CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Rule 110 PROSECUTION of Offenses

1. General Rule: MTC and RTC courts gain jurisdiction over the offense upon
the filing of complaint by a complainant or an information by the prosecuting
officer
Court gains jurisdiction over the person of the accused upon arrest or
surrender; such jurisdiction once gained cannot be lost even if accused
escapes (Gimenez vs. Nazareno)
Jurisdiction of the court over the offense is determined at the time of the
institution of the action and is retained even if the penalty for the offense is
later lowered or raised (People vs. Lagon)
2. Complaint sworn written statement charging a person with an offense,
subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer or other public official
charged with the enforcement of the law violated
Information accusation in writing charging a person with an offense,
subscribed by the fiscal and filed with the court
3.

Complaint and Information distinguished:

Complaint

Information

A sworn statement

Need not be sworn to

Subscribed by the offended

party, any peace officer or other
officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated

Subscribed to by the fiscal

May be filed either with the court

or in the fiscals office generally
to commence the preliminary
investigation of the charges
made

Filed with the court

4. Cases where civil courts of equal rank are vested with concurrent
jurisdiction:
1.

Features stated in Art. 2, RPC

Cognizable by proper court in which charge is first filed

1.

Continuing crimes committed in different judicial regions

2.

Offenses wherein any of the essential elements were committed in

different territorial jurisdictions
3. Offenses committed aboard a train, vehicle, aircraft or vessel (see
R110, 15)
i.

Railroad, train, aircraft

(1) Territory or municipality where vehicle passed

(2) Place of departure
(3) Place of arrival
ii.

Vessel

(1) First port of entry

(2) Thru which it passed during voyage
e. Libel and written defamation
5. Remedies of offended party when fiscal unreasonably refuses to file an
information or include a person therein as an accused
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

In case of grave abuse of discretion, action for mandamus

Lodge a new complaint against the offenders
Take up matter with the Secretary of Justice
Institute administrative charges against the erring fiscal
File criminal charges under Art. 208, RPC (prosecution of offenses)
File civil action under Art. 27, NCC for damages (PO refuses or neglects
to perform official duty)
7. Secure appointment of another fiscal
8. Institute another criminal action if no double jeopardy is involved
6. Writs of injunction or prohibition to restrain a criminal prosecution are not
available, EXCEPT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

To afford adequate protection to constitutional rights of accused

Necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid
oppression or multiplicity of actions
Pre-judicial question which is sub judice
Acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority
Prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation
Double jeopardy is clearly apparent
Court has no jurisdiction over the case

8. Case of persecution rather than prosecution

9. Charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance
10. Clearly no prima facie case against the accused and MTQ on that
ground had been denied
7.

Institution of Criminal Actions:

a.

In RTC:

By filing a complaint with the appropriate officer for the purpose of

conducting requisite preliminary investigation therein.
b. In Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts:
By filing the complaint or information directly with said courts, or a
complaint with the fiscals office
c. In Metropolitan Trial Courts
By filing the complaint ONLY with the office of the fiscal
In all 3 above cases, such institution shall interrupt the period of
prescription of the offense charged (Rule 110, 1)
d. Offenses subject to summary procedure
[i.e. (1) violation of traffic laws; (2) violation of rental laws; (3) violation of
municipal or city ordinances; and (4) criminal cases where the penalty does
not exceed 6 months or fine of P1000 or both, irrespective of other
imposable penalties and civil liabilities]
The complaint or information shall be filed directly in court without need of
a prior preliminary examination or preliminary investigation.
Zaldivia vs. Reyes since a criminal case covered by the Rules of Summary
Procedure shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court, then
the running of the prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is
actually filed in court and not on any date before that.
Reodica vs. CA [clarifies Zaldivia above] Under Art. 91 of the RPC, the
period of prescription shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
information. It does not distinguish whether the complaint is filed for
preliminary examination or investigation only, or for an action on the
merits. Thus, the filing of the complaint even with the fiscals office should
suspend the running of the Statute of Limitations. The ruling in Zaldivia is not

applicable to all cases subject to the Rules on Summary Procedure, since that
particular case involved a violation of an ordinance. Therefore, the
applicable law therein was not Art. 91 of the RPC, but Act No. 3326 (An Act
to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts
and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide when Prescription Shall Begin to
Run), 2 of which provides that period of prescription is suspended only
when judicial proceedings are instituted against the guilty party.
8. Contents of information
a. Name of the accused
Information may be amended as to the name of the accused, but such
amendment cannot be questioned for the first time on appeal (People vs.
Guevarra)
Error of name of the offended party: if material to the case, it necessarily
affects the identification of the act charged. Conviction for robbery cannot
be sustained if there is a variance between the allegation and the proof as to
the ownership of the property stolen.
b. Designation of offense by statute (or of section/subsection of statute
violated)
Only one offense charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes a single
punishment for various offenses.
If facts do not completely allege all the elements of the crime charged, the
info may be quashed; however, the prosecution is allowed to amend the info
to include the necessary facts (People vs. Purisima)
c. Acts or omissions complained of constituting the offense
Information need only allege facts, not include all the evidence which may
be used to prove such facts (Balitaan vs. CFI)
d. Name of offended party
e. Approximate time of commission
Approximation of time is sufficient; amendment as to time is only a formal
amendment; no need to dismiss case (People vs. Molero)
A significant discrepancy in the time alleged cannot be sustained since
such would allow the prosecution to prove an offense distantly removed from

the alleged date, thus substantially impairing the rights of the accused to be
informed of the charges against him (People vs. Reyes)
f.

Place of commission

Conviction may be had even if it appears that the crime was committed not
at the place alleged, provided that the place of actual commission was within
the courts jurisdiction and accused was not surprised by the variance
between the proof and the information
Qualifying and inherent aggravating circumstances need to be alleged as
they are integral parts of the crime. If proved, but not alleged, become only
generic aggravating circumstances.
9. Amendment of information and Substitution of information, distinguished
Amendment

Substitution

Involves either formal or

substantial changes

Necessarily involves a
substantial change

Without leave of court if before

plea

Needs leave of court as original

information has to be dismissed

Where only as to form, there is

no need for another preliminary
investigation and retaking of
plea of accused

Another preliminary investigation

is entailed and accused has to
plead anew

Refers to the same offense

charged or which necessarily
includes or is necessarily
included in original charges,
hence, substantial amendments
to info after plea taken cannot be
made over objections of accused
for if original info is withdrawn,
accused could invoke double
jeopardy

Requires or presupposes that

new info involves a different
offense which does not include
or is not included in the original
charge, hence, accused cannot
claim double jeopardy

10. After plea, amendment only as to matters of form, provided

1.
2.

Leave of court is obtained; and

Amendment is not prejudicial to rights of accused

11. When amendment is only as to form

1.
2.

Neither affects or alters nature of offense charged

Charge does not deprive accused of a fair opportunity to present his
defense
3. Does not involve a change in basic theory of prosecution
12. Exceptions to rule on venue
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Felonies in Art. 2, RPC (cognizable by proper court in which charge is

first filed)
Continuing offenses
Piracy which is triable anywhere
Libel (residence; or where first published)
In exceptional cases, to ensure fair trial and impartial inquiry

13. Special cases (who may prosecute)

a. Adultery and concubinage
Only offended spouse can be complainant
Both guilty parties must be included in complaint
b. Crimes against chastity
With consent of the offended party, offended spouse, grandparents,
guardian, or state as parens patriae, in that order
Offended party, even if minor, has right to initiate the prosecution of the
case independently of parents, grandparents or guardian, unless she is
incompetent/incapable on grounds other than minority.
If offended party who is a minor fails to file the complaint, her parents,
grandparents or guardian may do so.
In crimes against chastity, the consent of the victim is a jurisdictional
requirementretraction renders the information void (People vs. Ocapan)
If complexed with a public crime, the provincial fiscal may sign the
complaint on his own
c. Defamation (consisting of imputation of offenses in [a] or [b])
Complainant must be offended party

 The offended party may intervene in the prosecution of the criminal case
because of her interest in it (Banal vs. Tadeo)
14. Procedure
1.

