Jurisdiction

Cruz vs CA GR No. 123340 August 29, 2002

Requisites of criminal jurisdiction- court must have jurisdiction over the

subject matter, over the territory where the offense was committed and over the
person of the accused.

Trenas vs People GR No. 195002 January 25, 2012

Jurisdiction over the subject matter in criminal cases cannot be conferred

upon the court by the accused, by exptress waiver or otherwise. Jurisdiction is
conferred by the sovereign authority that organized the court and is given only
by law in the manner and form prescribed by law.

People vs Taroy GR No. 192466 September 7, 2011

For territorial jurisdiction to attach, the criminal action must be instituted

and tried in the proepr court of the municipality, city or province where th
eoffense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients took place.

Miranda vs Tuliao GR No. 158763 March 31, 2006

Except in applications for bail, it is not necessary for the court to first
acquire jurisdiction over th eperson of the accused to dismiss the case or grant
other reliefs. The outright dismissal of the case even before the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the accused is authorized under Section 6 (a) Rule
112 of the Revised Rules of Criiminal Procedure and the Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure Section 12 thereof.

Doctrine of Duplicity of offenses

Fajardo vs People GR No. 190889 January 10, 2011

Ordinarily, an information that charges multiple offenses (single complaint

or information that charges more than one offense) merits a quashal but if the
respondent failed to raise this ground during the arraignment, such failure will
constitute a waiver and he may be convicted for as many offenses as there
were charged in the information.

Prescription

People vs Pangilinan GR No. 152662 June 13, 2012

In the old but oft cited case of PP vs Olarte (GR No. L-22465 February 28, 1967,
thjis court ruled that the filing of the complaint in the municipal court even if it
be merely for the purpose of preliminary examination or investigation should and
thus interrupt the period of prescription of hte criminal responsibility even iof teh
court where the complaint or information is filed cannot try the case on the
merits. This ruling was broadened by the court in the case of Francisco vs CA
(207 Phil 471) when it held that the filing of the complaint with the fiscal’s office
also suspends the running of the prescriptive period of a criminal offense.

1
Securities and Exchagne Commission vs Interport Resources Corporation GR No.
135808 October 6, 2008

Investigations conducted by the SEC for violations of the Reviosed

Securities Act and the Securities Regulations Code effectively interrupts the
prescriptive period because it is equivalent to the preliminary investigation
conducted by the DOJ in criminal cases.

Amendment or Substitution

Matalam vs Sandiganbayan 455 SCRA 736 April 12, 2005

After arrraignment, substantial amendment is proscribed except if the same is

beneficial to the accused.

Kummer vs People GR No. 174461 September 11, 2013

Amendment to change the date of offense is formal. There is no need of

re-arraignment.

Prosecution of cases

Control by the Prosecution- what case to file (PP vs Pineda); whom to prosecute
(People vs Devaras); manner of prosecution (People vs Nazareno); to withdraw
information before arraignment even without notice of hearing (Galvez va CA
237 SCRA 685)
Control by the court- suspension of arraignment (Crespo vs Mogul);
reinvestigation (Velasquez vs Undersecretary of Justice); Dismissal (Dungog vs
CA)

Preliminary Investigation

Estrada vs Ombudsman

Accused under preliminary investigation ihas no right of cross-examination

which the complainant may present. Respondent shall only have the right to
submit counter affidavit to examine all the evidence submitted by the
complainant.
Conduct of Preliminary investigation is only for the determinatin of
probable cause meaning “probability of guilt” and should be determined in a
summary manner. Preliminary investigation is not part of the trial and it is only
during the trial where the accused can demand full exercise of his rights such as
right to confront and cross-examine his accusers.

ARREST

People vs Cabacaba- gr No. 171310 July 9, 2008

Buy bust operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been

accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs
Law. An arrest made after entrapment does not require a warrant inasmuch as

2
it is considered as VALID WARRANTLESS AREST under Rule 113 Section 5 (a) of the
Rules of Court.

