay resulting from orders of inhibition or proceedings relating to change of venue of cases or transfer from other courts;

(6) delay resulting from a finding of the existence of a valid prejudicial question; and

(7) delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty (30) days, during which any proceeding concerning the accused is actually under
advisement.

(b) Any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of an essential witness.

For purposes of this subparagraph, an essential witness shall be considered absent when his whereabouts are unknown or his whereabouts cannot be
determined by due diligence. An essential witness shall be considered unavailable whenever his whereabouts are known but his presence for trial cannot
be obtained by due diligence.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
53
(c) Any period of delay resulting from the fact that the accused is mentally incompetent or physically unable to stand trial.

(d) If the information is dismissed upon motion of the prosecution and thereafter a charge is filed against the accused for the same offense, any
period of delay from the date the charge was dismissed to the date the time limitation would commence to run as to the subsequent charge had there
been no previous charge.

(e) A reasonable period of delay when the accused is mentally incompetent or physically unable to stand trial.

(f) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any court motu propio or on motion of either the accused for the same offense, any
period of delay from the date the charge was dismissed to the date the time limitation would commence to run as to the subsequent charge had there
been no previous charge.

Sec. 10. FACTORS FOR GRANTING CONTINUANCE. The following factors, among others, shall be considered by a court in determining whether to grant a
continuance under subparagraph (f) of Section 9 hereof:

(a) Whether or not the failure to grant a continuance in the proceeding would be like to make a continuation of such proceeding impossible, or result
in a miscarriage of justice; and

(b) Whether or not the case taken as a whole is so novel, unusual and complex, due to the number of accused or the nature of the prosecution or
otherwise, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation within the periods of time established herein.

No continuance under subparagraph (f) Section 9 hereof shall be granted because of congestion of the courts calendar, or lack of diligent preparation or failure to
obtain available witnesses on the part of the public prosecutor.

Sec. 11. TIME LIMIT FOLLOWING AN ORDER FOR NEW TRIAL. If the accused is to be tried again pursuant to an order of a court for a new trial, the trial shall
commence within thirty (30) days from notice of that order, except that the court retrying the case may extend such period but not to exceed one hundred eighty
(180) days from notice of said order for a new trial if unavailability of witnesses or other factors make trial within thirty (30) days impractical.

Sec. 12. PUBLIC ATTORNEYS DUTIES WHERE ACCUSED IS IMPRISONED. If the public attorney assigned to defend a person charged with a crime knows
that the latter is preventively detained, either because he is charged with a bailable crime and has no means to post bail, or is charged with a non-bailable crime,
or is serving a term of imprisonment in any penal institution:

(a) The public attorney shall promptly undertake to obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial, or cause a notice to be served on the person having
custody of the prisoner requiring such person to so advise the prisoner of his right to demand trial.

(b) Upon receipt of that notice, the person having custody of the prisoner shall promptly advise the prisoner of the charge and of his right to demand
trial, If at any time thereafter the prisoner informs his custodian that he demands such trial, the latter shall cause notice to that effect to be sent promptly
to the public attorney.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
54
(c) Upon receipt of such notice, the public attorney shall promptly seek to obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial.

(d) When the person having custody of the prisoner receives from the public attorney a properly supported request for the availability of the prisoner
for purposes of the trial, the prisoner shall be made available accordingly.

Sec. 13. SANCTIONS. In any case in which private counsel for the accused, the public attorney or the public prosecutor:

(a) knowingly allows the case to be set for trial without disclosing the fact that a necessary witness would be unavailable for trial;

(b) files a motion solely for the purpose of delay which he knows is totally frivolous and without merit;

(c) makes a statement for the purpose of obtaining continuance which he know to be false and which is material to the granting of a continuance; or

(d) otherwise willfully fails to proceed to trial without justification consistent with the provisions hereof, the court may punish any such counsel,
attorney or prosecutor, as follows:

(1) in the case of a counsel privately retained in connection with the defense of an accused, by imposing a fine of not exceeding twenty thousand
pesos (P20,000.00);

(2) by imposing on any appointed counsel de oficio, public attorney or public prosecutor a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00); and

(3) by denying any defense counsel or public prosecutor the right to practice before the court considering the case for a period not exceeding thirty
(30) days.

The authority to punish provided for by this section shall be without prejudice to any appropriate criminal action or any other sanction authorized under the Rules of
Court.

Sec. 14. REMEDY WHERE ACCUSED IS NOT BROUGHT TO TRIAL WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT. If the accused is not brought to trial within the time limit
required by Sections 2 and 6 hereof, as extended by Section 7, the information may be dismissed on motion of the accused on the ground of denial of his right to
speedy trial. The accused shall have the burden of proving such motion by the prosecution shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence in connection
with the exclusion of time under Section 9 hereof. The dismissal shall be subject to the rules on double jeopardy.

Failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismiss under this section.

Sec. 15. REPUBLIC ACT NO 8493 NOT A BAR TO PROVISION ON SPEEDY TRIAL IN THE CONSTITUTION. No provision of Republic Act No. 8493 shall be
interpreted as a bar to any charge of denial of speedy trial as provided by Article III, Section 14(2), of the 1987 Constitution.

Sec. 16. EFFECTIVITY. This Circular shall be published in two (2) newspapers of general circulation and shall take effect on September 15, 1998.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
55
6.) A.M. NO. 03-1-09-SC dated 13 JULY 2004, supra

B. CASES

TITLE (YEAR) QUICK FACTS HELD DOCTRINE


Bayas v. Sandiganbayan Petitioners were charged with violation of Sec PETITIONERS CANNOT For a pre-trial agreement to be
(2002) 3(e) of RA 3019 and two counts of WITHDRAW THE STIPULATION binding on the accused, it must satisfy
malversation through falsification under Art OF FACTS THEY HAVE the following conditions: (1) the
217 of the RPC. The petitioners pleaded not PREVIOUSLY MADE. Once validly agreement or admission must be in
guilty. During the pretrial conference the entered into, stipulations will not be writing, and (2) it must be signed by
parties submitted a Joint Stipulation of Facts set aside unless for good cause. No both the accused and their counsel.
and Documents admitting the disbursement of fraud or serious mistake vitiated the
money and documents which will be used as petitioners consent in signing the Once these two conditions are met,
documentary evidence. Counsel of petitioners stipulations. Petitioners admitted the stipulations become binding on
file a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel which that they had freely given their the parties who made them. They
was granted by the Sandiganbayan. consent on signing them. become judicial admissions of the fact
The new counsel of petitioners moved to or facts stipulated.
withdraw the Joint Stipulation of Facts and
Documents. Specifically, they sought to
withdraw the stipulation which states that
petitioners admit the disbursement of money
and Exhibits 1 to 8-a.
People v. Sitao (2002) Accused Sitao was charged with the crime of PENALTY IS REDUCED TO Circumstances that qualify a crime
rape committed against her own daughter. It RECLUSION PERPETUA. An and increases its penalty to death
was stipulated in the pre-trial proceeding that accused cannot be condemned to cannot be the subject of stipulation.
the victim is the daughter of the accused and suffer death penalty on the basis of
that the victim was only 14 years old at the stipulations or his own admissions.
time of alleged commission of the offense. The The prosecution should have proved
RTC found accused guilty of the crime of rape the circumstances which would
and sentenced to suffer death penalty. qualify rape. The bare testimony of
the victim and her mother as to their
ages and relation to the accused is
insufficient.

C. NOTES/RIANO

In all criminal cases, pre-trial is mandatory in the following court:


a. Sandiganbayan
b. RTC

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
56
c. MeTC, MTC in Cities, MTC, Municipal Circuit Trial Court

Pre-trial is held for the purpose of considering the following:


a. plea bargaining
b. stipulation of facts
c. marking for identification of evidence of the parties
d. waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence
e. modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense
f. such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects of the case

Within 10 days after termination of the pre-trial, the trial judge shall issue a Pre-trial Order setting forth:
a. actions taken during the pre-trial conference
b. the facts stipulated
c. the admissions made
d. the evidence marked
e. the number of witnesses to be presented
f. schedule of the trial

XIII. TRIAL RULE 119; RULE 116 SEC. 9 & SEC. 11; RULE 115 (BY LORAINE SAGUINSIN)

A. RULES OF COURT
1.) RULE 116 ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA SECTION 9 AND 11

Section 9. Bill of particulars. The accused may, before arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead and to prepare for trial.
The motion shall specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and the details desired. (10a)

Section 11. Suspension of arraignment. Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases:

(a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effective renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him
and to plead intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order his mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for such purpose;

(b) There exists a prejudicial question; and

(c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice, or the Office of the President; provided, that the
period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office. (12a)

2.) RULE 115 RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
57
Rights of Accused

Section 1. Rights of accused at the trial. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights:

(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

(c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The accused
may, however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for purposes
of identification. The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present
thereat. When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on all subsequent trial dates until custody over him
is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his right
without the assistance of counsel.

(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner
prejudice him.

(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.

(f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is
deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial
or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross-examine him.

(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf.

(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.

(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law. (1a)

3.) RULE 119 - TRIAL

Section 1. Time to prepare for trial. After a plea of not guilty is entered, the accused shall have at least fifteen (15) days to prepare for trial. The trial shall
commence within thirty (30) days from receipt of the pre-trial order. (sec. 6, cir. 38-98)

Section 2. Continuous trial until terminated; postponements. Trial once commenced shall continue from day to day as far as practicable until terminated.
It may be postponed for a reasonable period of time for good cause. (2a)

The court shall, after consultation with the prosecutor and defense counsel, set the case for continuous trial on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at the

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
58
earliest possible time so as to ensure speedy trial. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the first day of trial, except as
otherwise authorized by the Supreme Court. (sec. 8, cir. 38-98).

The time limitations provided under this section and the preceding section shall not apply where special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court provide for a
shorter period of trial. (n)

Section 3. Exclusions. The following periods of delay shall be excluded in computing the time within which trial must commence:

(a) Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the accused, including but not limited to the following:

(1) Delay resulting from an examination of the physical and mental condition of the accused;

(2) Delay resulting from proceedings with respect to other criminal charges against the accused;

(3) Delay resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders;

(4) Delay resulting from pre-trial proceedings; provided, that the delay does not exceed thirty (30) days;

(5) Delay resulting from orders of inhibition, or proceedings relating to change of venue of cases or transfer from other courts;

(6) Delay resulting from a finding of the existence of a prejudicial question; and

(7) Delay reasonably attributable to any period, not exceed thirty (30) days, during which any proceeding which any proceeding concerning the accused is
actually under advisement.

(b) Any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of an essential witness.

For purposes of this subparagraph, an essential witness shall be considered absent when his whereabouts are unknown or his whereabouts cannot be determined
by due diligence. He shall be considered unavailable whenever his whereabouts are known but his presence for trial cannot be obtained by due diligence.

(c) Any period of delay resulting from the mental incompetence or physical inability of the accused to stand trial.

(d) If the information is dismissed upon motion of the prosecution and thereafter a charge is filed against the accused for the same offense, any period of
delay from the date the charge was dismissed to the date the time limitation would commence to run as to the subsequent charge had there been no previous
charge.

(e) A reasonable period of delay when the accused is joined for trial with a co-accused over whom the court has not acquired jurisdiction, or, as to whom the
time for trial has not run and no motion for separate trial has been granted.

(f) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any court motu proprio, or on motion of either the accused or his counsel, or the prosecution,

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
59
if the court granted the continuance on the basis of its findings set forth in the order that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest
of the public and the accused in a speedy trial. (sec. 9, cir. 38-98)

Section 4. Factors for granting continuance. The following factors, among others, shall be considered by a court in determining whether to grant a
continuance under section 3(f) of this Rule.

(a) Whether or not the failure to grant a continuance in the proceeding would likely make a continuation of such proceeding impossible or result in a
miscarriage of justice; and

(b) Whether or not the case taken as a whole is so novel, unusual and complex, due to the number of accused or the nature of the prosecution, or that it is
unreasonable to expect adequate preparation within the periods of time established therein.

In addition, no continuance under section 3(f) of this Rule shall be granted because of congestion of the court's calendar or lack of diligent preparation or failure to
obtain available witnesses on the part of the prosecutor. (sec. 10, cir. 38-98)

Section 5. Time limit following an order for new trial. If the accused is to be tried again pursuant to an order for a new trial, the trial shall commence
within thirty (30) days from notice of the order, provided that if the period becomes impractical due to unavailability of witnesses and other factors, the court may
extend it but not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from notice of said order for a new trial. (sec. 11, cir. 38-98)

Section 6. Extended time limit. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1(g), Rule 116 and the preceding section 1, for the first twelve-calendar-month
period following its effectivity on September 15, 1998, the time limit with respect to the period from arraignment to trial imposed by said provision shall be one
hundred eighty (180) days. For the second twelve-month period, the limit shall be one hundred twenty (120) days, and for the third twelve-month period, the time
limit shall be eighty (80) days. (sec. 7, cir. 38-98)

Section 7. Public attorney's duties where accused is imprisoned. If the public attorney assigned to defend a person charged with a crime knows that the
latter is preventively detained, either because he is charged with a bailable crime but has no means to post bail, or, is charged with a non-bailable crime, or, is
serving a term of imprisonment in any penal institution, it shall be his duty to do the following:

(a) Shall promptly undertake to obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial or cause a notice to be served on the person having custody of the prisoner
requiring such person to so advise the prisoner of his right to demand trial.

(b) Upon receipt of that notice, the custodian of the prisoner shall promptly advise the prisoner of the charge and of his right to demand trial. If at anytime
thereafter the prisoner informs his custodian that he demands such trial, the latter shall cause notice to that effect to sent promptly to the public attorney.

(c) Upon receipt of such notice, the public attorney shall promptly seek to obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial.

(d) When the custodian of the prisoner receives from the public attorney a properly supported request for the availability of the prisoner for purposes of trial,
the prisoner shall be made available accordingly. (sec. 12, cir. 38-98)

Section 8. Sanctions. In any case in which private counsel for the accused, the public attorney, or the prosecutor.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
60
(a) Knowingly allows the case to be set for trial without disclosing that a necessary witness would be unavailable for trial;

(b) Files a motion solely for delay which he knows is totally frivolous and without merit;

(c) Makes a statement for the purpose of obtaining continuance which he knows to be false and which is material to the granting of a continuance; or

(d) Willfully fails to proceed to trial without justification consistent with the provisions hereof, the court may punish such counsel, attorney, or prosecution, as
follows:

(1) By imposing on a counsel privately retained in connection with the defense of an accused, a fine not exceeding twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00);

(2) By imposing on any appointed counsel de oficio, public attorney, or prosecutor a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00); and

(3) By denying any defense counsel or prosecutor the right to practice before the court trying the case for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days. The
punishment provided for by this section shall be without prejudice to any appropriate criminal action or other sanction authorized under these rules. (sec. 13, cir.
38-98)

Section 9. Remedy where accused is not brought to trial within the time limit. If the accused is not brought to trial within the time limit required by Section
1(g), Rule 116 and Section 1, as extended by Section 6 of this rule, the information may be dismissed on motion of the accused on the ground of denial of his right
of speedy trial. The accused shall have the burden of proving the motion but the prosecution shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence to establish
the exclusion of time under section 3 of this rule. The dismissal shall be subject to the rules on double jeopardy.

Failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismiss under this section. (sec. 14, cir. 38-98)

Section 10. Law on speedy trial not a bar to provision on speedy trial in the Constitution. No provision of law on speedy trial and no rule implementing the
same shall be interpreted as a bar to any charge of denial of the right to speedy trial guaranteed by section 14(2), article III, of the 1987 Constitution. (sec. 15, cir.
38-98)

Section 11. Order of trial. The trial shall proceed in the following order:

(a) The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge and, in the proper case, the civil liability.

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

(c) The prosecution and the defense may, in that order, present rebuttal and sur-rebuttal evidence unless the court, in furtherance of justice, permits them to
present additional evidence bearing upon the main issue.

(d) Upon admission of the evidence of the parties, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision unless the court directs them to argue orally or to submit
written memoranda.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
61
(e) When the accused admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or information but interposes a lawful defense, the order of trial may be modified.
(3a)

Section 12. Application for examination of witness for accused before trial. When the accused has been held to answer for an offense, he may, upon
motion with notice to the other parties, have witnesses conditionally examined in his behalf. The motion shall state: (a) the name and residence of the witness; (b)
the substance of his testimony; and (c) that the witness is sick or infirm as to afford reasonable ground for believing that he will not be able to attend the trial, or
resides more than one hundred (100) kilometers from the place of trial and has no means to attend the same, or that other similar circumstances exist that would
make him unavailable or prevent him from attending the trial. The motion shall be supported by an affidavit of the accused and such other evidence as the court
may require. (4a)

Section 13. Examination of defense witness; how made. If the court is satisfied that the examination of a witness for the accused is necessary, an order
will be made directing that the witness be examined at a specified date, time and place and that a copy of the order be served on the prosecutor at least three (3)
days before the scheduled examination. The examination shall be taken before a judge, or, if not practicable, a member of the Bar in good standing so designated
by the judge in the order, or if the order be made by a court of superior jurisdiction, before an inferior court to be designated therein. The examination shall proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the prosecutor provided he was duly notified of the hearing. A written record of the testimony shall be taken. (5a)

Section 14. Bail to secure appearance of material witness. When the court is satisfied, upon proof or oath, that a material witness will not testify when
required, it may, upon motion of either party, order the witness to post bail in such sum as may be deemed proper. Upon refusal to post bail, the court shall commit
him to prison until he complies or is legally discharged after his testimony has been taken. (6a)

Section 15. Examination of witness for the prosecution. When it satisfactorily appears that a witness for the prosecution is too sick or infirm to appear at
the trial as directed by the order of the court, or has to leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning, he may forthwith be conditionally examined before
the court where the case is pending. Such examination, in the presence of the accused, or in his absence after reasonable notice to attend the examination has
been served on him, shall be conducted in the same manner as an examination at the trial. Failure or refusal of the accused to attend the examination after notice
shall be considered a waiver. The statement taken may be admitted in behalf of or against the accused. (7a)

Section 16. Trial of several accused. When two or more accused are jointly charged with any offense, they shall be tried jointly unless the court, in its
discretion and upon motion of the prosecutor or any accused, orders separate trial for one or more accused. (8a)

Section 17. Discharge of accused to be state witness. When two or more persons are jointly charged with the commission of any offense, upon motion of
the prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses for the
state when, after requiring the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge,
the court is satisfied that:

(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;

(b) The is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said accused;

(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
62
(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and

(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.

Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. If the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness,
his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence. (9a)

Section 18. Discharge of accused operates as acquittal. The order indicated in the preceding section shall amount to an acquittal of the discharged
accused and shall be a bar to future prosecution for the same offense, unless the accused fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance with his
sworn statement constituting the basis for the discharge. (10a)

Section 19. When mistake has been made in charging the proper offense. When it becomes manifest at any time before judgment that a mistake has
been made in charging the proper offense and the accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged or any other offense necessarily included therein, the
accused shall not be discharged if there appears good cause to detain him. In such case, the court shall commit the accused to answer for the proper offense and
dismiss the original case upon the filing of the proper information. (11a)

Section 20. Appointment of acting prosecutor. When a prosecutor, his assistant or deputy is disqualified to act due to any of the grounds stated in section
1 of Rule 137 or for any other reasons, the judge or the prosecutor shall communicate with the Secretary of Justice in order that the latter may appoint an acting
prosecutor. (12a)

Section 21. Exclusion of the public. The judge may, motu proprio, exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced during the trial is
offensive to decency or public morals. He may also, on motion of the accused, exclude the public from the trial, except court personnel and the counsel of the
parties. (13a)

Section 22. Consolidation of trials of related offenses. Charges for offenses founded on the same facts or forming part of a series of offenses of similar
character may be tried jointly at the discretion of the court. (14a)

Section 23. Demurrer to evidence. After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on
its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court.

If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed
without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution. (15a)

The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically state its grounds and shall be filed within a non-extendible period of five (5) days after
the prosecution rests its case. The prosecution may oppose the motion within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from its receipt.

If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice. The prosecution may
oppose the demurrer to evidence within a similar period from its receipt.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
63
The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before
judgment. (n)

Section 24. Reopening. At any time before finality of the judgment of conviction, the judge may, motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either case,
reopen the proceedings to avoid a miscarrage of justice. The proceedings shall be terminated within thirty (30) days from the order grating it. (n)

B. CONSTITUTION, STATUTES AND RULES

1.) CONSTITUTION, ART. III, SECS. 12, 14, 16 AND 17

Section 12.
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar
practices, and their families.

Section 14.
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel,
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

2.) REVISED RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE (1991), SECTION 14, 18-20

Sec. 14. Preliminary conference. Before conducting the trial, the court shall call the parties to a preliminary conference during which a stipulation of facts may
be entered into, or the propriety of allowing the accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense may be considered, or such other matters may be taken up to
clarify the issues and to ensure a speedy disposition of the case.However, no admission by the accused shall be used against him unless reduced to writing and
signed by the accused and his counsel.A refusal or failure to stipulate shall not prejudice the accused.

Sec. 18. Referral to Lupon. Cases requiring referral to the Lupon for conciliation under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1508 where there is no

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
64
showing of compliance with such requirement, shall be dismissed without prejudice and may be revived only after such requirement shall have been complied with.
This provision shall not apply to criminal cases where the accused was arrested without a warrant.

Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions. The following pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule: chanrobles
virtual law library
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint or information except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure to
comply with the preceding section;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for opening of trial;
(d) Petition for relief from judgment;
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper; chanrobles virtual law library
(f) Memoranda;
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court;
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default; chanrobles virtual law library
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(j) Reply;
(k) Third party complaints;
(l) Interventions.

Sec. 20. Affidavits. The affidavits required to be submitted under this Rule shall state only facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiants which are
admissible in evidence, and shall show their competence to testify to the matters stated therein.
A violation of this requirement may subject the party or the counsel who submits the same to disciplinary action, and shall be cause to expunge the inadmissible
affidavit or portion thereof from the record.

3.) REPUBLIC ACT 8493 (1998) SECTION 6-14

AN ACT TO ENSURE A SPEEDY TRIAL OF ALL CRIMINAL CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, METROPOLITAN TRIAL
COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Section 6. Time Limit for Trial. - In criminal cases involving persons charged of a crime, except those subject to the Rules on Summary Procedure, or where the
penalty prescribed by law does not exceed six (6) months imprisonment, or a fine of One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) or both, irrespective of other imposable
penalties, the justice or judge shall, after consultation with the public prosecutor and the counsel for the accused, set the case for continuous trial on a weekly or
other short-term trial calendar at the earliest possible time so as to ensure speedy trial. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed one hundred eighty (180)
days from the first day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 3, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court.

Section 7. Time Limit Between Filing of Information and Arraignment and Between Arraignment and Trial. - The arraignment of an accused shall be held within
thirty (30) days from the filing of the information, or from the date the accused has appeared before the justice, judge or court in which the charge is pending,
whichever date last occurs. Thereafter, where a plea of not guilty is entered, the accused shall have at least fifteen (15) days to prepare for trial. Trial shall
commence within thirty (30) days from arraignment as fixed by the court.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
65
If the accused pleads not guilty to the crime charged, he/she shall state whether he/she interposes a negative or affirmative defense. A negative defense shall
require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, while an affirmative defense may modify the order of trial and require the
accused to prove such defense by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 8. Time Limit Following an Order for New Trial. - If the accused is to be tried again following an order of a court for a new trial, the trial shall commence
within thirty (30) days from the date the order for a new trial becomes final, except that the court retrying the case may extend such period but in any case shall not
exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the date the order for a new trial becomes final if unavailability of witnesses or other factors resulting from passage of
time shall make trial within thirty (30) days impractical.

Section 9. Extended Time Limit. - Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Act, for the first twelve-calendar-month period following its effectivity, the time
limit with respect to the period from arraignment to trial imposed by Section 7 of this Act shall be one hundred eighty (180) days. For the second twelve-month
period the time limit shall be one hundred twenty (120) days, and for the third twelve-month period the time limit with respect to the period from arraignment to trial
shall be eighty (80) days.

Section 10. Exclusions. - The following periods of delay shall be excluded in computing the time within which trial must commence:

(a) Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the accused, including but not limited to the following:

(1) delay resulting from an examination of the accused, and hearing on his/her mental competency, or physical incapacity;

(2) delay resulting from trials with respect to charges against the accused;

(3) delay resulting from interlocutory appeals;

(4) delay resulting from hearings on pre-trial motions: Provided, That the delay does not exceed thirty (30) days,

(5) delay resulting from orders of inhibition, or proceedings relating to change of venue of cases or transfer from other courts;

(6) delay resulting from a finding of the existence of a valid prejudicial question; and

(7) delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty (30) days, during which any proceeding concerning the accused is actually under
advisement.

(b) Any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of the accused or an essential witness.

For purposes of this subparagraph, an accused or an essential witness shall be considered absent when his/her whereabouts are unknown and, in addition,
he/she is attempting to avoid apprehension or prosecution or his/her whereabouts cannot be determined by due diligence. An accused or an essential witness
shall be considered unavailable whenever his/her whereabouts are known but his/her presence for trial cannot be obtained by due diligence or he/she resists
appearing at or being returned for trial.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
66
(c) Any period of delay resulting from the fact that the accused is mentally incompetent or physically unable to stand trial.

(d) If the information is dismissed upon motion of the prosecution and thereafter a charge is filed against the accused for the same offense, or any offense
required to be joined with that offense, any period of delay from the date the charge was dismissed to the date the time limitation would commence to run as to the
subsequent charge had there been no previous charge.

(e) A reasonable period of delay when the accused is joined for trial with a co-accused over whom the court has not acquired jurisdiction, or as to whom the
time for trial has not run and no motion for severance has been granted.

(f) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any justice or judge motu propio or on motion of the accused or his/her counsel or at the
request of the public prosecutor, if the justice or judge granted such continuance on the basis of his/her findings that the ends of justice served by taking such
action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. No such period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court in
accordance with this subparagraph shall be excludable under this section unless the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons
for finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the accused in a speedy trial.

Section 11. Factors for Granting Continuance. - The factors, among others, which a justice or judge shall consider in determining whether to grant a continuance
under subparagraph (f) of Section 10 of this Act are as follows:

(a) Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in the proceeding would be likely to make a continuation of such proceeding impossible, or result in a
miscarriage of justice.

(b) Whether the case taken as a whole is so novel, so unusual and so complex, due to the number of accused or the nature of the prosecution or otherwise,
that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation within the periods of time established by this Act.

No continuance under subparagraph (f) of Section 10 shall be granted because of general congestion of the court's calendar, or lack of diligent preparation or
failure to obtain available witnesses on the part of the public prosecutor.

Section 12. Public Attorney's Duties Where Accused is Imprisoned. - If the public attorney knows that a person charged of a crime is preventively detained, either
because he/she is charged of a bailable crime and has no means to post bail, or is charged of a non-bailable crime, or is serving a term of imprisonment in any
penal institution, the public attorney shall promptly:

(a) Undertake to obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial, or cause a notice to be served on the person having custody of the prisoner mandating such
person to so advise the prisoner of his/her right to demand trial.

(b) Upon receipt of a notice, the person having custody of the prisoner shall promptly advise the prisoner of the charge and of his/her right to demand trial. If
at any time thereafter the prisoner informs the person having custody that he/she demands trial, such person shall cause notice to that effect to be sent promptly to
the public attorney.

(c) Upon receipt of such notice, the public attorney shall promptly seek to obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
67
(d) When the person having custody of the prisoner receives from the public attorney a properly supported request for temporary custody of the prisoner for
trial, the prisoner shall be made available to that public attorney.

Section 13. Remedy Where Accused is Not Brought to Trial Within the Time Limit. - If an accused is not brought to trial within the time limit required by Section 7 of
this Act as extended by Section 9, the information shall be dismissed on motion of the accused. The accused shall have the burden of proof of supporting such
motion but the prosecution shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence in connection with the exclusion of time under Section 10 of this Act.

In determining whether to dismiss the case with or without prejudice, the court shall consider, among other factors, the seriousness of the offense, the facts and
circumstances of the case which led to the dismissal, and the impact of a reprosecution on the implementation of this Act and on the administration of justice.
Failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial or entry of a plea of guilty shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismissal under this section.

4.) SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR NO. 38-98-SC DATED 11 August 1998

AN ACT TO ENSURE A SPEEDY TRIAL OF ALL CRIMINAL CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, METROPOLITAN TRIAL
COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

SECTION 1. PURPOSE OF CIRCULAR. This Circular is promulgated for the purpose of implementing the provisions of Republic Act No. 8493, otherwise
known as the "Speedy Trial Act of 1998," as directed in Section 15 hereof.

Sec. 2. TIME LIMIT FOR ARRAIGNMENT AND PRE-TRIAL. The arraignment and the pre-trial, if the accused pleads not guilty to the crime charged, shall be
held within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The period of the pendency of a motion to quash, or for a
bill of particulars, or other causes justifying suspension of arraignment shall be excluded.

Sec. 3. MANDATORY PRE-TRIAL IN CRIMINAL CASES. In all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the court shall, after arraignment, order a pre-trial conference to
consider the following:

(a) Plea bargaining;

(b) Stipulation of facts;

(c) Marking for identification of evidence of the parties;

(d) Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; and

(e) Such other matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects of the case.

If the accused has pleaded not guilty to the crime charged, he may state whether he interposes a negative or affirmative defense. A negative defense shall require

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
68
the prosecution to proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, while an affirmative defense may modify the order of trial and require the accused to
prove such defense by clear and convincing evidence.

Sec. 4. PRE-TRIAL AGREEMENT. All agreements or admissions made or entered into during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced to writing and signed
by the accused and counsel, otherwise the same shall not be used against the accused. The agreements in relation to matters referred to in Section 3 hereof are
subject to the approval of the court; Provided, That the agreement on the please of the accused should be to a lesser offense necessarily included in the offense
charged.

Sec. 5. NON-APPEARANCE AT PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE. Where counsel for the accused or the prosecutor does not appear at the pretrial conference and
does not offer an acceptable excuse for his lack of cooperation, the court may impose proper sanctions or penalties.

Sec. 6. PRE-TRIAL ORDER. After the pre-trial conference, the court shall issue an order reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated, and the evidence
marked. Such order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of and control the course of action during the trial, unless modified by the court to
prevent manifest injustice.

Thereafter, where a plea of not guilty is entered, the accused shall have at least fifteen (15) days to prepare for trial which shall commence within thirty (30) days
from receipt of the pre-trial order.