Complaint filed in MTC or info filed in RTC where an essential ingredient

of the crime took place (territorial jurisdiction)
1.
Amendment as a matter of right before plea
2.
Amendment upon discretion of the court after plea
Inclusion of other accused is only a formal amendment which would not be
prejudicial to the accused and should be allowed (People vs. CA)
d. After plea and before judgment, if it appears there was a mistake in
charging proper offense, court shall dismiss original info upon the filing of a
corrected one, provided that the accused will not be placed in double
jeopardy (substitution)
Fiscal determines direction of prosecution; complainant must ask fiscal if
he wants to dismiss the case; the motion to dismiss must be addressed to
the court which has discretion over the disposition of the case (Republic vs.
Sunga)
Objection to the amendment of an information or complaint must be raised
at the time the amendment is made; otherwise, deemed to have consented
thereto.
15. Remedies
a. Motion to quash
May be filed after arraignment but before plea on the grounds provided by
the rules (generally, a flaw in the info)
If duplicity of offense charged is not raised in trial through a motion to
quash info, the right to question it is waived (People vs. Ocapan)
b. Motion to dismiss
May be filed after plea but before judgment on most of grounds for motion
to quash
16. Duplicity of Offense (in information or complaint)

 Defined as the joinder of separate and distinct offenses in one and the
same information/complaint
Remedy: file a motion to quash; failure is equivalent to a waiver
Exception: when existing laws prescribe a single punishment (complex
crimes)
Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Action
1. General Rule: The injured party may file a civil action independent of the
criminal proceeding to recover damages from the offender.
Article 32 is a valid cause of a civil action for damages against public
officers who impair the Constitutional rights of citizens (Aberca vs. Ver)
Even if the private prosecutor participates in the prosecution, if he is not
given the chance to prove damages, the offended party is not barred from
filing a separate civil action
2. Civil action for recovery of civil liability impliedly instituted, EXCEPT
1. Waiver
2. Reservation of right to institute separate action
3. Institution of civil action prior to criminal action
NOTE: Under SC Circular 57-97, all criminal actions for violations of BP Blg.
22 shall be deemed to necessarily include the corresponding civil action, and
no reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed or
recognized.
San Ildefonso Lines vs. CA past pronouncements of the SC that the
requirement in Rule 111 that a reservation be made prior to the institution of
an independent civil action is an unauthorized amendment to substantive
law is now no longer controlling. Far from altering substantive rights, the
primary purpose of the reservation requirement is to avoid multiplicity of
suits, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, to simplify the work of
the trial court, and in short, the attainment of justice with the least expense
and vexation to parties-litigants.
3. Civil action suspended when criminal action filed, EXCEPT
1.
2.
3.

Independent civil action (Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of NCC)

Prejudicial civil action
Civil case consolidated with criminal action

4.

Civil action not one intended to enforce civil liability arising from the
offense (e.g., action for legal separation against a spouse who
committed concubinage)

4. Prejudicial question arises when

1.

The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the

issue raised in the criminal action
2. The resolution of such issue will determine whether the criminal action
will proceed or not
Requisites for a prejudicial question:
1.

The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the

issue raised in the criminal action: and
2. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal
action may proceed
Petition for suspension of criminal action is to be filed at any time before
prosecution rests.
5. Remedies
a. Reservation of right to institute separate civil proceedings to recover civil
liability arising from crime
Must be made before prosecution presents evidence
Action instituted only after final judgment in criminal action
b. Petition to suspend the criminal action
May be filed upon existence of a prejudicial question in a pending civil
action
Filed at any time before the prosecution rests
6. Extinction of penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil
unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the
fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.
Final judgment in civil absolving defendant from civil liability not a bar to
criminal action
7.

Filing fees:

1.
2.
1.

Actual or compensatory damages filing fees not required

Moral, temperate and exemplary filing fees required
If alleged, fees must be paid by offended party upon filing of complaint
or information
1.
If not alleged, filing fees considered a first lien on the judgment
Rule 112 Preliminary Investigation
1. Preliminary investigation inquiry or proceeding to determine if there is
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime cognizable
by the RTC has been committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty
thereof, and should be held for trial
A preliminary investigation is only necessary for an information to be filed
with the RTC; complaints may be filed with the MTC without need of an
information, which is merely recommendatory (Tandoc vs. Resultan)
Absence of a preliminary investigation is NOT a ground for a motion to
quash the information; an information filed without a preliminary
investigation is defective but not fatal; in its absence, the accused may ask
for one; it is the fiscals refusal to conduct a preliminary investigation when
the accused demands one which is a violation of the rights of the
accused (Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan). Court should not dismiss the info,
but hold the case in abeyance and either: (1) conduct its own investigation;
or (2) require the fiscal to hold a reinvestigation.
2. GENERAL RULE: The fiscal conducts the preliminary investigation before
filing an information with the RTC, EXCEPT where the accused is lawfully
arrested without a warrant and an inquest is conducted.
3. Right to Preliminary Investigation
A personal right and may be waived
Waived by failure to invoke the right prior to or at least at the time of the
plea
4.

Who conducts Preliminary Investigation

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Provincial or city fiscals and their assistants

Judges of MTC and MCTC
National and regional state prosecutors
Such other officers as may be authorized by law
Duly authorized legal officers of COMELEC
1.
The Ombudsman
2.
The PCGG, in cases of ill-gotten wealth

5. Procedure
a. If conducted prior to arrest
i.

Complainant files complaint with

(a) Provincial or city fiscal

(b) Regional or state prosecutor
(c) MTC or MCTC judge, excluding MTC judge of Metro Manila or chartered
cities
(d) Other offices authorized by law
1.

Investigating officer either dismisses complaint or asks by subpoena

complainant and respondent to submit affidavits and counter-affidavits
1.
If the investigating officer finds prima facie evidence, he
prepares an information and a resolution
i.e., if fiscal finds reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been
committed and accused is probably guilty thereof
Prima facie evidence is that evidence which, standing alone, unexplained
and uncontradicted, would be enough to merit a conviction of the accused
iv. Otherwise, he recommends the dismissal of the complaint
If the investigating officer is an MTC judge, and he finds that probable
cause exists and that there is a need to place the accused under custody,
then he may issue a warrant of arrest
Flores vs. Sumaling What differentiates the present rule from the
previous one is that while before, it was mandatory for the investigating
judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused if he found probable
cause, the rule now is that the investigating judges power to order the arrest
of the accused is limited to instances in which there is a necessity for placing
him in custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. It is therefore
error for the investigating judge to order the issuance of a warrant of arrest
solely on his finding of probable cause, without making any finding of a
necessity to place the accused in immediate custody to prevent a frustration
of justice.
1. Investigating officer forwards records to the city fiscal or chief state
prosecutor
1.
City fiscal or state prosecutor either dismisses the complaint or
files the information in court

 Decision prevails over decision of the MTC judge

vii. Records will not form records of the case proper
Court on its own or on motion may order production of record
b. If conducted after warrantless arrest
1.