People vs Encinada GR No. 116720 October 2, 1997

Search and seizure must be validated by a warrant under Section 2 Article III of
the Constitution exceptions- 1)search incidental to lawful arrest 2) search of
moving vehicles 3) plain view search 4) custom searches 5) waiver or consetend
search .
In these cases the search may be made upon probable cause as essential
requirement- probable cause in this case signifies reasonable ground of
suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
warrant a cautious man to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense with
which he is charged OR-

Existence of facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably

discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and
that the item, articles sought in connection with the said offense or subject of
seizure is in the place to be searched.
There was illegal search in this case because-
1)There was no lawful warrantless arrest because the accused was not
committing a crime in the presence of the police officer.
2)police officer has no personal knowledge that the person to be arrested has
committed an offense
3) raw intelligence is not sufficient ground for a warrantless arrest.
4) accused did not exhibit any suspicious behavior when he disemabarked from
the ship or while he rode the motorela
5) the circumstances are bare to exhibit that the accused is committing a crime
or is about to commit a crime

CONSENT did not validate the search. Accused did not voluntarily consent to the
search. His silence should not be taken lightly as consent to the search

PEOPLE VS DEL ROSARIO-

The arrest one day after the crime was committed renders the arrest
invalid. None of Section 5 a and b is present.
-Two elements 1) offense has just been committed and 2)arresting officer
has personal knowledge of facts. Hence, there must be a large measure of the
immediacy.
-if there is appreciable lapse of time between the commission and the
arrest, warrant must first be secured.
-aside from immediacy, the officer must have personal knowledge. The
arrest came after the consummation of the crime and not immediately
thereafter hence, the crime cannot be said as having just committed.
Note- the illegality of the arrest cannot affect the jurisdiction o the court
because awarrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect and any objection

3
thereto is waived when the person submits to arraignment without any objection
as in this case.

Custodial Investigation.
-is the stage where the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry
into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken
into custody by the police who carry out a process of interrogation that lends
itself to elicit incriminating statements.
-under RA 7438- includes the practice of issuing an invitation to a person
who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have
committed.
-Section 2- the one who arrests, detains or investigated any person for the
commission of an offense shall inform the latter in a language known and
understood by him- right to remain silent, competent (C) and independent (I)
counsel preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer
privately with the person arrested, detained or investigated or under CI. If such
person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with
a C and I counsel by the investigating officer.

BAIL

Sec. 13, Art. III, 1987 Constitution: All persons, except those charged with
offenses violation 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 the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
Excessive baill shall not be required.

Sec. 14 (2), Art. III, 1987 Constitution: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved…

Sec. 7, Rule 114: No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense

punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail
when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal
proceedings.

Bail is a matter of right

Before/after conviction by MTC (in MTC cases always a matter of right)

Before conviction by RTC in offenses not punishable by D, RP or LI
Before conviction by RTC in offenses punishable by D, RP or LI when evidence of
guilt is not strong

Bail is a matter of discretion

Before conviction by RTC in offenses punishable by D, RP or LI when evidence of

guilt is strong
After conviction by RTC in offenses not punishable by D, RP or LI

4
RULE: Leviste vs CA
1) After conviction by the RTC and the penalty is beyond 6yrs to 20 yrs and
NOT ONE of the circumstances stated in Section 5 or any other similar
circumstances is present or proved, BAIL IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION
Hence, even if there are no negating circumstances, the bail can still be
denied if in the exercise of discretion bail should not be granted.
2) After conviction by the RTC and the penalty is beyond 6yrs to 20 yrs and
ANY OF THE circumstances stated in Section 5 or any other similar
circumstances is PRESENT AND PROVED, NO BAIL SHALL BE GRANTED.

Enrile vs Sandiganbayan GR No. 213 847 August 18, 2015

Settled Rule: For purposes of admission to bail, the determination of whether or

not evidence of guilt is strong in criminal cases involving capital offenses, or
offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment lies within the
discretion of the trial court. But, as the Court has held in Concerned Citizens v.
Elma , "such discretion may be exercised only after the hearing called to
ascertain the degree of guilt of the accused for the purpose of whether or not
he should be granted provisional liberty." It is axiomatic, therefore, that bail
cannot be allowed when its grant is a matter of discretion on the part of the trial
court unless there has been a hearing with notice to the Prosecution.

Please note of the separate ruling of the Supreme Court when it granted the
petitioner bail in a capital offense even before summary hearing.

