VILLASIS LAW CENTER (WinTUAL LAW comPanzow [@) 2020 CRITICAL AREAS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ATTY. CHRISTIAN G.VILLASIS Professor and BAR Reviewer Review Director, Villasis Law Center Associate Dean, University of Manila 1. RA. 7438 - RIGHTS OF PERSONS ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION; DUTIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS: (a)Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel; (b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any pereon for the commission ofan offense sbal (c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer, provided that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained Pereon, otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever (d)_Any nfeasion made ‘or under tavestsaitl cuales tt eritiax aad slaned br sash werson ta the areueane of Kis oounecl or fa the latter's a valid waiver, and in the ‘of any of elder _brothe: as evidence in any proceeding; (c) Any waiver by @ person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be mill and void and of no effect; (f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by or confere: any member of his im: yr any medical any international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person's “immediate family” shall include hls or her spouse, Gancé or fiancée, parent or ebild, brother ‘As used in Act, “custodial investigation” shall include the practice of issuing an “invitation” to. person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the “inviting’ officer for any violation of law. REQUISITES OF A VALID EXTRAWJUDICIAL ADMISSION OF GUILT DURING A CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION (W-A-V-E}: (1) it must be voluntary; (2) it must be made with the assistance and independent counsel; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must be in writing. (PEOPLE vs, REYES [2009)). THE RIGHTS IN CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION APPLY ONLY TO ADMISSIONS MADE IN A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BUT NOT TO THOSE MADE IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION. (Tanenggee vs, People (2013), ‘THE SIGNATURE OF AN ACCUSED IN THE RECEIPT OF PROPERTY SEIZED IS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE IF IT WAS OBTAINED WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. (People v. Endaya [2014 Q: May a confession of the accused given to the barangay chairman, without assistance of counsel, be used as evidence against him? Is the barangay chairman a law enforcement officer? ‘A: No, To be admissible in evidence against the accused, the extrajudicial confession must satisfy the following requirements: 1. It must be voluntary; 2. It must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; It must be express; It must be in writing.CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY VILLASIS ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G. VILLASIS LAW CENTER Girne) YES, Barangay Tanods, including Barangay Chairman, may be deemed as law enforcement officers for the purpose of applying Art. Il] Sec 12 (1) and (3) of the Constitution. Thus the confession of the accused to the Barangay Chairman is inadmissible in cvidence as such was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights (People v Melingan (2006). 2. _ RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SERCHES AND SEIZURES: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, 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. (Article 3, Section 2, 1987 Constitution) NOTE: ‘The constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures refers to the mment jot_be extended to acts commit bursts individuals oo as to bang i within the ambit of alleged unlawful intasion. (People v. Mendoza, G.R, ‘Nos, 109279-80, January 18, 1999 citing People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57) STATE OF EMERGENCY NOT A VALID GROUND FOR GENERAL SEARCHES AND SEIZURES: A assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of the jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians Greer ar oat arabes Raat oe Ee ean ox aeaeate ‘suspend the privilege of the writ." (Kulayan v. Tan 2012). ARREST 1, ONCE THE INFORMATION IS FILED WITH THE COURT AND THE JUDGE PROCEEDS WITH HIS PRIMORDIAL TASK OF EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, he may either: (a) issue a warrant of arrest if-he finds probable cause; (b) immediately dismiss the.case, if the evidence on record clearly fails to cstablish probable causc; and (c) order the prosceutor to submit additional evidence, in case he doubts the existence of probable cause. (People us. Desmond [2013). Nore: Unites Seetion Ste), Rule 112 of ths Revised Rules of Ceiminal Procedure, a trial court judge mmed dismiss a to establish probab ree eat (ha Law linn of Chaves Manda and Aseoche vs. Atty, Fria (2013). FOR ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT OF ARREST: REQUISITES: (1) Issued upon probable cause; (2) Determined personally by the judge; (3) After evaluation of the prosecutor's report and supporting documents showing the existence of probable cause; (4) Particularly describe the person to be arrested; and (5) In connection with the specific offense or crime. 2. WARRANTLESS ARREST: INSTANCES WHEN A PERSON MAY BE ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT: A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is committing, oF i attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the ‘person t0, be arrested is 5: nciaonac ha has sacaped Goma penal astabllahment or fides RELIABLE INFORMATION ALONE I8 NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A WARRANTLESS ARREST UNDER SECTION 5(A), RULE 113, The rule requires, in addition, that the accused perform some overt act that would indicate that he must committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense (People us. Nuevas (2007). Page 20f 59 WARNING: No part of ths presertation may be copied, reproduced or transmited in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without prior \tritan permission rom the Vilasis Law Center. Vilasis Law Center operates a zero tolerance policy in reiaion fo mapproprate behavior of students. Viclators shal be subject to prosecution under the law. Al rights reserved by Vilasis Law Center.‘CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G, VILLASIS POSSIBLE BAR QUESTIONS: PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF COMMISSION OF THE CRIME DOES NOT INCLUDE PERSON'S REPUTATION OR PAST CRIMINAL ACTIONS. A previous arrest or existing criminal record, even for the same offense will not suffice, To interpret “personal knowledge” as referring to a person's reputation or past criminal citations would create a dangerous precedent and unnecessarily stretch the authority and Power of the police officers to effect warrantless arrests based solely on knowledge of person's previous criminal actions, rendering nugatory the rigorous requisites laid out under Section 5, Rule 113. (People vs Villareal (2013). It is inconceivable how PO3 de Leon would be able to identify with reasonable accuracy, from a distance of about 8 to 10 meters and while simultaneously driving a motorcycle, a negligible and minuscule amount of powdery substance (0.03 gram) inside the plastic sachet allegedly held by Villareal. The facts failed to show that PO3 de Leon had personal knowledge that a crime had been indisputably committed by the appellant. It is not enough that PO3 de Leon had reasonable ground to believe that appellant had just committed a crime. Without the overt act that would pin liability against appellant, it is therefore clear Seat POS de: Leon wne_soarety feipelled tn saorah ati umsiltxt’ om acomest of the: tbar-oeeriese charge for the same offense. (People vs Villareal /2013)) 2. THE ACTS OF STANDING AROUND WITH A COMPANION AND HANDLING OVER SOMETHING TO THE LATTER CANNOT IN ANY WAY BE CONSIDERED OVER ACTS. In fact, even if the two accused were showing ‘improper and unpleasant movements”, the same would not have been sufficient in order to effect a lawful warrantless arrest. Even assuming that the police officer has a perfect vision, it is improbable that he would be able to identify with reasonable accuracy — especially from a distance of around 10 meters, and while aboard! a motorevele cruising at a speed of 30 kilometers per hour — miniscule ‘amounts of white crystalline substance inside two very small plastic sachets held by one accused. Also, no other overt act. could be properly attributed fo accused as to arouse suspicion in the mind of the police that wie former tad just Comumnitted, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. (Comerciante vs. People 12015). 3. _ Accilsed Was merely seen by the police operatives leaving the residence of a known drug peddier, and boarding a tricycie that proceeded towards the direction of Kawit, Cavite. Such acts cannot in any way be considered criminal acts. The evidence on record reveals that no overt physical act could be properly attributed fo Sanchez as to rouse suspicion in the minds of the police operatives that he had just committed, was committing, or was aboutt tolcommit a ¢rime. (Sarichex us. People /2014)) 4. _ EEDA pOLice orriceR suse THE OFranss, ALTHOUGH Ar A bie?Ance, OF HEARS ‘THE DISTURBANCES CREATED THEREBY, AND PROCEEDS AT ONCE TO THE SCENE, mcr AN ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT ON THE BASIS OF SEC. 6(A), RULE 119 OP THE RULES OF COURT, ‘AS THE OFFENSE 18 DEEMED COMMITTED IN HIS PRESENCE OR WITHIN HIS VIEW. In the instant case, {tcan plausibly be argued that accused-appellants were committing the offense of possessing shabu an were in the act of loading them in a white van when the police officers arresied them, (People vs. Ng Yik Bun, 2011) (BAR) 5. PRIOR JUSTIFICATION FOR INTRUSION OR PRIOR LAWFUL INTRUSION IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF AN ARREST IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO: Thus, even granting arguendo that the apprehending officers had no legal right to be present in the dwelling of Suitan, it would not render unlawful the arrest of Ambre, who was seen sniffing shabu with Castro and Mendoza in a pot session by the police officers. Accordingly, PO2 Masi and PO Mateo were not only authorized but were also duty-bound to arrest Ambre together with Castra and Mendazn far illegal ise of methamphetamine hyelmehloride in vinlation of Section 15, Article IL of R.A. No. 9165, (Ambre v. People, August 15, 2012), 6. __Atadistance of an arm's length, the Police officer saw accused standing on a street and removed from his pocket a plastic sachet containing marijuana. When the Police officer introduced himself, accused attempted to run but the Police was able to immediately grab his hands, recover the plastic sachet from him and arrest him. Is the arrest valid? A: Yes, the arrest is valid. When the Police approached the accused, the latter was not yet effecting a warrantless afrest; hence, there was no intrusion into the person of petitioner for his purpose was merely to investigate into what appeared to be suspicious actuations of the accused. It was only upon closer scrutiny that the Police was able to discern exactly what the plastic sachet contained, hence there was a valid IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO arrest BECAUSE petitioner was actually committing a crime, having in his possession na. @ dangerous drug, without legal authority to do So. in the presence of the arresting officers, (Santos vs. People /2018)} Page 3 of 59 WARNING: No part of tis presentation may be coped, rexrdueed or transmitted in any for or by any means. slectrone or mechanical. without prior (The Center opersion a sero Inlerance paicy Is raaton io inappropriate bahavex of studante \Vodators shal be subject o prosecution under the law, All ights reserved by Viasis Law Genter B._HOT PURSUIT: FOR THE WARRANTISS ARREST UNDER SECTION 5 (B) RULE 113 OF THE RULES OF CRI L PROC TO BE VALID, TWO. [SITES MUST CONCH: (1) the offender has just an (close ‘or immedi: the and the time of the i and (2) the nm has nal know! indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it,¥, ILLASIS LAW CENT — (cnc iorzssoanin 4) ‘CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY ASSOC, DEAN CHRISTIAN G. VILLASIS B.___HOT PURSUIT: FOR THE WARRA\ SECTION 5 (B) RULE Li OF THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TO DE VALID, TWO REQUISITES MUST CONCUR: (1) the of 7 has just committed an of jolene ‘the forrest ord the tim of comuniasion of she crime aac (2! the arrest ueace afficae ar’ peieace peraot fas netmanal Raeetedes of Meee (akc tat Ou Satine he creed arena The elements under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure are: first, an slfense has hut been comnts one esond, th arrebing offer has orebebia one i belees heaed on In determining the existence of probable cause, the arresting ieee should make @ thorough investigation and exercise reasonable judament. The standards for evaluating the factual basis supporting a probable cause assessment are not less stringent in warrantless arrest situation than in a case where @ warrant is sought from a judicial oificer. The probable cause determination of a warrantless arrest is yn_information that the aificer possesses at the time of the arrest and not on the information acquired later. In People v. del Rosario, the Supreme Court held that the requirement that an offense has just been committed means that there must_be a _larec measure of immediacy between the time the offense was committed and the time of the arrest. If there was an appreciable lapse of time between the arrest and the commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest must be secured. In other words, the clincher in the element of "personal knowledge of facts or clrenmatances® js thr ravired element of immediacy within which these facts or circumstances should be gathered. This required time clement acts as a safeguard to ensure that the police officers have gathered the facts or perceived the circumstances within a very limited time frame. This guarantees that the poli cers would have no time cir probable cause o circumstances obtained after an exhaustive investigation The reason for the element of the immediacy is this - as the time gap from the commission of the crime to the arrest widens, the pieces of information gathered are prone to become contaminated and subjected to external factors, interpretations and hearsay. (PESTILOS us. GENEROSO [2014)) Ih Posadas v, Ombudsman,-(he killing of Dennis Venturina happened on December 8, 1994. It was only on December-ii, 1994 that Chancellor Posadas requested the NBI's assistance. On the!basis of the supposed identification of two (2) witnesses, the NBI attempted to arrest Francis Carlo