1

CRIMINAL PRORICRI

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Course Outline

(2014)

Part I. Preliminary Matters.

Criminal Procedure. Definition

Systems of Criminal Procedure
Sources of Criminal Procedure
Jurisdiction.Concept
What is criminal jurisdiction?
What are the elements of jurisdiction in criminal cases?
What are the requisites for a valid exercise of criminal jurisdiction?
1987 Constitution
Batas Pambansa Blg 129, Judiciary Act of 1980
RA 7691, Expanded Jurisdiction of the 1st level courts;
RA 8369, Family Courts Act

Revised Rules on Summary Procedure

Local Government Code of 1991 on barangay conciliation

Sandiganbayan Law, RA 8249; RA 7975; PD 1606 note: People vs. Sandiganbayan, Sept. 15,
2010, 630 SCRA 489; People vs. Sandiganbayan & Amante, Aug.25, 2009, 597 SCRA 49
Serana vs. Sandiganbayan, Jan.22, 2008, 542 SCRA 224; Geduspan vs. People, Feb.11,
2010;People vs. Sandiganbayanand Plaza, Sept. 15, 2010.

Cases: Valdespenas vs. People, 16 SCRA 871; Republic vs. Sunga, 162 SCRA 191; Araula vs.
Espino, 28 SCRA 567 Beltran vs. Ramos, 96 Phil 149; Fukuzume vs. People, Nov. 11, 2005;
Foz,Jr. & Fajardo vs. People, Oct. 9, 2009; Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan, Oct.12, 2009; Macasaet
vs. People, 452 SCRA 255; People vs. Sandiganbayan, 597 SCRA 49; People vs. Rivera, 597
SCRA 49; Bonifacio et al vs. RTC of Makati, et al, May 5, 2010; Magno vs. People, April 6,
2011; People vs. Cawaling, 293 SCRA 267; Macasaet vs. People, 452 SCRA 255; Buaya vs.
Polo, 169 SCRA ;Geduspan vs. People, 451 SCRA 187; De Guzman vs. Sandiganbayan, 256
SCRA 171

References:

1987 Constitution Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Dec.1, 2000) Supreme Court
Circulars/Adm.Matter; SCRA; Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium; Herrera, Remedial Law
IV; Pamaran, The Rules of Criminal Procedure; Sabio,Jr. Criminal Procedure; Riano, Criminal
Procedure
 2

Part II. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended (Dec.1, 2000)

RULE 110.Prosecution of Offenses

Section 1.Institution of criminal actions. —

*Institution of criminal actions for offenses cognizable by the Regional Trial Court
*Institution of criminal actions for offenses cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court/ Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts/ Metropolitan Trial Courts

Note: No direct filing in the RTC & MeTC and other chartered cities

*Rule on interruption of the prescriptive periods. Exception.

Effect of the institution of the criminal action on the prescriptive period.

Rule on prescription for violations of special laws and municipal ordinances

Cases: Zaldivia vs. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277; SEC vs. Interport Resources Corp. Oct.6, 2008:
Sanrio Co. Lmtd. vs. Lim, Feb.19, 2008;Panaguiton, Jr. vs. DOJ, Nov.25, 2008
Baviera vs. Paglinawan, Feb. 8, 2007;Arambulo vs. Lagui, 342 SCRA 740;People vs. Bautista,
April 27, 2007

Can criminal action be enjoined?Generally, No. BUT see Brocka et al vs Enrile et al…192
SCRA 183; Salonga vs. Pano, 134 SCRA 438; People vs. Grey, 625 SCRA 523 (2010)

Complaint- is a sworn written statement charging a person with an offensesubscribed by the

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

Information- an information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense,

subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court.

Section 5.Who must prosecute criminal actions. Note: A.M. No. 02-2-07, effective May 1, 2002

The power to prosecute criminal cases. Control and Supervision by the public prosecutor

*Rationale for the Rule.

