CASE PRINCIPLE

SALAZAR vs. PEOPLE RULE 110 section 1

institution of criminal action; who may file.

Any person may initiate a preliminary
investigation through the fiscal for him to
determine probable cause

Direct filing of a criminal complaint requires

that the proper offended party initiates the
action.

RULE 112 section 8(b)

A preliminary investigation is not a part of a trial
or judicial action.

The record of the preliminary investigation,

whether conducted by a judge or a fiscal, shall
not form part of the record of the case.

However, the court, on its own initiative or on

motion of any party, may order the production
of the record or any its part when necessary in
the resolution of the case or any incident
therein, or when it is to be introduced as an
evidence in the case by the requesting party.

In sum: In order to initiate a criminal action,

either the proper offended party or the
prosecutor must institute the action throught a
complaint and a preliminary investigation
respectively.
CASE PRINCIPLE

PEOPLE vs. ALAMEDA
 There is no substantial distinction between

preliminary investigation, reinvestigation,
amendments to form of information.
a preliminary investigation and a
reinvestigation since both are conducted in
the same manner and for the same objective of
determining whether there exists sufficient
ground to engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed and the
respondent is probably guilty thereof and
should be held for trial.

RULE 112 section 9

A judge may, however, require the submission
of additional evidence, within ten (10) days
from notice, to determine further the existence
of probable cause.

In sum: amendments to the information filed by

the prosecutor must be in form and not in
substance as not to violate due process.

Check if the original defense of accused may

still stand even after the amendment of the
information, if yes, then there is no violation of
due process. 




PEOPLE vs. DUCAY
 The court held that the maxim “Falcus et uno,
abandonment of the principle of falcus et uno, falcus falcus et omnibus” -a witness who testifies
et omnibus. falsely about one matter is not credible to testify
about any matter” is not a mandatory rule of
evidence.

In sum: The court abandoned the principle of

(falcus et uno, falcus et omnibus). The
testimony of a witness may be believed with
respect to some facts and disbelieved with
respect to other facts.

PEOPLE vs. COSTALES The straightforward and consistent narration of

facts by prosecution witnesses immensely
fortifies their case. In addition, no impure
motive on their part further bolsters their
credibility.
CASE PRINCIPLE

PEOPLE vs. VILLAR The fundamental rule is that upon him who alleges
AMENDMENT TO INFORMATION, FORM AND rests the burden of proof. He cannot simply rely on
SUBSTANCE. the lack of evidence showing the contrary.



Circumstances must be alleged in the complaint and
proved in court, otherwise, considering such
circumstances would be a violation and denial of the
rights of the accused to due process and to be
informed of the charges against him.

In sum: the complaint against the accused rapist

was incomplete in its substance, unlike in the
previous case where the information may be
amended if it is merely incomplete in form. If the
prosecution was allowed to amend the information
substantially, it would then aggravate and qualify the
accused to be meted with the penalty of death, a
notion which would violate the rights to due process
of the accused.

PADILLA vs. CA
 Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it


CIVIL LIABILITY SUSTAINED FROM ACQUITTAL
extinction of the civil, unless the extinction of the
penal action proceeds from a declaration in a final
judgment that the fact from which the civil action
might arise did not exist. In other cases, the person
entitled to the civil action may institute it in the
jurisdiction and in the manner provided by law
against the person who may be liable for restitution
of the thing and reparation or indemnity for the
damage suffered.

Civil action may arise from a criminal act or a quasi-

delict. However, one may not claim restitution from
both sources of the civil action.

In sum: This case stated the rules on acquittal from

civil liabilities. 



The accused may be acquitted 

1.)based on reasonable doubt ( the prosecution
failed to prove his guilt)

2.)based on the merits (the accused was able to
prove he did not commit the crime)





Civil Liabilities may be derived from

1.) when the civil liability arose from the criminal act
but there was acquittal of the criminal act based on
reasonable doubt.

2.) When the court personally declares that the
liability is only civil in nature.

3.) When the civil liability is not derived from the
criminal act itself (independent civil action).

CASE PRINCIPLE

Land Bank of the Philippines vs Jacinto
prejudicial question, rules and elements of
prejudicial question.
A prejudicial question generally exists in a situation
where a civil action and a criminal action are both
pending, and there exists in the former an issue that
must be preemptively resolved before the latter may
proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the
civil action is resolved would be determinative juris
et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in
the criminal case.

Juris et de jure - conclusive presumptions of law
which cannot be rebutted by evidence.

RULE 111 section 7.

Elements of a prejudicial question
(i) the previously instituted civil action involves an
issue similar or intimately related to the issue
raised in the subsequent criminal action, and 


(ii) the resolution of such issue determines whether

or not the criminal action may proceed.

In sum: When there is a civil action pending and a

subsequent criminal action is also filed. The
presence of a prejudicial question may suspend the
proceedings of the criminal action until the
prejudicial question is resolved in the civil action.

VILLAFLOR vs. VIVAR The absence of a preliminary investigation does not

Failure to conduct a preliminary investigation
impair the validity of the information or otherwise
render it defective. Neither does it affect the
jurisdiction of the court or constitute a ground for
quashing the information.The trial court, instead of
dismissing the information, should hold in abeyance
the proceedings and order the public prosecutor to
conduct a preliminary investigation.

In sum: if there is failure on the part of the

prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation,
the judge may order the former to conduct an
investigation nonetheless.

The criminal action may also not be quashed by

mere reason of failure to conduct a preliminary
investigation for nowhere it is expressed in the rule
117 of the rules of criminal procedure which
provides the grounds for a motion to quash that the
absence of a preliminary investigation may provide
for its dismissal.

