Criminal Jurisprudence and Procedure

The Board of Examiners for Criminologists in the Philippines is created for the purpose of regulating the practice of
Criminology.It has the power to issue, suspend, or revoke certificate of registration for the practice of criminology
and to administer oath.All applicants for registration as criminologists shall be required to undergo and
examination.

The examination shall be in writing and shall cover the following subjects with their respective relative weights.

Subjects Relative Weight

Criminal Jurisprudence and Procedure 20%

Law Enforcement Administration 20%

Correctional Administration 15%

Criminalistics 20%

Criminal Sociology 15%

Ethics and Human Relations 10%

Criminal Jurisprudence and Procedure is further subdivided into:

1. Criminal Law 1 - Study of the Revised Penal Code book 1,

special criminal statutes, Presidential Decrees, and

Letters of Instructions.

2. Criminal Law 2 - Study of the Revised Penal Code book 2

3. Criminal Procedure - Study of the Rules of Court and Criminal

Procedure covering the law on arrest, search and

seizure, Preliminary Investigation and the granting of bail to an

accused person; Rights of the accused person

during the trial and the manner of prosecution of criminal

offenses; Procedures in arraignment and trial and

discharge of one of several defendants as state witness; Rules

governing arrest without warrant and the use of

 firearms in case of resistance to an arrest; Study of court

decisions regarding arrest and search and seizure.

4. Criminal Evidence - Study of the fundamental principle of

criminal evidence as embodied in the rules of court.

Civil Law

1. Filed by a private party.

a corporation

an individual person

2. Penalty: a guilty defendant pays the plaintiff for

losses caused by their actions.

no incarceration

Crimes are divided into 2 classes

1. Misdemeanors - less than one year of incarceration

2. Felonies - sentence of one year or more.

During the times of the Romans, a criminal charge meant presenting the case before the public.Both the person
accused of the crime and the accuser would give speeches based on their side of the story.The individual with the
best argumentation would determine the outcome of the case.

Criminal Law

1. Filed by the government

2. Penalty: a guilty defendant is punished by

incarceration in jail or prison

fine paid to the government

execution (death penalty)

Criminal law RPC (Book 1)

Criminal Law - a branch of municipal law which defines crimes,

treats of their nature and provides for their punishment.

Characteristics of Criminal Law

1. General 2. Territorial 3. Prospective

General - binding on all persons who reside or sojourn in the

Philippines.

Exceptions:

1. Treaty Stipulation

2. Laws of Preferential Application

3. Principles of Public International Law

ex. 1. Sovereigns and other chief of state

2. Ambassadors, Minister resident, and

charges d' affaires

Note: Consuls, Vice Consuls, and other foreign

commercial representatives can not claim the

privileges and immunities accorded to

ambassadors and ministers.

Territorial - Penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only

within its territory.

Exception: Art. 2 of the RPC - binding even on

crimes committed outside the Philippines.

1. Offenses committed while on a Philippine ship

or airship.

2. Forging or counterfeiting any coin or currency

note of the Philippines or obligations and

securities issued by the government.

 3. Introduction into the country of the above

mentioned obligations and securities.

4. While being public officers and employees, an

offense is committed in the exercise of their

functions.

5. Crimes against the National Security and the Law

of the Nations.

Prospective - The law does not have any retroactive effect.

Exception: When the law is favorable to the

accused.

Exception to the Exception:

1. The New Law is expressly made inapplicable

to pending actions or existing causes of

action.

2. Offender is a habitual criminal.

Theories of Criminal Law

1. Classical Theory - basis is man's free will to choose between

good and evil, that is why more stress is placed upon the

result of the felonious act than upon the criminal himself. The

purpose of penalty is retribution. The RPC is generally

governed by this theory.

2. Positivist Theory - basis is the sum of social and economic

phenomena which conditions man to do wrong in spite of or

contrary to his volition. This is exemplified in the provisions

on impossible crimes and habitual delinquency.

3. Mixed Theory - combination of the classical and positivist

theories wherein crimes that are economic and social in

nature should be dealt in a positive manner. The law is thus

more compassionate.

Construction of Penal Laws

1. Liberally construed in favor of offender.

Example: a. The offender must clearly fall within the terms

of the law.

b. An act is criminal only when made so by the

statute.

2. In cases of conflict with official translation, original Spanish

text is controlling.

3. No interpretation by analogy.

Limitations on Power of Congress to Enact Penal Laws

1. Ex Post Facto Law

2. Bill of Attainder

3. Law that violates the equal protection clause of the

constitution.

4. Law which imposes cruel and unusual punishments nor

excessive fines.

Criminal law RPC (Book II)

Title 1

Crimes Against National Security and the Law of Nations

Title 2

Crimes Against the Fundamental laws of the State

Title 3

Crimes Against Public Order

Title 4

Crimes Against Public Interest

Title 5

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drug

Title 6

Crimes Against Public Morals

Title 7

Crimes Committed by Public Officers

Title 8

Crimes Against Persons

Title 9

Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security

Title 10

Crimes Against Property

Title 11
Crimes Against Chastity

Title 12

Crimes Against the Civil Status of Persons

Title 13

Crimes Against Honor

Title 14

Quasi-Offenses

criminology board exam reviewer

Criminal Procedure

Introduction:

Etymology: Krimea [Greek]: meaning, “to charge a wrongdoing”

Criminal Procedure

The method prescribed by law for the apprehension and prosecution of persons accused of any criminal offense,
and their punishment, in case of conviction.

