CLJ - CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE a. Jurisdiction over Subject Matter

This refers to the right to act or the power and
Culled by: Charlemagne James P. Ramos authority to hear and determine a cause [Gomez v.
Montalban, G.R. No. 174414 (2008)]
A.General Matters
The averments in the complaint or information
characterize the crime to be prosecuted [Brodeth v.
1. Jurisdiction over Subject People, G.R. No. 197849 (2017)], and the court before
Matter and Jurisdiction over which the case must be tried [Avecilla v. People, G.R,
No. 46370 (1992)]
Person of the Accused
Distinguished; Territorial Jurisdiction cannot be fixed by the will of the parties;
nor be acquired through waiver nor enlarged by the
Jurisdiction omission of the parties; nor conferred by any
acquiescence of the court [Gomez-Castillo v. Commission
Jurisdiction Jurisdiction on Elections, G.R. No. 187231 (2010)], or by mere
over subject over person of administrative policy of any trial court [Cudia v. Court
matter the accused of Appeals, G.R. No. 110315 (1998)]
Refers to the Refers to the Statute applicable
authority of the authority of the Jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is
Definition court to hear and court over the determined by the law in force at the time of the
decide the case person charged institution of the action, and not the law in force at
the time of the commission of the crime [People v.
May be acquired Lagon, G.R. No. 45815 (1990)]
by the arrest of
the accused, or [NOTE: This rule refers only to remedial law and not
by consent of substantive law.]
Conferred by the accused, or
How law; cannot be by waiver of
acquired conferred by the objections as Imposable penalty
parties when the In determining whether or not the court has
accused enters jurisdiction over an offense, we consider the penalty
his plea which may be imposed upon the accused for the
charge in the complaint and not the actual penalty
imposed after the trial [People v. Purisima, G. R. No. L-
40902 (1976)]
Cannot be
waived by the Principle of adherence of jurisdiction
parties; even on General rule: Under the principle of adherence of
appeal and even jurisdiction or continuing jurisdiction, once a
if the reviewing court acquires jurisdiction over a controversy, it shall
parties did not Right to object continue to exercise such jurisdiction until the final
raise the issue of may be waived; determination of the case [Mendoza v. Comelec, G.R.
jurisdiction, the failure of the No. 188308 (2009)]
Waiver of reviewing court accused to object
objection is not precluded in time would
from ruling that It is not affected by
the lower court constitute waiver 1. A subsequent valid amendment of the
had no information [People v. Chupeco, G.R. No. L-19568
jurisdiction over (1964)]; or
the case 2. A new law vesting jurisdiction over such
proceedings in another tribunal [Palana v. People,
G. R. No. 149995 (2007)]

On jurisdiction over the subject matter, see Garcia v.

Ferro Chemicals, Inc. [G.R. No. 172505 (2014)]; on
jurisdiction over the person, see Santiago v. Vasquez
[G.R. No. 99289-90 (1993)]
Exceptions: The succeeding statute
1. expressly provides, or c. Territorial Jurisdiction
2. is construed to the effect that it is intended to
operate to actions pending before its enactment
[Palana v. People, G. R. No. 149995 (2007)] The place where the criminal offense was committed
not only determines the venue of the action but is
an essential element of jurisdiction [Alfelor v. Intia
b. Jurisdiction over the Person of G.R. No. L-27590 (1976)]
the Accused
This is to be determined by the facts alleged in the
The person charged with the offense must have been complaint or information as regards the place where
brought in to its forum for trial the offense charged was committed [Buaya v. Polo,
1. Forcibly by warrant of arrest; or G.R. No. 167764 (2009)]
2. Voluntary appearance or submission of the
accused to the jurisdiction of the court For jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal
[Antiporda v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 133289 (1999), cases, the offense should have been committed or
citing Arula v. Espino, G.R. No. L-28949 (1969)] any one of its essential ingredients took place
within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Thus, it
Voluntary appearance of the accused is cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an
accomplished by offense allegedly committed outside of the limited
1. Filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief territory [Uy v. CA, G.R. No. 119000 (1997)] One
2. Giving bail cannot be held to answer for any crime committed by
[Santiago v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 99289-90 (1993)] him except in the jurisdiction where it was committed
[People v. Mercado, G.R. No. L-2760 (1950)]
There is no voluntary appearance under item (a)
above in case of special appearance to challenge the 2. Requisites for Exercise of
jurisdiction of the court over the person [Garcia v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 170122 & 171381 (2009)], Criminal Jurisdiction
e.g. a motion to quash
1. a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction Criminal jurisdiction
over the person of the accused because failure to The authority to hear and try a particular offense and
file would be a waiver of the defense of lack of impose the punishment for it [People v. Mariano, G.R.
jurisdiction over the person, or No. L-40527 (1976)]
2. the warrant of arrest because it is the very
legality of the court process forcing the Requisites
submission of the person of the accused that is a. Subject matter jurisdiction: the offense is one
the very issue in the motion to quash a warrant which the court is by law authorized to take
of arrest cognizance of
[Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763 (2006)] b. Territorial jurisdiction: the offense must have
been committed within its territorial jurisdiction
Voluntary surrender as a mitigating c. Jurisdiction over the person: the person
circumstance charged with the offense must have been brought
When after the commission of the crime and the into its forum for trial, forcibly by warrant of
issuance of the warrant of arrest, the accused arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the
presented himself in the municipal building to post court.
the bond for his temporary release, voluntary All three requisites must concur before a court can
surrender is mitigating. The fact that the order of acquire jurisdiction to try a case
arrest had already been issued is no bar to the [Antiporda v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 133289 (1999),
consideration of the circumstances because the law citing Arula v. Espino, G.R. No. L-28949 (1969)]
does not require that the surrender be prior to the
order of arrest [Rivera v. CA, G.R. No. 125867 (2000),
citing People v. Yecla (erroneously referred to as Yeda),
G.R. No. 46612 (1939) and People v. Turalba, G.R. No.
L-29118 (1974)]
 jurisdiction of the first-level courts over
offenses punishable with a fine of not more
3. Jurisdiction of Criminal P4,000.
Courts b. If the amount of the fine exceeds P4,000,
the RTC shall have jurisdiction, including
Regular (civilian) courts offenses committed by public officers
MTC/MeTC/MCTC and employees in relation to their office
Except in cases falling within the exclusive original c. However, this rule does not apply to
jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the offenses involving damage to property
Sandiganbayan, the MTC/MeTC/MCTC shall exercise through criminal negligence which are under
exclusive original jurisdiction over: the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first-
a. All violations of city or municipal ordinances level courts, irrespective of the amount of
committed within their respective territorial the imposable fine.
jurisdiction RTC
b. All offenses punishable with imprisonment a. Exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal
not exceeding 6 years irrespective of the cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of
amount of fine, and regardless of other any court, tribunal or body, EXCEPT those
imposable accessory or other penalties, including now falling under the exclusive and concurrent
the civil liability arising from such offenses or jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall
predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by
value, or amount thereof the latter [Sec. 20, BP 129]
c. Over offenses involving damage to property b. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases
through criminal negligence decided by first-level courts within their
[Sec. 32, B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691] territorial jurisdiction [Sec. 22, BP 129]
d. Concurrent original jurisdiction with RTCs over c. Criminal cases commenced by information
violations of R.A. 7610 (Child Abuse Act), as against the child upon determination of probable
amended, in cities or provinces where there are cause by the prosecutor [Sec. 33, R.A. 9344, as
no family courts yet, depending on the penalties amended by R.A. 10630], in places where there
prescribed for the offense charged [Sec. 16-A, are no family courts [Sec. 4(g), R.A. 9344]
d. Exclusive jurisdiction over drug-related
R.A. 7610, as amended by R.A. 9231] cases [Secs. 20, 61, 62, 90, R.A. 9165, see De Lima
v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781 (2017)]
Note: SC Administrative Circular No. 09-94 (1994): e. Concurrent original jurisdiction with MTCs over
1. Item c: The criminal jurisdiction of the first-level violations of R.A. 7610 (Child Abuse Act), as
courts under Sec. 32(2) of B.P. 129, as amended amended, in cities or provinces where there are
by R.A. 7691, has been increased to cover no family courts yet, depending on the penalties
offenses punishable with imprisonment not prescribed for the offense charged [Sec. 16-A,
exceeding 6 years irrespective of the amount of R.A. 7610, as amended by R.A. 9231]
the fine. As a consequence, the RTCs have no f. Cases of violence against women and children
more original jurisdiction over offenses under R.A. 9262 (Anti-VAWC Act), in the
committed by public officers and employees absence of the RTC designated as a Family Court
in relation to their office, where the offense is in the place where the offense was committed
punishable by more than 4 years and 2 g. Violations of intellectual property rights
months up to 6 years. [A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC (2003); R.A. 8293]
2. Item d: The provisions of Sec. 32(2) of B.P. 129 h. Money laundering cases EXCEPT those
as amended by R.A. 7691, apply only to offenses committed by public officers and private persons
punishable by imprisonment or fine, or both, in who are in conspiracy with such public officers
which cases the amount of the fine is disregarded shall be under the jurisdiction of the
in determining the jurisdiction of the court. Sandiganbayan [Sec. 5, R.A. 9160, as amended]
a. However, in cases where the only penalty i. For offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
provided by law is a fine, the amount where the information a) does not allege any
thereof shall determine the jurisdiction damage to the government or any bribery; or b)
of the court in accordance with the the alleged damage to the government or the
original provisions of Sec. 32(2) of B.P. bribery arising from the or closely related
129 which fixed original exclusive
 transactions are of an amount not exceeding P1 ▪ Presidents, directors or trustees,
million [Sec. 4, P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. or managers of GOCCs, state
10660] universities or educational
institutions or foundations
Sandiganbayan • Members of Congress and officials
a. Violations of: thereof classified as “Grade 27” and
1. RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices up under the Compensation and
Act) Position Classification Act of 198
2. RA 1379 (An Act Declaring Forfeiture In • Members of the judiciary without
Favor of The State Any Property Found To prejudice to the provisions of the
Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by Public Constitution
Officer or Employee) • Chairmen and members of
3. Crimes mentioned in Book 2, Title VII, Constitutional Commissions, without
Section 2, Chapter 2 of the RPC (Indirect prejudice to the provisions of the
Bribery, Corruption of Public officials, etc.) Constitution
where one or more of the accused are • All other national and local officials
officials occupying the following positions in classified as “Grade 27”
the government, whether in a permanent,
acting or interim capacity, at the time of the b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
commission of the offense complexed with other crimes committed by
• officials of the executive branch public officials and employees mentioned
occupying the positions of regional above in relation to their office. The following
director and higher, otherwise must concur:
classified as Grade 27 and higher, of An offense is deemed committed in relation to his
the Compensation and Position office when it cannot exist without the office
Classification Act of 1989 [RA 6758]: 1. The office is a constituent element of the
crime as defined in the statute
▪ Provincial governors, vice- 2. The offense be intimately connected with
the office of the offender
governors, members of the 3. The fact that the offense was committed in
sangguniang panlalawigan, and relation to the office must be alleged in the
provincial treasurers, assessors, Information
department heads [People v. Magallanes, G.R. No. 118013-14 (1995)]
▪ engineers,
City and othervice-mayors,
mayors, provincial
members of the sangguniang In the absence of any allegation that the offense
panlungsod, city treasurers, was committed in relation to the office of the
assessors, engineers, and other accused or was necessarily connected with the
city department heads discharge of their functions, the RTC and not
▪ officials of the diplomatic service the Sandiganbayan, has jurisdiction over the
occupying the position of consul case [People v. Cawaling G.R. No. 117970 (1998)]
and higher
▪ Philippine army and air force c. Criminal cases filed pursuant to and in
colonels, naval captains, and all connection with EO 1, 2, 14, 14-A (1986)
officers of higher rank [Sec. 4, P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 10660]
▪ officers of the PNP while
occupying the position of
provincial director and those Section 4(b) of P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 10660,
holding the rank of senior is the general law on jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
superintendent and higher; over crimes and offenses committed by high-ranking
▪ City and provincial prosecutors public officers in relation to their office. Sec. 90, R.A.
and their assistants, and officials 9165 is the special law excluding from the
and prosecutors in the Office of Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction violations of R.A. 9165
the Ombudsman and special committed by such public officers. In the latter case,
prosecutor jurisdiction is vested upon the RTCs designated by
the Supreme Court as drugs court, regardless of
whether the violation of RA 9165 was committed in j. Where there is no prima facie case and a motion to
relation to the public officials' office [De Lima v. quash on that ground has been denied
Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781 (2017)] k. Where preliminary injunction has been issued by
the SC to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest
Military courts of petitioners
General rule: Ordinary courts will have jurisdiction over [Brocka v. Enrile, G.R. No. 69863-65 (1990)]
cases involving members of the armed forces, and l. When it is necessary to prevent the use of the
other persons subject to military law, regardless of strong arm of the law in an oppressive and
who the co-accused or victims are. vindictive manner [Hernandez v. Albano, G.R. No.
L-19272 (1967)]
Exception: When the offense is service-oriented, it
will be tried by the court martial; Provided, that the
President may, in the interest of justice, order or
direct, at any time before arraignment, that any such
crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil courts.
[Sec. 1, R.A. 7055]

4. When Injunction May Be

Issued To Restrain Criminal
Prosecution
General rule: Criminal prosecution may NOT be
blocked by court prohibition or injunction [Brocka v.
Enrile, G.R. No. 69863-65 (1990)]
Rationale: If at every turn investigation of a crime
will be halted by a court order, the administration of
criminal justice will meet with an undue setback.
Indeed, the investigative power of the Fiscal may
suffer such a tremendous shrinkage that it may end up
in hollow sound rather than as a part and parcel of the
machinery of criminal justice [Hernandez v. Albano,
G.R. No. L-19272 (1967)]
Exceptions
a. To afford adequate protection to the
constitutional rights of the accused
b. When necessary for the orderly administration of
justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of
suits
c. Where there is a prejudicial question which is sub
judice
d. Where acts of the officer are without or in excess
of authority
e. When the prosecution is under an invalid law,
ordinance or regulation
f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent
g. When court has no jurisdiction over the offense
h. When it is a case of persecution rather than
prosecution
i. Where the charges are manifestly false and
motivated by vengeance
B. Prosecution of Offenses Barangay [Sec. 410, LGC]
The prescriptive periods shall resume upon receipt by
the complainant
1. Criminal Actions; How a. of the complaint or
Instituted b. the certificate of repudiation or
c. of the certification to file action issued by the
The institution of a criminal action generally depends Lupon or Pangkat Secretary
upon whether the offense is one which requires a Such interruption however shall not exceed 60 days
preliminary investigation (PI) or not: from the filing of the complaint with the punong
Offenses requiring PI Other offenses barangay
[Sec. 410(c), LGC]
Those where the
penalty prescribed by
law is at least 4 years, What criminal cases require prior recourse to the
2 months and 1 day lupon?
[Sec. 1, Rule 112, as All other offenses Offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding
amended by A.M. No. one (1) year or a fine not exceeding P5,000
05-8-26-SC] [Sec. 408(c), LGC] and where the parties actually
reside in the same city or municipality
a. The complaint or Exceptions:
information is a. when there is no private offended party [Sec.
filed directly with 408(d), LGC]
the MTCs and b. One party is the government or any subdivision
MCTCs; or thereof [408(a), LGC];
b. The complaint is c. One party is a public officer or employee, and the
filed with the dispute relates to the performance of his official
office of the functions [408(b), LGC];
The criminal action is prosecutor d. Parties actually resides in different cities or
instituted by filing the [Sec. 1(b), Rule 110] municipalities, EXCEPT where such barangays
complaint with the adjoin each other AND the parties agree to
appropriate officer In Manila and other amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon
for PI [Sec. 1(a), Rule chartered cities, the [408(f), LGC];
110] complaint shall be filed e. when the accused is under police custody or
with the office of the detention
prosecutor unless
otherwise provided in
their charters [Sec. 1(b),
2. Who May File; Crimes That
Rule 110] Cannot be Prosecuted De
Officio
General rule: No complaint or information may be filed
or dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without
the prior written authority or approval of the
Effect of institution provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor
The institution of a criminal action shall interrupt the or the Ombudsman or his deputy [Sec. 4, Rule 112, as
running of the prescription period of the offense amended by A.M. 05-8-26-SC]
charged UNLESS otherwise provided in special laws
[Sec. 1, Rule 110] Note: Secs. 3 and 4, Rule 110 discuss who should
subscribe (not file) the complaint or information.
There is no more distinction between cases under the
RPC and those covered by special laws with respect Exception: CRIMES THAT CANNOT BE
to the interruption of the period of prescription PROSECUTED DE OFICIO
[People v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662 (2012)]
Falling under the authority of the lupon
While the dispute is under mediation, conciliation or
arbitration, the prescriptive periods for offenses and
causes of action under existing laws shall be interrupted
upon the filing of the complaint with the Punong
 file the
Rationale action shall
This was imposed out of consideration for the be exclusive
aggrieved party who might prefer to suffer the outrage of all other
in silence rather than go through with the scandal of persons and
a public trial [People v. Yparraguirre, G.R. No. 124391 shall be
(2000)] exercised
successively
Crime Who May File Conditions in this order
a. Must c. State – If
include the
both offended
guilty party dies or
parties, becomes
if both incapacitate
alive d before she
can file the
b. Must complaint,
not have and she has
consente no known
d to the parents,
offense grandparent
or s or
pardone
Adultery and Offended d the guardian
concubinage spouse offender Defamation,
s which
c. The consists of
marital imputation
relation- Offended party
ship of any of the
must still foregoing
be offenses
subsistin EVENTS SUBSEQUENT TO FILING
g a. Death of offended party
[Pilapil v. Death after filing the complaint would not
Ibay-Somera, deprive the court of jurisdiction. The death of the
G.R. No. offended party in private crimes is essential not
80116, for the maintenance of the action but solely for
(1989)] the initiation thereof [People v. Diego, G.R. No.
1626 (1937)]
a. Offended
party – The causes for extinguishment of criminal
includes liability are enumerated in Art. 89 of the Revised
minors, The offender Penal Code. The death of the offended party
even must not is not one of them. Neither is such an event
independent have been listed among the grounds of a motion to
Seduction, ly of those pardoned by quash a criminal complaint or information as
abduction, in item b, any of a and provided in Sec. 2, Rule 117. No Philippine
except if b in the decision was cited to support the view espoused
acts of preceding by the defendant-appellee [People v. Bundalian,
lasciviousne incompetent
or incapable column G.R. No. L-29985 (1982)]
ss
b. Parents,
grandparent Note: Bundalian concerned a libel case, but Art. 89,
s, guardian RPC applies to crimes under the RPC in general.
- right to
 Pardon Consent
b. Desistance by offended party
Desistance of the victim’s complaining mother Given after the
does not bar the People of the Philippines from commission of the
Given before the
prosecuting the criminal action, but it operates as crime but before the
a waiver of the right to pursue civil indemnity commission of the
institution of the
[People v. Amaca, G.R. No. 110129 (1995)] crime
criminal action
c. Pardon by offended party
In adultery and concubinage
A pardon by the offended party does not Either expressly or
extinguish criminal action except as provided in impliedly
Art. 344 of the RPC; but civil liability with regard
to the interest of the injured party is extinguished
by his express waiver [Art. 23, RPC] In this jurisdiction
pardon for adultery and
Note: Subsequent Marriage below for a concubinage must
discussion of Art. 344, RPC. come before the
If there is more than one accused, the pardon institution of the
must be extended to all offenders. criminal action and
both offenders must be
Pardon for adultery and concubinage must come pardoned by the
before the institution of the criminal action and offended party if said Express only
both offenders must be pardoned by the pardon is to be
offended party if said pardon is to be effective.
The pardon can be express or implied [Ligtas v. effective. The pardon But note: Ligtas v. CA
CA, G.R. No. L-47498 (1987) can be express or in [G.R. No. L-47498],
applied. Thus, when where the SC stated,
The offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of the offended party in “However, such
lasciviousness shall not be prosecuted if the
offender has been expressly pardoned by writing or in an consent or pardon
offended party or her parents, grandparents or affidavit asserts that he cannot be implied
guardian [Sec. 5, Rule 110] or she is pardoning his when the offended
or her erring spouse party allows his wife to
General rule: Pardon must be made before the and paramour for their continue living in the
filing of the criminal complaint in court [People v.
Bonaagua, G.R. No. 18897 (2011)] adulterous act this is a conjugal home after her
case of express arrest only in order to
Exception: In rape, marriage between the offender pardon. There is take care of their
and the offended party would be effective as implied pardon when children." This
pardon even when the offender has already the offended party statement suggests that
commenced serving his sentence [People v. de
Guzman, [G.R. No. 185843 (2010)] continued to live with consent may be implied
his spouse even after if the circumstances
Pardon Consent the commission of were different.
Refers to past acts Refers to future acts the offense. However However, Ligtas
such consent or pardon concerned the issue of
In order to absolve the In order to absolve the cannot be implied pardon, not consent.
accused from liability, it accused from liability, it when the offended
must be extended to is sufficient even if party allows his wife to
both offenders granted only to the continue living in the
offending spouse
conjugal home after her
arrest only in order to
take care of their
children [Ligtas v. CA,
G.R. No. L-47498
(1987), citing People v.
Boca (CA), O.G. 2248]
 Pardon Consent d. Institute an administrative charge against the
In Seduction, Abduction and Acts of erring prosecutor; and
Lasciviousness e. File criminal action against the prosecutor for
negligence to prosecute or tolerance of the crime [Art 208,
Must be expressly Offended party cannot RPC] with the corresponding civil action for
made consent to the crime damages for failure to render service by a public officer
[Art 27, NCC]
d. Subsequent marriage
3. Criminal Actions, When
General rule: In cases of seduction, abduction,
acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage
Enjoined
of the offender with the offended party shall
extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty See When Injunction May Be Issued To Restrain
already imposed upon him, together with the co- Criminal Prosecution above.
principals, accomplices, and accessories after the
fact of the above-mentioned crimes [Art. 344, 4. Control of Prosecution
RPC]
All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or
information shall be prosecuted under the direction
Exceptions: and control of the prosecutor. BUT a private
1. Marriage was invalid or contracted in bad prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief
faith to escape criminal liability [People v. of the Prosecution office or the Regional State
Santiago, G.R. No. L-27972 (1927)] Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the
2. In multiple rape, insofar as the other accused approval of the court [Sec. 5, Rule 110, as amended
in the other acts of rape respectively by A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC (2002)]
committed by them are concerned [People v.
Bernardo (38 O.G. 3479)] Conditions for a private prosecutor to prosecute
a criminal action
Note: The enumeration in Art. 344, RPC quoted a. The public prosecutor has heavy work schedule
above does not include: or there is no public prosecutor assigned in the
a. Adultery province or the city
b. Concubinage, b. The private prosecutor is authorized in writing
c. Defamation which consists in the by the Chief of the Prosecutor office or the
imputation of concubinage, adultery, Regional State Prosecutor
seduction, abduction, or acts of c. The authority of the private prosecutor was
lasciviousness approved by the Court
d. The private prosecutor shall continue to
Remedies if the prosecutor refuses to file an prosecute the case up to the end of the trial
information unless the authority is revoked or otherwise
a. Action for mandamus, in case of grave abuse of withdrawn.
discretion; [Sec. 5, Rule 110, A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC (2002)]
e. In case of withdrawal or revocation of
The moment the prosecutor finds one to be so authority, the same must be approved by the
liable or responsible for the offense, it becomes court [DOJ Memorandum Circular No. 25
his inescapable duty to charge him therewith and (2002)]
to prosecute him for the same. In this moment, f. The prosecution of the civil liability has not been
it becomes mandatory in character [Metropolitan reserved or waived.
Bank and Trust Company v. Reynaldo, G.R. No.
164538 (2010)] However, in MTCs or MCTCs when the prosecutor
b. Lodge a complaint before the court having assigned thereto or to the case is not available, the
jurisdiction over the offense; offended party, any peace officer, or public officer
c. Take up the matter with the Department of charged with the enforcement of the law violated may
Justice under the appropriate administrative prosecute the case. This authority shall cease upon
procedure; actual intervention of the prosecutor or upon
elevation of the case to the RTC [OCA Circular No.
39-02, stating in toto Sec. 5, Rule 110, as amended by b. After filing
A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC] The following matters are already within the control
of the court and are no longer within the discretion of
Regarding item d of the enumeration above, Note, the prosecutor:
however, this statement from Mobilia Products Inc. v. 1. Suspension of arraignment [Sec 1, Rule 116
Umezawa, G.R. No. 149357 (2005), “It is necessary "Upon motion by proper party"]
that the public prosecutor be present at the trial until 2. Granting a reinvestigation; However, when
the final termination of the case; otherwise, if he is the judge grants the reinvestigation, he may
absent, it cannot be gainsaid that the trial is under his not choose the public prosecutor who will
supervision and control.” However, said statement conduct such reinvestigation or preliminary
was not necessary for the disposition of the case. investigation. [Levista v. Alameda, G.R. No.
182677 (2010)]
Cases in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme 3. Dismissal of the case [Crespo v. Mogul, G.R.
Court No. L-53373 (1987)]
General rule: Only the Solicitor General may bring or 4. Downgrading of the offense or dropping of
defend actions in behalf of the Republic of the accused before plea [Sec. 14(b), Rule 110]
Philippines, or represent the People of the Philippines
or State in criminal proceedings before the SC and the It is the prosecutor’s duty to proceed with the
CA [Cariño v. De Castro, G.R. No. 176084 (2008)] presentation of his evidence to the court to enable the
court to arrive at its own independent judgment as to
Exceptions: whether the accused should be convicted or acquitted
a. When there is denial of due process of law to the [Crespo v. Mogul, G.R. No. L-53373 (1987)]
prosecution and the State or its agents refuse to
act on the case to the prejudice of the State and Once a complaint or information is filed in court, any
the private offended party [Cariño v. De Castro, disposition of the case as its dismissal or the
G.R. No. 176084 (2008)], and conviction or acquittal of the accused rests on the
b. When the private offended party questions the sound discretion of the court. A motion to dismiss
civil aspect of a decision of a lower court [Heirs of should be filed with the court, which has the option
Delgado v. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 184337 (2009)] to grant or deny it [Crespo v. Mogul, G.R. No. L-53373
(1987)]
Cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and the
Supreme Court Limitations on the court’s control
The Office of the Ombudsman, through the Special a. The prosecution is entitled to notice of hearing;
Prosecutor, shall represent the People of the b. The court must suspend arraignment, upon
Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to EO Nos. motion by the proper party, when a petition for
1,2, 14, 14-A as these are under the PCGG [Sec. 4, review of the resolution of the prosecutor is
P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 10660] pending at either the DOJ, or the OP; provided,
that the period of suspension shall not exceed 60
EXTENT OF PROSECUTOR’S CONTROL days counted from the filing of the petition with
the reviewing office [Sec. 11(c), Rule 116]
a. Prior to filing c. The court must make its own independent
Matters which are within the control of the evaluation or assessment of the merits of the case
prosecutor (e.g. on a motion to dismiss [should be to quash]).
1. What case to file Otherwise, there will be a violation of private
2. Whom to prosecute complainant’s right to due process and erroneous
3. Manner of prosecution exercise of judicial discretion [Martinez v. CA,
4. Right to withdraw information before [G.R. No. L-112387 (1994)]
arraignment even without notice and hearing
[Crespo v. Mogul, G.R. No. L-53373 (1987)] Effect of lack of intervention of fiscal
Although the private prosecutor had previously been
authorized by the special counsel to present the
evidence for the prosecution, in view of the absence
of the City Fiscal at the hearing, it cannot be said that
the prosecution of the case was under the control of May be filed either in
the City Fiscal. It follows that the evidence presented court or in the Filed with the court
by the private prosecutor at said hearing could not
be considered as evidence for the plaintiff [People prosecutor’s office [Sec. 4, Rule 110]
v. Beriales, G.R. No. L-39962 (1976)] [Sec. 1, Rule 110]
Requires no oath [Sec.
It is necessary that the public prosecutor be present at 4, Rule 110]
the trial until the final termination of the case;
otherwise, if he is absent, it cannot be gainsaid that Must be sworn hence,
the trial is under his supervision and control [Mobilia under oath [Sec. 3, Rule The fiscal filing the
Products Inc. v. Umezawa, G.R. No. 149357 (2005)] Note 110] information is acting
that said statement was not necessary for the under the oath of his
disposition of Mobilia, which involved a motion filed
by counsel of complainant without the conformity of office.
the public prosecutor. CONTENTS OF A VALID INFORMATION
A complaint or information is sufficient if it states
a. The name and surname of the accused; or any
Note: OCA Circular No. 39-02 [stating in toto Sec. 5, appellation or nickname by which he is known or
Rule 110, as amended by A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC] had been known
However, in MTCs or MCTCs when the b. The designation of the offense given by the
prosecutor assigned thereto or to the case is not statute
available, the offended party, any peace officer, or c. The acts or omissions complained of as
public officer charged with the enforcement of constituting the offense
the law violated may prosecute the case. This d. The name of the offended party
authority shall cease upon actual intervention of the e. The approximate date of the commission of the
prosecutor or upon elevation of the case to the RTC. offense, and
f. The place where the offense was committed
5. Sufficiency of Complaint or
When an offense is committed by more than one
Information person, all of them shall be included in the complaint
or information.
Complaint [Sec. 6, Rule 110]
A complaint is a sworn written statement charging a
person with an offense, subscribed by the offended The test for sufficiency of the complaint or
party, any peace officer or other public officer information is whether the crime is described in
charged with the enforcement of the law violated [Sec. intelligible terms with such particularity as to apprise
3, Rule 110] the accused with reasonable certainty of the offense
charged [Lazarte v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180122
Information (2009)]
An information is an accusation in writing, charging
a person with an offense, subscribed by the When there is ambiguity in the accusation, the case
prosecutor and filed with the court [Sec. 4, Rule 110] must be resolved in favor of the accused [People v.
Ng Pek, G.R. No. L-1895 (1948)]
Complaint Information General rule: A defective information cannot support a
Subscribed by the judgment of conviction
prosecutor [Sec. 4, Rule
Subscribed by the 110] Exception: Where the defect in the information was
cured by evidence during the trial and no objection
offended party, any appears to have been raised
peace officer or other (Indispensable [Abunado v. People, G.R. No. 159218 (2004)]
officer charged with requirement. Lack of
the enforcement of the authority of the officer An accused is deemed to have waived his right to
law violated [Sec. 3, signing it cannot be assail the sufficiency of the information when he
voluntarily entered a plea when arraigned and
Rule 110] cured by silence,
acquiescence or even
express consent.)
participated in the trial [Frias v. People, G.R. No. been committed on a date as near as possible to the
171437 (2007)] actual date of the commission.