 3

Note:Jimenez, Unlad Shipping & Mgmnt Corp. Hon Sorongon, Dec. 5, 2012; Tan vs. Gallardo,
73 SCRA 306; Suarez vs. Platon, 69 Phil 556; Crespo vs. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462; Dimatulac vs.
Villon, 297 SCRA 679;Chua vs. Padillo, April 24, 2007; Verzano vs. Paro, et al., Aug.8,2010,
Tan vs. People, April 21, 2009;People vs. Nunez, 591 SCRA 394; Hoey vs. Prov.Fiscal of Rizal,
130 SCRA 242; Roberts vs. CA, 254 SCRA 651

Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction and acts of

lasciviousness; offenses which cannot be prosecuted de officio-*Note: Art. 344, Revised Penal
Code; RA7610, Child Abuse Law

Prosecution of defamation. Rules.

Section 6.Sufficiency of complaint or information.Sections 7-12

Cases: 435 SCRA 371; Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, Feb.26, 2002; 193 SCRA 216; 301 SCRA
298; 427 SCRA 528; Gabionza vs. CA, March 30, 2001; 350 SCRA 679; Catiis vs CA, Feb.9,
2006; 446 SCRA 166; Borlongan vs. Pena, 538 SCRA 221

Section 13.Duplicity of the offense.A complaint or information must charge only one
offense.Rule and Purpose.
note: Rule 117, Sec.3 (f)

*Exceptions-

*Effect where the accused does not object to the multiple offenses in the information.
Note: Sec.3, Rule 120

Section 14.Amendment or substitution.

Amendment. Refers to the modification of a complaint or information by the public prosecutor

which changes its form or substance

Substitution. presupposes that the new information involves a different offense, which does
not include or is not included in the original charge; hence the accusedcannot claim double
jeopardy.

*Procedure for Amendment

Before arraignment-in form and in substance without leave of court.

[before arraignment]exception: if the amendment downgrades the nature of the offense charged
in, or excludes any accused from the complaint or information (upon motion by the prosecutor,
with notice to the offended party and with leave of court)
 4

After arraignment.- in form, with leave of court

What is the test to determine whether an accused is prejudiced by the amendment of an

information?

Cases: Teehankee vs. Madayag, 207 SCRA 134; Gabionza vs. CA, March 30, 2001; Chilagan vs.
Cattling, Nov.16, 2001; Matalam vs. Sandiganbayan, 455 SCRA 737; Leviste vs. Alameda,
Aug.3, 2010

*Procedure for Substitution if it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been
made in charging the proper offense… a new information charging the proper offense may be
filed provided the accused shall not be placed in double jeopardy; the court shall dismiss the
original complaint or information and may require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance
at the trial.

*Note: Sec.19, Rule 119

Section 15.Place where action is to be instituted. Fundamental Principle.

*Criminal action shall be instituted in the place of the commission of the crime. In criminal
cases, venue is jurisdictional.
Note: Supreme Court’s power to order change of venue to avoid miscarriage of justice, Sec.5 (4)
Art.III, 1987 Constitution.
*Concept of transitory and continuing offense
*Criminal offenses excepted from the rule

Section 16.Intervention of the offended party in criminal action.

*Basis for the Rule. Art 100, Revised Penal Code
*Instances when the offended party cannot intervene- waived, reserved, filing of separate
action, offenses with no private offended party, Ramiscal vs. Sndgnbayan, 446 SCRA 706

RULE 111.Prosecution of Civil Action

Section 1.Institution of criminal and civil actions.

*Fundamental Rule. A person criminally liable is also civilly liable. When a criminal action is
instituted, the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense charged
shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action.

*Instances when the civil action is not deemed instituted-

 5

Cases: Ramos vs. Gonong, 72 SCRA 559;People vs. Samson, 7 SCRA 478;Capistrano vs.
Limcuando, 579 SCRA 176;Heirs of F. C. Delgado vs. Gonzalez, 595 SCRA 501; Cruz vs.
Mina, April 27, 2007; Ricarze vs. CA, Feb.9, 2007; Jarantilla vs. CA, March 21,
1989;Casupanan vs. Laroya, 388 SCRA 28;Cheng vs. Sy 592 SCRA 155, July 7, 2009.