It is concerned with the procedural steps through which a criminal case passes, commencing with the initial
investigation of a crime and concluding with the unconditional release of the offender.

It is a generic term used to describe the network of laws and rules which govern the procedural administration of
criminal justice.

Criminal Jurisdiction
The authority to hear and decide a particular offense and impose punishment for it. It has three requisites, namely:

Subject matter – cases of the general class where the proceedings in question belong as determined by the nature
of the offense and by the penalty imposed by law;

Territory – the geographical limits of the territory over which the court presides and where the offense was
committed; and

Person of the accused – acquired thru: a) arrest [with warrant or warrantless] or b) voluntary surrender.

I. Prosecution of Offenses

How instituted?

By filing the: 1) Complaint, or 2) Information.

Complaint

A sworn written statement charging a person with an offense

Executed and Subscribed by the O.P.A.O. [Offended Party, Any peace officer, or Other public officer charged with
the enforcement of the law violated].

May be filed in the prosecutors office or directly to the court

Information

1.An accusation in writing

2. Subscribed by the Prosecutor

3.Filed with the court

Both are:

1. In writing

2. In the name of the People of the Philippines

3. Directed against all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense involved.

Elements of a complaint or information:

1. Formal elements, and

2. Substantive elements.

It must be:

1. Sufficient in form, and

2. Sufficient in substance

Thus, under Section 14, of Rule 110, a complaint or information may be amended, in form and in substance .

A complaint or information is sufficient in form if it states: [N.D.A.N.A.P.]

1. The Name of the accused

2. The Designation of the offense given by the statute

3. The Acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense

4.The Name of the offended party

5. The Approximate date of the commission of the offense

6. The Place where the offense was committed.

A complaint or information is sufficient in substance if it doesn’t contain any of the defects which is a ground for a
motion to quash. (Section 3, Rule 117)

Note: A motion to quash, once granted, is equivalent to dismissal (but not acquittal).

Remedy if a complaint or information is defective:

I. If defective in form

a) court may dismiss the complaint or information motu propio or upon motion, or

b) accused may move for a BILL OF PARTICULARS

II. If defective in substance – No obligation is imposed on the judge to point out the duplicitousness or other defect
in the indictment on which an accused is being arraigned. It is for the accused to move for a motion to quash on
the ground that the complaint or information charges more than one offense, under sanction of waiver and loss of
ground of objection (Concurring opinion of CJ Narvasa, People v. Bartulay, 192 SCRA 632)

Note: For certain classes of Actions, it is the tribunal having jurisdiction which automatically determines whether
or not the papers are in order before giving it due course, meaning, it satisfies itself if the complaint or information
is sufficient in form and in substance.

Examples:

Articles of Impeachment in an impeachment proceedings

Presidential Election Protest

This is not so in criminal proceedings. It is incumbent upon the accused to object on substantive defects (People v.
Bartulay, supra).

Query:

JP was charged for indiscriminate firing. He claimed that he has to fire his gun in self-defense because there was an
actual threat on his person and the firing of warning shots was reasonably necessary in order to prevent or repel
the unlawful aggression directed against him. Despite this, the fiscal went on to file the information in court. May
JP claim that the information, though sufficient in form, is defective in substance? Why?

No. JP cannot claim that the information is defective in substance. This is so because “self-defense” is not a ground
for a motion to quash but a matter of defense. If proven, self-defense is a basis for acquittal, not dismissal.

Any explanation or defense which the defendant may want to invoke can be properly raised during trial (Galvez v.
CA, 237 SCRA 685).

Distinction between Acquittal and Dismissal:

1. Acquittal is based on MERITS of the case (substantive) ex: accused A was found innocent of killing B.
2. Dismissal is based on TECHNICALITY (procedural) ex: the crime has already prescribed.

Notes:

1. There are certain classes of offenses that cannot be prosecuted de officio – 1private offenses, i.e. adultery,
concubinage, etc. and 2private libels, i.e. defamation imputing private offenses.

2. For some offenses, there are conditions precedents before plaintiff can repair to the courts for redress [i.e.
those requiring mediation at the “lupong tagapamayapa”]. However, non-compliance of this rule is not
jurisdictional. The failure of the plaintiff to comply with the conciliation requirement of Sec. 40 under the Local
Government Code of 1991 does not affect the Court’s jurisdiction if no timely objection is made [San Miguel Village
School v. Pundogar, 173 SCRA 704, Bejar v. CA, 169 SCRA 566].

3. All criminal actions, whether commenced by filing of complaint or information, are under the direct control of
the prosecutor.

Queries:

I. A, B, C, D were charged with homicide. Preliminary investigation was conducted by the fiscal who found sufficient
evidence against all, but, according to his determination, D was the least guilty. So the fiscal filed the information
only against A, B, and C leaving out D whom he would utilize as state witness. Is the fiscal correct?

Under the Rules of Court, the fiscal cannot exclude D without court approval. It would be a grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the court in not including D in the information because of the prosecutors finding that
there is sufficient evidence against all. There was no more necessity to utilize D as a state witness.

Exeption:

Under the Witness Protection Act, the prosecutor has the discretion of discharging an accused as a state witness
and no court approval is necessary.