Objections relating to the form of the complaint or Exception: When it is a material ingredient of the
information cannot be made for the first time on offense
appeal. The accused should have moved for a bill of [Sec. 11, Rule 110]
particulars or for quashal of information before
arraignment, otherwise he is deemed to have waived Allegation in an information of a date different from
his objections to such a defect [People v. Teodoro, G.R. the one established during the trial would not, as a
No. 172372 (2009)] rule, be considered as an error fatal to the
prosecution. Erroneous allegation is just deemed
NOTE: Exception would be if the defect consists in supplanted by the evidence presented during the trial
the lack of authority of the prosecutor who filed the or may even be corrected by a formal amendment of
information; such defect is jurisdictional. the information.

a. Name of the accused Variance in the date of commission of the offense

only becomes fatal when such discrepancy is so great
1. The complaint or information must state the that it induces the perception that the information and
the evidence are no longer pertaining to one and the
name and surname of the accused or any same offense. In this event, the defective allegation in
appellation or nickname by which he has been or the information is struck down for violating right of
is known. accused to be informed of specific charge
2. If his name cannot be ascertained, he must be [People v. Delfin, G.R. No. 201572 (2014)]
described under a fictitious name with a
statement that his true name is unknown.
3. If the true name of the accused is thereafter d. Name of the offended party
disclosed by him or appears in some other
manner to the court, such name shall be inserted The complaint or information must state the name
in the complaint or information and record. and surname of the person against whom or against
[Sec. 7, Rule 110] whose property the offense was committed, or any
appellation or nickname by which such person has
An information against all accused described as “John been or is known. If there is no better way of
Does” is void, and an arrest warrant against them is identifying him, he must be described under a
also void [Pangandaman v. Casar, G.R. No. L-71782 fictitious name [Sec. 12, Rule 110]
(1988)]
Offenses against property
b. Place of commission If the name of the offended party is unknown, the
property must be described with such particularity as
to properly identify the offense charged [Sec. 12(a),
General rule: The complaint or information is sufficient Rule 110]
if it can be understood from its allegations that the
offense was committed or some of its essential
ingredients occurred at some place within the If the true name of the person against whom or
jurisdiction of the court. against whose property the offense was committed is
thereafter disclosed or ascertained, the court must
cause such true name to be inserted in the complaint
Exception: The particular place where it was or information and the record [Sec. 12(b), Rule 110]
committed constitutes an essential element of the
offense charged or is necessary for its identification
[Sec. 10, Rule 110] Offended party is a juridical person
The complainant or offended party must state its
name, or any name or designation by which it is
c. Date of commission known, or by which it may be identified, without need
of averring that it is a juridical person or that it is
General rule: It is not necessary to state in the organized in accordance with law [Sec. 12(c), Rule 110]
complaint or information the precise date the offense
was committed. The offense may be alleged to have
6. Designation of Offense
Qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be
The complaint or information shall state the alleged in the Information. Otherwise, they are not to
designation of the offense given by the statute, aver be considered even if proven during the trial [Viray v.
the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and People, G.R. No. 205180 (2013)]
specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances.
If there is no designation of the offense, reference The failure to allege such cannot be cured by an
shall be made to the section or subsection of the amendment of the information after the accused
statute punishing it [Sec. 8, Rule 110] entered his plea [People v. Antonio, G.R. No. 142727
(2002)]
Specific acts of accused do not have to be described
in detail in the information, as it is enough that the If the aggravating circumstances were not alleged,
offense be described with sufficient particularity to they can still be basis for the awarding of exemplary
make sure the accused fully understands what he is damages. The basis, however, is no longer Art. 2230
being charged with [Guy v. People, G.R. No. 166794-96 of the NCC, but Art. 2229 (by way of example or
(2009)] correction for the public good) [People v. Dalisay, G.R.
No. 188106 (2009)]
Allegations prevail over the designation of the
offense. The facts, acts or omissions alleged and not The aggravating circumstance of habitual
its title, determine the nature of the crime. The delinquency
designation of the offense is only the conclusion of
the prosecutor [People v. Magdowa, G.R. No. 48457 The Information must specify the following
(1941)] a. The commission of the previous crimes
b. The last conviction or release
An accused may be convicted of a crime more serious [People v. Venus, G.R. No. 45141 (1936)]
than that named in the title if such crime is covered
by the facts alleged in the body of the Information Rule on Negative Averments
and its commission is established by evidence [Buhat
v. CA, G.R. No. 119601 (1996)] General rule: whenever a person accused of the
commission of a crime claims to be within the
The minute details of participation and cooperation statutory exception, it is more logical and convenient
on Illegal Drug Trading are matters of evidence that that he should aver and prove the fact than that the
need not be specified in the Information but prosecutor should anticipate such defense, and deny
presented and threshed out during trial [De Lima v. it [Cabrera v. Marcelo, G.R. Nos.. 157419-20 (2004),
Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781 (2017)] citing People v. San Juan, G.R. No. L-22944 (1968)],
citing US v. Chan Toco, G.R. No. 3851 (1908)]
7. Cause of the Accusation Exception: Where the exemptions are so incorporated
in the language defining the crime that the ingredients
QUALIFYING AND AGGRAVATING of the offense cannot be accurately and clearly set
CIRCUMSTANCES forth if the exemption are omitted, the indictment, to
be sufficient, must show that the person charged does
General rule: The acts or omissions complained of as not fall within the exemptions [People v. San Juan, G.R.
constituting the offense and the qualifying and No. L-22944 (1968), citing US v. Pompeya, G.R. No. L-
aggravating circumstances must be stated: 10255 (1915)]
a. In ordinary and concise language; and
b. Not necessarily in the language used in the Where Complex Crime is charged
statute; but
c. In terms sufficient to enable a person of common The allegations do not necessarily have to charge a
understanding to know what offense is being complex crime as defined by law. It is sufficient that
charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating the Information contains allegations which show that
circumstances and for the court to pronounce one offense was a necessary means to commit the
judgment other [People v. Alagao, G.R. No. L-20721 (1966)]
[Sec. 9, Rule 110]
Where what is alleged in the information is a complex Remedy
crime and the evidence fails to support the charge as The filing of a motion to quash is the remedy in case
to one of the component offenses, the defendant can of duplicity of offense in an information [Sec. 3(f),
only be convicted of the offense proven [Gonzaludo v. Rule 117]
People, G.R. No. 150910 (2006)]
Objection to a complaint or information which
8. Duplicity of the Offense; charges more than one offense must be timely
interposed before the accused enters his plea [Sec
Exception 1, Rule 117]

Duplicity of the offense in an information or Failure to do so constitutes a waiver [People v. Tabio,

complaint means the joinder of two or more separate G.R. No. 179477 (2008)] and the court may convict
and distinct offenses in one and the same information the accused of as many offenses as are charged and
or complaint [Loney v. People, G.R. No. 152644 (2006)] proved, and impose on him the penalty for each
offense [Sec. 3, Rule 120]
General rule: A complaint or information must charge
only one offense 9. Amendment or Substitution
Exception: Multiple offenses may be charged when the of Complaint or Information
law prescribes a single punishment for various
offenses: [Sec. 13, Rule 110] Amendment
a. Complex crimes – e.g. Acts committed in A change in either the form or substance of the same
furtherance of rebellion are crimes in themselves offense in the Information. It is not a new charge; it
but are absorbed in the single crime of rebellion. just supersedes the original Information but relates
The test is whether the act was done in back to the date at which the original information was
furtherance of a political end [Enrile v. Salazar filed [Teehankee Jr. v. Madayag, G.R. No. 103102
G.R. No. 92163 (1990)] (1992)]
b. Special complex crimes
c. Continuous crimes KINDS OF AMENDMENT
1. Plurality of acts performed separately during
a period of time a. Formal amendment merely states with
2. Unity of penal provision violated additional precision something which is already
3. Unity of criminal intent contained in the original information, and which,
[People v. Ledesma, G.R. No. L-41522 (1976)] therefore adds nothing essential for conviction
for the crime charged [Gabionza v. CA, G.R. No.
d. Crimes susceptible of being committed in various 140311 (2001)]
modes
Examples
In case of crimes susceptible of being committed in 1. New allegations which relate only to the
various modes, the allegations in the information of range of penalty that the court might impose
the various ways of committing the offense in the event of conviction;
would be regarded as a description of only one 2. One which does not charge another offense
offense and information is not rendered distinct from that already charged;
defective. [Jurado v. Suy Yan, G.R. No. L-20714, 3. Additional allegation which do not alter the
(1971)] prosecution’s theory of the case so as to
surprise the accused or affect the form of
e. Crimes of which another offense is an ingredient defense he has or will assume;
[People v. Camerino, G.R. No. L-13484 (1960)] 4. One which does not adversely affect any
f. When a single act violates different statutes [Loney substantial right of the accused, such as his
v. People, G.R. No. 152644 (2006)] right to invoke prescription
[Teehankee Jr. v. Madayag, G.R. No. 103102 (1992)]
An amendment due to a supervening event is
considered only a formal amendment as it did not
adversely affect any substantial right of the appellant
[People v. Degamo, G.R. No. 121211 (2003)] WHEN TO AMEND
b. Substantial amendment consists of the recital a. Before plea or arraignment
of facts constituting the offense charged and
determinative of the jurisdiction of the court General rule: Any formal or substantial
[Teehankee v. Madayag, G.R. No. 103102 (1992)] amendment, made before the accused enters his
plea may be done without leave of court [Sec. 14,
Examples Rule 110]
1. Stating a different manner of committing the
felony Exception: If the amendment downgrades the
2. Including conspiracy because such involves nature of the offense charged in, or excludes any
a change in the basic theory of the accused from, the complaint/information, it can
prosecution be made only
3. Change in the date of commission of the 1. Upon motion of the prosecutor
offense that will be prejudicial to the accused 2. With notice to the offended party and
3. With leave of court
Since the date of commission of the offense is
not required with exactitude, the allegation in an The court is mandated to state its reasons in
information of a date of commission different resolving the motion of the prosecutor and to
from the one eventually established during the furnish all parties, especially the offended party,
trial would not, as a rule, be considered as an of copies of its order
error fatal to prosecution. In such cases, the [Sec. 14, Rule 110]
erroneous allegation in the information may be
corrected by a formal amendment in the
information. The foregoing rule, however, is Not all defects in an information may be cured
concededly not absolute. Variance in the date of by an amendment. An Information which is void
commission of the offense as alleged in the ab initio cannot be amended to obviate a ground
information and as established in evidence for quashal. An amendment which operates to
becomes fatal when such discrepancy is so great vest jurisdiction is impermissible [Leviste v.
that it induces the perception that the Alameda G.R. No. 182677 (2010)]
information and the evidence are no longer
pertaining to one and the same offense. [People v. Granting without conceding that the information
Opemia, G.R. No. L-7987 (1956)] contains averments which constitute the
elements of Direct Bribery or that more than one
An amendment that would change the date of the offence is charged or as in this case, possibly
commission of the offense from 1947 to 1952 is bribery and violation of R.A. 9165, still the
certainly not a matter of form [People v. Delfin, prosecution has the authority to amend the
G.R. No. 201572 (2014), citing People v. Opemia, information at any time before arraignment
G.R. No. L-7987 (1956)] pursuant to Sec. 14, Rule 110 [De Lima v. Guerrero,
G.R. No. 229781 (2017)]
b. After plea and during trial
The test as to whether the amendment is merely Formal amendment
formal is whether or not a defense under the Amendment as to form can only be made under
original information would be equally two conditions:
available after the amendment and whether or 1. With leave of court; and
not any evidence the accused might have 2. It does not cause prejudice to the rights of
would be equally applicable in one form as in the accused
the other [People v. Degamo, G.R. No. 121211 [Sec 14, Rule 110]
(2003), citing Teehankee v. Madayag, G.R. No.
103102 (1992)]
General rule: Amendment as to substance at this
stage of the case is proscribed [People v. Zulueta,
G.R. No. L-4017 (1951)]
 Amendment and Substitution Distinguished
Rationale Amendment Substitution
1. It violates the right to be informed of the The same
nature and cause of the accusation during his
plea [Buhat v. People, G.R. No. 119601 (1996)] attempted,
2. It violates the rule on double jeopardy. frustrated, Involves
"Substantial amendments to the information Applicability necessarily different
after the plea has been taken cannot be made
over the objection of the accused, for if the includes or offense
original information would be withdrawn, included
the accused could invoke double jeopardy" offense
[Tehankee v. Madayag, G.R. No. 103102, Formal or
(1992)] Substantial
Scope substantial
changes
Exception: Amendment may be allowed if it is changes
beneficial to the accused, e.g. amending Information Amendment
for murder after arraignment by deleting the before plea has
qualifying circumstances and downgrading the Necessity of been entered
offense to homicide [People v. Janairo, G.R. No. 129254 Must be with
(2007)] leave of Can be
leave of court
court effected
SUBSTITUTION without leave
If it appears at any time before judgment that a of court
mistake has been made in charging the proper
offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint When
or information upon the filing of a new one charging amendment is
the proper offense in accordance with Sec. 19, Rule Another PI is
Necessity of Only as to entailed and
119, provided the accused shall not be placed in new PI and form, no need
double jeopardy. The court may require the witnesses accused has to
to give bail for their appearance at the trial [Sec. 14, plea for another PI
plead anew
Rule 110] and retaking of
plea
Sec. 19, Rule 119 states that when it becomes manifest The amended
at any time before judgment that a mistake has been information
made in charging the proper offense and the accused
cannot be convicted of the offense charged or any refers to the Involves a
other offense necessarily included therein, the same offense different
accused shall not be discharged if there appears good charged in the offense which
cause to detain him. In such case, the court shall original does not
commit the accused to answer for the proper offense
and dismiss the original case upon the filing of the Offense information or include those
proper information. involved to an offense provided in the
which is original charge;
included in the cannot invoke
Limitations of substitution original charge; double
a. At any time before judgment [Sec. 14, Rule 110] can invoke jeopardy
b. The accused cannot be convicted of the offense
charged or of any other offense necessarily double
included therein [Sec. 19, Rule 119] jeopardy
c. The accused would not be placed in double The accused
jeopardy [Sec. 14, Rule 110] The accused
could invoke
cannot claim
double
double
jeopardy if the
jeopardy;
new
Presupposes
information is
that the new
Double a substantial
information
jeopardy amendment
involves a
and it was
different
done after the
offense which
plea because
does not
such would
include or is
Refer to Part
not included in
the same
 offense the original duties, crimes against
charged or to charge. national security and
an offense
necessarily the law of nations)
includes or In the court of any
included Those committed on
municipality or territory
a railroad train,
where such train, aircraft,
[Teehankee Jr. v. Madayag, G.R. No. 103102, (1992)] aircraft, or any other
or other vehicle passed
public or private
during its trip, including
Variance between Allegation and Proof vehicle in the court
place of departure and
Variance Consequence of its trip
arrival[Sec. 15, Rule 110]
The accused will be
When the offense proved convicted of the In the proper court of the
is LESS than the offense offense proved first port of entry or of
charged [Sec. 4, Rule 120] any municipality or
Those committed on territory through which
The accused will be
When the offense proved convicted of the board a vessel in the such vessel passed during
is GREATER than the offense charged course of its voyage its voyage, subject to the
offense charged [Sec. 4, Rule 120] generally accepted
principles of international
The case should be
dismissed and a law [Sec. 15, Rule 110]
When the offense proved
is DIFFERENT and NOT new Information May be instituted
NECESSARILY should be filed, Piracy, which has no anywhere [People v. Lol-lo
INCLUDED/INCLUDES charging the proper territorial limits and Saraw, G.R. No.
the offense charged offense.
[Sec. 14, Rule 110] 17958 (1922)]
If one of the offended
parties is a private
individual, (a) Where the
10. Venue of Criminal Actions libelous article is printed
and first published, or
General rule: In all criminal prosecutions, the action (b) Where said individual
must be instituted and tried in the courts of the
municipality or territory where actually resides
(1) The offense was committed, or
(2) Any of its essential ingredients occurred If one of the offended
[Sec. 15(a), Rule 110] parties is a public
Unlike in civil cases, in criminal cases venue is official,
jurisdictional [People v. Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon a. Where the official
City, Br. 32, G.R. No. 123263 (1996)] holds office at the
time of the
The court has no jurisdiction to try an offense commission of the
committed outside its territorial jurisdiction [People v. Libel offense
Pineda, G.R. No. 44205 (1993)]
1. If the office is in
Exceptions: Manila, then CFI
Crime Venue Manila
Felonies under Art. 2. If the office is
2, RPC (offense on any other city or
board a PH ship or province, then
airship, forgery or Proper court where file where he
counterfeiting of criminal action was first
coins, public officers filed [Sec. 15, Rule 110] holds office
abroad in the b. Where the libelous
exercise of their article is printed and
first published

For online libel, the same

measure cannot be
reasonably expected
 when it pertains to
defamatory material 11. Intervention of Offended
appearing on the Internet Party
or on a website as there
would be no way of General rule: An offended party has the right to
determining the situs of intervene in the prosecution of a crime, where the
its printing and first civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in
publication [Bonifacio v. the criminal action [Sec. 16, Rule 110]
RTC of Makati, G.R. No. Note: The offended party may intervene by counsel in
184800 (2010)] the prosecution of the offense [Sec. 16, Rule 110] but
May be filed in the place the prosecution of the case is still subject to the
where the check was control of the prosecutor [Ricarze v. People, G.R. No.
dishonored or issued. In 160451 (2007)]
the case of a cross-check, Exceptions:
Cases filed under
in the place of the a. Where, from the nature of the crime and the law
B.P. 22 defining and punishing it, no civil liability arises
depositary or collecting
bank [People v. Grospe, in favor of a private offended party (e.g.
treason, rebellion, espionage and contempt)
G.R. No. L-74053-54, [Rodriguez v. Ponferrada, G.R. No. 155531-34
(1988)] (2005)]
The victim has the option b. Where, from the nature of the offense, the
to file the case in his private offended party is entitled to civil
Illegal recruitment indemnity arising therefrom but he has
place of residence or in 1. waived the same or
cases (R.A. 8042 or
the place where the crime 2. expressly reserved his right to institute a
Migrant Workers separate civil action or
was committed [Sto Tomas
Act) 3. already instituted such action
v. Salac G.R. No. 152642
[Rodriguez v. Ponferrada, G.R. No. 155531-34 (2005)]
(2012)]
RTCs have jurisdiction
over any violation of the
Violations of RA provisions of the Act,
10175 (Cybercrime including any violation
Prevention Act of committed by a Filipino
2012) national regardless of
the place of
commission [Sec. 21]
SC has the power to
In exceptional order a change of venue
circumstances to or place of trial to avoid
ensure a fair trial and miscarriage of justice
impartial inquiry [Sec. 5(4), Art. VII,
Constitution]
The courts of the
territories where the
essential ingredients of
the crime took place have
Transitory or concurrent jurisdiction.
continuing offenses The first court taking
cognizance of the case
will exclude the others
[People v. Grospe, G.R. No.
L-74053 (1988)]
C. Prosecution of Civil action has been reserved or waived. [Rule 120 (Sec 2),
ROC]
Action
b. Reservation of right to file civil
1. Rule on Implied Institution action
of Civil Action with Criminal When reservation shall be made
Action 1. Before the prosecution starts to present its
evidence
General rule: The civil action for the recovery of civil 2. Under circumstances affording the offended
liability arising from the offense charged is deemed party a reasonable opportunity to make such
instituted with the criminal action. reservation. [Sec. 1, Rule 111]

Exception: The civil action is not deemed so instituted Instances where reservation to file the civil action
if the offended party separately shall not be allowed
1. B.P. 22 cases [Sec. 1(b), Rule 111]
a. Waives the civil action 2. Cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan [Sec. 4,
b. Reserves the right to institute it separately P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 10660]
c. Institutes the civil action prior to the criminal 3. Tax cases [Sec. 7(b)(1), RA 9282]
action;
[Sec. 1, Rule 111] c. Separate action filed by the
accused
2. When Civil Action May
Proceed Independently 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
a. Independent civil actions the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil
action [Sec. 1, Rule 111]
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
3. When Separate Civil Action
damages for the same act or omission may be Is Suspended
instituted [Art 29, NCC]
a. After the criminal action has been commenced,
Actions under the Civil Code, specifically for quasi- the separate civil action arising therefrom
delict, violation of constitutional rights, defamation, cannot be instituted until final judgment has
fraud, physical injuries, refusal or failure to render aid been entered in the criminal action
or protection by the members of the police or the b. If the criminal action is filed after the civil
prosecuting attorney [Art. 32, 33, 34, 35 and 2176] action has already been instituted, the civil
remain separate, distinct, and independent of any action shall be suspended in whatever stage it
criminal prosecution although based on the same act may be found before judgment on the merits.
[Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines v. People, G.R. No. 147703 The suspension shall last until final judgment is
(2004); Sec. 3, Rule 111] rendered on the criminal action.
c. The civil action may be consolidated with the
Only a preponderance of evidence is required but in criminal action in the court trying the criminal
no case may the offended party recover damages case, upon motion of the offended party and
TWICE for the same act or omission charged in the before judgment is rendered on the merits of
criminal action [Sec. 3, Rule 111] the civil action. The evidence already adduced
in the civil action will be automatically
NOTE: The judgment of the court must state the reproduced in the criminal action.
civil liability or damages caused by a wrongful act or [Sec. 1, Rule 111]
omission to be recovered from the accused by the
offended party, if there is any, EXCEPT, when the
enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil
 One which arises in a case, where
Note: The Rules preclude a motu proprio suspension by the resolution of which is a logical
the judge of the civil action; it must be by petition of
the defendant [Yap v. Paras, G.R. No. 101236 (1992)] 5. Prejudicial Question
antecedent of the issue involved
therein and the cognizance of
During the pendency of the criminal action, the which pertains to another tribunal
running of the period of prescription of the civil [People v. Consing, G.R. No. 148193
action which cannot be instituted separately or whose (2003)]
proceeding has been suspended shall be tolled [Sec. 2,
Rule 111]
There is a prejudicial question only
when the matter that has to be
4. Effect of Death of the priorly decided by another
Accused or Convict On Civil authority is one where the
Action Definition
cognizance of which pertains to
that authority and should not,
Upon the death of the accused or convict, criminal under the circumstances, be
liability is extinguished [Art. 89, RPC] passed upon by the court trying
the criminal case [Rojas v. People,
The criminal case shall be G.R. No. L-22237 (1974)]
dismissed without
Before prejudice to any civil action
arraignment that the offended party may It is a question based on a fact
file against the estate of the distinct and separate from the
deceased [Sec. 4, Rule 111]
The civil liability is crime but so intimately
extinguished. But, connected with it that it
a. An independent civil determines the guilt or innocence
action enforcing of the accused [Ras v. Rasul, G.R.
liabilities under Art. 32,
33, 34, 35 and 2176 may No. L-50411 (1980)]
be continued against the a. The previously instituted civil
estate or legal action involves an issue
representative of the similar or intimately related
After accused, after proper
arraignment substitution. to the issue raised in the
and during b. If the civil action has subsequent criminal action.
pendency of the been reserved and Elements b. The resolution of such issue
criminal action subsequently filed, the determines whether or not
civil action shall proceed
after substitution of the criminal action may
parties. proceed.
[Sec. 4, Rule 111] [Sec. 7, Rule 111]
Civil and criminal liabilities Suspension of the criminal action
are extinguished [People v.
Alison, G.R. No. L-30612 [Sec. 6, Rule 111]
(1983)] Effect
The civil liability is not It does not prescribe the dismissal
extinguished. Claims shall be of the criminal action [Yap v. Paras,
During appeal filed against the estate of the
accused under Rule 86 of the G.R. No. 101236, (1992)]
ROC. [Sec. 5, Rule 86] a. office of the prosecutor (in
the PI stage);
b. Court conducting the PI; or
After judgment c. Court where criminal action
Where filed
has been filed for trial, at any
time before the prosecution
rests
[Sec. 6, Rule 111]
 A petition for suspension of the because even if that receipt was annulled on the basis
criminal action by reason of a of fraud, duress or intimidation, the accused’s guilt
could still be established when evidence can be shown
prejudicial question in a civil that they had actually received the sum for the fishing
action may be filed in boat but instead of purchasing one, they
a. the office of the prosecutor or misappropriated and failed to return the money to
the him upon demand. But, it could have been a prejudicial
question had the criminal case been for falsification of
b. court conducting the PI the same receipt involved in the civil action [Jimenez v.
Averia, G.R. No. L-22759 (1968)]
When the criminal action has
already been filed for trial, the Where petition for suspension based upon
petition shall be filed in the same prejudicial question may be filed
A petition for suspension of the criminal action based
criminal action at any time before upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil
the prosecution rests [Sec. 6, Rule action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or
111] the court conducting the preliminary investigation.
Application When the criminal action has been filed in court for
trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same
Sec. 6, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules criminal action at any time before the prosecution
of Criminal Procedure plainly says rests [Sec. 6, Rule 111]
that the suspension may be made
only upon petition and not at the Prejudicial question where civil and
instance of the judge alone, and it administrative cases, but no criminal case,
involved
also says suspension, and not The actions involved being respectively civil (forcible
dismissal [Yap v. Paras, G.R. No. entry) and administrative (before the Land Authority
No. 101236 (1992)] regarding the right to possession) in character, it is
obvious that technically, there is no prejudicial
question to speak of. Equally apparent, however, is
Note: Both the 1985 Rules the intimate correlation between said two
(involved in Yap) and the 2000 proceedings, stemming from the fact that the right of
Rules refer to a petition for private respondents to eject petitioner from the
suspension. disputed portion depends primarily on the resolution
of the pending administrative case. Thus, the SC ruled
To avoid two conflicting decisions that the more prudent course for the trial court to
in the civil case and in the criminal have taken is to hold the ejectment proceedings in
Rationale abeyance until after a determination of the
case [Sy Thiong Shiou v. Sy Chim,
administrative case [Quiambao v. Osorio, G.R. No. L-
G.R. No. 174168 (2009)] 48157 (1988)]
The nullity and forgery of the
prior deed of sale is based on the Prejudicial question where administrative and
very same facts which would be criminal cases, but no civil case, involved
necessarily determinative of the The case of San Miguel Properties, Inc. v. Perez [G.R. No.
166836 (2013)] involved an administrative case for
accused’s guilt or innocence in the specific performance before the HLURB and a
Example case for estafa. If the first alleged criminal prosecution for violation of Sec. 25 of P.D.
sale is void or fictitious, then there 957. San Miguel argued that the concept of a
would have been no double sale prejudicial question involves a civil action and a
Not a prejudicial question criminal action and there can be no prejudicial
Although both are andbased
the accused would
on fraud, civilbecase
declared
for the question to speak of because no civil action was
revocation of a management
innocent [Rascontract did not
v. Rasul, G.R. No.affect pending. The SC said the HLURB case raises a
the criminal cases for (1980)]
50411 estafa for executing a chattel prejudicial question that sufficed to suspend the
mortgage on personal property in favor of another criminal proceedings since the action before the
without the consent of the previous mortgagee [Rojas
v. People, G.R. No. L-22237 (1974)]
The issue of the validity of the receipt was not
determinative of the guilt or innocence for estafa
HLURB was “civil in nature” and could not be
instituted elsewhere except in the HLURB whose D.Preliminary Investigation
jurisdiction over the action was exclusive and original.
1. Nature of Right
6. Rule on Filing Fees in Civil
Action Deemed Instituted It is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether
there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded
With the Criminal Action belief that a crime has been committed and the
respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be
General rule: held for trial [Sec. 1, Rule 112, as amended by A.M.
a. No filing fees shall be required for actual No. 05-8-26-SC]
damages.
b. Where the amount of moral, exemplary, nominal, Preliminary Investigation is “merely inquisitorial, and
temperate (except actual) damages is specified in it is often the only means of discovering the persons
the complaint/information, the corresponding who may reasonably be charged with a crime, to
filing fees shall be paid by the offended party enable the prosecutor to prepare his complaint or
upon the filing thereof in court. information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits”
c. Where the amount of moral, exemplary, nominal, and does not place the persons against whom it is
temperate damages is NOT specified in the taken in jeopardy [Paderanga v. Drilon, G.R. No. 96080
complaint/Information, the filing fees shall (1991)]
constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding
such damages It is an executive, not a judicial function. Such
[Sec. 1, Rule 111] investigation is not part of the trial, hence, a full and
exhaustive presentation of the parties' evidence is not
Exception: required, but only such as may engender a well-
a. Violations for B.P.22 grounded belief that an offense has been committed
1. The offended party shall pay in full the and that the accused is probably guilty thereof
filing fees based on the amount of the [Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Tonda, G.R. No.
check involved, which shall be considered 134436 (2000)]
as the actual damages claimed.
2. Where the complaint or information also Right to preliminary investigation
seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal, Neither the 1935 nor the 1973 Constitution requires
temperate or exemplary damages, the the holding of a PI. The right thereto is of statutory
offended party shall pay additional filing fees character and may be invoked only when specifically
based on the amounts alleged therein. created by statute. It is not a fundamental right and
3. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of may be waived expressly or by silence [Marinas v.
these damages are subsequently awarded by Siochi, G.R. Nos.. L-25707 (1981)]
the court, the filing fees based on the amount
awarded shall constitute a first lien on the Note: This doctrine is still applicable since the 1987
judgment. Constitution does not require a PI.
[Sec. 1, Rule 111]
b. Estafa – The offended party shall pay in full the The right to have a PI conducted before being bound
filing fees based on the amount involved [See over to trial for a criminal offense and hence formally
Sec. 20, Rule 141] at risk of incarceration or some other penalty, is not a
mere formal or technical right; it is a substantive right.
To deny the accused’s claim to a PI would be to
deprive him of the full measure of his right to due
process [Sales v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 143802
(2001)]
Waiver of right
The right to PI is a personal right which the accused
may waive either expressly or by implication but at all
times must be unequivocal. Mere failure of a
defendant and/or his counsel to appear during PI expensive trials [Tandoc v. Resultan, G.R. No.
cannot be construed as a waiver [Larranaga v. CA, 59241-44 (1989)]
G.R. No. 130644 (1998)]
When the accused waives his right to PI, the fiscal
may forthwith file the corresponding information 3. Who May Conduct
with the proper court [People v. Perez, G.R. No. L- Determination of Existence
15231 (1960)]
of Probable Cause
An application for or admission to bail shall not bar
the accused from assailing the regularity or Probable cause
questioning the absence of a PI of the charge against Probable cause means the existence of such facts and
him provided that he raises the challenge before circumstances as would excite the belief, in a
entering his plea [Sec. 26, Rule 114] reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the
knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged
When right deemed waived was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted
a. Express waiver or by silence [Pilapil v. [Allado v. Diokno, G.R. No. 113630 (1994)]
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 101978 (1993)]
b. Failure to invoke it during arraignment [People v. The quantum of evidence now required in PI is such
De Asis, G.R. No. 105581 (1993)]; and evidence sufficient to “engender a well-founded
c. Consenting to be arraigned and entering a plea of belief” as to the fact of the commission of a crime and
not guilty without invoking the right to PI [People the respondent's probable guilt thereof. A PI is not
v. Bulosan, G.R. No. L-58404 (1988)] the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the
parties’ evidence; it is for the presentation of such
The waiver, whether express or implied, must be in a evidence only as may engender a well-grounded belief
clear and unequivocal manner [Larranaga v. CA. G.R. that an offense has been committed and that the
No. 130644 (1998)] accused is probably guilty thereof [Estrada v.
Ombudsman, G.R. No. 212140 (2015)]
The right cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
[Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 101978 (1993)] The determination of probable cause during a PI or
reinvestigation is recognized as an executive function
exclusively of the prosecutor. A prosecutor cannot
When right not deemed waived then be compelled by mandamus to file a case against
a. Failure to appear before the prosecutor during an alleged criminal. The only exception is when such
the clarificatory hearing or when summoned, prosecutor acted with grave abuse of discretion
when the right was invoked at the start of the amounting to grave abuse of discretion amounting to
proceeding [Larranaga v. CA, G.R. No. 130644 lack or excess of jurisdiction [Hegerty v. CA, 409 SCRA
(1998)]; or 285 (2003)]
b. When the accused filed an application for bail
and was arraigned over his objection and the
accused demand that PI be conducted [Go v. CA, Hearsay evidence is admissible during PI [De Lima v.
G.R. No. 101837 (1992)] Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781 (2017), citing Estrada v.
Ombudsman, G.R. No. 212140 (2015)]
2. Purposes of Preliminary In general, the following may conduct the
Investigation determination of existence of probable cause in a PI
a. Provincial/city prosecutors and their assistants
b. National and regional state prosecutors
a. To determine whether or not a crime has been c. Other officers as may be authorized by law
committed and whether or not there is probable [Sec. 2, Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-
cause to believe that the accused is guilty [Raro v. 26-SC]
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 108431 (2000)] d. Ombudsman (see below)
b. To secure the innocent against hasty, malicious
and oppressive prosecution, and to protect him
from an open and public accusation of a crime,
from the trouble, expense, anxiety of a public
trial, and also protect the state from useless and
 Ombudsman as the case may be, with
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION v. corresponding leave of court in cases where
EXECUTIVE DETERMINATION OF information has already been filed in court [Sec.
PROBABLE CAUSE 7. Rule II, Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman]
a. Prosecutor
The executive determination of probable The Ombudsman is authorized to conduct PI
cause is one made during the PI. It is a function and to prosecute all criminal cases involving
that properly pertains to the public prosecutor public officers and employees, not only those
who is given a broad range of discretion to within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but
determine whether probable cause exists for also those within the jurisdiction of regular courts
purposes of indictment. Such finding will not as well [Uy v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105965-70
be disturbed by the court unless there is finding (2001)]
of grave abuse of discretion [Mendoza v. People,
G.R. No. 197293 (2014)] Courts should not interfere with the
Ombudsman’s investigatory power, exercised
The PI conducted by the fiscal is terminated through the Special Prosecutor, except when the
upon the filing of the information in the proper finding is tainted with GAD amounting to lack or
court [Crespo v. Mogul, G.R. No. L-53373 (1987)] excess of jurisdiction. On the other hand, if the
Special Prosecutor files a motion to
b. Court dismiss/motion for leave to file a motion to
withdraw the information after reinvestigation,
the resolution of such motion rests on the sound
The judicial determination of probable cause discretion of the anti-graft court [Fuentes v.
is one made by the judge to ascertain whether a Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164664 (2006)]
warrant of arrest should be issued against the
accused [Sec. 2, Art. III, Constitution] A person under PI by the Ombudsman is entitled
to file a motion for reconsideration of the adverse
Note: RTC judges have no power to conduct PI; resolution, under Sec. 7 of the Rules of Procedure
and MTC judges cannot conduct PI anymore of the Ombudsman. The filing of the
after A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC eliminated judges of information without first affording the accused
the MTC and MCTC from those authorized to his right to file a motion for reconsideration
conduct a PI effective October 3, 2005. renders PI conducted in this case incomplete.
The inevitable conclusion is that the accused was
c. COMELEC not only effectively denied the opportunity to file
a motion for reconsideration of the
The COMELEC may conduct investigation as Ombudsman’s final resolution but also deprived
regards election offenses [Sec. 2(6), Art. IX-C, of his right to a full PI preparatory to the filing of
Constitution; Sec. 265, Omnibus Election Code] the information against him [Sales v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 143802 (2001)]
d. Ombudsman
The Ombudsman and his deputies, as protectors Procedure for Preliminary Investigation
of the people, shall act promptly on complaints Filing of the complaint, which
filed in any form or manner against public a. States the respondent’s address
officials or employees of the Government, or any b. Includes the affidavits of the complainant and
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, his witnesses, and other supporting
including GOCCs and shall, in appropriate cases, documents to establish probable cause. The
notify the complainants of the action taken and affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to
the result thereof [Sec. 12, Art. XI, Constitution] before any prosecutor or government official
authorized to administer oath or if absent or
Only one motion for reconsideration or unavailable, before a notary public, each of
reinvestigation of an approved order or whom must certify that he personally
resolution shall be allowed, the same to be filed examined the affiants and that he is satisfied
within 5 days from notice thereof with the Office
of the Ombudsman, or the proper Deputy
 that they voluntarily executed and understood officer questions which may be asked to the party
their affidavits. or witness concerned [Sec. 3(e), Rule 112, as
c. Shall be in such number of copies as there are amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC]
respondents, plus 2 copies for the official file
[Sec. 3(a), Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8- The hearing shall be held within 10 days from
26-SC] submission of the counter-affidavits and other
 documents or from the expiration of the period for
Action of the investigating officer their submission. It shall be terminated within five
a. Within 10 days after the filing of the (5) days [Sec. 3(e), Rule 112, as amended by A.M.
complaint, the investigating officer will either: No. 05-8-26-SC]
1. Dismiss, if he finds no ground to continue 
the investigation; or Determination
2. Issue a subpoena to the respondent,
attaching the complaint and supporting Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the
affidavits and documents investigating officer shall determine whether or not
[Sec. 3(b), Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8- there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent
26-SC] for trial [Sec. 3(f), Rule 112, as amended by A.M.
3. If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, No. 05-8-26-SC]
the investigating officer shall resolve the
complaint based on the evidence
presented by the complainant [Sec. 3(d), Note: During the conduct of PI, the prosecutor is
Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8- under no duty to provide the respondent with the
26-SC] counter-affidavits of his/her co-respondents [Estrada
b. Respondent has the right to examine the v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 212140-41 (2015)]
evidence submitted by complainant which he
may not have been furnished and to copy
evidence at his expense [Sec. 3(b), Rule 112, as
4. Resolution of the
amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC] Investigating Prosecutor

