Hierarchy:
DOJ ------ SEC of Justice ------- PROSECUTORS
NOTE: these crimes shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by
the offended spouse
RULE: PROSECUTOR CANNOT PROSECUTE THE CASE WHERE NO
COMPLAINT IS FILED BY THE OFFENDED SPOUSE
Cannot be instituted against one party alone! AGAINST BOTH GUILTY
PARTIES!
Cases where it cannot be prosecuted
If the offended party has consented to the offense or has pardoned the
offenders (express/implied)
3. Seduction
3. Abduction
3. Acts of lasciviousness
V COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
Complaint, defined.
Sworn written statement
Charging a person with an offense
Subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer
Name: People of the Philippines
Private offended parties – only as witnesses
Thus they may not appeal the dismissal of a criminal case or the acquittal
ONLY the civil aspect
In so doing, the private offended party who appeals must prosecute in his
own personal capacity
Information, defined.
Accusation in writing
Not required to be sworn; because the prosecutor is under the oath of his office
Charging a person with an offense
Subscribed by the prosecutor
And filed with the court
Name: People of the Phils
Question: When is the right time to question the sufficiency or validity of the
information or complaint?
Question: What should be given preference, the designation of the crime in the
information or the allegation of the facts?
Answer: A mistake in the name of the accused is not equivalent, and does not
necessarily amount to, a mistake in the identity of the accused especially when
sufficient evidence is adduced to show that the accused is pointed to as one of
the perpetrators of the crime. However, the identity must be proven.
Ruling: Only a formal amendment. The only change made was in the caption of
the case; and in the opening paragraph or preamble of the Information, with the
crossing out of word Homicide and its replacement by the Murder. There was no
change in the recital of facts constituting the offense charged or in the
determination of the jurisdiction of the court. The averments in the amended
Information for murder are exactly the same as those already alleged in the
original information for homicide, as there was not at all any change in the
act imputed to the accused. In allowing formal amendments in which the
accused has already pleaded, it is necessary that the amendments do not
prejudice the rights of the accused.
Test whether the rights of the accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a
complaint or information is:
1. whether a defense under the complaint or information, as it originally
stood, would no longer be available after the amendment is made; and
2. When any evidence the accused might have would be inapplicable to
the complaint or information.
Since the facts alleged in the accusatory portion of the amended information
are
1. identical with those of the original information for homicide,
2. there could not be any effect on the prosecution’s theory of the
case;
3. neither would there be any possible prejudice to the rights or
defense of petitioner.
Exception: civil action other than the one arising from the crime is not
suspended by the commencement of the criminal action because they may
proceed independently of the criminal proceedings.
Reservation of the civil action should be made before the prosecution starts
presenting its evidence!
Note: after the criminal action is commenced, the separate civil action arising
therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered in
the criminal action!
Preference is given to the resolution of the criminal action
If the civil action was commenced before the institution of the
criminal action, the civil action shall be suspended in whatever stage it may
be found before judgment on the merits, once the criminal action is filed. The
suspension shall last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action
Exception: does not apply to independent civil action since they are
distinct and separate from the civil action arising from the offense committed
Another exception: prejudicial question
Elementary rule: payment of civil liability does not extinguish criminal liability
Case illustrations:
Preliminary Investigation Preliminary Examination
by the prosecutor by the judge
purpose: whether the accused should purpose: to determine probable
be held for trial or if he should be cause for the issuance of a
released warrant of arrest
Nature: executive, since it is part of Nature: judicial
the prosecutor’s job
Irregularity of arrest Proper arrest
(not in accordance with
Rule 113, Sec5(a)&(b)
Inquest proceeding shall Inquest shall proceed
not proceed
Release of the detainee Detainee may ask for bail (?)
*if the evidence warrants Prosecutor should ask the detainee if he wants to
preliminary investigation, avail preliminary investigation (remember:
the prosecutor may serve purpose of preliminary investigation is to
notice to the detainee determine the probability of guilt of the accused,
and whether he should be held for trial
Case Facts Ruling
(People More than two days before the marijuana is inadmissible since
v. arrest, the officers received a it was not incident to a lawful
Aminnudi tip that the accused was on arrest. The accused was not, at
n) board an identified vessel and the moment of his arrest,
carrying marijuana; acting on committing a crime nor was it
the information they waited for shown that he was about to do
the accused and approached so or that he had just done so.
him as he descended the ship He was just descending the
and arrested him. ship; no outward indication that
called for his arrest. To all
appearances, he was like any
other passengers innocently
disembarking from the vessel.