II. Is designation of the offense an essential element of the complaint or information? Why? Give the exception, if
any.

No. Because in case of conflict between the designation of the offense and the allegations, the allegation prevails.

The exception is when the allegation is so ambiguous that it may be interpreted to mean either one or another
offense, then the designation of the offense is controlling (Case of US v. Dixon, where the designation is for
trespassing but the allegations indicates either trespassing or a possible attempted rape).
II. Prosecution of Civil Action

Basis:

Art. 100, RPC - Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable

Generally, when a person commits a crime, he offends two entities, namely:

1) The State [whose laws he violated]; and

2) The individual [whose person, right, honor, chastity, or property was actually or directly injured or damaged by
the same acts or omissions].

Exception:

When the infraction falls under the class of offenses called victimless crimes like gambling, betting on illegal cock
fights, drug addiction, prostitution, etc. etc. under the theory that “the offender himself is his own victim”.

Sec. 1, Rule 111 - When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is deemed
instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party:

Waives the civil action;

Reserves the right to institute it separately; or

Institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action

Principle of proferrence of criminal action over civil action:

After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted
until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action.

If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in
whatever stage it may be found before judgments on the merits xxx.
Reason for the rule:

Criminal action is based on an offense committed against the laws of the State while civil action is based on an
injury to individual rights. Public interest is superior over private one.

Exception to the rule of proferrence of criminal action over civil action

When the independent Civil Action is based on Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code.

When there is a prejudicial question in the civil case that must be decided first before the criminal action can
proceed because the decision in the civil action is vital to the judgment of the criminal case.

Elements of Prejudicial Question:

The previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action, and

The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

Queries:

1. Nobern married Armie on 2005. On 2006, Nobern married X. On 2007, Armie filed a criminal case for bigamy
against Nobern. On 2008, X filed a civil case for annulment against Nobern on the ground that their marriage was
void ab initio for having been contracted during the subsistence of Nobern’s prior marriage to Armie without X
knowing it.

Is there a prejudicial question? Why?

2. Nobern married Armie on 2005. On 2006, Nobern married X because X threatened to kill him unless he marries
X. On 2007, Nobern filed an annulment against X on the ground of threat and intimidation. On 2008, Armie filed a
criminal case for bigamy against Nobern upon learning of Nobern’s marriage to X.

Is there a prejudicial question? Why?

Note:

Prejudicial question is subject to the principle that he who comes into court must come with clean hands. The
accused cannot be permitted to use the law in order to frustrate the ends of justice. Good faith or bad faith is
important.
III. Preliminary Investigation

Defined

It is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.

When required?

Before the filing of complaint or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is imprisonment
of at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day, without regard to fine.

When NOT REQUIRED:

In cases where the penalty imposed by law is NOT at least 4 years, 2 month, & 1 day

In case of a valid warantless arrest [shall proceed in inquest]

Officers authorized to conduct PI

Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;

National and Regional State Prosecutors; and

Other officers as may be authorized by law [COMELEC during Election Period, Ombudsman, etc.]

Note: Effective 2004, judges of the lower court canno longer conduct Preliminary Investigations.

Rules:

1. The complaint must be sufficient in form [See notes in Prosecution of Offenses, supra]

2. Supported by affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses

3. Numbers of copies are proportionate to the number of respondents plus 2 official copies
1. Within 10 days after the filing, fiscal determines if there is prima facie case. If no – dismiss. If yes – issue
subpoenas.

2. Within 10 days after receipt of subpoena with the complaint and supporting affidavits and documents –
respondent submits counter affidavits.

3. In case respondent cannot be subpoenaed or does not submit counter affidavit within 10 days – investigating
officer resolves the complaint on the basis of evidence presented by complainant.

Clarificatory hearing – if there are facts and issues to be clarified from a party or witness - within 10 days after
submission of counter affidavit. No direct examinations. Questions must be addressed to the fiscal.

Resolution – within 10 days after the investigation.

Forwarding of fiscals’ resolution to superiors – within 5 days

Superiors shall act on the resolution – within 10 days

IV. Arrest

Defined:

1. [Based on Rules of Court] The taking of a person in custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense (Sec. 1, RRC)

2. [Based on Jurisprudence] A restraint on person, depriving one of his own will and liberty, binding him to become
obedient to the will of the law (Larrañaga v. CA, 92 SCAD 605)

How made:

As to the manner of enforcement, by:

1) Actual restraint, or

2) Submission to the custody of the person making arrest

As to the presence or absence of judicial order:

1) By virtue of a warrant, or
 2) Warrantless arrest, in cases allowed by the Rules

As to the person arresting:

1) Arrest by peace officer, or

2) Citizens arrest

When warrantless arrests allowed:

1. Inflagrante Delicto arrest – when in his presence, the person to be arrested has:

Committed

Is actually committing an offense

Is attempting to commit

Translation: In flagrante delicto [latin] – Literally, “caught in the act of wrong”.

2. Hot Pursuit arrest – when an offense has Ajust been committed and Bhe has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person arrested has committed it.

Tests in determining probable cause based on personal knowledge:

Must be based on the senses, i.e. 1) Sight

2) Hearing

3) Smell

Notes:

A. The arresting officer must have personal knowledge of the commission of the crime through his senses. He
cannot “fish” for evidence first and afterward make the arrest.

