Updates in Criminal

Procedure

Irene Resurreccion- Medrano

Criminal Litigation Process

Crime which requires

preliminary
investigation

Crime which does not

Commission of
require preliminary
Crime
investigation

Crime committed in
flagrante delicto
 INQUEST

DIRECT FILING
 INQUEST

Is an informal and summary investigation conducted

by a public prosecutor in criminal cases involving
persons arrested and detained without the benefit of
a warrant of arrest issued by the court for the
purpose of determining whether or not said persons
should remain under custody and correspondingly be
charged in court (New Rules on Inquest, DOJ
Department Circular No. 61 (September 21,
1993), Sec 1 cited in Leviste vs. Alameda, 626
SCRA 575 [(2010)].
 INQUEST
• Referral/Conduct of Inquest
Proceedings
• Cases Filed in Court
• Cases Referred for Further
Investigation
• Cases Not Proper for Inquest
• Cases Dismissed or Withdrawn
• Waiver of Art. 125 RPC
“Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons to
the Proper Judicial Authorities”
(Art. 125 RPC)

12 HOURS FOR
LIGHT OFFENSE

18 HOURS FOR
LESS GRAVE OFFENSE

36 HOURS FOR
GRAVE OFFENSES
 COMMENCEMENT OF INQUEST
PROCEEDINGS

The inquest proceeding shall be considered

commenced upon receipt by the inquest
prosecutor of the following documents:
a) The affidavit of arrest duly subscribed and sworn
to before him by the arresting officer;
b) The investigation report;
c) The sworn statements of the complainant/s and
witness; and
d) Other supporting pieces of evidence gathered by
the police in the course of the latter’s
investigation of the criminal incident involving
the arrested or detained person.
MEANING OF PROBABLE CAUSE IN
INQUEST CASES

Probable cause means an actual belief or

reasonable grounds of suspicion (People vs.
Tudtud, GR No. 144037, Sept. 26, 2003) that
the person to be arrested is about to commit or is
attempting to commit a crime, or is in the act of
committing a crime, or has committed a crime.
Probable cause for purposes of filing a criminal
information is such facts as are sufficient to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and that respondent is probably guilty
thereof, and should be held for trial.
 DETERMINATION OF ARREST BY THE
INQUEST PROSECUTOR

The inquest prosecutor shall first determine if the arrest

of the detained person was made in accordance with
paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides
that arrests without a warrant may be effected: (Go vs.
Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 138 [1992]; Umil,
et.al. vs. Ramos,202 SCRA 251 [1991] and
companion cases People vs. Malmstedt, 198
SCRA 408 and People vs. Aminnudin, 163 SCRA
402 [1998]).
DETERMINATION OF ARREST BY THE
INQUEST PROSECUTOR
• When, in the presence of the arresting officer, the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
or
• When an offense has in fact just been committed, and
the arresting officer has probable cause to believe,
based on personal knowledge facts or circumstances,
that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
• When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment or place he is
serving final judgement or is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
 HOT PURSUIT ARREST

When an offense has been committed

and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts
and circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it. (Sec. 5(b),
Rule 113)
 An offense has been
committed and there is
close proximity between
the arrest and the time of
commission of the crime

ELEMENTS OF
The offense has just
HOT PURSUIT been committed; and
ARREST

Probable cause based on

personal knowledge on the
part of the person making the
arrest, of facts or
circumstances that the
person/s to be arrested
committed it.
 PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

“Personal knowledge of the facts and

circumstances that the person to be
arrested committed it” means personal
knowledge not of the commission of the
crime itself but of facts and circumstances
which would lead to the conclusion that the
person to be arrested has probably
committed the crime. (People vs. Del
Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14,
1999)
 NOTE:

There must be compliance with the ELEMENT OF

IMMEDIACY between the time of the commission
of the crime and the time of arrest. (People vs.
Salvatiera, G.R. No. 104663, July 24, 1997)

PERSONAL GATHERING OF
INFORMATION is different from personal
knowledge. The rule requires that the arrest
immediately follows the commission of the offense
(People vs. Manlulu, G.R. No. 102140, April
22, 1994)
 REQUEST FOR
PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
AND WAIVER OF
ARTICLE 125, OF
THE REVISED
PENAL CODE
WAIVER OF ART. 125 RPC