Sec. 7. EXTENDED TIME LIMIT. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding sections 2 and 6 for the first twelve-calendar-month period following its
effectivity, the time limit with respect to the period from arraignment to trial imposed by said provision shall be one hundred eighty (180) days. For the second
twelve-month period, the time limit shall be one hundred twenty (120) days, and for the third twelve-month period the time limit shall be eighty (80) days.

Sec. 8. TIME LIMIT FOR TRIAL. In criminal cases involving persons charged with a crime, except those subject to the Rule of Summary Procedure, or where
the penalty prescribed by law does not exceed six (6) months imprisonment, or a fine of one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) or both, irrespective of other imposable
penalties, the court shall, after consultation with the public prosecutor and the counsel for the accused, set the case for continuous trial on a weekly or other short-
term trial calendar at the earliest possible time so as to ensure speedy trial. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the
first day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by the Court Administrator pursuant to Section 2, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court.

Sec. 9. EXCLUSIONS. The following periods of delay shall be excluded in computing the time within which trial must commence:

(a) Any period resulting from other proceedings concerning the accused, including but not limited to the following:

(1) delay resulting from an examination of the physical and mental condition of the accused;

(2) delay resulting from proceedings with respect to other criminal charges against the accused;

(3) delay resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders;

(4) delay resulting from pre-trial proceedings; Provided, that the delay does not exceed thirty (30) days;

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
69
(5) delay resulting from orders of inhibition or proceedings relating to change of venue of cases or transfer from other courts;

(6) delay resulting from a finding of the existence of a valid prejudicial question; and

(7) delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty (30) days, during which any proceeding concerning the accused is actually under
advisement.

(b) Any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of an essential witness.

For purposes of this subparagraph, an essential witness shall be considered absent when his whereabouts are unknown or his whereabouts cannot be determined
by due diligence. An essential witness shall be considered unavailable whenever his whereabouts are known but his presence for trial cannot be obtained by due
diligence.

(c) Any period of delay resulting from the fact that the accused is mentally incompetent or physically unable to stand trial.

(d) If the information is dismissed upon motion of the prosecution and thereafter a charge is filed against the accused for the same offense, any period of
delay from the date the charge was dismissed to the date the time limitation would commence to run as to the subsequent charge had there been no previous
charge.

(e) A reasonable period of delay when the accused is mentally incompetent or physically unable to stand trial.

(f) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any court motu propio or on motion of either the accused for the same offense, any period of
delay from the date the charge was dismissed to the date the time limitation would commence to run as to the subsequent charge had there been no previous
charge.

Sec. 10. FACTORS FOR GRANTING CONTINUANCE. The following factors, among others, shall be considered by a court in determining whether to grant a
continuance under subparagraph (f) of Section 9 hereof:

(a) Whether or not the failure to grant a continuance in the proceeding would be like to make a continuation of such proceeding impossible, or result in a
miscarriage of justice; and

(b) Whether or not the case taken as a whole is so novel, unusual and complex, due to the number of accused or the nature of the prosecution or otherwise,
that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation within the periods of time established herein.

No continuance under subparagraph (f) Section 9 hereof shall be granted because of congestion of the courts calendar, or lack of diligent preparation or failure to
obtain available witnesses on the part of the public prosecutor.

Sec. 11. TIME LIMIT FOLLOWING AN ORDER FOR NEW TRIAL. If the accused is to be tried again pursuant to an order of a court for a new trial, the trial shall
commence within thirty (30) days from notice of that order, except that the court retrying the case may extend such period but not to exceed one hundred eighty
(180) days from notice of said order for a new trial if unavailability of witnesses or other factors make trial within thirty (30) days impractical.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
70
Sec. 12. PUBLIC ATTORNEYS DUTIES WHERE ACCUSED IS IMPRISONED. If the public attorney assigned to defend a person charged with a crime knows
that the latter is preventively detained, either because he is charged with a bailable crime and has no means to post bail, or is charged with a non-bailable crime,
or is serving a term of imprisonment in any penal institution:

(a) The public attorney shall promptly undertake to obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial, or cause a notice to be served on the person having custody
of the prisoner requiring such person to so advise the prisoner of his right to demand trial.

(b) Upon receipt of that notice, the person having custody of the prisoner shall promptly advise the prisoner of the charge and of his right to demand trial, If at
any time thereafter the prisoner informs his custodian that he demands such trial, the latter shall cause notice to that effect to be sent promptly to the public
attorney.

(c) Upon receipt of such notice, the public attorney shall promptly seek to obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial.

(d) When the person having custody of the prisoner receives from the public attorney a properly supported request for the availability of the prisoner for
purposes of the trial, the prisoner shall be made available accordingly.

Sec. 14. REMEDY WHERE ACCUSED IS NOT BROUGHT TO TRIAL WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT. If the accused is not brought to trial within the time limit
required by Sections 2 and 6 hereof, as extended by Section 7, the information may be dismissed on motion of the accused on the ground of denial of his right to
speedy trial. The accused shall have the burden of proving such motion by the prosecution shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence in connection
with the exclusion of time under Section 9 hereof. The dismissal shall be subject to the rules on double jeopardy.

Failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismiss under this section.

Sec. 15. REPUBLIC ACT NO 8493 NOT A BAR TO PROVISION ON SPEEDY TRIAL IN THE CONSTITUTION. No provision of Republic Act No. 8493 shall be
interpreted as a bar to any charge of denial of speedy trial as provided by Article III, Section 14(2), of the 1987 Constitution.

5.) REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6981 (1991)

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A WITNESS PROTECTION, SECURITY AND BENEFIT PROGRAM AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Section 3. Admission into the Program. - Any person who has witnessed or has knowledge or information on the commission of a crime and has testified or is
testifying or about to testify before any judicial or quasi-judicial body, or before any investigating authority, may be admitted into the Program:

Provided, That:

a) the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined under the Revised Penal Code, or its equivalent under special laws;

b) his testimony can be substantially corroborated in its material points;

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
71
c) he or any member of his family within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity is subjected to threats to his life or bodily injury or there is a
likelihood that he will be killed, forced, intimidated, harassed or corrupted to prevent him from testifying, or to testify falsely, or evasively, because or on account of
his testimony; and

d) he is not a law enforcement officer, even if he would be testifying against the other law enforcement officers. In such a case, only the immediate members
of his family may avail themselves of the protection provided for under this Act.

If the Department, after examination of said applicant and other relevant facts, is convinced that the requirements of this Act and its implementing rules and
regulations have been complied with, it shall admit said applicant to the Program, require said witness to execute a sworn statement detailing his knowledge or
information on the commission of the crime, and thereafter issue the proper certification. For purposes of this Act, any such person admitted to the Program shall
be known as the Witness.

Section 5. Memorandum of Agreement With the Person to be Protected. - Before a person is provided protection under this Act, he shall first execute a
memorandum of agreement which shall set forth his responsibilities including:

a) to testify before and provide information to all appropriate law enforcement officials concerning all appropriate proceedings in connection with or arising
from the activities involved in the offense charged;

b) to avoid the commission of the crime;

c) to take all necessary precautions to avoid detection by others of the facts concerning the protection provided him under this Act;

d) to comply with legal obligations and civil judgments against him;

e) to cooperate with respect to all reasonable requests of officers and employees of the Government who are providing protection under this Act; and

f) to regularly inform the appropriate program official of his current activities and address.1awphi1

Section 6. Breach of the Memorandum of Agreement. - Substantial breach of the memorandum of agreement shall be a ground for the termination of the protection
provided under this Act: Provided, however, That before terminating such protection, the Secretary of Justice shall send notice to the person involved of the
termination of the protection provided under this Act, stating therein the reason for such termination.

Section 7. Confidentiality of Proceedings. - All proceedings involving application for admission into the Program and the action taken thereon shall be confidential
in nature. No information or documents given or submitted in support thereof shall be released except upon written order of the Department or the proper court.

Any person who violates the confidentiality of said proceedings shall upon conviction be punished with imprisonment of not less than one (1) year but not more
than six (6) years and deprivation of the right to hold a public office or employment for a period of five (5) years.

Section 9. Speedy Hearing or Trial. - In any case where a Witness admitted into the Program shall testify, the judicial or quasi-judicial body, or investigating

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
72
authority shall assure a speedy hearing or trial and shall endeavor to finish said proceeding within three (3) months from the filing of the case.

Section 10. State Witness. - Any person who has participated in the commission of a crime and desires to be a witness for the State, can apply and, if qualified as
determined in this Act and by the Department, shall be admitted into the Program whenever the following circumstances are present:

(a) the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined under the Revised Penal Code or its equivalent under special laws;

(b) there is absolute necessity for his testimony;

(c) there is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed:

(d) his testimony can be substantially corroborated on its material points;

(e) he does not appear to be most guilty; and

(f) he has not at any time been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude.

An accused discharged from an information or criminal complaint by the court in order that he may be a State Witness pursuant to Section 9 and 10 of Rule 119 of
the Revised Rules of Court may upon his petition be admitted to the Program if he complies with the other requirements of this Act. Nothing in this Act shall
prevent the discharge of an accused, so that he can be used as a State Witness under Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Section 11. Sworn Statement. - Before any person is admitted into the Program pursuant to the next preceding Section he shall execute a sworn statement
describing in detail the manner in which the offense was committed and his participation therein. If after said examination of said person, his sworn statement and
other relevant facts, the Department is satisfied that the requirements of this Act and its implementing rules are complied with, it may admit such person into the
Program and issue the corresponding certification.

If his application for admission is denied, said sworn statement and any other testimony given in support of said application shall not be admissible in evidence,
except for impeachment purposes.

Section 12. Effect of Admission of a State Witness into the Program. - The certification of admission into the Program by the Department shall be given full faith
and credit by the provincial or city prosecutor who is required not to include the Witness in the criminal complaint or information and if included therein, to petition
the court for his discharge in order that he can utilized as a State Witness. The Court shall order the discharge and exclusion of the said accused from the
information.

Admission into the Program shall entitle such State Witness to immunity from criminal prosecution for the offense or offenses in which his testimony will be given
or used and all the rights and benefits provided under Section 8 hereof.

Section 13. Failure or Refusal of the Witness to Testify. - Any Witness registered in the Program who fails or refuses to testify or to continue to testify without just
cause when lawfully obliged to do so, shall be prosecuted for contempt. If he testifies falsely or evasively, he shall be liable to prosecution for perjury. If a State
Witness fails or refuses to testify, or testifies falsely or evasively, or violates any condition accompanying such immunity without just cause, as determined in a

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
73
hearing by the proper court, his immunity shall be removed and he shall be subject to contempt or criminal prosecution. Moreover, the enjoyment of all rights and
benefits under this Act shall be deemed terminated.

The Witness may, however, purge himself of the contumacious acts by testifying at any appropriate stage of the proceedings.

Section 14. Compelled Testimony. - Any Witness admitted into the Program pursuant to Sections 3 and 10 of this Act cannot refuse to testify or give evidence or
produce books, documents, records or writings necessary for the prosecution of the offense or offenses for which he has been admitted into the Program on the
ground of the constitutional right against self-incrimination but he shall enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution and cannot be subjected to any penalty or
forfeiture for any transaction, matter or thing concerning his compelled testimony or books, documents, records and writings produced.

In case of refusal of said Witness to testify or give evidence or produce books, documents, records, or writings, on the ground of the right against self-incrimination,
and the state prosecutor or investigator believes that such evidence is absolutely necessary for a successful prosecution of the offense or offenses charged or
under investigation, he, with the prior approval of the department, shall file a petition with the appropriate court for the issuance of an order requiring said Witness
to testify, give evidence or produce the books, documents, records, and writings described, and the court shall issue the proper order.

The court, upon motion of the state prosecutor or investigator, shall order the arrest and detention of the Witness in any jail contiguous to the place of trial or
investigation until such time that the Witness is willing to give such testimony or produce such documentary evidence.

Section 15. Perjury or Contempt. - No Witness shall be exempt from prosecution for perjury or contempt committed while giving testimony or producing evidence
under compulsion pursuant to this Act. The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed in case of conviction for perjury. The procedure prescribed under Rule
71 of the Rules of Court shall be followed in contempt proceedings but the penalty to be imposed shall not be less than one (1) month but not more than one (1)
year imprisonment.

Section 16. Credibility of Witness. - In all criminal cases, the fact of the entitlement of the Witness to the protection and benefits provided for in this Act shall not be
admissible in evidence to diminish or affect his credibility.

Section 17. Penalty for Harassment of Witness. - Any person who harasses a Witness and thereby hinders, delays, prevents or dissuades a Witness from:

(a) attending or testifying before any judicial or quasi-judicial body or investigating authority;

(b) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge the commission or possible commission of an offense, or a violation of conditions or probation, parole, or
release pending judicial proceedings;

(c) seeking the arrest of another person in connection with the offense;

(d) causing a criminal prosecution, or a proceeding for the revocation of a parole or probation; or

(e) performing and enjoying the rights and benefits under this Act or attempts to do so, shall be fined not more than Three thousand pesos (P3,000.00) or
suffer imprisonment of not less than six (6) months but not more than one (1) year, or both, and he shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual disqualification from
holding public office in case of a public officer.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
74
6.) PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 749 (1975)

GRANTING IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION TO GIVERS OF BRIBES AND OTHER GIFTS AND TO THEIR ACCOMPLICES IN BRIBERY AND OTHER
GRAFT CASES AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS

Section 1. Any person who voluntarily gives information about any violation of Articles 210, 211, and 212 of the Revised Penal Code; Republic Act Numbered
Three Thousand Nineteen, as amended; Section 345 of the Internal Revenue Code and Section 3604 of the Tariff and Customs Code and other provisions of the
said Codes penalizing abuse or dishonesty on the part of the public officials concerned; and other laws, rules and regulations punishing acts of graft, corruption
and other forms of official abuse; and who willingly testifies against any public official or employee for such violation shall be exempt from prosecution or
punishment for the offense with reference to which his information and testimony were given, and may plead or prove the giving of such information and testimony
in bar of such prosecution: Provided; that this immunity may be enjoyed even in cases where the information and testimony are given against a person who is not
a public official but who is a principal, or accomplice, or accessory in the commission of any of the above-mentioned violations: Provided, further, that this immunity
may be enjoyed by such informant or witness notwithstanding that he offered or gave the bribe or gift to the public official or his accomplice for such gift or bribe-
giving; and Provided, finally, that the following conditions concur:

1. The information must refer to consummated violations of any of the above-mentioned provisions of law, rules and regulations;

2. The information and testimony are necessary for the conviction of the accused public officer;

3. Such information and testimony are not yet in the possession of the State;

4. Such information and testimony can be corroborated on its material points; and

5. The informant or witness has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

Section 2. The immunity granted hereunder shall not attach should it turn out subsequently that the information and/or testimony is false and malicious or made
only for the purpose of harassing, molesting or in any way prejudicing the public officer denounced. In such a case, the public officer so denounced shall be
entitled to any action, civil or criminal, against said informant or witness.

Section 3. All preliminary investigations conducted by a prosecuting fiscal, judge or committee, and all proceedings undertaken in connection therewith, shall be
strictly confidential or private in order to protect the reputation of the official under investigation in the event that the report proves to be unfounded or no prima
facie case is established.

7.) REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4908 (1968)

AN ACT REQUIRING JUDGES OF COURTS TO SPEEDILY TRY CRIMINAL CASES WHEREIN THE OFFENDED PARTY IS A PERSON ABOUT TO DEPART
FROM THE PHILIPPINES WITH NO DEFINITE DATE OF RETURN

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
75
Section 1. Any provision of existing laws, executive order, rule or regulation to the contrary notwithstanding, the trial of criminal cases wherein the offended party is
a person who is about to depart from the Philippines without a definite date of return, shall take precedence over all other cases before our courts, except election
and habeas corpus cases. The trial in these cases shall commence within three days from the date the accused is arraigned and no postponement of the initial
hearing shall be granted except on the ground of illness on the part of the accused, or other grounds beyond the control of the accused.