Respondent’s counter-affidavit If he finds probable cause to hold respondent for
trial, he shall prepare the resolution and information
It must be made within 10 days from receipt of and shall certify under oath in the information that:
subpoena with the complaint, and must comply a. He, or as shown by the record, an authorized
with the same requirements as a complaint. officer has personally examined the complainant
Respondent is not allowed to file a motion to and his witnesses;
dismiss in lieu of counter-affidavit [Sec. 3(c), Rule b. There is reasonable ground to believe that a crime
112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC] has been committed and the accused is probably
guilty thereof;
If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if c. The accused was informed of the complaint and
subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits of the evidence against him; and
within the ten (10) day period, the investigating d. He was given opportunity to submit
officer shall resolve the complaint based on the controverting evidence
evidence presented by the complainant [Sec. 3(d), If he finds no probable cause, he shall recommend
Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC] the dismissal of the complaint [Sec. 4, Rule 112, as
This situation would have the effect of an ex-parte amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC]
investigation [Riano 210, 2016 Ed.]
 5. Review
Clarificatory hearing
Within 5 days from the resolution, the investigating
The investigating officer may set a hearing if there officer shall forward the case to the
are facts and issues to be clarified from a party or a provincial/city/chief state prosecutor, or to the
witness. The parties can be present at the hearing Ombudsman or his deputy in cases cognizable by
but without the right to examine or cross-examine. the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original
They may, however, submit to the investigating jurisdiction.
  the latter may be appealed before the CA pursuant to
Within 10 days from receipt of the resolution, the Rule 43 [De Ocampo v. Sec. of Justice, G.R. No. 147932
Prosecutor/Ombudsman shall act on the (2006)]
resolution and shall immediately inform the parties
of such action. Note: As provided under Memorandum Circular No.
 58 (2003), no appeal from or petition for review of
No complaint/information may be filed or decisions/orders/resolutions of the Secretary of
dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without Justice on preliminary investigations shall be
the prior written authority or approval of the entertained by the Office of the President, except
provincial/city/chief state prosecutor, or those involving offenses punishable by reclusion
Ombudsman or his deputy. perpetua to death [Angeles v. Gaite, G.R. No. 176596
(2011)]
Where the investigating prosecutor recommends
the dismissal of the complaint but the Thus, in De Ocampo involving homicide in relation to
prosecutor/Ombudsman or his deputy Sec. 10(a), Art. VI of R.A. 7610 punishable by reclusion
disapproves his recommendation, the latter may perpetua, appeal to the OP was available. However, in
file the information by himself or direct another Angeles involving libel, appeal to the OP was not
assistant/state prosecutor to do so without allowed.
conducting a new PI.
 The Court of Appeals is clothed with jurisdiction to
If upon petition by a proper party under such rules review the resolution issued by the Secretary of the
as the Department of Justice may prescribe or motu DOJ through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
proprio, the Secretary of Justice reverses or modifies … solely on the ground that the Secretary of Justice
the resolution of the provincial or city prosecutor committed grave abuse of his discretion amounting to
or chief state prosecutor, he shall direct the excess or lack of jurisdiction [Argovan v. San Miguel
prosecutor concerned either to file the Corporation, G.R. No. 188767 (2013)]
corresponding information without conducting
another preliminary investigation, or to dismiss or “While they are correct in stating that the right to
move for dismissal of the complaint or preliminary investigation is a substantive, not merely
information with notice to the parties. The same a procedural right, petitioners are wrong in arguing
rule shall apply in preliminary investigations that the Information filed, without affording the
conducted by the officers of the Office of the respondent his right to file a motion for
Ombudsman. reconsideration of an adverse DOJ resolution, is
[Sec. 4, Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26- fatally premature” [Aguinaldo and Perez v. Ventus and
SC] Joson, G.R. No. 176033 (2015)]
The Secretary of Justice (SOJ) may review resolutions, The CA has jurisdiction to review the resolution
via petition for review to the SOJ, of his subordinates issued by the Secretary of Justice through a petition
in criminal cases despite the information being filed for certiorari under Rule 65 albeit solely on the
in court [Community Rural Bank of Guimba v. Talavera, ground that the Secretary committed grave abuse of
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1909 (2005); see also DOJ Circ. No. his discretion amounting to excess or lack of
70] jurisdiction. Petitioners could have easily availed
themselves of such recourse instead of directly
A motion for reconsideration may be filed against the assailing the same before the SC [Chong v. Dela Cruz,
SOJ’s resolution [DOJ Circ. No. 70 (2000)] G.R. No. 184948 (2009)]

The resolution of the Secretary of Justice may be 6. When Warrant of Arrest May
nullified in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on
grounds of grave abuse of discretion resulting to lack Issue
or excess of jurisdiction [Ching v. Sec. of Justice, G.R.
No. 164317 (2006)] By the RTC
a. Within 10 days from the filing of the complaint
The DOJ resolution is appealable administratively or information, the judge shall personally
before the Office of the President and the decision of
 evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its the finding has substantial basis [Worldwide Web Corp.
supporting evidence. v. People, G.R. No. 161106 (2014)]
b. He may immediately dismiss the case if the
evidence on record clearly fails to establish The judge had no positive duty to first resolve the
probable cause. Motion to Quash before issuing a warrant of arrest.
c. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a Sec. 5(a), Rule 112 required the judge to evaluate the
warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the prosecutor's resolution and its supporting evidence
accused has already been arrested pursuant to a within a limited period of only 10 days [De Lima v.
warrant issued by the judge who conducted the Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781 (2017)]
PI or when the complaint or information was
filed pursuant to Sec. 7 of Rule 112, as amended
by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC. 7. Cases Not Requiring
d. In case of doubt on the existence of probable
cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to
Preliminary Investigation
present additional evidence within 5 days from nor Covered By the Rule on
notice and the issue must be resolved by the court
within 30 days from the filing of the complaint or
Summary Procedure
information.
[Sec. 5(a), Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26- If the complaint is filed directly with the
SC] prosecutor involving an offense punishable by an
imprisonment of less than 4 years, 2 months and 1
By the MTC day, the procedure outlined in Sec. 3(a), Rule 112, as
The procedure for the issuance of a warrant of arrest amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC shall be observed.
by the judge shall be governed by Sec. 5(a) quoted The prosecutor shall act on the complaint based on
above [Sec. 5(b), Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. the affidavits and other supporting documents
05-8-26-SC] submitted by the complainant within ten (10) days
from its filing [Sec. 8(a), Rule 112, as amended by
A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC]
When warrant of arrest shall not issue
A warrant of arrest shall not issue if the accused is Sec. 3(a), Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-
already under detention pursuant to a warrant issued SC states that:
by the municipal trial court in Section 5(b) quoted a. The complaint shall state the address of the
above, or if the complaint or information was filed respondent and shall be accompanied by
pursuant to Sec. 6, Rule 112 (When accused lawfully affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses,
arrested without warrant) or is for an offense as well as other supporting documents to
penalized by fine only. The court shall then proceed establish probable cause.
in the exercise of its original jurisdiction [Sec. 5(c), b. They shall be in such number of copies as there
Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC] are respondents, plus 2 copies for the official file.
The affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to
The PI for the determination of a sufficient ground before any prosecutor or government official
for the filing of the information is executive in nature. authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence
It is part of the prosecution's job [P/Supt. Cruz v. Judge or unavailability, before a notary public, each of
Areola, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1642 (2002)] whom must certify that he personally examined
the affiants and that he is satisfied that they
The PI conducted by the judge which is properly voluntarily executed and understood their
called preliminary examination is for the affidavits.
determination of probable cause for the issuance of
warrant of arrest [P/Supt. Cruz v. Judge Areola, A.M. If the complaint or information is filed with the
No. RTJ-01-1642 (2002)] MTC/MCTC for an offense covered by this
section
NOTE: Trial judges determine probable cause in the a. The procedure in Sec. 3(a) quoted above shall be
exercise of their judicial functions. A trial judge’s observed.
finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search b. If within 10 days after the filing of the complaint
warrant is accorded respect by reviewing courts when of information, the judge finds no probable cause
after personally evaluating the evidence, or after
 personally examining in writing and under oath
the complainant and his witnesses in the form of The right cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
searching questions and answers, he shall dismiss [Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 101978 (1993)]
the same.
c. He may, however, require the submission of Restraining preliminary investigation
additional evidence, within 10 days from notice, General rule: The power of the Fiscal to investigate
to determine further the existence of probable crimes committed within his jurisdiction will,
cause. ordinarily, not be restrained.
d. If the judge still finds no probable cause despite
the additional evidence, he shall, within 10 days
from its submission or expiration of said period, Exceptions: Extreme cases may exist where relief in
dismiss the case. equity may be availed of to stop a purported
e. When he finds probable cause, he shall issue a enforcement of a criminal law where it is necessary:
warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the a. For the orderly administration of justice;
accused had already been arrested, and hold him b. To prevent the use of the strong arm of the law
for trial. in an oppressive and vindictive manner;
f. However, if the judge is satisfied that there is no c. To avoid multiplicity of actions;
necessity for placing the accused under custody, d. To afford adequate protection to constitutional
he may issue summons instead of a warrant of rights [Hernandez v. Albano, G.R. No. L-19272
arrest. (1967)]
[Sec. 8(b), Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26- e. In proper cases, because the statute relied upon
SC] is unconstitutional, or was “held invalid” [Ladlad
v. Velasco, G.R. No. 172070-72 (2007)]
8. Remedies of Accused If
There Was No Preliminary
Investigation
Effect of denial of right
The absence of a PI does not impair the validity of an
information or render it defective. Neither does it
affect the jurisdiction of the court or constitute a
ground for quashing the information [Villaflor v.
Vivar, G.R. No. 134744 (2001)]
Remedies of the accused if there was no PI
a. Call the attention of the court to the deprivation
of the required PI before entering his plea
[Larranaga v. CA. G.R. No. 130644 (1998)]
b. File a certiorari, if refused and such refusal is
tainted with grave abuse of discretion [Riano 186,
2016 Ed.]
The trial court, instead of dismissing the information,
should hold in abeyance the proceedings and order
the public prosecutor to conduct a PI [Villaflor v.
Vivar, G.R. No. 134744 (2001)]
After the filing of the complaint/information in court
without a PI, the accused may within 5 days from the
time he learns of its filing, ask for a PI with the same
right to adduce evidence in his defense as provided in
Rule 112 [Sec. 6, Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No.
05-8-26-SC]
 arrested by a police officer or any other
person of suitable age and discretion [Sec.
E. Arrest 23, Rule 114]
3. An accused released on bail may be re-
1. Arrest, How Made arrested without the necessity of a warrant if
he attempts to depart from the Philippines
without permission of the court where the
Arrest case is pending [Sec. 23, Rule 114]
Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order
that he may be bound to answer for the commission Note: A legitimate warrantless arrest necessarily
of an offense [Sec. 1, Rule 113] includes the authority to validly search and seize from
the offender (1) dangerous weapons, and (2) those
How made that may be used as proof of the commission of an
a. by actual restraint of a person to be arrested; offense [People v. Montilla, G.R. No. 123872, (1998)]
b. by his submission to the custody of the person
making the arrest [Sec. 2, 1st par., Rule 113]
a. In flagrante delicto
Application of actual force, manual touching of the
body, physical restraint or a formal declaration of A peace officer or a private person may, without
arrest is not required. It is enough that there be an warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the
intent on the part of one of the parties to arrest the person to be arrested:
other and an intent on the part of the other to submit, 1. Has committed
under the belief and impression that submission is 2. Is actually committing, or
necessary [Sanchez v. Demetriou, G.R. No. 111771 3. Is attempting to commit
(1993)] an offense
[Sec. 5(a), Rule 113]
No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in
making an arrest [Sec. 2, 2nd par., Rule 113] “Reliable information” alone, absent any overt act
indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence
An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of and within the view of the arresting officers, are not
the day or night [Sec. 6, Rule 113] sufficient to constitute probable cause that would
justify an in flagrante delicto arrest [People v. Molina,
G.R. No. 133917 (2001)]
2. Arrest without Warrant,
When Lawful To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, the
following requisites must concur
1. The person to be arrested must execute an overt
General rule: No peace officer or person has the power act indicating that he has just committed, is
or authority to arrest anyone without a warrant except actually committing, or is attempting to commit
in those cases expressly authorized by law [Umil v. a crime, and
Ramos, G.R. No. 81567 (1991)] 2. Such overt act is done in the presence or within
the view of the arresting officer
Exceptions: [Zalameda v. People, G.R. No. 183656 (2009); People v.
a. In flagrante delicto [Sec. 5(a), Rule 113] Laguio, G.R. No. 128587 (2007)]
b. Hot pursuit arrest [Sec. 5(b), Rule 113]
c. Arrest of escaped prisoner [Sec. 5(c), Rule 113] “In his presence” means:
d. Other lawful warrantless arrests 1. He sees the offense, even though at a distance, or
1. If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is 2. He hears the disturbances created by the offense
rescued, any person may immediately pursue and proceeds at once to the scene
or retake him without a warrant at any time [People v. Evaristo, G.R. No. 93828 (1992)]
and in any place within the Philippines [Sec.
13, Rule 113] The following are instances of this type of arrest
2. For the purpose of surrendering the accused, without warrant
the bondsmen may arrest him or, upon 1. An arrest made after an entrapment does not
written authority endorsed on a certified require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a
copy of the undertaking, cause him to be
 valid warrantless arrest pursuant to Sec. 5(a), Rule element of immediacy [Pestilos v. Generoso, G.R. No.
113 [Teodosio v. CA, G.R. No. 124346 (2004)] This 182601 (2014)]
is different from instigation, which means luring
the accused into a crime that he, otherwise, had Probable cause must be based on personal knowledge
no intention to commit, in order to prosecute which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds
him, and leads to acquittal [People v. Dansico, G.R. of suspicion [Abelita III v. Doria, G.R. No. 170672
No. 178060 (2011)] (2009)]
2. When a person is caught in flagrante as a result of
the buy-bust operation, the policemen are not The clincher in the element of “personal knowledge
only authorized but are also under obligation to of facts or circumstances” is the required element of
apprehend the drug pusher even without a immediacy within which these facts or circumstances
warrant of arrest [People v. de Lara, G.R. No. should be gathered (i.e. just after the commission of
94953 (1994)] the crime). This required time element acts as a
safeguard to ensure that the police officers have
A buy-bust operation is a valid form of in flagrante gathered the facts or perceived the circumstances
delicto arrest. It is a valid form of entrapment [People v. within a very limited time frame, such that the chances
Araneta, G.R. No. 191062 (2010)] of contamination of facts is minimal. It does not
require actual presence at the scene while a crime
b. Hot pursuit arrest was being committed; it is enough that evidence of
the recent commission of the crime is patent and the
A peace officer or a private person may, without police officer has probable cause to believe based on
warrant, arrest a person when an offense has just been personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that
committed and the officer or private person has the person to be arrested has recently committed the
probable cause to believe, based on personal crime [Pestilos v. Generoso, G.R. No. 182601 (2014)]
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person
to be arrested has committed it [Sec. 5(b), Rule 113] Note: Where a warrantless arrest is made under the in
flagrante and hot pursuit exceptions, the person arrested
Requisites: without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the
1. An offense has just been committed. There nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded
must be a large measure of immediacy between against in accordance with Sec. 7 of Rule 112 [Sec. 5,
the time the offense was committed and the time 2nd par., Rule 113]
of the arrest. If there was an appreciable lapse of
time between the arrest and the commission of Sec. 7 of Rule 112 states that when a person is lawfully
the crime, a warrant of arrest must be secured arrested without a warrant involving an offense which
[People v. del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755 (1999); requires a PI, the complaint or information may be
People v. Agojo , G.R. No. 181318 (2009)]; and filed by a prosecutor without need of such
2. The person making the arrest has probable investigation provided an inquest has been conducted
cause to believe, based on personal knowledge in accordance with existing rules.
of facts and circumstances, that the person to be
arrested has committed it. Inquest is defined as an informal and summary
investigation conducted by a public prosecutor in
The phrase covers facts, or in the alternative, criminal cases involving persons arrested and
circumstances. Circumstances may pertain to events detained without the benefit of a warrant of arrest
or actions within the actual perception, personal issued by the court for the purpose of determining
evaluation or observation of the police officer at the whether said persons should remain under custody
scene of the crime. Thus, even though the police and correspondingly be charged in court [Leviste v.
officer has not seen someone actually fleeing, he Alameda, G.R. No. 182677 (2010), citing Sec. 1, DOJ
could still make a warrantless arrest if, based on his Circ. No. 61 (1993)]
personal evaluation of the circumstances at the scene
of the crime, he could determine the existence of General rule: PI is required to be conducted before a
probable cause. However, the determination of complaint/information is filed for an offense where
probable cause and the gathering of facts and the penalty prescribed by law is at least 4 years, 2
circumstances should be made immediately after the months and 1 day, without regard to the fine [Sec. 1,
commission of the crime in order to comply with the Rule 112, , as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC]
 3. If warrantless arrest is validly made, the Inquest
Exception: When a person is lawfully arrested without officer asks the detained person if he desires to
a warrant involving an offense that requires a PI, a avail of a PI. If he does, he must execute a waiver
complaint/information may be filed without of Art. 125, RPC, with the assistance of a lawyer
conducting the PI if the necessary inquest is and, in case of non-availability of a lawyer, a
conducted. responsible person of his choice [Sec. 10, DOJ
Circ. No. 61 (1993)]
In the absence of an inquest prosecutor, the offended 4. If detained person does not opt for a PI or
party or peace officer may directly file the complaint refuses to execute the waiver, the Inquest officer
in court [Sec. 6, Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. determines the probable cause that the accused is
05-8-26-SC] probably guilty [Sec. 11, DOJ Circ. No. 61
(1993)]
5. If there is probable cause, the Inquest officer
Remedy of a person arrested without a warrant: prepares the complaint/information and forward
1. BEFORE the complaint or information is filed, it, together with the records of the case, to the
arrested person may ask for PI City Prosecutor for appropriate action [Sec. 13,
a. he must sign a waiver of the provisions of DOJ Circular No. 61 (1993)]
Article 125 of RPC, in the presence of his
counsel;
b. he may apply for bail; c. Arrest of escaped prisoner
c. the investigation must be terminated within
15 days from its inception A peace officer or a private person may, without
2. AFTER the filing of the complaint but BEFORE warrant, arrest a person when the person to be
arraignment, the accused may ask for PI within 5 arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
days after he learns of the filing of the complaint 1. from a penal establishment or place where he is
or information serving final judgment or temporarily confined
[Sec. 6, Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26- while his case is pending; or
SC] 2. While being transferred from one confinement to
another
Procedure [Sec. 5(c), Rule 113]
An inquest is considered commenced upon receipt by
the Inquest officer from the law enforcement Escapee may be immediately pursued or re-arrested
authorities of the complaint/referral documents without a warrant at any time and in any place within
which should include: the Philippines [Sec. 13, Rule 113]
1. Affidavit of arrest, investigation report,
statement of the complainant and witnesses, all Rationale
of which must be subscribed and sworn to before At the time of arrest, the escapee is in continuous
him; commission of a crime (i.e., evasion of service of
2. Other supporting evidence gathered by the police sentence). [Parulan v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-
in the course of the latter's investigation of the 28519 (1968)]
criminal incident involving the arrested or
detained person.
[Sec. 3, DOJ Circ. No. 61 (1993)] RULES ON ILLEGALITY OF ARREST

The inquest proceedings must be terminated within Effect

the period prescribed under the provisions of Art. The legality of the arrest affects only the jurisdiction
125, RPC. [Sec. 3, DOJ Circ. No. 61 (1993)] of the court over the person of the accused [People v.
Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233 (2007)]
Duty of inquest officer
1. Determine whether warrantless arrest is valid. Waiver
[Sec. 8, DOJ Circ. No. 61 (1993)] Any objection involving the arrest or the procedure
2. If warrantless arrest is improperly made, Inquest in the court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over the
officer recommends to the City Prosecutor the person of an accused must be made before he enters
release of the arrested person [Sec. 9, DOJ Circ. his plea; otherwise the objection is deemed waived
No. 61 (1993)] [Zalameda v. People, G.R. No. 183656 (2009)]
An accused may be estopped from assailing the a. The head of the office to whom the warrant
legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the of arrest was delivered shall cause the
quashing of the Information against him before his warrant to be executed within 10 days from
arraignment. Any objection involving the arrest or the its receipt.
procedure in the court's acquisition of jurisdiction b. Within ten (10) days after the expiration of
over the person of an accused must be made before the period, the officer to whom it was
he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed assigned for execution shall make a report to
waived [People v. Badilla, G.R. No. 218578 (2016)] the judge who issued the warrant.
c. In case of his failure to execute the warrant,
An application for or admission to bail shall not he shall state the reasons therefor.
bar the accused from challenging the validity of his [Sec. 4, Rule 113]
arrest or the legality of the warrant issued , provided
that he raises the objection before he enters his plea. 2. The officer shall inform the person to be arrested
The court shall resolve the matter as early as of the cause of the arrest and the fact that a
practicable but not later than the start of the trial of warrant has been issued for his arrest
the case [Sec. 26, Rule 114]
3. This duty does not apply:
A waiver of the right to question an illegal warrantless a. When the person to be arrested flees;
arrest does not also mean a waiver of the b. When he forcibly resists before the officer
inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal has opportunity to so inform him;
warrantless arrest [People v. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233 c. When the giving of such information will
(2007)] imperil the arrest
[Sec. 7, Rule 113]
When invalid arrest is cured
1. When the accused voluntarily submits to the 4. The officer need not have the warrant in his
jurisdiction of the trial court [Dolera v. People, G.R. possession at the time of the arrest but after the
No. 180693 (2009); People v. Alunday, G.R. No. arrest, if the person arrested so requires, the
181546 (2008)] warrant shall be shown to him as soon as
2. by the filing of an information in court and the practicable [Sec. 7, Rule 113]
subsequent issuance by the judge of a warrant of
arrest [Sanchez v. Demetriou, G.R. No. 111771 This is not a case of a warrantless arrest but
(1993)] merely an instance of an arrest effected by the
police authorities without having the warrant in
Note: In Sanchez v. Demitriou [G.R. No. 111771 (1993)], their possession at that precise moment [Mallari
the Court held that the original warrantless arrest of v. CA, G.R. No. 11069 (1996)]
the petitioner was doubtless illegal. Nevertheless, the
RTC lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of 5. The officer executing the warrant shall arrest the
the petitioner by virtue of a warrant of arrest … it accused and deliver him to the nearest police
issued against him …. It was belated, to be sure, but station or jail without unnecessary delay [Sec. 3,
it was nonetheless legal. Rule 113];
The issuance of the corresponding warrant of arrest, 6. No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in
against a person invalidly detained will cure the defect making an arrest. The person arrested shall not
of that detention or at least deny him the right to be be subject to a greater restraint than is necessary
released because of such defect [Sanchez v. Demetriou, for his detention [Sec. 2, 2nd par., Rule 113]
G.R. No. 111771 (1993)]
Rights of the arresting officer
3. Method of Arrest 1. To orally summon as many persons as he deems
necessary to assist him in effecting the arrest [Sec.
10, Rule 113]
a. By Officer with Warrant 2. To break into building or enclosure when the
following concur:
Duties of arresting officer a. he person to be arrested is or is reasonably
1. Execution of warrant believed to be in said building;
 b. He has announced his authority and purpose a. Be issued upon probable cause determined
of entering therein; and personally by the judge after examination under
c. He has requested and been denied oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
admittance. witnesses he may produce; and
[Sec. 11, Rule 113] b. Particularly describe the person to be arrested
3. To break out from the building/enclosure when [Sec. 2, Art. III, Constitution]
necessary to liberate himself [Sec. 12, Rule 113];
4. To search the person arrested for dangerous When Issued
weapons or anything which may have been used A judge issues a warrant of arrest upon the filing of
or constitute proof in the commission of an the information by the public prosecutor and after
offense without a warrant [Sec. 13, Rule 126] personal evaluation by the judge of the prosecutor’s
resolution and supporting evidence [Sec. 5(a), Rule
b. By Officer without Warrant 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC]

General rule: The officer shall inform the person to be The judge does not have to personally examine the
arrested of: complainant and his witnesses. Established doctrine
1. His authority; and provides, he shall personally evaluate the report and
2. The cause of the arrest the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal
regarding the existence of probable cause:
a. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant
Exceptions: of arrest, or
1. When the person to be arrested is engaged in the b. If on the basis thereof he finds no probable
commission of the offense; cause, he may disregard the fiscal’s report and
2. When he is pursued immediately after its require the submission of supporting affidavits of
commission; witnesses
3. When he has escaped, flees or forcibly resists [People v. Gray, G.R. No. 180109 (2010); AAA v.
before the officer has the opportunity to so Carbonell, G.R. No. 171465 (2007)]
inform him; or
4. When the giving of such information will imperil
the arrest. When warrant of arrest is not necessary
[Sec. 8, Rule 113] A warrant of arrest shall not issue
a. if the accused is already under detention pursuant
to a warrant issued by the municipal trial court in
c. By Private Person (Citizen’s accordance with Sec. 5(b) of Rule 112; or
Arrest) b. if the complaint or information
1. was filed pursuant to Sec. 6 of Rule 112 or
1. The private person shall inform the person to be 2. is for an offense penalized by fine only
arrested of the intention to arrest him and the [Sec. 5(c), Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-
cause of the arrest except in the same cases as 8-26-SC]
those for arrest by an officer without a warrant
[Sec. 9, Rule 113] Sec. 5(b), Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-
2. The private person must deliver the arrested SC states that the procedure for the issuance of a
person to the nearest police station or jail, and he warrant of arrest by the judge shall be governed by
shall be proceeded against in accordance with Sec. 5(a). (See Part D.6 of this (Criminal Procedure)
Sec. 7, Rule 112 [Sec. 5, Rule 113] Otherwise, the reviewer.)
private person may be held liable for illegal
detention [Art. 125, RPC] Sec. 6 of Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-
SC states that when a person is lawfully arrested
without a warrant involving an offense which requires
4. Requisites of a Valid a PI, the complaint or information may be filed by a
Warrant of Arrest prosecutor without need of such investigation
provided an inquest has been conducted in
Essential requisites accordance with existing rules.
The warrant must:
The court shall then proceed in the exercise of its Rule 112, as therein has
original jurisdiction [Sec. 5(c), Rule 113] amended by been
Note: If complaint or information is filed with the A.M. No. 05-8- committed by
MTC judge, and the judge finds probable cause, he 26-SC] the person
shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order sought to be
if the accused had already been arrested. However, if arrested
the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for [Baltazar v. People,
placing the accused under custody, he may issue
summons instead of a warrant of arrest [Sec. 8(b), Rule G.R. No. 174016
112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC] (2008)]
The preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does
a. Determination of Probable not bind the Judge. It merely assists him in making
Cause For Issuance of Warrant the determination of probable cause for issuance of
of Arrest the warrant of arrest. The Judge does not have to
follow what the Prosecutor presents to him. By itself,
the Prosecutor’s certification of probable cause is
Probable cause, in connection with the issuance of a ineffectual. It is the report, the affidavits, the
warrant of arrest, assumes the existence of facts and transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and all other
circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet supporting documents behind the Prosecutor’s
and prudent man to believe that a crime has been certification which are material in assisting the Judge
committed and that it was likely committed by the in making his determination [Baltazar v. People, G.R.
person sought to be arrested [People v. Tan, G.R. No. 174016 (2008)]
No. 182310 (2009)]

b. Probable Cause of Prosecutor

and Judge Distinguished
Prosecutor Judge
Executive
determination of Judicial
PC [Mendoza v. determination of
Nature People, G.R. No. PC [Sec. 2, Art.
197293 (2014)] III, Constitution]

Determination of
PC to hold a Determination of
person for trial PC for the arrest
[Sec. 1, Rule 112, of the accused
Purpose as amended by [Baltazar v. People,
A.M. No. 05-8- G.R. No. 174016
26-SC] (2008)]