A waiver of the provisions of Art. 125 of the

Revised Penal Code signed by the arrested
person so he can avail of a preliminary
investigation, allows the authorities to detain a
person arrested without a warrant beyond the
periods specified under Article 125 within
which they are required to deliver a person
arrested without warrant to the proper judicial
authorities. (IBP vs. DOJ, Provincial
Prosecutor's Office et. al., GR. No. 232413, July
25, 2017
 INQUEST SUMMARY

Probable cause + Arrest properly effected FILE

Probable cause + Arrest not properly effected
RFI
- (Refer the case for further investigation)
No Probable cause + Arrest properly effected
RFI
- (Refer the case for further investigation)
No Probable cause + No Arrest was effected
RFI
- (Refer the case for further investigation)
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
QUEZON CITY

Inquest No. :
Complainant :
Respondent :
Crime :
Date Assigned/Date of Inquest :
Date Submitted for Review :
Date Returned by the Inquest Chief
for correction/Finalization :

RESOLUTION

( ) FOR FILING: There was lawful arrest under Sec. 5, Rule 113, of
the Rules of Criminal Procedure and evidence is sufficient to hold
respondent/s for trial in Court for the following offenses:

( ) FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION: Case needs preliminary

investigation for probable cause, because respondent/s was/were not lawfully
arrested under Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and/or for
insufficiency of evidence to hold respondent/s for trial in Court.

( ) NOT PROPER FOR INQUEST

( ) CASE DISMISSED/WITHDRAWN

BRIEF MEMO/OTHER MATTERS

( ) RELEASE ORDER. Arresting officer is directed to release

respondent/s unless detained for lawful cause/s. Subject to the approval of the
Inquest Chief.

Assistant City Prosecutor

APPROVED BY AUTHORITY
OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR:
 ILLUSTRATIVE CASE:

q (People vs. De Lara, G.R. No. 94953, September

5, 1994) Upon sensing the presence of police
operatives at the time he delivered the
prohibited drugs to the police officer acting as a
poseur-buyer, accused ran towards his house.
He was followed by the police and was arrested.
The policemen’s entry into the house of the
accused without a search warrant was in hot –
pursuit of a person caught committing an
offense in flagrante. His warrantless arrest without
a warrant is within the ambit of “hot pursuit”.
 ILLUSTRATIVE CASE:

qPeople vs. Gerente, (219 SCRA 756, 761),

the policemen arrested Gerente only
ABOUT 3 HOURS AFTER Gerente and his
companions had killed the victim. The
Court held that the policemen had
personal knowledge of the violent death
of the victim and of facts indicating that
Gerente and two others had killed him.
The warrantless arrest was held valid.
 ILLUSTRATIVE CASE/S:
q The arrest of the accused was found invalid after the
accused was arrested ONE DAY AFTER the crime was
committed. (People vs. Cendana, G.R. No. 84715 October
17, 1990)
q The arrest of the accused 6 DAYS AFTER THE COMMISSION OF
THE CRIME was held invalid because the crime had not just
been committed. (Rolando Go vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 101837 February 11, 1992)
q The accused was arrested 2 DAYS AFTER THE COMMISSION
OF THE CRIME of rape, it was declared by the High Court
that none of the circumstances for warrantless arrest stated
in Section 5 of Rule 113 attended the arrest of the accused.
The Court declared that none of the circumstances for
warrantless arrest stated in Section 5 of Rule 113 attended
the arrest of the accused. (People vs. Molina, G.R. Nos.
141129-33, December 14, 2001)
 Invalid Arrest

• Invalid Warantless Arrest not raised before arraignment is

waived (De Asis vs. Romero, 41 SCRA 235 cited in
People vs. Trestiza, 660 SCRA 407)
• Waiver of Illegal Arrest does not include waiver of of the
inadmissibility of evidence. The waiver is limited only to a
submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court (Dissenting
Opinion, J. Bersamin in Esquillo vs. People, 629 SCRA
370)
• Regularity of warrantless arrest and admissibility of evidence
are two different matters and are governed by different sets of
rules.
 IBP vs. DOJ
( GR No. 232413, July 25, 2017)
DOJ Circulars on Drug Cases
• DC 46—No release pending review
• DC 12—Release pending Review
• DC 22- *Continued detention if there is waiver A125
and Reinvestigation
*Release if arrest is not valid, no probable cause
• DC 50—Release after 30 day period
• DC 003—Reinstated no. 12
• DC 004—Reiterated no.3
• SC held that A. 125 must coincide with Sec. 7,
Rule 112 otherwise this violates the accused’s right to
liberty
WHERE AN INFORMATION IS FILED
WITH THE COURTS

• Dismiss the Case if there is no probable

cause (Cajipe vs. People, GR. No.
203605)
• Issue a Warrant of Arrest
• Order the Prosecutor to present additional
evidence (Hao vs. People, GR No.
183345, September 17, 2014)
 Distinction between Executive
Findings of Probable Cause and
Judicial Findings of Probable
Cause

See AAA vs. Judge Carbonell, GR No.