“In our view, his social and political standing and his having immediately
surrendered to the authorities upon his being charged in court indicate that the
risk of his flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely. His personal
disposition from the onset of his indictment for plunder, formal or otherwise, has
demonstrated his utter respect for the legal processes of this country. We also do
not ignore that at an earlier time many years ago when he had been charged
with rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder, he already evinced a
similar personal disposition of respect for the legal processes, and was granted
bail during the pendency of his trial because he was not seen as a flight risk.
(with citation) With his solid reputation in both his public and his private lives, his
long years of public service, and history’s judgment of him being at stake, he
should be granted bail.

The currently fragile state of Enrile’s health presents another compelling

justification for his admission to bail, but which the Sandiganbayan did not
recognize”.

MOTION TO QUASH

Motion to Quash (MQ) under Rule 117 is a special pleading filed by the
accused before entering his plea
If the MQ denied, can you appeal? No, denial is only an interlocutory order not
subject to appeal.

A final order is one that which disposes of the whole subject matter
or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing to

5
 be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined.
Upon the other hand, an order is interlocutory if it does not dispose
of a case completely, but leaves something more to be done upon
its merits.

Remedy fi the MQ is denied. 1) Go to trial and raise the same defense and if
convicted, appeal
2) Petition for certiorari but if the court has jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the case and thereis no grave abuse of
discretion committed, certiorari will not lie.

However, an order GRANTING MQ is a final order and therefore immediately

appealable provided the accused will not placed in second jeopardy.

Double jeopardy (DJ)– sec 21 Art III Constitution

The Rule on DJ protects accused from being charged again for the same
offense and not for being punished twice

Section 7- Double Jeopardy

1) Valid complaint or info- sufficient in form and substance/ must state all the
elements
2) Court of competent jurisdiction
3) Arraignment and plea- NOTE: the dismissal of the case BEFORE the
accused enters his plea is not a bar to another prosecution except when
the graver offense became known or discovered only after a plea was
entered in the former complaint or info the accused may still be liable for
the graver offense even though he had already entered a plea of guilty.
4) Previous conviction- guilty as charged
5) Acquittal- judgment of acquittal is not reviewable on appeal
6) Dismissal of the case without the consent of the accused- dismissal refers
to permanent dismissal and not dismissal without prejudice or provisional
dismissal
7) The second offense charged is the same as the first charged or for an
attempt to commit the same or a frustration thereof
8) The second offense necessarily includes or is necessarily included in teh
first offense charged.

Identiy of offense- Same acts may violate two or more provisions of the
law hence, prosecution of one will not bar the prosecution of another. The
two crimes must precisely contain the same nature same kind same
evidence same elements. Accused be the same in one and the other.

Same offense test and same evidence test.

Double Jeopardy refers to the same offense not to the same act

Exceptions to the identity rule

1) When the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising
from teh same act or omission constituting the former charge;
New fact supervenes whichc chagnes teh cahracter of hte offense.
Example- physical injuries- dies after. If death occurs prior to
arraignment and the accused was arraigned for physical injuries-
no more “new fact or supervening event”

6
 2) When the facts constituing the graver charge became known or
discoverfed only after a plea was entered in teh former complaint or
information
3) When the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the
ocnsent of the prosecutor and of the offended party except when the
offended party failed to apepar at the arraignement despite due
notice.

APPEAL RULE 122

Appeal is not a natural right nor part of due process, it is merely a statutory
priviledge and may be exercised only in the manner provided by law.

Sec 1 Who may Appeal

The Prosecution cannot appeal from a judgment of acquittal because a verdict
of that nature is immediately final and to try him on the merits, even in an
appelate court, will put him in double jeopardy
The dismissal based on demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal.
Appeal is availabe is the motion to quash is granted. There is no double
keopardy to speak of because there is no arraignment yet. Remember that
motion to quash is siled before the accused enters his plea.

Filing of appeal – means a written notice of intention and not the verbal
manifestation made in court after the promulgation of judgment. A verbal
notice of an intention to appeal does not perfect an appeal.
Filing can be done personally or by registered mail
Once the appeal is perfected, the court from which the appeal was made loses
jurisdiction over the case.

Petition for review vs petition for review on certiorari

Certiorari – lies only in all cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved
A question of law is that which involves no examination of the probative value of
the evidence presented by the parties.
Only errors of jurisdiction is reviewable by certiorari and not errors of judgment

Sec 6 When appeal to be taken (Read)

Computation – first day is excluded, last day included

Example: Promulgation of conviction is on March 16, 15th day is on March 31.
But if March 31 falls on a Sunday or Holiday? Next working day.
Motion for New Trial and Motion for Reconsideration interrupts the running of the
period to perfect an appeal? Note that the filing of a motion for extension of
time to appeal does not suspend the running of that period.