Sufficient ground Set of facts and

to engender a circumstances
well-founded which would lead
belief that a a reasonably
crime has been discreet and
committed, and prudent man to
that the believe that the
Standard respondent is offense charged
probably guilty in the
thereof and Information or
should be held any offense
for trial [Sec. 1, included
F. Bail Exceptions: Custody is not required in cases of
witnesses posting bail:
1. Nature a. When bail is required to guarantee the
appearance of a material witness [Sec. 14, Rule
Definition 119];
Bail is the security given for the release of a person in b. When bail is required to guarantee the
custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, appearance of a prosecution witness in cases
to guarantee his appearance before any court as where there is substitution of the information
required under the conditions hereinafter specified [Sec. 14, Rule 110]
[Sec. 1, Rule 114]
2. When a Matter of Right;
Purpose
a. To relieve an accused from imprisonment until Exceptions
his conviction and yet secure his appearance at
the trial [People v. Hon. Donato, G.R. No. 79269 Bail is a matter of right
(2011) & Enrile v. Sadiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847 a. Before or after conviction, but pending appeal,
(2016)] by the first-level courts;
b. To honor the presumption of innocence until his b. Before conviction by RTC of an offense not
guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt [Sec. 14, punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
Art. III, Constitution]; and imprisonment
c. To enable him to prepare his defense without [Sec. 4, Rule 114]
being subject to punishment prior to conviction
[Cortes v. Judge Catral, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387 Bail on offenses where minors are accused
(1997)] For purposes of recommending the amount of bail,
the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority
Note: The right to bail flows from the right to be shall be considered [Sec. 34, R.A 9344]
presumed innocent. It is accorded to a person in the
custody of the law who may be allowed provisional Where a child is detained, the court shall order
liberty upon filing of a security to guarantee his a. the release of the minor on recognizance to
appearance before any court, as required under his/her parents and other suitable person;
specified conditions. Before conviction, bail is either b. the release of the child in conflict with the law on
a matter of right or of discretion. bail; or
c. the transfer of the minor to a youth detention
Bail is a matter of right when the offense charged is home/youth rehabilitation center
punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion perpetua.
Bail is a matter of discretion when it comes to cases The court shall not order the detention of a child in a
penalized by reclusion perpetua, murder being of these jail pending trial or hearing of his/her case [Sec. 35,
cases. Bail may be granted in such cases if the R.A. 9344]
evidence of guilt is not strong.
[Tanog v. Balindog, G.R. No. 187464 (2015)] Children detained pending trial may be released on
bail or recognizance as provided for under Secs. 34
A person is allowed to petition for bail as soon as he and 35 under this Act. In all other cases and whenever
is deprived of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or possible, detention pending trial may be replaced by
voluntary surrender. An accused need not wait for his alternative measures, such as close supervision,
arraignment before filing a petition for bail [Serapio v. intensive care or placement with a family or in an
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148468 (2003)] educational setting or home. Institutionalization or
detention of the child pending trial shall be used only
Requirement of custody as a measure of last resort and for the shortest
General rule: Custody of the law is required before the possible period of time [Sec. 36, R.A. 9344]
court can act on an application for bail [Miranda v.
Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763 (2006)] Exception: When the offense involved is a capital
offense, admission to bail may only be denied when
evidence of guilt is strong [Sec. 5, Rule 114]
 If he applied for probation before finality, he
Recognizance may be allowed temporary liberty under his bail;
Recognizance is a mode of securing the release of any b. After the accused has commenced to serve his
person in custody or detention for the commission of sentence
an offense who is unable to post bail due to abject [Sec. 24, Rule 114]
poverty [Sec. 1, R.A. 10389] c. To military personnel accused under general
courts martial [Comendador v. de Villa, G.R. No.
Capital offense 93177 (1991)]
A capital offense is an offense which under the law
existing at the time of commission and of the 3. When a Matter of Discretion
application for admission to bail is punishable by
death [Sec. 6, Rule 114] Upon conviction by the RTC of anoffense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
The capital nature of the offense is determined by the imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary [Sec.
penalty prescribed by law and not the one actually 5, Rule 114]
imposed [Riano, 335, 2016 Ed., citing Bravo v. De Borja,
G.R. No. L-65228 (1985)] The application for bail may be filed in and acted
upon by the RTC despite the filing of notice of appeal,
Note: R.A. 9346 (An Act Prohibiting the Imposition provided that it has not transmitted the original
of Death Penalty in the Philippines) enacted on June record to the appellate court [Sec. 5, Rule 114]
24, 2006 (which repealed R.A. 8177 and R.A. 7659)
prohibited the imposition of the death penalty. If the RTC decision changed the nature of the offense
from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail
Generally not applicable to extradition can only be filed with and resolved only by the
proceedings appellate court [Sec. 5, Rule 114]
General rule: Right to bail is available only in criminal
proceedings and does not apply to extradition If the conviction by the trial court is for a capital
proceedings because extradition courts do not render offense, the accused convicted of a capital offense is
judgments of conviction or acquittal [Gov. of USA v. no longer entitled to bail, and can only be released
Purganan and Jimenez, G.R. No. 148571 (2002)] when the conviction is reversed by the appellate court
[Sec. 13, Article III, Constitution]
Exception: Only upon clear and convincing evidence:
a. That once granted, the applicant will not be flight If the penalty imposed by the trial court is
risk or will not pose danger to the community; imprisonment exceeding 6 years, the accused shall be
and denied bail or his bail shall be cancelled upon
b. That there exists special humanitarian and showing by the prosecution, with notice to the
compelling circumstances [Gov. of USA v. accused, of any of the following [Sec. 5, Rule 114]:
Purganan and Jimenez, G.R. No. 148571 (2002)] a. Recidivism, quasi-recidivism, or habitual
delinquency or commission of a crime aggravated
Exception to the exception: When the accused is a minor, by reiteration of the accused
he is entitled to bail regardless of whether the b. The accused previously escaped from legal
evidence of guilt is strong [See Part F.4 of this confinement, evaded sentence or violated bail
(Criminal Procedure) reviewer.] conditions without valid justification
c. Commission of offense while under probation,
Note: Bail is a matter of discretion in extradition parole or conditional pardon
proceedings [Govt. of HK Special Administrative Region v. d. Probability of flight;
Olalia, G.R. No. 153675 (2007)] e. Undue risk of the commission of another crime
during the pendency of the appeal
When not available [Sec. 5, Rule 114]
Right to bail is also not available
Upon conviction of the RTC, the bail posted earlier
a. After a judgment of conviction has become final; as a matter of right loses its force and the accused
must file a new and separate petition for bail.
In deportation proceedings, bail is discretionary
upon the Commissioner of Immigration and Duties of judge hearing the petition for bail when
Deportation [Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago, G.R. No. capital offenses are involved
82544 (1990)] a. In all cases whether bail is a matter of right or
discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of
Note: In Enrile v. People [G.R. No. 213847 (2015)], the the application for bail or require him to submit
Court ruled that an accused should be granted bail if his recommendation [Sec. 18, Rule 114]
it is shown that: (1) the detainee will not be a flight b. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a
risk or a danger to the community; and (2) there exist hearing of the application for bail regardless or
special, humanitarian, and compelling circumstances. whether or not the prosecution refuses to present
The SC further explained that bail for the provisional evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is
liberty of the accused, regardless of the crime charged strong for the purpose of enabling the court to
should be allowed independently of the merits exercise its sound discretion [Sec. 7-8, Rule 114]
charged, provided his continued incarceration is c. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong
injurious to his health and endanger his life. based on the summary of evidence of the
prosecution
d. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge
4. Hearing of Application for the accused upon the approval of the bail bond
Bail in Capital Offenses [Sec. 19, Rule 114]. Otherwise, the petition
should be denied.
In general [Gacal v. Infante, A.M. No. RTJ- 04-1845 (2011)]
At the hearing of an application for bail filed by a
person in custody for the commission of an offense Note: Evidence presented during the bail hearing are
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, automatically reproduced at the trial, but upon
the prosecution has the burden of showing that motion of either party, the court may recall any
evidence of guilt is strong [Sec. 8, Rule 114] witness for additional examination unless the latter is
dead, outside the Philippines, or otherwise unable to
Evidence of guilt in the Constitution and the Rules testify [Sec. 8, Rule 114]
refers to a finding of innocence or culpability,
regardless of the modifying circumstances [Bravo v. A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC (Guidelines for
De Borja, G.R. No. L-65228 (1985)] Decongesting Holding Jails by Enforcing the
Rights of Accused Persons to Bail and to Speedy
Gacal v. Judge Infante [A.M. No. RTJ-04-1845 (2011)] Trial)
involved an Information that charged the accused of a. The hearing of the accused's motion for bail in
murder but the public prosecutor recommended bail offenses punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or
in the amount of P400,000. For this reason, the SC life imprisonment shall be summary, with the
held, “The offense of murder is punishable by reclusion prosecution bearing the burden of showing that
temporal in its maximum period to death (Art. 248, the evidence of guilt is strong. The accused may
RPC). By reason of the penalty prescribed by law, at his option, if he wants the court to consider his
murder is considered a capital offense and, grant of evidence as well, submit in support of his motion
bail is a matter of discretion which can be exercised the affidavits of his witnesses attesting to his
only by respondent judge after the evidence is innocence.
submitted in a hearing. Hearing of the application for b. At the hearing of the accused's motion for bail,
bail is absolutely indispensable before a judge can the prosecution shall present its witnesses with
properly determine whether the prosecution’s the option of examining them on direct or
evidence is weak or strong.” The SC later stated, “The adopting the affidavits they executed during the
fact that the public prosecutor recommended bail for preliminary investigation as their direct
Ancheta did not warrant dispensing with the hearing. testimonies.
The public prosecutor’s recommendation of bail was c. The court shall examine the witnesses on their
not material in deciding whether to conduct the direct testimonies or affidavits to ascertain if the
mandatory hearing or not.” evidence of guilt of the accused is strong. The
court's questions need not follow any particular
order and may shift from one witness to another.
The court shall then allow counsels from both
 sides to examine the witnesses as well. The court a. Financial ability of the accused
shall afterwards hear the oral arguments of the b. Nature and circumstances of the offense
parties on whether or not the evidence of guilt is c. Penalty for the offense charged
strong. d. Character and reputation of the accused
d. Within 48 hours after hearing, the court shall e. Age and health of the accused
issue an order containing a brief summary of the f. Weight of the evidence against the accused
evidence adduced before it, followed by its g. Probability of the accused appearing at the trial
conclusion of whether or not the evidence of h. Forfeiture of other bail
guilt is strong. Such conclusion shall not be i. Fact that accused was a fugitive from justice
regarded as a pre-judgment on the merits of the when arrested
case that is to be determined only after a full- j. Pendency of other cases where the accused is on
blown trial. bail
[Sec. 6] [Sec. 9, Rule 114]
Where application for bail is filed The amount should be high enough to assure the
General rule: The application may be filed with the presence of the accused when required but no higher
court where the case is pending. than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose. To
fix bail at an amount equivalent to the civil liability of
Exceptions: which petitioner is charged is to permit the
a. If the judge of the court where the case is pending impression that the amount paid as bail is an exaction
is absent or unavailable, the application may be of the civil liability that accused is charged of; this we
filed with any RTC/MTC/MeTC/MCTC judge cannot allow because bail is not intended as a
in the province, city or municipality; punishment, nor as a satisfaction of civil liability
b. Where the accused is arrested in a province, which should necessarily await the judgment of the
city/municipality other than where the case is appellate court [Yap Jr. v. CA G.R. No. 141529 (2001)]
pending, the application may be filed with any
RTC of the said place, or, if no judge is available,
then with any MeTC/MTC/MCTC judge in the
6. When Bail Not Required
said place.
c. When a person is in custody but not yet charged, When bail is not required
he may apply with any court in the province or a. When a person has been in custody for a period
city/municipality where he is held equal to or more than the possible maximum
[Sec. 17, Rule 114, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26- imprisonment of the offense charged
SC] b. If the maximum penalty is destierro, he shall be
released after 30 days of preventive
Note: Where the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, imprisonment
or the accused seeks to be released on recognizance, [Sec. 16, Rule 114]
the application may only be filed in the court where c. In cases where a person is charged with violation
the case is pending, on trial, or appeal [Sec. 17, Rule of a municipal/city ordinance, a light felony
114, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC] and/or criminal offense, the penalty of which is
not higher than 6 months imprisonment and/or
a fine of P2,000, or both, where it is established
When bail is filed with a court other than where the that he is unable to post the required cash or bail
case is pending, the judge who accepted the bail shall bond [Sec. 1, R.A. 6036]. NOTE: The title of
forward it, together with the order of release and R.A. 6036 reads “arresto mayor” instead of “6
other supporting papers, to the court where the case months”.
is pending, which may, for good reason, require a
different one to be filed [Sec. 19 Rule 114] When bail is nonetheless required
a. When accused was caught committing the
5. Guidelines in Fixing offense in flagrante;
b. When accused confesses to the commission of
Amount of Bail the offense unless he later repudiates the same in
a sworn statement or in open court as having
The considerations are primarily, but not limited, to been extracted through force or intimidation;
the following factors
c. When accused is found to have previously b. Show cause why no judgment should be rendered
escaped legal confinement, evaded sentence, or against them for the amount of their bail
jumped bail; c. Produce the body of their principal or give the
d. When accused is found to have violated Section 2, reason for his non-production; and
R.A. 6036, which provides that the violation of d. Explain why the accused did not appear before
the accused of the sworn statement (required the court when first required to do so
instead of bail) binding himself, pending final [Sec. 21, Rule 114]
decision of his case, to report to the Clerk of the
Court hearing his case periodically every two Failing in items (3) and (4) above, a judgment shall be
weeks shall justify the court to order his rendered against the bondsmen, jointly and severally,
immediate arrest, if the failure of the accused to for the amount of the bail. The court shall not reduce
report is not justified; or otherwise mitigate the liability of the bondsmen,
e. Accused is a recidivist or habitual delinquent or unless the accused has been surrendered or is
has been previously convicted for an offense to acquitted [Sec. 21, Rule 114]
which the law/ordinance attaches an
equal/greater penalty or for two/more offenses For the purpose of surrendering the accused, the
to which it attaches a lighter penalty bondsmen may arrest him or, upon written authority
f. Accused committed the offense while on parole endorsed on a certified copy of the undertaking, cause
or under conditional pardon; him to be arrested by a police officer or any other
g. Accused has previously been pardoned for person of suitable age and discretion [Sec. 23, Rule
violation of municipal/city ordinance for at least 114]
two times
[Sec. 1, R.A. 6036]
Judgment against the bondsmen cannot be entered
unless such judgment is preceded by an order of
7. Increase or Reduction of forfeiture and an opportunity given to the bondsmen
Bail to produce the accused or to adduce satisfactory
reason for their inability to do so. An order of
forfeiture is interlocutory and is different form the
After the accused is admitted to bail, the court may, judgment on the bond which is issued if the accused
upon good cause, increase or decrease the amount was not produced within the 30-day period [Mendoza
[Sec. 20, Rule 114] v. Alarma, G.R. No. 151970 (2008)]
Increased bail CANCELLATION OF BAIL
The accused may be committed to custody if he does
not give bail in the increased amount within a Application by bondsmen
reasonable period [Sec. 20, Rule 114] Upon application of the bondsmen with due notice to
the prosecutor, bail may be cancelled upon:
Reduced bail a. Surrender of the accused; or
A person in custody for a period equal to or more b. Proof of his death
than the minimum of the principal penalty prescribed [Sec. 22(1), Rule 114]
for the offense charged may be released on a reduced
bond [Sec. 16, Rule 114] In order to cancel a bail on the ground of surrender,
the surrender must be voluntary. In this case, the
8. Forfeiture and Cancellation accused was not surrendered, he was charged and
arrested for another crime [Esteban v. Alhambra, G.R.
of Bail No. 135012 (2004)]
Forfeiture of bail Automatic cancellation
When the presence of the accused out on bail is a. Upon acquittal of the accused
required by court or Rules of Court and he failed to b. Upon dismissal of the case, or
appear, his bail shall be declared forfeited and the c. Upon execution of judgment of conviction
bondsmen are given 30 days within which to: [Sec. 22, Rule 114]
a. Produce their principal
9. Application not a Bar to issuance of HDOs shall pertain only to criminal cases
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC, to the
Objections on Illegal Arrest, exclusion of criminal cases falling within the
Lack of or Irregular jurisdiction of the MTC and all other cases. The
reason lies in seeking the balance between the state's
Preliminary Investigation interest over the prosecution of the case considering
the gravity of the offense involved and the individual's
Bail is no longer a waiver of these objections [Leviste exercise of his right to travel [Genuino v. De Lima, G.R.
v. Alameda, G.R. No. 182677 (2011)] No. 197930 (2018)]

Thus, provided that the accused raises them before

entering his plea, an application or an admission to
bail shall not bar the accused from challenging or
questioning the:
a. Validity of his arrest
b. Legality of the arrest warrant
c. Regularity of PI, or
d. Absence of PI
The court shall resolve the objections as early as
practicable but not later than the start of the trial of
the case.
[Sec. 26, Rule 114]

10. Hold/Allow Departure

Order and Bureau of
Immigration Watchlist
An accused released on bail may be re-arrested
without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to
depart from the Philippines without permission of the
court where the case is pending [Sec. 23, Rule 114]
The accused may be prohibited from leaving the
country during the pendency of his case [People v. Uy
Tuising, G.R. No. 42118-20 (1935); Manotoc v. CA,
G.R. No. L-62100 (1986)]
A hold-departure order may be issued only in
criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
RTCs. The judgment of acquittal or dismissal of the
case shall include the cancellation of the HDO [SC
Circ. No. 39-97]
SC Circular 39-97 deals only with criminal cases
pending in the RTC. As to those cases pending in the
MTC as well as those under PI, the DOJ promulgated
DOJ Circular No. 41 governing the issuance of HDO,
Watchlist Orders, and Allow Departure Orders.
HOWEVER, the SC has declared DOJ Circular
No. 41 as unconstitutional. The Secretary of Justice
has no power to issue HDOs and WLOs. The
G. Arraignment and Plea b. Motion to suspend arraignment: upon motion
by the proper party, the arraignment shall be
suspended
1. Arraignment and Plea; How 1. Accused appears to be suffering from
unsound mental condition which effectively
Made renders him unable to fully understand the
charge against him and to plead intelligently.
Arraignment In such case, the court shall order his mental
It is the stage where the issues are joined and without examination and, if necessary, his
which the proceedings cannot advance further or, if confinement for such purpose.
held, will otherwise be void [People v. Albert, G.R. No. 2. Existence of a prejudicial question;
114001 (1995)] 3. A petition for review of the resolution of
the prosecutor is pending at either the DOJ
The accused must be arraigned before the court Secretary or the Office of the President for a
where the complaint or information was filed or period of suspension not exceeding 60 days
assigned for trial. The arraignment shall be made in from filing of petition with the reviewing
open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the office
accused with a copy of the complaint or information, [Sec. 11, Rule 116]
reading the same in the language or dialect known to
him, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not c. Motion to quash the complaint or
guilty. The prosecution may call at the trial witnesses information: on any of the grounds under Sec.
other than those named in the complaint or 3, Rule 117 in relation to Sec. 1, Rule 117
information [Sec. 1(a), Rule 116] d. Challenge the validity of the arrest or legality of
the warrant or assail the regularity or question the
Rationale absence of PI of the charge [Sec. 26, Rule 114]
The importance of arraignment is based on the
constitutional right of the accused to be informed. It If the accused does not question the legality of the
is at this stage that the accused, for the first time, is arrest or search, this objection is deemed waived
given the opportunity to know the precise charge that [People v. Racho y Raquero, G.R. No. 186529 (2010)]
confronts him [Kummer v. People, G.R. No. 174461
(2013)] Procedure of Arraignment
The court shall issue an order directing the public
Plea prosecutor to submit the record of the PI to the
Pertains to the matter which the accused, on his branch COC for the latter to attach the same to the
arraignment, alleges in answer to the charge against record of the case.
him 
The court shall inform the accused of his right to
Duty of the court before arraignment counsel and ask him if he desires to have one.
The court shall Unless the accused is allowed to defend himself in
a. Inform the accused of his right to counsel; person or has employed counsel of his choice, the
b. Ask him if he desires to have one; and court must assign a counsel de oficio to defend him
c. Must assign a counsel de oficio to defend him, [Sec. 6, Rule 114]
unless the accused: 
1. Is allowed to defend himself in person; or a. If the accused pleads not guilty, either:
2. Has employed a counsel of his choice 1. The accused admits the act or omission
[Sec. 6, Rule 116] charged in the complaint or information
but interposes a lawful defense, the order
Before arraignment and plea, the accused may avail of trial may be modified [Sec. 11(e), Rule
of any of the following 119]
a. Motion for bill of particulars: to enable him to 2. He raises a negative defense, that is, he
properly plead and prepare for trial [Sec. 9, Rule denies the charge, in which case regular
116] trial proceeds
b. If the accused pleads guilty:
 1. For a non-capital offense, the court may b. Where the complainant is about to depart from
receive evidence to determine the penalty the Philippines with no definite date of return,
to be imposed [Sec. 4, Rule 116] the accused should be arraigned without delay
2. For a capital offense, the court shall [R.A. 4908]
conduct a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness and full comprehension of Presence of the offended party
the consequences of his plea and shall The private offended party shall be required to appear
require the prosecution to prove his guilt in the arraignment for the purpose of
and the precise degree of culpability [Sec. a. Plea bargaining
3, Rule 116] b. Determination of civil liability, and
c. Other matters requiring his presence
If the accused does not enter any plea or makes a In case of failure of the offended party to appear despite
conditional plea, a plea of not guilty is entered by due notice, the court may allow the accused to enter a
the court [Sec. 1(c), Rule 116] plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily
included in the offense charged with the conformity
How made of the trial prosecutor alone [Sec. 1(f), Rule 116; Part
a. Before the court where the complaint or B(2), A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC]
information has been filed or assigned for trial;
b. In open court The presence of the accused is not only a personal
c. by the judge or clerk of court; right but also a public duty, irrespective of the gravity
d. by furnishing the accused with a copy of the of the offense and the rank of the court.
complaint or information;
e. Reading it in a language or dialect known to the There can be no trial in absentia without first
accused; arraigning the accused; otherwise, the judgment is null
f. Asking the accused whether he pleads guilty or and void [Riano 394, 2016 Ed., citing Taglay v. Daray,
not guilty. G.R. No. 164258 (2012)]
g. The accused must be present and must personally
enter his plea. Specific rules
h. Both arraignment and plea shall be made on a. Trial in absentia may be conducted only after valid
record but failure to enter of record shall not arraignment [Sec. 14(2), Art. III, Constitution]
affect the validity of the proceedings b. Accused must personally appear during
[Sec. 1(a) and (b), Rule 116] arraignment and enter his plea; counsel cannot
enter plea for the accused [Sec. 1[b], Rule 116]
There can be no arraignment or plea in absentia. c. Accused is presumed to have been validly
Under both the 1964 and 1985 Rules, a defendant arraigned in the absence of proof to the contrary
must be present at the arraignment and must [see Sec. 3(m), Rule 131]
personally enter his plea [Nolasco v. Enrile, G.R. No. L- d. Generally, judgment is void if accused has not
68347 (1985)] The 2000 Rules contains the same been validly arraigned [Riano 394, 2016 Ed., citing
requirement (See Part (7) of the enumeration above). Taglay v. Daray, G.R. No. 164258, (2012)]
e. If accused went into trial without being arraigned,
When held subsequent arraignment will cure the error
General rule: The accused should be arraigned within provided that the accused was able to present
30 days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction evidence and cross examine the witnesses of the
over his person [Sec. 1(g), Rule 116] prosecution during trial

Exceptions: Unless a shorter period is provided by If an information is amended in substance which

special law or Supreme Court circular [Sec. 1(g), Rule changes the nature of the offense (not merely as to
116] form), arraignment on the amended information is
a. When an accused is under preventive detention, mandatory [Teehankee v. Madayag, G.R. No. 103102
his case should be raffled within 3 days from (1992)]
filing and accused shall be arraigned within 10
days from receipt by the judge of the records of The need for arraignment is imperative in an amended
the case [RA 8493 (Speedy Trial Act)]; information or complaint. This, however, pertains
only to substantial and not to formal amendments
[Kummer v. People, G.R. No. 174461 (2013)]
3. When Accused May Enter a
Whatever procedural infirmity in the arraignment of Plea of Guilty to a Lesser
the accused was rectified when he was re-arraigned
and entered a new plea. Accused did not question the
Offense
procedural errors in the first arraignment and having
failed to do so, he is deemed to have abandoned his DURING ARRAIGNMENT
right to question the same and waived the errors in
procedure [People v. Magat, G.R. No. 130026 (2000)] Requisites
a. The lesser offense is necessarily included in the
offense charged
2. When a Plea of Not Guilty b. The plea must be with the consent of both the
Should Be Entered offended party and the prosecutor
[Sec. 2, Rule 116]
a. When the accused so pleaded
b. When he refuses to plead or makes a conditional In case of failure of the offended party to appear
plea [Sec. 1(c), Rule 116] despite due notice, the court may allow the accused to
c. When he pleads guilty but presents exculpatory enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is
evidence [Sec. 1(d), Rule 116] necessarily included in the offense charged with the
d. Where the plea of guilty was compelled by conformity of the trial prosecutor alone {Sec. 1(f),
violence or intimidation [Riano 402, 2016 Ed., Rule 116]
citing People v. Baetiong, 2 Phil. 126]
e. When the plea is indefinite or ambiguous [Riano AFTER ARRAIGNMENT BUT BEFORE
403, 2016 Ed., citing People v. Strong, G.R. No. L- TRIAL
38626 (1975)]
After arraignment but before trial, the accused may
Plea of guilty is mitigating if it is made before still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense
prosecution starts to present evidence [Art. 13(7), after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No
RPC] amendment of the complaint or information is
necessary [Sec. 2, Rule 116]
Retaking of plea
Accused did not fully comprehend the AFTER TRIAL HAS BEGUN
consequences of a plea of guilty, or even what crimes
he was pleading guilty to. Hence, the necessity of a re- After the prosecution has rested its case, a change of
arraignment and retaking of his plea [People v. Nuelan, plea to a lesser offense may be granted by the judge,
G.R. No. 123075 (2001)] with the approval of the prosecutor and the offended
party if the prosecution does not have sufficient
Plea of not guilty should be entered evidence to establish the guilt of the accused for the
a. When the accused did not fully understand the crime charged. The judge cannot on its own grant the
meaning and consequences of his plea change of plea [People v. Villarama,G.R. No. 99287
b. Where the information is insufficient to sustain (1992)]
conviction of the offense charged
c. Where the information does not charge an
offense, any conviction thereunder being void 4. Accused Pleads Guilty to
d. Where the court has no jurisdiction Capital Offense; What the
Court Should Do
Conditions that the trial court must observe to
obviate an improvident plea of guilty by the accused
a. Conduct a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of the pleas; and
b. Require prosecution to present evidence to prove b. Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as
the guilt and precise degree of culpability of the to whether he had conferred with, and
accused; completely explained to, the accused the meaning
c. Accused may present evidence in his behalf and consequences of a plea of guilty.
[Sec. 3, Rule 116] c. Elicit information about the personality profile of
the accused, such as his age, socio-economic
Note: A plea of guilty to a capital offense does not status, and educational background, which may
result to an immediate rendering of judgment [Riano, serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to
407, 2016 Ed.] give a free and informed plea of guilty.
d. Inform the accused the exact length of
imprisonment or nature of the penalty under the
5. Searching Inquiry law and the certainty that he will serve such
sentence. For not infrequently, an accused pleads
The procedure in Sec. 3, Rule 116, when the accused guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment or upon
pleads guilty to a capital offense, is mandatory. [Riano bad advice or because of promises of the
407, 2016 Ed., citing People v. Oden, G.R. No. 155511- authorities or parties of a lighter penalty should
22 (2004)] he admit guilt or express remorse. It is the duty
of the judge to ensure that the accused does not
The plea must be clear, definite and unconditional. It labor under these mistaken impressions because
must be based on a free and informed judgment. a plea of guilty carries with it not only the
admission of authorship of the crime proper but
also of the aggravating circumstances attending it,
The judge must ask whether the accused was assisted that increase punishment.
by counsel during custodial investigation and PI; ask e. Inquire if the accused knows the crime with
questions on age, educational attainment and socio- which he is charged and fully explain to him the
economic status; and ask the defense counsel whether elements of the crime which is the basis of his
or not he conferred with the accused [People v. Nadera, indictment. Failure of the court to do so would
G.R. Nos. 181384-87 (2000)] constitute a violation of his fundamental right to
be informed of the precise nature of the
A plea of guilt to a capital offense can be held null and accusation against him and a denial of his right to
void where the trial court has inadequately discharged due process.
the duty of conducting the prescribed "searching f. All questions posed to the accused should be in a
inquiry” [People v. Durango, G.R. Nos. 135438-39 language known and understood by the latter.
(2000)] g. The trial judge must satisfy himself that the
Rationale accused, in pleading guilty, is truly guilty. The
This is to enjoin courts to proceed with more care accused must be required to narrate the tragedy
where the possible punishment is in its severest form or reenact the crime or furnish its missing details
and to avoid improvident pleas of guilt [People v. [People v. Pastor, G.R. No. 140208 (2002)]
Samontanez, G.R. No. 134530 (2000)]
Guidelines for conducting a search inquiry 6. Improvident Plea of Guilty
a. Ascertain from the accused himself to a Capital Offense
1. How he was brought into the custody of the
law An improvident plea is one without proper
2. Whether he had the assistance of a information as to all the circumstances affecting it;
competent counsel during the custodial and based upon a mistaken assumption or misleading
preliminary investigations, and information/advice [Black’s Law Dictionary]
3. Under what conditions he was detained and
interrogated during the investigations. This
is intended to rule out the possibility that the General rule: If the accused does not clearly and fully
accused has been coerced or placed under a understand the nature of the offense charged, if he is
state of duress either by actual threats of not advised as to the meaning and effect of the
physical harm coming from malevolent technical language so often used in formal complaints
quarters or simply because of the judge’s and information in qualifying the acts constituting the
intimidating robes. offense, or if he does not clearly understand the
consequences by way of a heavy and even a capital 1. Delusion test, where insanity is manifested by a
penalty flowing from his admission of his guilt of the false belief for which there is no reasonable basis
crime in the precise technical manner and form in and which would be incredible under the given
which it is charged, his plea of guilty should not be circumstances;
accepted and if accepted it should not be held to be 2. Irresistible impulse test, where the accused has
sufficient to sustain a conviction [People v. De Ocampo lost the power to choose between right and
Gonzaga, G.R. No. L-48373 (1984)] wrong, to avoid the act in question, his free
agency being at that time destroyed.
Exception: If the accused appears guilty beyond 3. Right and wrong test, where a perverted
reasonable doubt from the evidence adduced by the condition of mental and mortal faculties afflicts
prosecution and defense the accused as to render him incapable of
distinguishing between right and wrong.
When improvident plea may be withdrawn
At any time before judgment of conviction becomes In People v. Pascual [G.R. No. 95029 (1993)], there are
final, the court may permit an improvident plea of two tests to determine insanity
guilty to be withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of 1. Test of cognition, which requires complete
not guilty [Sec. 5, Rule 116] deprivation of intelligence in committing the
criminal act. It is the test adopted in this
The withdrawal of a plea of guilty is not a matter of jurisdiction.
right of the accused but of sound discretion of the 2. Test of volition, which requires a total
trial court [People v. Lambino, G.R. No. L-10875 (1958)] deprivation of free will.

The reason for this is that trial has already begun and b. Existence of prejudicial question
the withdrawal of the plea will change the theory of
the case and put all past proceedings to waste. Rationale
A prejudicial question would be determinative of guilt
Moreover, at this point, there is a presumption that or innocence. [Ty-de Zuzuarregui v. Villarosa, G.R. No.
the plea was made voluntarily. 183788 (2010)]

7. Grounds for Suspension of It may be raised during PI. If the information is filed
in court, it may be raised as ground to suspend the
Arraignment arraignment [Sec. 6, Rule 111]

a. Unsound mental condition of c. Pendency of petition for review

the accused at the time of the
arraignment Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment
shall be suspended in case a petition for review of the
resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the
When the accused can neither comprehend the full DOJ, or the OP; provided, that the period of
import of the charge nor can he give an intelligent suspension shall not exceed 60 days counted from the
plea, the court shall order his mental examination and, filing of the petition with the reviewing office [Sec. 11,
if necessary, his confinement [People v. Estrada [G.R. Rule 116]
No. 130487 (2000)]
Rationale
The need for suspension may be determined from This is to observe judicial courtesy and avoid legal
physical and outward manifestations at the time of complications in case the resolution would be
arraignment indicative of a mental disorder which the different from the offense for which the accused was
court had observed and defense counsel had called arraigned, especially if it would upgrade the offense.
attention to [People v. Alcalde, G.R. Nos. 139225-28
(2002)] If petition for review is not resolved within 60 days,
court may insist on the arraignment.
In People v. Dungo [G.R. No. 89420 (1991)], there are
three major criteria to determine insanity
With the arraignment of the accused, the DOJ
Secretary can no longer entertain the appeal or H. Motion to Quash
petition for review because petitioner had already
waived or abandoned the same [Gandarosa v. Flores, Nature of motion to quash (MTQ)
G.R. No. 167910 (2007)] 1. Mode by which an accused assails the validity of
a criminal complaint or information filed against
d. Other pending incidents him for insufficiency on its face in point of law
or defects which are apparent in the face of the
information [Riano 328, 2011 Ed.]
Such as
1. Motion to quash 2. Hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the
2. Motion for inhibition, and information
3. Motion for bill of particulars
Note: Fundamental test in determining sufficiency
of the material averments in an information:
WON the facts alleged which are hypothetically
admitted would establish the essential elements
of the crime defined by law.
3. Evidence aliunde or matters extrinsic of the
information are not to be considered. EXCEPT
when admissions made by the prosecution [People
v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. L-34112 (1980)],
Note: A motion to quash based on double jeopardy or
extinction of the criminal action or liability, may, by
their nature, be based on matters outside of the
allegations of the information or complaint [Riano]
Form and contents
1. In writing
2. Signed by the accused or his counsel, and
3. Distinctly specify the factual and legal grounds
[Sec. 2, Rule 117]
When filed
General rule: At any time before entering his plea, the
accused may move to quash the complaint or
information [Sec. 1, Rule 117]

Exception: When the grounds relied upon the motion

are:
1. Failure to charge an offense
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3. Extinction of the offense or penalty
4. Accused has been previously convicted, or in
jeopardy of being convicted, or acquitted of the
offense charged

They shall not be deemed waived if the accused failed

to file MTQ or to allege them in the motion.
[Sec. 9, Rule 117]
Need not be resolved before issuing warrant of Note: In cases covered by the Rules on Summary
arrest Procedure, MTQ is allowed only if made on the
The judge had no positive duty to first resolve the grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
MTQ before issuing a warrant of arrest. Sec. 5(a), Rule or failure to comply with barangay conciliation
112 required the judge to evaluate the prosecutor's proceedings [Sec. 19, Rules on Summary Procedure]
resolution and its supporting evidence within a
limited period of only 10 days [De Lima v. Guerrero, Facts charged do not constitute an offense
G.R. No. 229781 (2017)] Where it is clear that the information does not really
charge an offense, the case against the accused must
1. Grounds be dropped immediately [Dela Chica v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 144823 (2003)]
In general The test is whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically
a. Facts charged do not constitute an offense; admitted, would establish the essential elements of the
b. Court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense, as defined by law without considering
offense charged; matters aliunde [People v. Romualdez, G.R. No. 166510
c. Court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the (2008)]
person of the accused;
d. officer who filed the information had no
authority to do so; That the missing element may be proved during the
e. The information does not conform substantially trial or that the prosecution has presented evidence to
to the prescribed form; establish the same cannot have the effect of validating
f. More than one offense is charged, except when a the void information or of proving an offense which
single punishment for various offenses is does not exist [People v. Asuncion, G.R. No. 80066
prescribed by law; (1988)]
g. Criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
h. Averments which, if true, would constitute a legal The defect is not cured by a failure to move to quash
excuse or justification; or by a plea of guilty [Suy Sui v. People, G.R. No. L-
i. Accused has been previously convicted or 5278 (1953)]
acquitted of the offense charged, or the case
against him was dismissed or otherwise If a MTQ is based on the ground that the facts
terminated without his express consent charged do not constitute an offense, the prosecution
[Sec. 3, Rule 117] shall be given by the court an opportunity to correct
the defect by amendment. The motion shall be
The following grounds are exclusive. [Galzote v. granted if the prosecution fails to make the
People, G.R. No. 164682 (2011)] amendment, or the complaint or information still
suffers from the same defect despite the amendment
General rule: Failure of the accused to assert any [Sec. 4, Rule 117]
ground on a MTQ before he pleads, either because he
did not file MTQ or failed to allege said ground in the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense
MTQ shall be deemed a waiver of any objections charged
In a criminal prosecution, the place where the offense
Exceptions: was committed not only determines venue, but is an
a. Facts charged do not constitute an offense essential element of jurisdiction [Sec. 15, Rule 110;
b. Court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the Lopez v. City Judge, G.R. No. L-25795 (1966)]
offense charged
c. Criminal action or liability has been extinguished In private crimes, the complaint of the offended party
d. Accused has been previously convicted, or in is necessary to confer authority to the court [Donio-
jeopardy of being convicted, or acquitted of the Teves v. Vamenta Jr., G.R. No. L-38308 (1984)]
offense charged
[Sec. 9, Rule 117] Court has no jurisdiction over the person of the
e. Officer who filed information had no authority accused
to do so [Quisay v. People, G.R. No. 216920 (2016)] When the accused files a MTQ based on this ground,
he must do so only on this ground. If he raises other
grounds, he is deemed to have submitted his person
to the jurisdiction of the court [Sanchez v. Demetriou, Complaint or information does not conform
G.R. No. L-11171-77 (1993)] substantially to the prescribed form
The formal and substantial requirements are provided
When the objection is raised, the court should resolve for in Secs. 6-12, Rule 110.
it before conducting trial to avoid unnecessary
expenditure of time and money [Mead v. Argel, G.R. General rule: Lack of substantial compliance renders
No. L-41958 (1982)] the accusatory pleading nugatory.