8.) REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6033 (1969)

AN ACT REQUIRING COURTS TO GIVE PREFERENCE TO CRIMINAL CASES WHERE THE PARTY OR PARTIES INVOLVE ARE INDIGENTS.

Section 1. Any provision of existing law to be contrary notwithstanding and with the exception of habeas corpus and election cases and cases involving detention
prisoners, and persons covered by Republic Act Numbered Four thousand nine hundred eight, all courts shall give preference to the hearing and/or disposition of
criminal cases where an indigent is involved either as the offended party or accused. The trial in these cases shall commence within three days from date of
arraignment and no postponement of the hearings shall be granted except on the ground of illness of the accused or other similar justifiable grounds. City and
provincial fiscals and courts shall forthwith conduct the preliminary investigation of a criminal case involving an indigent within three days after its filing and shall
terminate the same within two weeks.

Section 2. As used in this Act, the term "indigent" shall refer to a person who has no visible means of income or whose income is insufficient for the subsistence of
his family, to be determined by the fiscal or judge, taking into account the members of his family dependent upon him for subsistence.

Section 3. An indigent who is the offended party, respondent or an accused in a criminal case and who desires to avail of the preference granted under this Act
shall file a sworn statement of the fact of his being indigent and the said sworn statement shall be sufficient basis for the court or fiscal to give preference to the
trial and disposition of such criminal case.

Section 4. Any willful or malicious refusal on the part of any fiscal or judge to carry out the provisions of this Act shall constitute sufficient ground for disciplinary
action which may include suspension or removal.

C. CASES

TITLE (YEAR) QUICK FACTS HELD DOCTRINE


Miranda v. Arizona (1967)
SUPRA
People v. Santoclides (1999) Appellant was charged with the crime of rape of a There was a denial of due The right to counsel of an accused is
girl less than nine (9) years old. Trial court found process because of the enshrined in no less than Article III,
him guilty. Previously he was represented by defendant being represented by Sections 12 and 14 (2) of the 1987
Gualberto Ompong during trial. But on appeal, he person who is not a lawyer Constitution. This constitutional mandate
was represented by someone else because it during trial. is reflected in Section 1 of Rule 115 of the
was found out that his previous lawyer was not a An accused person is entitled to 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
76
member of the Bar. Appellant therefore argues be represented by a member of declares the right of the accused at the
that his deprivation of the right to counsel should the bar in a criminal case filed trial to be present in person and by
necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime against her before the Regional counsel at every stage of the proceedings
charged. Trial Court. from the arraignment to the promulgation
of judgment.
Unless she is represented by a lawyer,
there is great danger that any defense
presented in her behalf will be inadequate
considering the legal perquisites and skills
needed in the court proceedings. This
would certainly be a denial of due
process.
Barker v. Wingno (1972) Manning, the co-accused, was convicted of Barkers right to speedy trial Factors to be considered in balancing the
murder of a person after 5 trials. He was was not violated. The defendant interests of both parties to a criminal
convicted of murder of the other person after a still has a responsibility to case:
6th trial. As to Barkers case, he was not tried at assert his right to a speedy trial. 1. Length of delay triggering
once but instead remained in detention for 10 The better rule is that the mechanism; until there is some delay
months until he posted bail. Several times again defendant's assertion of or which is presumptively prejudicial, there is
the Commonwealth was granted continuances. failure to assert his right to a no necessity for inquiry into the other
On the supposed day of trial in 1963 (murder speedy trial is one of the factors factors that go into the balance; but still,
happened in 1958), the Commonwealth again to be considered in an inquiry case-to-case basis depending on nature
moved for continuance as the ex-sheriff who was into the deprivation of the right. of crime
the chief investigation officer of the case was ill. Only under extraordinary 2. Reason for the delay
Barker objected to no avail. Trial commenced circumstances may a depending on what the governments
with Manning (co-accused) as state witness. defendants right to a speedy reason is (deliberate attempt to delay, or
Barker was convicted and given a life sentence. trial be prejudiced, and Barkers neutral, or valid reason)
Barker appealed (speedy trial) but Kentucky CA case was not extraordinary. 3. Defendants assertion of his
affirmed. Later, he filed a petition for habeas right measure of prejudice; the more
corpus, which was denied without holding a serious the deprivation, the more likely a
hearing. On appeal, CA affirmed, ruling that defendant is to complain
Barker had waived his speedy trial claim for the 4. Prejudice to the defendant
entire period before February 1963, the date on must be assessed in light of defendants
which the court believed he had first objected to interests, which include: (i) to prevent
the delay by filing an MTD (as he did not object oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to
on other instances as to the continuances). minimize anxiety and concern of the
accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility
that the defense will be impaired [most
important]
But none of the abovementioned factors
are either a necessary or sufficient

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
77
condition to the finding of a deprivation of
the right of speedy trial. Rather, they are
related factors and must be considered
together with such other circumstances as
may be relevant.
Jones v. Superior Court On the day set for his trial for rape, petitioner filed The prosecution cannot compel Absent some governmental requirement
(1982) a motion for continuance and an affidavit alleging the defendant to produce the that information be kept confidential for
that he has long been impotent and that he medical reports pursuant to his the purposes of effective law
needed time to gather medical evidence including counsels advice. But he can be enforcement, the state has no interest in
medical reports in connection with injuries he compelled to produce all other denying the accused access to all
suffered in 1953 and 1954. The motion was documents, witnesses and evidence that can throw light on issues in
granted. reports. the case. Similarly, absent the privilege
The district attorney filed a motion for discovery, against self-crimination or other privileges
requesting petitioner to disclose (1) the names provided by law, the defendant in a
and addresses of all physicians subpoenaed to criminal case has no valid interest in
testify on the injuries suffered by him and his denying the prosecution access to
impotency; (2) all physicians who have treated evidence that can throw light on issues in
petitioner prior to the trial; (3) all reports of the case.
doctors or other reports about his injury and
impotency; and (4) all X-rays taken immediately
following the injuries. The court granted the
motion over petitioner's objection.
People v. Mendiola (1949) Because of a marital quarrel involving her wife, Mendiola is acquitted. It is not Before the discharge is ordered, the
Teofilos brother-in-law, Taciano togther with his disputed that Alejandro prosecution must show and the trial court
townmates (to which Mendiola is included) forced Mendiola had always been must ascertain that the five conditions
the former to with them inside a borrowed willing to testify for the fixed by section 9 of Rule 115 are
ambulance. Upon reaching the intersection of prosecution and upon the same complied with. But one the discharge is
Libertad, Teofilo jumped out of the car through facts bared to the prosecution ordered, any future development showing
the backdoor. Mendiola shot him. After the for which the latter, among that any or all of the five conditions have
shooting Taciano and appellants scampered other grounds, decided to move not actually been fulfilled, may not affect
away. Teofilo died days later. for his discharge from the the legal consequences of the discharge,
The original information for murder committed on information. Under the as provided by section 11 of Rule 115.
the person of Teofilo Ampil was filed, against circumstances and the law, he Any writing or unwitting error of the
Taciano V. Rizal alone. is protected by the prosecution in asking for the discharge
Eventually an amended information was filed constitutional guarantee against and of the court in granting the petition no
including new defendants, among them Alejandro double jeopardy. question of jurisdiction being involved,
Mendiola. Then assistant city fiscal Abasolo filed cannot deprive the discharged accused of
a motion to discharge defendant Alejandro the acquittal provided by section 11 of
Mendiola in order that he may be utilized as Rule 115 and of the constitutional
witness for the prosecution, which motion was guarantee against double jeopardy.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
78
granted. The exception in the proviso of section 11
The Prosecution contends that appellant of Rule 115 against the defendant who
Mendiola is not entitled to the benefits of section "fails to testify against his co-defendant"
11 of Rule 115 because Mendiola, upon refers exclusively to a failure attributable
developments subsequent to his discharge on to defendant's will or fault. It is unfair to
November 6, 1946, appears to be one of the deprive defendant of an acquittal for a
most guilty, for having fired the fatal shot, his failure attributable to the prosecution, and
discharge having been based on the main it would be an abhorrent legal policy to
proposition that by using him as a witness the place defendant's fate at the mercy of
prosecution would be enabled to prove it case anyone who may handle the prosecution.
against the most guilty accused, and the The willingness or unwillingness of the
prosecution no longer wanted to avail, as it never discharged defendant is the only test that
availed, of his testimony to successfully should be taken into account to determine
prosecute the real and most guilty culprits. whether or not he fails to testify against
this co-defendant and, consequently,
whether or not he should be excluded
from the benefits of the acquittal provided
by section 11 of Rule 115.
Flores v. Sandiganbayan The Legaspi City Branch of the Central Bank of The court cannot order the The discharge of an accused from the
(1983) the Philippines was robbed discharge of Licaros. The trial information so that he may be utilized as
Tanodbayan filed an information with the court should have held in a state witness is the exclusive
Sandiganbayan charging Flores, et. al as abeyance or deferred its responsibility of the trial court. It may be
principals and herein private respondent Licaros, resolution on the motion until ordered "at any time before they
as accessory with the crime of robbery after the prosecution has (defendants) have entered upon their
The accused were arraigned and pleaded not presented all its other evidence. defense," that is, at any stage of the
guilty. Thereafter, it can fully proceedings, from the thing of the
Tanodbayan filed with the Sandiganbayan a determine whether the information to the time the defense starts
"Motion for Discharge" of accused Licaros to be requisites prescribed in Section to offer any evidence.
utilized as state witness 9, Rule 119 of the new Rules of Besides, there lies the danger where one
This was opposed Leo Flores, on the grounds Court, are fully complied with. or more of the defendants are discharged
that there is absolute necessity for the testimony before the commencement of the hearing,
of Licaros since there is no other direct evidence he/they may disappear in which case the
available for the proper prosecution of the purpose of his/their exclusion will come to
offense charged except his testimony and he also naught. It is necessary that certain
claims that Licaros is the mastermind of the safeguards be taken, otherwise an
robbery. injustice may be committed.
Sandiganbayan granted the motion and ordered
the discharge from the information of Licaros.
People v. Feliciano (2001) An information for Robberry with Homicide was The attempt by state witness de The procedure of discharging an accused
filed against accused-appellant Carlos Feliciano la Cruz to mitigate his own to turn state witness is based on the intent

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
79
and Rodel de la Cruz, two security guards who culpability did not affect his of the State not to let a crime go
figured in the investigation over the robbery and discharge and/or render unpunished by allowing an accused who
death of one Teresita Fuentes. weightless his testimony appears least guilty to testify against a
After both were arraigned and pleaded not guilty, against the accused. Court held guiltier co-accused in exchange for
the prosecution later on sought the discharge of that while several facts point to outright acquittal. It achieves the greater
de la Cruz, so that the latter could testify against de la Cruzs greater guilt and purpose of convicting the most guilty.
co-accused/accused-appellant Feliciano. TC his attempt to downgrade his Judges hold the exclusive responsibility of
granted the motion, and de la Cruz was stricken own participation in the crime, handling motions to discharge and
off from the information. he did not fail to give a good exercising sound judicial prerogative in
RTC Kalibo found Feliciano guilty, and sentenced account of the crime and a dealing with the same. Any error in
him to death. In automatic review, Feliciano damaging testimony against judgment made by the judge which leads
argued in his defense that De la Cruz narrated Feliciano which could to the impropriety of a discharge would
facts which mitigated his involvement in the substantiate a conviction as not have any effect on the competency
crime. Hence his discharge was improperly was expected of him in and quality of the testimony made by the
granted, and his testimony against Feliciano receiving discharge. dischargee, nor would it have the
should be stripped of validity. consequence of withdrawing immunity
from prosecution.
A discharge, if granted at a stage where
jeopardy has already attached, is
equivalent to an acquittal, such that
prosecuting him would unconstitutionally
place him under double jeopardy. An
exception to this rule is that the benefit of
discharge can only be withdrawn when
the discharged accused refuses to fulfil
his part of the bargain and fails to testify,
or when there is any material
concealment or suppression of the truth
on his part. Witness must testify to
something that would tend to criminate
him, testifying in good faith.
Chua v. Court of Appeals A criminal case for Falsification of Private Only one person can supply the Sound judicial discretion should be
(1996) Documents was filed against petitioner, Wilson DIRECT evidence required by exercised with due regard to the proper
Chua, from whom the complainant, TAC, leased Section 9, Rule 119 of the administration of justice. The expedient
several earth-moving equipment, and Enriquez, Revised Rules on Criminal should be availed of only when there is
the project accountant of TAC. The complaint of Procedure and that is Enriquez. absolute necessity for the testimony of the
TAC was that Chua instigated and indorsed Hence, the principle that, where accused whose discharge is requested,
Enriquez to make alterations and changes in the a crime is contrived in secret, as when he alone has knowledge of the
Daily Equipment Utilization Reports (DEUR) to then the discharge of one of the crime, and not when his testimony would
enable Chua to charge more than what was conspirators is essential so he simply corroborate or otherwise

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
80
legally due him for the use of the equipment. The can testify against the other strengthen the evidence in the hands of
prosecution filed a motion to discharge accused conspirators, is applicable in the prosecution
Arcadio Enriquez so that he can be utilized as a this case. The guilt of an accused of the crime
state witness. This was denied by the trial court charged is not a basis why he may not be
who believed the latter to be the most guilty. CA excluded as a witness for the state. As a
reversed and petitioner elevated the petition to matter of fact, the candid admission of the
SC. accused of his participation in a crime is a
guaranty that he will testify truthfully in
court. So, even if an accused actually
participated in the offense charged in the
information, he still qualifies as a state
witness.
Webb v. De Leon (1995) NBI filed with the Department of Justice a letter- The Court upheld the legal While there is no express provision on
complaint charging petitioners Hubert Webb et al. basis of the right of petitioners discovery proceedings during preliminary
with the crime of Rape with Homicide. During the to demand from their investigation, the Court gave an
preliminary investigation, NBI presented prosecutor , the NBI, the expansive interpretation of the right of an
evidences among which is the sworn statement original copy of the April 28, accused to discovery procedure by
of their principal witness, Maria Jessica M. Alfaro. 1995 sworn statement of Alfaro upholding their right to demand certain
Alfaro had submitted to affidavits. The first one and the FBI Report during the evidences especially of the exculpatory
which as dated April 28, 1995 was retracted and preliminary investigation nature during preliminary investigation.
a second one was given dated May 22, 1995. considering their exculpatory Our Rules on Criminal Procedure do not
Before submitting his counter-affidavit, petitioner character, and hence, expressly provide for discovery
Webb filed with the DOJ Panel a Motion for unquestionable materiality to proceedings during the preliminary
Production And Examination of Evidence and the issue of their probable guilt. investigation stage of a criminal
Documents for the NBI to produce certain proceeding. Sections 10 and 11 of Rule
evidences. The motion was granted by the DOJ 117 do provide an accused the right to
Panel and the NBI submitted photocopies of the move for a bill of particulars and for
documents. It alleged it lost the original of the production or inspection of material
April 28, 1995 sworn statement of Alfaro. evidence in possession of the
In a separate civil suit, Webb filed a case for prosecution. But these provisions apply
obtaining the original documents, which was after the filing of the Complaint or
decided in his favor. The original was then Information in court and the rights are
submitted by petitioner Webb to the DOJ Panel accorded to the accused to assist them to
together with his other evidence. It appears, make an intelligent plea at arraignment
however, that petitioner Webb failed to obtain and to prepare for trial.
from the NBI the copy of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) Report despite his request for
its production.
US v Catimbang (1916) Catimbang and Malaluan were convicted of theft The accuseds (Catimbang and When the prosecution closes its case,
of large cattle. At trial, 2 witnesses testified that Malaluan) right not to testify at there must be enough evidence in the

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
81
they saw Catimbang and Malaluan with a 3rd trial was not violated. record to establish the guilt of the
person who approached them (the witnesses) accused if nothing further appears; and
and asked the latter to take care of the 2 cows proof of the possession of recently stolen
and their calves for a few days until their owners goods taken together will be sufficient to
could ransom them. The witnesses declined. establish the guilt of the accused, if there
Catimbang testified on his behalf and denied the is nothing in the record to raise a doubt as
truth of the testimonies of the witnesses insofar to the guilty character of the possession.
as said testimonies showed that he had ever It then rests on the accused to rebut the
been in possession of the cows or that he had evidence presented against him. But this
guilty knowledge of the theft. Malaluan did not go is not to compel him to give evidence
on the witness stand. against himself. It is merely to give him
TC gave credence to prosecution witnesses and the opportunity which is given the
ruled for the prosecution. defendant in all criminal cases, to submit
evidence in his own behalf after the
prosecution has introduced evidence
sufficient to sustain a conviction unless
that evidence is rebutted or satisfactorily
explained.