The officers could have obtained
a warrant since they had
reasonable time to apply
(People The accused were arrested Invalid arrest made merely on
v. while inside a pedicab despite the basis of reliable information
Molina) the absence of any outward that the persons arrested were
indications of a crime being carrying marijuana
committed.
(Malacat A warrantless arrest cannot be
v. CA). justified where no crime is being
committed at the time of the
arrest because no crime may be
inferred from the fact that the
eyes of the person arrested
were moving fast and looking at
every person passing by
People There was a telephone call from The requirements of a
v. an alleged informer that warrantless arrest were not
Mengot suspicious looking men were at complied with. There was no
e. a street corner. The operatives offense which could have been
dispatched to the place, they suggested by the acts of
saw three men who was looking Mengote of looking from side to
from side to side clutching his side while holding his abdomen.
abdomen. The operatives These are obviously not sinister
approached the men and acts. He was not skulking in the
introduce themselves as shadows but walking in the
policemen. Two of them tried to clear light of day. By no stretch
run away but the attempt was of the imagination could it have
foiled. The search yielded a been inferred from these acts
revolver in the possession of that an offense had just been
Mengote and a fan knife in the committed, or was at least
pocket of another. being attempted in their
presence.
People v Two men who were arrested the facts and circumstances did
Laguio. told the officers that they knew not manifest any suspicious
of a scheduled delivery of behavior on the part of WW that
shabu by their employer WW. would reasonably invite the
The police operatives attention of the police. He was
proceeded to the place and merely walking from the
found WW who came out of the apartment and was about to
apartment towards a parked enter a parked car when the
car, the officers approached police operatives arrested him,
him, introduced themselves and frisked and searched his person
upon hearing that he was WW, and commanded him to open
immediately he frisked him and the compartment of the car. He
asked him to open the back was not committing any visible
compartment of the car. When offense then. Therefore, there
frisked, an unlicensed pistol can be no valid warrantless
with live ammunitions was arrest in flagrante delicto. It is
found inside his pocket. The settled that reliable information
operatives searched the car and alone, absent any overt act
found shabu, unlicensed pistol, indicative of a felonious
etc enterprise in the presence and
within the view of the arresting
officers, is not sufficient to
constitute probable cause that
would justify an in flagrante
delicto arrest.
To determine:
1. Whether a crime has been committed
2. Whether the respondent is probably guilty thereof
Prosecutor’s duties:
1. To determine the existence of probable case
2. To file information
Ultimate purpose:
to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive
prosecution
to protect him from an open and public accusation of a crime
to protect the State from useless and expensive prosecution
designed to free a respondent from the inconvenience, expense, stress of
defending himself/herself in the course of a formal trial, until the reasonable
probability of his or her guilt has been passed upon in a more or less summary
proceeding
Is the prosecutor a quasi-judicial officer?
No. A preliminary investigation is not a trial of the case on the merits, and has
no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and
whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof.
While the fiscal makes that determination, he cannot be said to be acting as a
quasi-court, for it is the courts, ultimately, that pass judgment on the
accused, not the fiscal.
Requires:
requires more than bare suspicion
but less evidence
elements of the crime charged should be present since every crime is
defined by its elements, without which there should be no criminal
It does not
does not import absolute certainty
need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt
does not pronounce guilt (only the probability of guilt which would lead
the accused to stand trial)
require a full and exhaustive presentation of the parties’ evidence
Discretion:
The determination lies within the discretion of the prosecuting officers
after conducting a preliminary investigation.
Merely binds over the suspects to stand trial
When required?
Preliminary investigation is required in a criminal offense has a penalty of at
least 4yrs, 2months, and 1 day.
WHERE:
police stations/headquarters of the PNP, unless otherwise directed (which
is why it is an informal and summary proceeding)
Deemed COMMENCED:
from the time the Inquest Officer receives the complaint and referral
documents
detained persons should be present during inquest proceedings
*When may the person lawfully arrested without warrant ask for a
preliminary investigation?
- after filing, within 5 days from the time he learns of its filing
Duty of the Inquest Prosecutor:
1. to determine if the detained person has been arrested lawfully in
accordance with Rule 113, Sec 5 (a) and (b)
1. he may examine the arresting officers on the arrest
b. should it be found that it was not in accordance with Rule113, inquest
prosecutor shall not proceed with the inquest proceedings. And recommend
the release of the detainee
** see the table at the back/below
Inquest must pertain to the offense for which the arrest was made
Facts: Beltran was arrested without a warrant for inciting to sedition based on a
speech he gave. Second inquest was based on rebellion.