Teparan and Raymundo Narag three (3) days after the commission of the erlme. With this set of facts, it cannot be said that the officers have personal knowledge of facts or citcumstances.that the persons sought to.be arrested committed the crime. Hence, the Court invalidated the warrantless arrest. Similarly, in People v. Burges, onc Cesar Masamlok personally and voluntarily surrendefed to the authorities, stating tht Ruben Burgos fob recruited him te become. mnember ofthe NPA. with. teat of the police officers had in effecting the arrest was the information froma third person, It cannot be also said in this case that there was certainty as regards the commission of a crime. in People v. del Rosario,-the Court held that the requirement that an offense has just been committed means that there must be a large measure of immediacy between the time the offense was time of the arrest. If there was an a; le lapse of time between the arrest the commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest must be secured, The Court held that the arrest of del Rosario did not comply with these requirements because he was arrested only a day after the commission of the crime and not immediately thereafter, Additionally, the arresting officers were not present and were not actual eyewitnesses to the crime. Hence, they had no personal knowledge of indicating that the person to be arrested had committed the offense. They became aware of del Resaric's identity as the In Rolito Go v. CA, the arrest of the accused six (6) days after the commission of the crime was held invalid because the crime had not just been committed. Moreover, the “arresting” officers had no yersonal je” of facts indicating that the accused was the gunman who had shot the victim. The information upon which the police acted came from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting: one stated that the accused was the gunman: another wax able to take down the alleged an's car's a yhich turned out to be r in the of the accused's wife. That information did not constitute “personal knowledge.” In People v. Gerente, the policemen arrested Gerente only about three (3) hours after Gerente and hie companions had killed the victim. The Court held that the policemen had personal knowledge ofthe Scat was Rel vad. Page 4 of 59 WARNING: No pat of ths presantation may be copied, reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electron or mechanical, without p ten permiusion om the Villas Law Cantor. Vilasis Law Center cpersios a zero talerance potcy i raion le rappropriate behevr of student Vicltors shal be subject lo prosacition uncer the law, lights reserved by Vilas Law Carve,CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY VILLASIS ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G. VILLASIS LAW CENTER aN In People v. Alvario, the warrantless arrest the arr officers received information from the victim of the erlme. The Court held that the ersonal knowledge of the erresting officers was derived from the information supplied by the victim herself who pointed to Alvario as the man who raped her at the time of his arrest. The Court upheld the warrantless arrest. In People v Jayson, there was @ shooting incident. The policemen who were summoned to the #0 the crime the a ‘as the assailant 01 The Court held that the arresting officers acted on the basis of personal knowledge of the death of the victim and of facts indicating that the accused was the assailant. Thus, the warrantless arrest was held valid. respo: report of the crime. One of the victims saw four persons walking towards Fort Bonifacio, one of whom was wearing his jacket. The victim pointed them to the policemen. When the group saw the policemen coming, they ran in different directions. The Court held that the arrest was valid. tn Cadua v. CA, there waa an initial report to the px cning a robbery. A sedis dizpateh eas then given to the arresting officers, who proceeded to Alden Street to verify the authenticity of the ‘When they reached the with the its who about the robbery. Upon the officers’ invitation, the victims joined them in conducting a search of the nearby area where the accused was spotted in the vicinity. Based on the reported statements of the complainants, he was identified as a logical suspect in the offense just committed. Hence, the arrest was held valid NOTE: Even though the police officer has not seen someone actually fleeing, he could still make a warrantless arrest if, based on his personal evaluation of the circumstances at the scene of the crime, he could determine the existence of probable cause that the person sought to be arresied has committed the crime, However, the determina! cause and the gathering of facts or circumstances shonld_be made immediately after the commission of the crime in order to comply with the clement of immediacy. c. HE RIS cD FROM A PENAL EST OR. SER! FINAL JUDGMENT OR TEMPORARILY CONFINED HIS CASE 1S _P3 OR HAS ESCAPED WHILE ‘TRANSFERRED ‘ONE NFINEMENT TO ANOTHER (1 ‘OF ESCAP! NER} AN ACCI BAIL WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF A WARRANT IF HE ATTEMPTS TO DEPART FROM THE PHILIPPINES WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF HIS CASES MING. [Rul See. 23) 3. __ AN ACCUSED 18 ESTOPPED FROM ASSAILING ANY IRREGULARITY OF HIS ARREST IF HE FAILS TO RAISE THIS ISSUE OR TO MOVE FOR THE QUASHAL OF THE INFORMATION AGAINST HIM ON THIS GROUND BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT, THUS, ANY OBJECTION INVOLVING A WARRANT OF ARREST OR THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE COURT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED MUST BE MADE BEFORE HE ENTERS HIS PLEA; OTHERWISE, THE OBJECTION 1S DEEMED WAIVED. (PEOPLE vs. VELASCO [2013)) THE ACCUSED CANNOT CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF HIS WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND ARREST FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HIS APPEAL, (People v. Sulpicio Sonny Boy Tan y Phua|2010). 4. __@ WAIVER OF AN ILLEGAL WARRANTLESS ARREST DOES NOT CARRY WITH IT A WAIVER OF THE INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE SEIZED DURING THE ILLEGAL WARRANTLESS ARREST, (GEORGE ANTIQUERA Y CODES VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Q.R. NO. 180661, DECEMBER 11, 2013, ABAD) While the accused has already waived his tight to contest the legality of his arrest, he is not fo have equally waived his right to contest the legality of the search. (VLLANUEVA VS, PEOPLE 2014). Page 5 of 59 WARNING: No part ofthis preseriaton may be copied reproducee! cr transite in any former by any means. electron or mechanical, without prise vein perrission from the Vilasis Law Carter. Vilas Law Center operaies a zor tolerwice policy in elatian te happroprite behavir of students Velater shall be eubject fo prosecution under the law. Al ights reserved by Vilasis Law Cente,CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY VILLASIS ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G. VILLASIS LAW CENTER i s - (aracrarcoerananB) RULE 126 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE 1 SEARCH WARRANT DISTINGUISH FROM WARRANT OF ARREST: (1) Warrant of arrest is an order directed to the peace officer to execute the warrant by taking the person stated therein into custody fay be bound to answer for the commission of the offense. Search ¢ is an Order in writing in the name of the Republic of the Philippines simed by the judge and directed to the peace officer to personal property described therein and to bring it bring it to court. (Sec.1, Rule 126, Rules of Court): (2) Warrant of arrest does not become stale. Search Warrant is valid for 10 days only (Sec. 9, Rule 126, Rules of Couri); (3) Warrant of arrest may be served on any day and at any time of day or night (Sec. 6, Rule 113, Rules of Court). Search warrant is to be served only in daytime unless the affidavit alleges that the ison the person or in the the place to be searched. (Sec. 9, Rule 126, Rules of Court); (4) In issuing warrant ef arrest, searching examination of witnesses is not necessary. In search wasrant, the judge must personally cendact an examination of the complainant and the witnesses; (5) In jesuing warrant of arrest, the judge 1s ierely called upon to examine and evaluate the report af the fiscal and the evidence. Is search warrant, the txamination by the judge must be probing, Not enough to merely adopt the questions and answers asked by a previous investigator, GENERAL RULE: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION STATES THAT A SEARCH AND CO! SEIZURE MUST BE CARRIED OUT WITH A_JUDICIAL WARRANT: OTHERWISE, IT BECOMES UNREASONABLE AND ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED THEREFROM SHALL BE INADMISSIBLE FOR ANY PURPOSE IN ANY PROCEEDING, (STEPHEN SY VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILS., [201 1)) REQUISITES: SEC. 4, Requisites for issuing search warrant. - A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, ind particularly describing the piace to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywnere in the Philippines, (Sec, 2, Art. 1, Constitution andl Secs. # & 5, Rule 126) Note: Should any of thé¥e requisites be absent, the party aggrieved by the issuance and enforcement of the search warrant-may file a MOTION TO QUASH the search warrant with the issuing court or with the L NO VIOLATION OF THE ONE-SPECIFIC-OFFENSE RULE: A scarch warrant that covers ral counts of ci fie offense docs not violate the onc-speoific-offensc rule; where severat counts of the offense of copyright infringement and the search warrant uncovered Several contraband items in the Giomvef pital video tapes is not to be confused with the number of offenses charged. The search warrant herein issued does not violate the one-specific-offense rule (Citing Columbia Pictures, Inc. u-CA, 329 Phil. 875 11996) Retired SPOF Lata vm. Peuple (GR. Tu. 199052, Noveinber 19, 2014) SCATTERSHOT WARRANTS ARE ILLEGAL: Those warrants that are issued for more than one specific offense, 2, DESCRIPTION OF THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED. A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. A designation or description that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on ingniry uncrsingly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness. (People vs. Tuan (G.R. No. 176066, August 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 226) PARTICULARITY OF PLACE TO BE SEARCHED: The purpose of the rule is to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they shall seize, to the end that “unreasonable searches and y not be made - that abuses may not be committed (Stonchill vs. Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967). THE SEARCH WARRANT SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATES OR DESCRIBES THE HOUSE OF THE ACCUSED AS THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED. INCIDENTALLY, THE MARIJUANA WAS SEIZED BY BARANGAY TANODS THIRTY (30) METERS AWAY FROM THE HOUSE OF THE ACCUSED. SINCE THE CONFISCATED ITEMS WERE FOUND IN A PLACE OTHER THAN THE ONE DESCRIBED IN THE SEARCH WARRANT, IT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS FRUITS OF AN INVALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH, THE PRESENTATION OF WHICH AS_AN EVID! S_A VIOLATION OF ER'S_ CONSTITUTIONAL (GUARANTY AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURE, (Ruben Del Castillo vs. People (2012) 3.___ PARTICULAR DESCRIPTION OP THINGS STATED IN THE SEARCH WARRANT: The purpose of the constitutional requirement that the articles to be seized be particularly described in the Warrant {s to limit the things to be takcn to those, and only those particularly described in the search Page 6 of 59 WARNING: No part ofthis preseniation may be cepled, epreduced or transiited in ary form cr by any means, electionie * mechanical, without prot sites permtesion hom the Vlas Law Cavler Ulan Unw Cantar operaiag 8 aro tolerance policy i relation tn ianpnpriaia haha af tetas \Vioitors shale subject fo prosecution under ie law. All ights reserved by Vilas Law CenterVILLASIS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY L: LAW CENTER ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G. VILLASIS warrant — to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they should seize. A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to Undertake a fishing expedition to confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime. xxx x Certainly, the lndy’s wallet, cash, grinder, camera, component, speakers, electric planer, jigsaw, electric tester, saws, bummer, drill, and bolo were not encompassed by the word “paraphernalia” as thoy bear no relation to the use or manufacture of drugs. In seizing the sald items then, the police officers exercised their own discretion and determined for themselves which Items in appellant's residence thev belicved were "proceeds of the crime” or ‘means of committing the offense.” This is, in our view, absolutely impermissible. x x x x Accordingly, the objects taken which were not specified in the search warrant should be restored to appellant. (PEOPLE VS, NUNEZ |2009)). 4. ‘THE NAME OF THE PERSON IN THE SEARCH WARRANT IS NOT IMPORTANT, It is not even_nece: that a particular person be implicated so as the conducted where the search warrant will be served. (Mantaring v. Roman, 259 SCRA 158 [1996)). 