Officer who filed the information had no Exception: Mere defects in matter of form may be
authority to do so cured by amendment [Sec. 4, Rule 117]
Authority to file and prosecute criminal cases is vested
in: Objections not raised are deemed waived, and the
1. Prosecutor accused cannot seek affirmative relief on such ground
2. Any peace officer, or public officer charged with nor raise it for the first time on appeal [People v. Garcia,
the enforcement of the law, in Municipal Trial G.R. No. 120093 (1997)]
Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts when
the prosecutor assigned thereto or to the case is Vague or broad allegations are generally not grounds
not available for a MTQ. The correct remedy is to file for a bill of
[Sec. 5, Rule 110] particulars [Sec. 9, Rule 116; Enrile v. People, G.R. No.
3. Commission on Elections regarding violations of 213455 (2015)]
election laws [Sec. 2(6), Art. IX-C, Constitution]
The prosecutor who signed the information must The accused may, before arraignment, move for a bill
have territorial jurisdiction to conduct PI of the of particulars to enable him properly to plead and
offense [Cudia v. CA, G.R. No. 110315 (1998)] prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged
defects of the complaint or information and the
details desired [Sec. 9, Rule 116]
Note: The following may conduct preliminary
investigations More than one offense is charged
1. Provincial or City Prosecutors and their
assistants;
2. National and Regional State Prosecutors; and General rule: A complaint or information must charge
3. Other officers as may be authorized by law only one offense [Sec. 13, Rule 110]
[Sec. 2, Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-
SC] Exceptions:
1. When the law prescribes a single punishment for
No complaint or information may be filed or various offenses [Sec. 13, Rule 110]
dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without the 2. Complex and compound crimes, except where
prior written authority or approval of the provincial one offense was committed to conceal another
or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the 3. An offense incidental to the gravamen of the
Ombudsman or his deputy [Sec. 4, Rule 112] offense charged
4. A specific crime set forth in various counts, each
An information filed in the Sandiganbayan must be of which may constitute a distinct offense
signed by a graft investigating officer with prior
approval of the Ombudsman. However, this ground is waivable. The accused may
be convicted of all the offenses alleged and proved if
For election offenses, it must be signed by the duly he goes to trial without objecting to the inclusion of
deputized prosecutors and legal officers of the two or more separate offenses in the same
COMELEC [Sec. 265, Art. XXII, Omnibus Election information [People v. Villamor, G.R. No. 124441
Code] (1998)]

Lack of authority of the officer is not cured by silence, Criminal action or liability has been extinguished
acquiescence, express consent or even by
amendment. [Cudia v. CA, G.R. No. 110315 (1998)] When criminal liability is extinguished:
1. Death of the accused, but liability for pecuniary the accused in double jeopardy, except in the
penalties is extinguished only if death occurs following cases:
before final judgment; i. Insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence
2. Service of sentence, which must be by virtue of a ii. Denial of the right to a speedy trial
final judgment and in the form prescribed by law; [Almario v. CA, G.R. No. 127772 (2001)]
3. Amnesty;
4. Absolute pardon; When dismissal constitutes acquittal
5. Prescription of the crime; Dismissal constitutes acquittal when it is granted:
6. Prescription of the penalty; 1. Upon demurrer to evidence; [Riano 439, 2016
7. Pardon in private offenses Ed., citing People v.Tan, G.R. No. 167526 (2010)]
[Art. 89, Revised Penal Code] 2. Due to violation of right to speedy trial (even if
dismissal was upon motion of the accused or with
Protection from prosecution under a statute of his express consent) [Riano 439-440, 2016 Ed.,
limitation is a substantive right. Where the statute citing Andres v. Cacdac, G.R. No. L-45650 (1982)]
fixes a period of limitation as to a prosecution for a
particular offense, the limitation so fixed is Dismissal Acquittal
jurisdictional, and the time within which the offense Always based on the
is committed is a jurisdictional fact, it being necessary Does not decide the
that the indictment or information be actually filed merits. Defendant’s
case on the merits. guilt was not proven
within the time prescribed [People v. Sandiganbayan, Does not determine beyond reasonable
G.R. No. 101724 (1992)] innocence or guilt doubt
Contains averments that if true would constitute
a legal excuse or justification Double jeopardy will Double jeopardy
not always attach always attaches
Examples:
1. Justifying circumstances [Art. 11, RPC] See Provisional Dismissal below.
2. Exempting circumstances [Art. 12, RPC]
3. Absolutory causes
Accused has been previously convicted or 2. Distinguish Motion to
acquitted of the offense charged, or the case
against him was dismissed or otherwise
Quash from Demurrer to
terminated without his consent Evidence
1. Double jeopardy
Motion to Demurrer to
See Double Jeopardy below. quash evidence
2. Dismissal without express consent Filed after the
Filed before
prosecution has
When entering plea
This refers only to dismissal or termination of rested its case
the case. It does not Refer to Part the conviction filed [Sec. 1, Rule
[Sec. 23, Rule
or acquittal [People v. Labatete, G.R. No. L-12917 117]
119]
(1960)]
Based upon the
If consent is not express, dismissal will be insufficiency of
Basis for Does not go into
regarded as final (i.e., with prejudice to refilling) the evidence
[Caes v. IAC, G.R. Nos. 74989-90 (1989)] grant or the merits of the
adduced by the
denial case
prosecution [Sec.
The dismissal of a criminal case resulting in 23, Rule 119]
acquittal made with the express consent of the
accused or upon his own motion will not place Ground is
Grounds are “insufficiency of
Grounds stated in Sec. 3 , evidence” to
Rule 117 convict [Sec. 23,
Rule 119]
May be filed
Leave of Does not require
either with leave
court a prior leave of
or without leave
 court [Sec. 1, of court [Sec. 23, 2. Double jeopardy.
Rule 117] Rule 119]
Grant does not b. Discharge of the accused
necessarily result Grant is deemed
in a dismissal an acquittal and General rule: If in custody, the accused shall not be
(Court may would preclude discharged unless admitted to bail [Sec. 5, Rule 117]
order the filing the filing of The order granting the MTQ must state either release
Effect of of a new another of the accused or cancellation of his bond.
grant complaint or information or
information) appeal by the Exception: The accused, if in custody, shall be
[Sec. 4, Rule prosecution discharged if:
117] 1. No order is made; or
2. Having been made, no new information is filed
within
The order i. The time specified in the order; or
denying the ii. Such further time as the court may allow for
motion for leave good cause
to file a demurrer [Sec. 5, Rule 117]
“shall not be
reviewable by Exception to the exception: The accused shall not be
appeal or by discharged if he is in custody for another charge [Sec.
certiorari before 5, Rule 117]
judgment”
If the court
denies the c. Remedies of the prosecution
demurrer to
If the court, in evidence filed General rule: The court shall order that an amendment
denying the with leave of be made:
motion to quash court, the 1. If the MTQ is based on an alleged defect of the
acts with grave accused may complaint or information which can be cured by
abuse of adduce evidence amendment
Remedy in his defense. 2. If the MTQ is based on the ground that the facts
discretion, then
certiorari or When the charged do not constitute an offense
prohibition lies demurrer is filed [Sec. 4, Rule 117]
without leave, the
accused waives Exception: Prosecution is precluded where the ground
the right to for quashal would bar another prosecution for the
present evidence same offense.
and submits the
case for judgment The prosecution may appeal from the order of
[Sec. 23, Rule quashal to the appellate court.
119]
If the information was quashed because it did not
allege the elements of the offense charged, but the
facts so alleged constitute another offense under a
specific statute, the prosecution may file a complaint
for such specific offense where dismissal is made
prior to arraignment and on MTQ [People v. Purisima,
G.R. No. L-42050-66 (1978)]
3. Effects of Sustaining the
Motion to Quash
a. Filing another complaint or
information
General rule: Court may order that another complaint
or information be filed [Sec. 5, Rule 117)

Exception: If MTQ was based on the following:

1. Criminal action or liability has been extinguished
 previously convicted or acquitted [Caes v. IAC, G.R.
Order denying MTQ Order granting MTQ No. 74989-90 (1989)]
Interlocutory Final Order RULE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Not appealable absent Immediately appealable
a showing of GAD. If but subject to rules on Conditions
there is GAD, then file double jeopardy a. When
petition for certiorari 1. an accused has been convicted or acquitted,
or
Does not dispose of Disposes of the case 2. the case against him dismissed or otherwise
the case upon its merits upon its merits when terminated without his express consent
the ground is the b. by a court of competent jurisdiction
extinguishment of c. Upon a valid complaint or information or other
formal charge sufficient in form and substance to
liability or double sustain a conviction and
jeopardy d. After the accused had pleaded to the charge,
Proper remedy: appeal Proper remedy: appeal
after the trial the order Effect
The conviction or acquittal of the accused or the
Consequence: Consequence: dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another
Arraignment Amend information if prosecution
possible a. for the offense charged, or
Note: The remedy for an order denying a MTQ is to b. for any attempt to commit the same or
go to trial, without prejudice to reiterating the special frustration thereof, or
defenses invoked in their MTQ [Serana v. c. for any offense which necessarily includes or is
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162059 (2008)] However, if necessarily included in the offense charged in the
the court in denying the motion to quash acts without former complaint or information
or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of [Sec. 7, Rule 117]
discretion, then certiorari or prohibition lies [Lazarte
v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180122 (2009); Javier v. KINDS OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.. 147026-27 (2009)] a. No person shall be put twice in jeopardy for the
same offense [Sec. 21, Art. III, Constitution]
1. General rule: There is identity between the
4. Exception to the Rule that two offenses not only when the second
Sustaining the Motion is offense is exactly the same as the first, but
also when the second offense is an attempt
Not a Bar to another to or frustration of or is necessarily included
Prosecution in the offense charged in the first
information. [Teehankee Jr. v. Madayag, G.R.
103102 (1992)]
General rule: Grant of the MTQ will not be a bar to 2. Exceptions:
another prosecution for the same offense • The graver offense developed due to
supervening facts arising from the same
Exception: It will bar another prosecution when the act or omission constituting the former
MTQ is based on charge;
a. The criminal action or liability has been • The facts constituting the graver charge
extinguished; or became known or were discovered only
b. The accused has been previously convicted, or in after a plea was entered in the former
jeopardy of being convicted, or acquitted of the complaint or information;
offense charged • The plea of guilty to the lesser offense
[Sec. 6, Rule 117] was made without the consent of the
prosecutor and of the offended party
5. Double Jeopardy except when offended party failed to
appear during such arraignment.
The right against double jeopardy prohibits the
prosecution for a crime of which he has been
 [Sec 7, Rule 117] [People v. Espinosa, G.R. Nos. 153714-20 (2003)]
3. What: The offenses are penalized either by
different sections of the same law or by Requisites for first jeopardy to attach
different statutes. The essential elements of a. Valid indictment
each must be examined. b. Before a competent court;
4. Test: Whether or not evidence that proves c. Arraignment
one likewise proves the other, e.g. The mere d. A valid plea entered, and
fact that two offenses (slander by deed and e. The accused has been convicted or acquitted, or
slight physical injuries) may have taken place the case dismissed or otherwise validly
on the same occasion, or that one preceded terminated without his express consent
the other, both proceeding from the same [People v. Honrales, G.R. No. 182651 (2010)]
impulse, does not make the two a single act
or a single offense for one is certainly However, a dictated, coerced and scripted verdict of
distinguishable from the other. It is clear that acquittal is a void judgment. It neither binds nor bars
two different acts were committed one anyone [Galman v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 72670
preceding the other, resulting in two (1986)]
different offenses. As jeopardy prohibits
making a person liable twice for the same act,
it is not present in the case where the 6. Provisional Dismissal
offender is being made liable for two distinct
acts constituting two distinct offenses [People Provisional dismissal
v. Ramos, G.R. No. L-15958 (1961)] Provisional dismissal is dismissal without prejudice to
b. When an act punished by a law and an ordinance, its being refiled or revived [Los Baños v. Pedro, G.R.
conviction or acquittal under either shall be a bar No. 173588 (2009)]
to another prosecution for the same act [Sec. 21,
Art. III, Constitution]
1. The second sentence of the Cases are provisionally dismissed where there has
constitutional protection was precisely already been arraignment and the accused consented
intended to extend to situations not to a provisional dismissal.
covered by the first sentence. Although
the prior offense charged under an A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except
ordinance be different from the offense with the express consent of the accused and with
charged under a national statute, the notice to the offended party [Sec. 8, Rule 117]
constitutional protection is available Grounds for provisional dismissal
provided that both arise from the same The delimitation of the grounds available in a MTQ
act or set of acts [People v. Relova, G.R. suggests that a MTQ is a class in itself, with specific
No. L-45129 (1987)] and closely-defined characteristics under the Rules of
2. But: An offense penalized by ordinance Court. A necessary consequence is that where the
is, by definition, different from an grounds cited are those listed under Sec. 3, Rule 117,
offense penalized under a statute. then the appropriate remedy is to file a motion to
Hence, they would never constitute quash, not any other remedy. Conversely, where a
double jeopardy [People v. Relova, G.R. ground does not appear under Sec. 3, then a motion
No. L-45129 (1987)] to quash is not a proper remedy. A motion for
provisional dismissal may then apply if the conditions
Requisites to successfully invoke double required by Sec. 8 obtain [Los Baños v. Pedro, G.R. No.
jeopardy 173588 (2007)]
a. A first jeopardy must have attached;
b. The first jeopardy must have been validly When dismissal becomes permanent (Time-bar
terminated; and rule)
c. The second jeopardy must be for the same a. One year after issuance of the order without the
offense or the second offense necessarily case having been revived for offenses punishable
includes or is necessarily included in the offense 1. by imprisonment not exceeding 6 years, or
charged in the first information, or is an attempt 2. by fine of any amount, or
to commit the same or a frustration thereof 3. by both
b. Two years after issuance of the order without the d. If the criminal liability is upgraded from
case having been revived for offenses punishable accessory to principal
by imprisonment of more than 6 years
[Sec. 8, Rule 117]
Exception to the periods: The State may revive beyond
the periods provided there is a justifiable necessity for
the delay.
The Court is not mandated to apply Sec. 8
retroactively simply because it is favorable to the
accused. The time-bar under the new rule was fixed
for the benefit of the State and the accused, and not
for the accused only [People v. Lacson, G.R. No. 149453
(2003)]
What to file?
Motion for permanent dismissal [Prof. Sanidad]
Note: A provisional dismissal is not equivalent of an
acquittal because the dismissal is with the express
consent of the accused [Saldariega v. Panganiban, G.R.
Nos. 211933 & 211690 (2015)]

The following are conditions sine qua non for the

application of the time-bar rule
a. The prosecution, with the express conformity of
the accused, or the accused moves for the
provisional (sin perjucio) dismissal of the case; or
both the prosecution and the accused move for a
provisional dismissal of the case [Sec. 8, Rule 117]
b. The offended party is notified of the motion for
the provisional dismissal of the case
c. The court issues an order granting the motion
and dismissing the case provisionally
d. The public prosecutor is served with a copy of
the order of provisional dismissal of the case
[People v. Lacson, G.R. No. 149453 (2003)]
A case may be revived by
a. Refiling of the information
b. Filing of a new information for the same offense
or one necessarily included in the original offense
charged
General rule: Upon revival of the case, there is no need
for a new PI

Exceptions:
a. If the original witnesses have recanted their
testimonials or have died
b. If the accused is charged under a new criminal
complaint for the same offense
c. If the original charge is upgraded
I. Pre-Trial Exception: A shorter period may be provided by special
laws or SC circulars [Sec. 1, Rule 118]
Its main objective is to achieve an expeditious Things considered
resolution of the case. a. Plea bargaining
b. Stipulation of facts
Application of Judicial Affidavit Rule c. Marking for identification of evidence
a. The Judicial Affidavit Rule shall apply to all d. Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence
criminal actions: e. Modification of the order of trial if accused
1. Where the maximum of the imposable admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense
penalty does not exceed six years; (reverse trial)
2. Where the accused agrees to the use of f. Other matters that will promote a fair and
judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty expeditious trial of the civil and criminal aspects
involved; or of the case [Sec. 1, Rule 118]
3. With respect to the civil aspect of the
actions, whatever the penalties involved are. Plea bargaining
b. The prosecution shall submit the judicial Plea bargaining has been defined as "a process
affidavits of its witnesses not later than five days whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a
before the pre-trial, serving copies of the same mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to
upon the accused. The complainant or public court approval" [Estipona Jr. v. Lobrigo, G.R. No.
prosecutor shall attach to the affidavits such 226679 (2017)]
documentary or object evidence as he may have,
marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on. No It usually involves the defendant pleading guilty to a
further judicial affidavit, documentary, or object lesser offense or to one or some of the counts of a
evidence shall be admitted at the trial. multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence
c. If the accused desires to be heard on his defense than that for the graver charge [People v. Mamarion,
after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the G.R. No. 137554 (2003)]
prosecution, he shall have the option to submit
his judicial affidavit as well as those of his
witnesses to the court within ten days from The conviction of the accused of the lesser offense
receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of each precludes the filing and prosecution of the offense
on the public and private prosecutor, including originally charged in the information, except when the
his documentary and object evidence previously plea of guilty to a lesser offense is without the consent
marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on. These of the offended party and the prosecutor [People v. De
affidavits shall serve as direct testimonies of the Luna, G.R. No. L-77969 (1989); Sec. 7(c), Rule 117, see
accused and his witnesses when they appear Sec. 2, Rule 116]
before the court to testify.
[Sec. 9, AM 12-8-8-SC] With Sec. 23 of R.A. 9165 being declared
unconstitutional in Estipona Jr. v. Lobrigo [G.R. No.
226679 (2017)], offenses involving dangerous drugs
1. Matters to Be Considered may now be the subject of plea bargain [see DOJ
During Pre-Trial Circular No. 61 (2017)]

Coverage Stipulation of facts

In all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, This is no longer prohibited in criminal cases [People v.
RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC [Sec. 1, Rule Hernandez, G.R. No. 108028 (1996)]
118]
However, in a case of rape with the allegation that the
Period victim is below 12 years of age which qualifies said
General rule: The court shall order a pre-trial crime and increases its penalty to death, nothing short
conference after arraignment and within 30 days from of proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact
the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the necessary to constitute the elements of the crime must
person of the accused. be established. Circumstances that qualify a crime and
increases its penalty to death cannot be the subject of
stipulation [People v. Sitao, G.R. No. 146790 (2002)]
Marking for identification of evidence If this is not followed, the admissions cannot be used
Proffer of exhibits is not allowed. It ought to be done against the accused (i.e., inadmissible in evidence)
at the time a party closes the presentation of evidence. [Item I-B[8], A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC (2004)] The
[People v. Santiago, G.R. No. L-80778 (1989)] constitutional right to present evidence is waived
expressly.
Role of the judge The accused must have voluntarily waived his right to
During the pre-trial, the judge shall be the one to ask present evidence and with full comprehension. [Rivera
questions on issues raised therein and all questions v. People, G.R. No. 163996 (2005)]
must be directed to him to avoid hostilities between
the parties [Item B.7, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC] 4. Non-Appearance during
2. What the Court Should Do Pre-Trial
When Prosecution and The court may impose proper sanctions or penalties,
Offended Party Agree to the if counsel for the accused or the prosecutor to enforce
the mandatory character of the pre-trial in criminal
Plea Offered by the Accused cases:
a. Does not appear at the pre-trial conference; and
The Court shall b. Does not offer an acceptable excuse for his lack
a. Issue an order which contains the plea bargaining of cooperation [Sec. 3, Rule 118]
arrived at
b. Proceed to receive evidence on the civil aspect of Note: The accused is not included because his
the case; and constitutional right to remain silent may be violated.
c. Render and promulgate judgment of conviction, The accused is not required to attend (unless ordered
including the civil liability or damages duly by the court) and is merely required to sign the written
established by the evidence agreement arrived at in the pre-trial conference, if he
[Item B.5, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC] agrees to the contents of such. The complainant is
also not required to appear during pre-trial. It is the
General rule: Court approval is required. prosecutor who is required to appear at the pre-trial
[People v. Judge Tac-An, G.R. No. 148000 (2003)]
Exception: Agreements not covering matters referred
to in Sec. 1, Rule 118, need not be so approved [Item 5. Pre-Trial Order
B.8, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC]
Issuance
Effect The pre-trial order is:
The stipulations become binding on the parties who a. Issued by the trial judge;
made them. They become judicial admissions of the b. Within 10 days after the termination of the pre-
fact or facts stipulated [Bayas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. trial pre-trial
No. 143689-91 (2002)]) [Item B.10, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC]
Even if placed at a disadvantageous position, a party Judgment of acquittal based on pre-trial despite
may not be allowed to rescind them unilaterally; he disputed documents and issues of fact amounts to
must assume the consequences of the disadvantage grave error and renders the judgment void [People v.
[Bayas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 143689-91 (2002)] Santiago, G.R. No. L-80778 (1989)]

3. Pre-Trial Agreement Content

a. Actions taken
Requirements b. Facts stipulated
a. Reduced in writing; c. Evidence marked
b. Signed by the accused and counsel; [Sec. 4, Rule 118]
c. With approval of court if agreements cover d. Admissions made;
matters in Sec. 1, Rule 118 e. The number of witnesses to be presented; and
[Sec. 2, Rule 118] f. The schedule of trial
[Item B.10, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC]
Effect
J. Trial
a. Binds the parties
b. Limits the trial to those matters not disposed of; 1. Instances When Presence of
and
c. Controls the course of the action during trial, Accused is Required by Law
unless modified by the court to prevent manifest
injustice In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the
[Sec. 4, Rule 118] right to be present and defend in person and by
counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from
The procedure is substantially the same in civil cases, arraignment to promulgation of the judgment [Sec.
except that any modification of the pre-trial order in 1(c), Rule 115]
civil cases must be made before the trial. No such
limitation is provided for in criminal cases. Note: The presence of the accused is required in the
following cases:
a. At arraignment; [Sec. 1(b), Rule 116]
6. Referral of Some Cases for b. At the promulgation of judgment, unless the
Court-Annexed Mediation conviction is for a light offense [Sec. 6, Rule 120]
and Judicial Dispute Waiver of right
Resolution General rule: The accused may waive his presence at the
trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail
After the arraignment, the court shall forthwith set [Sec. 1(c), Rule 115]
the pre-trial conference within 30 days from the date
of arraignment, and issue an order: Exception: Unless his presence is specifically ordered
a. Requiring the private offended party to appear by the court for purposes of identification [Sec. 1(c),
thereat for purposes of plea-bargaining except Rule 115]
for violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002, and for other matters Prosecution may require the presence of the accused
requiring his presence; for the purposes of identification by its witnesses
b. Referring the case to the Branch COC, if [Carredo v. People, G.R. No. 77542, March 19, 1990]
warranted, for a preliminary conference to be set
at least three days prior to the pre-trial to mark Exception to the exception: The presence of the accused
the documents or exhibits to be presented by the is no longer required when he unqualifiedly admits in
parties and copies thereof to be attached to the open court after arraignment that he is the person
records after comparison and to consider other named as defendant in the case on trial [Carredo v.
matters as may aid in its prompt disposition; and People, G.R. No. 77542, March 19, 1990]
c. Informing the parties that no evidence shall be
allowed to be presented and offered during the Other instances of waiver
trial other than those identified and marked a. The absence of the accused without justifiable
during the pre-trial except when allowed by the
court for good cause shown. cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be
In mediatable cases, the judge shall refer the parties considered a waiver of his right to be present
and their counsel to the PMC unit for purposes of thereat.
mediation if available. b. When an accused under custody escapes, he shall
[Item B.2, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC] be deemed to have waived his right to be present
on all subsequent trial dates until custody over
him is regained
[Sec. 1(c), Rule 115]

When trial should be commenced

Pursuant to Sec. 8(d) of the Guidelines for
Decongesting Holding Jails by Enforcing the Rights
of the Accused Persons to Bail and to Speedy Trial
[A.M. No. 12-11-2 SC], trial shall be set not later than
thirty (30) days from the termination of pre-trial 1. Is too sick or infirm to appear at the trial as
conference. directed by the court, or
2. Has to leave the Philippines with no definite
date of returning.
2. Requisites Before Trial Can b. Such examination, shall be conducted in the same
be Suspended on Account of manner as an examination at the trial
1. In the presence of the accused, or
Absence of Witness 2. In his absence after reasonable notice to
attend the examination has been served on
Requisites him
a. Absence or unavailability c. Failure or refusal of the accused to attend the
1. “Absent” means that his whereabouts are examination after notice shall be considered a
unknown or cannot be determined by due waiver. The statement taken may be admitted in
diligence behalf of or against the accused.
2. “Unavailable” means that his whereabouts [Sec. 15, Rule 119]
are known but his presence for trial cannot
be obtained by due diligence Remedy to secure appearance of a material
b. of an essential witness witness
[Sec. 3(b), Rule 119] a. When the court is satisfied, upon
1. proof or
“Essential” means indispensable, necessary, or 2. oath,
important in the highest degree [Riano 530, 2011 that a material witness will not testify when
Updated Ed., citing 5 Black’s Law Dictionary 490] required, it may, upon motion of either party,
order the witness to post bail in such sum as may
Effect of absence of witness be deemed proper.
Any period of delay resulting from the absence or
unavailability of an essential witness shall be excluded b. Upon refusal to post bail, the court shall commit
in computing the time within which trial must him to prison until he complies or is legally
commence [Sec. 3, Rule 119] discharged after his testimony has been taken
[Sec. 14, Rule 119]
Private counsel for the accused, the public attorney,
or the prosecutor who knowingly allows the case to
be set for trial without disclosing that a necessary
3. Trial in Absentia
witness would be unavailable for trial, may be
punished by the court as follows Requisites
a. by imposing on a counsel privately retained in a. Accused has been arraigned
connection with the defense of an accused, a fine b. He was duly notified of trial
not exceeding ₱20,000.00; c. His failure to appear is unjustified [Bernardo v.
b. by imposing on any appointed counsel de officio, People, G.R. No. 166980 (2007)]
public attorney, or prosecutor a fine not
exceeding ₱5.000.00; and This is to speed up disposition of cases [People v.
c. by denying any defense counsel or prosecutor the Agbulo, G.R. No. 73875 (1993)]
right to practice before the court trying the case
for a period not exceeding 30 days Order of Trial
The punishment provided for by this section shall be a. The prosecution shall present evidence to prove
without prejudice to any appropriate criminal action the charge and, in the proper case, the civil
or other sanction authorized under the Rules [Sec. 8, liability.
Rule 119] b. The accused may present evidence to prove his
defense and damages, if any, arising, from the
Conditional examination issuance of a provisional remedy in the case.
a. A witness for the prosecution may forthwith be c. The prosecution may present rebuttal evidence
conditionally examined before the court where unless the court, in furtherance of justice, permits
the case is pending when it satisfactorily appears it to present additional evidence bearing upon the
that he main issue.
d. The defense may present sur-rebuttal evidence
unless the court, in furtherance of justice, permits Factors to consider
it to present additional evidence bearing upon the a. Duration of the delay
main issue. b. Reason therefor
e. Upon admission of evidence of the parties, the c. Assertion of the right or failure to assert it, and
case shall be deemed submitted for decision d. Prejudice caused by such delay
unless the court directs them to argue orally or to [Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162214 (2004)]
submit written memoranda
[Sec. 11(a) to (d), Rule 119] Failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to
trial shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismiss on
Modification of order of trial; reverse trial the ground of denial of his right to speedy trial [Sec.
When the accused admits the act or omission charged 9, Rule 119]
in the complaint or information but interposes a
lawful defense, the order of trial may be modified Burden of proof
[Sec. 11(e), Rule 119] a. The accused has the burden of proving the
ground of denial of right to speedy trial for the
4. Remedy When Accused is motion.
b. The prosecution has the burden of going forward
Not Brought to Trial within with the evidence to establish the exclusion of
the Prescribed Period time under Sec. 3, Rule 119.
c. The dismissal shall be subject to the rules on
double jeopardy.
On motion of the accused, the information may be [Sec. 9, Rule 119]
dismissed on the ground of denial of his right to
speedy trial if the accused is not brought to trial within
the time limit required by No provision of law on speedy trial and no rule
a. Sec. 1(g), Rule 116; and implementing the same shall be interpreted as a bar to
b. Sec. 1, as extended by Section 6 of Rule 119. any charge of denial of the right to speedy trial
[Sec. 9, Rule 119] guaranteed by Sec. 14(2), Art. III, Constitution [Sec.
10, Rule 119]
Sec. 1(g), Rule 116: Unless a shorter period is provided
by special law or Supreme Court circular, the 5. Requisites for Discharge of
arraignment shall be held within thirty (30) days from Accused to Become a State
the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the
person of the accused. The time of the pendency of a Witness
motion to quash or for a bill of particulars or other
causes justifying suspension of the arraignment shall Requisites
be excluded in computing the period. a. Two or more persons are jointly charged with the
commission of any offense.
Sec. 1, Rule 119: After a plea of not guilty is entered, b. Upon motion of the prosecution before resting
the accused shall have at least 15 days to prepare for its case
trial. The trial shall commence within 30 days from c. After requiring the prosecution to present
receipt of the pre-trial order. evidence and the sworn statement of each
proposed state witness at a hearing in support of
Sec. 6, Rule 119: Notwithstanding the provisions of the discharge
section 1(g), Rule 116 and the preceding section 1, for d. The court is satisfied of the following:
the first twelve-calendar-month period following its 1. Absolute necessity for the testimony of the
effectivity on September 15, 1998, the time limit with accused whose discharge is requested
respect to the period from arraignment to trial
imposed by said provision shall be 180 days. For the He alone has the knowledge of the crime,
second twelve-month period, the time limit shall be and not when his testimony would simply
120 days, and for the third twelve-month period, the corroborate or strengthen the evidence in
time limit shall be 80 days. the hands of the prosecution [Flores v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-63677 (1983)];
 2. There is no other direct evidence available Subsequent amendment of the information does not
for the proper prosecution of the offense, affect discharge [People v. Taruc, G.R. No. L-14010
except the testimony of the said accused (1962)]
3. The testimony can be substantially
corroborated in its material points Notes:
4. The accused does not appear to be the most a. Evidence adduced in support of the discharge
guilty shall automatically form part of the trial.
5. The accused has not, at any time, been b. If the court denies the motion for discharge of
convicted of any offense involving moral the accused as state witness, his sworn statement
turpitude shall be inadmissible in evidence.
[Sec. 17, Rule 119] [Sec. 18, Rule 119]
e. Petition for discharge is filed before the defense
has offered its evidence [People v. Aniñon, G.R.
No. L-39083 (1988)] 7. Demurrer to Evidence
Discharge of a co-accused It is defined as “an objection or exception by one of
It is the duty of the prosecutor to include all the the parties in an action at law, to the effect that the
accused in the complaint/information. He may ask evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient
the court to discharge one of them after complying in point of law (whether true or not) to make out his
with the conditions prescribed by law. This applies case or sustain the issue” [Pasag v. Parocha, G.R. No.
only when the information has already been filed in 155483 (2007), citing Black’s Law Dictionary]
court. Thus, even the state witness is included as General rule: An order granting the accused’s demurrer
accused prior to discharge. to evidence amounts to an acquittal [Riano 491-492,
2016 Ed., citing People v. Go, G.R. No. 191015 (2014)]
While all the accused may be given the same penalty
by reason of conspiracy, one may be considered the Exception: When there is a finding that there was grave
least guilty if we take into account his degree of abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in
participation in the perpetration of the offense [People dismissing a criminal case by granting the accused’s
v. Ocimar, G.R. No. 94555 (1992)] demurrer to evidence [Hon. Mupas v. People, G.R. No.
189365 (2011)]
6. Effects of Discharge of The order granting the demurrer is not appealable but
Accused as State Witness may be reviewed via certiorari under Rule 65 [People v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164577 (2010)]
General rule: The order of discharge shall:
a. Amount to an acquittal of the discharged Rationale
accused; This is to prevent the filing of demurrer based on
b. Bar future prosecutions for the same offense frivolous and flimsy grounds.

Exception: If the accused fails/refuses to testify against How initiated

his co-accused in accordance with his sworn a. by the court motu proprio, after giving the
statement constituting the basis for his discharge, prosecution the opportunity to be heard; or
these effects do not set in. b. Upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused:
[Sec. 18, Rule 119] 1. With leave of court;
2. Without leave of court
Any error in asking for and in granting the discharge [Sec. 23, Rule 119]
cannot deprive the one discharged of the acquittal and
the constitutional guaranty against double jeopardy Motion for leave to file demurrer
[People v. Verceles, G.R. No. 130650 (2002)] a. It must specifically state its grounds.
b. It must be filed within a non-extendible period of
Conviction of the accused against whom discharged 5 days after the prosecution rests its case (i.e. after
state witness testified is not required. the court shall have ruled on the prosecution’s
formal offer). Prosecution may then oppose
within a non-extendible period of 5 days from
receipt.
c. If leave of court is granted, the demurrer must be files motion with resolution until
filed within a non-extendible period of 10 days reservation to present decision is rendered on
from notice. Prosecution may oppose the evidence in case the other accused if it
demurrer within a similar period motion is denied) can be shown from the
[Sec. 23, Rule 119] decision that the
resolution on the
Effect granting demurrer demurrer was rendered
The court dismisses the action on the ground of not only on the basis of
insufficiency of evidence [Sec. 23, Rule 119] This the prosecution’s
amounts to acquittal of the accused [People v. evidence but also on
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164577 (2010)] the evidence adduced
by his co-accused, then
Sufficient evidence for frustrating a demurrer is the demurrer is deemed
evidence that proves: resolved
a. Commission; and
b. Precise degree of participation [Singian, Jr.v. Demurrer in CIVIL Demurrer in
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.. 195011-19 (2013)]
CASE CRIMINAL CASE
Test: Whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient Anchored upon the
Predicated upon
enough to warrant the conviction of the accused failure of the plaintiff
beyond reasonable doubt [Riano] prosecution’s
to show that upon the
insufficiency of
facts and the law, he is
Effect of denial of motion for leave to file evidence [Sec. 23, Rule
demurrer entitled to relief [Sec. 1
119]
a. Accused may choose between Rule 33]
1. Filing the demurrer even without leave, or Requires prior leave of May be filed with or
2. Adducing evidence for his defense court relief [Sec. 1, without leave of court
[Sec. 23, Rule 119] Rule 33] [Sec. 23, Rule 119]
b. Order denying the motion for leave or order
denying the demurrer itself, is not reviewable by Defense may present
appeal or by certiorari before judgment [Sec. 23, evidence upon denial
Rule 119]; of demurrer if the
c. It is interlocutory, but it may be assigned as error
and reviewed in the appeal that may be taken Defense filed the
from the decision on the merits [Cruz v. People, demurrer with leave of
G.R. No. 121422 (1999)] court.
Right of the accused to present evidence after When demurrer is
When without leave of
demurrer is denied denied, defendant does
Filed with leave Filed without leave court, demurrer was
not lose his right to
of court of court denied,
present his evidence
May adduce evidence Waives the right to defense/accused
in his defense [Sec. 23, present evidence [Sec. waives his right to
Rule 119] 23, Rule 119] present evidence and
Purpose is to determine submits the case for
whether or not the Submits the case for judgment on the basis
demurrer was filed judgment on the basis of evidence offered by
merely to stall the of the evidence for the
prosecution the prosecution.
proceedings
If the demurrer is No appeal is allowed
Implied leave of court If there are 2 or more granted, plaintiff may
when a demurrer is
is no longer sufficient accused and only one appeal and if the
granted because the
and prevents accused presents a demurrer dismissal is reversed,
from presenting without leave of court, dismissal is deemed an
the defendant is
evidence (e.g. accused the court may defer acquittal [People v. Tan,
deemed to have waived
G.R. No. 167526
his right to present his
(2010)]
evidence
It is the defendant who The court may, on its
own initiative, dismiss
invokes demurrer by
the action after giving
 moving for the
dismissal of the case.
the prosecution an
opportunity to be K. Judgment
heard.
The court does not so Judgment is the adjudication by the court that the
on its own inititiative accused is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged
[Riano 498, 2016 Ed.] and the imposition on him of the proper penalty and
civil liability, if any [Sec. 1, Rule 120]

1. Requisites of a Judgment
Written in the official language
If given verbally, it is incomplete [People v. Catolico,
G.R. No. L-31260 (1972)]
a. Personally and directly prepared by the judge
b. Signed by the judge
c. Contains clearly and distinctly a statement of the
facts and the law upon which judgment is based
[Sec. 1, Rule 120]
There is sufficient compliance if the decision
summarizes the evidence of both parties, synthesizes
the findings and concisely narrates how the offense
was committed.
Jurisdictional requirements
a. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
b. Jurisdiction over the territory
c. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
[Riano, 499, 2016 Ed., citing Cruz v. CA, G.R. No.
123340 (2002) and Antiporda v. Garchitorena, G.R. No.
133289 (1999)]
Judge who renders decision
The judge who presided over the entire trial would be
in a better position to ascertain the truth or falsity of
the testimonies. But the judge who only took over can
render a valid decision by relying on the transcript. It
does not violate due process [People v. Badon, G.R. No.
126143 (1999)]
The fact alone that the judge who heard the evidence
was not the one who rendered the judgment but
merely relied on the record of the case does not
render his judgment erroneous or irregular, especially
when the evidence on record is sufficient to support
its conclusion [People v. Alfredo, G.R. No. 188560
(2010)]
 General rule: The defendant can be convicted only of
the crime with which he is charged [Riano 504, 2016
2. Contents of Judgment Ed.]
a. Convictio However, a minor variance between the information
n and the evidence does not alter the nature of the
The judgment of conviction shall state: offense, nor does it determine or qualify the crime or
1. The legal qualification of the offense constituted penalty, so that even if a discrepancy exists, this
by the acts committed by the accused and the cannot be pleaded as a ground for acquittal [People v.
aggravating/mitigating circumstances which Noque, G.R. No. 175319 (2010)]
attended its commission
2. The participation of the accused in the offense, Exception: When there is variance between the offense
whether as principal, accomplice or accessory charge in the complaint or information and that
after the fact proved, and the offense as charged is included in or
3. The penalty imposed upon the accused necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused
4. The civil liability or damages caused by his shall be convicted of the offense proved which is
wrongful act/omission to be recovered from the included in the offense charged, or of the offense
accused by the offended party, if there is any, charged which is included in the offense proved [Sec.
unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a 4, Rule 120]
separate civil action has been reserved/waived 1. The accused can be convicted of an offense only
[Sec. 2, Rule 120] when it is both charged and proven.
2. The mere fact that the evidence presented would
The penalty should not be imposed in the alternative. indicate that a lesser offense outside the court’s
There should be no doubt as to the offense jurisdiction was committed does not deprive the
committed and the penalty for it. court of its jurisdiction, which had vested in it
under the allegations in the information
[People v. Ocaya, G.R. No. L-47448 (1978)]
Proof beyond reasonable doubt
It is that degree of proof which produces conviction
in an unprejudiced mind [People v. Bacalzo, G.R. No. Exception to the exception: Where there are facts that
89811 (1991)] supervened after the filing of the information which
change the nature of the offense.
Conviction of the accused must rest, not on the
weakness of the defense, but on the strength of the When an offense includes or is included in
prosecution. The burden to prove guilt beyond another
reasonable doubt is on the prosecution [Boac v. People, 1. An offense charged necessarily includes the
G.R. No. 180597 (2008)] offense proved when some of the essential
elements/ingredients of the former, as alleged in
the complaint/information, constitute the latter.
Judgment for two or more offenses
Examples: Murder includes homicide; Serious
Also known as duplicitous complaint or physical injuries include less serious or slight
information [Prof. Sanidad] physical injuries; Robbery includes theft [Riano]
When two or more offenses are charged in a single 2. An offense charged is necessarily included in the
complaint or information but the accused fails to offense proved when the essential ingredients of
object to it before trial, the court may convict him of the former constitute or form part of those
as many offenses as are charged and proved, and constituting the latter [Sec. 5, Rule 120]
impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting
out separately the findings of fact and law in each
offense [Sec. 3, Rule 120] Examples: Less serious physical injuries are included in
serious physical injuries; Acts of lasciviousness are
included in rape; Theft is included in robbery [Riano]
Variance between allegation and proof
Also known as the Variance Doctrine [Riano 503,
2016 Ed.] The right to be informed of the charges has not been
violated because where an accused is charged with a
specific crime, he is duly informed also of lesser may deny the award of civil damages expressly or
crimes/offenses included therein [People v. Noque, impliedly by being silent on the matter.
G.R. No. 175319 (2010)] 2. The losing party may appeal the ruling on the civil
liability, as in any other ordinary appeal, in his
Where a complex crime is charged and the evidence name and not in the name of the People.
fails to support the charge as to one of the component
offenses, the accused can be convicted of the one The judge acquitting an accused cannot punish him at
which is proven [People v. Llaguno, G.R. No. 91262 the same time.
(1998)]
General rule: The court has authority to express
b. Acquittal disapproval of certain acts even if judgment is for
acquittal.
The judgment of acquittal shall state whether
1. The evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed Exception: The court is not permitted to censure the
to prove the guilt of the accused; or accused in a judgment for acquittal – no matter how
2. Merely failed to prove his guilt beyond light, a censure is still a punishment.
reasonable doubt.
3. Promulgation of Judgment;
In either case, the judgment shall determine if the act Instances of Promulgation
or omission complained from which the civil liability
might arise did not exist. of Judgment in Absentia
[Sec. 2, Rule 120]
IN GENERAL
Acquittal Dismissal
Terminates the case Promulgation of judgment is an official
Decision on the merits Not on the merits but proclamation or announcement of the decision of the
based on a finding that no finding that accused court [Pascua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140243
the accused is not is not guilty (2000), citing Jacinto, Sr. 521, Commentaries and
guilty Jurisprudence on the Revised Rules of Court [Criminal
Procedure], 1994 Ed.]