B. The term “personal knowledge” excludes hearsay as a basis for probable cause.
C. There must first be a lawful arrest before any search may be conducted. The process cannot be reversed
(Dissent of Chief Justice A. Narvasa, People v. Malmstedt). Exception: in case of valid warantless searches (Majority
opinion, People v. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401).

D. For purposes of arrest – Officer may break into any building or enclosure where the person to be arrested is or is
reasonably believed to be, if he is refused admittance thereto, after announcing his authority and purpose (Sec. 11,
RRC).

E. For purposes of search and seizure – he cannot break into any building or enclosure without violating the right
of privacy. Exceptions: 1) When there is consent (Dissent of Justice I. Cruz, People v. Evaristo, 216 SCRA 431). 2)
When there is a warrant.

3. Arrest of fugitives from justice – persons who has escaped from a penal establishment, place of confinement etc.
while serving sentence, temporarily confined, or case is still pending – may be arrested under the theory that “he is
engaged in the commission of a continuing offense” (Parulan v. Director of Prisons, 22 SCRA 639).

Methods of Arrest:

I. With warrant, by officer:

The officer shall inform the person of: 1) the cause of the arrest

2) fact that warrant exist

Exception: 1) When he flees or forcibly resist before 1 & 2 is completed

2) When the giving of info will imperil the arrest

II. Without warrant, by an officer and by private persons:

Inform the person of 1) authority and cause of arrest [if person arresting is police officer] or 2) intent to arrest
and cause [if person arresting is private person]

Unless when the person to be arrested is either:

1) Engaged in the commission of the offense

2) Is pursued immediately after its commission

3) Has escaped, flees or forcibly resist before the officer or the private person making the arrest has the
opportunity to inform him of 1 & 2, or
4) When the giving of info would imperil the arrest

Tests in determining lawfulness of USE OF LETHAL FORCE by the arresting officer:

1) Test of reasonability – conduct of the arresting officer is examined.

Where the precipitate action of the arresting officer resulted in the loss of a human life and there exists no
circumstances whatsoever justifying the shooting of a person who is asleep, even if he is a notorious criminal –
condemnation, and not condonation should be the rule (People v. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257).

2) Test of necessity – conduct of the person arrested is examined.

Where the arrested person attempts to flee, struck a policeman with his fists, draw a mess knife and attacked
another policeman, the arresting officer is not required to afford him a fair opportunity for equal struggle. A police
officer, in the performance of his duty, must stand his ground and cannot, like private individual, take refuge in
flight. His duty requires him to overcome the offender (US v. Mojica, 42 Phil 784).

V. Bail

Kinds of bail bonds:

1. cash bond

2. property bond

3. surety bond

4. recognizance

Defined:

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

Generally:
The right to bail only accrues when a person is under custody. Court must have jurisdiction over the person of the
accused either thru: 1) arrest, with or without warrant, or 2) voluntary surrender.

Exception:

When the person under investigation cannot personally appear because he is hospitalized but applies for bail
through his counsel, he is deemed to be under the constructive custody of the law (Dinapol v. Baldado, 225 SCRA
110, Paderanga v. CA, 247 SCRA 741).

Where to apply?

In the court where the case is pending (if not yet filed, may be filed before any court).

Conditions for bail:

See Sec. 2, Rule 114

Bail, a matter of right:

1. Before or after conviction by MTC, MTCC or MCTC

2. Before conviction by RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion temporal, or life imprisonment

Bail, a matter of discretion:

1. Upon conviction of RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.

2. Before conviction for capital offenses [punishable by death], or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is not strong. (Bail is neither a matter of right nor a matter of discretion
only in cases where the evidence of guilt is strong).

Bail granted in capital offenses despite findings that evidence of guilt is strong (Cited in Cruz, Constitutional Law,
2003 Ed.):

De la Rama v. Peoples Court, 77 Phil. 461 – accused was granted bail due to tuberculosis that requires confinement
to the hospital.

People v. Sison, GR 398, September 19, 1946 – humanitarian reasons considered by SC.

Notes:
1. The right to bail flows from the presumption of innocence. This is so because accusation is not synonymous with
guilt.

2. In deportation proceedings, bail is not a matter of right but of discretion on the part of the Commissioner of
Immigration and Deportation (Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago, 162 SCRA 398).

3. Bail is not available to military facing court martial proceedings (Commendador v. De Villa, 200 SCRA 80).

4. I extradition proceedings, bail may be granted provided the accused undertake to submit himself to the
jurisdiction of the court and provided further that he is not a flight risk (Govt. of Hong Kong v. Judge Olalia, 2007)

VI. Rights of the accused

Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs or
prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law (Art. 6, NCC).

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights:

Key: [PIPTEC CoSpA]

P – resumed innocent

I – nformed of the nature of the cause and accusation

P – resent in person and by counsel

T – estify in his own behalf

E – xempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself

C – onfront witnesses

C – ompulsory process to secure attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence

S – peedy, impartial and public trial

A – ppeal

1) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Hierarchy of proof [according to degree of persuasiveness]:

Absolute certainty – ultimate truth [not required in any legal proceeding]

Moral certainty – passed the test of human experience [i.e., guilt beyond reasonable doubt, conclusive
presumptions]

Relative certainty – so called because a higher degree of proof exists [i.e., preponderance of evidence, probable
cause, substantial evidence, disputable or prima facie presumptions]

Notes:

The starting point is the presumption of innocence (See: Section 3, Par. (a), Rule 131, RRC)

It is incumbent upon the prosecution to demonstrate culpability. The burden of proof lies in the prosecution.
Unless guilt beyond reasonable doubt is established, the accused need not prove his innocence.