If accused waives Art. 125, RPC and asks for a preliminary

investigation, with the assistance of counsel, then the procedure for one
prior to arrest is followed
1.
Inquest conducted as follows

(a) Fiscal determines the validity of the arrest

(b) Fiscal determines existence of prima facie evidence based on the
statements of the complainant, arresting officer and witnesses
(c) Fiscal either dismisses the complaint and orders the immediate release of
the accused, OR prepares and files an information
While fiscal has quasi-judicial discretion whether or not to file an
information, once it is filed with the court, the court acquires jurisdiction
giving it discretion over the disposition of the case and the Sec. of Justice
should refrain from entertaining petitions for review or appeals from the
decision of fiscal (Crespo vs. Mogul; Velasquez vs. Undersecretary of Justice)
NOTE: Information may be filed by offended party, peace officer or fiscal
without preliminary investigation.
6. Remedies
a. Motion for preliminary investigation
Filed when accused is arrested without warrant
Must be with assistance of counsel and after waiving Art. 125, RPC
b. Motion for preliminary investigation
Filed within 5 days after accused learns an information against him has
been filed without a preliminary investigation
c. Motion for re-investigation
d. Appeal to DOJ

 Filed upon denial of his motion for a preliminary investigation, on the

ground that his rights to due process of law were violated, ousting the court
of jurisdiction
e. Petition for prohibition
Filed with appellate court to stop the criminal proceedings
Ordinarily, injunction will not lie but may be granted in certain cases
When prohibition proper to restrain criminal proceedings:
1.

When strong-arm tactics are used for vindictive purposes (Salonga vs.
Cruz-Pano)
2. When the accused is deprived of his rights
3. When the statute on which the charge is based is null and void
4. When it will aid the administration of justice (Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan)
5. When multiplicity of suits will be avoided (Guingona vs. City Fiscal)
Rule 113 Arrest
1. Arrest taking a person into custody in order that he may be bound to
answer for the commission of some offense, made by an actual restraint of
the person or by his submission to custody
2.

General Rule: No person may be arrested without a warrant.

Not all persons detained are arrested; only those detained to answer for
an offense.
Invitations are not arrests and are usually not unconstitutional, but in
some cases may be taken as commands (Babst vs. NBI); however, the
practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in
connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed is considered
as placing him under custodial investigation. (RA 7438)
Warrants of arrest remain valid until arrest is effected, or the warrant is
lifted
Arrest may be made at any time of the day or night
3. Warrantless arrests by a peace officer or a private person
a. When person to be arrested is committing, attempting or has committed
an offense

b. When an offense has just been committed and the person making the
arrest has personal knowledge that the person to be arrested committed it
Warrantless arrest anytime for a continuing offense like rebellion,
subversion (Umil vs. Ramos)
The continuing crime, not the crime finally charged, needs only be the
cause of the arrest (Umil vs. Ramos)
c. When person to be arrested is an escaped detainee (either serving
sentence or with case pending)
1.
2.
3.

When a person lawfully arrested escapes

Bondsman, for purpose of surrendering the accused
Accused attempts to leave country without court permission

4. Procedure
a. With warrant
1.
2.

Complainant files application with affidavits attached

Judge conducts ex parte preliminary examination to determine
probable cause

In determining probable cause, judge must:

(1) Personally examine witness
(2) Witness must be under oath
(3) Examination must be reduced to writing (Luna vs. Plaza)
In determining probable cause, the judge may rely on findings by
responsible officer (Lim vs. Felix)
iii. Judge issues warrant of arrest
If without preliminary examination, considered irregular (Bagcal vs.
Villaraza)
iv. If peace officer is unable to serve warrant 10 days after issuance, he must
file a report and explanation with judge within 10 days
v. If warrant served
(1) Person informed that he is being arrested

(2) Informed of cause of his arrest

(3) Officer may break door or window if admission to building is refused
(4) Person physically restrained
For private citizens making an arrest
May not do so except to do some service to humanity or justice
(5) No violence or unnecessary force may be used
(6) Officer may summon assistance
(7) Person who escapes after arrest may be immediately pursued
vi.

Person arrested is brought to nearest police station or jail

b. Without warrant:
1.

Person is arrested
1.
Person arrested may waive right to Art. 125, RPC and ask for
preliminary investigation or inquest
Fiscal is not judicial authority contemplated under Art. 125 (Sayo vs. Chief
of Police)
1. Fiscal files info
5.

Requisites for a warrant of arrest:

1.
2.
3.

Probable cause
Signed by judge
Specifically naming or particularly and sufficiently describing person to
be arrested
John Doe warrants are void for being general warrants (Pangandaman vs.
Cesar)
6. Remedies
a. Petition for writ of habeas corpus
Filed with any court, to effect immediate release of the person detained
Filed when a person is being illegally detained (without judicial process), or
was illegally arrested (void warrant or unlawful warrantless arrest, or
warrantless arrest beyond period with no information filed)

 Habeas corpus is not allowed when:

1. The person is in custody of an officer under process of law, and
2. The court had jurisdiction to issue the process (Luna vs. Plaza)
If an arrest is improper, the remedy is a motion for quashal of the warrant
of arrest and/or a motion to quash the information, not habeas
corpus (Ilagan vs. Enrile)
Habeas corpus is no longer available after an information has been filed,
the information being the judicial process required by law (Ilagan vs. Enrile)
Habeas corpus is proper when a person is being restrained illegally, e.g.,
imprisoned past maximum penalty allowed by law (Gumabon vs. Director of
Prisons)
b. Quashal of warrant of arrest
Filed with court which issued the warrant of arrest when the warrant of
arrest is fatally flawed
c. Motion to quash information
Filed with court when information against the person arrested has been
filed
Must be made in a special appearance before the court questioning only
its lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused
Otherwise, the voluntary appearance of the person arrested by filing a
motion before the court would be deemed a submission to the authority of
the court, thus granting it whatever jurisdiction it lacked over the person
Any irregularity in the arrest is cured when the petitioner submits himself
to the jurisdiction of the court, e.g., by filing for bail (Bagcal vs. Villaraza)
7. V.V. Mendoza, Rights to Counsel in Custodial Investigation
Evolution of rights of the accused under custodial investigation
1.

All involuntary confession were inadmissible; accused had to prove

involuntariness
1.
Involuntary confessions were inadmissible only if they were false
2.
Revert to exclusionary rule: any involuntary confession is
inadmissible
1.
Miranda rule: the accused must be informed of his rights
1.
To remain silent
2.
Against self-incrimination
3.
To counsel

4.