Circular No. 57-97, Sept. 16/97-Rules and Guidelines in the filing and prosecution of criminal
cases under BP22

Sec. 2-When separate civil action is suspended-note: Rules to govern when- (1) Criminal
action filed ahead of the civil actionThe separate civil action arising from the crime cannot be
instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action; (2) Civil action filed ahead
of the criminal action (criminal action filed after)the civil action shall be suspended at
whatever stage it may be before judgment on the merit, until final judgment is rendered in the
criminal action. The civil action may be consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying
the criminal case.

*Rules for Consolidation. Purpose.

Effects of Extinction of the criminal action-Rule: THE extinction of the penal action does not
carry with it extinction of the civil action.- UNLESS there is a finding in a final judgment in
the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.

Sapiera vs. CA, the civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal –if: 1. The acquittal is based
on reasonable doubt, 2. Where the court expressly declares that the liability of the accused is not
criminal but civil in nature, 3. Where the civil liability is not derived from or based on the
criminal act of which the accused is acquitted.

Section 3.When civil action may proceeded independently.

Note: Articles 32, 33, 34, 2176 Civil Code of the Philippines ; DMPI Employees Credit
Coop.Inc. vs. Hon Velez, 371 SCRA 72; Phil. Rabbit Bus Corp. vs. People, 427 SCRA 456

Section 4.Effect of death on civil actions.

Cases: People vs. Bayotas, Sept. 2, 1994, 236 SCRA 239; People vs. Abungan, 341 SCRA 258;
ABS CBN Corp. vs. Ombudsman, Oct.15, 2008, People vs. Jayme, August 25, 2010

Section 5.Judgment in civil action not a bar.

Section 6.Suspension by reason of prejudicial question.Section 7.Elements of prejudicial

question.

Prejudicial Question.Concept. An issue involved in a civil action which is similar or intimately

related to the issue in the criminal case, the resolution of such issue determines whether or not
the criminal action may proceed.
 6

Elements: 1)The previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related
to the issue raised in a subsequent criminal action and 2) The resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

Landicho vs. Relova, Feb.23, 1968; Apa vs. Fernandez, 242 SCRA 509; Ark Travel Express, Inc.
vs. RTC Makati City B.150 Hon. Abrogar, Violeta Baguio, 410 SCRA 148;Land Bank of the
Phils. vs. Jacinto, 626 SCRA 315, Aug.3, 2010

RULE 112.Preliminary Investigation

Section 1.Preliminary investigation defined;- an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether

there is 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.

Section 2.Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations.

Note: A.M.05-8-26 SC, Oct.3, 2005 (re-judges of the MTC cannot conduct prelim inv.)

*Preliminary Investigation. Nature.

Cases: Elma vs. Jacobi, June 27, 2012; Yusop vs. Sandiganbayan, Feb 22, 201; Manebo vs.
Acosta, 604 SCRA 618; Ladlad vs. Senior State Prosecutor Velasco, 523 SCRA 318; Maza vs.
Sec.Gonzalez, 523 SCRA 318; Serapio vs Sandiganbayan, 396 SCRA 443; Yusop vs.
Sandiganbayan, 352 SCRA 587 2001; Cojuangco vs. PCGG, 190 SCRA 226; Velasquez vs.
Tuquero, 182 SCRA 388; Crespo vs. Mogul, 151 SCRA 469;Larranaga vs. Court of Appeals,
287 SCRA 58;Webb vs. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652; Go vs. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 138;
Levi Strauss, Inc. vs. Lim, 573 SCRA 25

Ledesma vs. CA, 278 SCRA 656 (1997); Marcelo vs. CA, 235 SCRA 39 (1994); Verzano, Jr. vs.
Paro, (Aug. 9, 2010) 627 SCRA 209; Tan Uy vs. OMB. 556 SCRA 73;Duterte vs.
Sanduganbayan, 289 SCRA 721; Metrobank & Trust Co. Vs. Reynaldo, 627 SCRA
88;Odchique-Bondoc vs. Tan Tiong Bio, 632 SCRA 457; Marcelo, Jr. vs. Villordon, 638 SCRA
557

[Alcantara vs. Ponce, Feb.28, 2007, citing U.S. case Borg vs. Baker prelim.inv. matters held to
be privileged communication materials presented annot be used as basis for libel].

