C2
VI. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SPECIAL WRITS
However, if the evidence so warrants, the amparo
court may refer the case to the Department of
Justice for criminal prosecution. (Annotation on the
Writ of Amparo, A.M. NO. 07-9-12-SC)
An independent action for amparo is improper once
criminal proceedings have been commenced.
Validity of the arrest or the proceedings conducted
thereafter is a defense that may be set up by
respondents during trial and not before a petition
for writ of amparo. The reliefs afforded by the writs
may, however, be made available to the aggrieved
party by motion in the criminal proceedings.
(Castillo v. Cruz, G.R. No. 182165, 25 Nov. 2009)
NOTE: The rule is the same with respect to habeas
data.
Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action
When a criminal action has been commenced, no
separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The
reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in
the criminal case. The procedure under the Rule on
the Writ of Amparo shall govern the disposition of
reliefs available under the writ. (Sec. 22, A.M. No. 07-
9-12-SC)
Consolidation
When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the
filing of a petition for the writ, the latter shall be
consolidated with the criminal action.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action
are filed subsequent to a petition for a writ of
amparo, the latter shall be consolidated with the
criminal action. After consolidation, the procedure
under this Rule shall continue to apply to the
disposition of the reliefs in the petition. (Sec. 23, A.M.
No. 07-9-12-SC)
Q: The residents of Mt. Ahohoy, headed by
Masigasig, formed a nongovernmental
organization—Alyansa Laban sa Minahan sa
Ahohoy (ALMA) to protest the mining operations
of Oro Negro Mining in the mountain. ALMA
members picketed daily at the entrance of the
mining site blocking the ingress and egress of
435
trucks and equipment of Oro Negro, hampering
its operations. Masigasig had an altercation with
Mapusok arising from the complaint of the
mining engineer of Oro Negro that one of their
trucks was destroyed by ALMA members.
Mapusok is the leader of the Association of
Peace Keepers of Ahohoy (APKA), a civilian
volunteer organization serving as auxiliary
force of the local police to maintain peace and
order in the area. Subsequently, Masigasig
disappeared.
Mayumi, the wife of Masigasig, and the members
of ALMA searched for Masigasig, but all their
efforts proved futile. Mapagmatyag, a member of
ALMA, learned from Maingay, a member of
APKA, during their binge drinking that
Masigasig was abducted by other members of
APKA, on order of Mapusok. Mayumi and ALMA
sought the assistance of the local police to
search for Masigasig, but they refused to extend
their cooperation.
Immediately, Mayumi filed with the RTC, a
petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo
against Mapusok and APKA. ALMA also filed a
petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo
with the Court of Appeals against Mapusok and
APKA. Respondents Mapusok and APKA, in their
Return filed with the RTC, raised among their
defenses that they are not agents of the State;
hence, cannot be impleaded as respondents in
an amparo petition.
a. Is their defense tenable? Respondents
Mapusok and APKA, in their Return filed
with the Court of Appeals, raised as their
defense that the petition should be
dismissed on the ground that ALMA cannot
file the petition because of the earlier
petition filed by Mayumi with the RTC.
A: NO. The defense of Mapusok and APKA that they
are not agents of the State and hence cannot be
impleaded as respondents in an amparo petition is
not tenable. The writ of amparo is available in cases
where the enforced or involuntary disappearance of
a persons is with the authorization, support or
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
C2
VI. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SPECIAL WRITS
performance of duty while only ordinary diligence
is required for private individual or entity. Public
officials or employees are charged with a higher
standard of conduct because it is their legal duty to
obey the Constitution, especially its provisions
protecting the right to life, liberty and security. They
cannot simply invoke the presumption of regularity.
(Sec. 17, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)
Judgment
The court shall render judgment within ten (10)
days from the time the petition is submitted for
decision. (Sec. 18, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)
No enforcement of five (5) days like in Habeas Data.
Judgment Subject to Appeal via Rule 45
If the allegations are proven with substantial
evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the
writ and such reliefs as may be proper and
appropriate. The judgment should contain
measures, which the judge views as essential for the
continued protection of the petitioner in the
Amparo case. These measures must be detailed
enough so that the judge may be able to verify and
monitor the actions taken by the respondents. It is
this judgment that could be subject to appeal to the
Supreme Court via Rule 45. (De Lima v. Gatdula, G.R.
No. 204528, 19 Feb. 2013)
Appeal (2012 BAR)
Any party may appeal from the final judgment or
order to the SC under Rule 45 within five (5) days.
The appeal may raise not only questions of law but
also questions of fact or both because its subject is
extralegal killings or enforced disappearances,
which might necessitate a review of errors of fact.
(Sec. 19, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)
Doctrine of Totality of Evidence
The court must consider all the pieces of evidence
adduced in their totality, not in isolation with each
other, and to consider any evidence otherwise
inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible
if it is consistent with the admissible evidence
437
adduced. In other words, we reduce our rules to the
most basic test of reason – i.e., to the relevance of
the evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency
with all other pieces of adduced evidence. Thus,
even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it satisfies
this basic minimum test. (Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, G.R.
No. 182498, 03 Dec. 2009)
H. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
(A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
Writ of Habeas Data
It is a remedy available to any person whose right to
privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or
threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private individual
or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or
storing of data or information regarding the person,
family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved
party. (Sec. 1, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, The Rule on the
Writ of Habeas Data) (2009, 2010 BAR)
Objective
The writ of habeas data was conceptualized as a
judicial remedy enforcing the right to privacy, most
especially the right to informational privacy of
individuals. The writ operates to protect a person’s
right to control information regarding himself,
particularly in the instances where such
information is being collected through unlawful
means in order to achieve unlawful ends. (Roxas v.