Definition of custodial investigation questioned

1.
It begins only after arrest
2.
Police investigations prior to arrest are not
covered
3.
The rights may be waived, but the rights to be
informed of these rights, i.e., to warning, may not
be waived
4.
Warning must not only be said, officer must
make sure the person arrested understands them
specifically
5.
Present rules
1.
Voluntary confessions are admissible
2.
Test of voluntariness determined on a
case-to-case basis
3.
Waiver of rights must not only be with
counsel but must be in writing
Confessions made without assistance of counsel are inadmissible as
evidence to incriminate the accused, but they may be used to impeach the
credibility of the accused, or they may be treated as verbal admission of the
accused through the testimony of the witnesses (People vs. Molas)
Rule 114 Bail
1. Bail security given for the release of a person in custody of law,
furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before
any court as required under the following conditions:
1. Undertaking effective upon approval and remains in force at all stages
until promulgation of judgment, unless sooner cancelled
2. Accused shall appear before court when required
3. Failure to appear despite notice to him or the bondsman will waive his
right to be present and trial shall proceed in absentia
4. Bondsman shall surrender accused for execution of judgment
Bail applies to all persons detained, not just to those charged with the
offense (Herras vs. Teehankee)
Court has power to prohibit person out on bail from leaving the country
(Manotoc, Jr. vs. CA)
Bail implies delivery of the accused to the sureties who, though not
holding him prisoner, may seize him and imprison him until they can deliver
him to court (US vs. Bonoan)
2. General Rule: All persons are entitled to bail as a matter of
right, except those charged with capital offenses.
Right to bail traditionally unavailable to military personnel facing court
martial, who are not in the same class as civilians (Comendador vs. de Villa)

 Bail should be available regardless of other circumstances or the merits of

the case, if the health or the life of the detainee is in danger (Dela Rama vs.
Peoples Court)
Excessive bail is tantamount to denial of bail, which is unconstitutional
(Dela Camara vs. Enage)
3. When bail is a matter of right
Before or after conviction by MTC, MCTC, MJC
Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
4. When bail is discretionary (application filed with court where case is
pending)
1.

Upon conviction by RTC of an offense not punishable by

death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
2. Provisional liberty under same circs. but during period to appeal
subject to consent of bondsman
3. In case he has applied for probation after final judgment, he may be
allowed temporary liberty under his bail or recognizance
5. Procedure
a.
i.

Offense charged is not capital:

Accused applies for bail

(1) Where information against him was filed or where case is pending
(2) Absent (1), in another branch of the same court within the province or
city where he is held
(3) If arrested in another province, city or municipality, file with the RTC
(4) Absent (3), with the MTC
1.

Judge sets bail

1.
Accused may move to reduce bail, and hearing will be set
2.
Accused posts bail and deposits the same with the
Municipal/City/Provincial Treasurer or, if cash, with the Collector of
Internal Revenue
3.
Accused is released

b. Offense charged is capital:

1. Accused petitions for bail
2. Judge sets hearing to determine whether evidence of guilt is strong
Ex-parte hearing on bail is arbitrary and unacceptable (Herras vs.
Teehankee)
1. Prosecution presents evidence
1.
Court may not force fiscal to produce evidence (Herras vs.
Teehankee)
2.
If evidence is strong, bail is denied
1.
Otherwise, judge sets bail and procedure for non-capital
offense is followed
In capital crimes, judges discretion is limited to determining strength of
evidence and does not cover determining whether bail should be allowed
(Herras vs. Teehankee)
Evidence must be strong that the accused is guilty of the capital offense
charged, not just of any offense (Bernardez vs. Valera)
6. Bail bond an obligation under seal given by accused with one or more
sureties and made payable to proper officer with the condition to be void
upon performance by the accused of such acts as he may legally be required
to perform
7. Recognizance
1.

Obligation of record entered into before some court of magistrate duly

authorized to take it, with the condition to do some particular act, the
most usual condition in criminal cases being the appearance of the
accused for trial
2. Does not require signature of accused for trial
3. Does not require signature of accused to be valid
8. Prosecution witnesses may be required to post bail to ensure their
appearance at the trial, except:
1. Substitution of info (see R110, 14)
2. Court believes that material witness may not appear at the trial
9. When bail required under RA 6036 (violation of ordinance, light felony,
criminal offense not higher that 6 month imprisonment and/or P2000 fine,
or both)
1.
2.

a. Caught in flagrante
Confessed to commission of offense unless repudiated (force and
intimidation)
3. Previously escaped, evaded sentence or jumped bail

4.

Violation of Sec. 2 (fails to report to clerk of court periodically under his

recognizance)
5. Recidivist, habitual delinquent previously convicted for an offense to
which the law or ordinance attaches an equal or greater penalty or for 2
or more offenses to which it attaches a lighter penalty
6. Committed offense while on parole or under conditional pardon
7. Previously pardoned by municipal or city mayor for violation of
ordinance for at least 2 times
10. Instances when accused may be released on recognizance:
1.

Offense charged is a violation of an ordinance, a light felony or criminal

offense the imposable penalty to which does not exceed 6 months and
or P2000 fine
2. Person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the
minimum of the imposable principal penalty, without application of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying circumstance
3. Accused has applied for probation and before the same has been
resolved, but NO BAIL was filed or accused is incapable of filing one
4. Youthful offender held for physical and mental examination, trial or
appeal, if unable to furnish bail
11. Cancellation of bail
a. Upon application with the court and due notice to the fiscal
1.

Accused surrenders back to custody

1.
Accused dies

b. Automatic cancellation
1.

Case is dismissed
1.
Accused is acquitted
2.
Accused is convicted and surrenders for execution of judgment

12. When bail cancelled or denied: after RTC imposes imprisonment

exceeding 6 years, but not more than 20 years, and:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual delinquent or guilty of

the aggravating circumstance of reiteration;
Provisionally escaped, evaded sentence, violated provisions of bail;
Committed offense while on probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
Probability of flight; or
Undue risk that during appeal, he may commit another crime

13. When bail is forfeited

a. Accused fails to appear before court when required
30 days for bondsman to show cause why judgment should not be
rendered against him
b. Bondsman fails to produce him within 30 days
c. Bondsman fails to satisfactorily explain to the court why accused did not
appear when first required to do so
Sureties guarantee only appearance of the accused, not his conduct (US
vs. Bonoan)
Sureties exonerated if appearance made impossible by an act of God, the
obligee or the law (US vs. Bonoan)
14. Provisional forfeiture
1.

Within 30 days, produce the body or give reason for non-production

AND
2. Explain satisfactorily the absence of the accused when first required to
appear
15. Remedies
1.
2.

Application for bail, when bail can be availed of as a matter of right

Petition for bail, when the offense charged is a capital offense

For judge to set hearing for the determination of strength of evidence of

guilt
16. Circumstances to be considered in fixing amount of bail:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Financial ability of accused to give bail;

Nature and circumstances of offense;
Penalty of offense charged;
Character and reputation of accused;
Age and health of accused
Weight of evidence against accused
Probability of accused appearing for trial;
Forfeiture of other bonds;
Fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
Pendency of other cases in which the accused is under bond

17. Notes:
1.

Posting bail waives the right to question any irregularity attending the
arrest of a person (Callanta vs. Villanueva). However, this does not
result in waiver of the inadmissibility of the articles seized incidentally
to such illegal arrest.
2. Accused waived the right to question any irregularity in the conduct of
the preliminary investigation when he failed to do so before entering his
plea (People vs. Dela Cerna)
3. Accused out on bail may be re-arrested if he attempts to depart from
the Philippines without prior court permission (warrantless arrest
allowed).
Rule 115 Rights of Accused
1. Right of the accused under the Rules
a. To be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt
In an appeal from a conviction, the accused shall again be presumed
innocent until and unless his conviction is affirmed (Castillo vs. Felix)
b. To be informed of the nature and cause of charges
The right must be substantially complied with; arraignment and later
proceedings must be in a language the accused understands (People vs.
Crisologo)
c. To be present at every stage of proceedings, subject to waiver by bail
If an accused escapes, he waives this right and merits a trial in absentia;
the accused forfeits his rights to be notified of proceedings in the future and
to adduce evidence in his behalf (People vs. Salas)
1. To testify as witness on his own behalf, subject to cross-examination on
matters covered by direct examination; not to be prejudiced by his
silence
2. Not to be compelled to be a witness against himself
3. To confront and examine the witnesses against him, including the right
to use in evidence testimony of a witness
4. Who is deceased, out of or cannot with due diligence be found in the
RP
1.
Given in another proceeding
2.
With the same parties
3.
Same subject matter
4.
Opportunity to cross-examine

 Prosecution has no privilege to withhold the identity of informers when

such informer was crucial in the operation itself; failure to present the
informer is a denial of the right to confront the witness which merits the
reversal of the conviction (People vs. Bagano)
g. To have compulsory process to secure witnesses and evidence in his
behalf
h. To have a speedy, impartial and public trial
Unreasonable postponements of trial amounts to a denial of the right to a
speedy trial, entitling the accused to mandamus to compel dismissal of the
case, or to habeas corpus if he is detained
i.