Bermudez v Castillo (1937) The OSG was conducting an investigation and The complainant cannot be In Mackenzie it was stated by the Court
respondent filed six letters as evidence for his compelled to copy said letters. "No reason appears why the examination
defense. Complainant denied it but admitted that The Mackenzie doctrine does on disclosure should not be subject to the
three of the six letters were in her own not apply to this case because ordinary rule of cross-examination. The
handwriting. firstly, because she has made person making the disclosure is in the
As the respondent believed that the three letters no disclosure; and secondly, petition of a witness called by the State,
admitted by the complainant to be hers were because her testimony, denying and is subject to the rule permitting the
insufficient for purposes of comparison with those that she was the author of the impeachment of such a witness. It is no
questioned in this case and as he was letters in question, may be invasion of the constitutional guaranty
determined to show that said Exhibits 38, 39 and attacked by means of other against self-crimination to compel the
40 were the complainant's, he required her to evidence in the possession of witness to answer questions relating to
copy them in her own handwriting in the the respondent, which is not the truthfulness of his previous
presence of the investigator. precisely that coming from the testimony."
The complainant, upon advice of her attorney, complaint herself.
refused to submit to the trial to which it was
desired to subject her, invoking her right not to
incriminate herself and alleging that Exhibits 38,
39 and 40 and the other letters already in the
respondent's possession, were more than
sufficient for what he proposed to do.
The investigator, upholding the complainant, did

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
82
not compel her to submit to the trial required,
thereby denying the respondent's petition.

People v. Mamacol (1948) Appellant wanted two testimonies to be heard in An accused after having been With or without reservation made by the
court. (testimonies of Apuntok Mamangcas and denied of a motion to present defense, courts have been and are
Payocan Moro) evidence and even if he did not allowing the defense to present evidence
However, his motion to present evidence was reserve his right to present after a motion to dismiss has been
denied. He also did not reserve the right to evidence, may still present denied.
present said evidence in the event the motion is evidence. This practice is based on sound reason.
denied. Where the motion to dismiss is denied,
there is no harm to the interest of the
administration of justice to allow
defendant to present evidence, which
might show his innocence, may lead to a
miscarriage of justice.
Abriol v. Homeres (1949) Petitioner Fidel Abriol and 6 others were accused TC erred in not allowing the It is the constitutional right of the accused
of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. defense in the illegal to be heard in his defense before
During the trial, after the prosecution presented possession case to present sentence is pronounced on him. If the
its evidence and rested its case, the defense evidence after denying their accused does not waive his right to be
moved to dismiss the case on the ground of motion to dismiss heard but on the contrary invokes that
insufficiency of evidence. Court denied the Habeas corpus may be granted right, and the court denies him, that court
motion. as a remedy. However, it does no longer has jurisdiction to proceed. The
Defense then moved to present evidence for the not serve to exculpate the decision is hence void and may be
accused, but this was opposed by the provincial petitioner, and instead only collaterally attacked in a habeas corpus
fiscal. Court sustained the fiscal in holding that restores him the right he was proceeding.
the defense may not present evidence after it had deprived of: that of the right to
presented a motion for dismissal. present evidence in his
Without receiving evidence from the accused, the defense. The problem lying only
court convicted them. On appeal before CA, the when the defense was
conviction was sustained. prevented to present evidence,
Petitioner Abriol then filed a petition for habeas everything that happened
corpus against his Jail Warden, arguing that his before that (i.e. up to the point
sentence was null and void for being rendered when the prosecution rested)
without due process. This was likewise denied. remains valid. Case remanded.
Petitioner now appeals the habeas corpus
decision before SC.
Griffin v. California (1965) Griffin was convicted of the murder of Hodson It is a violation of a defendant's A prosecutor's or judge's comment to the
before a jury in a California court. Griffin, who Fifth Amendment rights for the jury about a defendant's refusal to testify
already had multiple felony convictions, did not prosecutor to comment to the "is a remnant of the 'inquisitorial system of
testify at the trial. The judge, in his instructions to jury on the defendant's criminal justice', which the Fifth

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
83
the jury, stated that a defendant has a declining to testify, or for the Amendment outlaws. It is a penalty
constitutional right not to testify, and that this did judge to instruct the jury that imposed by courts for exercising a
not create a presumption of guilt, nor reduce the such silence is evidence of constitutional privilege. It cuts down on
need for the prosecution to prove its case; but guilt. the privilege by making its assertion
also stated to the jury to apply the "comment costly."
practice" clause in Article I of California The Court noted that an objection to this
Constitution stated at the time, "[I]n any criminal logic might be that a jury might find it
case, whether the defendant testifies or not, his "natural and irresistible" to infer the guilt of
failure to explain or to deny by his testimony any a defendant who refused to testify while
evidence or facts in the case against him may be possessing facts about the evidence
commented upon by the court and by counsel, against him, and so a judge's commenting
and may be considered by the court or the jury." upon the refusal did not "magnify that
Griffin was convicted and sentenced to the death inference into a penalty for asserting a
penalty. constitutional privilege"; but went on to
state that a judge's comment on the
refusal "solemnizes the silence of the
accused into evidence against him."

D. NOTES
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA

An accused need not always be present in every hearing although it is his right to be present if he so desires from arraignment to the rendition of judgment. This
right to be present is subsumed under his constitutional right to meet the witnesses against him face to face and other rights of the accused guaranteed in Sec. 14
(2) of the Bill of Rights.

While the right to be present may be waived like any other right, the rule should not be taken to mean that the accused may, as a rule, be tried in his absence (trial
in absentia). He can only be tried in absentia when the following requisites concur:

a.) the accused has already been arraigned


b.) the accused has been duly notified of the trial or hearings; and
c.) the absence of the accused or his failure to appear is unjustified

INSTANCES WHEN THE PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED IS REQUIRED

1.) At arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt


2.) During trial, whenever necessary for identification purposes
3.) At the promulgation of the sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in which case, the accused may appear by counsel or representative. At such stages of the
proceedings, his presence is required and cannot be waived.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
84
LACK OF A FORMAL OFFER DURING THE TRIAL

Documents which may have been identified and marked as exhibits during pre-trial or trial but which were not formally offered in evidence cannot in any manner
be treated as evidence. Neither can such unrecognized proof be assigned any evidentiary weight and value pursuant to the express mandate that the court shall
consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. Consequently, any evidence that has not been offered shall be excluded and rejected.

A formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties
at the trial. Its function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence. On the other hand, this
allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility.

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

A demurrer to evidence, is actually a motion to dismiss that is filled by the accused after the prosecution rested its case. It is an objection by one of the parties in
action to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law to make out a case or sustain the issue.

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE WITH LEAVE OF COURT

1.) The demurrer may be filed by the accused with or without leave of court.
2.) The power to grant leave to the accused is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the purpose is to determine whether the accused in
filing his demurrer is merely stalling the proceedings.
3.) The motion for leave of court to file a demurrer shall specifically state its grounds and shall be filed within a non-extendible period of (5) five days after the
prosecution rests its case. The prosecution may oppose the motion within a non-extendible period of (5) five days from its receipt.
4.) If the court grants the leave to file a demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice. The prosecution may oppose the
motion within a similar period from its receipt. The order denying the motion for leave of courtto file a demurrer shall not be reviewable by appeal or
certiorari before judgment.
5.) If the court grants the demurrer, the cause is dismissed and the accused is as good as acquitted. If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with
leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. The order denying the demurrer shall not be reviewable by appeal or certiorari before
judgment.

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT

1.) A demurrer to evidence may be filed by the accused without leave of court. If the demurrer, if the demurrer is granted, the case is dismissed and the
effect is an acquittal.
2.) If the demurrer is denied, the accused waives his right to present evidence and submit the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the
prosecution.
3.) The general rule prevailing is that certiorari does not lie to review an order denying a demurrer to evidence

WHO MAY MAKE THE WARRANTLESS ARREST?

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
85
1.) The warrantless arrest may be made not only by a peace officer but also by a private person. When the latter makes the arrest under the circumstances
provided for under the Rules (Sec. 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court), the arrest is called citizens arrest.
2.) When an accused is caught in flagrante delicto, the police officers are not only authorized but are duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.

HOT PURSUIT EXCEPTION

This exception is found in Sec. 5(b) of Rule 113 which authorizes a warrantless arrest. This second instance of lawful warrantless arrest necessitates two stringent
requirements before a warrantless arrest can be effected: (1) an offense has just been committed; and (2) the person making the arrest has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.

This exception does not require the arresting officers to personally witness the commission of the offense with their own eyes. Personal knowledge of facts must
be based on probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds are reasonable when the suspicion that the person to
be arrested is probably guilty is based on actual facts. i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the
person to be arrested.

Under this exception, a warrantless arrest made, one year after the offense was allegedly committed is an illegal arrest.

METHOD OF ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT

Arrest by an officer:
1.) The officer shall inform the person to be arrested of his authority and the cause of his arrest.
2.) This information need not be given (a) if the person to be arrested is engaged in the commission of an offense, (b) is in the process of being pursued
immediately after its commission, (c) escapes or flees, or (d) forcible resists before the officer has the opportunity to so inform him or (e) when the giving of such
information will imperil the arrest. (Sec. 8, Rule 113, Rules of Court). The officer may also summon assistance to effect the arrest, break into a building, or an
enclosure or break out from the same.

Arrest by a private person:


1.) When a private person makes an arrest, he shall inform the person to be arrested, not of his authority to arrest, but of his intent to arrest him and the cause of
his arrest. This information need not be given under the same conditions as when it is an officer who makes the arrest. (Sec. 9, Rule 113, Rules of Court). The
right to break into a building or an enclosure specifically refers to an officer and not to a private person. (Sec. 11, Rule 113, Rules of Court)

Where a warrantless arrest is made under flagrante and hot pursuit exceptions, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith arrested delivered to the
nearest police station or jail. (Sec. 5, last paragraph, Rule 113, Rules of Court).

EFFECT OF AN ILLEGAL ARREST ON JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

The legality of the arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a
waiver of inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
86
Criminal case cant proceed if the court does not have jurisdiction over the accused. There is no jurisdiction if the arrest is illegal.

ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT BY MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

Municipal Trial Courts can issue warrants in the form of a Bench Warrant in order to compel the appearance of the accused in court. But usually they cannot issue
a warrant of arrest except when Sec. 16 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure applies.

Warrant of arrests can be issued during Preliminary Investigation by MTC Judges outside Metro Manila in accordance with Sec. 37 of B.P. Blg. 129.

XIV. JUDGMENT - RULE 120 (BY PAU GAIRANOD)

A. STATUTES AND RULES

1. Rule 120 of the Rules of Court

Section 1. Judgment definition and form. Judgment is the adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged and the
imposition on him of the proper penalty and civil liability, if any. It must be written in the official language, personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed
by him and shall contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts and the law upon which it is based. (1a)
Section 2. Contents of the judgment. If the judgment is of conviction, it shall state (1) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed by
the accused and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances which attended its commission; (2) the participation of the accused in the offense, whether as
principal, accomplice, or accessory after the fact; (3) the penalty imposed upon the accused; and (4) the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or
omission to be recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil action has been
reserved or waived.
In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. (2a)
Section 3. Judgment for two or more offenses. When two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object to it
before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting out separately the
findings of fact and law in each offense. (3a)
Section 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and
that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is
included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved. (4a)
Section 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential
elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense
proved, when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of those constituting the latter. (5a)
Section 6. Promulgation of judgment. The judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any judge of the court in which it was
rendered. However, if the conviction is for a light offense, the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. When the judge is
absent or outside of the province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court.
If the accused is confined or detained in another province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court having

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
87
jurisdiction over the place of confinement or detention upon request of the court which rendered the judgment. The court promulgating the judgment shall have
authority to accept the notice of appeal and to approve the bail bond pending appeal; provided, that if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed
the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed and resolved by the appellate court.
The proper clerk of court shall give notice to the accused personally or through his bondsman or warden and counsel, requiring him to be present at the
promulgation of the decision. If the accused tried in absentia because he jumped bail or escaped from prison, the notice to him shall be served at his last known
address.
In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment in
the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru his counsel.
If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these rules against
the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the accused may surrender and file a motion for
leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a
justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice. (6a)
Section 7. Modification of judgment. A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or set aside before it becomes final or before
appeal is perfected. Except where the death penalty is imposed, a judgment becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the
sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or when the accused has waived in writing his right to appeal, or has applied for probation. (7a)
Section 8. Entry of judgment. After a judgment has become final, it shall be entered in accordance with Rule 36. (8)
Section 9. Existing provisions governing suspension of sentence, probation and parole not affected by this Rule. Nothing in this Rule shall affect any existing
provisions in the laws governing suspension of sentence, probation or parole. (9a)

2. Article VIII, Section XIV of the 1987 Constitution


Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor.

3. Section 17 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (1991)

Section 17. Judgment. Where a trial has been conducted, the court shall promulgate the judgment not later than thirty (30) days after the termination of trial.