Burden of proof – the duty of the affirmative to prove what it alleges. (Africa, The Art of Argumentation and
Debate).

Absolute certainty is not demanded by the law to convict but only moral certainty.

2) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

Essential to avoid surprise and to afford him the opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly.

Arraignment serves this purpose by informing him why the prosecuting arm of the state is mobilized against him.

An accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the compliant or information. Basic rule
– you cannot prove what you did not allege.

3) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to
promulgation of judgment.

Express or Implied waiver is renunciation to be present on that particular date only.

Escape of the accused is waiver by implication to be present on said date and all subsequent trial dates. [Fact of
escape made his failure unjustified because he has, by escaping, placed himself beyond the pale and protection of
the law (People v. Salas 143 SCRA 163, cited in Cruz, Constitutional Law, 2003 Ed.)].

Right to counsel is right to effective counsel. It is not enough to simply appoint a counsel de officio. Counsel must
have no conflict of interest. Thus, a fiscal cannot be appointed as counsel de officio.

When an accused is represented by a fake lawyer who pretended to be a member of the bar, his right to counsel is
violated, unless the accused voluntarily chose him knowing him to be a non-lawyer.

4) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct
examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.

5) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.

Right to testify in his own behalf:

Once exercised, the accused is subject to limited cross-examination.

If not exercised, no inference of guilt can be derived from his silence alone.

Right against self incrimination:

Intended to shield the guilty & imprudent as well as the innocent & farsighted.

Based on public policy and humanity, otherwise, the accused will be placed on the strongest temptation to commit
perjury.

Notes:

A. Prohibition covers 1testimonial compulsion and 2the production of the accused of incriminating documents and
articles demanded from him.

B. Does not include compulsion to 1submit fingerprints, 2photograph, 3blood or urine samples, and 4others
requiring a mere mechanical act on the part of the accused [Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 64, US v. Tan Teng, 23
Phil. 145, Schemerber v. California, US L.Ed. 2d 908, 89 S CT No. 658].

6) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial.

Reasons:

To meet the witness face to face (Bill of Rights, 1987 Constitution)

To enable the court to judge the truthfulness, deportment, and the appearance of the witness while testifying (US
v, Javier, 37 Phil 449).

Effect of absence of right to cross examine:

When there is express or implied waiver – no effect

In the absence of waiver – testimony of the witness cannot be considered as complete and therefore cannot form
part of the evidence against the accused.

Effect when witness dies:

Before he could take witness stand – inadmissible

After giving his direct testimony but before cross examination – Gen. rule: inadmissible. Exception: where the
adverse party was given adequate opportunity but failed to cross examine due to his own fault

After the defense conducted cross examination – admissible

7) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in
his behalf.

“Compulsory process” refers to the issuance of the court of:

Sub-poena – for the attendance of witnesses

Sub-poena duces tecum – for the production of documents

Notes:

A. If a sub-poena or sub-poena duces tecum is issued and the person named in the sub-poena refuses to appear or
refuses to produce the required documents without justifiable reasons – court has the power to declare that
person in contempt and may order his arrest. [People v. Montejo, 21 SCRA 722].

B. The coercive powers of the court must be employed in order to give meaning to this right.

8) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.

Speed:

Justice delayed is justice as denied

Impartiality:

Every party litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial court (Macalintal v. Judge Teh,
280 SCRA 623).

Public trial:

So that the public may see that he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned in case of conviction.

So the public may know of the fact or the basis of his innocence in case of acquittal.

Note: “Public trial” and “Trial by publicity” are two different things. They are not the same. There should be a
public trial, not trial by publicity.

9) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.

The right to appeal is a statutory right but withdrawal of this right, in the absence of a valid waiver, constitutes a
denial of due process guaranteed by the Constitution (Cruz, Constitutional Law, 2003 Ed.).

It is not a natural right or inherent one. The party who seeks to avail of the said right must comply with the
requirements of the Rules. Otherwise, the right to appeal is lost (People v. Sabellano, 198 SCRA 196)

VII. Arraignment and Plea

Arraignment: The initial step in a criminal prosecution whereby the defendant is brought before the court to hear
the charges and to enter a plea (Black’s Law Dictionary).

Venue for Arraignment and Plea:

Before the court where the complaint or information was filed or is assigned for trial.

Purpose of arraignment [Key: FIG] (14 Am. Jur., p. 939, GV Jacinto, Crim. Proc.)

1) To fix the identity of the accused

2) To inform him of the charge

3) To give the accused an opportunity to plead

Note:

In order for the Court to “acquire” complete jurisdiction over the person of the accused, arraignment is essential.
Unless this procedure is completed, the court cannot commence trial in absentia.

Procedure:

Arraignment must be made in open court by the judge or the clerk

Accused must be furnished with a copy of the complaint or information

Complaint or Information must be read in a language or dialect known to him

Accused must be present

Accused must personally enter his plea

I. If under preventive detention

Raffle of case and transmittal of records – within 3 days

Arraignment – within 10 days from the date of raffle

Pre trial conference – within 10 days after arraignment

II. If not under preventive detention

General rule – within 30 days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction

Exception – a shorter period is provided by special law or SC Circular

Rules in entering a plea:

If accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea – a plea of not guilty shall be entered

If accused enters a plea but presents exculpatory evidence – plea of guilty is withdrawn and a plea of not guilty
shall be entered for him. Burden of proof shifts.