171465, June 8, 2007

Mendoza vs. People, GR No. 197293,

April 21, 2014
Determination of Probable Cause
Executive Determination
Ø is one made during the Ø is one made by the judge to
preliminary investigation, it is a
function that properly pertains to
the public prosecutor who is
given a broad discretion to
determine whether probable cause
exists and to charge those whom
he believes to have committed the
crime as defined by the law and
thus should be held for trial
(People vs. Castillo, G.R. No.
171188, June 19, 2009)
Ø Otherwise stated, such official has
the quasi-judicial authority to
determine whether or not a
criminal case must be filed in
court.
Judicial Determination
ascertain whether a warrant of
arrest should be issued against the
accused. The judge must satisfy
himself that based on the evidence
submitted, there is necessity for
placing the accused under custody
in order not to frustrate the ends
of justice. if the judge find no
probable cause, the judge cannot
be forced to issue the arrest
warrant (Leviste vs. Alameda, GR.
No. 182677, August 3, 2010)
Can the Court review the findings of probable
cause by the Prosecutor?

• See Unilever Philippines vs. Tan, GR No. 179367,

January 29, 2014
• Cruz vs. Agas, GR No.204095, June 15, 2015
• Inocentes vs. People, GR No. 205963-64, July 7,
2016
• Maza vs. Turla, GR No. 187094, February 15,
2017
Issuance of Hold Departure Orders
• See SC Circular No. 39-97 dated June 19, 1997
• See A.M. No. 01-9-245-MTC, Dec 5, 2001 (371 SCRA 397)

Issuance of Watch List Orders (DOJ Circular No. 41)

• But See Genuino et.al. vs. de Lima, GR No. 197930, April 17, 2018 where
said Circular is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the SC.

Rule on Precautionary Hold Departure Order (A.M. No. 18-07-

05-SC, August 7, 2018)

Issuance of Immigration Look Out Bulletin (ILBO)

 SEARCH WARRANT

• Rule 126, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure

• Administrative Matter No. 99-10-09-SC
Resolution Clarifying the Guidelines on the
Application for the Enforceability of Search
Warrants
• Administrative Matter No. 03-8-02-SC
Guidelines on the Selection and Designation of
Executive Judges and Defining their Powers,
Prerogatives and Duties
• See Malaloan vs. CA, 232 SCRA 249
• See Marimla vs. People, 604 SCRA 57
 See People vs. Sapla, GR No. 244045, June 26, 2020

It is high time for a re-examination of this divergent line of

jurisprudence.

Stripped to its core, the essential issue in the instant case is

whether there was a valid search and seizure conducted by the
police officers. The answer to this critical question determines
whether there is enough evidence to sustain accused-appellant
Sapla's conviction under Section 5 of R.A. 9165.

“Can the police conduct a warrantless int1usive search of a vehicle

on the sole basis of an unverified tip relayed by an anonymous
informant? On this question, jurisprudence has vacillated over
the years. The Court definitively settles the issue once and for all”
• Does the mere reception of a text message from an
anonymous person suffice to create probable cause
that enables the authorities to conduct an extensive
and intrusive search without a search warrant? The
answer is a resounding no.

• The Court has already held with unequivocal clarity

that in situations involving warrantless searches
and seizures, "law enforcers cannot act solely on
the basis of confidential or tipped information. A
tip is still hearsay no matter how reliable it may
be. It is not sufficient to constitute probable cause
in the absence of any other circumstance that will
arouse suspicion."
Rule on Cybercrime Warrants

• A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC

• It took effect last Aug 15, 2018

• It sets out the procedure for the preservation,

disclosure, interception, search, seizure,
and/or examination, custody, and
destruction of computer data as provided
under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
(R.A. 10175)
What are the types of Cybercrime warrants?