4. Presidential Decree 968 (only the relevant parts, as per Lors instructions)
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 968 July 24, 1976
ESTABLISHING A PROBATION SYSTEM, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Section 1. Title and Scope of the Decree. This Decree shall be known as the Probation Law of 1976. It shall apply to all offenders except those entitled to the
benefits under the provisions of Presidential Decree numbered Six Hundred and three and similar laws.
Section 3. Meaning of Terms. As used in this Decree, the following shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed thus:
(a) "Probation" is a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the
supervision of a probation officer.
(b) "Probationer" means a person placed on probation.
(c) "Probation Officer" means one who investigates for the court a referral for probation or supervises a probationer or both.
Section 4. Grant of Probation. Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant and upon
application at any time of said defendant, suspend the execution of said sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
88
conditions as it may deem best.
Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. An application for probation shall be filed with the trial court, with
notice to the appellate court if an appeal has been taken from the sentence of conviction. The filing of the application shall be deemed a waver of the right to
appeal, or the automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal.
An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable.
Section 5. Post-sentence Investigation. No person shall be placed on probation except upon prior investigation by the probation officer and a determination by the
court that the ends of justice and the best interest of the public as well as that of the defendant will be served thereby.
Section 7. Period for Submission of Investigation Report. The probation officer shall submit to the court the investigation report on a defendant not later than sixty
days from receipt of the order of said court to conduct the investigation. The court shall resolve the petition for probation not later than five days after receipt of said
report.
Pending submission of the investigation report and the resolution of the petition, the defendant may be allowed on temporary liberty under his bail filed in the
criminal case; Provided, That, in case where no bail was filed or that the defendant is incapable of filing one, the court may allow the release of the defendant on
recognize the custody of a responsible member of the community who shall guarantee his appearance whenever required by the court.
Section 8. Criteria for Placing an Offender on Probation. In determining whether an offender may be placed on probation, the court shall consider all information
relative, to the character, antecedents, environment, mental and physical condition of the offender, and available institutional and community resources. Probation
shall be denied if the court finds that:
(a) the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution; or
(b) there is undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will commit another crime; or
(c) probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed.
Section 9. Disqualified Offenders. The benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those:
(a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years;
(b) convicted of any offense against the security of the State;
(c) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of
not less than Two Hundred Pesos;
(d) who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree; and
(e) who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable pursuant to Section 33 hereof.
Section 10. Conditions of Probation. Every probation order issued by the court shall contain conditions requiring that the probationer shall:
(a) present himself to the probation officer designated to undertake his supervision at such place as may be specified in the order within seventy-two
hours from receipt of said order;
(b) report to the probation officer at least once a month at such time and place as specified by said officer.
The court may also require the probationer to:
(a) cooperate with a program of supervision;
(b) meet his family responsibilities;
(c) devote himself to a specific employment and not to change said employment without the prior written approval of the probation officer;
(d) undergo medical, psychological or psychiatric examination and treatment and enter and remain in a specified institution, when required for that
purpose;
(e) pursue a prescribed secular study or vocational training;
(f) attend or reside in a facility established for instruction, recreation or residence of persons on probation;
(g) refrain from visiting houses of ill-repute;
(h) abstain from drinking intoxicating beverages to excess;

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
89
(i) permit to probation officer or an authorized social worker to visit his home and place or work;
(j) reside at premises approved by it and not to change his residence without its prior written approval; or
(k) satisfy any other condition related to the rehabilitation of the defendant and not unduly restrictive of his liberty or incompatible with his freedom of
conscience.
Section 11. Effectivity of Probation Order. A probation order shall take effect upon its issuance, at which time the court shall inform the offender of the
consequences thereof and explain that upon his failure to comply with any of the conditions prescribed in the said order or his commission of another offense, he
shall serve the penalty imposed for the offense under which he was placed on probation.
Section 12. Modification of Condition of Probation. During the period of probation, the court may, upon application of either the probationer or the probation officer,
revise or modify the conditions or period of probation. The court shall notify either the probationer or the probation officer of the filing such an application so as to
give both parties an opportunity to be heard thereon.
The court shall inform in writing the probation officer and the probationer of any change in the period or conditions of probation.
Section 13. Control and Supervision of Probationer. The probationer and his probation program shall be under the control of the court who placed him on
probation subject to actual supervision and visitation by a probation officer.
Whenever a probationer is permitted to reside in a place under the jurisdiction of another court, control over him shall be transferred to the Executive Judge of the
Court of First Instance of that place, and in such a case, a copy of the probation order, the investigation report and other pertinent records shall be furnished said
Executive Judge. Thereafter, the Executive Judge to whom jurisdiction over the probationer is transferred shall have the power with respect to him that was
previously possessed by the court which granted the probation.
Section 14. Period of Probation.
(a) The period of probation of a defendant sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than one year shall not exceed two years, and in all other
cases, said period shall not exceed six years.
(b) When the sentence imposes a fine only and the offender is made to serve subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, the period of probation shall
not be less than nor to be more than twice the total number of days of subsidiary imprisonment as computed at the rate established, in Article thirty-nine of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Section 15. Arrest of Probationer; Subsequent Disposition. At any time during probation, the court may issue a warrant for the arrest of a probationer for violation
of any of the conditions of probation. The probationer, once arrested and detained, shall immediately be brought before the court for a hearing, which may be
informal and summary, of the violation charged. The defendant may be admitted to bail pending such hearing. In such a case, the provisions regarding release on
bail of persons charged with a crime shall be applicable to probationers arrested under this provision. If the violation is established, the court may revoke or
continue his probation and modify the conditions thereof. If revoked, the court shall order the probationer to serve the sentence originally imposed. An order
revoking the grant of probation or modifying the terms and conditions thereof shall not be appealable.
Section 16. Termination of Probation. After the period of probation and upon consideration of the report and recommendation of the probation officer, the court
may order the final discharge of the probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation and thereupon the case is deemed
terminated.
The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspend as a result of his conviction and to fully discharge his liability for
any fine imposed as to the offense for which probation was granted.
The probationer and the probation officer shall each be furnished with a copy of such order.

5. Republic Act 9344, Sections 38-56

SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. - Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense is found

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
90
guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense committed. However, instead of
pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without need of
application: Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of
the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various chcumstances of the child, the court shall impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided
in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.
SEC. 39. Discharge of the Child in Conflict with the Law. - Upon the recommendation of the social worker who has custody of the child, the court shall dismiss
the case against the child whose sentence has been suspended and against whom disposition measures have been issued, and shall order the final discharge of
the child if it finds that the objective of the disposition measures have been fulfilled.
The discharge of the child in conflict with the law shall not affect the civil liability resulting from the commission of the offense, which shall be enforced in
accordance with law.
SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. - If the court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed upon the child in
conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the conditions of his/her disposition or
rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for execution of judgment.
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the
child in accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the
maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.
SEC. 41. Credit in Service of Sentence. - The child in conflict with the law shall be credited in the services of his/her sentence with the full time spent in actual
commitment and detention under this Act.
SEC. 42. Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment. - The court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon
application at any time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into account the best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section
4 of Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the "Probation Law of 1976", is hereby amended accordingly.
CHAPTER 5
CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS
SEC. 43. Confedentiality of Records and Proceedings. - All records and proceedings involving children in conflict with the law from initial contact until final
disposition of the case shall be considered privileged and confidential. The public shall be excluded during the proceedings and the records shall not be disclosed
directly or indirectly to anyone by any of the parties or the participants in the proceedings for any purpose whatsoever, except to determine if the child in conflict
with the law may have his/hes sentence suspended or if he/she may be granted probation under the Probation Law, or to enforce the civil liability imposed in the
criminal action.
The component authorities shall undertake all measures to protect this confidentiality of proceedings, including non-disclosure of records to the media, maintaining
a separate police blotter for cases involving children in conflict with the law and adopting a system of coding to conceal material information which will lead to the
child's identity. Records of a child in conflict with the law shall not be used in subsequent proceedings for cases involving the same offender as an adult, except
when beneficial for the offender and upon his/her written consent.
A person who has been in conflict with the law as a child shall not be held under any provision of law, to be guilty of perjury or of concealment or misrepresentation
by reason of his/her failure to acknowledge the case or recite any fact related thereto in response to any inquiry made to him/her for any purpose.

TITLE VI
REHABILITATION AND REINTEGRATION
SEC. 44. Objective of Rehabilitation and Reintegration. - The objective of rehabilitation and reintegration of children in conflict with the law is to provide them

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
91
with interventions, approaches and strategies that will enable them to improve their social functioning with the end goal of reintegration to their families and as
productive members of their communities.
SEC. 45. Court Order Required. - No child shall be received in any rehabilitation or training facility without a valid order issued by the court after a hearing for the
purpose. The details of this order shall be immediately entered in a register exclusively for children in conflict with the law. No child shall be admitted in any facility
where there is no such register.
SEC. 46, Separate Facilities from Adults. - In all rehabilitation or training facilities, it shall be mandatory that children shall be separated from adults unless they
are members of the same family. Under no other circumstance shall a child in conflict with the law be placed in the same confinement as adults.
The rehabilitation, training or confinement area of children in conflict with the law shall provide a home environment where children in conflict with the law can be
provided with quality counseling and treatment.
SEC. 47. Female Children. - Female children in conflict with the law placed in an institution shall be given special attention as to their personal needs and
problems. They shall be handled by female doctors, correction officers and social workers, and shall be accommodated separately from male children in conflict
with the law.
SEC. 48. Gender-Sensitivity Training. - No personnel of rehabilitation and training facilities shall handle children in conflict with the law without having undergone
gender sensitivity training.
SEC. 49. Establishment of Youth Detention Homes. - The LGUs shall set aside an amount to build youth detention homes as mandated by the Family Courts
Act. Youth detention homes may also be established by private and NGOs licensed and accredited by the DSWD, in consultation with the JJWC.
SEC. 50. Care and Maintenance of the Child in Conflict with the Law. - The expenses for the care and maintenance of a child in conflict with the law under
institutional care shall be borne by his/her parents or those persons liable to support him/her: Provided, That in case his/her parents or those persons liable to
support him/her cannot pay all or part of said expenses, the municipality where the offense was committed shall pay one-third (1/3) of said expenses or part
thereof; the province to which the municipality belongs shall pay one-third (1/3) and the remaining one-third (1/3) shall be borne by the national government.
Chartered cities shall pay two-thirds (2/3) of said expenses; and in case a chartered city cannot pay said expenses, part of the internal revenue allotments
applicable to the unpaid portion shall be withheld and applied to the settlement of said obligations:Provided, further, That in the event that the child in conflict with
the law is not a resident of the municipality/city where the offense was committed, the court, upon its determination, may require the city/municipality where the
child in conflict with the law resides to shoulder the cost.
All city and provincial governments must exert effort for the immediate establishment of local detention homes for children in conflict with the law.
SEC. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and other Training Facilities. - A child
in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in
an agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.
SEC. 52. Rehabilitation of Children in Conflict with the Law. - Children in conflict with the law, whose sentences are suspended may, upon order of the court,
undergo any or a combination of disposition measures best suited to the rehabilitation and welfare of the child as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles
in Conflict with the Law.
If the community-based rehabilitation is availed of by a child in conflict with the law, he/she shall be released to parents, guardians, relatives or any other
responsible person in the community. Under the supervision and guidance of the local social welfare and development officer, and in coordination with his/her
parents/guardian, the child in conflict with the law shall participate in community-based programs, which shall include, but not limited to:
(1) Competency and life skills development;
(2) Socio-cultural and recreational activities;
(3) Community volunteer projects;
(4) Leadership training;
(5) Social services;
(6) Homelife services;

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
92
(7) Health services; .
(8) Spiritual enrichment; and
(9) Community and family welfare services.
In accordance therewith, the family of the child in conflict with the law shall endeavor to actively participate in the community-based rehabilitation.
Based on the progress of the youth in the community, a final report will be forwarded by the local social welfare and development officer to the court for final
disposition of the case.
If the community-based programs are provided as diversion measures under Chapter II, Title V, the programs enumerated above shall be made available to the
child in conflict with the law.
SEC. 53. Youth Rehabilitation Center. - The youth rehabilitation center shall provide 24-hour group care, treatment and rehabilitation services under the
guidance of a trained staff where residents are cared for under a structured therapeutic environment with the end view of reintegrating them in their families and
communities as socially functioning individuals. A quarterly report shall be submitted by the center to the proper court on the progress of the children in conflict with
the law. Based on the progress of the youth in the center, a final report will be forwarded to the court for final disposition of the case. The DSWD shall establish
youth rehabilitation centers in each region of the country.
SEC. 54. Objectives of Community Based Programs. - The objectives of community-based programs are as follows:
(a) Prevent disruption in the education or means of livelihood of the child in conflict with the law in case he/she is studying, working or attending vocational
learning institutions;
(b) Prevent separation of the child in conflict with the law from his/her parents/guardians to maintain the support system fostered by their relationship and
to create greater awareness of their mutual and reciprocal responsibilities;
(c) Facilitate the rehabilitation and mainstreaming of the child in conflict with the law and encourage community support and involvement; and
(d) Minimize the stigma that attaches to the child in conflict with the law by preventing jail detention.
SEC. 55. Criteria of Community-Based Programs. - Every LGU shall establish community-based programs that will focus on the rehabilitation and reintegration
of the child. All programs shall meet the criteria to be established by the JJWC which shall take into account the purpose of the program, the need for the consent
of the child and his/her parents or legal guardians, and the participation of the child-centered agencies whether public or private.
SEC. 56. After-Care Support Services for Children in Conflict with the Law. - Children in conflict with the law whose cases have been dismissed by the proper
court because of good behavior as per recommendation of the DSWD social worker and/or any accredited NGO youth rehabilitation center shall be provided after-
care services by the local social welfare and development officer for a period of at least six (6) months. The service includes counseling and other community-
based services designed to facilitate social reintegration, prevent re-offending and make the children productive members of the community.

6. Administrative Circular 7-92-A

ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 7-A-92 June 21, 1993


SUBJECT: GUIDELINES IN THE ARCHIVING OF CASES
Administrative Circular No. 7-92, dated October 12, 1992, is hereby amended to read as follows:
The attention of the Court has been called to the lack of uniformity in the policies adopted by the individual judges with respect to the archiving cases. There are
likewise reports of indiscriminate archiving of cases without apparent justifiable reason. The following guidelines are therefore established in the archiving of
cases:
I. CRIMINAL CASES
a) A criminal case may be archived only if after the issuance of the warrant of arrest, the accused remains at large for six (6) months from the delivery of the
warrant to the proper peace officer. An order archiving the case shall require the peace officer to explain why the accused was not apprehended. The court shall
issue an alias if the original warrant of arrest is returned by the peace officer together with the report.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
93
b) The court, motu proprio or upon motion of any party, may likewise archive a criminal case when proceedings therein are ordered suspended for an indefinite
period because:
1) the accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effectively renders him unable to fully understand the charge
against him and to plead intelligently, or to undergo trial, and he has to be committed to a mental hospital;
2) a valid prejudicial question in a civil action is invoked during the pendency of the criminal case unless the civil and the criminal cases are
consolidated;
3) an interlocutory order or incident in the criminal case is elevated to, and is pending resolution/decision for an indefinite period before a higher
court which has issued a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction; and
4) when the accused has jumped bail before arraignment and cannot be arrested by his bondsmen.
II. CIVIL CASES
In civil cases, the court may motu proprio or upon motion, order that a civil case be archived only in the following instances:
a) When the parties are in the process of settlement, in which case the proceedings may be suspended and the case archived for a period not
exceeding ninety (90) days. The case shall be included in the trial calendar on the day immediately following the lapse of the suspension
period.
b) When an interlocutory order or incident in the civil case is elevated to, and is pending resolution/decision for an indefinite period before a
higher court which has issued a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction.
c) When defendant, without fault or neglect of plaintiff, cannot be served with summons within six (6) months from issuance of original
summons.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
a) Copies of the Order archiving the case shall be furnished the parties.
b) A special docket shall be maintained to record the cases both criminal and civil that have been archived.
c) A periodic review of the archived cases shall be made by the Presiding Judge.
d) The Presiding Judge shall, motu propio or upon motion by any party, order the reinstatement/revival of an archived case and its withdrawal
from the archives whenever the same is ready for trial or further proceedings.
e) The Branch Clerk of Court shall submit to the Office of the Court Administrator a consolidated list of archived cases not later than the first
week of January of every year

B. CASES
TITLE (YEAR) QUICK FACTS HELD DOCTRINE
People v. Tamayo (1950) Tamayo was convicted of illegal Petition of Tamayo granted. A judgment in a criminal case may
possession of firearms. Pursuant to be revised or modified only within
a new law passed during the time of the period to appeal or fifteen days
the trial, the State timely filed a from the date of promulgation. It
Motion for Reconsideration in order should be noted however that a
to increase the penalty. The court modification of judgment does not
only decided upon the motion 7 result in double jeopardy because
months after the promulgation of the jeopardy does not attach until after
judgment. Tamayo asserts that a the period for appeal has expired.)
judgment can only be modified 15

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
94
days after promulgation.
People v. Romero (1951) Due to the repeated absences of a Motion to dismiss is denied. The dismissal of a case upon
crucial witness resulting in the delay accuseds petition or with his
of prosecution, the case was express consent does not bar a
dismissed upon the petition of the subsequent prosecution for the
accused. The prosecutor filed a same offense because the consent
motion for reconsideration and an constitutes a waiver of his right
appeal which the accused sought to against double jeopardy.
dismiss by citing double jeopardy.
People v. Jalandoni (1984) The SC acquitted Jalandoni of the Jalandoni must pay BPI. A separate civil action is not
crime of estafa. The offended party, required even if an accused was
BPI, filed a motion to modify acquitted.
judgment to recover in the civil
aspect. Jalandoni says a separate
action must be filed.
Cea v. Paguio (2003) Atty. Cea filed a complaint against The case was dismissed for Delay in promulgation of judgment
Judge Paguio for violation of RA insufficient evidence but Paguio could be avoided by the
3019, alleging that the judge was fined for his delay. promulgation of judgment in
purposely delayed the promulgation absentia. The judge violated his
of his decision on a case so that he constitutional mandate to afford the
could extort money from Cea. accused with his speedy right to
Paguio claims he could not render trial.
judgment because the accused was
abroad.
Ramos v. Gonong (1976) Gonong was convicted of damage to The original judgment can no longer The judgment became final and
property with multiple physical be modified. executor upon the filing of the
injuries through reckless written manifestation of the accused
imprudence and sentenced to pay to withdraw his appeal, as approved
damages. Ramos manifested an by the court.
intent to appeal which he later
withdrew. Fiscal is seeking to
amend the dispositive to include
subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency.