If accused enters a plea to a capital offense – court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full
comprehension of the consequences of his plea and shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise
degree of culpability.

Pre-trial Conference:

Private offended party shall be required to appear for purposes of:

1) Plea-bargaining

2) Determination of civil liability

3) Other matters requiring his presence

In case of failure of the offended party to appear despite due notice – conformity of prosecutor is sufficient for
purposes of pleading guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged.

Bill of particulars:

The accused may, before arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead and prepare
for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and the details desired.

Scope of the Bill of Particular:

Bill of Particulars is a remedy for formal defects and not substantive defects.

The remedy against an indictment that fails to allege the time of the commission of the offense with sufficient
definition is a Motion for Bill of Particulars and not a Motion to Quash (Rocaberte v. People, 192 SCRA 152).

[See discussion in: Elements of Complaint and Information, remedy in case complaint or information is defective,
supra]

Modes of discovery:

Accused has a right against the suppression of evidence favorable to an accused which is material as to 1) guilt, or
2) as to punishment (Webb v. De Leon, 247 SCRA 653).

Suppressed evidence must be of such nature as to affect the outcome of the trial (US v. Agurs, US v. Bagley)

Notes:

1) Arraignment is important for notifying the accused of the cause he is required to meet. The accused has the
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him (Borja v. Mendoza, 77 SCRA 422).

2) The existence of a plea is an essential requisite to double jeopardy (People v. Balicas)

criminology board exam reviewer

Evidence

I. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION:

A. Importance of the study of Evidence in Law Enforcement:

As an element of our Criminal Justice System, it is the duty of every law enforcement agencies to provide the
prosecution with the materials and information (Evidence) necessary in order to support conviction.

Every person is entitled to be presumed innocent of a crime or wrong, unless proven otherwise. This is a prima
facie presumption which must be overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

B. Connecting the chain of events through Evidence during Trial:

Trial refers to “the examination before a competent tribunal, according to the laws of the land, of the facts in issue
in a cause, for the purposes of determining such issue” (U.S. v. Raymundo, 14 Phil 416).

Evidence helps in the determination of Questions of Facts by helping the judge reconstruct the chain of events
from the conception up to the consummation of a criminal design.

C. Factum Probandum and Factum Probans

Factum Probandum – The ultimate facts to be proven. These are the propositions of law.

Examples:

• murder was committed thru treachery

• robbery was made through force upon things

Factum Probans – The evidentiary Facts. These addresses questions of fact.

Examples:

• exit wounds were in front indicating that victim was shot at the back

• destroyed locks indicative of force upon things

Thus, the outcome of every trial is determined by:

• Propositions of law, and

• Questions of fact.

D. Proof and Evidence

Evidence – the means to arrive at a conclusion. Under the Revised Rules of Court, evidence is defined as “the
means, sanctioned by the rules, for ascertainment in a judicial proceeding, the truth, respecting a matter of fact”.

Proof – the result of introducing evidence. The establishment of a requisite degree of belief in the mind of the
judge as to the facts in issue. It refers to the accumulation of evidence sufficient to persuade the trial court.

Quantum of evidence – the totality of evidence presented for consideration

Quantum of proof – refers to the degree of proof required in order to arrive at a conclusion.

Burden of evidence – the duty of a party of going forward with evidence.

Burden of proof – the duty of the affirmative to prove that which it alleges.
Variations on degrees of proof based on type of action:

1. Criminal Action – proof beyond reasonable doubt [that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind]

2. Civil Action – preponderance of evidence [evidence of greater weight or more convincing than that which is
offered to refute it]

3. Administrative Action – sufficiency of evidence [that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion]

E. Exclusionary Rule. (Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine)

Evidence ILLEGALLY OBTAINED are inadmissible for reasons of public policy. This is so because of the constitutional
requirement of due process. Due process has been defined as “the law that hears before it condemns, which
proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after fair trial”.

As a result, jurisprudence has evolved a rule that renders inadmissible any evidence obtained in an illegal search
from being introduced in trial.

F. Principle of Chain of Custody of Evidence

If the evidence is of a type which cannot be easily recognized or can readily be confused or tampered with, the
proponent of the object must present evidence of its chain of custody. The proponent need not negate all
possibilities of substitution or tampering in the chain of custody, but must show that:

The evidence is identified as the same object which was taken from the scene;

It was not tampered with, or that any alteration can be sufficiently explained (i.e. discoloration due to the
application of ninhydrine solution, etc.); and

The persons who have handled the evidence are known and may be examined in court with regard to the object.

II. GENERAL PROVISIONS:

A. Concepts of evidence:

1. It is a means of ascertainment – used to arrive at a legal conclusion

2. It is sanctioned by the rules of court – meaning, not excluded by the rules on relevancy and admissibility

3. It is used in a judicial proceeding – there is a jural conflict involving different rights asserted by different parties

4. It pertains to the truth respecting a matter of fact – evidence represents a “claim” either for the prosecution or
for the defense where issues (clashes of view) are present.