To have the right of appeal

2. Rights of the accused under the Constitution

a. To due process
b. Against self-incrimination
Right is limited to testimonies; ocular inspection of the body may be
allowed (Villaflor vs. Summers)
Being informed of rights means a meaningful transmission of information,
without which confession made by the accused is inadmissible (People vs.
Nicandro)
Confessions obtained through coercion are inadmissible (People vs. Opida)
Right against self-incrimination and to counsel do not apply during
custodial investigation (People vs. Ayson)
During trial, the right against self-incrimination takes the following form:
1.
2.

Accused may refuse to testify

If he testifies, he may refuse to answer those questions which may
incriminate him in ANOTHER offense

c. Against double jeopardy

d. To be heard by himself and counsel
3. Double jeopardy
1.

First jeopardy must have attached prior to the first

2.
3.

c.

First jeopardy attached and terminated

Valid complaint or information
1.
Competent court with jurisdiction
2.
Accused had pleaded
3.
Action ended in conviction, acquittal or termination without the
consent of the accused
Offense charged in later case is:

1.

Same as that in previous case

1.
Necessarily includes or is included in the previous case
2.
An attempt or frustration of the offense in previous case
1.
An offense lesser than that charged to which the accused
pleaded guilty with the consent of the fiscal and the offended
party

4. Exceptions to double jeopardy

1.
2.

The offense was made graver by supervening events

The facts constituting the graver offense were only discovered after
the filing of the earlier information
No double jeopardy if the new fact which justified the new charge arose
only after arraignment and conviction (People vs. City Court)
No double jeopardy where the trial was a sham since there was no
competent court (Galman vs. Sandiganbayan)
No double jeopardy if first case was dismissed with consent of the accused
(Caes vs. IAC)
There is double jeopardy if a person is charged twice under different penal
statutes for the same acts (People vs. Relova)
c. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense without the consent of the fiscal and the
offended party
5. Remedies
1.
2.

Motion to quash
Motion to dismiss

Both filed on the ground of violation of accuseds rights, thereby ousting

the court of jurisdiction
6. NOTES:
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of

law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14
1.

No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due

process of law.
2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent
until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusations against him, to have a speedy,
impartial and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to
have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence
of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and that his failure to
appear is unjustifiable.
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 16
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before
all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 17
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 21
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
If an act is punished by a law or ordinance, conviction or acquittal under
either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
Rule 116 Arraignment and Plea
1. Procedure
1.

Court informs accused of his right to counsel and asks him if he wants
one
2. Court appoints counsel de oficio if accused has none
If no such member of the available, any person who is a resident of the
province, of good repute for probity and ability to defend accused

c. Court gives counsel time to confer with accused at least an hour before
arraignment
Period allowed for counsel de oficio to confer with accused must be
substantially complied with; if not, case may be remanded for re-arraignment
(People vs. Gonzaga)
1. Accused given a copy of the information, which is read to him in a
language he understands
2. Accused is asked whether he pleads guilty or not guilty
3. Accused files a motion to quash or makes plea
4. Accused personally makes his plea
5. Plea is entered into record
6. If accused makes plea of not guilty, counsel has at least 2 days to
prepare for trial
People vs. Agbayani the right for 2 days to prepare must be expressly
demanded. Only when so demanded does denial thereof constitute
reversible error and ground for new trial. Further, such right may be waived,
expressly or impliedly.
NOTE, HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98 (implementing Speedy Trial Act
of 1997), accused must be given at least 15 days to prepare for trial, which
shall commence within 30 days from receipt of Pre-Trial Order.
j.

Case proceeds to pre-trial, trial or hearing, depending on the plea

Statement in the judgment that the accused was arraigned and pleaded is
sufficient; the manner of statement of such fact is immaterial (People vs.
Cariaga)
2. Kinds of plea
1.
2.
3.
4.

No plea a plea of not guilty shall be entered

Conditional plea of guilt a plea of not guilty shall be entered
Not guilty case proceeds to trial or pre-trial
Guilty to a lesser offense if fiscal and offended party consents,
conviction under offense charged for purposes of double jeopardy
5. Info may be amended
1.
Case goes to trial
2.
Even if info is not amended, and even if lesser offense is not
included in offense charged, court may still find the accused guilty
of that lesser offense
e. Guilty to a capital offense

 Court conducts searching inquiry to determine if accused was aware of the

charges, of his plea, and its consequences
Court requires prosecution to present evidence to prove guilt of accused
and determine his degree of culpability, and accused may still establish
presence of mitigating circumstances in his favor
f.

Guilty to a non-capital offense

Court receives evidence from the parties to determine penalty to impose

Plea of guilty not necessarily followed by conviction. Upon receipt of
exculpatory evidence (if accused pleaded guilty), trial court should consider
the plea withdrawn and in its place, order the plea of not guilty
Plea of guilty waives only defects which may be taken advantage of by
motion to quash or by plea in abatement; cannot cure jurisdictional defects.
3. Effects
a. Entry of plea will waive
1.
2.
3.

Right to question illegality of the arrest

Right to question any irregularity in the preliminary investigation
Right to file a motion to quash

b. Improvident plea of guilty may be changed to not guilty any time before
judgment is rendered
c. A plea of not guilty may not be changed to guilty, as doing so would only
spare the prosecution of presenting evidence and still result in the conviction
of the accused.
4. Remedies
a. Motion for specification
May be filed any time before plea, even after a MTQ
Filed when the information is insufficient in form or is generally worded,
that a Bill of Particulars is necessary to clarify the acts for which the accused
is being charged
b. Motion to quash

 May be filed at anytime before plea is entered

Based on grounds provided by the rules
c. Motion to suspend arraignment
Filed when the accused seems mentally unsound or if there is a prejudicial
question in a pending civil case
d. Motion to withdraw an improvident plea of guilt
May be filed at any time before judgment of conviction becomes final,
when it can be shown that the accused was not aware of the significance of
pleading guilty to the charges
Rule 117 Motion to Quash
1.
Motion to quash a hypothetical admission that even if all the facts
alleged were true, the accused still cannot be convicted due to other reasons
2. When to file Motion to Quash
General Rule: Before entering plea; all grounds not raised deemed waived
Exception: The following grounds may be used in MTQ even after plea
1. No offense charged
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3. Extinction of the offense or of the penalty
4. Double jeopardy
3. Grounds
a. Information does not conform to prescribed form
For the info to charge a complex crime, it is not necessary that it be
defined by law, only that it alleges that one offense was necessary to commit
the other (People vs. Alagao)
b. Court has no jurisdiction
1.
2.