C. NOTES
- The State cannot file an appeal or an MR for a judgment of acquittal because it would violated the accuseds right against double jeopardy.
- For a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, an MR has to be filed and denied first. Rule 65 applies only when there is no other speedy, plain and
adequate remedy/

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
95
- When judgment becomes final: (1) Lapse of the 15-day appeal period, (2) Partial or total service of sentence, (3) Waiver of right to appeal, (4) Filing an
application for probation
- After finality, the judgment is entered in the Book of Judgments.

XV. NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION RULE 121 (BY PAU GAIRANOD)

A. STATUTES AND RULES


1. Rule 121 of the Rules of Court
Section 1. New trial or reconsideration. At any time before a judgment of conviction becomes final, the court may, on motion of the accused or at its own
instance but with the consent of the accused, grant a new trial or reconsideration. (1a)
Section 2. Grounds for a new trial. The court shall grant a new trial on any of the following grounds:
(a) The errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused have been committed during the trial;
(b) The new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial
and which if introduced and admitted would probably change the judgment. (2a)
Section 3. Ground for reconsideration. The court shall grant reconsideration on the ground of errors of law or fact in the judgment, which requires no further
proceedings. (3a)
Section 4. Form of motion and notice to the prosecutor. The motion for a new trial or reconsideration shall be in writing and shall state the grounds on which it is
based. If based on a newly-discovered evidence, the motion must be supported by affidavits of witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given or by
duly authenticated copies of documents which are proposed to be introduced in evidence. Notice of the motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be given to the
prosecutor. (4a)
Section 5. Hearing on motion. Where a motion for a new trial calls for resolution of any question of fact, the court may hear evidence thereon by affidavits or
otherwise. (5a)
Section 6. Effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration. The effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration are the following:
(a) When a new trial is granted on the ground of errors of law or irregularities committed during the trial, all proceedings and evidence affected thereby
shall be set aside and taken anew. The court may, in the interest of justice, allow the introduction of additional evidence.
(b) When a new trial is granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, the evidence already adduced shall stand and the newly-discovered and
such other evidence as the court may, in the interest of justice, allow to be introduced shall be taken and considered together with the evidence already in
the record.
(c) In all cases, when the court grants new trial or reconsideration, the original judgment shall be set aside or vacated and a new judgment rendered
accordingly. (6a)

2. Section 19 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure


Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions. The following pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint or information except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure to comply
with the preceding section;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for opening of trial;
(d) Petition for relief from judgment;

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
96
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper; chanrobles virtual law library
(f) Memoranda;
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court;
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default; chanrobles virtual law library
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(j) Reply;
(k) Third party complaints;
(l) Interventions.

B. CASES
TITLE (YEAR) QUICK FACTS HELD DOCTRINE
Jose v. CA (1976) Jose was convicted for illegally Jose is entitled to a new trial. Requisites for new trial: It must be
possessing a hand grenade. 9 days shown that (1) The evidence was
after promulgation, he filed a motion discovered AFTER trial, (2) Such
to reopen the case to present a evidence could not have been
permit and the fact that he was a discovered and produced at trial
secret agent of the Philippine even with the exercise of
Constabulary. This was denied by reasonable diligence, (3) Evidence
the lower court which said that he is material and not merely
had already filed a Notice of Appeal, cumulative, corroborative or
making the case outside its impeaching, (4) It must go to the
jurisdiction. merits of the case such that it may
produce different results if admitted.
People v. Astudillo (2003) The Astudillo brothers were charged Lower court decision sustained. An MR gives the court the
for murder with treachery. The lower opportunity to rectify its errors or
court convicted them for murder with reevaluate its assessment of the
abuse of superior strength. They facts and conclusions of law. Parties
filed an MR, submitting that abuse cannot dictate which aspects of the
of superior strength was not alleged judgment should be reviewed. Filing
in the information. The court an MR effectively waives the right
amended its decision and replaced against double jeopardy.
abuse of superior strength with
treachery. Astudillos say that the
decision for an MR is limited to the
issues raised in the MR.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
97
XVI. APPEAL RULES 122, 124 AND 125 (BY PAU GAIRANOD)

A. STATUTES AND RULES


1. Rule 122 of the Rules of Court
Section 1. Who may appeal. Any party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy. (2a)
Section 2. Where to appeal. The appeal may be taken as follows:
(a) To the Regional Trial Court, in cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit
Trial Court;
(b) To the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court in the proper cases provided by law, in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court; and
(c) To the Supreme Court, in cases decided by the Court of Appeals. (1a)
Section 3. How appeal taken.
(a) The appeal to the Regional Trial Court, or to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction, shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and by serving a copy
thereof upon the adverse party.
(b) The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for
review under Rule 42.
(c) The appeal to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed by the Regional Trial Court is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, or
where a lesser penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more
serious offense for which the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed, shall be by filing a notice of appeal in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) No notice of appeal is necessary in cases where the death penalty is imposed by the Regional Trial Court. The same shall be automatically reviewed
by the Supreme Court as provided in section 10 of this Rule.
(e) Except as provided in the last paragraph of section 13, Rule 124, all other appeals to the Supreme Court shall be by petition for review
on certiorari under Rules 45. (3a)
Section 4. Publication of notice of appeal. If personal service of the copy of the notice of appeal can not be made upon the adverse party or his counsel, service
may be done by registered mail or by substituted service pursuant to sections 7 and 8 of Rule 13. (4a)
Section 5. Waiver of notice. The appellee may waive his right to a notice that an appeal has been taken. The appellate court may, in its discretion, entertain an
appeal notwithstanding failure to give such notice if the interests of justice so require. (5a)
Section 6. When appeal to be taken. An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order
appealed from. This period for perfecting an appeal shall be suspended from the time a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order
overruling the motion shall have been served upon the accused or his counsel at which time the balance of the period begins to run. (6a)
Section 7. Transcribing and filing notes of stenographic reporter upon appeal. When notice of appeal is filed by the accused, the trial court shall direct the
stenographic reporter to transcribe his notes of the proceedings. When filed by the People of the Philippines, the trial court shall direct the stenographic reporter to
transcribe such portion of his notes of the proceedings as the court, upon motion, shall specify in writing. The stenographic reporter shall certify to the correctness
of the notes and the transcript thereof, which shall consist of the original and four copies, and shall file the original and four copies with the clerk without
unnecessary delay.
If death penalty is imposed, the stenographic reporter shall, within thirty (30) days from promulgation of the sentence, file with the clerk original and four copies of
the duly certified transcript of his notes of the proceedings. No extension of time for filing of said transcript of stenographic notes shall be granted except by the
Supreme Court and only upon justifiable grounds. (7a)
Section 8. Transmission of papers to appellate court upon appeal. Within five (5) days from the filing of the notice of appeal, the clerk of the court with whom the

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
98
notice of appeal was filed must transmit to the clerk of court of the appellate court the complete record of the case, together with said notice. The original and three
copies of the transcript of stenographic notes, together with the records, shall also be transmitted to the clerk of the appellate court without undue delay. The other
copy of the transcript shall remain in the lower court. (8a)
Section 9. Appeal to the Regional Trial Courts.
(a) Within five (5) days from perfection of the appeal, the clerk of court shall transmit the original record to the appropriate Regional Trial Court.
(b) Upon receipt of the complete record of the case, transcripts and exhibits, the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court shall notify the parties of such
fact.
(c) Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the said notice, the parties may submit memoranda or briefs, or may be required by the Regional Trial Court to
do so. After the submission of such memoranda or briefs, or upon the expiration of the period to file the same, the Regional Trial Court shall decide the
case on the basis of the entire record of the case and of such memoranda or briefs as may have been filed. (9a)
Section 10. Transmission of records in case of death penalty. In all cases where the death penalty is imposed by the trial court, the records shall be forwarded
to the Supreme Court for automatic review and judgment within five (5) days after the fifteenth (15) day following the promulgation of the judgment or notice of
denial of a motion for new trial or reconsideration. The transcript shall also be forwarded within ten (10) days after the filing thereof by the stenographic reporter.
(10a)
Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused.
(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is
favorable and applicable to the latter;
(b) The appeal of the offended party from the civil aspect shall not affect the criminal aspect of the judgment or order appealed from.
(c) Upon perfection of the appeal, the execution of the judgment or final order appealed from shall be stayed as to the appealing party. (11a)
Section 12. Withdrawal of appeal. Notwithstanding the perfection of the appeal, the Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, as the case may be, may allow the appellant to withdraw his appeal before the record has been
forwarded by the clerk of court to the proper appellate court as provided in section 8, in which case the judgment shall become final. The Regional Trial Court may
also, in its discretion, allow the appellant from the judgment of a Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit
Trial Court to withdraw his appeal, provided a motion to that effect is filed before rendition of the judgment in the case on appeal, in which case the judgment of the
court of origin shall become final and the case shall be remanded to the latter court for execution of the judgment. (12a)
Section 13. Appointment of counsel de oficio for accused on appeal. It shall be the duty of the clerk of the trial court, upon filing of a notice of appeal, to
ascertain from the appellant, if confined in prison, whether he desires the Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court to appoint a counsel de
oficio to defend him and to transmit with the record on a form to be prepared by the clerk of court of the appellate court, a certificate of compliance with this duty
and of the response of the appellant to his inquiry. (13a)

2. Rule 124 of the Rules of Court


Section 1. Title of the case. In all criminal cases appealed to the Court of Appeals, the party appealing the case shall be called the "appellant" and the adverse
party the "appellee," but the title of the case shall remain as it was in the court of origin. (1a)
Section 2. Appointment of counsel de oficio for the accused. If it appears from the record of the case as transmitted that (a) the accused is confined in prison,
(b) is without counsel de parte on appeal, or (c) has signed the notice of appeal himself, the clerk of court of the Court of Appeals shall designate a counsel de
oficio.
An appellant who is not confined in prison may, upon request, be assigned a counsel de oficio within ten (10) days from receipt of the notice to file brief and he
establishes his right thereto. (2a)
Section 3. When brief for appellant to be filed. Within thirty (30) days from receipt by the appellant or his counsel of the notice from the clerk of court of the
Court of Appeals that the evidence, oral and documentary, is already attached to the record, the appellant shall file seven (7) copies of his brief with the clerk of

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
99
court which shall be accompanied by proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellee. (3a)
Section 4. When brief for appellee to be filed; reply brief of the appellant. Within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the brief of the appellant, the appellee shall
file seven (7) copies of the brief of the appellee with the clerk of court which shall be accompanied by proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellant.
Within twenty (20) days from receipt of the brief of the appellee, the appellant may file a reply brief traversing matters raised in the former but not covered in the
brief of the appellant. (4a)
Section 5. Extension of time for filing briefs. Extension of time for the filing of briefs will not be allowed except for good and sufficient cause and only if the
motion for extension is filed before the expiration of the time sought to be extended. (5a)
Section 6. Form of briefs. Briefs shall either be printed, encoded or typewritten in double space on the legal size good quality unglazed paper, 330 mm. in
length by 216 mm. in width. (6a)
Section 7. Contents of brief. The briefs in criminal cases shall have the same contents as provided in sections 13 and 14 of Rule 44. A certified true copy of the
decision or final order appealed from shall be appended to the brief of appellant. (7a)
Section 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. The Court of Appeals may, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and with notice
to the appellant in either case, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the time prescribed by this Rule, except where the appellant is
represented by a counsel de oficio.
The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail or
flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal. (8a)
Section 9. Prompt disposition of appeals. Appeals of accused who are under detention shall be given precedence in their disposition over other appeals. The
Court of Appeals shall hear and decide the appeal at the earliest practicable time with due regard to the rights of the parties. The accused need not be present in
court during the hearing of the appeal. (9a)
Section 10. Judgment not to be reversed or modified except for substantial error. No judgment shall be reversed or modified unless the Court of Appeals, after
an examination of the record and of the evidence adduced by the parties, is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights
of the appellant. (10a)
Section 11. Scope of judgment. The Court of Appeals may reverse, affirm, or modify the judgment and increase or reduce the penalty imposed by the trial court,
remand the case to the Regional Trial Court for new trial or retrial, or dismiss the case. (11a)
Section 12. Power to receive evidence The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all
acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases (a) falling within its original jurisdiction, (b) involving claims for damages arising from provisional remedies,
or (c) where the court grants a new trial based only on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. (12a)
Section 13. Quorum of the court; certification or appeal of cases to Supreme Court. Three (3) Justices of the Court of Appeals shall constitute a quorum for the
sessions of a division. The unanimous vote of the three (3) Justices of a division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a judgment or final resolution, which
shall be reached in consultation before the writing of the opinion by a member of the division. In the event that the three (3) Justices can not reach a unanimous
vote, the Presiding Justice shall direct the raffle committee of the Court to designate two (2) additional Justices to sit temporarily with them, forming a special
division of five (5) members and the concurrence of a majority of such division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a judgment or final resolution. The
designation of such additional Justices shall be made strictly by raffle and rotation among all other Justices of the Court of Appeals.
Whenever the Court of Appeals finds that the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment should be imposed in a case, the court, after discussion of
the evidence and the law involved, shall render judgment imposing the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment as the circumstances warrant.
However, it shall refrain from entering the judgment and forthwith certify the case and elevate the entire record thereof to the Supreme Court for review. (13a)
Section 14. Motion for new trial. At any time after the appeal from the lower court has been perfected and before the judgment of the Court of Appeals
convicting the appellant becomes final, the latter may move for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence material to his defense. The motion shall
conform with the provisions of section 4, Rule 121. (14a)
Section 15. Where new trial conducted. When a new trial is granted, the Court of Appeals may conduct the hearing and receive evidence as provided in section

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
100
12 of this Rule or refer the trial to the court of origin. (15a)
Section 16. Reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration shall be filed within fifteen (15) days after from notice of the decision or final order of the Court of
Appeals, with copies served upon the adverse party, setting forth the grounds in support thereof. The mittimus shall be stayed during the pendency of the motion
for reconsideration. No party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order. (16a)
Section 17. Judgment transmitted and filed in trial court. When the entry of judgment of the Court of Appeals is issued, a certified true copy of the judgment
shall be attached to the original record which shall be remanded to the clerk of the court from which the appeal was taken. (17a)
Section 18. Application of certain rules in civil to criminal cases. The provisions of Rules 42, 44 to 46 and 48 to 56 relating to procedure in the Court of Appeals
and in the Supreme Court in original and appealed civil cases shall be applied to criminal cases insofar as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Rule.
3. Rule 125 of the Rules of Court
Section 1. Uniform procedure. Unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, the procedure in the Supreme Court in original and in appealed cases
shall be the same as in the Court of Appeals. (1a)
Section 2. Review of decisions of the Court of Appeals. The procedure for the review by the Supreme Court of decisions in criminal cases rendered by the
Court of Appeals shall be the same as in civil cases. (2a)
Section 3. Decision if opinion is equally divided. When the Supreme Court en banc is equally divided in opinion or the necessary majority cannot be had on
whether to acquit the appellant, the case shall again be deliberated upon and if no decision is reached after re-deliberation, the judgment of conviction of the lower
court shall be reversed and the accused acquitted. (3a)

4. Section 21 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure

Sec. 21. Appeal. The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate regional trial court which shall decide the same in accordance with Section
22 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. The decision of the regional trial court in civil cases governed by this Rule, including forcible entry and unlawful detainer, shall be
immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom. Section 10 of Rule 70 shall be deemed repealed.

