Plea Bargaining

 Amatan vs. Aujero

A person charged with homicide plead guilty to attempted homicide as a

consequence of a plea bargaining agreement because homicide necessarily produces
death; attempted homicide does not. Hiatus in the law exists, which could either lead to a
misapprehension of Section 2 of Rule 116 or to outright confusion.

 People vs. Magut

Accused cannot plead guilty and ask for a penalty lower than what is imposed by law
for the crime to which he pleads guilty. The only instance where a plea bargaining is allowed
under the Rules is when an accused pleads guilty to a lesser offense under Section 2, Rule 116.
Accused-appellant should be sentenced to the penalty to which he pleaded.

 People vs. Mendoza

When the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense, the court may receive evidence
from the parties to determine the penalty to be imposed. The rule is at most directory. Additional
evidence independent of the plea may be considered to convince the judge that it was intelligently
made.
Sec. 5. Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty.– At any time before the judgment of conviction
becomes final, the court may permit an improvident plea of guilty to be withdrawn and be substituted
by a plea of not guilty. (Rule 116)

 People vs. Gumimba

When the trial court failed in its duty to conduct searching inquiry into the voluntariness
of the accused’s plea of guilty and full comprehension thereof, the plea of guilty is deemed
improvidently made and rendered inefficacious.

 People vs. Solamide

Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilty are set aside only if such plea is the sole
basis of the judgment.

 People vs. Ceredon

When the trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused, the
same must be meritorious because the conviction was not based on the guilty plea of the accused.

 People vs. Patrolla, Jr.

The admission of one accused that he alone committed the crime did not carry with it as
admission of sole authorship if the crime, so as to exonerate the other from criminal liability.

 People vs. Ulit

When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, what are the duties of the court under
Section 3, Rule 116, Rules on Criminal Procedure:
 1. Conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension by the accused
of the consequences of his lea.
2. Require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and precise
degree of culpability; and
3. Ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do if he
desires.

 People vs. Toncayao

Guidelines in the conduct of a “searching inquiry”

1. Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was brought into the custody of the
law; (b) whether he had the assistance of a competent counsel during the
custodial and preliminary investigations; and (c) under what conditions he was
detained and interrogated during the investigations.
2. Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether he had conferred with,
and completely explained to, the accused the meaning and consequences of a
plea of guilty.
3. Elicit information about the personality profile of the accused, such as his age,
socio-economic status, and educational background, which may serve as a
trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and informed plea of guilty.
4. Inform the accused the exact length of imprisonment or nature of the penalty
under the law and the certainty that he will serve such sentence.
5. Inquire if the accused knows the crime with which he is charged and fully explain to
him the elements of the crime which is the basis of his indictment.
6. All questions posed to the accused should be in a language known and
understood by the latter.

 People vs. Latupan

When the accused pleads guilty to murder, it does not mean that he admits the
aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation. Qualifying and aggravating
circumstances, which are to be taken with consideration for the purpose of increasing the
degree of penalty to be imposed, must be proven with equal certainty as the commission of
the act charged as criminal offense.

 People vs. Mendoza

Acquittal despite plea of guilty.

Facts: Two (2) persons were charged with theft. One pleads guilty which the other
chose to go to trial. The court held in abeyance judgment (wa ko kasabot) on the accused
who pleaded guilty until trial is completed as to the other accused. After trial, the court
acquitted both accused.

Issue: When an accused pleads guilty, must he automatically be convicted?

 Held: No. Additional evidence independent of the plea may be considered by the
judge that it was intelligently made.

The Court should have conserved the plea as withdrawn and, in its place, ordered a plea of
not guilty entered. There was no standing plea at the time the court rendered its judgment of
acquittal have said acquittal was a nullity. In the interest of substantial justice, such
procedural error cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved. Outside of this improvident plea of guilt, there is
absolutely no evidence against him. It is for this reason, even pro hac vice, the acquittal
must be sustained.