5. __o7 OF PERSONAL PRO! OF SEARCH ESSENTIAL IT 18 NOT NECESSARY THAT THE PROPERTY TO BE SEARCHED OR SEIZED SHOULD BE OWNED BY THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE SEARCH WAS ISSUED; IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT THE PROPERTY IS UNDER HIS CONTROL OR POSSESSION. (People v. Dichoso, 223 SCRA 174). In Burgos us. Chief of Siaff 28 SCRA 410], the ownership af personal property is unessertial, The said rile [Sec. 2, Rule 126] does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. It may or may not be owned by him. As provided, under sub-section (bj of the above- quoted Section 2, one of the propertics that may be owned by one other than the person in whose possession it may be at the time of search and seizure, Ownership, therefore, is of no consequence, and it is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of the property sousht to be selzed, SEARCH, \¥ BE ISSUED FOR THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF THE FOLLOWING PERSONAL PROPERTIES. (A) SUBJECT OF THE OFFENSE; (B) STOLEN OR EMBEZZLED AND OTHER PROCEEDS, OR FRUITS OF THE OFFENSE; OR (C) USED OR INTENDED TO BE USED AS ‘THE MEANS OF COMMITTING AN OFFENSE. (SECTION 3, RULE 126, RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE) HUMAN REMAINS'CAN BE A SUBJECT OF A SEARCH WARRANT: “Personal property’ in_the foregoing contest actually sefers to the thing's mobility, and not to its capacity to be owned or alienated by a particular person, Articles 16 of the Civil Code," which Laud himself cites, states that in general, all things which can be transported from place to place are decmed to be personal property. Considering that human remains can gencrally betransported from place to place, and considering further that they qualify under the phrase “subject of the’offense” given that they prove the crime’s corpus delicti, it follows that they may be valid subjects of a search warrant under the above-cited criminal procedure provision. (RETIRED SP04 BIENVENIDO LAUD vs. PEOPLE |2014)) 7. APPLICATION POR SEARCH FOR SEARCH WARRANT, WHERE FILED: GENERAL RULE: The application for search warrants abould be filed with the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the erime was committed (Sec. 2 (a), Rule 126, Rules of Court) EXCEPTIONS: a) for compelling reasons, it can be filed with the court within whose judicial region the offense was committed or where the warrant is to be served. However, if the criminal action has been filed, the application shall only be made in court where the criminal action is pending (Section 2, Rule 126) b] In eaee of search warrants inuniving hrinaus crimes. illegal eambling_ illegal nossession of firearms and_ammunitions as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the Intellect Property Code, the Anti- Money Laundering Act of 2001,.the Tarif. and Customs Code, the Executive Judges and, whenever they are on official leave of absence or are not physically present in the station, the Vice Executive Judges of thc RTC of Manila and Quezon City shall have authority to act on applications filed by the NBI, PNP and the Anti-Crime Task Force (ACTAF), Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOC- TF), and the Reaction Against Crime Task Force (REACT-TF). (A.M. NO, 99-10-09-SC DATED JANUARY 25, 2000) (SPS. JOEL AND MARIETTA MARIMLA VS. PEOPLE /2009)) fothing in A.M. No. 99-10-09-5C its the heads of the PNP, NBI. PAOC-TF and REACT-TF from delegating their ministerial duty of endorsing the application for search warrant to their assistant heads, Under Section 31, Chapter 6, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, an assistant head or other subordinate in every bureau may perform auch Hutics as may be specified by their superior or head, as long as it is not inconsistent with law Page 7 of 59 WARNING: No patt ofthis y ba copied reproduced or tranamited in any form or by any moans vriten permission from the Vilase Law Cent ‘Volatcra anal be subject to prosecution uncer ectronic 0 mechanical, without prior “Vilevie Law Conter eperstes a zare tolerance poly relation to inappropriate bahwvier of wtidente law Al rights reserved by Vilasis Law Center,CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY VILLASIS ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G. VILLASIS LAW CENTER ara ERT If the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall. only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending. (POSSIBLE BAR) Q: Can « Municipal Trial Court (MTC) issue a search warrant involving an offense in which it has no jurisdiction? A; YES, A search warrant may be ursuant to 8 126 of the Rules of Court and the resultant case may he filed in another court that hae lintion over the offense committed. What controls here is that @ search warrant is court in the exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction, and not a criminal action to be entertained by a court pursuant to its original jurisdiction. Thus, no criminal action has yet any court may issue a search warrant even it has no jurisdiction over the offense alle; mitted, ided that all the its for the issuance of such warrant t. Im this case, the application for search warrant was applied within the same judicial region where the crime ‘committed. Fer com: reasons, the MTC of Gattaran the au to stated in the application thereof in Appari Cagnyan,« place that ie Uae within the sume fudielal region. (PEOPLE v. CASTILLO [2016}). 8. VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCHES: (1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest: (2) [Seizure] of evidence in “plain view."; (3) Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity; (4) Consented warrantless search; (5) Customs search; (6) Stop and Frisk; (7] Exigent and emergency circumstances; (8) Search of vessels and aircraft; [and] (9) Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations. (VALEROSO vs. COURT OF APPEALS (2009). 4A.___SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST: Under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, "|a) person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant, 1,__The arrest of the appellants was an arrest in flagrante delicto made in pursuance of Sec. S{a}, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The arrest was effecied after Marcelino and Myra performed the overt fact of sling to PO2 Noble the sachet of shabw-and Hanada of having in his-control and custody Heen! drug ct sion than that the arrest made by SS a actually committing the said crimes. xx XXx Search as an incident to the Inwful arrest is likewise legal. Uncler Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, “lal person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.” The factual milien of this case clearly shows that the searc! made after a ts were i Pursuant to the above-mentioned rule, the subsequent search and seizure made by the police officers were likewise valid, Hence, appellants’ claim of unreasonable search and seizure must fail. (People us Callado /2013). 2, __ THE PARAMETERS OF A VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE AS AN INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST. The phrase "within the area of his immediate control” means the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence, A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. x x x x It is worthy to note that the purpose of the exception (warrantless search as an incident to a lawful arrest) is to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the person arrested, who might be armed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the laiter from destroving evidence within reach. The exception, therefore, should not be strained beyond what is necded to serve its purpose. In the case before us, search was made in the locked cabinet which cannot be sald to have been within Valeroso’s immediate control. Thus, the search exceeded the bounds of what may be considered as an incident to a Jawful arrest. xx x x Clearly, the search made was illegal, a violation of Valeroso's right against unreasonable search and seizure, Consequently, the evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible in evidence against him. (VALEROSO VS. COURT OF APPEALS [2009)). 3. __ THE GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH A TRAFFIC VIOLATION IS NOT THE ARREST OF THE OFFENDER BUT THE CONFISCATION OF THE DRIVER'S LICENSE OF THE LATTER. x xx A motorist flagged down by a policeman for not wearing ¢ helmet is not deemed arrested since he was only given a traffic citation and the penalty for the ordinance is only a fine. Hence, the subsequent search of the motorcyclist was lllcgal and the itcms scized were inadmissible in evidence, x x x x The roadside questioning Page 8 of 59 WARNING: No port ofthis preseniation may be copied. reproduced of ansmitied In any form or by eny means, electronic F mechanical without ore wien permission fron the Vilasis Law Certer. Vileoi Law Center operaios a 20 tolerance poly in relation ta hnappropiste behavior of atudenls Volatrs shalbe subject ts prosecution under the law, Al ights reserved by Vilaala Law CoalCRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY VILLASIS ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G, VILLASIS LAW CENTER = 7 (Giemmarmaraeennan Ta) ofa motorist does not fall under custodial interrogation, nor_can_it be considered a formal arrest. Consequently, since there was no valid arrest, the warrantless search thet resulted therefrom was likewise considered illegal Moreover, while accused may have failed to abject 10 illegality of his arrest at the earliest opportunity, a walver of an _Ulegal warrantle 'S not however miean a waiver of the admissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest, In any event, « warrantless arrest may not be effected where tht is a p. People GR. No. 197788, 29 February 2012, (POSSIBLE BAR) Q: Two Bantay Bayan (BB) operatives responded to a report of a man showing off his private parts in public, They saw the man with his back turned to them appeared to be pecing. ‘They immediately arrested him and subsequently searched his person, which yielded to a pack of cigarettes containing one (1) stick of cigarette and two (2) pieces of rolled paper containing dried marijuana leaves. An information for illegal possession of prohibited drugs was later filed. Was the search valid? ‘A: No. Every search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant, otherwise such search and seizure become “unreasonable” and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible in any proceeding. One of the recognized exceptions to this is a scarch incidental to a lawful arrest. In this case, the search condueted by the BB operatives was illegel for not being made on the strength of search warrant. Neither can the BB operatives claim that the search was incidental to the arrest since the arrest itself wes not walldly made, Jn this cane, here wos no clncumstance lartifving the offense. Notably, no other charge was filed against the petitioner on account of his alleged public display of private parts. (Miguel ws. People 12017). B, PLAIN VIEW:DOCTRINE: Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a joni to have that view arc Subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in Evidence. The “plain view" doctrine applies when the followinglrequisites concur, (a) the jaw enforcement officer in searcit idence justification for am intrusion or is in alposition yhich he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately appatent_t0 the officer that the item he.observes. may be evidence ‘of a Crimé, contraband or otherwise subject to scizufe. The law enforcement officer must fev oe eo a ate ee be in a position from which/he can particularly view the area.In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across @ piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The suet must be open to eye and band and its discovery inadvertent. /MICLAT, JR. VS. PEOPLE /201 i); PEOPLE VS.-CHI CHAN LIU [01s C. SEARCHES CONDUCTED IN CHECKPOINTS: They are valid as long as they are warranted by the exigencies of public order and conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists. As long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to visual search, said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individual's right against unreasonable search (People vs. Vinecario [2004}). D. SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLES: Police may conduct searches of moving vehicles without warrant because it is impracticable 19 secure prior judicial search warrant since the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction where the warrant may be sought.These searches are generally limited_to visual inspection, and the vehicles or theit occupants cannot_be subjected to vody searches (EXCEPT when there is probable cause to believe that the occupant is a law offender or the vehicle/s’ contents are instruments or proceeds of some criminal otten SEARCHES CONDUCTED IN CHECKPOINT: ‘They are valid as long.as they are warranted by the exigencies of public order and conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists, Here, the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to body search (inspection of the vehicle is limited to visual search). For as long as the vehicle is neither y i the vehicle is limited to visual search, said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individual's right againgt unreasonable search (People vs, Vinecario [2004]}, FE. CONSENTED SEARCH: The consent to a warrantless search must be voluntary, that is, it must be unequivocal, specific and intelligently given, by any duress or coercion, Consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred, but must be shown by clear and convincing evidence (Valdez vs. People [2007)). Page of 9 WARNING: No part ofthis presentation may be copied. reproduced or tansmited in any form or by ary means, electronic or mechanical, without peor \wetton permission rom te Viisie Law Center. Vilasie Law Corte operias a x00 loverance policy in relation to inappropriate bahar af widen Violators shal be subject to prosecution under the iw, All igh reserved by Vilesis Law Carter,CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY VILLASIS ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G, VILLASIS LAW CENTER {comarca 1) G,__ENFORCEMENT OF CUSTOM LAWS: Routine customs searches require no warrant or no probable cause, though extended detention of travelers must be Justified by reasonable suspicion. (United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 1985). OF AND FRISK SITUATION: A stop-and-trsk situation must_procede_s warrantless sézeot, Ulin to ha peste ontoe eeotatas, nad Eaasid Op aromndad wuine reason, in the light of the police officers experience and surrounding conditions, to wi detained has weapons concealed about him (Valdez vs. People [2007]. Q; Police officer Juan was on his motorcycle cruising at 30 km per hour. From 10 meters away, he saw Pedro standing on the sidewalk with Miguel. Juan witnessed Pedro handing over to Miguel something. Feeling suspicious that the two men standing and showing “improper and unpleasant movements,” with one of them handing plastic sachets to the other, Juan decided to approach them and introduce himself ax 2 police officer. After which he friaked and arrested them. Juan was able to confiscate sachets of what was tested to be shabu. Was there « valid “stop and frisk” search on the part of Juan? A: No, there was no valid ‘stop and frisk’ search. Pedro's acts of standing around with a companion and handing over something to the latter do not constitute criminal acts. These circumstances are not enough to create @ reasonable inference of criminal activity which would constitute a “genuine reason” for Juan to conduct a “stop and frisk* search on the former. In this light, the ‘stop and frisk* scarch made on Pedro should be deemed unlawful. (Comerciante us. People /2015)) 9, —_ Q; In the course of serving a search warrant, the police finds an unlicensed firearm. Can the police take the the search warrant? If the warrant is subsequently quashed, is the police required to retura the firearm? Explain briefly. ‘Asoo Yes, the police may take with him the tunlicensed” firearm although not covered by the search warrant. Possession ofan ‘unlicensed firearm’ is a criminal offense and the an_arti¢le which is the ‘subject of an offense.” This is especially so considering that the Sahceael Reese appears to be in “plain view" of the police officer when he conducted the search, Even if the warrant was subsequently quashed, the police is not mandated to return the “unlicensed firearm.” The quashal of the search warrant did not affect the validity of the seiaure of the “unlicensed firearm.’ Moreover, returning the firearm to a person who is not otherwise allowed by law to possess the same would be tantamount to abetting a yiolatian of the lay 10, (BAR) REMEDIES FROM UNLAWFUL SEARCH”AND SEIZURE: (a) a motion to quash the search warrant with the issuing court; (b) motion to suppress as evidence the objects illegally taken with the court trying the criminal case; (c} File a criminal action against officer. A public officer/employee who procures a SW without just cause is criminally liable uncer Art. 129, RPC (search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained). (d) replevin, if the objects are legally possessed; and (¢) File a motion to retum seized things. General Rule: A motion to quash a search warrant and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and acted upon only by the court where the action has been instituted. Exception: 1f no criminal action has been instituted, the motion may be fled in and resolved by the court that issued the search warrant. However, if such court failed to resolve the motion and a eriminal case is subsequently fled in another court, the motion shall be resaived by the latter court.” Basis of Motion to suppress evidence: Art. Ill, Sec. 3 (2), 1987 Constitution. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadrissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Note: if no motion to suppress evidence was filed, the agerieved party may still object to the evidence 30 obtained when the samc is offered, invoking Sec. 3(2}, Article Ill of the Constitution. GROUNDS THAT MAY BE RAISED IN A MOTION TO QUASH: a, Existence or non-existence of probable cause at the time of issuance of the Search Warrant; and b. Compliance with procedural and substantial requirements REMEDIES OF PARTIES TO QUESTION ORDERS QUASHING SEARCH WARRANTS: An application for a search warrant is a judicial process conducted either a8 an incident in a main criminal case already filed in court or in anticipation of one yet to be filed. whether the criminal case (of which the search warrant is an incident) has already been filed before the trial court is significant for the purpose of determining the proper remedy from a grant or denial of a motion to quash @ search warrant. WHERE THE SEARCH WARRANT 15 Page 10 of 59 tof this presertation may be copied, reproduced or tranamited in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without pre nro the Vilasia Law Center. Vilas Law Ceriar eperaten zer flerence polcy Mt ‘clon 10 Inappropriate behaves of atudertn Vielotors shal be subject io prosecution under the la. Al hts reserve by Vitasia Law CenteCRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY VILLASIS ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G. VILLASIS LAW CENT " faeces Ta) ISSUED AS AN INCIDENT IN A PENDING CRIMINAL CASE, the quashal of a search warrant is merely interlocutory. there is still ‘something more to be done in the said criminal case, ic., the determination of the guilt of the accused therein.” IN CONTRAST, WHERE A SEARCH WARRANT IS APPLIED FOR AND ISSUED IN ANTICIPATION OF A CRIMINAL CASE YET TO BE FILED, the order quashing the warrant (and denial of a motion for reconsideration of the grant) ends the judicial process.there is nothing more to be done thereafter. here, the applications for search warrants were instituted as principal proceedings and not as incidents to pending criminal actions. When the search warrants issued were Subsequently quashed by the RTC, there was nothing left to be done by the trial court. thus, the quashal of the search warrants were final orders, not interlocutory, and an appeal may be property taken therefrom. (WORLD WIDE WEB CORPORATION VS. PEOPLE /2014)). BAIL 1, _ BAIL IS THE SECURITY GIVEN BY AN ACCUSED WHO IS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE LAW FOR HIS RELEASE TO GU/ ‘HIS_APPEARAN( FORE ANY COURT AS MAY BE REQUIRED. (Section 1, Rule 114, Rules of Curt) CUSTODY OF THE LAW VS. LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCCUSED. Our pronouncement in Santiago shows a distinction between custody of the law and jurisdiction over the person. Custody of the law is requized before the court can act upon the application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere application therefor constitutes @ waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Custody of the Iaw is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender, while jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. One can be under the custody of the law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, siich as when a person arrested by virtue of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant. On the other hand, one ean be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, and yet not be in the custody of the law, stich as when an accused escapes custody after his trial has commenced. Being in the custody of the law signifies restraint on the person, who lg thereby deprived of his own will and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will of the lavCustedy of the law is literally custody over the body of the accused, It inciuides, but is not limited to, detention. x x x NOTE: As a general mule, one who secks an alfirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. As we held in the aforecited case of Santiago, seeking an affirmative relief in court, whether in civil or criminal proceedings, constitutes voluntary appearance. x x x x In criminal cases, Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is deemed waived by the accused when he files any pleading seeking an affirmative relief, except in cases when he invokes the special jurisdiction of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over his person. 2. KINDS OF BAIL: (Question No. XIV(B), 1999 BAR Examination): Bail may be given by a corporate surety, or through a property bond, cast deposit or recognizance. RECOGNIZANCE: In recognizance, the court entrusts the accused to a person of known probity and responsibility who assumes the obligation to bring him to court when needed. The accused may even be released on his own recognizance under Sec. 15 of Rule 114. It is ordinarily applicable in light offenses. Under R.A. 6036, recognizance may be available when the imposable penalty does not exceed 6 months imprisonment and/or P2,000 fine. It may also apply when the accused has been imprisoned for a period that fs equal to or more than the minimum period of the imposable penalty without application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Where the accused. has applicd for probation, pending resolution of the case but no bail was filed or the accused is incapable of filing one. Under PD603, a youthfull offender held for mental, physical examination, trial or appeal may apply for recognizance if he is unable to furnish bail. 3. BAIL WHEN NOT REQUIRED: (1) No bail shall be required when the law or these rules so provide (Sec. 16 Rule 114, Rules of Court]; (2) Instances when the law or rules provide that no bail is required: (a) RA 6036 - offenses charged is violation of an ordinance, light felony of a criminal offense, the Imposable penalty wherefore docs not exceed 6 months of imprisonment and/or fine of P2,000; (bl PD 603 as "amended - in cases of a youthful offender held for physical or mental examination, trial or appeal, if unable to furnish bail and under the circumstances; (cl where the accused has applied for probation and before the same_has been resolved but no bail was filed by the accused because he is incapable of filing one, in which case he may be released on recognizance; and (d) when @ person has been in custody for a period cqual to or more than the sonment for the offense charged, he shall be released immediately, without prejudice to the continuation of the trial or the proceedings on appeal. If the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after 30 days of preventive imprisonment (Sec. 16, Rule 114, Rules of Court). Page 11. 0f 59 WARNING: No part of ths presentation may be copied, reproduced or transmited in any form of by any means, electronic or mechanical, without prior \iriten permiasion fom the Vilasis Law Center. Vilass Law Center operates a zero tolerance poly in relation to inappropriate behavior of studens, Violators shal be aubject to prosecution under the inw. Al rights reserved by Vilna Law GenterCRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY VILLASIS ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G. VILLASIS LAW CENTER a = = Soren D) WHEN 18 BAIL A MATTER OF RIGHT: All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or released on recognize as prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before ox i itan Trial Court, Municipal Teial Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Cizcuit Trial Court, and (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment NOTE: After conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offease not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, bail is a matter of discretion (Sections 4 and 5, Rule 114, Rules of Court), 5. WHEN IS BAIL DISCRETIONARY: Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of appeal, provided it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate court. However, if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court. Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to continue on provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman. if the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstances: (a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration; (b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evacied sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification; (c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon; (d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of Might if released on bail; or (¢) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal. The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, review the Tesolution of the Regional Trial Court alter notice to the adverse party in either case. (5a) discretion, the proper courts age to be guided by the fundamental principle thatthe allowance of ball pending th should be exe; it with laxity but wit! caution and only for strong reasons, considerin that the accused has been if fact convicted by the ftial court.The CA denied petitioner's application for bail pending appeal on the grojind that she is a Might risk, a ball-negating factor under Sec. 5(¢) of Rule 114 quoted above. x xx Consequently, the Court agrees with the appellate court's finding of the presence of the fourth circumstance enumerated in the ubove-quoted Sec. 5 of Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal jure, and kolds that the appellate court neither exred_nor abused retion in a bait L The ‘court te been led_by the circumstances provided under the Rules. As the Court categorically held in People v. Fitzgerald, "As for an accused already convicted and sentenced to an imprisonment term exceeding six years, bail may be denied or revoked based on prosecution evidence as to the existence of any of the. circumstances under Sec. 5, paragraphs (@) to (e) x x x." Evidently, the circumstances succinctly provided in Sec. 5 of Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure have been placed as @ guide for the exercise of the appellate courv’s discretion in granting or denying the application for bail, pending the appeal of an accused who has been convicted of a crime where the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years. In all, the Court finds the CA to have exercised its discretion soundly when it denied petitioner's application for bail pending appeal, (CYRIL CALPITO QUI vs. PEOPLE [2012)). THE s AFTER DENIAL OF BAIL PENDING APPEAL IS "A MATTER OF WISE DISCRETION" SINCE / CONVICTION BY THE TRIAL COURT, THE PRESUMPTION OF _INNOCENC! #ES_AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BAIL ENDS. x x x «UPON CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED BY THE RTC IMPOSING A PENALI 6 YEARS BUT WHICH IS RECLUSION PERPETUA, OR LIFE IMPRISO! ADMISSION TO iS DISCRETIONARY IF OF THE BAIL-NEGATING CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN SECTION 5 ARE PRESENT. The court may jcny bail on considerations other than the absence of the circumstances under S5 R14 as in the courts prima facie determination that there is no substantial ground for the reversal of the conviction. On the other hand, if any of the circumstances are present, the court has no option but to deny or revoke bail. (LEVISTE VS COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE /2010}). ENRILE WAS ALLOWED TO POST BAIL: in granting Enrile's petition for certiorari, the Court is guided by the earlier mentioned principal purpose of bail, which is to guarantee the appearance af the ‘accused at the trial, or whenever so required by the court. The Court is further mindful of the Philippines’ responsibility in the intemnational comamnity arising from the national commitment under Page 12 of 58 WARNING: No part otis presenimtion may be caniac. reproduces c ransmitied in any for or by sy mers, electonic cr mechanical, without prior \watien permission fom the Vitasis Law Center. Vilais Law Center oporaies a 207 tolerance paley in telaton to inappropriate behavior of students Volutor shalibe subject to prosecution under the law All ights reserved by Vis Law CanterVIL LASIS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G. VILLASIS: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person. Enrile’s social and political standing and his having immediately surrendered to the authorities upon his being charged in court indicatc that the risk of his fight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely. x x x x With his solid reputation in both his public and his private lives, his long years of public service, and history's judgment of him being at stake, he should be granted bail. The currently fragile state of Enrile’s health presents another compelling justification for his admission to bail, but which the Sandiganbayan did not recognize. Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of the crime charged, should be allowed independently of the merits of the charge, provided his continued incarceration is clearly shown to be injurious to his health or to endanger his life. Indeed, denying Enrile bail despite imperiling his health and life would not serve the true objective of preventive incarceration during the trial. It is relevant to observe that granting provisional liberty to Enrile will then enable him to heve his medical condition be properly addressed and better attended to by competent physicians in the hospitals of his choice. This will not only aid in his adequate preparation of his defense but, more importantly, will guarantee his appearance in court for the trial, On the other hand, to mark time in order to wait for the trial to finish before a meaningful consideration of the application for bail can be had is to defeat the objective of bail, which is to entitle the accused to provisional liberty pending the triel. 6, WHERE IS BAIL FILED; (@) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where the case is pending, or in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with any regional trial judge, metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge in the province, city, or municipality. If the accused i arrested in a provinee, city, or municipality other than where the case is pending, bail may also be filed with any Fegional trial court of said place, or if no judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge therein; (b) Where the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the accused seeks to be released on recognizancé, (he applitation may only be filed in the court where the case is pending, whether oa preliminary investigation, trial, or on appeal; (c) Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply forjbail with any/couitt in the province, city, or municipality where heis held. (Section 17, Rule 14) SPECIAL JURISDICTION OF MTC ON APPLICATIONS FOR BAIL: In the absence of ll the Regional Trial Judges in @ provineeor city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipat Trial Judge, Municipal. Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions’ for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminalicases in the province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit. (Section. 35, Bataa Pambansa Blg. 129), ‘As a rule, bail may be filed with the court where the case is pending. if the judge of that court is unavailable, then application may be filed with RTC of said place. If no RTC judge is available, then MTC in the said place (Sec. 17(a), Rules of Court). This rule applies when bail fs a matter of right because when the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, the application should be filed with the court where the case is pending Whether pending for preliminary investigation, trial or appeal, the rule is the same when the accused secks to be released on recognizance (Sec. 17(b), Rule 114), 7. __ APPLICATION NOT A BAR TO OBJECTIONS IN ILLEGAL ARREST, LACK OF OR IRREGULAR PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION: AN APPLICATION FOR OR ADMISSION TO BAIL SHALL NOT BAR THE ACCUSED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF HIS ARREST OR THE LEGALITY OF THE WARRANT ISSUED THEREFORE, OR FROM ASSAILING THE REGULARITY OR QUESTIONING THE ABSENCE OF A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM, PROVIDED THAT HE RAISES THEM BEFORE ENTERING HIS PLEA. The court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable but not later than the start of the trial of the case (Sec. 26, Rule 114, Rules of Court). 8.__ EXTRADITION: WHILE OUR EXTRADITION LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE GRANT OF THE BAIL TO AN EXTRADITEE, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO PROVISION PROHIBITING HIM OR HER FROM FILING A MOTION. The prospective extraditee thus bears the onus probandi of showing that he or she is not a fight risk and should be granted bail” The modern trend in public international law is the primacy based on the worth of the individual person and the sanctity of human rights. If bail can be granted in deportation cases, there is no justification why it should not _be allowed in extradition cases. But, the Potential extradite must prove by clear and convincing cvidence that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court. x x: An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard of proof required in granting or denying bail can neither be the proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the standard of proof of preponderance of cvidence in civil cases. While administrative in character, the standard of substantial evidence used in administrative cases cannot likewise apply given the object of extradition law which is to prevent the prospective extradite from fleeing our jurisdiction, In his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a Page 13 of 58 WARNING: No pat ofthis presentation may be copied, reproduced or tmnsmitied In any form of by any means, electronic of mechanical without prot ‘ten permission from Mee Vilasis Law Genter. Vilasis Law Center operates a 2er tolarance poly in relation to Inappropriate behavior of students. Vielaters shal ha subject to prosacuton unde the lw llrightsreserved by Vilas = GenterCRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY ILLASIS ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G. VILLASIS LAW CENTER a NY ere) new standard which he termed “clear and convincing evidence” should be used in granting bail in extradition cases. According to him, this standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence. The potential extradite must prove by “clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court. (Goverment of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olelia, J. 2007). 9, HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER: A hold-departure order may be issued only by the RTCs in criminal cases within their exclusive jurisdiction |SC Grreular No. 39-97 (June 19, 1997). SC Circular 39-97 deals with criminal cases pending in the RTC. HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER: 11 c ct of the ot country without prior order from the court while the petit jending, (Sec.16) The hold departure order directing the Bureau of gration and Deportation not to allow the departure of the minor from the Philippines without the permission of the court, may be issued motu proprio or upon application under oati (RULES ON CUSTODY OF MINORS AND WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN RELATION TO CUSTODY OF MINORS (A.M. NO, 03-04-04-SC, MAY 15, 2003) DOJ ORDER NO. 41 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE RULE MAKING POWER IS EXCLUSIVE TO ‘THE SUPREME COURT. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ISSUE HOLD DEPARTURE ORDERS, WATCH LIST ORDERS AND ALLOW DEPARTURE ORDERS, IN ADDITION, DOJ CIRCULAR NO. 41 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT IS VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL. THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL MAY BE RESTRICTED ONLY BASED ON GROUNDS OF NATIONAL SECURITY, “PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PUBLIC HEALTH AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW, NONETHELESS, DOJ CIRCULAR NO, 41 IS NOT A LAW, (GENUINO V. DE LIMA, APRIL 17, 2018). A.M. NO. 18-07-05-8C RULE ON PRECAUTIONARY HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER NOVEMBER 15, 2019 PRECAUTIONARY HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER - js an order in writing issued by a court commanding the-Bureau of Immigration to prevent afiy attempt by a persoh suspected of a critne fo depart from the Philippines, which shall be issued ex-parte in cases involving crimes where the minimum penalty prescribed by law 1s at least stx (0) years.and one (1) day or when the offenders a foreigner regardiess of the imposable penalty (Section 1, A.M. No, 18-07-05-SC Rule on Precautionary Hold Departure Orders}, WHERE FILED ~ The application for @ precautionary hold) departure order may bé filed by a prosecutor with any regional trial court within those territorial jurisdiction the alleged crime was committed: Provided, that,for compelling reasons, it ‘can be filed with any regional trial court within’ the judicial region Where the crite was committed if the place of the commissiun of the crime is known; Provided, further, that the regional trial courts in the City of Manila, Quezon City, Cebu City lloilo City, Davao City and Cagayan De Oro City shall also have the authority to act on applications filed by the prosecutor based on complaints instituted by the National Burcau of Investigation, regardless where the alleged crime was committed (Section 2, A.M. No. 18-07-05-SC Rule on Precautionary Hold Departure Order). FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE ~ Upon motion by the complainant in a criminal complaint filed before the office of the city or provincial prosecutor, and upon a preliminary determination of probable cause based on the complaint and attachments, the investigating prosecutor may file an application in the name of the People of the Philippines for a precatitionary hold order (PHDO) with the proper regional trial court. The application shall be accompanied by the compiaint-affidavit and its attachments, personal details, passport umber and a photograph of the respondent, if available (Section 3, A.M. No. 18-07-08-SC Rule on Precautionary Hold Departure Order). GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE - A precautionary departure order shall not issue except upon determination by the judge. in whose court the application is filed, that probable cause exists, and there is high probability that the respondent will depart from the Philippines to evade arrest and prosecution of a crime against him or her. The judge shall personally examine under oath or affirmation, in the form of searching questions and answers in writing, the applicant and the witnesses he or she may procitice on facts Personally mown to them and attaching to the record their sworn statements. If the judge finds that probable cause exists and there is a high probability that the respondent will depart, he or she shall issue the PHDO and direct the Bureau of Immigration to hold and prevent the departure of respondent at any Philippine airport or ports. Otherwise, the judge shall order the dismissal of the application (Section 4, A.M, No, 18-07-05-8C Rule on Precautionary Hold Departure Order), Page 14 of 59 WARNING: No part ofthis presentation may be copied, reproduced or trasmiaed in aay form or by any mans, elactranis or mechanical, without price ‘itn permission trom the Vilasis Law Center. Vilasis Law Center operates a zer tolerance poly i relation to inappropnala behav of sluderts. Velaiors shal be eubject lo prosecution under the law. lights reserved by Vilasis Law Center,PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION 1. |. PROBABLE CAUSE IN PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION: Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. The term docs not mean “actual or positive cause” nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. (PDIC vs. Hon. Casimiro, et al. (2013). SENATOR JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET.AL., GR. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015, CARPIO A. THE CONDUCT OF A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS ONLY FOR THE DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE, AND SHOULD BE DETERMINED IN A SUMMARY MANNER, (ESTRADA VS. OMBUDSMAN /2015}). B. FOUR (4) KINDS OF PROBABLE CAUS@ In the Philippines, there are four instances in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure where probable cause is nceded to be established: (i) In Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 112: By the investigating officer, to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender @ well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. A preliminary investigation is required before the filing of @ complaint or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by Jaw is al leas! four vears, two months and one day without regard to the fine; (ii) im Sections 6 and 9 of Rule 112: By the judge, to determine whether a warrant of arrestora commitment order, if the accused has already been arrested, shall be issued and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice; (iii) In Section 5b) of Rule 113: By 2 pence offiger or a private persom malting a warrantless arrest when an offense has {ust been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge facts or circumstances that the person to sted has committed it; and Page 15 of 39 WARNING: No part ofthis presentation may be copied, reproduced oF transmited In any form or by any meass, electronic oe mechanical. wthout prior ‘writen permission fom the Vilas Law Center. Vilasis Law Center operates @ zeso tolerance paley In relaion 19 inappropriate behavior of studenis \Velators shalbe subject fo prosecution under the law. Al ights reserved by Vilusis Law Centar,Oe ee ee, ee ee See: See eee eee eee ee HIS CO-RESPONDENTS IN A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. Both the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman require the investigating officer to furnish the respondent with copies of the affidavits of the complainant and affidavits of his supporting witnesses. Neither of these Rules however require the investigating officer to furnish the respondent with copies of the affidavits of his correspondents. The right of the respondent is only "fo examine the evidence submitted by the complainant,” as expressly stated in Section 3{b), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. (ESTRADA VS. OMBUDSMAN [2015)) D. _ PROBABLE CAUSE CAN BE ESTABLISHED WITH HEARSAY EVIDENCE, AS LONG AS THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR CREDITING THE HEARSAY. Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in a preliminary investigation because such investigation is merely pretiminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties. However, in administrative cases, where rights and obligations are finally adjudicated, what is required is “substantial evidence” which cannot rest entirely or even partially on hearsay evidence. Substantial basis is not the same as substantial evidence because substantial evidence excludes hearsay evidence while substantial basis can include hearsay evidence. (ESTRADA VS. OMBUDSMAN /2015)). E, __A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS NOT A PART OF THE TRIAL AND IT 1S ONLY IN A ‘TRIAL WHERE AN ACCUSED CAN DEMAND THE FULL EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHTS, SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE HIS ACCUSERS TO ESTABLISH HIS INNOCENCE.” Thus, the rights of a respondent in a preliminary investigation are limited to those granted by procedural law. The purpose in determining probable cause is to make sure that the courts are not clogged with weak cases that will only be dismissed, as well as to) spare a person from the travails of a needless prosecution. The Ombudsman and the prosecution setyice under the control and, supervision of the Secretary) ot the Department of Justice afe inherently the fact-finder,. investigator, hearing officer, judge and-jury of the respondent in protiminary investigations. & person under preliminary Investigation, as Sen, Estrada is tn the present case when he filed his Request, is not yet an accused person, and hence cannot demand the full exercise of the its of an accused to a ition is statutory, not constitutional.”in short, the rights of a respondent in a preliminary Investigation are merely statutory rights, not constitu@@®nal due process rights. An investigation to determine probable cause for the filing 6f an information does not initiate a criminal action so as to trigger into operation Section 14(2}, Article If of the Constitution. It is the filing of a complaint or information in court that initiates a criminal action. Thus, a preliminary investigation can be taken away by legislation, The constitutional right of an accused to confront the will the absence of a preliminary investigation be an infringement of his right to confront the against him. A preliminary investigation may be done away with entirely without infringing the constitutional right of an accused under the due process clause to a fair trial. (ESTRADA, v. BERSAMIN, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ATTY. LEVITO D, BALIGOD [2015) Q: President Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 13 croating the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact- Finding Committee on Behest Loanspin order to identify various anomalous behest loans entered into by the Philippine Government in the past. Upon investigation, they concluded that the loans/accommodations obtained by Galleon from DBP possessed positive characteristics of behest loans. Thus, PCGG filed the filed an Affidavit-Complaint against former officers/directora of DBP, as well as former officers of National Galleon Shipping Corp. for violation of Sections 3 (c) and (g) of RA 3019. The Ombudsman found no probable cause against private respondents and dismissed the criminal complaint against them, It ruled that the pieces of evidence attached to the case records were not sufficient to establish probable cause against the individual respondents, considering that the documents presented by POGG consisted mostly of executive summaries and technical reports, which are hearsay, self-serving, and of little probative value. Accordingly, the Ombudsman noted that the PCGG failed to present the documents, which would directly establish the alleged illegal transactions, Is the Ombudsman correct? ‘A: No. It is worthy to note that the conduct of preliminary investigation proceedings - whether by the Ombudsman or by a public prosecutor - is geared only to determine whether or not probable cause exists to hold an accused-respondent for trial for the supposed crime that he committed. In Fenequite v. Vergara, Page 16 of 59 WARNING: No part ofthe presentation may be copied, reproduced or transmified n any form of by eny means, electronic o mechancal, wthovt prot vwitan permisein ftom the Viesis Law Center. Vilass Law Center operales & ce poly in relator to inappraprats bahvinr of eden, Violators shall be subject a prosecution undat the law. Al ight reserve by Vilnsis Law Canter. Sent) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G. VILLASIS Jr» the Court defined probable cause and the parameters in finding the existence thereof in the following manner, to wit: Probable cause, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded bellef that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. It docs not require an inguiry whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is Tn eh diane Ib da Wei Gn REE kee ce fe @ conCRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY VILLASIS ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G. VILLASIS: LAW CENTER — ~ — - NGA _{romat uncon) wry the Court defined probable cause and the parameters in finding the existence thereof in the following manner, to wit: Probable cause, has been defined as such facts as are su(ficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof, It does not require an inquiry whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act ar omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, né v1 ing_guilt 80 doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt, What is determined is whether there is suflicient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. It is noteworthy to point out that owing to the initiatory nature of preliminary investigations, the technical rules of evidence should not be applied in the course of its proceedings. In the case of Estrada v. Ombudsman, the Court declared that hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in preliminary investigations because such investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties. In sum, the Court is convinced that there is probable cause to indict individual respondents of violating Sections 3 (¢} and (g) of RA 3019. Hence, the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of Jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal complaint against them. (POGG vs. Navarro-Gutierrez /2015). 2, PRELIMINARY INQUIRY VS. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION: It is well to remember that there is @ distinction between the preliminary inguiry which determines probable cause for the isstance of a warrant of arrest and the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender should be (c held for trial or be released. The determination of; the wi ‘of arrest is made by the judge. The preliminary investigation proper — whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guil ¢ offense charged ~ is the function of the investigating prosecutor. (PEOPLE vs. GREY [2010}} EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE: The executive determination of probablesiise concer@itself with whether there is cough evidence (0 support an Information being filed. The judicial determination of probable cause on the other hand, determines whether @ warrant of arrest should be issued- (Reyes vs, The Honorable Ombudsman; Rees vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan; Janet Lim Napoles vs Carpio Morales; Jo Christine Napotes v3 Carpio Morales; De Asis vs Carpio Morules (2016) 3, WHO MAY CONDUCT PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION: The following may conduct preliminary investigations: (a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants; (b) National and Regional State Prosecutors; (¢) Other officers as may be authorized by/law. Their authority to canduct préliminary inyestigations shall include all crimes cognizable by the proper court In their respective territorial jurisdictions, Note: Under A.M. No, 05-8-26-SC effective October 3, 2005, only the following may conduct preliminary investigations: Courts and Cizenit Trial Courts dndges of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Cirouit Trial Courts can no longer accept cases for preliminary investigation as of October 3, 2005 except those pending with them but not later than December 31, 2005. them but not Iater than December 31, 2005. Q Am Informati@® for violation of R.A. 7610 was filed against accused before the RTC. The information was penned by ACP De La Cruz and contains a certification claiming that he has prior written authority or approval from the City Prosecutor in filing the said Information. However, nothing shows that ACP De La Cruz was indeed authorized by higher authority to file or approve the filing thereof. Thus, accused moved the quashal of the Information on the ground of lack of authority of the person who filed it, « jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured. Should the Court grant the motion to quash the Infomation? A: YES, Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure states that the filing of a complaint or information r written authority or approval of the therein before a complaint or information may be filed before the courts. In the case, there was no showing that the chiefs or review prosecutors, or that ACP De La Cruz wi him ‘OCP-Makati City. All it contained was a certification from ACP De La Cruz that the filing of the Information is with the prior authority and approval of the City Prosecutor. However, there is nothing that would indicate that ACP Dela Cruz sought the approval of either the City Prosecutor or any of these authorized pursuant to OCP-Makali City jer No, 32 in fil tid Saklal or information. /Ouisay vs. People /2016)) Page 17 of 59 WARNING: No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced e ranamited in any form cr by any means, eletionic er mechanical, without prior vite perrission from the Vilasis Law Certer. Vilasis Law Center operates 2 zero tolerance policy in relation to lepproprise bekavior of students Violators shell be subject to prosecution under the lan, Allrights reserved by Vilasis Law Center,ASSOC, DEAN CHRISTIAN G. VILLASIS YW LAW CENTER — SO formers) Q: What is the prevailing rule on appeals process im the National Prosecution Service with regard to complaints subject of preliminary investigation? CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY Y VILLASIS A: (a) ___If the complaint is filed outside the NCR and is le the MTCs/Me’ the ruling of the OPP may be appealable by way of petition for review before the ORSP, which ruling shall be with finality; (b)__ If the complaint is filed outside the NCR and is not cognizable by the MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs, the ruling of the OPP may be appealable by way of petition for teview before SOL, which ruling shall be with finality; fe} If the comy is filed within the NCR and is the MTCs/MeTCs/Mi the ruling of the OCP may be appealable by way of petition for review before the Prosecutor General, whose ruling shall be with finality; (a) or the within the NCR and is not coy Je MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs, the nuling of the OCP may be appealable by way of petition for review before the SO.I, whose ruling shall be with finality; (c) Provided, that in instances covered by (a) and (c ), the SOJ may, pursuant to his power of control and su; ‘over the entire National Prosecution review, mé ‘or reverse the muling of the ORSP or the Prosecutor General, as the case may be. (CARIAGA us. SAPIGAO [20: GENERAL RULE: COMELEC HAS EXCLUSIVE POWER TO CONDUCT PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF ALL ELECTION OFFENSES PUNISHABLE UNDER THE ELECTION LAWS AND TO PROSECUTE THE SAME, EXCEPT AS MAY OTHERWISE BE PROVIDED BY LAW: The COMELEC exercises the constitutional authority to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases for violation of election Jaws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses and malpractices. (ALBANA VS. BELO, GR. NO. 158734, OCTOBER 2, 2009). (POSSIBLE BAR) EXCEPTION: ARROYO VS. DOJ JULY 23, 2013: The Supreme Court declared constitutional the creation’of a joint panel by COMELEC AND DOJ to conduct investigate and conduct P.l, in yp with the 2004 and 2007 elections electoral fraud and manipulation cases. Under Sectio PCGG HAS NO AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AND TO FILE INFORMATIONS FOR VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-GRAFT LAW. HENCE THE INFORMATIONS THAT IT FILED ARE NULL AND VOID. (PEOPLE V. ROMUALDEZ, G.R. 166510, APRIL 29, 2009). NONETHELESS, PCGG IS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS OF ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH CASES. 4. __ THE ABSENCE OF A PROPER PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION MUST BE TIMELY RAISED. ‘THE ACCUSED IS DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION BY ENTERING HIS PLEA AND ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN THE TRIAL WITHOUT RAISING THE LACK OF ‘A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. (ROALLOS VS. PEOPLE [201 5. INQUEST: Inquest is an informal and summary investigation conducted by a public proseentor in criminal cases invoiving persons arrested and detained without the benefit of a warrant of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of determining whether oz not said persons should remain under custody and correspondingly charged im court (DOJ Circular No. 61, Sept. 21, 1993) WHEN A PERSON IS LAWFULLY ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT INVOLVING AN OFFENSE WHICH REQUIRES A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION, THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION MAY BE FILED BY A PRO@ECUTOR WITHOUT NEED OF SUCH INVESTIGATION PROVIDED AN INQUEST HAS BEEN CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXISTING RULES. In the absonce or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint_may_be filed by the offende or a peace office proper court on_the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person, Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for @ preliminary investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign « waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his counsel, Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary investigation, the accused may, within five (5| days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his defense as provided in this Rule. (Section 6, Rule 112) THE PRIVATE COMPALAINANT MAY AISO PILE PILE A MOTION FOR RE-INVESTIGATION WITHIN FIVE (5) DAYS FROM KNOWLEDGE OF THE FILING OF THE INFORMATION IN COURT: The Supreme Court observes that once complaint or information is filed in court after inquest, the accused is Page 18 of SS WARNING: No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced of ransritec in any fom or by any means, ekectronle o mechanical, wthout prior virion pecTission from the Yikasis Law Genter. Vilesis Lew Center operales @ 78m tolerance policy in relation to nepproprite behavior of students, blater shal be subject te prosecutlon under the lew. Alrights reserved by Vilsls Law CentrCRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY VILLASIS ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G. VILLASIS LAW CENTER (aT) given opportunity to ask for a preliminary investigation within five days from the lime he learns ofits filing; however, the Rules of Court and the New Rules on inquest are silent, however, on Hhcther the ativatc complainant could invoke a similar righ to ane for &reinvesigation. Despite auch alee, Goutt ruled that priva Ww fl on for reinvestigation. In_this case.