No territorial jurisdiction
No jurisdiction over offense charged may be raised at any time;
no waiver considered even upon failure to move to quash on such
ground
3. No jurisdiction over person of the accused

 The court gained jurisdiction over the person of the accused when he
voluntarily appeared for the pre-suspension hearing (Layosa vs. Rodriguez)
c. Accused would be put in double jeopardy
Bars another prosecution
No waiver
No double jeopardy if first case was dismissed with the consent of the
accused (Que vs. Cosico), unless ground for dismissal is: (a) denial of right to
speedy trial; or (b) insufficiency of evidence.
If the first case was dismissed due to a deficient information, then there
was no valid information and there could be no double jeopardy (Caniza vs.
People)
Cudia vs CA it should be the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga, not the
City Prosecutor, who should prepare informations for offenses committed
within Pampanga but outside Angeles City. An information must be prepared
and presented by the prosecuting attorney or someone authorized by law. If
not, the court does not acquire jurisdiction. Although failure to file a motion
to quash the information is a waiver of all objections to it insofar as formal
objections to pleadings are concerned, questions relating to want of
jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Moreover, since
the complaint or information was insufficient because it was so defective in
form or substance that conviction upon it could not have been sustained, its
dismissal without the consent of the accused cannot be pleaded as prior
jeopardy, and will not be a bar to a second prosecution.
d. More than one offense was charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes single
punishment for various offenses
e. Facts alleged do not constitute an offense
May be raised at any time
No waiver
For charge to be complete, it is necessary to state that it was exempted
from any amnesty existing at the time
f.

Criminal action or liability has been extinguished

g. Information contains allegations which, if true, would be a legal excuse or

justification
h. Officer who filed the information had no authority
Presentation of evidence cannot cure an invalid information (People vs.
Asuncion)
NOTE: Court will consider no other grounds other than those raised, EXCEPT
lack of jurisdiction over offense charged.
4. Requisites of Double jeopardy
a. Valid information or complaint, sufficient in form and substance
b. Before court of competent jurisdiction
Doctrine of Jurisdiction by Estoppel: depends upon whether the lower
court actually had jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case
was tried and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are
not barred on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same must
exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent of the parties
or by estoppel. However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case
was heard and decided upon a given theory, such, for instance, as that the
court had no jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such theory will
not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position that the
lower court had jurisdiction. Here, the principle of estoppel applies. The rule
that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and does not depend upon the will of the
parties, has no bearing thereon.
c. Accused had pleaded
d. Conviction, acquittal, or dismissal or termination of case without consent
of accused
e. Bar to offense charged, attempt to commit the same or necessarily
includes or is necessarily included
Conviction for physical injuries through reckless imprudence constitutes
double jeopardy to the charge of damage to property through reckless
imprudence.
5. Procedure
1.

MTQ filed

2.

If based on defect in info which can be cured, court shall order its
amendment
3. Quashing the info shall NOT be a bar to subsequent prosecution
(accused has not pleaded yet), EXCEPT when the ground is:
1.
Double jeopardy OR
2.
Extinction of criminal liability
6. Remedies
1.

Motion to dismiss if certain grounds were not raised or denied in a

MTQ
2. Trial
If there was really no basis for the info, then such could be proved in the
trial
Upon denial of a MTQ, the proper remedy is to go on trial and later to
appeal, if necessary; mandamus or certiorari will only be granted if there is
not other plain, simple and adequate remedy
7. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor deemed a
waiver of such grounds,except:
1. Failure to charge an offense
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3. Extinction of the offense or of the penalty
4. Double jeopardy
Rule 118 Pre-Trial
1. Plea bargaining process whereby the accused and the prosecution in a
criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject
to court approval. It usually involves the defendants pleading guilty to a
lesser offense or to only some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in
return for a lighter sentence than that for the greater charge.
Under Speedy Trial Act of 1997, in all criminal cases cognizable by the
MTC, MCTC, MeTC, RTC and Sandiganbayan, pretrial is mandatory.
Under SC Circular 38-98, implementing the Speedy Trial Act of 1997, an
accused may plea guilty to a lesser offense only if said offense is necessarily
included in the offense charged.
2. Stipulation of facts
Facts which both parties and respective counsels agree on as evidenced
by their signatures; these facts need not be proved by evidence in trial

 Stipulation is inadmissible if unsigned by either accused or counsel; a later

memo of confirmation, signed only by counsel, cannot cure defect (Fule vs.
CA)
3. Pre-trial order binds the parties, limits the trial to matters not yet
disposed of, and controls the course of action during the trial
4. Procedure
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Judge must calendar pre-trial

Either party may waive the pre-trial
If court appoints counsel de oficio, counsel has at least 2 days to
prepare
In the pre-trial conference
Plea bargaining
Stipulation of facts
Marking of evidence (does not imply conceding to its admissibility or
credibility)
Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence
Other matters which will promote a fair and expeditious trial

e. Judge issues pre-trial order

Rule 119 Trial
1. In trial, the defense tries
1.

To assail the admissibility of evidence which prove the elements of the

offense charged
2. To assail the credibility of such evidence
3. To prove another version, possibly admitting certain evidence of the
prosecution and adding other evidence to cast reasonable doubt
Even in summary procedure, the judge cannot base his decision simply on
affidavits; he must give the defendant the chance to cross-examine
(Combate vs. San Jose)
2. Procedure
a. Parties notified of date of trial 2 days before trial date (R119, 1)
HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98, accused must be given at least 15
days to prepare for trial, which shall commence within 30 days from receipt
of Pre-Trial Order.

1.
2.
3.

Accused may move that his witnesses be examined

Defense witnesses examined by any judge or lawyer
Prosecution witnesses, if they would be unable to attend trial, may be
examined by the judge handling the case
4. Trial continues from day to day, unless postponed for a just cause
5. Prosecution presents evidence
Presentation
Testimonies: direct examination
Cross-examination
Re-cross
Offer
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Accused may move for discharge

Prosecution rests
Defense may, with or without leave of court, file a demurrer to
evidence
Defense presents evidence
Defense rests
Prosecution presents rebuttal evidence
Defense presents rebuttal evidence
Trial is closed; case is submitted for judgment

3. When mistake made in charging proper offense

1.

If Accused cannot be convicted of offense charged or offense

necessarily included therein
2. Accused detained, not discharged
3. Original case dismissed upon filing of proper information
Example: Charged with theft. At trial, appears that offense is estafa. The
prosecution can ask for the dismissal of the info in order to file a new one for
estafa. No Double Jeopardy because no valid info in the first case.
4. Application for examination of witnesses for accused before trial
1.
2.
5.

Sick or infirm; unable to attend trial

Resides more than 100 km. from means of trial; no means to attend
Application (prosecution)

1.

Sick or infirm

2.

Has to leave the RP with indefinite date of returning

6. Requisites for postponement due to absence of a witness

1.
2.
3.
4.