 Cinco vs. Sandiganbayan

The respondent may not avail himself of the procedure for a bill of particulars (wa ko
kasabot) a preliminary investigation. A bill of particulars appears to have reference to
informations filed in a competent court upon which accused is arraigned. It has no
application to complaints initiating a preliminary investigation which cannot result in any
finding of guilt but only of probable cause.

 People vs. Nitafan

A judge cannot quash an information without any motion from the accused. It is the
accused who knows what ground/s he will base his objections to the information. If the
judge initiates the motion to quash motu propio, then he is not only pre-judging the case of
the prosecution but also takes side with the accused.

 Marcos vs. Sandiganbayan

Accused may file motion to quash after his arraignment if it is grounded on failure to
charge an offense, lack of jurisdiction of the offense charged, extinction of the offense or
penalty and double jeopardy.

 Mito vs. Sandiganbayan

Accused cannot raise factual issues contrary to what appears on the fact of the
information as a ground for a motion to quash. In resolving a motion to quash, the court
cannot consider facts contrary to those alleged in the information because a motion to
quash is hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the information. Matters of defense
cannot be proved during the hearing of such a motion, except when the Rules expressly
permit, such as extinction of criminal liability, prescription, and double jeopardy.

 Garcia vs. CA

Facts: Accused filed a motion to quash the information for bigamy against him on the
ground of prescription which the information alleged that the offense was discovered in
1989, accused claims that complaint discovered it in 1974 as shown by his testimony in a
case before the CSC.

Issue: May a motion to quash go beyond the allegations found in the information?

Held: Yes.
  Dimayacyac vs. CA

Duplicitous information is a valid indictment if accused fails to object prior arraignment

to a duplicitous information. He may be found guilty of any and all of the crimes alleged
therein and duly proven during the trial, for the allegations of the element of such
compound crimes in the said information has satisfied the constitutional guarantee that the
accused be informed of the nature of the offense with which he or she is being charged.
Duplicitous information is valid since such defect may be waived and the accused, because
of such waiver, could be convicted of as many offenses as those charged.

 People vs. Conte

Accused can be convicted of 11 cases of rape alleged in a single information. Section

13, Rule 110 of the Rules provides that a complaint or information must charge but one
offense.

Under Section 1 and 3 (e) of Rule 117, the accused, before entering his plea, should
have moved to quash the information for being duplicitous. For his failure to do so, he is
deemed to have waived the defect. Hence, the court can convict as many offenses as are
charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each and every one of them.

 Villaflor vs. Vivar

The absence of preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the information
or render it defective.

 People vs. Sandiganbayan

The absence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is not a ground
for the quashal of the information but is a ground for the dismissal of the case.

To quash means to “annul, vacate or overthrow.”

 People vs. Matalam

If the information is amended in substance, the accused is entitled to another

preliminary investigation, unless the amended charge is related to or is included with original
charge.

Rule: Before or after a plea, a substantial amendment in an information entitles the

accused to preliminary investigation. However, if the amended information contains a
charge related to or is included with the original information, a new preliminary investigation
is not required.

 Marcos vs. Sandiganbayan

From a denial of a motion to quash, the appropriate remedy is for the accused to go
to trial on the merits, and if an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom is the
manner authorized by law.
  Sandiganbayan vs. Panganiban

The provisional dismissal of a case does not operate as an acquittal since its dismissal
was made with the express consent of the accused, thus, there is no double jeopardy.

Motion to Dismiss vs. Motion to Withdraw Information

Motion to Dismiss Motion to Withdraw Information

Order granting the motion to dismiss
becomes final 15 days after receipt
thereof, with prejudice to the re-filing
of the same case once such order
achieves finality.
Order granting the withdrawal of an
information attains finality after 15 days
from receipt thereof, without prejudice
to the re-filing of the information upon
reinvestigation.

A motion to dismiss is time A motion to withdraw is not time

barred. barred and does not fall within the
ambit of Section 8, Rule 117, Rules of
Criminal Procedure.

 Torres vs. Aguinaldo

Elements of Provisional Dismissal

1. It must be with the express consent of the accused; and

2. There must be motion to the offended party.

Section 8, Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure contemplates the filing of a motion to
dismiss, and not a motion to withdraw information. Thus, the rule on provisional dismissal
does not apply to a motion to withdraw an information.