Admissibility of Evidence:

For evidence to be admissible, it must be:

1) relevant to the issue [relevancy test], and

2) not excluded by the law or rules of court [competency test].

Note: To determine the relevancy of any item of proof, the purpose for which it is sought to be introduced must
first be known (There must be a formal offer).

Test of relevancy of evidence:

Whether or not the factual information tendered for evaluation of the trial court would be helpful in the
determination of the factual issue that is disputed.

When is evidence relevant?

When it has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in it’s:

1) existence, or

2) non-existence

In other words, evidence is relevant when it is:

1) material, and

2) has probative value

What is meant by “probative value”?

It is the tendency of the evidence to establish the proposition that it is offered to prove.

“Collateral Matters” not admissible except when it tend in any reasonable degree to establish probability or
improbability of the fact in issue.

Collateral matters – matters other than the fact in issue and which are offered as a basis for inference as to the
existence or non-existence of the facts in issue.

Collateral matters are classified into:

1. Antecedent circumstances – facts existing before the commission of the crime [i.e. hatred, bad moral character
of the offender, previous plan, conspiracy, etc.]

2. Concomitant circumstances – facts existing during the commission of the crime [i.e. opportunity, presence of
the accused at the scene of the crime, etc.]

3. Subsequent circumstances – facts existing after the commission of the crime [i.e. flight, extrajudicial admission
to third party, attempt to conceal effects of the crime, possession of stolen property, etc.]

Query: Is modus operandi an antecedent, concomitant or subsequent circumstance?

B. Judicial Notice, basis of:

Judicial notice is based on necessity and expediency. This is so because what is known need not be proved.
Different kinds of judicial notices:

1. mandatory

2. discretionary

3. hearing required

C. Confession and Admission, distinguished:

Confession – an acknowledgement of guilt.

Admission – an acknowledgment of facts.

Different kinds of confession/admission:

1. Judicial

2. Extrajudicial

3. Oral

4. Written

5. Voluntary

6. Forced

Different kinds of evidence:

1. Relevant evidence – evidence having any value in reason as tending

to prove any matter provable in an action.

2. Material evidence – evidence is material when it is directed to prove a

fact in issue as determined by the rules of substantive law and

pleadings.

3. Competent evidence – not excluded by law.

4. Direct evidence – proves the fact in issue without aid of inference

or presumptions.

5. Circumstantial evidence - the proof of fact or facts from which, taken either singly or collectively, the
existence of a particular fact in dispute

may be inferred as necessary or probable consequence.

6. Positive evidence – evidence which affirms a fact in issue.

7. Negative evidence - evidence which denies the existence of a fact

in issue.

8. Rebutting evidence – given to repel, counter act or disprove facts

given in evidence by the other party.

9. Primary/Best evidence – that which the law regards as affording

the greatest certainty.

10. Secondary evidence – that which indicates the existence of a

more original source of information.

11. Expert evidence – the testimony of one possessing knowledge

not usually acquired by other persons.

12. Prima facie evidence – evidence which can stand alone to support

a conviction unless rebutted.

13. Conclusive evidence – incontrovertible evidence

14. Cumulative evidence – additional evidence of the same kind bearing

on the same point.

15. Corroborative evidence – additional evidence of a different kind

and character tending to prove the same point as that of previously

offered evidence.

16. Character evidence – evidence of a person’s moral standing or

personality traits in a community based on reputation or opinion.

17. Demeanor evidence – the behavior of a witness on the witness stand

during trial to be considered by the judge on the issue of credibility.

18. Demonstrative evidence – evidence that has tangible and

exemplifying purpose.

19. Hearsay evidence – oral testimony or documentary evidence which

 does not derive its value solely from the credit to be attached to the

witness himself.

20.Testimonial evidence – oral averments given in open court by

the witness.

21. Object/Auotoptic proferrence/Real evidence – those addressed to

the senses of the court (sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste).

22. Documentary evidence – those consisting of writing or any material

of written expression offered as proof of its contents.

containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes

Best Evidence Rule:

When the subject of the inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the
original of the document.

For exceptions, see Sec. 3, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court.

A document is legally considered “Original” when:

1. It is the subject of an inquiry

2. When in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical contents.

3. When an entry is repeated in ordinary course of business, one being copied from another at or near the time
of the transaction.

Question: May a “fake” document be considered as “original” or “authentic”?

Yes. A forged or spurious document when presented in court for examination is considered as the original
fake/forged document. Thus, a mere photocopy of the allegedly forged or spurious document is only secondary to
the original questioned document.

Secondary Evidence

When the original document has been:

1. lost,
2. destroyed, or

3. cannot be produced in court.

The offeror without bad faith must:

1. prove its execution or existence, and

2. prove the cause of its unavailability.

Secondary evidence may consist of:

1. a copy,

2. recital of its contents in some authentic document, or

3. by testimony of witnesses.

When original document is in the custody of:

1. adverse party – adverse party must have reasonable notice to produce it. After such notice and satisfactory
proof of its existence, he fails to produce it, secondary evidence may be presented.

2. public officer – contents may be proved by certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.

III. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE:

Qualifications of witnesses:

1. can perceive

2. can make known their perception to others

3. not disqualified by reason of mental incapacity, immaturity, marriage, privileged communications, or “dead
man’s statute”.

“Res Inter Alios Acta” Rule

General Rule: The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another.

