Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Criminal Procedure Reviewer
Criminal Procedure Reviewer
4. Cases where civil courts of equal rank are vested with concurrent jurisdiction:
a. Features stated in Art. 2, RPC
Cognizable by proper court in which charge is first filed
b. Continuing crimes committed in different judicial regions
c. Offenses wherein any of the essential elements were committed in different
territorial jurisdictions
d. 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
a. In case of grave abuse of discretion, action for mandamus
b. Lodge a new complaint against the offenders
c. Take up matter with the Secretary of Justice
d. Institute administrative charges against the erring fiscal
e. File criminal charges under Art. 208, RPC (prosecution of offenses)
*
This is the old Criminal Procedure. As of printing time, the coverage for the Bar Exams has not
been released yet, so we included the old Criminal Procedure. The Memory Aid for the 2000
Rules of Criminal Procedure will be in the Annex.
f. File civil action under Art. 27, NCC for damages (PO refuses or neglects to perform
official duty)
g. Secure appointment of another fiscal
h. 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
a. To afford adequate protection to constitutional rights of accused
b. Necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or
multiplicity of actions
c. Pre-judicial question which is sub judice
d. Acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority
e. Prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation
f. Double jeopardy is clearly apparent
g. Court has no jurisdiction over the case
h. Case of persecution rather than prosecution
i. Charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance
j. 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 fiscal’s 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 fiscal’s 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
court’s 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 Necessarily involves a substantial change
changes
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 is entailed
another preliminary investigation and and accused has to plead anew
retaking of plea of accused
Refers to the same offense charged or Requires or presupposes that new info
which necessarily includes or is necessarily involves a different offense which does not
included in original charges, hence, include or is not included in the original
substantial amendments to info after plea charge, hence, accused cannot claim
taken cannot be made over objections of double jeopardy
accused for if original info is withdrawn,
accused could invoke double jeopardy
I. Introduction
Criminal Proceedings
- the accused has the right to be heard by himself and counsel (Art III, Sec 1 (17) 1935 Constitution)
- proceedings before the trial court
o arraignment to rendition of judgment
- doctrine has become part of the law of the land
Retroactive Application
- In favor of the appellant (although crime was committed before the effectivity of the RRCP)
Rights of person arrested under Art. III, Sec. 2 Stonehill vs. Diokno 20 SCRA 383 RA 6770
police custody: (Art. III, Sec. 12
and 19 (1987 Constitution)) BP 129, Sec 37(3) Yao vs People 19 June 2007 Who conduct Preliminary Investigation?
-Right not to be subjected to torture - Prosecutor/Fiscal
or force Allado vs Diokno 232 SCRA 192 People vs Aspiras 12 Feb 2002 -Ombudsman
-Right not to be put in secret -BIR
detention Rule 112, Sec 6 RA 4200(Wire Tapping)
-Right not to be subject to Webb vs. De Leon 23 Aug 1995
dergrading treatment RA 7438 Exclusionary Rule
Miranda Right -Rights of persons detained Go vs. CA 11 Feb 1992
-To remain silent -Duties of Investigating Officers Plain View Doctrine
-To be told that anything Rule 110, Sec. 1
he says will be used
against him Art. 125 of Revised Penal Code
-Right to counsel of
choice(Art. III, sec. 12)
Art. 344 of Revised Penal Code Rule 119 Rule 120 Rule 121 Rule 122
Rights of person arrested under Art. III, Sec. 2 Stonehill vs. Diokno 20 SCRA 383 RA 6770
police custody: (Art. III, Sec. 12
and 19 (1987 Constitution)) BP 129, Sec 37(3) Yao vs People 19 June 2007 Who conduct Preliminary Investigation?
-Right not to be subjected to torture - Prosecutor/Fiscal
or force Allado vs Diokno 232 SCRA 192 People vs Aspiras 12 Feb 2002 -Ombudsman
-Right not to be put in secret -BIR
detention Rule 112, Sec 6 RA 4200(Wire Tapping)
-Right not to be subject to Webb vs. De Leon 23 Aug 1995
dergrading treatment RA 7438 Exclusionary Rule
Miranda Right -Rights of persons detained Go vs. CA 11 Feb 1992
-To remain silent -Duties of Investigating Officers Plain View Doctrine
-To be told that anything Rule 110, Sec. 1
he says will be used
against him Art. 125 of Revised Penal Code
-Right to counsel of
choice(Art. III, sec. 12)
Art. 344 of Revised Penal Code Rule 119 Rule 120 Rule 121 Rule 122