All agreements and admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference should be
(a) reduced in writing and (b) signed by the accused and counsel. If this is not followed,
such admission cannot be used against the accused. (AM No. 03-1-09-SC, July 14, 2004,
effective August 16, 2004; see Sec. 2, Rule 118, Rules of Court.)

Pre-trial order should bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of and
control the causes of action during the trial, unless modified by the court to prevent manifest
injustice.

In civil case, pre-trial is preceded by a motion ex parte filed by the plaintiff for pre-trial.
(Sec. 1, Rule 18, Rules of Court)

Section 1, Rule 119 of Rules of Court - After a plea of not guilty is entered, the accused
shall have at least fifteen (15) days to prepare for trial.
  People vs. De Guzman

An accused who was erroneously discharged as a state witness, he may not be tried
again for the same offense because it will place him in double jeopardy. Once his discharge
is effected, the legal consequence of acquittal follows unless the accused so discharged
fails or refuses to testify pursuant to his commitment. The order for his discharge may only be
recalled in one instance, and that is when he subsequently fails to testify against his co-
accused.

 People vs. Sunga (En Banc)

Effect of Erroneous Discharge

If the order of discharge of an accused as state witness failed to comply with Section
17, Rule 119 of Rules of Court, his testimony should not be disregarded because it does
not affect the competency and quality of testimony of the discharged accused.

 Ladiana vs. People

The court may deny a motion for leave to file demurer to evidence as it is discretionary
upon the trial court. Unless there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
in its denial, the trial court’s resolution may not be disturbed.

 Katigbak vs. Sandiganbayan

An order denying a demurer to evidence is interlocutory, therefore it is not

appealable. Neither can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari in the absence of grave
abuse of discretion or excess jurisdiction, or an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. Unless
there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, a denial of motion to
dismiss a demurer to evidence may not be disturbed and may only be reviewed with
ordinary courts of law by appeal after trial.

 Alegre vs. Reyes

Motion to reopen may properly be presented only after either or both parties have
formally offered, and closed their evidence, but before judgment.

Motion for new trial is proper only after rendition or promulgation of judgment.

 Cabardos vs. Mercado

1. Re-opening must be before the finality of a judgment of conviction.
2. The order is issued by the judge on his own initiative or upon motion.
3. The order is issued only after a hearing is conducted.
4. The order intends to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
5. The presentation of additional and/or further evidence should be terminated within
30 days from the issuance of the order.

(Rule 119, Section 24. Reopening. — At any time before finality of the judgment of
conviction, the judge may, motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either case,
reopen the proceedings to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The proceedings shall be
terminated within thirty (30) days from the order grating it.)
Lack of formal offer of evidence during the trial

Section 34, Rule 132 Rules of Court – “The court shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered. x x x”

Documents which may have been identified and marked on exhibits during pre-trial and trial
which were not formally offered in evidence cannot, in any manner, be treated as
evidence.

Any evidence that has not been offered should be excluded and rejected.

When Formal Offer of Evidence is Not Necessary When Requisites Concur:

1. The evidence was duly identified by testimony duly recorded;

2. The evidence was incorporated in the records of the case

Or when the court relied on judicial admissions or drawn inference from judicial
admissions within the context of Section 4, Rule 129 of Rules of Court, or when the trial
court judging the demeanor of the witness determines their credibility even without the
offer of the demeanor as evidence (Barut vs. PP).

Judgment

Requisites of a Judgment:

1. Must be written in the official language

2. Must be personally and directly prepared and signed by the judge; and
3. Must contain clearly and distinctly a state of (a) facts; (b) the laws upon which it is
based (Sec. 1, Rule 120, Rules of Criminal Procedure)

Jurisdictional Requirements Before A Judgment May Be Validly Rendered In A Criminal

Case:

1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter

2. Jurisdiction over the territory
3. Jurisdiction over the accused (Cruz vs. CA)