-a§-a.conseaence of such teinvestigation, the information was amended charging the accused of ‘murder lastead of “hamictie™evisie va: Alea OTOH ©. RESOLVING A MOTION TO DISMISS OR WITHDRAWING AN INFORMATION: IT 1S SETTLED THAT, WHEN CONFRONTED WITH A MOTION TO WITHDRAW AN INFORMATION (ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO HOLD THE ACCUSED FOR TRIAL BASED ON A RESOLUTION OF THE DOJ SECRETARY), THE TRIAL COURT HAS THE DUTY TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF THE MERITS OF THE MOTION. IT MAY EITHSR AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SECRETARY. Reliance alone on the resolution of the Secretary would be an abdication of the trial court's duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case. The court must itself be convinced that there is indeed no sufficient evidence against the accused. (TAMARGO VS. AWINGAN /2010)). In resolving a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw the information filed by the public prosecutor on his own initiative or pursuant to the directive of the Secretary of Justice), either for insufficiency of evidence in the possession of the prosecutor or for lack of probable cause, the trial court should aot merely rely on the findings of the public prosecutor or of the Secretary of Justice (hal no crime had been committed or that the evidence in the possession of the public prosecutor is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction of the accused. To do so is to surrender a power constitutionally vested in the Judiciary to the Executive, (JUNIO VS. CACATIAN-BELTRAN [201 4) 7. REMEDIES OF ACCUSED IF THERE IS NO PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION: a. Refuse to enter a plea upon arraignment and object to further proceedings upon such ground; b. Insist on a preliminary investigation; c, File certiorari If refused; d. Raise lack of preliminary investigation as error on appeal (US v. Banzucla, G-R: No, 10172/1915); ¢, File for prohibition (Conde v, CFT, G.R. No. L-21236, October 1, 1923). NOTE: Chan v. Secretary of Justice delineated the proper remedy from the determination of the Secretary of Justice, Therein, the Court, after expounding on the policy of non-interference in the determination of the existence of probable cause absent any showing of arbitrariness on the part of the public prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice, however, concluded, citing Alcaraz v. Gonzalez and Preferred Home Specialties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, that the resolution of resort to judicial review on the dof abuse of thus: x x x [T]he findings of the Justice Secretary may be reviewed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 based on the allegation that he acted with grave abuse of discretion. This reinedy is available to the aggrieved party. It is thus clear that Agent De Jemil, the agerieved party in the assailed resolutions of the Office of the Secretary of Justice, availed of and pursued the proper legal remedy of a judicial review through tition for certiorari under Rule 65 in assuil latter's finding of lack of probable cause on the eroun of grave abuse of discretion. (ARNEL U. TY, BT Al... us. NBI SUPERVISING AGENT DE JEMIL, PETRON GASUL DEALERS ASSOCIATION, and TOTALGAZ DEALERS ASSOCIATION [2010). APPEALS TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE DECISIONS OR RESOLUTIONS OF THE DOv: The Rules and Regulations Governing Appeals to the Office of the President of the Philippines requires the appeliant to file, not only a notice of appeal, but also a memorandum on appeal. Section 5 of the Rules of that office provides that failure to comply with its orders may warrant a dismissal of the appeal (Greenhills East Association, inc., vs. E. Ganzon, Inc, G.R. No. 169741, January 20, 2010, Abad, J.) Memorandum Circular No. 58 provides that there is no appeal from the resolutions of the Sceretary of Justice on preliminary investigations to the Office of the President EXCEPT those offenses punishable by reclusion reslaslon_perpotan te death where new and mat ‘the Department of Justice and were not ruled upon in the subject esslation decision, in which case tre President may onder ihe Sectevsry ie open review the case provided that the prescription of the offense is not due to lapse within six (6) months fro resolution, and provided further that the appeal or peiton for review is led within thir (10, dava from. sich notice. x xx Under Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 58 dated 29 May 2003, no appeal from or petition for review of the decision or resolution of the Secretary of Justice on preliminary investigation of criminal cases shall be entertained by the Office of the President, except those involving offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua todeath. (Angeles vs, Gaite 2011). 8, _THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE MAY BE COMPELLED BY WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO ACT ON A LETTER-REQUEST OR A MOTION TO INCLUDE A PERSON IN THE INFORMATION, BUT MAY NOT BE COMPELLED BY WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO ACT IN A CERTAIN WAY, LE., TO GRANT OR DENY SUCH LETTER-REQUEST OR MOTION. In matters involving the exc judgment and discretion, mandamus Page 19 of 39 WARNING: No part of mis presentation may be copied, reproduced or transite in any form or by any means, eestronic or mechanical wthout pror vetin permission fo ti Us Law Caner Vile Law Centr operas 2 zoo trance psy I ete fo mapprprae betevor of dudes Volatorsshallbe subject o prosecution under ine law. Al ight reserved by Vilass Law Center,CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G. VILLASIS cannot be used to direct the manner or the particular way the judgment an ised_Consequently, the Secretary of Justice may be compelled by writ of mandamus jest or # motion to inch srson in the in rm ympelled by wri i a t or -reque: Mandamus shall issue when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act that the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, It {s proper when the act against which it is directed is one addressed to the discretion of the tribunal or officcr, In matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, mandamus may only be resorted to in order to compel respondent tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person to take action, but it cannot be used to direct the manner or the Particular way discretion is to be exercised, of to compel the retraction of reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of judgment or discretion. As such, respondent Secretary of Justice may be compelled to act on the letter-request of petitioner, but may not be compelled to act in a certain way, ie., {0 grant or deny such letter-request. Considering that respondent Secretary of Justice already denied the letter-request, mandamus was no longer available as petitioner's recourse, (AMPATUAN VS. DE LIMA (2013). 9. A NEW PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO ACCORD THE ACCUSED THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS AND EVIDENCE ONLY IN THE FOLLOWING INSTANCES: (a) where the itnesses of the or some of them may have recanted their testimonies er may have died or may no longer be available and new witnesses for the State have emerged (b] where aside from the other persoms are charged under a new the same offense or necessarily included therein; (q if under a new criminal complaint, the original charge has been upgraded; or (dj if under @ new criminal complaint, the criminal ability of the accused is upgraded from being an accessory to that of a principal. (CIRON V. OMBUDSMAN. GUTIERREZ /2015). 10.__ EFFECT OF DENIAL OF RIGHT TO PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION: While Preliminary Investigation is a statutory and substantive right and a component part of due its absence: (1) process, does not impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective; (2) neither does it Affect the jurisdiction of the court; (3) nor constitute « ground for quashing the information. Q: President Ramos created Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Béhest Loans (Committee) to investigate loans extended by the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to Hercules Minerals and Oils, Inc, (HMOl}. The Committee found that the loans were over-valued and under-collateralized. The loan secured by collaterals exceeded the maximum amount of loaa in proportion to the value of the mortgaged assets fixed by the General Banking Act. Consequently, HMOI ceased operations because it could no longer meet its obligations with PNB, Notwithstanding, PNB continued extending loans to HMOI. Thus, PCGG filed a complaint against several defendants, but the Ombudsman dismissed the same because of lack of probable cause despite the findings of the Committee. Can the ‘Supreme Court interfere with the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause? Ai Yes, As a rule, the Court does not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's determination as to the existence or non-existence of probable cause. The rale, however, docs not apply if there is grave ‘abuse of discretion. |t is incumbent upon the Ombudsman, while it asks the Court to respect its findings, to also accord a proper modicum of respect towards the expertise of the Committee, which was formed precisely to determine the existence of behest loans, On account of their special knowledge and expertise, they are in a beiter position to determine whether standard banking practices are followed in the approval of a loan or what would generally constitute as adequate security for a given loan. It bears stressing that the duty of the Ombudsman in the conduct of a preliminary investigation is to establish whether there exists probable cause to file an information in court against the accused. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, the accused committed the crime, Taking into account, the quantum of evidence needed to support a finding of probable cause, the High Court found that the Ombudaman committed grave abuse of discretion when {t dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause. ‘The fact that PCGG failed to make or submit an indenendent valuation of the properties in order to its stance that the loans were under collateralized is of no moment. Included in the records of this case is the Executive Summary of the TWO, citing as evidence numerous documents from PNB showing, on its face, that the loans granted to HMO by PNB were collatcralized, Hence, the lnek of independent valuation sone is not sufficient to dismiss the case for insgfficiency of evidence to establish mere probable cause. To be sure, preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence, It is for the presentation of such cvidence only as may engender a well-founded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. The validity and merits of a party's accusation or defense, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during the trial proper (POGG us. Office of the Ombudsman [2016)}. Page 20 of 59 WARNING: No par ofthis proventation may be coped, reproduced or tranaritied in any form or by any means, electronic 6 mechanical, witout price wt pernasion fom the Vilas Law Gener. Yilasis Law Geries operates a zer tolerance poicy in relation to nappreprista behave of students. Violates shal ba eubjcto prosecution uncer the law. Al rights reserved by Vlas Law Cente,CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY VILLASIS ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G. VILLASIS LAW C ER = foe eee : (tarot) URISDI 1. Ceimiaal jarladletion is the authority to hear and try @ particular offense and impose the punishment for it (People v. Mariano, GR. No. 1-40527, 30 June 1976) REQUISITES FOR EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: (1) jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) jurisdiction over the territory; and (3) jurisdiction oyer the person of the accused; (4) jurisdiction over the issues. A. _ JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED MAY BE ACQUIRED THROUGH COMPULSORY PROCESS SUCH AS A WARRANT OF ARREST OR THROUGH HIS VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE, SUCH AS WHEN HE SURRENDERS TO THE POLICE OR TO THE COURT. (PEOPLE VS. LARA (2012). B. _ (VENUE) JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY: VENUE IS JURISDICTIONAL IN CRIMINAL CASES. IT CAN NEITHER BE WAIVED NOR SUBJECTED TO STIPULATION. THE RIGHT VENUE MUST EXIST AS A MATTER OF LAW. Thus, for territorial jurisdiction to attach, the criminal action must be instituted and tried in the proper court of the municipality, city, or province where the offense was committed or where any of ite essential ingredients took place (PEOPLE VS. TAROY, [2011)) FOR THE COURT TO ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER A CRIMINAL CASE, THE OFFENSE OR ANY OF ITS ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. This territorial jurisdiction of the court is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint or information. In this case, the October 17, 2001 Informations clearly indicated tht the acts of rape were committed in Barangay Sagurong, Pili, Camarines Sur. During trial, prosecution evidence showed that the molestations happened in AAA’s house. And as testified by AAA's mother, their house was situated in Sagurong, Pili, Camarines Sur. (PEOPLE vs. NEVERIO). EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE ON TERRITORIALITY: () Offenses committed outside Philippine territory under Art. 2 of the RPC: Offenses committed on a Philippine ship or airship Forging or counterfeiting any Philippine currency - Offenses committed by public officers or employees in the exercise of their functions = _Crimes against national security and the law of nation. (i) Offerises committed within the Philippine territory. but expressly allowed by Jaw to fie instituted ina place other than the place of commission, 8, VENUE OF LIBEL CASES: Under Article 360 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 4363, libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is cither (1) where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or (2) where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published, If the private complainant opts for the second, the Information (formal indictment} ss specifically state where the libelous artiole was printed and flzt published, If the Mbelous article appears on a website, there is no way of out the location of its and first to the Ubel suit led ta all other locations where the website 1s also accessed or capable of being accessed, and spawn the very ills the amendment sought to prevent. Thus, in cases where the libelous article appears on a website, the private complainant has the option to file the case in his/her place of residence, which will not necessitate finding out exactly where the libelous matter was printed and first published. (Bonifacio, et al. us. RTC of Makati, Br. 129 (2010). Q: Bor is a resident of Makati City. Katrina published defamatory articles against Borj in the City of Baguio. Bor} institated = case for bet against Katrina in RTC-Makati City. Katrina moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. She claims that the case should have been filed in Baguio City because the offense was committed therein. Is the RTC-Malati correct in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction? 