Criminal Procedure

I
What are the instances when the accused’s presence is required under the
Rules?
II
V
Q. Police operatives of the Western Police District, Philippine
National Police, applied for a search warrant in the Regional Trial
Court for the search of the house of Juan Santos and the seizure
of an undetermined amount of shabu. The team arrived at the
house of Santos but failed to find him there. Instead the team
found Roberto Co.
The team conducted a search in the house of Santos in the
presence of Roberto Co and barangay officials and found ten
grams of shabu.
Before his arraignment, Roberto Co was charged in court with
illegal possession of ten grams of shabu. Before his arraignment,
Roberto Co filed a motion to quash the search warrant on the
following grounds: (a) he was not the accused named in the
search warrant; and (b) the warrant does not describe the article
to be seized with sufficient particularity. Resolve the motion with
reasons. (05 Bar Q14).
A. The motion to quash the search warrant should be denied.
a) The ground that Roberto Co was not the accused named in the search
warrant is without merit.
The Supreme Court has held that that where the search warrant is issued
for the search of specifically described premises only and not for the search
of a person, the failure to name the owner or occupant of such property in
the affidavit and search warrant does not invalidate the warrant.
While Co may not have been the person sublect of the search, the fact that
he was caught in flagrante delicto necessitated his valid warrantless arrest.
Therefore, the fact that his name was not indicated in the search warrant
is immaterial. (Ouelnan v. People. 526 SCRA 653, G.R. No. 166061 July 6.
2007]
a) The ground that the warrant does not describe the article to be
seized with sufficient particularity is without merit.

The Supreme Court has held that the description "an undetermined amount
or a specific drug satisfies the requirement of particularity in the
description of the thing to be seized. To require that the warrant specify
beforehand the amount of the drug to be seized would be require
something which is virtually impossible. (People v. Tee, 395 SCRA 419]
III