Section 3.Procedure.Note: must be strictly followed Ladlad/Masa case (see above citation);
Pp.vs. Garfin, 426 SCRA 393; Cruz vs. Sandiganbayan, 194 SCRA 474

Section 4.Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review.

Public Utilities Devt.Olongapo City vs. Guingona,Jr. 365 SCRA 467; Santos vs. Go, 473 SCRA
350; De Ocampo vs. Sec. of Justice, 480 SCRA 71
 7

Section 5.When warrant of arrest may issue. — (a) By the Regional Trial Court. People vs. Hon.
CA,Ting, et al G.R. No. 161083, Aug.3, 2010 626 SCRA 352 (b) By the Municipal Trial Court
(c) When warrant of arrest not necessary.

Section 6.When accused lawfully arrested without warrant.Warrantless arrest

*Inquest proceeding. Nature.

*Note: RA7438

* Leviste vs. Hon. Alameda, G.R. No. 182677 August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA 575

Section 7-8.

Tabujara vs. People, Oct. 29, 2008; Ramos vs. People,July 13, 2010 625 SCRA 39;Flores vs.
Hon. Gonzalez, 626 SCRA 661, Aug.3, 2010

RULE 113.Arrest

Section 1.Definition of arrest.The taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound
to answer for the commission of an offense.

Magtoto vs Manguerra, 63 SCRA 4; people vs. Joson, 46 Phil 381; People vs. Barba, 29 SCRA
662;loIM VS. Felix, 194 SCRA 292; Tabujara III vs. People, Oct.29, 2008; Borlongan, Jr. vs.
Pena, 620 SCRA 106 ;Leviste vs. Alameda, 626 SCRA 575;People vs. Tan, 634 SCRA
773;Dolera vs. People, 598 SCRA 484

*Jurisdiction over the person of the accused how acquired.

*Necessity of finding of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest
*Sec.2, Art III, 1987 Constitution

RA 7438-An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detainedor Under Custodial
Investigation As Well As Duties of the Arresting Officers and Providing Penalties for Violations
Thereof.

Section 2.Arrest; how made.Section 3.Duty of arresting officer. * RA 7438; People vs. Albior,
163 SCRA 332 Section 4.Execution of
warrant. *Note-lifetime of the warrant

Section 5.Arrest without warrant; when lawful.Warrantless Arrest

 8

Cases: 538 SCRA 611; 626 SCRA 633; San Agustin vs. People, Aug.31, 2004; People vs.
Alunday, Sept. 3, 2008; 623 SCRA343; 299 SCRA 635; 163 SCRA 402; 283 SCRA 159; 301
SCRA 668; 352 SCRA 174; 373 SCRA 585; 429 SCRA 364; 163 SCRA 332; 206 SCRA 138;
305 SCRA 236

Objection to the illegality of arrest must be raised before arraignment, otherwise it is deemed
waived.[ Sec.26, Rule 114]

*RA 7438- An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial
Investigation As Well As Duties of the Arresting Officers and Providing Penalties for Violations
Thereof

.Section 14.Right of attorney or relative to visit person arrested.

*Note: RA 7438- An Act Defining Certain rights of Person Arrested, Detaines or Under
Custodial Investigation As Well As Duties of the Arresting Officers and Providing Penalties for
Violations Thereof

RULE 114.Bail

Section 1.Bail defined.The security given for the release of a person in custody of the law,
furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required under
the conditions specified.

Why is bail allowed?

*Fundamental Principle.

*Sec.13, Art. III 1987 Constitution; Sec.14, Art.III 1987 Constitution

Cases: Paderanga vs. Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA 741; Serapio vs. Sandiganbayan, 396 SCRA
443; Commendador et al. vs. De Villa, 200 SCRA 80; Trillianes IV vs. Hon. Pimentel, Sr. 556
SCRA 471;Docena-Caspe vs. Bagtas, 400 SCRA 37; People vs. Gako, 348 SCRA 334; Leviste
vs. CA, 615 SCRA 619; Leviste vs. Alameda, 626 SCRA 575; Bongcac vs. Sandiganbayan, 588
SCRA 537; 403 SCRA 123;389 SCRA 443;521 SCRA 470; 421 SCRA 500; 322 SCRA 559;
555 SCRA 193

Bail.when as amatter of right; of discretion; when not allowed

Capital offense.defined.Burden of proof in bail application-

4 Duties of the trial judge in case an application for bail is filed by an accused charged with
capital offense: 1. Notify the fiscal about the hearing 2.hearing 3. Decide whether the evidence of
 9

guilt is strong 4. Discharge the accused if the evidence of guilt is not strong.( Basco vs.
Rapatalo, March 5, 1997)

Section 15.Recognizance. An obligation of record entered into before a court guaranteeing the
appearance of the accused for trial.