Sec 11 Effect of appeal by any of the several accused

Shall not affect the others except favorable and applicable
Why will it not affect the others? Because in so far as they are concerned, the
judgment already became final. The exception is that when the outcome is
favorable

7
 Search and Seizure Rule 126

Search refers to persons and places particularly described to be searched

whereas seizure refers to things particularly described to be seized.

SEC vs Medonza

Search warant proceeding is not one against any person but is solely for
the discovery and to get possession of personal property. It is a special and
peculiar remedy drastic in nature and made necessary for public nessecity. It is
a police weapon issued under the police power.

Paper Industries Corp vs Asuncion

The search warrant was invalid because the judge failed to examine
personally the complainant and other deponents.
The examination must be probing and exhaustive not merely routinary
and pro forma.

Concept of probable cause – Such facts and circumstances which would lead
a reasonablt discreet and prudent man to beleive that an offense has been
committed and the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the
place sought to be searched.

Purpose of requirement of particular description – to limit the things to be seized

to those, and only those described in the SW, leaving no discretion to the peace
officers to the end that no abuse may be committed

General Warrant – is one which fails to sufficiently specify the place or person to
be searched or things to be seized. It is illegal and void. General warrant can be
quashed.
Scatter shot warrant - SW for more than one offense/ Stonehill vs Diokno (20
SCRA 383)
Hearsay is not allowed – complainant and witness must have personal
knowledge

Sec 5 Examination of complainant

1) Mere affidavits are not sufficient. The examining judge has to take
depositions in writing of the complainant and witnesses
2) The examination must be personally conducted by the judge and cannot
be delegated to the clerk of court.
3) An application for SW is heard ex parte. It is neither a trial nor part of trial.
Action must be expedited for time is of the essence.
4) The seizure of articles not listed in a search warrant does not render the
seizure of the articles described and listed therein illegal; nor does it render
inadmissible in evidence such articles which were described thereto.
5) A partially defective warrant remains valid as to the items specifically
described in the warrant.

8
Rights and remedies of party against whom an illegal SW is issued
1) Quashal
2) Return of goods seized – if not prohibited by law
3) Seized evidence is inadmissible in court-objectionable

Exceptions of warrantless search

1. Search incidental to lawful arrest
– the law requires that there be first a lawful arrest before a search can be
made; the process canno tbe reversed
- Purpose is to protect the arresting officer against any physical harm
from the person being arrested who might be armed with a concealed
weapon and also to prevent the person arrested from destroying
evidence within his reach
- The consitutional proscription against unlaful searches and seizures as a
restraint directed only against the government and its agnecies tasked
with the enforcement of the law. It can be invoked against the State
and cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals.

Search of moving vehicles

- Justified because it is not practicable to secure a SW because the
vehicle can be quickly moved out from the jurisdiction in which the
warrant must be sough tfor violations of customs law, immigaration
laws, smuggling or fishery laws.
People vs Malmstedt 198 SCRA 401
People vs Que 265 SCRA 721
Check points – Valmonte vs De Villa 178 SCRA 211
Routine inspection is valid. Ex:
1. Where hte officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle
which is parked on the public place
2. Simply looks into the vehicle
3. Flashes a light without opening the car doors
4. Visual search only

Seizure of evidence in plain view

Elements:
1) A prior valid intrusion based on valid WA
2) Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the
right to be where they are
3) Evidence must be immediately apparent
4) Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search

Search in connection with the enforcement of custom laws

Waiver or Consented Search

Elements of waiver, it must appear that the
1. Right exists
2. That the person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive of the
existence of such right
3. The said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right

Stop and Frisk theory – (Terry Search)

9
 - Is a limited protective search of outer clothing for weapon (Terry vs
Ohio)
- When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose
suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is presently
dangerous to the officer or to others
- Mere suspicion or hunch will not suffice
- A genuine reason must exist in light of the police’s experience and
surrounding condition, to warrant the belief that the person detained
has weapons concealed about him.

Inspection Search – in jails

Border Search – search of incoming and outgoing passengers in an airport

Exigent and emergency circumstance

10