Q:What is reverse trial in criminal cases and when a. may it be

resorted to? Explain briefly. (07 Bar 05b ed)
A: In criminal cases, reverse trial is a trial in which it is A. the accused who
presents his evidence ahead of the prosecution, who may then present
rebutting evidence.
It is called a reverse trial since it is the reverse of the usual order of trial in
which it is the prosecution who first presents evidence. In a criminal case,
a reverse trial may be resorted to if the accused admits the act or omission
charged in the complaint or information but interposes a lawful defense. (Sl
1 (el R119).
The reason for conducting a reverse trial is that the prosecution no longer
needs to adduce evidence to prove a judicial admission.
IV
Q: Gabat and Ligon were charged with the crime of robbery with
homicide. The prosecution alleged that Ligon was driving a
Volkswagen Kombi with Gabat as the passenger; that while the
Kombi had stopped during a red light, Gabat beckoned the
cigarrete vendor Rosales to the window; that when the light
turned green, Gabat grabbed the cigarette box of Rosales, who
clung to the window to try to retrieve his box; and that Gabat
pried loose the hands of Rosales who then fell to the road and
suffered fatal injuries.
On the other hand, Gabat testified that as Rosales was engrossed
trying to give change to Gabat, the light turned green and Ligon
stepped on the gas pedal; that Rosales' cigarette box accidentally
fell inside the Kombi, that Ligon continued driving despite Gabatis
telling him to stop; that Rosales clung to the Kombi's window but
lost his grip and fell to the pavement; and that he told Ligon to
stop and help Rosales but Ligon drove off telling him that they
should proceed to Las Piöas and tell Gabat's parents what had
happened.
Only Gabat was arrested. Ligon became a fugitive and was never
caught. After trial, Gabat was convicted. On appeal however he
was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt, the appellate
court finding the prosecution witness's testimony not worthy of
full credence. However the appellate court in the same judgment
of acquittal found Gabat civilly liable in damages pursuant to
Article 2176 of the Civil Code on the finding that there was
negligence on his part which led to the death of Rosales. Was it
proper for the court to make a determination that Gabat was
civilly liable?
A: Yes. The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the
extinction of the civil action. However the civil action based on delict may
be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the
criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may
arise did not exist. (S2 R 111).
Here while the accused was acquitted of the crime of robbery with
homicide on the ground of reasonable doubt, the court found that the act
or omission from which the civil liability may arise, that is, the negligence
of Gabat, did exist. Gabat acted
Negligently in calling Rosales, failng to make his driver Ligon stop when
Rosales was precariously clinging to the Kombi, and failing to come to
Rosales' succor when he fell to the road. Hence Gabat was liable for
damages pursuant to Article 2176 of the Civil Code regarding quasi-delict
The finding of civil liability is also in consonance with S2 (last par.) R120
which provides that "[iln case the judgment is of acquittal, the judgment
shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might
arise did not exist." (People Ligon, G.R. 74041, 29 July 1987, e.b., Yap, Dy
was the general manager of MCC Inc. (MCCI)
V
Q: Drew was charged and convicted by the MeTC of Las Pinas City
with the crime of falsification of private documents. The judgment
of conviction was promulgated on 1 April 2008 in the presence of
Drew and his counsel.
(a) Up to when may Drew appeal, to what court shall he take his
appeal, and how shall he take his
(b) Assume that on 14 April 2008 Drew filed a motion for
reconsideration and the same on 14 May 2008, a copy of Drew
received on 18 May 2008. Up Drew appeal? Explain.
c) Would your answer be the same if the which Drew was
convicted was the B.P. Big. 22? Explain. able to timely appeal to
the RTC. rendered judgment denying the appeal received a copy
of the judgment on 1 April 2009. Drew plans to appeal the RTC
decision on pure questions of law.
d) Up to when Drew appeal the RTC's decision, to what court shall
he take this appeal, and how shall he take his appeal? Explain.
e)that on 14 April 2009 Drew filed a reconsideration and the
same Drew received a of denial on 1 July 2009. may Drew
appeal? Explain.
A:
a) Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Drow may appeal to the RTC
Within 15 days from promulgatton of the judgment or up to 16 April 2008
by filing a notice of appeal With the MeTC and serving a copy thereof upon
the adverse party. S2 & 6 R122]
b) Drew may appeal up to 2 June 2008.
The Supreme Court has held that the fresh 15day period provided for in
Neypes v. Court of Agpeals (G.R. No. 141524, 15 September 2005) applies
to appeals in criminal cases, notwithstanding the wordings of S6 R 122.
The Supreme Court said would be absurd for an appellant in a civil case to
have a better right of appeal than the accused in a criminal case. (Yu v.
Samson-Tatad, G.R. 170979, 9 February 2011 ).
a) No, my answer would not be the same. Drew can no longer appeal.

Under the Rule on Summary Procedure, a motion for reconsideration of

a judgment is a prohibited pleading. Cases for violation of B.P. Big. 22
are covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure.
Here the motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading and did not
suspend the running of the reglementary period to appeal. Hence the
judgment became final and executory on u 17 April 2008.
b) Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Drew . may appeal the RTC's
decision to the Court of Appeals within 15 days from notice of
judgment or until 16 April 2009 by filing a petition for.

review under Rule 42 and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.
Rule 42 applies since the RTC's decision was rendered in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court has held that even if the appeal from a RTC decision is
on pure question of law, the appeal must be taken to the Court of Appeals
and not to the Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
(Tan v. People, 381 SCRA 75; S2[b] R122).
c) Drew may appeal up to 16 July 2009.
 Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the appeal to the Court of
Appeals in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction shall be by petition for review under Rule 42. Under Rule 42,
the petition may be filed within 15 days from notice of the decision or of
the denial of the motion for reconsideration.
Here Drew received notice of the denial of his motion for reconsideration
on 1 July 2009. Hence he may file the petition for review up to 16 July
2009.