Ruling: Inquest proceedings are proper only when the accused has been
lawfully arrested without a warrant. The officers arrested Beltran for inciting to
sedition and not for rebellion, therefore the prosecutor could only have
conducted an inquest for inciting to sedition and no other! Second inquest –
invalid
Clarificatory Hearing:
set by the prosecutor
to clarify facts and issues
no right to cross-examine
if the parties have questions to ask, it should be addressed to the
prosecutor, and the latter shall be the one to ask the questions to the party
concerned
lasts only for 5 days
dispensable
within the discretion of the prosecutor
BAR Question: Whether the TRIAL COURT may refuse to grant the
motion filed by the Provincial Fiscal (upon instructions of the Sec of
Justice) and insist on the arraignment and trial on the merits.
Answer: YES, the court may deny the motion and require that the trial
on the merits proceed for the proper determination of the case. Once a
criminal complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case or
dismissal or acquittal or conviction of the accused rests within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the trial court. The fiscal or even the Secretary of Justice cannot
impose his opinion on the trial court since it is the best and sole judge on what
to do with the case before it. The judge of the trial court is not bound to rely
solely on the resolution of the fiscal; he must make a personal evaluation of the
case, and satisfy himself that there is indeed a probable cause to issue a
warrant of arrest or a commitment order. Further, judge is required to positively
state that the evidence presented was insufficient for a prima facie case. It must
include the discussion of the merits and state the reasons for granting the
motion to withdraw.
QUESTION: What if the act of the officer does not amount to an arrest; will the
requirements on probable cause and personal knowledge stay?
ANSWER: No. It will not be pre-requisites to the legality of the said arrest.
Case: Soliven v. Makasiar – this provision does not mandatorily require the
judge to personally examine the complainant and her witnesses. He may opt to:
1. personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by
the prosecutor; or
2. disregard the prosecutor’s report and require the submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses
NOTE: The officer need not have the warrant in his possession at the time
of the arrest. However, after the arrest, the warrant shall be shown to him as
soon as practicable, if the person arrested so requires.
The officer also has the duty to deliver the person arrested to the nearest police
station or jail without necessary delay.
REQUIREMENTS:
1. Offense has just been committed
2. The person making the arrest has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it
Note: a warrantless arrest made, one year after the offense was allegedly
committed is an illegal arrest!
Does not require the officers to personally witness the commission of the
offense; PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE must be based on PROBABLE CAUSE –
actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.
Reasonable ground:
1. Based on actual facts
1. Supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
create probable cause of guilt
2. Probable cause with good faith
Method of arrest WITHOUT a WARRANT
1. Arrest by an officer; he shall inform:
1. Of his authority
2. Cause of his arrest
The info need not be given if:
a. If the person to be arrested is engaged in the commission of an offense
b. In the process of being pursued immediately after its commission
c. Escapes or flees
d. Forcibly resists before the officer could inform him
e. The information will imperil the arrest
Officer may:
Summon assistance
Break into a building or an enclosure or break out from it
NOTE: the right to break into a building or an enclosure does not apply to private
person!!
Judgment, defined.
Adjudication by the court
That accused is guilty or not guilty
Imposition of the proper penalty
And civil liability
Formal Requisites of Judgment:
1. Written in the official language
2. Personally and directly prepared an signed by the judge
3. Must contain clearly and distinctly
1. Statement of facts
2. Law
Jurisdictional requirements:
a. over the subject matter
b. territory
c. person of the accused
Promulgation of Judgment
1. by reading in the presence of the accused and any judge
2. for light offense – in the presence of counsel or representative
3. may be promulgated by the clerk of court if the judge is absent or outside
the province or city
4. if the accused is confined or detained in another province or city, may be
promulgated by the executive judge of the RTC having jurisdiction over the place
of confinement or detention
Entry of judgment
After judgment has become final, it shall be entered in accordance with
Section 8, Rule 120, Rules of Court
EFFECT:
a. based on errors of law or irregularities
all the proceedings and evidence affected shall be
1. set aside; and
2. taken anew
ii. the court may allow additional evidence
b. newly-discovered evidence
i. evidence already adduced shall stand
ii. the newly-discovered evidence shall be taken together with the evidence
already in record
c. in all cases where it is granted
i. original judgment shall be set aside or vacated
ii. new judgment shall be rendered
III – APPEALS
Not a natural right
Merely a statutory privilege
May be exercised in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of
law
Once granted by law, its suppression is tantamount to a violation of due
process
Subject: judgment or final order
Case: appellate court failed to notify the Solicitor General of its resolution on a
petition filed by the accused and failed to require to file its comment – effect:
deprivation of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case
Rule: a petition for review should be filed by the Solicitor General who is solely
vested with the authority to represent the people