Exception:
1. admission by a co-partner or agent

2. admission by a conspirator

3. admission by privies

4. admission by silence

In the above cases, the admission of one person is admissible as evidence against another.

Testimonial Knowledge:

General Rule: A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are
derived from his own perception. Any statement which derives its strength from another’s personal knowledge is
hearsay, and is therefore inadmissible.

Exceptions:

1. Dying declarations (ante-mortem statements)

2. Declaration against interest

3. Act or declaration about pedigree

4. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree

5. Common reputation

6. Part of the res gestae

7. Entries in the course of business

8. Entries in official records

9. Commercial lists and the like

10. Learned treatises

11. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding

12. Examination of child victim/witness in cases of child abuse

IV. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS:

Burden of proof – the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or
defense by the amount of evidence required by law.
Presumption – an inference as to the existence of a fact not actually known, arising from its usual connection with
another which is known or a conjecture based on past experience as to what course human affairs ordinarily take.

2 kinds of presumptions:

1. Conclusive presumptions [jure et de jure] – based on rules of substantive law which cannot be overcome by
evidence to the contrary.

2. Disputable presumptions [prima facie presumptions, rebuttable presumptions] – based on procedural rules
and may be overcome by evidence to the contrary.

Kinds of Conclusive Presumptions:

1. Estoppel by record or judgment – the preclusion to deny the truth of matters set forth in a record, whether
judicial or legislative, and also deny the facts adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction (Salud v. CA, 233
SCRA 387).

2. Estoppel by deed – a bar which precludes a party to a deed and his privies from asserting as against the other
and his privies any right or title in derogation of the deed or denying the truth of any material fact asserted in it
(Iriola v. Felices, 30 SCRA 202).

3. Estoppel in pais – based upon express representation or statements or upon positive acts or conduct. A party
cannot, in the course of litigation or in dealings in pais, be permitted to repudiate his representation or occupy
inconsistent positions.

4. Estoppel against Tenant – the tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the
commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.

Note: For Kinds of disputable presumptions, see Sec. 3, Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Presentation of Evidence:

The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done is open court, and under oath or
affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode of answer, the
answer of the witness shall be given orally.

Rights and Obligations of witnesses:

1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions,

 and from harsh or insulting demeanor.

2. Not to be detained longer than the interest of justice requires.

3. Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the

issue.

4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty

for an offense unless otherwise provided by law.

5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation,

unless it be to the very fact at issue or to the fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed,but a
witness must answer to the

facts of his previous final conviction for an offense.

Order of Examination of individual witnesses:

Direct examination by the proponent

Cross examination by the opponent

Re-direct examination by the proponent

Re-cross examination by the opponent

Direct examination – the examination in chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the
issue.

Cross examination – the examination by the adverse party of the witness as to any matter stated in the direct
examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse,
and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.

Re-direct examination – second questioning by the proponent to explain or supplement answers given in the cross
examination.

Re-cross examination – second questioning by the adverse party on matters stated on the re-direct and also on
such matters as may be allowed by court.

Different Types of Questions:

Leading questions –It is one where the answer is already supplied by the examiner into the mouth of the witness.
[Ex. You saw Jose killed Juan because you were present when it happened, didn’t you?]

Misleading question – a question which cannot be answered without making an unintended admission. [Ex. Do you
still beat your wife?]
Compound question – a question which calls for a single answer to more than one question. [Ex. Have you seen
and heard him?]

Argumentative question – a type of leading question which reflects the examiners interpretation of the facts. [Ex.
Why were you driving carelessly?]

Speculative question – a question which assumes a disputed fact not stated by the witness as true. [Ex. The victim
cried in pain, didn’t he?]

Conclusionary question – a question which asks for an opinion which the witness is not qualified or permitted to
answer. [Ex. Asking a high school drop-out whether the gun used is a Cal. 45 pistol or 9mm pistol]

Cumulative question – a question which has already been asked and answered.

Harassing/Embarrassing question – [Ex. Are you a homosexual?]

Classes of Documents:

Documents are either public or private.

Public documents are:

1. The written official acts, or records of the official acts of sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and
public officers, whether of the Philippines, or a foreign country.

2. Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments.

3. Public records (1) kept in the Philippines, or private documents (2) required by law to be entered therein.

All other writings are private.

SOME USEFUL LATIN TERMS AND LEGAL MAXIMS:

Verba legis non est decendendum – from the words of the law there can be no departure.

Dura lex sed lex – the law may be harsh but it is the law.

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat – ignorance of the law excuses no one.

Ignorantia facti excusat – mistake of fact excuses.

Praeter intentionem – different from that which was intended.

Error in personae – mistake in identity.

Abberatio Ictus – mistake in the blow

Nulum crimen, nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime when there is no law punishing the same.

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – the act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal.

Actus mi invictu reus, nisi mens facit reum – an act done by me against my will is not my act.

Mens rea – guilty mind.

Actus reus – guilty act.

Res ipsa loquitor – the thing speaks for itself.

Causa Proxima – proximate cause which produced the immediate

effect.

Prima facie – at first glance.

Locus Criminis – scene of the crime or crime scene.

Pro Reo – principle in Criminal Law which states that where the statute admits of several interpretations, the one
most favorable to the accused shall be adopted.
Res Gestae – the thing itself.

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus – false in one part of the statement would render the entire statement false
(note: this maxim is not recognized in our jurisdiction