Preservation Warrant

Disclosure Warrant

Interception Warrant

Search, Seizure and Examination Warrant

Examination Warrant for Lawfully Obtained Data

Destruction Warrant
Warrant to Disclose Computer Data (WDCD)
(subscriber’s information, traffic data, relevant
data in his/her possession)

Warrant to intercept Computer Data (WICP)

-listening/recording/monitoring surveillance

Warrant to Search/Seize to Examine Computer

Data

Warrant to Examine Computer Data

Suspension of Arraignment

• Unsound Mental Condition (Sec 11a, Rule

116, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
• Prejudicial Question (Sec. 11 b)
• Petition for Review (Sec. 11 c)
• Reinvestigation proceedings
• Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
(see consolidated cases of Tan Jr. vs.
Matsuura, GR No. 1790093 & Tan Jr. Vs. Cua,
GR No. 195816, January 9, 2013
 NOTE:

Insanity

If he is found incompetent to stand trial, the

trial is simply postponed until such time as
he may be found competent. Incompetency
to stand trial is not a defense, it merely
postpones trial (People vs. Estrada, GR. No.
130487, June 19, 2000).
Speedy Disposition of a Case/
Concept of “Inordinate delay”

• “There is no constitutional or legal provision

which states that it is mandatory for the accused
to follow up his case before his right to its
speedy disposition can be recognized. To rule
otherwise would promote judicial legislation
where the Court would provide a compulsory
requisite not specified by the constitutional
provision.”(Remulla vs. Sandiganbayan,
GR No. 218040, April 17, 2017)

• See also People vs. Sandiganbayan, GR

No. 232197-98, December 5, 2018.
What is the effect if there was a delay in
the preliminary investigation of a case that
was subsequently filed before the Courts?

• ”On the other hand, in a number of civil, criminal

or administrative case, the Court has declared that
delay which is oppressive, capricious and
vexatious constitutes violation of the right of a
party to speedy trial or disposition. In those cases.
The delay took place during the preliminary
investigation stage, the trial stage or the resolution
of a mere incidental or interlocutory matter.
Moreover, the consequent violation of the right to
speedy trial or disposition warranted the ouster of
the court of the jurisdiction and dismissal of
cases.” (Reyes vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No.
243411, August 19, 2020.)
See also:

• Baya vs. Sandiganbayan, GR. No.

204978-83, July 6, 2020

• Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan, GR Nos.

206438 and 206458, July 31, 2018
• “While the Constitution guarantees the right
of the accused to speedy disposition of cases,
this constitutional right is not a magical
invocation which can be cunningly used by
the accused for his or her advantage. This
right is not a last line of remedy when
accused find themselves on the losing end of
the proceedings. The State's duty to
prosecute cases is just as equally important
and cannot be disregarded at the whim of
the accused, especially when it appears that
the alleged violation was raised as a mere
afterthought.” (Republic Vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 231144,
February 19, 2020)
 BAIL
See Padua and Pimentel vs. People, GR No. 220913, Feb 4,
2019)

Accused filed an Omnibus Motion Ex-Abundante Ad Cautelam (To

Quash Warrant of Arrest and To Fix Bail). xxx It is not required that
accused be in custody of the law because the same is not an
application for bail where custody is required.

Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon
application for bail but it is not required for the adjudication of other
reliefs sought by the accused. In criminal cases, jurisdiction over the
person of the accused is deemed waived when he files any pleading
seeking an affirmative relief, except when he invokes special
jurisdiction of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over his
person.
 NOTE:

DOJ’s Bail Bond Guide shall be considered

but shall not be controlling (Sec 1, A.M. No.
12-11-2-SC, May 1, 2014)
 Note:

An application for admission to bail shall not

bar the accused from challenging the
validity of his arrest or the legality of the
warrant issued therefor, 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
 Demurrer to Evidence

• See Katigbak vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No.

140183, July 10, 2003 where it was held that an
order denying a demurrer to evidence is
interlocutory, it is not appealable. Neither can it be
the subject of a petition for Certiorari in the absence
if grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction,
or an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.

• See Macapagal Arroyo vs People, GR

No.220598 April 18, 2017 where it was held that
prohibition contained in Sec. 23 Rule 119 is not an
insuperable obstacle to the review by the High Court
 DISCHARGE OF A STATE WITNESS
Rules of
RA 6981 (1991 Law)
Court
Period Involved/ May be entertained by DOJ even during the stage of
Trial
When to apply preliminary investigation
Rule 119 Sec.
Requirements Sec. 10 R.A. 6981
9
Judicial
Executive Function
Function

Need of a Petition for Sec. 12, R.A. 6981

Absolutely
Discharge (qualified)

• Secure housing facility ?