Reasonable doubt is doubt engendered by an Requisites

investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after a. There must be a court legally organized or
such investigation, to let the mind rest upon the constituted; and there must be a judge, or judges,
certainty of guilt [People v. Nito, G.R. No. 70305 legally appointed or elected and actually acting,
(1993)] either de jure or de facto [Luna v. Rodriguez, G.R. No.
12647 (1917)]
Acquittal based on failure to prove guilt beyond b. Said judgment must be duly signed and
reasonable doubt does not extinguish the civil liability promulgated during the incumbency of the judge
arising from his acts, since the civil liability arose not who penned it [Payumo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
from a crime but from the damage caused by such 151911 (2011)]
acts, which can be proven by a lower quantum of c. The judgment is promulgated by reading it in the
evidence. Thus, it does not bar a separate civil action presence of the accused and any judge of the
based on quasi-delict [Lontoc v. MD Transit, G.R. No. court in which it was rendered [Sec. 6, Rule 120]
L-48949 (1988)]
Failure to promulgate
The court may hold the accused civilly liable even Where there is no promulgation of judgment, no right
when it acquits him. Acquittal extinguishes civil to appeal accrues. Merely reading the dispositive
liability only when the judgment includes a declaration portion of the decision is not sufficient [Pascua v. CA,
that the facts from which the civil liability might arise G.R. No. 140243 (2000)]
did not exist [Lontoc v. MD Transit, G.R. No. L-48949
(1988)] Thus: Notice for promulgation
1. The court may nonetheless hold the accused The proper clerk of court shall give notice to the
civilly liable in favor of the offended party, or it accused personally or through his bondsman or
warden and counsel, requiring him to be present at c. If the accused is confined or detained in
the promulgation of the decision. If the accused was another province or city
tried in absentia because he jumped bail or escaped
from prison, the notice to him shall be served at his The judgment may be promulgated by the
last known address [Sec. 6, Rule 120] executive judge of the RTC having jurisdiction
over the place of confinement or detention upon
Sin perjuicio judgment request of the court which rendered the
It is a judgment without a statement of the facts in judgment. The court promulgating the judgment
support of its conclusion to be later supplemented by shall have authority to accept the notice of appeal
the final judgment. This practice is discouraged by the and to approve the bail bond pending appeal;
courts [Dizon v. Lopez, A.M. No. RTJ-96-1338 (1997)] provided, that if the decision of the trial court
This is a practice which should not be followed and convicting the accused changed the nature of the
cannot be looked upon with favor [Director of Lands v. offense from non-bailable to bailable, the
Sanz, G.R. No. 21183 (1923)] application for bail can only be filed and resolved
by the appellate court [Sec. 6, Rule 120]
PROMULGATION IN CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES d. Promulgation when a judge is no longer a
judge
a. When the judge is absent or outside the
province or city A judgment promulgated after the judge who
signed the decision has ceased to hold office is
The judgment may be promulgated by the clerk not valid and binding. In like manner, it cannot
of court [Sec. 6, Rule 120]. be promulgated after the retirement of the judge
[Nazareno v. CA, G.R. No. 111610 (2002)]
b. Where Presence of Accused Is Required;
Exceptions 4. When Does Judgment
General rule: Presence of the accused is mandatory Become Final
in the promulgation of judgment.
Modification of judgment
Exception: If the conviction is for a light offense, A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the
the judgment may be pronounced in the presence accused, be modified or set aside before the judgment
of his counsel or representative [Sec. 6, Rule 120] becomes final or before appeal is perfected [Sec. 7,
Rule 120, Rules of Court]
If the judgment is for conviction and the failure
of the accused to appear was without justifiable When does judgment become final?
cause, he shall lose the remedies available in the a. After the lapse of the period for perfecting an
Rules against the judgment and the court shall appeal;
order his arrest. However, within 15 days from b. When the sentence has been partially/totally
promulgation of judgment, he may surrender and satisfied or served;
file a motion for leave of court to avail of these c. The accused has waived in writing his right to
remedies. He shall state the reasons for his appeal;
absence. If he proves his absence was for a d. When the accused has applied for probation,
justifiable cause, shall be allowed to avail of the
remedies within 15 days from notice [Sec. 6, Rule Except: where the death penalty is imposed
120; People v. De Grano, G.R. No. 167710 (2009)] [Sec. 7, Rule 120]

Effect of failure of the accused to appear at Judgment also becomes final when judgment is an
the scheduled date of promulgation acquittal [People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164577
Promulgation is made by recording the judgment (2010)]
in the criminal docket and serving a copy at the
accused’s last known address or through counsel After finality, the TC is divested of authority to
[Sec. 6, Rule 120] amend/alter the judgment, except to correct clerical
errors. See Quirino v. PNB [G.R. No. L-9159 (1957)]
 accused could not with reasonable diligence have
discovered and produced at the trial and which if
L. New Trial or introduced and admitted would probably change the
Reconsideration judgment [Estino v. People, G.R. No. 163957-58 (2007)]
The determinative test is the presence of due or
1. Grounds for New Trial reasonable diligence to locate the thing to be used as
evidence in the trial [Briones v. People, G.R. No. 156009
a. Errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the (2009)]
substantial rights of the accused have been
committed during the trial Requisites
The evidence
General rule: Errors of the defense counsel in the a. Was discovered after the trial
conduct of the trial is neither an error of law nor b. Could not have been discovered and produced at
an irregularity [Ceniza-Manantan v. People, G.R. the trial even with the exercise of reasonable
No. 156248 (2007)] diligence
c. Is material, not merely cumulative/
corroborative/impeaching; and
Exception: They become an error of law or d. Is of such weight that it would probably change
irregularity when acquittal would, in all the judgment if admitted
probability, have followed the introduction of [Tadeja v. People, G.R. No. 145336 (2013)]
certain testimony which was not submitted at the
trial under improper or injudicious advice of
incompetent counsel of the accused. [Aguilar v. The accused has the burden of proving item (2) above
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114282 (1995)] [US v. Torrente, G.R. No. 1001 (1922)]

Irregularities must be with such seriousness as to It must be of weighty influence and will affect the
affect prejudicially the substantial rights of the result of the trial [People v. Alfaro, G.R. Nos. 136742-
accused. [Sec. 2(a), Rule 121; Tabobo v. People, G.R. 43 (2003)]
No.220977 (2017)]
Interest of justice as gauge for introduction of
b. New and material evidence has been discovered new evidence
which the accused could not with reasonable In People v. Almendras [G.R. No. 145915 (2003)], the
diligence have discovered and produced at the court ruled that a motion for a new trial may be
trial and which if introduced and admitted would granted on a ground not specifically provided in the
probably change the judgment rules, provided that it is sought in the interest of
- See Part L.3 of this (Criminal Procedure) justice. In that case, the relief of a new trial was
reviewer granted to a client who has suffered by reason of
[Sec. 2, Rule 121] his/her counsel’s gross mistake and negligence.
Form of motion for reconsideration & new trial
2. Grounds for Reconsideration a. must be in writing
b. state the grounds on which it is based
The court shall grant reconsideration on the ground c. if based on newly-discovered evidence, motion
of errors of law or fact in the judgment, which must be supported by:
requires no further proceedings [Sec. 3, Rule 121] 1. the affidavits of the witnesses by whom such
evidence is expected to be given, or
2. duly authenticated copies of documents
3. Requisites Before a New which are proposed to be introduced in
Trial May be Granted on evidence
Notice of the motion shall be given to the prosecutor
Ground of Newly [Sec. 4, Rule 120]
Discovered Evidence
The court shall grant a new trial when new and
material evidence has been discovered which the
 Courts to the Regional Trial Courts; Rule 42 on
petitions for review from the Regional Trial Courts to
4. Effects of Granting New the Court of Appeals; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-
Trial or Reconsideration judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals and Rule 45
governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme
In general Court.”
a. The original judgment set aside or vacated; and
b. A new judgment is rendered accordingly The “fresh period rule” enunciated in Neypes also
[Sec. 6, Rule 121] applies to criminal actions, particularly to Sec. 6 of
Rule 122 [Yu v. Tatad, G.R. No. 170979 (2011)]
Other effects of granting new trial or
reconsideration depending on ground
Action of the
Ground Effect
court
All proceedings
and evidence
affected shall
be set aside and
Errors of law taken anew. The court will
or If error or allow
irregularities irregularity goes introduction of
committed into the additional
during the jurisdiction, the evidence in the
trial entire interest of
proceeding is justice.
void and must
be set aside.
Evidence
already adduced
shall stand and
the newly-
discovered and
such other The court will
evidence shall allow
be taken and introduction of
Newly- considered other such
discovered together with evidence in the
evidence the evidence interest of
already in the justice.
record.

[Sec. 6, Rule 121]

5. Application of the Neypes

Doctrine in Criminal Cases
The Neypes doctrine allows a fresh period of 15 days
within which to file the notice of appeal in the RTC,
counted from receipt of the order denying a MNT or
MR. Neypes v. CA [G.R. No. 141534 (2005)] declared
that:

“Henceforth, this ‘fresh period rule’ shall also apply

to Rule 40 governing appeals from the Municipal Trial
M. Appeal If it involves
constitutionality or
validity of any treaty/
1. Effect of an Appeal law/ordinance/EO/
regulation or the
An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole jurisdiction of the
case open for review and it becomes the duty of the inferior court
appellate court to correct an error as may be found in
the appealed judgment WON it is made the subject of In criminal cases
assignment of errors [People v. Calayca, G.R. No. involving offenses for
121212 (1999)] which the penalty
imposed is death or
2. Where to Appeal life imprisonment

For cases decided by Appeal to

Other offenses,
which, although not
RTC [Sec. 2(c), Rule so punished, arose
MTC/MeTC/MCTC
122] out of the same
RTC or occurrence or which
MTC/MeTC/ may have been
MCTC (if it is Sandiganbayan [Sec. 4 (c) committed by the
government duty- PD 1606 as amended accused on the same
related, i.e., filed by RA 8249] occasion, as that
under E.O. 1, 2, 4 and giving rise to the
14-A) more serious offense
RTC (if it involves CA [Sec. 2(c), Rule
questions of fact and CA 122] or
of law) Sandiganbayan SC [Sec. 2(c), Rule 122]
CA (notice of appeal)
If the CA imposes
3. How Appeal Taken
reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, it will The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of
Where the RTC render and enter due process but merely a statutory privilege and may
imposed the penalty judgment. The be exercised only in the manner and in accordance
of reclusion perpetua subsequent appeal to with the provisions of the law [Estarija v. People, G.R.
or life imprisonment the SC No. 173990 (2009)]
is by notice of appeal
[Sec. 3(a)(c), Rule 122;
People v. Mateo, G.R. Decided by Appeal to Mode
No. 147678 (2004)]
CA (automatic review) MTC/MeTC RTC
Filing of notice
/MCTC of appeal with
If CA imposes the court
death, it will render which rendered
judgment but will not the order
Where the RTC enter, and will certify
imposed the case to the RTC (original appealed from
CA
the penalty of death SC for review [Sec. 3(d) jurisdiction) and serving a
and 10 , Rule 122 ] copy thereof to
SC the adverse
party
RTC RTC Petition for
If it involves (appellate CA review (Rule
questions of law only jurisdiction) 42)
Appeal to the Filing of notice
SC in cases of appeal with
 where the the court The period to appeal shall be suspended from the
penalty which rendered time a MNT or MR is filed until notice of the order
overruling the motion has been served upon the
imposed by the the order accused or his counsel.
RTC is death, appealed from
reclusion and serving a [Sec. 6, Rule 122]
perpetua, or life copy thereof to 
imprisonment, the adverse Transmission of record to RTC
or where a party (Except Within 5 days from perfection of the appeal, the
COC shall transmit the original record to the
lesser penalty is when the appropriate RTC [Sec. 9(a), Rule 122]
imposed but penalty 
for offenses imposed is Notification of parties
committed on death as such is Upon receipt of the complete record, TSN and
evidence of the case, the RTC COC shall notify the
the same subject to parties of such fact [Sec. 9(b), Rule 122]
occasion or automatic 
which arose review) Submission of memoranda/briefs
out of the Within 15 days from receipt of said notice, the
same parties may submit memoranda/briefs, or may be
required by the RTC to do so [Sec. 9(c), Rule 122]
occurrence that 
gave rise to the Decision
more serious After submission of such memoranda/briefs or
offense for upon the expiration of the period to file the same,
which the the RTC shall decide the case on the basis of the
entire record of the case and of such
penalty of memoranda/briefs as may have been filed [Sec.
death, 9(c), Rule 122]
reclusion
perpetua, or life General rule: The procedure to be observed in the
imprisonment MeTC/MTC/MCTC shall be the same as that in the
RTC.
is imposed.
[Sec. 3, Rule 122]
Petition for Exceptions:
All other
Who may appeal appeal to the review on 1. Where a particular provision applies only to
certiorari (Rule either of said courts;
SCmay appeal from a judgment or
General rule: Any party 2. Criminal cases governed by the Revised Rules on
45) Summary Procedure
final order [Sec. 1, Rule 122]
[Sec. 1, Rule 123]
Exceptions:
a. A party may not appeal if the accused will be Offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the
placed in double jeopardy by such action [Sec. 1, MTC/MCTC
Rule 122]; Notwithstanding the uniform procedure rule, if the
b. If the judgment is for conviction and the accused offense falls under the jurisdiction of the
fails to appear during promulgation without MTC/MCTC, complaint/information may be filed
justifiable cause, he would lose the remedy to directly with said courts or with the City Prosecutor’s
appeal [Sec. 6, Rule 120] office [Salcedo v. Nobles-Bans, G.R. No. L-67540
(1985)]
a. Procedure in the lower courts Offenses falling under the jurisdiction of MeTC
In Metro Manila and other chartered cities, criminal
When appeal to be taken cases shall be commenced only by information; thus,
Within 15 days from promulgation of the judgment
or from notice of the final order appealed from.
the complaint may be filed only with the office of the is filed before the expiration of the time sought to be
City Prosecutor [Sec. 1(b), Rule 110] extended [Sec. 5, Rule 124]

If the case is directly filed with the court, the case The court may grant as many extensions as may be
should not be dismissed. The court should just refer asked [Gregorio v. CA, G.R. No. L-43511 (1976)]
it to the City Prosecutor for the filing of the
corresponding information [Salcedo v. Nobles-Bans, Form of briefs
G.R. No. L-67540 (1985)] Briefs shall either be printed, encoded or typewritten
in double space on legal size, good quality unglazed
b. Procedure in the court of appeals paper, 330 mm. in length by 216 mm. in width [Sec.
6, Rule 124]
Parties and title
In all criminal cases appealed to the CA, the party Content of briefs
appealing shall be called the “appellant” and the The briefs in criminal cases shall have the same
adverse party the “appellee” but the title of the case contents as provided in Secs. 13 to 14, Rule 44. A
shall remain as it was in the court of origin (i.e., People certified true copy of the decision or final order
v. John Doe) [Sec. 1, Rule 124] appealed from shall be appended to the brief of the
appellant [Sec. 7, Rule 124]
BRIEFS
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL FOR
Brief for the appellant ABANDONMENT OR FAILURE TO
Within thirty (30) days from receipt by the appellant PROSECUTE; GROUNDS
or his counsel of the notice from the clerk of court of
the Court of Appeals that the evidence, oral and Appellant fails to file his brief within the
documentary, is already attached to the record, the prescribed time
appellant shall file seven (7) copies of his brief with The CA may, upon motion of the appellee or motu
the clerk of court which shall be accompanied by proprio and with notice to the appellant in either case,
proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief
appellee [Sec. 3, Rule 124] with the time prescribed, except where the appellant
is represented by a counsel de oficio [Sec. 8, Rule 124]
Brief for the appellee
Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the brief of the If failure to file brief on time is the ground, appellant
appellant, the appellee shall file seven (7) copies of the must be given notice to give him opportunity to
brief of the appellee with the clerk of court which reason out why his appeal should not be dismissed
shall be accompanied by proof of service of two (2) [Baradi v. People, G.R. No. L-2658 (1948)]
copies thereof upon the appellant [Sec. 4, Rule 124]
However, dismissal is proper despite lack of notice:
Reply to appellee’s brief 1. If appellant has filed a MFR or motion to set
Within twenty (20) days from receipt of the Brief of aside the order dismissing the appeal, in which he
the appellee, the appellant may file a reply brief stated the reason why he failed to file his brief on
traversing matters raised in the former but not time and the appellate court denied the motion
covered in the brief of the appellant [Sec. 4, Rule 124] after considering reason [Baradi v. People, G.R.
No. L-2658 (1948)]
With the use of the word “may”, filing a reply is 2. If appeal was dismissed without notice but
optional. appellant took no steps to have the appeal
reinstated. Such action amounts to abandonment
[Salvador v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-2606 (1949)]
Extension of time for filing briefs
Appellant escapes, jumps bail, or flees
General rule: Extension of time for the filing of briefs The CA may also, upon motion of the appellee or
is not allowed. motu proprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes
from prison/confinement, jumps bail or flees to a
Exception: Extension may be granted for good and foreign country during the pendency of the appeal
sufficient cause and only if the motion for extension [Sec. 8, Rule 124]
 3. Remand the case to the RTC for new trial or
Likewise, when accused flees after the case has been retrial;
submitted for decision, he is deemed to have waived 4. Dismiss the case [Sec. 11, Rule 124]
his right to appeal [People v. Ang Gioc, G.R. No. L-
48547 (1941)] When the accused appeals from the sentence of the
TC, he waives the constitutional safeguard against
However, the appeal will not be dismissed despite double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to
escape the review of the appellate court, which is then called
1. In one exceptional case, the appellant took upon to render such judgment as law and justice
advantage of a mass jailbreak (because, according dictate, WON favorable to the accused and WON
to his counsel de oficio he was innocent and wanted made the subject of assignment of errors [Ko Bu Lin
to elude an unjust punishment) but was v. CA, G.R. No. L-57170 (1982)]
recaptured two hours after, the SC ruled that
these circumstances were not sufficient to justify CA’s power to receive evidence
dismissal of the appeal which, upon the The CA has power to try cases and conduct hearings,
conclusion arrived at by the Court on the merits, receive evidence and perform any and all acts
would entail a clear miscarriage of justice [People necessary to resolve factual issues in cases:
v. Valencia, G.R. No. L-1369 (1949)] 1. Falling within its original jurisdiction;
2. In case of automatic review [People v. Cornelio, 2. Involving claims for damages arising from
G.R. No. L-1289 (1971)] provisional remedies;
3. Where the court grants a new trial based only on
Prompt disposition of appeal the ground of newly-discovered evidence
Appeals of accused who are under detention shall be [Sec. 12, Rule 124]
given precedence in their disposition over other
appeals. The Court of Appeals shall hear and decide CA’s trials and hearings must be continuous and
the appeal at the earliest practicable time with due completed within three months, unless extended by
regard to the rights of the parties. The accused need the Chief Justice. [Sec. 9, BP 129 as amended by RA
not be present in court during the hearing of the 7902]
appeal [Sec. 9, Rule 124]
POST-CA JUDGMENT
Reversal or modification of judgment on appeal
Certification or appeal of cases to the SC
General rule: No judgment shall be reversed or Whenever the CA finds that the penalty of death,
modified. reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment should be
imposed in a case, the court, after discussion of the
Exception: When the CA, after an examination of the evidence and the law involved, shall render judgment
record and of the parties’ evidence, is of the opinion imposing the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life
that error was committed and such error injuriously imprisonment as the circumstances warrant.
affected the appellant’s substantial rights However, it shall refrain from entering the judgment
[Sec. 10, Rule 124] and forthwith certify the case and elevate the entire
record thereof to the Supreme Court for review [Sec.
When it involves credibility of witnesses, appellate 13, Rule 124]
courts will not generally disturb the TC’s findings
[People v. Cabiling, G.R. No. L-38091 (1976)] Judgment transmitted and filed in the TC
When the CA’s entry of judgment is issued, a certified
Ratio: The TC is in a better position to decide the true copy of the judgment shall be attached to the
question, having seen and heard the witnesses original record. These shall be remanded to the clerk
themselves [People v. Cabiling, G.R. No. L-38091 of the court from which the appeal was taken [Sec. 17,
(1976)] Rule 124]

Scope of the CA’s judgment This copy of the entry serves as the formal notice to
The CA may: the court from which the appeal was taken of the
1. Reverse/affirm/modify the judgment; disposition of the case in the appellate court, so that
2. Increase/reduce the penalty imposed by the TC;
the judgment may be executed and/or placed or General rule: No party shall be allowed a second MFR
noted in the proper file. of a judgment or final order [Sec. 16, Rule 124; Sec.
11, BP 129]
MNT during the pendency of appeal
1. Appellant may file MNT on the ground of newly Exception: Where the first MFR resulted in a reversal
discovered evidence material to his defense any or substantial modification of the original decision or
time: final resolution. In this case, the party adversely
a. After the appeal from the lower court has affected by the reversal/modification may himself file
been perfected; but a MFR of the latest judgment of the court, because
b. Before the CA judgment convicting him with respect to him, said motion is a first pleading of
becomes final; that nature
2. The motion shall conform to Sec. 4, Rule 121
[Sec. 14, Rule 124]; NOTE: Again, this is not available to the State if the
3. If the CA grants a MNT, it may either: first MFR resulted in setting aside of judgment of
a. Conduct the hearing and receive evidence; conviction. [Prof. RVC]
b. Refer the trial to the court of origin
[Sec. 15, Rule 124] Applicable Civil Procedure Rules
Provisions of Rules 42, 44-46 and 48-56 relating to
Motion For New Trial procedure in the CA and the SC in original and
RTC [Rule 121] CA [Rule 124] appealed civil cases, shall be applied to criminal cases
Grounds: Ground: insofar as they are applicable and not inconsistent
a. errors of law or a. newly-discovered with the provision of this Rule [Sec. 18, Rule 124]
irregularities evidence material
prejudicial to the to his defense c. Procedure In The Supreme
substantial rights Court
of the accused
have been
committed during Uniform procedure
the trial;
b. new and material General rule: The procedure in the SC in original and
evidence has been in appealed cases shall be the same as in the CA.
discovered
Exception: The Constitution or law otherwise
provides.
[Sec. 1, Rule 125]
Filed after judgment, Filed after appeal from
but before finality of lower court is perfected What the SC may do on review
conviction but before judgment In a criminal case, an appeal to the SC throws open
CA can either conduct the whole case for review and it becomes its duty to
Cannot remand to the evidentiary hearing correct such errors as may be found in the judgment
lower court in its by itself, or it will appealed from, whether or not they were assigned as
exercise of appellate remand the case to the errors [People v. Olfindo, G.R. No. L-22679 (1924)]
jurisdiction court of origin
It may examine the judgment as to the qualification of
the crime and the degree of the penalty imposed
[Macali v. Revilla, G.R. No. L-25308 (1926)]
Reconsideration of CA judgment
MFR may be filed within 15 days from notice of the It may also assess and award civil indemnity [Quemuel
CA judgment or final order, with copies served on the v. CA, G.R. No. L-22794 (1946)]
adverse party, setting forth the grounds in support
thereof. The mittimus shall be stayed during the MFR’s
pendency [Sec. 16, Rule 124] Modes by which a case may reach the SC
1. Automatic review
Automatic review is not a matter of right on the part
NOTE: This is not available to the State in case the of the accused, but a matter of law.
CA reverses the conviction of the accused since
double jeopardy shall have attached. [Prof. RVC]
 On decisions of the CA and the Sandiganbayan, as a
It is available when: rule, review here is limited to errors of law [Sec. 6(a),
1. The RTC decision is appealed to CA and the Rule 45]
latter is of the opinion that the penalty imposed
should be death. CA judgment is imposed but no General rule: Certiorari is used to correct only errors of
entry of judgment is made; instead, the case is jurisdiction and not errors of judgment of an inferior
certified and the entire record is elevated to the court. For errors of judgment, ordinary appeal is
SC for review [Sec. 13(a), Rule 124] available [Tagle v. Equitable PCI, G.R. No. 172299
(2008)]
NOTE: In all cases where the death penalty is
imposed by the trial court, the records are forwarded Exceptions:
to the CA for automatic review and not to the SC. In the following cases, certiorari is granted despite
[A.M. No. 00-5-3-SC] existence of the remedy of appeal:
1. Where public welfare and advancement of public
2. Ordinary appeal policy so dictate;
It is available when: 2. Where the broader interests of justice so require;
a. In cases where the CA imposes reclusion 3. Where the orders complained of were found to
perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser be completely null and void;
penalty, it shall render and enter judgment 4. Where appeal was not considered as the
imposing such penalty. The judgment may appropriate remedy.
be appealed to the SC by notice of appeal [Department of Education v. Cuanan, G.R. No. 169013
with the CA. [Sec 13 (c), Rule 124] (2008)]
b. The penalty of reclusion perpetua or death is
imposed on some of the defendants and a Review of CA decisions
lesser penalty on the other co-defendants, on
account of their varying degree of The procedure for the review by the SC of CA
participation in the commission of the decisions on criminal shall be the same as in civil cases
offense or due to the presence of modifying [Sec. 2, Rule 125]
circumstances, in which case the decision on
the non-life convicts is directly appealable to General rule: The appellate jurisdiction of the SC in
the SC [People v. Carino (2002)] cases brought to it from the CA is limited to reviewing
and revising the errors of law incurred by the latter.
In these cases, the SC reviews not only errors of law The CA’s findings of fact are final. If an appeal in the
but also the findings of fact by the TC. SC involves questions of facts, the SC has no
jurisdiction and should dismiss appeal [Guico v.
3. Petition for review on certiorari Mayuga, G.R. Nos.. L-45274-5 (1936)]
It is available when
a. The constitutionality or validity of any treaty, Exceptions:
executive agreement, law, ordinance or 1. When the conclusion is a finding founded
executive order or regulation is in question entirely on speculations/surmises/conjectures
[Sec. 5(2)(a), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution] 2. When the inference made is manifestly
b. When validity of law is questioned by an mistaken/absurd/impossible
accused convicted under it by the TC, the SC 3. When there is GAD
cannot review the evidence or pass upon any 4. When the judgment is based on a
other question of law which may appear on misapprehension of facts
the record, but will only confine itself to the 5. When the findings of facts are conflicting
question of the in/validity of that law 6. When the CA, in making its findings, went
[Trinidad v. Sweeney, G.R. No. 2487 (1904)] beyond the issues of the case and the same are
c. When the jurisdiction of any inferior court is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and
in issue appellee [Napolis v. CA, G.R. No. L-28865
d. When only an error or question of law is (1972)]
involved [Sec. 6(a), Rule 45] [Napolis v. CA, G.R. No. L-28865 (1972)]
Failure to specify appellate court
Failure of appellant to specify in his notice of appeal
5. Grounds for Dismissal of
the court to which the appeal is being made is not fatal Appeal
[R.A. 296]
When appeal by the people will not lie
Erroneous mode of appeal The People/State cannot appeal when it will put the
In the case of People v. Resuello [GR No. L-30165 accused in double jeopardy. The constitutional
(1969)], the contention of the adverse party that the mandate against double jeopardy prohibits not only a
ordinary appeal filed by appellant be dismissed subsequent prosecution in a new and independent
because the proper remedy is petition for review on cause but extends also to appeal in the same case by
certiorari (only questions of law were involved) was the prosecution after jeopardy had attached [Republic
rejected. The SC said that in cases similarly situated, v. CA, G.R. No. L- 41115 (1982)]
and as long as the steps formally required for the
perfection of an appeal were taken in due time, appeal The prosecution cannot appeal from a judgment of
may be given due course, without prejudice to acquittal [Central Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 41859 (1989)]
requiring the appellant to file the necessary petition
for review on certiorari which is also a form of appeal. Rationale
A verdict of that nature is immediately final and to try
Decision if opinion is equally divided on the merits, even in an appellate court, places the
When the Supreme Court en banc is equally divided in accused in double jeopardy [Central Bank v. CA, G.R.
opinion or the necessary majority cannot be had on No. 41859 (1989)]
whether to acquit the appellant, the case shall again be
deliberated upon and if no decision is reached after Dismissal of case upon filing of demurrer by the
re-deliberation, the judgment of conviction of the accused was held to be final even though based on
lower court shall be reversed and the accused erroneous interpretation of the law. Hence, an appeal
acquitted [Sec. 3, Rule 125] therefrom by the prosecution would constitute
double jeopardy [People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
4. Effect of Appeal by Any of 174504 (2011), citing People v. Nieto, 103 Phil. 1133]
Several Accused Where the TC has jurisdiction but mistakenly
dismisses the complaint/information on the ground
General rule: of lack of it, the order of dismissal is unappealable
a. An appeal taken by one or more of several [People v. Duran, G.R. No. L-13334 (1960)]
accused shall not affect those who did not appeal.
b. As to the appealing party, the execution of An appeal by the People will not lie if the purpose is
judgment appealed from is stayed upon the to correct the penalty imposed by the trial court or to
perfection of the appeal. include in a judgment a penalty erroneously omitted
[Sec. 11, Rule 122] [People v. Paet, G.R. No. L-9551 (1956)]
As to the co-accused who did not appeal, the The preclusion against appeal by the State from
judgment of the TC insofar as it relates to him judgments or final orders having the effect of
becomes final and the appellate court has no power acquittal applies even though accused did not raise
to interfere with it [Salvatierra v. CA, G.R. No. 107797 question of jeopardy [People v. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-9072
(1996)] (1956)]
Exception: Insofar as the judgment of the appellate
court is favorable and applicable to those who did not
appeal or who withdrew his appeal [Sec. 11, Rule 122;
People v. Gandia, G.R. No. 175332 (2008)]
The appeal of the offended party from the civil aspect
shall not affect the criminal aspect of the judgment or
order appealed from [Sec. 11, Rule 122]
N. Search and Seizure Directed upon acts of the government, not
private persons
1. Nature of Search Warrant The constitutional protection is directed against the
acts of the government and its agents, not private
In general persons [People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561 (1991)]
It is an order in writing; issued in the name of the
People of the Philippines; signed by a judge; and However, if the private person is acting upon orders
directed to a peace officer, commanding him to of government officials, the principle of agency
search for personal property described in the warrant applies, because in fact such private person is acting
and bring it before the court [Sec. 1, Rule 126] in the interest of government, and is therefore subject
to the prohibition against unreasonable searches and
Nature seizures.
A search warrant is in the nature of a criminal process
akin to a writ of discovery, employed by the state to General rule: Search of property is unreasonable unless
procure relevant evidence of a crime [Malaloan v. CA, it has been authorized by a valid search warrant.
G.R. No. 104879 (1994)]
Exceptions:
It is not available to individuals in the course of civil a. Search incidental to a lawful arrest;
proceedings. b. Consented search;
c. Search of moving vehicle;
It is interlocutory in character – it leaves something d. Checkpoints;
more to be done, which is the determination of the e. Plain view;
guilt of the accused. f. Stop and frisk;
g. Customs search;
h. Other exceptions, such as exigent circumstances,
Constitutional safeguard buy-bust operations, and private searches.
No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after the examination under
oath/affirmation of the complaint and the witness he
may produce, and particularly describing the place to
be searched, and the things/persons to be seized [Sec.
2, Art. III, Constitution]
Under the exclusionary rule, any evidence obtained
in violation of this is inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceeding [Sec. 3, 2nd par., Art. III, Constitution]
The constitutional guarantee is not a blanket
prohibition against all searches and seizures. It
operates only against “unreasonable” searches and
seizures.
What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search
or seizure in any particular case is purely a judicial
question, determinable from a consideration of the
circumstances involved, including the purpose of the
search, the presence or absence of probable cause, the
manner in which the search and seizure was made, the
place or thing searched, and the character of the
articles procured [Rodriguez v. Villamiel, L-44328
(1937)]
2. Distinguish From Warrant of Arrest
Search warrant Warrant of arrest
Order in writing issued in the name of the Order directed to the peace officer to
People of the Philippines, signed by the execute the warrant by taking the person
Nature and judge and directed to the peace officer to stated therein into custody that he may be
purpose search personal property described therein bound to answer for the commission of the
and to bring it to court [Sec. 1, Rule 126] offense

Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution does not

mandatorily require the judge to personally
The judge must personally examine in the examine the complainant and her witnesses.
form of searching questions and answers, Instead, he may opt to personally evaluate
under oath, the complainant and witnesses the report and supporting documents
Determination he may produce on facts personally known submitted by the prosecutor or he may
of Probable to them and attach to the record their sworn disregard the prosecutor’s report and require
cause statements, together with the affidavits the submission of supporting affidavits of
submitted [Sec. 5, Rule 126] witnesses [People v. Grey,, G.R. No. 180109
(2010), citing Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No. L-
82585 (1988)]

It must particularly describe the place to be

searched and the things to be seized [Sec. 2, It must particularly describe the person to be
Form Art. III, Constitution], which may be arrested [Sec. 2, Art. III, Constitution]
anywhere in the Philippines [Sec. 4, Rule 126]
The warrant must direct that it be served in
the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that
the property is on the person or in the place
When ordered to be searched, in which case a No such limitation under Sec. 2, Art. III,
executed direction may be inserted that it be served at Constitution and Rule 113
any time of the day or night [Sec. 9, Rule
126]

Does not expire

The 10-day period referred to in Sec. 4, Rule
Valid for 10 days from its date [Sec. 10, Rule 113 refers to the time within which the head
Validity 126] of the office to whom the warrant of arrest
was delivered for execution shall cause the
warrant to be executed.