4: No. The venus of bel esses la where the complainant Ie a-prtvate ngekdua i United tp only elther ag 2) where the elleged defamatory article was printed and first publi ished. state Katrina isa resident of Maleal City, she may institute the case therein. (Malayan Insurance Company The, v2, Piceio [201 6). Page 21 of 59 3: No part ofthis presentation may be copied, reproduced or tansmited in any form or by ary means, electronic of mechanical without writen permission em the Villaie Law Center, Vilas Law Center eperaton a zerelolrance poly in relation to Inappropriate Behavier af student Viletor shat be subject to prosecution under the law. Al ihts reserved by Vilasis Law Cente,CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY VILLASIS ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G. VILLASIS b, VENUE OF CRIMINAL CASES UNDER R.A. 8042, OR OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE MIGRANT WORKERS AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS ACT OF 1995 - ALLOWING THE FILING OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS AT THE PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF THE OFFENDED PARTIES. THERE IS NOTHING ARBITRARY OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN CONGRESS FIXING AN ALTERNATIVE VENUE FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 6 OF RA. 8042 OR OTHERWISE KNOWN AS MIGRANT WORKERS AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS ACT OF 1995 (ALLOWING THE FILING OF CRIMINAL. ACTIONS AT THE PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF THE OFFENDED PARTIES) THAT DIFFERS FROM THE VENUE ESTABLISHED BY THE RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. (HON. S70. TOMAS VS. SALAC /2012)). ©. VENUE OF PERJURY CASE: Q Moya is contemplating of filing a criminal case for perjury under Article 183 of the RPC. As her counsel, she consulted you regarding the proper venue of the criminal action, the place where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was @otarized in Makati City or where the Certification was presented to the trial court in Pasay City? A: The place where the document was notarized is the venue of the criminal case for perjury. MeTC-Makati City is the proper venue and the proper court to take cognizance of the perjury case against the petitioners. In relation to the crime of perjury, the material matter in a Certificate against Forum Shopping is the truth of the required declarations which is designed to guard against ltigants pursuing simultaneous remedies in different fora, The seeused’s delibcrate and intentional assertion of falsehood was allegedly shown wi declarations in the rorum Shi before a public in Makati City, despite her knowledge that the material statements she subscribed and swore to were not true. Thus, Makati City is the proper venue and MeTC-Makati City is the proper court to try the perjury case against Tomas, pursuant to Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure as essential elements consi the crime of perjury were c thin the territor uuisdiction of Makati Cy. not Pasa City. (Union Banke People [201 2). d. CARNAPPING: Q: The motorcycle was taken in Boraue, Bulacan but accused was arrested in possession of the said motorcycle in Valenzuela City. Can the prosecution file the criminal case in RTC-Valenzuela City? Decide with reasons. A: | No. The criminal case Should fie filed i RTC of Bocabe/ Bulacan. It is & fandamentallrule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cages the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. It is evident that the crime of Carnapping did not occur in Valenmela City, but in Bucaue, Bulacan. While the court notes that accused was indeed arrested in Valenzuela while in possession of the subject motor cycle, the same is of no moment, not only because such ia not an element of the erime, but more importantly, at tint point in time, the crime had long been consummated. Case law provides that “unlawful taking” or ‘apoderamiento” is the taking of the moter vehicle without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence ‘or by using force upon It ia deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. (Casanas vs. People [2017|). ©. JURISDICTION OF A COURT OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER IS VESTED BY LAW. IN CRIMINAL CASES, THE PENALTY FOR THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION DETERMINES THE COURT THAT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. The ‘rial court's lack of jurisdiction cannot be ‘cured by the parties’ silence on the matter. The failure of the parties to raise the matter of jurisdiction also cannot be construed as a waiver of the parties. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be waived by the parties, (GARCIA VS, FEKRO CHEMICALS, IC, (2014) A.___ JURISDICTION OF FIRST LEVEL COURTS (MTC) (Section 32, B.P. 129, as amended by RA. 7693) (1) Violations of city/ municipal ordinances; (2) Crimes punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years, regardiess of the fine or other accessory penalties and civil liability; (3) Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence as defined in Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code (Sec. 32, BP 129); (4) Offenses where the penalty prescribed by law is only a fine and the fine does not exceed 24,000.00. Special jurisdiction to hear and decide petition for a writ of habeas corpus or application for hail in the province or city where the RTC judge is absent; Cases involving BP 22—Souncing Checks Law; In election offenses, cases involving failure to register or failure to vote. Page 22 0f 59 WARNING: No part ofthis presenunion may be ecpied. reproduced of tranemited In any frm er by any means, electronic er mechanical, wthout pst writen permission fom the Vllase Law Canter. Vilaie Law Cantar oporates zero tolerence policy relation f> appropriate batavit of susent \Voletore shall be subject to proseculion under the law, Al rights reserved by Vilsis Law Center. rinCRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G. VILLASIS SOME CASES IN THE MTC THAT ARE GOVERNED BY THE RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE: fa) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations; b) Violations of the Rental Las ¢) Violations of city and municipal ordinances; d) Criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law is imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months and/or a fine not exceeding One Thousand Pesos (F1,000);, ¢) Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence where the penalty is fine not exceeding #10,000; ) Violations of Batas Pambansa Big, 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law) B,___ JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS (RTC) (B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691) (1) Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body (Sec. 20, BP 129); (2) All criminal cases where the penalty is higher than 6years, including government-related cases wherein the accused in not one of those falling under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is within the jurisdiction of the RTC; (3) Cases where one or more of accused is 18 years old but not less than 15 years old, or where one or more of the victims is a minor, at the time of the commission of the offense (RA 9344); (4) Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended; (6) Violations of the Child Abuse Act (RA 7610); (6) Actions for written defamation libel (Art. 360 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 4363); (7) Cases of domestic violence against women and children (RA 8369, Family Courts Act}; (6) Appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by MTCs in their respective territorial jurisdiction. Note: There are criminal cases, which by express provision of law, fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC regirdless of the penalty prescribed by Inw for the offense, viz: ~ Violations of the Omnibus Election Code Cases of written defamations (libel) Infringement suits under the Intellectual Property Law Violations of the Dangerotiy Drugs Act of 2002 Violations.of the Anti-Money Laundering Law 6. Violations of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 OCTOBER 10,2017 SECTION 90 OF R.A. 9165 VS. SECTION 4 (b) OF P.D. 1606 (SANDIGANBAYAN LAW) 4A: RTC HAS JURISDICTION. SECTION 90 OF R.A. 9165 WHICH CONFERS TO THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER DRUGS CASES WILL PREVAIL OVER SECTION 4(b) BECAUSE THE FORMER IS A SPECIAL LAW THAT WILL PREVAIL OVER A GENERAL LAW. EVEN IF THE ILLEGAL DRUG TRADING WERE OFFICE-RELATED, IT IS THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT NOT THE SANDIGANBAYAN THAT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CHARGES AGAINST THE ACCUSED. C.__ PAMILY COURT (Section 5, R.A. 8369): It has exclusive original jurisdiction over the followin a) Offenses where a minor is involved whether as offender or offended party. However, under RA 9344, or the Juvenile Justice Act, one who is fifteen (15) years and below is exempt from criminal liability, b) Cases against minor under the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. 7610) ¢} Violations of the Anti-Child Abuse Law (R.A. 7610) d) Cases of domestic violence against women and children. D.___JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN: ‘Thc Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over the following cases (see PD 1606, R.A. No. 7975, and R.A. No. 8249): 1, Violation of RA 3019 {Anti-Graft_and Corrupt Practices}, RA_1979 (unlawfully acquired property), and the Revised Penal Code (Book Il, Title VII, Chapter II, Section 2), where one of the accused is an official occupying the following positions (permanent or interim) at the time of the commission of the offense: Page 23 of 59 WARNING: No part ofthis presentaton may be copied, reproduce or ranamite i any fxm ce by any means, electronic mechanical. wthout poe won parmation fom tho Vilast Law Canter. Vilas Lew Center operas a 20 Ialerance pele in relation to inappropriate behavior ofsludents Vitetors shall be sutject o prosecution under the law. All ights reserved by Vilas Law Cater.CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G, VILLASIS. Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including: a) Provinei wors,_vice-governors, of the wi vi treasurers, assessors, engineers and other provincial department heads; (b} City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod. ci (c] Officials of the diplomatic service occupying tht position of consul and higher; (q) Philippine army and air force colonels. naval captains, and all officers of higher rank: (e} Officers of the Philippine National Police while occuy the position of provincial director ant those holding the rank of senior superintendent or higher (| City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials cutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor; (g) Presidents, directors or trustecs. or managers of government-owned or -controlled corporations, ¢ universities or educational institutions or foundations; (2) Members of Congress and officisls thereof classified as Grade '27' and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989; (3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; (4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and (5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. Other offenses or felonies, whether simple or complexed with other crimes, committed jovemention officials and employees mé in relation to their office. REQUISITES: (dj deoused Is a public official under subsection (a), Section 4 of RA8249, Grade 27 or higher; (b) accused commits ay other offense or felony than those in’ subsection, (a), whether simple or complexed with other-crimes, and commits it in relation to his office. 3.___Civil und criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, ised in 1986. 23 NOTES: 1. In eases where none of the of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27 or higher, or Military or PN¥* officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper RTC ex MTC as the case may be, under B.P. 129. 2. _ Please note that the officials enumerated in Section (4) (A) (i) of R.A. No. 8249, Le. members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, etc., are subject to the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan regardless of salary grade (inding v. Sandiganbayan, 424 SCRA 988), Thus, if the accused docs not belong to the national and local officials cnumeraied, inorder for the Sandiganbavan to acquire jurisdiction over the offense, the same must be committed by officials classified as 7 a er. aside {rom_other © weredl. Instructive is the ruling of the Court in Inding: “Clearly, therefore, Congress intended these officials regardless of their salary grades, to be specifically included within the Sandiganbayan’s original jurisdiction, for had it been otherwise, then there would have been no need for such enumeration (italics supplied), x x x x “This conclusion is further bolstered by the fact thar some of the officials enumerated in “a to “g" are not Classified as SC_27 or higher under the x x x Position Titles and Salary Grades of the Department of Budget and Management x x x." Note: Amendment introduced by R.A. 10660 which took effect on May 5, 2015: “Provided, That the Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the information: {a) dees not all damage to the ent oF bribery or_b) alleges damage to the ent the same or closely selated transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding One a pesos (P1,000,000.00). “Subject to the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, the cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court under thi shall be tried \dicial a he official holds olfice, Page 24 of 59 warm: no putt is ean yb ee. ocd raid ay em ay yn, act ech no per ten permission sis Law Center. Villasis Law Centar operates & zero tolerance policy In relation to rate behavior of Velabe shal be set proscufe unre kw. Argh reseredby Vil Law Center np ea CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MADE EASY =) VILLASIS ASSOC. DEAN CHRISTIAN G. VILLASIS LAW CENTER