5. A.M. 00-5-03-SC
RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TO GOVERN DEATH PENALTY CASES

AMENDED RULES
TO GOVERN REVIEW OF
DEATH PENALTY CASES

Rule 122, Sections 3 and 10, and Rule 124, Sections 12 and 13, of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, are amended as follows:

Rule 122

Sec. 3. How appeal taken.(a) The appeal to the Regional Trial Court, or to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction, shall be by notice of appeal filed with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and by serving a copy thereof upon
the adverse party.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
101
(b) The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review under
Rule 42.

(c) The appeal in cases where the penalty imposed by the Regional Trial Court isreclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or where a lesser penalty is imposed for
offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more, serious offense for which the penalty of death,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed, shall be by notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals in accordance with paragraph (a) of this Rule.

(d) No notice of appeal is necessary in cases where the Regional Trial Court imposed the death penalty. The Court of Appeals shall automatically review the
judgment as provided in Section 10 of this Rule. (3a)

xxx

Sec. 10. Transmission of records in case of death penalty. In all cases where the death penalty is imposed by the trial court, the records shall be forwarded to
the Court of Appeals for automatic review and judgment within twenty days but not earlier than fifteen days from the promulgation of the judgment or notice of
denial of a motion for new trial or reconsideration. The transcript shall also be forwarded within ten days after the filing thereof by the stenographic reporter. (10a)

xxx

Rule 124

Sec. 12. Power to receive evidence.The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform all acts
necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further
proceedings. Trials or hearings in the Court of Appeals must be continuous and must be completed within three months, unless extended by the Chief Justice.
12(a)

Sec. 13. Certification or appeal of case to the Supreme Court.(a) Whenever the Court of Appeals finds that the penalty of death should be imposed, the court
shall render judgment but refrain from making an entry of judgment and forthwith certify the case and elevate its entire record to the Supreme Court for review.

(b) Where the judgment also imposes a lesser penalty for offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to
the more severe offense for which the penalty of death is imposed, and the accused appeals, the appeal shall be included in the case certified for review to, the
Supreme Court.

(c) In cases where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it shall render and enter judgment imposing such
penalty. The judgment may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals.

B.CASES
TITLE (YEAR) QUICK FACTS HELD DOCTRINE
Quemuel v. CA (1968) Quemuel was convicted of libel and sentenced Petition has no merit. An appeal in a criminal case opens
to imprisonment. He appealed to the CA which the whole case for review and this
affirmed his conviction but imposed a fine as includes the review of the penalty,
well as an amount for indemnity and subsidiary which may be increased.
imprisonment. Quemual asserts that CA
shouldnt
CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 have awarded
LORAINE the indemnity
SAGUINSIN. since the
KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
offended party never appealed to have the 102
penalty modified.
People v. Gomez (1967) Special Prosecutor Agana was designated to Petition granted. Certiorari proceedings (which arent
prosecute the offenders for illegal exportation of appeals) instituted by the prosecutor
copra. She filed an information against seven to set aside an order on the ground
people but notice of trial was not given to her. that it was invalid does not place the
Hence, the Fiscal assisting her moved for accused in double jeopardy.
postponement (opposed by the accused). The
case was dismissed and Agana filed an MR
and then certiorari but was opposed on the
ground of double jeopardy.
Martinez v. CA (1994) VP Laurel filed a complaint for libel against Appeal was a proper remedy Two remedies available in this case:
Martinez. Martinez filed a motion for because the order of dismissal was (1) appeal and (2) certiorari under
reinvestigation but was denied. The case was a final order. It finally disposed of Rule 65.
set for arraignment and pre-trial but was the pending action so that nothing
cancelled in view of the judges retirement. more could be done with it in the If the case cannot be appealed, the
Laurel and Martinez sought different remedies lower court. remedy is Rule 65 in most cases.
but the case was eventually dismissed. The right to appeal from a judgment
in a criminal case is granted to any
Laurel filed an MR and was denied so he party, except where the accused is
appealed to the CA. Martinez filed a Motion to placed in double jeopardy. An order
Dismiss Appeal and contended that a Petition of dismissal is a final order.
for Certiorari was the proper remedy. CA
granted Laurens appeal, holding that appeal
was a proper remedy because the order of
dismissal was a final order which terminated all
proceedings.
People v. Bayotas (1994) Bayotas was charged with rape and convicted. If the civil liability arises solely from
Pending the appeal of his conviction, he died. the act complained of as a felony, Where the civil liability survives, an
The SC dismissed the criminal aspect of the then the liability is extinguished action for recovery may be pursued
appeal. The PAO argues that the death of the upon the death of the accused but only by filing a separate civil
accused while judgment of conviction is pending appeal of his conviction. If action. This separate civil action
pending appeal extinguishes both his criminal the offended party can base his may be enforced against either the
and civil penalties but the SolGen contends that claim of civil liability from other executor or administrator or the
his death does not extinguish his civil liability. sources of obligation, then he must estate of the accused, depending on
institute a separate civil action. the source of obligation.
People v.Esparas (1996) Esparas was charged with violations of RA The power of the SC to review The SC must review all death
6245 for importing shabu. After arraignment, he death penalty decision cannot be penalty cases regardless of the wish
escaped from jail and was tried in absentia. waived by either the accused or the of the convict and the will of the
Trial court found her guilty and imposed the courts. The fact that the accused Court. Nothing less than life is at
death penalty. She remained at large. remains at large is immaterial. She stake and that decision must be as
is entitled to automatic review. error-free as possible. SC has the
power and duty to review all death
penalty cases.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
103
People v.Esparas (1996) Esparas was charged with violations of RA The power of the SC to review The SC must review all death
6245 for importing shabu. After arraignment, he death penalty decision cannot be penalty cases regardless of the wish
escaped from jail and was tried in absentia. waived by either the accused or the of the convict and the will of the
Trial court found her guilty and imposed the courts. The fact that the accused Court. Nothing less than life is at
death penalty. She remained at large. remains at large is immaterial. She stake and that decision must be as
is entitled to automatic review. error-free as possible. SC has the
power and duty to review all death
penalty cases.
Tamayo v. CA (2004) Tamayo was convicted of arson. He appealed Tamayos appeal should be Except for criminal cases where the
to the CA. CA required him to file an appellants reinstated. He was not responsible penalty is reclusion perpetua or
brief but he failed to even after 1 year. CA for the delay because was still death, an appeal from the judgment
treated this as abandonment pursuant to Rule awaiting resolution of the motion. of the lower court is not a matter of
124. Tamayo moved for reconsideration right but of sound judicial discretion.
praying that he be given time to prepare it, The technical and procedural rules
saying that he was unaware of the non-filing by should ensure, not suppress,
his former counsel (who withdrew without his substantial justice. Tamayo filed his
knowledge or consent). CA denied his MR on notice of appeal timely and the CA
the ground that , 41 days after the filing of the acquired jurisdiction. Failure to file a
motion to reconsider, he still hadnt submitted it. notice of appeal within reglamentary
period failure of the CA to acquire
jurisdiction. Failure to file a brief
within the period gratned
abandonment of the appeal which
may lead to its dismissal upon
failure to move for reconsideration.
Vitto v. CA (2003) Vitto, etc, wehre charged and convicted of Vitto cannot revive his appeal. He An appeal is considered abandoned
homicide. They all appealed but since they did asked for an extension but failed to when an appellant does not
not post bail on appeal, they remained at large. comply. His claim of unawareness surrender himself to the jurisdiction
CA issued a resokution requiring them to is a flimsy excuse since he had of the appellate court and file his
explain why their appeal should not be deemed counsel throughout the trial. brief within the prescribed period.
abandoned. Vitto explained that he was not
aware that he should surrender to the CA. His
counsel asked for an additional period to file his
brief and contact the accused. Still, Vitto did
neither. CA dismissed the appeal. 2 months
after the resolution became final andexecutory,
Vittos counsel filed a Motion for Leave of Court
to File Brief which was denied.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
104
XVII. POST CONVICTION REVIEW (BY JAMIE CHAN)

A. CASES
CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE RATIO
ABRIOL V. HOMERES Fidel Abriol (together with six other Whether or not the writ of habeas General rule: The function of a writ of
persons) was accused of illegal corpus may be issued in this case habeas corpus in permitting the
possession of firearms and ammunition. (whether or not a petition for habeas petitioner to challenge by collateral
After the prosecution had presented its corpus is the proper remedy to review attack the jurisdiction under which the
evidence and rested its case, defense a judgment of conviction). YES. process or judgment by which he is
counsel moved to dismiss the case on deprived of his liberty was issued or
the ground of insufficiency of evidence to rendered cannot be distorted by
prove the guilt of the accused. extending the inquiry to mere errors of
The court denied the motion trial courts acting within their
Court did not allow the accused to jurisdiction.
present evidence in their defense

A writ of habeas corpus is the proper


remedy to review a judgment of a
conviction.
Upon the grant, one is restored the
right he has been unlawful deprived
of. In this case, it was his right to
present evidence as the defense.
No court of justice under our system
of government has the power to
deprive the accused of his right to be
heard or to present evidence in his
defense before being sentenced. If the
accused does not waive his right to be
heard but on the contrary as in the
instant case invokes that right, and
the court denies it to him, the court no
longer has jurisdiction to proceed; it
has no power to sentence the
accused without hearing him in his
defense; and the sentence thus
pronounced is void and may be
collaterally attacked in a habeas
corpus proceeding.

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
105
However, habeas corpus is not a
means of reviewing errors or
irregularities during trial. Therefore it is
not a writ of error. It is used technically
to safeguard constitutional rights of
human life and liberty. Therefore, not
a corrective remedy.
CRUZ V. DIRECTOR OF Cruz was to serve a sentence of Whether the CFI correctly sentenced The subsidiary imprisonment for
PRISONS imprisonment for a term of three years, petitioner to subsidiary imprisonment insolvency is a new statute that was
to pay a fine of P1,000, and to the in case of insolvency in the payment released after Cruz was convicted for
corresponding subsidiary imprisonment of the P1,000 fine. NO both crimes.
in case of insolvency in the payment of Laws cannot have any retroactive
the fine. In the second case to a term of effect on the accused if it is not
two years' imprisonment and to pay a beneficial to him.
fine of $2,000 United States currency. Where a sentence imposes a
He was not able to pay the fine so he punishment in excess of the power of
was given subsidiary imprisonment the court to impose, such sentence is
Cruz claims that he is not supposed to void as to the excess.
be charged with the subsidiary
imprisonment and that he has served his
sentence.
GALMAN V. SANDIGANBAYAN While still serving his prison term of life WON the Court of First Instance of In this case, the act of the escaped
imprisonment, Parulan escaped from his Manila has jurisdiction over the person prisoner is a continuous or series of
confinement. He was recaptured in the of the petitioner and the offense with acts set afoot by a single impulse and
City of Manila. He was prosecuted and which he was charged operated by an intermittent force,
found guilty for the crime of evasion of YES. however long it may be. It may not be
service of sentence. validly said that after the convict shall
Parulan filed this petition for writ of have escaped from the place of his
habeas corpus praying that he be confinement the crime fully
released immediately and without delay consummated, for as long as he
of the body of petitioner from unlawful continues to evade the service of his
and illegal confinement. sentence he is deemed to continue
He claism that his sentence is illegal and committing the crime and may be
void as the court who released his arrested without warrant, at any place
conviction does not have any jurisdiction where he may be found.
over the case.
PEOPLE V. LABRIAGA Re: killing of Ninoy Aquino Is the declaration of mistrial proper? It is settled doctrine that double
The courts convicted Galman, etal Yes. Sandiganbayan is void ab initio. jeopardy cannot be invoked against
despite it being obvious that it was a this Court's setting aside of the trial
sham decision court's judgment of dismissal or

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
106
acquittal where the prosecution which
represents the sovereign people in
criminal cases is denied due process.
Where there is a violation of basic
constitutional rights, courts are ousted
of their jurisdiction. In this case, the
prosecution and the sovereign people
were denied due process of law with a
partial court and biased Tanodbayan
under the constant and pervasive
monitoring and pressure exerted by
the authoritarian PResident to assure
the carrying out of his instructions. A
dictated, coerced and scripted verdict
of acquittal is a void judgment.
LEJANO V. PEOPLE Labriaga caught for selling 2 teabags of Whether her motion for modification of She should file for habeas corpus
Marijuana. She was carrying 115 grams sentence be granted. because the decision of her case was
so she was sentenced to life already final
imprisonment. However, since we have ruled that
Accdg to People v. Simon 6.1-8 years habeas corpus should be liberally
imprisonment if you are caught with less applied, we decided to treat the
than 200 grams motion in this case as substantial
Labriaga filed a modification of sentence compliance with the rules on habeas
and wants the above cited case corpus. The accused should be
retroactively applied to her release.
Re: Vizconde massacre WON Webb has the right to acquittal Due process does not require rhe
due to loss of DNA. NO. state to preserve the semen
WON Alfaros testimony as specimen. No bad faith shown on part
eyewitness is entitled to belief. NO. of police.
WON Webb presented sufficient After denial of application for DNA
evidence to prove his alibi and rebut testing in the RTC, Webb no longer
Alfaros testimony. YES. asked for it during all the appeals.

B. NOTES
File a Rule 65 petition from RTC to CA if no appeal is applicable anymore

CRIMPRO REVIEWERS GROUP A2015 LORAINE SAGUINSIN. KATRINA RIVERA. OYIE JAVELOSA. PATRICK MANALO. JAMIE CHAN. PAULINE GAIRANOD.
107