*RA 6036

Section 17. Bail, where filed.

Section 26.Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary
investigation. People vs. Ejandra, 429 SCRA 364; Yusop vs. Sandiganbayan,352 SCRA 587

RULE 115.Rights of Accused

Section 1.Rights of accused at the trial.

*Note: Sec.14 Art III, 1987 Constitution; RA 8493 Speedy Trial Act

RULE 116.Arraignment and Plea

Section 1.Arraignment and plea; how made.

*Note: Pre-arraignment duties of the trial judge- People vs. Agbayani, Jan.16, 1998
*RA 8493-Speedy Trial Act

Pre-arraignment duties of the trial judge (1) to inform the accused of this right to counsel (2)
to ask the accused whether he desires the aid of counsel (3) grant accused reasonable time to
procure counsel (4) court must assign counsel de officio (in the event accused has no counsel)
People vs. Agbayani, Jan.16, 1998

Suspension of arraignment-Sec.11,

Kinds of plea.

Section 2.Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. Requisites-(1) with the consent of the offended party
and the prosecutor (2) necessarily included in the offense charged (3) no amendment of the
complaint or information is necessary. Section 3.Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of
evidence.Dutiesof the trial court-. Case: People vs. Ulit, 423 SCRA 374; People vs. Toncayao,
July 7, 2004
 10

Section 5.Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty. Anytime before judgment of conviction

becomes final.

Sec.10.Production or inspection of material evidence in possession of prosecution. Conditions-

good cause shown; with notice to the parties; not otherwise privileged

Mode of discovery- to prevent surprises, suppression or alteration

Cases:237 SCRA 685; People vs. Ong, June 21, 2004; 235 SCRA 39; 297 SCRA 679; 247
SCRA 652; 170 SCRA 489; 210 SCRA 246; 423 SCRA 374;184 SCRA 395;580 SCRA 279;442
SCRA 360

RULE 117.Motion to Quash

Section 1.Time to move to quash. Section 2.Form and contents.

Section 3.Grounds.

-Concept of Motion to Quash.

Section 4.Amendment of the complaint or information.

-when amendment is allowed

Section 5.Effect of sustaining the motion to quash.Section 6.Order sustaining the motion to
quash not a bar to another prosecution; *Exceptions- (i) extinguishment of the criminal
action or liability (ii) double jeopardy

Section 7.Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. [Sec.21 Art III 1987 C] Rationale-

*Essential Requisites for the application of the principle of double jeopardy

*Exceptions to the Rule-Note

Section 8.Provisional dismissal. Note:Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 6 years;

Offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 6 years

People vs. Lacson

Section 9.Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor. Rule.

*Exceptions- Sec.3 [pars.(a),(b),(g),(h)] Rule 117

RULE 118.Pre-Trial
 11

Section 1.Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases.

*Note: A.M. No.03-1-09-SC-Rule on Guidelines To Be Observed by Trial Court Judges and
Clerks of Court In the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures
Section 2.Pre-trial agreement. Must be in writing.signed by accused and counselSection 3.Non-
appearance at pre-trial conference. Section 4.Pre-trial order. purpose

People vs. Badoso, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 580- on “stipulation of facts”

RULE 119.Trial

Section 1-16.Codal. Rule:Continuous Trial until terminated. Avoidance of unnecessary delays

Note: RA 8493 Speedy Trial Act;
Sec 14 (2) Art. III 1987 Constitution; Sec.1 (h) Rule 115
*Remedy where accused is not brought to trial within the time limit- dismissal

Section 17.Discharge of accused to be state witness. Note: 523 SCRA 147; 231 SCRA
783Section 18.Discharge of accused operates as acquittal.