• Means of livelihood
• Financial assistance
• No removal or demotion from work
• Reasonable travelling expenses and subsistence
Benefits and Privileges allowance
• Free medical treatment, hospitalization and
medicines
• If killed, burial benefits
• If killed or permanent disability, dependent
children free education from primary to college
• See People vs. Dela Cruz (GR No.
173308, June 25, 2008) it was held that
provision does not require that a state
witness should appear to be the least
guilty. Rather, it provides that he does not
appear to be the most guilty.

• See Yu vs. Presiding Judge, RTC Br.

18, Tagaytay City (GR No. 142848)

• See Ampatuan Jr. vs de Lima (GR No.

197291, April 3, 2013)
Plea Bargaining in Drug Cases

• Estipona vs. Lobrigo, GR No. 226679, August 15,

2017
• Sayre vs. Xenos, GR Nos. 244413, 244415-16,
February 18, 2020.
• Pascua vs. People, GR No. 250578, September
7, 2020
• People vs. Reafor, GR No. 247575, Nov. 16, 2020
 People vs. Tulagan
G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019
Rape under Article 266-A Section 5(1) of
(1)(a,b,c) under the RPC R.A. No. 7610

Offender is a man; Offender is a man;

Indulges in sexual intercourse

Carnal knowledge of a
with a female child exploited in
woman;
prostitution or other sexual
abuse, who is 12 years old or
below 18 or above 18 under
special circumstances;
Through force, threat or
intimidation; when the Coercion or influence of any
offended party is deprived of adult, syndicate or group is
reason or otherwise employed against the child to
unconscious; and by means of become a prostitute
fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority
If the victim is under 12 years old and the accused
committed acts of lasciviousness defined under
Article 336 of RPC

Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of

the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A.
No. 7610: reclusion temporal in its
medium period
The victim is 12 years old but below 18 or over 18 but classified as a
child under RA 7610 and the accused committed acts of
lasciviousness defined under Article 336 of RPC

Lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No.

7610: reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
perpetua
The victim is below 12 years old and the accused committed sexual
assault under Art. 266-a(2)

Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC in

relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610: reclusion
temporal in its medium period
The victim is 12 years old but below 18 or over 18 but classified as
child under 7610 and the accused committed sexual assault
defined under Article 266-a(2) of RPC

Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No.

7610: reclusion temporal in its medium period
to reclusion perpetua. (Do not make anymore
reference to the provisions of the RPC)
The victim is below 12 years old and the accused had
carnal knowledge with the victim

Rape under Article 266-A(1) in relation to Art.

266-B of the RPC: reclusion perpetua, except
when the victim is below 7 years old in which
case death penalty shall be imposed
The victim is 12 years old but below 18 and the accused had carnal
knowledge with the victim under the circumstances provided
under Art. 266-a 1(a),(b),(c)

Rape under Art. 266-a 1(d), in relation to Art.

266-b
 In summation:

if the child is below 12

and rape/sexual Apply the provisions of
assault/acts of Art. 266-a, 1 & 2 and Art.
lasciviousness are 336 of the RPC
committed

However, if the
Apply the higher
penalty imposed
penalty under RA
under RA 7610 is
7610
higher
 In summation:

If the child is Rape is Apply the

12 years old committed provisions in Art
and above under Art. 266- 266-a in relation
a, 1(a),(b),(c), to Art. 266-b
but under 18
 In summation:

if the child is 12 Apply the provision

sexual assault is of RA 7610:
years old and
committed lascivious conduct
above but under Section 5(b),
under Art. 266-a
below 18 RA 7610
 In summation:

if acts of determine
lasciviousness/rape/sex whether the apply the
ual assault is committed if the child
against a child child is below 12 provisions of the
is below 12 RPC
exploited in prostitution years or above
or other sexual abuse but below 18

In case of acts of
if 12 years old apply the
apply Sec. 5(b) of RA lasciviousness
and above but penalty in RA
7610 and sexual
under 18 7610
assault
 IMPORTANT NOTE:
As long as the child is below 12, prosecute
under RPC but if the penalty is lower than that
of RA 7610, increase the penalty by applying
the penalty under RA 7610
End of Presentation
Thank you