Witness is really material and appears to the court to be so

Party who applies for postponement has not been guilty of neglect
Witness can be had at the time to which the trial has been deferred
No similar evidence could be obtained

7. Requisites to discharge of an accused as State Witness

1. Testimony of accused absolutely needed
2. No other direct evidence available EXCEPT his testimony
3. Testimony can be corroborated on material points
4. Accused does not appear to be most guilty
5. Accused has never been convicted of offense involving moral turpitude
Discharge of accused, when not all the requisites were met, cannot be
revoked as long as he testified according to what was expected of him
(People vs. Aninon)
8. Remedies
a. Motion for separate trials
Filed by the fiscal to try several accused separately
Granted at the courts discretion
May also be ordered by the court motu proprio
b. Motion to consolidate
Upon the courts discretion, separate charges may be tried in one single
case if the offenses charged arise form the same facts or form part of a
series of similar offenses
Court allowed consolidation of rape cases substantially committed in the
same manner (People vs. David)
c. Motion for continuance filed to postpone trial for just cause
d. Motion to exclude public
Excluding parties, counsels and court personnel

 May also be ordered by court motu proprio

e. Motion for discharge
Filed before the prosecution rests
Hearing to determine existence of requisites for discharge
Prosecution will present evidence and the sworn statement of the
proposed state witness
Evidence adduced in this said hearing automatically form part of trial;
however, if court denies motion for discharge, his sworn statement shall be
inadmissible in evidence.
Discharge of the accused has the effect of acquittal, unless accused fails
or refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance with his statement
(which formed the basis for his discharge)
f.

Demurrer to evidence

May be made after the prosecution rests its case

If the court finds the prosecutions evidence insufficient, the case will be
dismissed
Otherwise, if demurrer denied
1.

If the demurrer was made with leave of court, defense gets to present
evidence
2. If the demurrer was made without leave of court, defense is deemed to
have waived the right to present evidence and the case is submitted for
judgment
Case may also be dismissed motu proprio
g. Motion to reopen
Filed after the case is submitted for judgment but before judgment is
actually rendered
To allow either side to present additional evidence, if such could not be
found before
Granted on discretion of the judge

 The accused cannot move to reopen the case to allow him to adduce
evidence in his behalf when his failure to adduce them during the trial was
his own fault (People vs. Cruz)
Rule 120 Judgment
1. Judgment adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not
guilty of the offense charged, and the imposition of the proper penalty and
civil liability provided by law on the accused
2. General Rule: If the accused is found not guilty, he will be acquitted and
the acquittal immediately becomes final and executory. If the accused is
found guilty, penalty and civil liability will be imposed on him.
3. Accused may be convicted of
1. The offense charged
2. A lesser offense necessarily included in the offense charged
Accused cannot be convicted for an offense graver than that charged
(People vs. Guevarra)
4. Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
In
1.
2.
3.
4.
In
1.
2.

Written in official language

Personally prepared and signed by the judge
Contains facts proved
Contains law upon which judgment is based
case of conviction, judgment must state:
Legal qualification of offense and aggravating and mitigating
circumstances
Level of participation
Penalty imposed
Civil liability for damages, unless right to separate civil action has been
reserved
case of acquittal, judgment must state:
Civil liability for damages, unless acts alleged clearly did not exist
Basis of liability

5. Procedure
1.
2.
3.
4.

Judge reads judgment in presence of accused

If judgment is of acquittal
It becomes final and executory
It bars subsequent prosecution for the same offense

c. If judgment is of conviction, remedy is to file:

1.
2.
3.

Motion for reconsideration

Motion for new trial
Notice of appeal

Or else, judgment becomes final and is entered in the book of Judgments

6.

When judgment in a criminal case becomes final:

1.
2.
3.

After lapse of period for perfecting an appeal; or

When sentence partially or totally satisfied or served; or
Accused has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal, EXCEPT in
cases of automatic review where death penalty is imposed
4. Accused has applied for probation
7. Only a judgment in conviction can be modified or set aside
1.
2.
3.

Before judgment had been final (otherwise double jeopardy);

Before appeal had been perfected; or
To correct clerical errors in the judgment

8. Remedies
a. Appeal
Filed within 15 days of promulgation of judgment
Period is interrupted by filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration
On motion of accused or at its own instance with consent of the accused
b. Motion for reconsideration
Filed when there are errors of law or fact in the judgment
Shall require no further proceedings
Notice should be given to the fiscal
c. Motion for new trial
Notice should be given to the fiscal
Filed on the following grounds:
1.

Error of law or irregularities have been made during trial which are
prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused

ii. New evidence has been found which could not have been found before
and which could change the judgment
9. Procedure for new trial
1. Hearing shall be set and held
2. All evidence not alleged to be in error shall stand
3. New evidence will be introduced
4. Old judgment may be set aside and a new one rendered
10. Notes:
Suspension of sentence for youthful offenders after conviction, minor is
committed to custody and care of DSWD or any training institution until
reaches 21 years of age, or a shorter period
Probation disposition under which a defendant after conviction and
sentences, is released subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the
supervision of a probation officer
Parole the conditional release of an offender from a penal or correctional
institution after he has served the minimum period of his prison sentence
under the continued custody of the state and under conditions that permit
his reincarceration if he violated the conditions of his release
Rule 121 New Trial or Reconsideration
1. Reopening of the case
1.

Made by the court before judgment is rendered in the exercise of

sound discretion
2. Does not require consent of accused
3. May be made at the instance of either party who can thereafter
present additional evidence
2. Motion for new trial
1.
2.
3.
3.

Filed after judgment is rendered but before the finality thereof

At the instance or with the consent of the accused
The prosecution can move only for the reconsideration of the judgment
but cannot present additional evidence
Motion for New Trial is denied if:

1.

Only impeaching evidence is sought to be introduced as the court had

already passed upon issue of credibility
2. Only corroborative evidence is offered
3. Prisoner admits commission of crime with which accused is charged
(facility with which such confession can be obtained and fabricated)

4.

Alleged new evidence is inherently improbable and could easily be

concocted
5. Alleged new evidence consists of recantations of prosecution witness,
due to unreliability of such recantations, EXCEPT if no other evidence to
sustain conviction aside from recanted testimony
4. New Trial vs. Reconsideration
Motion for recon is based on the grounds of errors of law in the judgment
is court is not asked to reopen the case for further proceedings, but to
reconsider its findings or conclusions of law and make them conformable to
the law applicable to the case on the judgment the court has to render anew.
5. New Trial vs. Modification of Judgment
In New Trial, irregularities are expunged from the record and/or new
evidence is introduced. In modification of judgment, no new hearings or
proceedings of any kind or change in the record or evidence. A simple
modification is made on the basis of what is on the record.
6. New Trial vs. Reopening of the Case
New trial presupposes that existence of a judgment to be set aside upon
the granting of a new trial
In reopening, no judgment has yet been rendered, although the hearing
may have already been closed
7. Motion for Reconsideration
Grounds are errors of law or fact in judgment, which require no further
proceedings.
8. Effects of Granting Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration
a. Based on error of law or irregularities during trial:
Proceedings and evidence not affected by irregularities stand, and those
affected are set aside. Court may allow introduction of new evidence
b. Based on newly discovered evidence:
Evidence already taken shall stand; new evidence taken with the old
Rule 122 Appeal

1. Procedure
a. Filed with RTC, if original case was with MTC
Notice served to lower court and to adverse party
b. Filed with the CA or SC, if original case was with RTC
i.

With CA: notice of appeal with court, and with copy on adverse party

If CA is of opinion that penalty should be reclusion perpetua or higher, it

shall render judgment imposing said penalty, but refrain from entering
judgment and then certify the case and the entire record thereof to the SC
for review (R124, 13)
CA may reverse, affirm, or modify judgment of RTC, or remand case for
new trial or re-trial, or dismiss the case
If RTC decided case in appellate jurisdiction: Petition for Review
ii. With SC: notice of appeal where penalty imposed is life imprisonment, or
lesser penalty involving offenses committed on the same occasion, or arising
out of same occurrence where graver penalty of death is available but life
imprisonment is imposed; all other cases, by petition for review on certiorari
If death penalty, automatic review
iii. Withdrawal of appeal
May be made at any time before judgment on the appeal is rendered
Lower court judgment becomes final
Case remanded for execution of judgment
Once notice of appeal is filed, cannot be validly withdrawn to give way for a
Motion for Recon or a Motion for New Trial, since the filing of the notice
perfected the appeal, and the trial court loses its power to modify or set
aside the judgment. The only valid withdrawal of an appeal is where the
accused decides to serve his sentence.
2. Effect of appeal by any of several accused
1.