*Discharge of accused to be state witness-not a matter of right.

*Conditions before accused can be discharge as state witness
*Procedural Requirements for the discharge

Can a person be discharge from the information even without the approval of the court?
Yes.*RA 6981- An Act Providing for a Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program
and for other Purposes

Cases: Webb vs. De Leon 247 SCRA 652; People vs. Chavez, 397 SCRA 228;People vs.Sunga,
399 SCRA 624

Section 19.When mistake has been made in charging the proper offense *.Galvez vs. CA, 237
SCRA 685
Section 20-21. Codal
Section 22.Consolidation of trials of related offenses.

Section 23.Demurrer to evidence. Concept.

*Basis for the filing of a demurrer to evidence-

*Rule for filing demurrer to evidence-

Section 24.Reopening. *Basis.

To avoid a miscarriage of justice *time frame
for filing
 12

RULE 120.Judgment

Section 1.Judgment definition and form. Section 2.Contents of the judgment.

*Note: Sec.14, Art.VIII 1987 Constitution

Section3.Judgment for two or more offenses. Note: Sec.13, Rule 110 Section 4-5.CodalSection
6.Promulgation of judgment. *What
constitutes promulgation of judgment. Its significance.

Section 7.Modification of judgment. Upon motion of the accused before the judgment becomes
final or before perfection of appealSection 8.Entry of judgment.Section 9.Existing provisions
governing suspension of sentence, probation and parole not affected by this Rule.

RULE 121.New Trial or Reconsideration

Section 1.New trial or reconsideration.Concept.

Section 2.Grounds for a new trial. – vs. reopening
Section 3.Ground for reconsideration. Section 4-5. Codal
Section 6.Effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration

RULE 122.Appeal

Section 1.Who may appeal. Section 2.Where to appeal.Section 3.How appeal taken. (see
illustration) *Appeal. A mere
statutory privilege. *Modes of Appeal in
criminal cases * A.M. 00-5-03 SC
Oct.15,2004, Amended Rules Governing Death Penalty Cases
Cases: *People vs. Mateo, 433 SCRA 640; *People vs. Ochoa, 453SCRA 299

People of the Philippines vs. Taruc,Feb.18, 2009, 579 SCRA 682

Effect of appeal. See- People vs. Borromeo, 430 SCRA 533 June 3, 2004 “In criminal cases,
an appeal throws the whole case wide open for review. The reviewing tribunal can correct errors
or even reverse the trial court’s decision on grounds other than those that the parties raise as
errors.

Balaba vs. People, July 17, 2009 593 SCRA 210 citing Melencion vs. Sandiganbayan, 554
SCRA 345 xxx while an error in designating the appellate court is not fatal to the appeal, the
 13

correction in designating the proper appellate court should be made within the 15 day period to
appeal.(note: S2, Rule 50, ROC)

Section 4-13. Codal. Procedure for Appeal

*Sec.6.When appeal is to be taken- note: Neypes,et al. vs. Court of Appeals et al. 469 SCRA 633

Note: Judith Yu vs. Hon. Rosa Samson-Tatad, G.R. No. 170979 Feb.9, 2011, “fresh period
rule” applicable to criminal cases as well…

Section 12.Withdrawal of appeal.

Abandonment of appeal.-Note: Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines Inc. vs. People, April 14, 2004

RULE 123.Procedure in the Municipal Trial Courts

Section 1.Uniform Procedure. *Rule-The procedure to be observed in the Metropolitan Trial

Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall be the same as in the
Regional Trial Courts.

Exceptions- Criminal cases governed by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure; law

RULE 124.Procedure in the Court of Appeals

Section 1.Title of the case.Section 2.Appointment of counsel de oficio for the accused.

Briefs. (Sections 3-7) note: Contents of the appellant’s brief—assignment of errors, its
purpose. People vs. Borromeo , 430 SCRA533 xxx in criminal cases, an appeal throws the
whole case wide open for review. The reviewing tribunal can correct errors or even reverse the
trial court’s decision on grounds other than those that the parties raise as errors.