PEOPLE vs. AMINNUDIN Vessels and aircraft are subject to warrantless

searches and seizures for violation of the
customs law because these vehicles may be
quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction
CASE PRINCIPLE
customs law because these vehicles may be
quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction
before the warrant can be secured.



In sum: in this case, there was ample time to
procure a warrant, the discretion in ascertaining
the grounds for the issuance of a warrant rest
on the discretion of the judge. The Philippine
constabulary may not put it upon themselves
the determination of a necessity of a warrant.

1.    A warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest 

     a.    Arrest must be lawful 
     b.    It must be contemporaneous with the arrest in
both time and place 
     c.     Within  the  vicinity  of  the  person  arrested, 
immediate control, which is the evidence of the offense or
weapon 


2.    Search of evidence in plain view (plain view doctrine,
Robin Padilla v Court of Appeals)


3.    Search of a moving vehicle 

     a.    Must be cursory 
     b.    Cant make a thorough search; just have to take a
look; not to open trunks  (id)


4.    Consented warrantless searches 

     a.    The right exists 
     b.    Person making the consent knows that he has the
right 
     c.     In spite of the knowledge of the right, he
voluntarily and intelligently gives his consent  


5.    Customs searches 


6.    Stop and frisk (Terry vs. Ohio)


7.    Exigent and emergency circumstances 


8.    Checkpoints 
9.    Republic Act requiring inspections or body checks in
airports 
10.  Emergency 
11.  In times of war and within military operations 

PEOPLE vs. TANGLIBEN Search and Seizure in flagrante delicto.


In sum: the accused was caught with prohibited
drugs upon a tip from an informant.



In sum: The police may search and seize such
prohibited items without warrant . such seizure
is allowed when it is not practicable to secure a
warrant.
UMIL vs. RAMOS Crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion,
conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes,
and other crimes and offenses committed in the
furtherance, on the occasion thereof, or
CASE PRINCIPLE

incident thereto, or in connection therewith

under Presidential Proclamation No. 2045, are
all in the nature of continuing offenses which
set them apart from the common offenses,
aside from their essentially involving a massive
conspiracy of nationwide magnitude.

In sum: Crimes involving rebellion does not

require the prior procurement of a warrant for a
valid arrest of the accused. They may be
arrested without warrant not for the purpose of
prosecution but for the preservation of the
state.
PEOPLE vs. RACHO A valid arrest must come first before a valid
warrantless search and seizure.
search and seizure.

doctrine fruit of the poisonous tree.
 In this case, a warrantless search was done
exclusionary rule. first by mere information provided by an
informant and after finding out that there is
indeed possession of drugs, a subsequent
warrantless arrest followed. Such is not allowed
by law.



In sum: For a warrantless search and seizure to
be valid, it must be preceded by a valid arrest. 



Assuming that the arrest preceded the search,
still there was no reason to arrest the accused.
The long standing rule in this jurisdiction is that
reliable information alone is not sufficient to
justify a warrantless arrest. The rule requires, in
addition, that the accused perform some overt
act that would indicate that he has committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense.





In this case, the accused was impulsively
searched when he was not doing any crime in
the presence of the Police officers.



Furthermore, the information relied on upon by
the police is not based on personal knowledge. 



And lastly, the accused was not acting in
strange way as to engender a reasonable
ground for the police officers to suspect the
accused. 



CASE PRINCIPLE

PEOPLE vs. MARIACOS
 Lack of criminal intent and good faith are not
MALA PROHIBITA valid defenses when the crime charged is mala
prohibita. The mere possession of a prohibited
drug is penalized in itself pursuant to the
dangerous drugs act of 2002.
TERRY vs OHIO
 STOP AND FRISK.

also illuminated in the case of PEOPLE vs. CHUA Officers may conduct a search limited for
weapons when they observe
unusual conduct leading them to reasonably
suspect criminal activity is afoot and the
individual(s) involved is/are armed.



Important: It must be PERSONAL
INFORMATION which aroused suspicion to
engender a well-grounded belief that a person
is committing a crime.


ESQUILLO vs. PEOPLE The alibi of a “Frame-up” is a worn-out defense

POSADAS vs.COURT OF APPEALS
which is easily concocted and must be proven
by the defense with clear and convincing
evidence to overcome the presumption of
regularity conferred to police officers.
There was a probable cause that he was
concealing something illegal in the bag and it
was the right and duty of the police officers to
inspect the same.

UNILAB vs. ISIP
 (a) the executing law enforcement officer has a
plain view doctrine, requisites prior justification for an initial intrusion or
otherwise properly in a position from which he
can view a particular order;

(b) the officer must

discover incriminating evidence inadvertently;
and

(c) it must be immediately apparent to the

police
that the items they observe may be evidence of
a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to
seizure



In sum: The burden of proof in proving that the
seized items were under the plain view doctrine
rest on the authority claiming such. In this case,
there was a seizure of items which were not
enumerated in the search warrant. The NBI is
then obliged to prove that the seized items are
done under the doctrine.
CASE
VALMONTE vs. DE VILLA
 It is not violative of the constitutional rights
Military check points and seizure
PRINCIPLE
against unreasonable search and seizure as
provided under article 3 section 2 of the
constitution. 

The manning of checkpoints by the military is
susceptible of abuse by the men in uniform, in
the same manner that all governmental power
is susceptible of abuse.
But, at the cost of occasional inconvenience,
discomfort and even irritation to the citizen, the
checkpoints during these abnormal times, when
conducted within reasonable limits, are part of
the price we pay for an orderly society and a
peaceful community.