Shall not affect those who did not appeal, EXCEPT if favorable and
applicable to them

2.

Civil appeal by offended party shall not affect criminal aspect of

judgment
3. Execution of judgment on appellant will be stayed upon perfection of
appeal
3. When appeal by prosecution from order of dismissal of criminal case will
not result in double jeopardy
1.
2.

Dismissal made upon motion or with express consent of the accused

Dismissal is not an acquittal nor based upon consideration of the
evidence or merits of the case
3. Question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely legal so
that if the dismissal is found incorrect, the case has to be remanded to
the court of origin to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused
4. When serving sentence, remedy is to petition for habeas corpus
1. Filed when the law under which the accused was convicted is repealed
or declared unconstitutional
2. When a later judgment is rendered acquitting others for similar
circumstances
Otherwise, equal protection is violated
1.

When penalty is lowered and convict has already served more than the
maximum period of the new penalty
Habeas corpus is available when a person is imprisoned beyond the
maximum penalty imposed by law (Gumabon vs. Dir. of Prisons)
NOTE: When dismissal is capricious, certiorari lies and no double jeopardy
since validity and not correctness of dismissal is being challenged.
Rule 126 Search and Seizure
1. Search warrant an order in writing issued in the name of the People of
the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer,
commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring
it before the court
Cannot be issued to look for evidence (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
Seizing objects to be used as evidence is equivalent to forcing one to be a
witness against himself (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
For a warrant to be valid, it must meet the requirements set by law
(Burgos vs. Chief of Staff)
Tapping conversations is equivalent to a search and seizure (US vs. Katz)
2. General Rule: No search or seizure can be conducted unless it is
authorized by a search warrant. Evidence gathered from an illegal search
and seizure is inadmissible.

 Warrantless searches are illegal, unreasonable and unconstitutional

(Alvarez vs. CFI)
It is not the police action which is impermissible, but the procedure and
unreasonable character by which it is exercised (Guazon vs. de Villa)
Court gains jurisdiction over items seized by a valid search warrant and
returned to it, and such is not an unconstitutional deprivation of property
(Villanueva vs. Querubin)
Evidence from an illegal search may be used as evidence, if no objection is
raised (Stonehill vs. Diokno)
Right against unreasonable search and seizure may be waived, but for the
waiver to be effective:
1. The right must exist
2. Person must be aware of the right
3. Person clearly shows the intent to relinquish such right
No waiver against unreasonable search and seizure when one
compromises the criminal proceedings (Alvarez vs. CFI)
There is no waiver of right when evidence of coercion is present (Roan vs.
Gonzales)
3. Requisites of a valid search warrant
a. Issued upon probable cause
Probable cause such facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed and the
thing to be searched for and seized is in the place to be searched
b. Probable cause is personally determined by the issuing judge
Hence, signed by him
By any RTC, to be served anywhere in the country, for an offense which
occurred anywhere in the country (Malaloan vs. CA)
c. Issuing judge personally examined, in the form of searching questions,
the appellant and his witness and took down their written depositions
d. Search warrant particularly describes or identifies the property to be
seized

 Property which men may lawfully possess may not be the object of a
search warrant (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
Nature of goods may allow description to be general or not too technical
(Alvarez vs. CFI)
e. Particularly describes the place to be searched
f.

It shall issue only for one specific offense

Otherwise, cannot be said to have issued upon probable cause (Asian

Surety vs. Herrera)
Absence of specific offense makes impossible determination of probable
cause (Stonehill vs. Diokno)
g. Was not issued for more than 10 days prior to a search made pursuant
thereto (search warrant becomes void after 10 days)
h. Indicates time, if to be served at night
4. When a search warrant may be said to particularly describe the thing to
be seized
1.
2.

Description is as specific as circumstances allow

Expresses a conclusion of fact by which the warrant officer may be
guided
3. Things described are limited to those which bear a direct relation to the
offense for which the warrant is issued
5. Procedure
a. Complainant files application, attaches affidavits
Oath requires that the person taking it personally knows the facts of the
case (People vs. Sy Juco)
Affidavits submitted must state that the premises is occupied by the
person against whom the warrant is issued, that the objects to be seized are
fruits or means of committing a crime, and that they belong to the same
person, thus, not affecting third persons (People vs. Sy Juco)
When complainants knowledge is hearsay, affidavits of witnesses are
necessary (Alvarez vs. CFI)
b. Judge conducts ex parte preliminary examination of complainant and
witnesses under oath to determine probable cause

 Judge must ask probing questions, not just repeat facts in the affidavit
(Roan vs. Gonzales)
c. Judge issues search warrant good for 10 days
d. Peace officer in presence of occupant, members of the family OR 2
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality
Search may last for more than a day as long as it is part of the same
search for the same purpose and of the same place (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
e. Peace officer leaves receipt with occupant at place searched
f. Peace officer files return of search warrant and inventory, and surrenders
items seized to receiving court (not necessarily court which issued the
warrant)
Items seized illegally must remain in custodia legis pending resolution of
the case (Roan vs. Gonzales)
6. Remedies from an unlawful search
1.
2.
3.

MTQ the warrant

Motion to suppress as evidence the objects illegally taken
Return of property illegally seized

7. When a search may be validly conducted without a warrant

1.
2.
3.
4.

Without consent of person searched

When the search is incident to a lawful arrest
Personal knowledge of the arresting person (Posadas vs. CA)
Limited to:

(1) Immediate time of arrest

(2) Immediate vicinity of the arrest
(3) Weapons and things which may be used as proof of offense charged
(Nolasco vs. Pano)
iii. Subject in an offense which is mala prohibita cannot be summarily
seized (Roan vs. Gonzales)
iv. May extend beyond arrestee to include premises and surrounding under
his immediate control

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Border searches (customs, mail and airport)

Vessels and aircrafts for violation of Tariff and Customs Code, EXCEPT
dwelling houses
Plain view
Moving vehicle
Hot pursuit
Stop-and-frisk, reasonable check-points
Private searches with no state action (People vs. Marti)
Inspection of building and premises for enforcement of fire, sanitary
and building regulations

8. Person making the arrest may take from the arrestee

1.
2.
3.

Properties used in the commission of the crime

Fruits or proceeds thereof
Property which may furnish the arrestee with a weapon against the
arresting person
4. Property which may be used as evidence at the trial
9. NOTES:
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, houses and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and
for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 3
1.

The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable

except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
2. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall
be inadmissible for any purpose in the proceeding.
Rule 127 Provisional Remedies in Criminal Cases
1. Attachment as provisional remedy in criminal cases
1.
2.

Accused is about to abscond from RP

Criminal action is based on a claim for money or property embezzled or
fraudulently misapplied or converted to the use of the accused who is a

public officer, or any officer of a corporation, or an attorney, factor,

broker, agent or clerk in a fiduciary capacity, in willful violation of duty
3. Accused has concealed, removed or disposed of his property, or is
about to do so
4. Accused resides outside the RP