3. Application for Search However, if the criminal action has already been filed,
the application shall only be made in the court where
Warrant; Where Filed the criminal action is pending [Sec. 2, Rule 126]

General rule: It may be filed in any court within whose Under A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, Executive Judges and,
territorial jurisdiction the crime was committed. whenever they are on official leave of absence or are
not physically present in the station, the Vice-
Exception: For compelling reasons, which must be Executive Judges of Manila and Quezon City RTCs
stated in the application, it may also be filed: shall have authority to act on applications for search
a. If the place of the commission of the crime is warrants involving
known, any court within the judicial region where a. Heinous crimes
the crime was committed b. Illegal gambling
b. Any court within the judicial region where the c. Illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions
warrant shall be enforced d. Violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2000
e. Violations of the Intellectual Property Code any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully
f. Violations of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of detained therein [Sec. 7, Rule 126]
2001
g. Violations of the Tariff and Customs Code, and Knock and announce principle
h. Other relevant laws that may hereafter be enacted Generally, officers executing a search must do the
by Congress and included herein by the Supreme following acts:
Court. a. Announce their presence;
b. Identify themselves to the accused and to the
Substance of application persons who rightfully have possession of the
A search warrant shall not issue except premises to be searched;
a. Upon probable cause c. Show to them the search warrant; and
b. In connection with one specific offense d. Explain the warrant in a language or dialect
c. To be determined personally by the judge known and understood by them
d. After examination under oath or affirmation of [People v. Huang Zen Hua, G.R. No. 139301 (2004)]
the complainant and the witness he may produce
e. Particularly describing the place to be searched When unannounced intrusion permissible
and the things to be seized which may be a. Person in the premises refuses to open it upon
anywhere in the Philippines [Sec. 4, Rule 126] demand;
b. Person in the premises already knew of the
Issuance and form of search warrant identity and authority of the officers;
If the judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon c. When the officers have an honest belief that
which the application is based or that there is there is an imminent danger to life and limb;
probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall issue d. When those in the premises, aware of the
the warrant, which must be substantially in the form presence of someone outside, are then engaged
prescribed the Rules [Sec. 6, Rule 126] in activities which justifies the officers to believe
that an escape or the destruction of evidence is
Thus, the search warrant must be in writing and imminent.
contain [People v. Huang Zen Hua, G.R. No. 139301 (2004)]
a. Name of person against whom it is directed
b. Offense for which it was issued Search in presence of two witnesses
c. The place to be searched, and No search of a house, room, or any other premises
d. The description of the specific things to be seized shall be made except in the presence of the lawful
e. A directive to law enforcement officers to search occupant thereof or any member of his family or in
and seize and for them to bring in court the the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient
things seized age and discretion residing in the same locality [Sec. 8,
f. Signature of the judge issuing it Rule 126]
Validity of the search warrant Time of making search
The search warrant is valid for 10 days from its date. General Rule: The search shall be made at day time
Thereafter, it shall be void [Sec. 10, Rule 126]
Exception: Unless the affidavit asserts that the property
The lifetime of the search warrant also ends when a is on the person or in the place ordered to be
return has already been made [Mustang Lumber v. CA, searched, in which case a direction may be inserted
G.R. No. 104988 (1996)] that it be served at any time of the day or night [Sec.
9, Rule 126]
SERVICE OF THE SEARCH WARRANT
A search warrant violates Sec. 9, Rule 126 if the time
Right to break door or window to effect search for making the search is left blank, thus enabling the
The officer, if refused admittance to the place of officers to conduct the search in the evening of the
directed search after giving notice of his purpose and appointed search, causing untold conveniences to the
authority, may break open any outer or inner door or person searched.
window of a house or any part of a house or anything
therein to execute the warrant to liberate himself or Where a search is to be made during the night time,
the authority for executing the same at that time
should appear in the directive on the face of the
search warrant [Asian Surety v. Herrera, G.R. No. L-
4. Probable Cause (in Search
25232 (1973)] Warrants)
POST-SERVICE Probable cause means such facts and circumstances
which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
Receipt of property seized man to believe that an offense has been committed,
a. If the lawful occupant is present: the officer and that objects sought in connection with the
seizing the property under the search warrant offense are in the place sought to be searched
must give a detailed receipt for the same to the [Santos v. Pryce Gases Inc., G.R. No. 165122 (2007)]
lawful occupant of the premises in whose
presence the search and seizure were made. This probable cause must be shown to be within the
b. If the lawful occupant is not present: the personal knowledge of the complainant or the
officer seizing the property under the search witnesses he may produce and not based on mere
warrant must, in the presence of at least two hearsay. The probable cause must refer only to one
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing specific offense [Roan v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 71410
in the same locality, leave a receipt in the place in (1986)]
which he found the seized property
[Sec. 11, Rule 126] Note: Probable cause to arrest does not necessarily
involve a probable cause to search and vice-versa.
Delivery and inventory of property
a. The officer must forthwith deliver the property
seized to the judge who issued the warrant, 5. Personal Examination by
together with a true inventory thereof duly
verified under oath.
Judge of the Applicant and
b. Ten days after issuance of the search warrant, the Witnesses
issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has been
made, and if none, shall summon the person to Aside from the requirements mandated by Sec. 4,
whom the warrant was issued and require him to Rule 126, the Rules require the judge to comply with
explain why no return was made. a specific procedure in the conduct of the
c. If the return has been made, the judge shall examination of the complainant and the witnesses he
ascertain whether Sec. 11, Rule 126, on giving or may produce
receipts, has been complied with and shall require a. The examination must be personally conducted
that the property seized be delivered to him. The by the judge;
judge shall see to it that delivery has been b. The examination must be in the form of
complied with. searching questions and answers;
d. The return on the search warrant shall be filed c. The complainant and the witnesses shall be
and kept by the custodian of the log book on examined on those facts personally known to
search warrants who shall enter therein the date them;
of the return, the result, and other actions of the d. The statements must be in writing and under
judge. oath; and
[Sec. 12, Rule 126] e. The sworn statements of the complainant and the
witnesses, together with the affidavits submitted,
The court which issued the search warrant acquires shall be attached to the record.
jurisdiction over the items seized under the said [Sec. 5, Rule 126]
warrant. Goods seized lawfully on the basis of the said
warrant or its accepted exceptions are in custodia legis. Searching questions and answers
Only that court which issued the warrant may order Searching questions are such questions which have
the release or disposition thereof. The jurisdiction, the tendency to show the commission of a crime and
custody and control of the court over the items seized the perpetrator thereof [Luna v. Plaza, G.R. No. 27511
cannot be interfered with. Custody lasts until the (1968)]
institution of the appropriate criminal action with the
proper court [Tenorio v. CA, G.R. No. 110604 (2003)] In search cases, the application must be supported by
substantial evidence
a. That the items sought are in fact seizable by Particularity of place to be searched
virtue of being connected with criminal activity; Description of place to be searched is sufficient if the
and officer with the search warrant can, with reasonable
b. That the items will be found in the place to be efforts, ascertain and identify the place intended
searched [People v. Veloso, G.R. No. L-23051 (1925)]
[People v. Tuan, G.R. No. 176066 (2010)]
An apparent typographical error will not necessarily
A search warrant issued by a judge who did not ask invalidate the search warrant, as long as the
searching questions but only leading ones and in a application contains the correct address [Burgos v. Chief
general manner is invalid [Uy v. BIR, G.R. No. 129651 of Staff, G.R. No. L-64261 (1984)]
(2000)]
Particularity of things to be seized
Although there is no hard-and-fast rule governing The scope of the search warrant is limited to personal
how a judge should conduct his investigation, it is property. It does not issue for seizure of immovable
axiomatic that the examination must be probing and properties [see Sec. 3, Rule 126]
exhaustive, not merely routinary, general, peripheral,
perfunctory or pro forma. The judge must not simply General rule: Things to be seized must be described
rehash the contents of the affidavit but must make his particularly. General search warrants are not allowed.
own inquiry on the intent and justification of the Otherwise, the search and seizure of the items in the
application [Yao v. People, G.R. No. 168306 (2007)] implementation of such search warrant is illegal and
the items seized are inadmissible in evidence [Sec. 2,
A warrant not based on personal knowledge is void. Art. III, Constitution]
Examination under oath A general warrant is defined as "(a) search or arrest
The judge must examine under oath or affirmation warrant that is not particular as to the person to be
the complainant and the witness he may produce [Sec. arrested or the property to be seized." It is one that
2, Art. III, Constitution] allows the "seizure of one thing under a warrant
describing another" and gives the officer executing
Oath includes any form of attestation by which a party the warrant the discretion over which items to take
signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an [Worldwide Web Corporation v. People, G.R. No. 161106
act faithfully and truthfully. The oath required must (2014)]
refer to the truth of the facts within the personal
knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses, because Such discretion is abhorrent, as it makes the person,
the purpose thereof is to convince the committing against whom the warrant is issued, vulnerable to
magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and abuses. Our Constitution guarantees our right against
seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence unreasonable searches and seizures, and safeguards
of probable cause [Alvarez v. CFI, G.R. No. 45358 have been put in place to ensure that people and their
(1937)] properties are searched only for the most compelling
and lawful reasons [Worldwide Web Corporation v. People,
Mere affidavits of the complainant or his witnesses G.R. No. 161106, January 13, 2014]
are not sufficient. The examining judge has to take
depositions in writing of the complaint or his Search warrants authorizing the seizure of books of
witnesses, and attach the same to the record [Prudente accounts and records “showing all the business
v. Judge Dayrit, G.R. No. 82870 (1989)] transactions” of certain persons, regardless of
whether the transactions were legal or illegal, are
general warrants prohibited by law [Stonehill v. Diokno,
6. Particularity of Place to Be G.R. No. L-19550 (1967)]
Searched and Things to Be
Seized Where the language used is too all-embracing as to
include all the paraphernalia of petitioner in the
operation of its business, the SW is constitutionally
Warrant issued must particularly describe the place to objectionable [Columbia Pictures v. Flores, G.R. No.
be searched and the things to be seized [Sec. 2, Art. 78631 (1993)]
III, Constitution]
Exceptions: b. Consented Search
Where, by the nature of the goods to be seized, their c. Search of a Moving Vehicle
description must be rather general, it is not required d. Checkpoints; Body Checks in Airport
that a technical description be given, for this would e. Plain View
mean that no search warrant could issue [People v. f. Stop and Frisk
Rubio, G.R. No. L-35500 (1932)] g. Enforcement of Customs Law
The general description of the documents listed in the h. Other Exceptions
search warrant does not render it void if it is severable, 1. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances
and those items not particularly described may be cut 2. Buy-Bust Operation
off without destroying the whole [Uy v. BIR, G.R. No. 3. Private Searches
129651 (2000)]
Items (1) to (3), (5) to (7) and (8)(a) are enumerated in
Although the warrant was defective in the respects Veridiano v. People [G.R. No. 200370 (2017)] The other
noted, it does not follow that it was invalid as a whole. items are sanctioned by the SC in other cases. See the
It would be a drastic remedy indeed if a warrant is to discussion below.
be invalidated in toto because the judge erred in
authorizing a search for other items not supported by a. Search incidental to lawful arrest
the evidence [People v. Salinguit, 356 SCRA 683 (2001)]
Note: The law does not require that the things must be In a search incidental to an arrest, even without a
described in precise and minute detail as to leave no warrant, the person arrested may be searched for:
room for doubt on the part of the searching 1. Dangerous weapons
authorities. Otherwise, it would be virtually 2. Anything which may have been used in the
impossible for the applicants to obtain a warrant as commission of an offense, or
they would not know exactly what kind of things they 3. Anything which may constitute proof in the
are looking for [Vallejo v. People, G.R. No. G.R. No. commission of the offense [Sec. 13, Rule 126]
156413 (2004), Kho v. Makalintal, G.R. Nos.. 94902-06
(1999)] Purpose
When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the
arresting officer to search the person arrested in order
7. Personal Property to be to remove any weapon that the latter might use in
Seized order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise,
the officer’s safety might well be endangered, and the
arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely
What may be seized reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and
a. Personal property subject of the offense; seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to
b. Personal property stolen/embezzled and other prevent its concealment or destruction [People v.
proceeds/fruits of the offense; Calantiao, G.R. No. 203984 (2014), citing Valeroso v.
c. Personal property used or intended to be used as CA, G.R. No. 164815 (2009)]
the means of committing an offense
[Sec. 3, Rule 126] Scope
A valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or
The rule does not require that the property to be dangerous weapons either on the person of the one
seized should be owned by the person against whom arrested or within the area of his immediate control.
the search warrant is directed. It is sufficient that the The phrase “within the area of his immediate control”
person against whom the warrant is directed has means the area from within which he might gain
control of possession of the property sought to be possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. A
seized [Burgos v. Chief of Staff, G.R. No. L-64261 gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is
(1984)] arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer
as one concealed in the clothing of the person
8. Exceptions to the Search arrested [People v. Calantiao, G.R. No. 203984 (2014),
citing Valeroso v. CA, G.R. No. 164815 (2009)]
Warrant Requirement
a. Search Incidental to Lawful Arrest
“Lawful arrest” A peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a
Although, generally, a warrant is necessary for a valid consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a
arrest, Sec. 5, Rule 113 provides the exceptions such demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law
as arrests in flagrante delicto, arrests effected in hot [People v. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233 (2007)]
pursuit, and arrests of escaped prisoners [People v.
Mariacos, G.R. No. 188611 (2010)] Consented search is reasonable only if kept within the
bounds of the actual consent. A person’s consent may
In searches incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest must limit the extent/scope of a warrantless search in the
precede the search; generally, the process cannot be same way that the specifications of a warrant limit the
reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially search pursuant thereto.
contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the
arrest if the police have probable cause to make the Relevant to the determination of consent are the
arrest at the outset of the search [Sy v. People, G.R. No. following characteristics of the person giving consent
182178 (2011) citing People v. Racho (erroneously and the environment in which consent is given:
referred to as Rancho), G.R. No. 186529 (2010)] 1. The age of the defendant;
2. Whether he was in a public or secluded location;
When an individual is lawfully arrested, he/she may 3. Whether he objected to the search or passively
be frisked for concealed weapons that may be used looked on;
against the arresting officer and all unlawful articles 4. The education and intelligence of the defendant;
found in his person, or within his immediate control, 5. The presence of coercive police procedures;
may be seized [OCA v. Barron, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1420 6. The defendant's belief that no incriminating
(1998)] evidence will be found;
7. The nature of the police questioning;
Illegal search 8. The environment in which the questioning took
The rule assumes that the arrest is legal. If the arrest place; and
is illegal, then the search is illegal and as a result, the 9. The possibly vulnerable subjective state of the
things seized are inadmissible as evidence [People v. person consenting.
Aruta, G.R. No. 120195 (1998)] [Caballes v. CA, G.R. No. 136292 (2002)]

Where a search is first undertaken, and an arrest was c. Search of a moving vehicle
effected based on evidence produced by such search,
both search and arrest are illegal [Lui v. Matillano, G.R. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an
No. 141176 (2004)] extensive search, such a warrantless search should be
constitutionally permissible only if the officers
b. Consented search conducting the search have reasonable or probable
cause to believe, before the search, that either:
Jurisprudence requires that in case of consented 1. the motorist is a law-offender; or
searches or waiver of the constitutional guarantee 2. they will find the instrumentality or evidence
against obtrusive searches, it must first appear that: pertaining to a crime in the vehicle to be searched
1. The right exists; [Caballes v. CA, G.R. No. 136292 (2002)]
2. The person involved had knowledge, either
actual or constructive, of the existence of such Rationale
right; and Peace officers may lawfully conduct searches of
3. The said person had an actual intention to moving vehicles without need of a warrant as it is
relinquish the right. impracticable to secure a judicial warrant before
[People v. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233 (2007)] searching a vehicle since it can be quickly moved out
of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may
Consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred, but be sought [People v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 175783 (2007)]
must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. It
is the State which has the burden of proving, by clear However, these searches would be limited to visual
and positive testimony, that the necessary consent inspection and the vehicles or their occupants cannot
was obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily be subjected to physical or body searches, except
given [Valdez v. People, G.R. No. 170180 (2007)] where there is probable cause to believe that the
occupant is a law offender or the contents of the
vehicles are instruments or proceeds of some criminal
offense. e. Plain View Situation
The search and seizure without warrant of vessel and Requisites
aircrafts for violation of customs laws has been a 1. A prior valid intrusion i.e., based on the valid
traditional exception to the requirement of search warrantless arrest in which the police are legally
warrant [Roldan v. Arca, G.R. No. L-25434 (1975)] present in the pursuit of their official duties
2. Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the
When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an police who have a right to be where they are
extensive search, such would be constitutionally 3. Evidence must be immediately and apparently
permissible only if the officers made it upon probable illegal (i.e., drug paraphernalia)
cause, i.e., upon a belief, reasonably arising out of 4. Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence
circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an without further search
automobile or other vehicle contains a[n] item, article [People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366 (2010)]
or object which by law is subject to seizure and
destruction [People v. Breis, G.R. No. 205823 (2015), It is clear that an object is in plain view if the object
citing People v. Libnao, G.R. No. 136860 (2003)] itself is plainly exposed to sight. Where the object
seized was inside a closed package, the object is not in
d. Checkpoints; body checks in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a
airport warrant. However, if the package proclaims its
contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its
transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an
Searches conducted in checkpoints are valid as long observer, then the contents are in plain view and may
as they are warranted by the exigencies of public order be seized [People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299 (1999)]
and conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists.
Limitations
Although the general rule is that motorists and their 1. It may not be used to launch unbridled searches
vehicles as well as pedestrians passing through and indiscriminate seizures
checkpoints may only be subjected to a routine 2. It does not extend to a general exploratory search
inspection, vehicles may be stopped and extensively made solely to find evidence of defendant’s guilt
searched when there is probable cause which justifies [People v. Musa, G.R. No. 96177 (1993)]
a reasonable belief of the men at the checkpoints that
either the motorist is a law offender or the contents
of the vehicle are or have been instruments of some The doctrine is usually applied where a police officer
offense [People v. Vinecario, G.R. No. 141137 (2004)] is not searching for evidence against the accused, but
nonetheless inadvertently comes across an
incriminating object
Routine inspections are not regarded as violative of
an individual’s right against unreasonable search
1. Where the officer merely draws aside the curtain Even if an object is in plain view, before it can be
of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public seized without a search warrant, its incriminating
fair grounds nature must first be apparent
2. officer simply looks into a vehicle
3. officer flashes a light therein without opening Where police officers are on the premises pursuant to
car’s doors a valid consent to a search, an item falling into their
4. Occupants not subjected to a physical search plain view may properly be seized even if the item is
5. Inspection is limited to visual search or visual not connected with their purpose in entering as long
inspection, or as its discovery was inadvertent, and the item was
6. Routine check is conducted in a fixed area incriminating [United Laboratories v. Isip, G.R. No.
[Caballes v. CA, G.R. No. 136292 (2002)] 163858 (2005)]
Rationale
The doctrine is a recognition of the fact that when the
police come across immediately recognizable
incriminating evidence not named in the warrant, they
should not be required to close their eyes to it,
regardless of whether it is evidence of the crime they Dual purpose of stop-and-frisk
are investigating or evidence of some other crime. 1. The general interest of effective crime
The doctrine is also a recognition of the fact that it prevention and detection, which underlies the
would be needless inconvenience to require the police recognition that a police officer may, under
to obtain another warrant [US v. Gray, 484 F.2d 352 appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate
(6th Cir., 1978)] manner, approach a person for purposes of
investigating possible criminal behavior even
f. Stop and frisk situation without probable cause; and
2. The more pressing interest of safety and self-
preservation which permit the police officer to
Stop and frisk is a limited protective search of outer take steps to assure himself that the person with
clothing for weapon [Malacat v. CA, G.R. No. 123595 whom he deals is not armed with a deadly
(1997)] weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be
used against the police officer.
Where a police officer observes unusual conduct, [Malacat v. CA, G.R. No. 123595 (1997)]
which leads him reasonably to conclude in the light of
his experience that criminal activity may be afoot, and Stop and Frisk v. Search Incidental to Lawful
that a person with whom he is dealing may be armed Arrest
and presently dangerous, he is entitled to conduct a Stop and frisk is usually confused with search
stop and frisk search. incidental to lawful arrest. The latter happens when
one is caught in flagrante delicto, the former is done in
Where in the course of investigating this behavior he order to prevent a crime from occurring [People v.
identifies himself as a policeman and makes Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334 (2015)]
reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial
stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable "Stop and frisk" searches are also conducted to
fear for his own or others’ safety, he is entitled for the prevent the occurrence of a crime and should be used
protection of himself and others in the area to when dealing with a rapidly unfolding and potentially
conduct a carefully limited search of the outer criminal situation in the city streets where unarguably
clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover there is no time to secure a search warrant [Manalili v.
weapons which might be used to assault him [Malacat CA, G.R. No. 113447 (1997)]
v. CA, G.R. No. 123595 (1997), citing Terry v. Ohio,
392 U.S. 1 (1968)]
g. Enforcement of customs law
Genuine reason required For the enforcement of customs duties and tariff
Other notable points of Terry are that while probable laws, the Collector of Customs is authorized to effect
cause is not required to conduct a “stop and frisk,” it searches and seizure [General Travel Services v. David,
nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will G.R. No. L-19259 (1966)]
not validate a “stop and frisk.” A genuine reason must
exist, in light of the police officer’s experience and The Customs Modernization and Tariff Act (CMTA)
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the authorizes customs officers to:
person detained has weapons concealed about him 1. Enter, pass through or search any land,
[Malacat v. CA, G.R. No. 123595 (1997), citing Terry v. enclosure, warehouse [Sec. 219, CMTA]
Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)] 2. Inspect/search/examine any vessel or aircraft
and any trunk/package/box/envelope or any
Test of reasonableness person on board, or stop and examine any
The test of reasonableness is the concept of vehicle/beast/person suspected of
suspiciousness present in the situation the officer holding/conveying any dutiable/prohibited
finds himself. This is subject to the experiences of the article introduced into the Philippines contrary to
officer for them to determine whether the situation law [Sec. 221, CMTA]
does feel suspicious based on the facts presented to
them. In jurisprudence, seeing a person with red eyes General rule: The CMTA does not require a warrant for
or is walking in swaying manner would amount to a such searches
suspicious situation [People v. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334
(2015)] Exception: In the search of a dwelling house, a search
warrant is required [Sec. 220, CMTA]
Note: RTCs are devoid of any competence to pass REMEDIES
upon the validity or regularity of seizure and forfeiture a. Employ any means to prevent the search
proceedings conducted by the Bureau of Customs Without a search warrant, the officer cannot
and to enjoin or otherwise interfere with these insist on entering a citizen’s premises. If he does
proceedings. It is the Collector of Customs, sitting in so, he becomes an ordinary intruder.
seizure and forfeiture proceedings, who has exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions The person to be searched may resist the search
touching on the seizure and forfeiture of dutiable and employ any means necessary to prevent it,
goods [Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Bautista-Ricafort, G.R. without incurring any criminal liability [People v.
No. 166901 (2006)] Chan Fook, G.R. No. L-16968 (1921)]

h. Other exceptions b. File criminal action against officer

A public officer/employee who procures a search
Exigent and emergency circumstances warrant without just cause is criminally liable
In one case, there was a prevailing general chaos and under Art. 129, RPC, on search warrants
disorder because of an ongoing coup, and the raid of maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of
the office/building was precipitated by an intelligence those legally obtained.
report that said office was being used as HQ by the
RAM. Also, the surveillance team before the raid was c. File a motion to quash the illegal warrant
fired upon by the people inside. The raiding team had This remedy is employed if search is not yet
no opportunity to apply for warrant as the court then conducted.
was closed [People v. de Gracia, G.R. Nos.. 102009-10
(1994)] Who may file
1. Person who will potentially be injured;
Buy-bust operation 2. Person to be searched;
This is a form of entrapment legally employed by 3. Owner of the property to be searched.
peace officers as an effective way of apprehending
drug dealers in committing an offense. There is no Where to file
need for a search warrant (or warrant of arrest) 1. Motions to quash a search warrant and/or to
because the accused is caught in flagrante delicto. suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed
in and acted upon only by the court where the
Private searches action has been instituted.
In one case, the evidence was obtained by a private 2. If no criminal action has been instituted,
person acting in a private capacity, while performing motion may be filed in and resolved by the court
company standard operating procedures and without that issued the warrant.
state participation and intervention. It was held that 3. If such court failed to resolve the motion, and a
the constitutional rights cannot be invoked when criminal case is subsequently filed in another
there is no government interference [People v. Marti, court, the motion shall be resolved by the latter
G.R. No. 81561 (1991)] court.
[Sec. 14, Rule 126]
9. Remedies From Unlawful Grounds
Search And Seizure A MTQ a search warrant may be based on grounds
extrinsic of the search warrant, such as (1) the place
Who may avail searched or the property seized are not those specified
Only the party whose rights have been impaired or described in the search warrant; and (2) there is no
thereby; the objection to an unlawful search and probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant
seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by [Abuan v. People, G.R. No. 168773 (2006)]
third parties [Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550
(1967); Santos v. Pryce Gases Inc., G.R. No. 165122 In Abuan v. People [G.R. No. 168773 (2006)], the SC
(2007)] ruled that the accused did not waive her right to file a
MTQ the search warrant in question and for the
suppression of the evidence seized by the police
officers. She reserved her right to question the against the accused was still pending, the goods
warrant when she filed her motion for bail and should be returned to the buyer. The buyer is entitled
rejected the prosecution’s proposal during pre-trial to to possession of goods until restitution is ordered by
admit the validity of the warrant. She adduced her the court in the criminal case [Yu v. Honrado, G.R. No.
evidence supporting her motion during the trial and 50025 (1980)]
objected to the admission of the warrant and the
evidence confiscated. e. Motion to suppress evidence
This refers to a motion to suppress as evidence the
Failure to file motion to quash objects illegally taken pursuant to the exclusionary
Where no MTQ the search warrant was filed in or rule, which states that any evidence obtained through
resolved by the issuing court, the interested party may unreasonable searches and seizures shall be
move in the court where the criminal case is pending inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding
for the suppression as evidence of the personal
property seized under the warrant if the same is CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY FROM
offered therein for said purpose. Since two separate UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
courts with different participations are involved in The following offenses may result from unreasonable
this situation, a MTQ a search warrant and a motion search and seizure
to suppress evidence are alternative and not a. Violation of domicile [Art. 128, RPC]
cumulative remedies. In order to prevent forum b. Search warrant maliciously obtained [Art. 129,
shopping, a motion to quash shall consequently be RPC]
governed by the omnibus motion rule, provided, c. Searching domicile without witnesses [Art. 130,
however, that objections not available, existent or RPC]
known during the proceedings for the quashal of the d. Unjust interlocutory order [Art. 206, RPC]
warrant may be raised in the hearing of the motion to
suppress. The resolution of the court on the motion The public officer or employee may be held liable for:
to suppress shall likewise be subject to any proper a. Entering without authority; against the will;
remedy in the appropriate higher court [Malaloan v. refuses to leave
CA, G.R. No. 104879 (1994)] b. A search warrant procured without just cause or
if with just cause, exceeds his authority or uses
d. File a motion to return things seized unnecessary severity of force
This is the remedy used if the search was already c. Conducting the search without the required
conducted and goods were seized as a consequence witnesses.
thereof.
The judge may be held liable for
Where the motion will be filed follows the same rules a. Knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory
as in a motion to quash. order [Art. 206, RPC]
b. Inexcusable negligence or ignorance [Art. 205,
An accused may file a motion to suppress evidence if RPC]
he is not among the persons who can file a motion to
quash. It may also result in civil liability for
a. Violation of rights and liberties [Art. 32(9), CC]
General rule: Goods seized by virtue of an illegal b. Malicious prosecution and acts referred to Art. 32
warrant must be returned. [Art. 2218, CC]
Exception: The illegality of the search warrant does not Malice or bad faith is not required.
call for the return of the things seized, the possession
of which is prohibited by law [Castro v. Pabalan, G.R. Not only official actions, but all persons who are
No. L-28642 (1976)] responsible for the violation are liable for damages
[MHP Garments v. CA, G.R. No. 86720 (1994)]
Where the accused obtained goods from another
through payment of bouncing checks and thereafter
sold said goods to a buyer in good faith, but said
goods were taken from the purchaser with the use of
a search warrant although the criminal case for estafa
Waiver of immunity against unreasonable search
O.Provisional Remedies
and seizure
The constitutional immunity against unreasonable 1. Nature
searches and seizure is a personal right that may be
waived expressly/impliedly only by the person whose Provisional remedies in civil actions, insofar as they
right is being invaded or one who is expressly are applicable, may be availed of in connection with
authorized to do so in his behalf [Pasion v. Locsin, G.R. the civil action deemed instituted with the criminal
No. L-45950 (1938)] action [Sec. 1, Rule 127]
Requisites If civil action has been waived, reserved, or instituted
a. It must appear that the right exists separately, provisional remedy applicable may not be
b. The person involved had knowledge (actual or availed of in criminal action. Instead, provisional
constructive) of the existence of such right remedy should be applied for in separate civil action
c. The person had an actual intention to relinquish instituted [Riano 571, 2011 Updated Ed.]
the right
[Pasion v. Locsin, G.R. No. L-45950 (1938)]
If the civil action is suspended on account of filing of
the criminal action, the court with which the civil case
is filed is not thereby deprived of its authority to issue
auxiliary writs that do not go into the merits of the
case [Ramcar, Inc v. de Leon, G.R. No. L-1329 (1947)]
Provisional remedies are not available when
a. Offended party has waived the civil claim
b. Offended party has reserved the civil claim
c. Offended party has already instituted a separate
civil action
d. Criminal action carries with it no civil liability.

2. Kinds of Provisional
Remedies
In general
Reference to provisional remedies in Sec. 1, Rule 127
is made in general terms, hence preliminary
injunction, preliminary attachment, receivership,
replevin or support pendente lite may be availed of
[Riano 572, 2011 Updated Ed.]
However, only preliminary attachment is provided for
under the same rule.