Section 8-18.Codal
*Sec.11. Scope of Judgment of the Court of Appeals.
*Sec.12. Power of the Court of Appeals to Receive Evidence.
* Sec13. Quorum of the Court; Certification or Appeal of Cases to Supreme Court
* A.M.00-5-03 SC, Oct.15, 2004 (amending Sec. 12 & 13 of Rule 124)
 14

RULE 125.Procedure in the Supreme Court

Section 1.Uniform procedure. — Unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, the
procedure in the Supreme Court in original and in appealed cases shall be the same as in the
Court of Appeals. (1a)

Section 2.Review of decisions of the Court of Appeals. Note: A.M.00-5-03, Oct.15, 2004

Section 3.Decision if opinion is equally divided. — When the Supreme Court en banc is equally
divided in opinion or the necessary majority cannot be had on whether to acquit the appellant,
the case shall again be deliberated upon and if no decision is reached after re-deliberation, the
judgment of conviction of the lower court shall be reversed and the accused acquitted. (3a)

NOTE:A.M. 10-4-20 SC, May 4, 2010

Rule 1, Sec.4.- Amendment or suspension of the Rules.

Rule 2,S2. Quorum of the Court en banc. 8 members

S3. Court en banc matters and cases. [15] xxx (b) death penalty; reclusion perpetua;
(k) cases where 3 votes in a division cannot be obtained

S3. Composition and quorum of a division.- majority of the members who actually took part

Rule 3. Exercise of Judicial Function

S1.The Supreme Court a court of law.

S2. The court not a trier of facts.
S4. Cases when the court may determine factual issues. 11 items

Rule 12. Voting Requirements.

S1. Voting requirements- en bancmajority of the members; in division 3 members

S2. Tie voting in the court en banc.xxx xxx
(b) in criminal cases, when the court en banc is equally divided in opinion or the necessary
majority cannot be had, the court shall deliberate on it anew. If after such deliberation still no
decision is reached, the court shall reverse the judgment of conviction of the lower court and
acquit the accused.

S3. Failure to obtain required votes in division.—where the necessary majority of 3 votes is not
obtained in a case in a division, the case shall be elevated to the court en banc.

Rule 15. Finality of Decision and Resolution.

S3. 2nd Motion for Reconsideration.--- “higher interest of justice” (en banc, 2/3 votes)
 15

-in the Division, a vote of 3 members shall be required to elevate a 2nd motion for recon to the
court en banc

Rule 16., S1. Entry of judgment.—xxx the date of entry of judgment shall be the date such
decision or resolution becomes executor, unless the court directs its immediate execution.

RULE 126.Search and Seizure

Section 1.Search warrant defined.Section 2-12.Codal

*Sec.2, Art.III 1987 Constitution

Fundamental Principle/Cases: Stonehill vs. Diokno 20 SCRA 382; Roan vs. Gonzales, 145
SCRA 686; People vs. Go,411 SCRA 81;People vs. Marti; Webb vs. De Leon, 247 SCRA
10;Tambasen vs. People of the Philippines, 246 SCRA 184

Warrantless Searches-

Section 13.Search incident to lawful arrest.; Search of evidence in plain view; Search of moving
vehicles; Checkpoints; Consented warrantless searches; Searches in accordance with customs
laws; Stop and frisk (Terry Search); Exigent and emergency circumstances-

Note: Stop and frisk- Esquillo vs. People, 629 SCRA 370, Aug.25, 2010, 283 SCRA 159; 163
SCRA 402; 217 SCRA 597; 382 SCRA 480;22 SCRA 857; 373 SCRA 221; 178 SCRA 211; 144
SCRA 1; 188 SCRA 288; 233 SCRA 716

Note: Any evidence obtained arising from an illegal search and seizure shall be inadmissible as
evidence(Sec.3(2), Art III 1987 Constitution)

Section 14.Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence; where to file. Note:
Malaloan, et al. vs. CA, et al. 232 SCRA 249

RULE 127.Provisional Remedies in Criminal Cases

Section 1.Availability of provisional remedies. — The provisional remedies in civil actions,

insofar as they are applicable, may be availed of in connection with the civil action deemed
instituted with the criminal action. (1a)Section 2.Attachment. Grounds for attachment-

-0-0-0-
16