The accused may present evidence to prove his

defense and damages, if any, arising from the issuance
of a provisional remedy in the case [Sec. 11(b), Rule
119]

a. Preliminary attachment
When proper
When the civil action is properly instituted in the
criminal action, the offended party may have the
property of the accused attached as security for the
satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered 1. To afford adequate protection to the
from the accused in the following cases: constitutional rights of the accused
1. When the accused is about to abscond from the 2. When necessary for the orderly administration of
Philippines justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of
2. When the criminal action is based on a claim for actions;
money or property embezzled or fraudulently 3. When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub
misapplied or converted to the use of the accused judice
who is a public/corporate officer, attorney, 4. When the acts of the officer are without or in
factor, broker, agent or clerk, in the course of his excess of authority
employment as such, or by any other person in a 5. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law,
fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation of ordinance or regulation
duty 6. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent
3. When the accused has concealed, removed or 7. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the
disposed of his property, or is about to do so offense
4. When the accused resides outside the Philippines 8. Where it is a case of persecution rather than
[Sec. 2, Rule 127] prosecution
9. Where the charges are manifestly false and
Issuance and implementation motivated by the lust for vengeance
The writ may be issued ex parte before acquisition of 10. When there is clearly no prima facie case against
jurisdiction over the accused [Cuarter v. CA, G.R No. the accused and a motion to quash on that
102448 (1992)) ground has been denied, and
11. Preliminary injunction has been issued by the
However, it may be enforced only after acquisition of Supreme Court to prevent the threatened
jurisdiction over the person of the accused [Gonzalez unlawful arrest of petitioners
v. State Properties, G.R. No. 140765 (2001)] [Brocka v. Enrile, G.R. No. 69863 (1990)]

A public prosecutor has the authority to apply for

preliminary attachment to protect the interest of the
P. Revised Guidelines for
offended party, particularly considering that the Continuous Trial of
corresponding civil liability of the culprits is to be
determined therein, no reservation having been made Criminal Cases
of the right to enforce it in a separate civil action
[Santos v. Judge Flores, G.R. No. L-18251 & L-18252 A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC
(1962)]
Objectives
No notice to the adverse party, or hearing on the 1. To protect and advance the constitutional right
application is required before a writ of preliminary of persons to a speedy disposition of their
attachment may issue as a hearing would defeat the criminal cases;
purpose of the provisional remedy. The time which 2. To reinforce and give teeth to the existing rules
such hearing would take could be enough to enable on criminal procedure and other special rules
the defendant to abscond or dispose of his property prescribing periods for court action and those
before a writ of attachment may issue [Mindanao which promote speedy disposition of criminal
Savings and Loan Assoc. v. CA, G.R. No. 84481 (1989)] cases; and
3. To introduce innovations and best practices for
the benefit of the parties.
b. Injunction
Applicability
General rule: Criminal prosecution may not be stayed ▪ All newly-filed criminal cases (filed after
or restrained by injunction, preliminary or final. effectivity date), including those governed by
Special Laws and Rules1, in the :
Exceptions:

and Criminal Cases cognizable by Family Courts and

1Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Cybercrime Commercial Courts.
Prevention Act of 2012, Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases, Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases,
 o the 1st and 2nd Level Courts provided for under two (2) calendar days
o Sandiganbayan Rule 137) from date of their filing
o Court of Tax Appeals
▪ Pending criminal cases with respect to the
remainder of the proceedings Prohibited, except if it is
based on:

The Revised Guidelines SHALL NOT APPLY MOTION FOR 1) acts of God
to criminal cases filed under the Rule on POSTPONEMENT 2) force majeure
Summary Procedure, UNLESS otherwise
specifically provided 3) physical inability of
the witness to
Effectivity date: 1 September 2017 appear and testify

Effect of non-compliance: Non-compliance with If the Motion is granted

the Revised Guidelines, including failure to observe based on such
the timelines and deadlines herein provided, is a
ground for DISCIPLINARY ACTION. exceptions, the moving
party shall be warned
PROCEDURE: that the presentation of
its evidence must still be
HEARING DAYS AND CALENDAR DAYS finished on the dates
previously agreed upon.
WHEN PURSUANT
TO PROHIBITED shall be DENIED
MOTION outright before the
Trial shall be held scheduled arraignment
from Monday
to Thursday without need of
Administrative
Circular No. 3- comment and/ or
cases shall be 99 opposition
called at MERITORIOUS MOTION
exactly 8:30
A.M. and 2:00 Comment of the adverse party
P.M o shall be filed within a non-extendible period of
ten (10) calendar days from notice/receipt of
the order of the court to file the same
Hearing on o The court shall resolve the motion within a
motions,
arraignment non-extendible period of ten (10) calendar
shall be held Sec. 7, Rule 15, days from the expiration of the ten (10)-day
and pretrial, in the Rules of Court
and morning of period, with or without comment.
promulgation Fridays o The court, at its discretion, may set the motion
of decisions for hearing within a non-extendible period of
ten (10) calendar days from the expiration of
the ten (10)-day period to file comment, in
NOTE: All courts shall ensure the posting of their which case the same shall be submitted for
court calendars outside their courtrooms at least (1)
day before the scheduled hearings [OCA Circular No. resolution after the termination of the hearing,
250-2015] and shall be resolved within a non-extendible
period of ten (10) calendar days thereafter.
MOTIONS o Reply and memorandum need not be
submitted.
MOTION RESOLUTION/
COURT ACTION Motion to discharge accused as state witness,
where the prosecution is required to present
MOTION FOR evidence in support thereof [Sec. 17, Rule 119]
INHIBITION Shall be resolved
(based on grounds immediately or within o shall be submitted for resolution from the
termination of the hearing, and
o shall be resolved within a non-extendible
period of ten (10) calendar days thereafter
The motion for reconsideration of the
resolution of a meritorious motion
 o shall be filed within a non-extendible period of Meritorious Motions: These are Motions that allege
five (5) calendar days from receipt of such plausible grounds supported by relevant documents
resolution, and and/ or competent evidence, except those that are
o the adverse party shall be given an equal period already covered by the Revised Guidelines, such as:
of five (5) calendar days from receipt of the
motion for reconsideration within which to 1. Motion filed by the prosecution as a result of a
submit its comment. reinvestigation, reconsideration, and review; to
o Thereafter, the motion for reconsideration a. to withdraw information, or
shall be resolved by the court within a non- b. to downgrade the charge in the original
extendible period of five (5) calendar days information, or
fro1n the expiration of the five (5)-day period c. to exclude an accused originally charged
to submit the comment. therein
NOTE: Motions that do not conform to the 2. Motion to quash warrant of arrest;
requirements stated shall be considered 3. Motion to suspend arraignment on the ground of
unmeritorious and shall be denied outright. an unsound inental condition under Sec. ll(a),
Rule 116;
Prohibited Motions 4. Motion to suspend proceedings on the ground of
a. Motion for judicial determination of probable a prejudicial question where a civil case was filed
cause. prior to the criminal case under Sec. ll(b), Rule
b. Motion 116
1. For preliminary investigation filed beyond 5. Motion to quash information on the grounds
the five (5)-day reglementary period in [under Sec. 3, par. (a), (b), (g), and (i), Rule 117]
inquest proceedings [Sec. 6, Rule 112], or a. that the facts charged do not constitute an
2. When preliminary investigation is required offense
[Sec. 8, Rule 112], or allowed in inquest b. lack of jurisdiction
proceedings and the accused failed to c. extinction of criminal action or liability, or
participate despite due notice. d. double jeopardy
c. Motion for reinvestigation of the prosecutor 6. Motion to discharge accused as a state witness
recommending the filing of information once the under Sec. 17, Rule 119;
information has been filed before the court 7. Motion to quash search warrant under Sec. 14,
1. if the motion is filed without prior leave of Rule 126
court; 8. motion to suppress evidence; and
2. when preliminary investigation is not 9. Motion to dismiss on the ground that the
required under Sec. 8, Rule 112; and criminal case is a SLAPP under Rule 6 of the
3. When the regular preliminary investigation Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.
is required and has been actually conducted,
and the grounds relied upon in the motion CONSOLIDATIONS
are not meritorious, such as:
• issues of credibility,
• admissibility of evidence When newly-filed criminal cases
• innocence of the accused involving offenses based on the same
• lack of due process when the accused NEWLY- facts or forming part of a series of
was actually notified FILED offenses of similar character, are
d. Motion to quash information when the ground is CASES accompanied by a motion for
not one of those stated in Sec. 3, Rule 117.
e. Motion for bill of particulars that does not consolidation filed by the Office of the
conform to Sec. 9, Rule 116. Prosecutor
f. Motion to suspend the arraignment based on o The Executive Judge shall cause the raffle to
grounds not stated under Sec. 11, Rule 116. only one court which shall then resolve said
g. Petition to suspend the criminal action on the
ground of prejudicial question, when no civil case motion for consolidation, preferably on the
has been filed, pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 111. date of the arraignment and in the presence
of the accused and counsel.
In cases involving multiple accused
PENDING where a subsequent information is
CAXES filed involving an accused who has
WITH been subjected to further investigation
 MULTIPLE by the Office of the Prosecutor over Waiver of Reading of the Information. In multiple
ACCUSED an incident which has the same cases, the court may allow a waiver of the reading of
the information upon:
subject matter as a prior
information/ s against different ▪ The full understanding and express consent of
the accused and his/her counsel
accused o consent shall be expressly stated in both
o The said subsequent case when filed ➢ the minutes/ certificate of
accompanied by a motion for consolidation arraign1nent
from the Office of the Prosecutor shall no ➢ the order of arraignment
longer be raffled
▪ The court’s personal examination of the accused
o The subsequent case shall be assigned
directly by the Executive Judge to the ▪ Explanation of the waiver to the accused in the
language or dialect known to him/her
court where the earlier case is pending
o If the earlier case is already at the trial ▪ ensure the accused's full understanding of the
consequences of the waiver
stage and witnesses have been presented,
the parties may be allowed to adopt the Arraignment Proper
evidence so far presented, without
prejudice to additional direct 1. Plea bargaining
examination questions and cross- shall
examination questions. immediately
proceed,
ARCHIVING OF CASES Plea If the provided:
Bargaining accused a) the private
REVIVAL OF PROVISIONALLY DISMISSED
CASES Except in desires to offended
Drug Cases enter a plea party in
ARRAIGMENT AND PRE-TRIAL of guilty to private
a lesser crimes, or
Once the court has acquired jurisdiction over the person of the offense b) the
Accused arresting
officer in
Schedule: The arraignment of the accused and the
pretrial shall be set within the ff period, UNLESS a victimless
shorter period is provided by crimes
special law or Supreme Court circular. Is present to give
▪ within ten (10) calendar days from date of the his/her consent
court's receipt of the case for a detained accused with the conformity
▪ within thirty (30) calendar days from the date the
court acquires jurisdiction (either by arrest or of the public
voluntary surrender) over a non-detained accused prosecutor to the
plea bargaining
The court must set the arraignment of the accused in
the commitment order, in the case of detained 2. Thereafter,
accused, or in the order of approval of bail, in any
other case. judgment shall
be immediately
Notice: shall be sent to the accused, his/her counsel, rendered in the
private complainant or complaining law enforcement same
agent, public prosecutor, and witnesses whose names proceedings
appear in the information, for purposes of plea-
bargaining, arraignment and pre-trial. Plea of If the
Guilty to the accused Judgment shall be
Crin1e pleads immediately
Charged in guilty rendered
the to the crime
Information charged in EXCEPT in those
the cases involving
information capital punishment
 Where No If the The court shall If the accused the
Plea accused does immediately proceed does not enter a court shall immediately proceed
plea with the
Bargaining not with the of guilty, whether arraignment and the preliminary
or Plea of enter a plea arraignment and the to a lesser offense conference, and thereafter refer
Guilty of guilty, pretrial, in or to the case to
Takes Place whether to a accordance with ff: the offense mediation. (See Annex 7)
charged in the
lesser information
offense or to 1.
The schedule of
the offense
the trial dates,
charged in
for both the (see sample flowchart)
the prosecution and
information
the accused, Conduct of Pre-Trial
shall be ▪ Absence: The court shall proceed with the pre-
trial despite the absence of the accused and/ or
continuous and private complainant, provided:
within the o They were duly notified of the same, and
periods o The counsel for the accused, as well as the
provided in the public prosecutor, are present.
Regular Rules/ ▪ Stipulation: Proposals for stipulations shall be
done with the active participation of the court
Special Rules. itself and shall not be left alone to the counsels.
2. The trial dates ▪ Marking of Evidence: The documentary
may be evidence of the prosecution and the accused shall
shortened be marked.
▪ Pre-Trial Order: It shall i1nmediately be served
depending on upon the parties and counsel on the same day
the number of after the termination of the pre-trial.
witnesses to be
presented. A NOTE: Courts must strictly comply with the
flowchart shall Guidelines to be Observed in the Conduct of Pre-
Trial under A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC.
be prepared by
the court which MEDIATION
shall serve as
the final 1. The court shall serve the Order of Referral to the
Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) Unit
Arraignment and Preliminary schedule of
Conference of immediately after the arraignment and the pre-
Mediatable Cases subject tohearings.
the Rule on trial/ preliminary conference.
Summary Procedure o The referral of the case for mediation to the
(PMC) Unit shall be made only after the
The arraignment and preliminary conference shall be conduct of the arraignment and the pre-
simultaneously held, and the court shall take up all the matters trial/ preliminary conference.
required under Sec. 14, Rule on Summary Procedure during 2. The mediation shall be terminated within a non-
the preliminary conference. extendible period of thirty (30) calendar days
from the date of referral by the court to the PMC
Unit.
If the accused subheading 3. Trial shall proceed
pleads guilty to III, item no. 8, subparagraph ( a. After the lapse of the mediation period or
b. If mediation fails
the crime charged d) ii (Plea of Guilty to the
in the Crime Charge 1n the
information Information) shall be followed.

If the accused subheading III, item no. 8,

pleads guilty to a subparagraph ( d) 1 (Plea
lesser Bargaining
offense, except in Drug Cases) shall be
followed.
The fallowing cases shall be referred to mediation on the civil 6. Intellectual property rights cases where the
liability UNLESS a settlement is reached earlier in the pre- liability may be civil in nature.
trial/ preliminary conference:
Criminal cases subject to the Rule on Summary
1. Crimes where payment may prevent criminal Procedure SHALL NOT be referred to mediation,
prosecution or may extinguish criminal liability, EXCEPT those cases mentioned above
such as violations of:
o B.P. Blg. 22; BAIL
o SSS Law (R.A. No. 1161, as a1nended by
R.A No. 8282); and FORM OF TESTIMONY
o PAG-IBIG Law (R.A. No. 9679).
2. Crimes against property under Title 10 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), where the obligation I. FOR FIRST LEVEL COURTS
may be civil in nature, such as: CASE FORM OF TESTIMONY
o Theft (Art. 308), cognizable by the first level The testimonies of witnesses shall
courts; consist of:
o Estafa [Art. 315(1 )] , except estafa under 1. The duly subscribed written
statements given to law
Art. 315 (2) and (3); In all enforcement or peace
o Other forms of swindling [Art. 316] criminal officers or
o Swindling of a minor under [Art. 317] cases, 2. The affidavits or counter-
o Other deceits under [Art. 318] including affidavits submitted before
o Malicious mischief under [Art. 327] those the investigating prosecutor,
3. Crimes against honor under Title 13, RPC, where covered by and
the liability may be civil in nature, such as: the Rule on
o Libel by means of writings or similar means Summary If such are not available:
under [Art. 355] Procedure: 1. It shall be in the form of
o Threatening to publish and offer to present judicial affidavits, subject to
such publication for a compensation [Art. additional direct and cross-
356] examination questions.
o Prohibited publication of acts referred to in
the course of official proceedings under Art. Note: The trial prosecutor may dispense with
357, RPC; the sworn written statements submitted to the
o Grave Slander (Grave Oral Defamation) of law enforcement or peace officers and prepare
serious and insulting nature under Art. 358, the judicial affidavits of the affiants or modify
par. 1, RPC; or revise the said sworn statements before
o Simple Slander (Oral Defamation) - not of a presenting it as evidence.
serious and insulting nature under Art. 358, II. FOR SECOND LEVEL COURTS, THE
par. 2, RPC; SANDIGANBAYAN, AND THE COURT
o Grave Slander by Deed - of a serious nature OF TAX APPEALS
under Art. 359, par. 1, RPC; CASE FORM OF TESTIMONY
o Simple Slander by Deed - not of a serious In criminal The testimonies of the witnesses shall
nature under Art. 359, par. 2, RPC; cases where be:
o Incriminating innocent person under Art. the
363, RPC; demeanor of 1. The duly subscribed written
o Intriguing against honor under Art. 364, the witness statements given to law
RPC; is not enforcement or peace
4. Libel under R.A. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention essential in officers or
Act of 2012) where the liability may be civil in determining 2. The affidavits or counter-
nature; the affidavits submitted before
5. Criminal negligence under Title 14, RPC, where credibility of the investigating prosecutor
the liability inay be civil in nature; and said witness2

2
forensic chemists, medico-legal officers, investigators, auditors, similar witnesses, who will testify on the authenticity, due
accountants, engineers, custodians, expert witnesses and other execution and the contents of public documents and reports
 If such are not available: d. witnesses who will testify on the civil liability
in criminal 1. It shall be in the form of ▪ This rule is without prejudice to allowing
additional direct and cross-examination
cases that judicial affidavits, subject to questions.
are additional direct and cross- ▪ If stipulations cannot be had in full, where the
transactional examination questions. adverse party does not waive the right to cross-
in character3 examination, the subject of the direct testimony
of these witnesses should be stipulated upon,
without prejudice to additional direct and cross-
Other examination questions.
crimes
where the TRIAL
culpability
or innocence The court shall encourage the accused and the
prosecution to avail of:
of the For the accused For the prosecution
accused can Secs. 12 and 13, Rule Sec. 15, Rule 119 on
be 119 on the application the conditional
established for examination of examination of witness
through witness for accused for the prosecution
documents before trial and how it
is made
In all other
cases where Absence of counsel de parte. - In the absence of the
the The testimonies of these counsel de parte, the hearing shall proceed upon
culpability witnesses shall be in oral form. appointment by the court of a counsel de officio.
or the
innocence of Offer of evidence.
the accused The offer of evidence, the comment/ objection
thereto, and the court ruling thereto shall be made
is based on ORALLY.
the
testimonies 1. A party is required to make his/ her oral offer of
of the evidence on the same day after the presentation
STIPULATIONS
alleged of his/her last witness.
o In making the offer, the counsel shall cite the
eyewitnesses specific page numbers of the court record
▪ During pre-trial/ preli1ninary conference, the where the exhibits being offered are found,
court shall require the parties to enter into if attached thereto.
stipulations on the subject of both direct and o The court shall ensure that all exhibits
cross-examinations of witnesses: offered are submitted to it on the same day
a. who have no personal knowledge of the of the offer.
material facts constituting the crimes, such o If the exhibits are not attached to the record,
as: the party making the offer must submit the
• forensic chemists, medico-legal same during the offer of evidence in open
officers, investigators, auditors, court.
accountants, engineers, custodians, 2. The opposing party is required to immediately
expert witnesses and other similar interpose his/her oral comment/ objection
witnesses thereto.
b. who will testify on the authenticity, due 3. Thereafter, the court shall make a ruling on the
execution and the contents of public offer of evidence in open court.
documents and reports
c. corroborative witnesses; and
3
falsification, malversation, Estafa
 After the prosecution has rested its case, the court necessary, it shall consider the case
shall inquire from the accused if he/ she desires: submitted for decision.
1. To move for leave of court to file a demurrer to
evidence, or Presentation of Rebuttal and Sur-rebuttal
2. To proceed with the presentation of his/her Evidence
evidence.
▪ If the court grants the motion to present rebuttal
Demurrer to Evidence (DTE) evidence, the PROSECUTION shall:
o immediately proceed with its presentation
If the accused orally moves for leave of court to after the accused had rested his/her case,
file a demurrer to evidence, the court shall and
ORALLY resolve the same. o orally rest its case in rebuttal after the
presentation of its last rebuttal witness
▪ If the motion for leave is denied, the court shall ▪ The ACCUSED shall:
issue an order for the ACCUSED: o immediately present sur-rebuttal evidence,
o To present and terminate his/her evidence if there is any, and
on the dates previously scheduled and agreed o orally rest the case in sur-rebuttal after the
upon, and presentation of its last sur-rebuttal witness
o To orally offer and rest his/her case on the ▪ Thereafter, the court shall submit the case for
day his/her last witness is presented decision.
▪ If despite the denial of the motion for leave, the
accused insists on filing the DTE, the previously One-day examination of witness rule: The court
scheduled dates for the accused to present shall strictly adhere to the rule that a witness has to be
evidence shall be cancelled. fully examined in one (1) day.
▪ Period of Filing:
o The DTE shall be filed within a non- PROMULGATION
extendible period of ten (10) calendar days
from the date leave of court is granted, and
o The corresponding comment shall be filed Schedule of promulgation: The date of the
within a non-extendible period of ten (10) promulgation of its decision
calendar days counted from date of receipt ▪ Shall not be more than ninety (90) calendar days
of the DTE. fro1n the date the case is submitted for decision
▪ Resolution: The demurrer shall be resolved by o For those covered by Regular Rules,
the court within a non-extendible period of thirty including Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax
(30) calendar days from date of the filing of the Appeals
comment or lapse of the ten (10)-day period to ▪ Except when the case is covered by Special Rules
file the same. and other laws which provide for a shorter period
▪ If the motion for leave of court to file DTE is
granted, and the subsequent DTE is denied Drug Cases (15) days from the date of
o The ACCUSED shall: submission for resolution of
the case
• present and terminate his/her Environmental (60) days from the last day of
evidence (one day apart, morning and Cases the 30-day period to file the
afternoon) and memoranda
• orally offer and rest his/her case on Intellectual (60) days from the time the
the day his/her last witness is Property case is submitted for decision,
presented Rights Cases with or without the
o The COURT shall rule on: memoranda
▪ the oral offer of evidence of the Note: The court shall announce in open court and include in the
accused and order submitting the case for decision, the date of the
▪ the comment or objection of the promulgation of its decision.
prosecution on the same day of the
offer Resolution of motion for reconsideration of
o If the court denies the motion to present judgment of conviction or motion for new trial.
rebuttal evidence because it is no longer
▪ A motion for reconsideration of judgment of
conviction or motion for new trial under Rule
121 filed within the reglementary period of Q.Rule on Cybercrime
▪
fifteen (15) days from promulgation
Shall be resolved within:
Warrants
o A non-extendible period of ten (10) A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC
calendar days fro1n the submission of the
comment of the prosecution. SECTION 1.
o With or without comment, the court shall Scope: The rule provides for the procedure in the
resolve the motion within the ten (10)-day application and grants of warrants and related orders
period. involving preservation, disclosure, interception,
search, seizure, and/or examination of computer
MEMORANDA data.
SECTION 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS
▪ The submission of memoranda is VENUE FOR FILING A CRIMINAL ACTION
discretionary on the part of the court
o Format: shall exceed (25) pages in length, A. Violation of Section 4 (Cybercrime offenses)
single-spaced, on legal size paper, using size and/or Section 5 (Other offenses) of RA 10175
14 font. (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 hereinafter “RA
▪ Submission period: non-extendible and shall 10175”) shall be filed before the designated
not suspend the running of the period of cybercrime court of the province or city:
promulgation of the decision. 1. Where the offense or any of its elements is
o With or without memoranda, the committed, or
promulgation shall push through as 2. Where any part of the computer system used is
scheduled. situated, or
3. Where any of the damage caused to a natural or
LACK OF STENOGRAPHIC NOTES juridical person took place
Note: The court where the criminal action was first
▪ Incomplete TSN is not a ground to defer filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of
other courts.
submission of the case for decision:
o Judges who conducted the trial and heard the
testimonies of some or all of the witnesses B. All other crimes committed using Information and
shall not defer the submission of the case for Communication Technology (ICT) shall be filed
decision on the ground of incomplete or before the regular or specialized courts as the case
missing transcript of stenographic notes maybe.
▪ If the case was heard completely by another
judge, not the judge tasked to write the VENUE FOR FILING AN APPLICATION
decision: FOR CYBERCRIME WARRANT
o The latter shall direct the stenographers
concerned to submit the complete A. Violation of Section 4 and Section 5 of RA
transcripts within a period of (30) calendar 10175
days from date of his/her assumption to GR: Application shall be filed before the designated
office. cybercrime courts of the province or the city where:
1. Where the offense or any of its elements is
INVENTORY OF CRIMINAL CASES committed, or
The one (1) week of each semester devoted for the 2. Where any part of the computer system used is
conduct of annual and semi-annual physical inventory situated, or
of cases and preparation of the semestral docket 3. Where any of the damage caused to a natural or
inventory report pursuant to Administrative Circular juridical person took place
No. 76-2007 SHALL NOT SUSPEND court
hearings. NOTE: Cybercrime courts in Quezon City, City of
Manila, Makati City, Pasig City, Cebu City, Iloilo City,
Davao City, and Cagayan De Oro City have the
special authority to act on applications and issue
warrants which shall be enforceable nationwide deemed a notification to preserve data until the final
and outside the Philippines. termination of the case.

B. Application for a warrant for violation of all crimes CYBERCRIME WARRANTS UNDER THIS
defined, and penalized by RPC and other special laws RULE
if committed using ICT shall be filed with the regular 1. Warrant to Disclose Computer Data (WDCD)
courts or other specialized RTC in the places: [Sec. 4]
1. Where the offense or any of its elements is 2. Warrant to Intercept Data (WICD) [Sec. 5]
committed, or 3. Warrant to Search, Seize and Examine Computer
2. Where any part of the computer system used is Data (WSSECD) [Sec. 6]
situated, or 4. Warrant to Examine Computer Data (WECD)
3. Where any of the damage caused to a natural or [Sec 6.9]
juridical person took place
SECTION 4. DISCLOSURE OF COMPUTER
JUDGE EXAMINES APPLICANT AND DATA
RECORD BEFORE ISSUING A WARRANT WARRANT TO DISCLOSE COMPUTER
The judge must examine the applicant and his/her DATA (WDCD)
witnesses in the form of searching questions and It is an order in writing issued in the name of the
answers, in writing and under oath. People of the Philippines, signed by the judge, upon
application of law enforcement authorities,
EFFECTIVITY OF WARRANTS authorizing the latter to issue an order to disclose and
GR: Not exceeding 10 days from its issuance accordingly, require any person or service provider to
X: the issuing court may, upon motion, extend its disclose or submit subscriber’s information, traffic
effectivity based only on justifiable reasons for a data, or relevant data in his/her or its possession or
period not exceeding 10 from the expiration of the original control.
period.
Disclosure of Computer Data
CONTEMPT 1. The person or service provider must disclose or
The responsible law enforcement authorities shall be submit the subscriber’s information, traffic data
subject to action for contempt in case: or relevant data in his/her or its possession or
1. Failure to timely file the return for any of the control within 72 hours from receipt of an Order;
issued warrants under this Rule 2. The Order must be in relation to a complaint
2. Failure to duly turn-over to the court’s custody officially docketed and assigned for investigation;
any of the items disclosed intercepted, searched, and
seized, and/or examined 3. The disclosure must be necessary and relevant for
the purpose of investigation.
SECTION 3. PRESERVATION OF
COMPUTER DATA Contents of Application for WDCD
GR: Data should be kept, retained, and preserved by 1. The probable offense involved
a service provider for a minimum period of 6 2. Relevance and necessity of the computer data or
months from: subscriber’s information sought to be disclosed
1. The date of transaction in the case of traffic data for the purpose of investigation
and subscriber’s information; 3. Names of the individuals or entities whose
2. The date of receipt of order from law computer data or subscriber’s information are
enforcement requiring its preservation in the case sought to be disclosed, including the names of
of content data the individuals of the individuals or entities who
X: One-time extension for another 6 months may be have control, possession, or access thereto, if
ordered available;
X2: The data is preserved until the final termination 4. Particular description of the computer data or
of a case once the data that is preserved, transmitted subscriber’s information sought to be disclosed
or stored by the service provider is used as evidence 5. Place where the disclosure of computer data or
in a case. subscriber’s information is to be enforced, if
The receipt by the service provider of transmittal of available;
document to the Office of the Prosecutor shall be
6. Manner or method by which the disclosure of the
computer data or subscriber’s information is to Warrant Required
be carried out, if available; and Interception may be carried out only by virtue of a
7. Other relevant information that will persuade the court issued warrant, duly applied for by law
court that there is a probable cause to issue a enforcement authorities.
WDCD.
WARRANT TO INTERCEPT COMPUTER
Return on the WDCD DATA (WICD)
Duty of Law Enforcement Officer: It is an order in writing issued in the name of the
Within 48 hours from implementation or after the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge, upon
expiration of the effectivity of the WDCD, whichever application of law enforcement authorities,
comes first, the law enforcement officer shall: authorizing the latter to carry out any or all of the
1. Submit a return on the WDCD to the court that activities of interception (see above).
issued it; and
2. Simultaneously turn over the custody of the Contents of Application for WICD
disclosed computer data or subscriber’s The application shall state the essential facts similar to
information thereto WDCD
1. The probable offense involved
The officer is allowed to retain a copy of the copy of 2. Relevance and necessity of the computer data or
the disclosed data or subscriber’s information subject subscriber’s information sought to be
of the WDCD without the need of court intervention, intercepted for the purpose of investigation
provided: 3. Names of the individuals or entities whose
1. It will be utilized for case build-up or preliminary computer data or subscriber’s information are
investigation purposes intercepted, including the names of the
2. The details are kept strictly confidential, and the individuals of the individuals or entities who have
retained copy shall be labelled as such control, possession, or access thereto, if available;
3. The retained copy shall be turned over upon 4. Particular description of the computer data or
filing of a criminal action involving the disclosed subscriber’s information sought to be
computer data or subscriber’s information, or intercepted;
upon order of the issuing court if no criminal 5. Place where the disclosure of computer data or
action is filed. subscriber’s information is to be enforced, if
available;
Duty of the Issuing Judge: 6. Manner or method by which the disclosure of the
It is the duty of the issuing judge to: computer data or subscriber’s information is to
1. Ascertain if the return has been made, and be carried out, if available; and
2. If no return was made, summon the officer to
whom the WDCD was issued, and require Return on the WICD
him/her to explain why no return was made, Duty of Law Enforcement Officer:
without prejudice to any action of contempt Within 48 hours from implementation or after the
expiration of the effectivity of the WICD, whichever
SECTION 5. INTERCEPTION OF comes first, the law enforcement officer shall:
COMPUTER DATA 1. Submit a return on the WDCD to the court that
Interception refers to: issued it; and
1. listening to, 2. Simultaneously turn over the custody of the
2. recording, disclosed computer data or subscriber’s
3. monitoring, or information thereto
4. surveillance of the content of communications,
including procuring of the content data: Duty of the Issuing Judge:
a. directly, through access and use of a It is the duty of the issuing judge to:
computer system, or 1. Ascertain if the return has been made, and
b. indirectly through the use of electronic 2. If no return was made, summon the officer to
eavesdropping or tapping devices, at the whom the WDCD was issued, and require
same time that the communication if him/her to explain why no return was made,
occurring. without prejudice to any action of contempt
 Remedy of Person whose devices have been
Notice to Person Intercepted after Filing of searched and seized off-site
Return Required The concerned individual may, upon motion, seek the
return of the said items from the court issuing the
Duty of Law Enforcement WSSCED provided that a forensic image of the data
The law enforcement officer has the duty to notify the subject of the WSSECD has already been made.
person whose communication or computer data have
been intercepted of the activities conducted pursuant What Activities are Allowed During the
to the WICD: Implementation of the WSSECD
1. Within 30 days from the filing of the return, 1. Interception of communications and
attaching a copy of the return to the notice; or computer data may be conducted during the
2. From the lapse of 48-hour period to file the implementation of the WSSECD which shall:
return, if no return was filed. The notice shall a. limited to communications and computer
state the details of the interception activities, that are reasonably related to the subject
including the contents of the intercepted matter of WSSECD; and
communication or computer data. b. the activities are fully disclosed which shall
be duly explained in the initial return.
Remedy of the Person Involved 2. Law enforcement may order any person who has
Within 10 days from notice, the person whose knowledge of the functioning of the computer
communication or computer data have been data therein, to provide necessary information to
intercepted may challenge, by motion, the legality of enable the undertaking of the search, seizure and
the interception before the issuing court. examination

SECTION 6. SEARCH, SEIZURE, AND Initial Return of WSSECD

EXAMINATION OF COMPUTER DATA The authorized law enforcement shall submit within
WARRANT TO SEARCH, SEIZE AND 10 days from issuance of WSSECD an initial return
EXAMINE COMPUTER DATA (WSSECD) which contains:
It is an order in writing issued in the name of the 1. A list of all items that were seized, with a detailed
People of the Philippines, signed by a judge, upon identification of the devices of the computer
application of law enforcement authorities, system seized;
authorizing the latter to search the particular place for 2. Statement on whether a forensic image of the
items to be seized and/or examined. computer data was made on-site, and if not, the
reason for making forensic image off-site;
3. Statement on whether the search was conducted
Content of Application for a WSSECD on-site, and not, the reasons for conducting the
The content shall state the essential fact similar to search and seizure off-site;
WDCD except that the subject matter is the computer 4. Statement on whether interception was
data sought to be searched, seized and examined, and conducted during the implementation of the
all other items related thereto. WSSECD, together with (a) a detailed
identification of all the interception activities that
Further, it shall contain an explanation of the search were conducted; (b) the hash value/s of the
and seizure strategy to be implemented taking into communications or computer data intercepted;
account the nature of the computer data involved, the and (c) an explanation of the said item’
computer or computer system’s security features, reasonable relation to the computer data subject
and/or other relevant circumstances. of WSSECD;
5. List of all the actions taken to enforce the
Off-site and On-site Principle WSSECD, from the time the law enforcement
GR: Law enforcement shall endeavor to first make a officers reached the place to be seized until they
forensic image of the computer data on-site as well left the premises with the seized items and
as limit their search to the place specified in the reached the place where the items seized were
warrant. stored and secured for examination; and
X: Off-site search may be conducted provided that 6. A reasonable estimation of how long the
a forensic image is made, and that the reasons for the examination of the items seized will be concluded
off-site search are stated in the initial return and the justification therefor.
Period to Examine Seized Items After Initial SECTION 7. CUSTODY OF COMPUTER
Return DATA
The Court shall issue an order fixing the period to Upon filing of the return for WDCD or WICD, or
conclude the examination of all the items seized. The the final return for a WSSECD or WECD with the
period may be extended not exceeding 30 days, upon issuing court, the following are likewise submitted:
motion, for justifiable reasons. 1. All computer data shall be simultaneously
deposited in a sealed package with the issuing
Final Return on the WSSECD court;
Within 48-hours after the expiration of the period to 2. A complete and verified inventory of all the other
examine seized items after the initial return, the law items seized
enforcement officer shall: 3. Affidavit of the duly authorized law enforcement.
1. Submit a final return in the WSSECD to the
issuing court; and Duty of the Prosecutor When Criminal Action is
2. Simultaneously turn-over the custody of the Instituted
seized computer data, as well as all other items Within 10 days from the time of the criminal action
seized and/or the communications or computer is instituted, It is the duty of the prosecutor, or
data intercepted in relation thereto. his/her duly authorized representatives, once a
criminal action is instituted, to file a motion before
WARRANT TO EXAMINE COMPUTER the issuing court to:
DATA (WECD) 1. Move for the immediate transmittal of the
It refers to a warrant applied for by law enforcement records, and
authorities before searching a computer device or 2. Move for the transfer of the intercepted,
computer system (for the purpose of obtaining for disclosed, searched, seized and/or examined
forensic examination the computer data) which was computer data and items, including the complete
obtained via a lawful warrantless arrest or by any other and verified inventory thereof to the court
lawful method. Within 5 days, the court shall act upon the motion
It is available when: filed.
1. The law enforcement authority acquires
possession of a computer device or computer Access and Use of Computer Data
system; GR: The package containing the computer data
2. Through a lawful warrantless arrest, or other deposited in the issuing court shall not
lawful method; 1. be opened, or
3. The law enforcement authority shall first apply 2. the recordings replayed, or
for WECD before searching for forensic 3. its contents revealed, or,
examination the computer data contained 4. in any manner as used as evidence
therein.
Except: The court may grant so upon filing a motion
Content of WECD for the purpose stating:
It shall state the essential facts similar to WDCD 1. the relevance of the computer data sought to be
except that the subject matter us the computer sought opened, replayed, revealed, or used as evidence;
to be examined. and
2. the names of the persons who will be allowed to
The application shall disclose the circumstances have access thereto, if the motion is granted.
surrounding the lawful acquisition of the computer 3. Must include proof of service of copies sent to
device or computer system containing the said the person/s whose computer data is subject of
computer data. the motion.
Within 10 days from receipt of notice thereof, the
Initial and Final Return of WECD person must file comment thereto. After which, the
The initial and final return of WECD shall be similarly court shall rule on the motion, unless a clarificatory
governed by the procedures under WSSECD. hearing is needed.
SECTION 8. DESTRUCTION OF
COMPUTER DATA
Duty of Service Providers and Law Enforcement
Authorities to Destroy
The service providers and law enforcement
authorities, as the case maybe, shall immediately and
completely destroy the computer data subject of
preservation and examination upon expiration of
the periods provided in Sec. 13 and 15 of RA 10175.
1. Sec 13: Service providers preserve the data for a
minimum of 6 months, unless a one-time
extension of another 6 months is ordered by the
law enforcement authority, or in the event that
that the data was used as evidence in which case
the data is preserved until the final termination of
the case.
2. Sec 15: After lapse of the time period specified in
the warrant, unless the court granted extension of
time to complete examination for no longer than
30 days (from the time of the court’s approval).
How Destruction of Computer Data is Made
1. Made in the presence of the Branch Clerk-of-
Court, or in his/her absence, in the presence of
any other person duly designated by the court to
witness the same
2. The accused or the person from whom the items
were seized, or his/her representative or counsel,
or law enforcement agency may be allowed to
witness.
Provided, they appear during the scheduled date
of destruction upon written notice to them by the
Branch Clerk of Court.
3. Within 24 hours from the destruction of data, the
Branch Clerk of Court or the witness duly
designated by court shall issue a sworn
certification as to the fact of destruction
4. The Branch Clerk of Court shall file the said
certificate with the same court
5. The storage device or other items turned over to
the court’s custody shall be destroyed by:
a. Shredding
b. Drilling of four holes through the device,
c. Prying the platters apart, or
d. Other means that will sufficiently make it
inoperable.