Macapagal Arroyo, G.R. No. 189155, 07 Sept. 2010)
In a proceeding for a writ of habeas data, courts only
determine the respondent's accountability in the
gathering, collecting, or storing of data or
information regarding the person, family, home, and
correspondence of the aggrieved party. Any civil,
criminal, or administrative liability may only be
imposed in a separate action. (Castillo v. Cruz, G.R.
No. 182165, 25 Nov. 2009)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Nature of Hearing on the Petition
The nature of the hearing on the petition is
summary. However, the court, justice or judge may
call for a preliminary conference to simplify the
issues and determine the possibility of obtaining
stipulations and admissions from the parties. (Sec.
15, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
Scope of Writ
As an independent and summary remedy to protect
the right to privacy—especially the right to
informational privacy—the proceedings for the
issuance of the writ of habeas data does not entail
any finding of criminal, civil or administrative
culpability. (Rodriguez v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No.
191805, 15 Nov. 2011)
Reliefs Granted by the Court
If the allegations in the petition are proven through
substantial evidence, then the Court may:
1. Grant access to the database or information;
2. Enjoin the act complained of; or
3. In case the database or information contains
erroneous data or information, order its
deletion, destruction or rectification.
(Rodriguez v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 191805, 15 Nov.
2011)
NOTE: The remedies include updating, rectification,
suppression, or destruction of the database or
information or files in possession or control of the
respondents. It is not limited to cases of extralegal
killings and enforced disappearances (Vivares v. St.
Theresa’s College, G.R. No. 202666, 29 Sept. 2014)
Where the Writ of Habeas Data is NOT
Applicable
While the writ of habeas data is a remedy available
for the protection of one’s right to privacy, the
state’s interest in dismantling private armed groups
outweighed the alleged intrusion of a person’s
private life.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
Related jurisprudence
Gamboa was unable to prove through substantial
evidence that her inclusion in the list of individuals
maintaining Private Army Groups made her and her
supporters susceptible to harassment and to
increased police surveillance. In this regard,
respondents sufficiently explained that the
investigations conducted against her were in
relation to the criminal cases in which she was
implicated. As public officials, they enjoy the
presumption of regularity, which she failed to
overcome.
The state interest of dismantling PAGs far
outweighs the alleged intrusion on the private life of
Gamboa, especially when the collection and
forwarding by the PNP of information against her
was pursuant to a lawful mandate. Therefore, the
privilege of the writ of habeas data must be denied.
(Gamboa v. Chan, G.R. No. 193636, 24 July 2011)
Until such time that any of the respondents were
found to be actually responsible for the abduction
and torture of the petitioner, any inference
regarding the existence of reports being kept in
violation of the petitioners right to privacy becomes
farfetched, and premature. (Roxas v. Macapagal
Arroyo, G.R. No. 189155, 07 Sept. 2010)
The incumbent Chief Executive cannot be hauled to
court even for the limited purpose under the Rules
on the Writ of Habeas Data on the basis of
presidential immunity from suit. (De Lima v.
President Duterte, G.R. No. 227635, 15 Oct. 2019)
Availability of Writ of Habeas Data
1. To any person;
2. Whose right to privacy in life, liberty and
security is violated or threatened;
3. With violation by an unlawful act or omission of
a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity engaged in:
a. Gathering;
b. Collecting; or
c. Storing of data or information regarding
the person family, home and
438
C2
VI. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SPECIAL WRITS
correspondence of the aggrieved party.
(Sec. 1, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
NOTE: The writ however will not issue on the basis
merely of an alleged unauthorized access to
information about a person. Availment of the writ
requires the existence of a nexus between the right
to privacy on the one hand, and the right to life,
liberty or security on the other. Thus, the existence
of a person’s right to informational privacy and a
showing, at least by substantial evidence, of an
actual or threatened violation of right to privacy in
life, liberty, or security of the victim are
indispensable before the privilege of the writ may
be extended.
Right to informational privacy is defined as the right
of individuals to control information about
themselves. And such right depends on the
existence of “expectational privacy” a person has
toward particular information. Before one can have
expectational privacy, it must be shown the the
person intended such information to be private
(Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, G.R. No. 202666, 29
Sept. 2014)
Who may File
An aggrieved party whose right to privacy in life,
liberty or security is violated or threatened may file
a petition.
However, in cases of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances, the petition may be filed by:
1. Any member of the immediate family of the
aggrieved party, namely: the spouse, children
and parents; or
2. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral
relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth
civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in
default of those mentioned in the preceding
paragraph. (Sec. 2, A.M. No. 08-01-16-SC)
NOTE: Unlike in amparo, human rights
organizations or institutions are no longer allowed
to file the petition.
439
Contents of the Petition
A verified petition for a writ of habeas data should
contain the following: (P-M-L-A-R-O)
a. The Personal circumstances of the petitioner
and the respondent;
b. The Manner the right to privacy is violated or
threatened and how it affects the right to life,
liberty or security of the aggrieved party;
c. The Location of the files, registers or databases,
the government office, and the person in charge,
in possession or in control of the data or
information, if known;
d. The Actions and recourses taken by the
petitioner to secure the data or information;
e. The Reliefs prayed for, which may include the
updating, rectification, suppression or
destruction of the database or information or
files kept by the respondent. In case of threats,
the relief may include a prayer for an order
enjoining the act complained of; and
f. Such Other relevant reliefs as are just and
equitable (Sec. 6, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
NOTE: Sec. 6 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data
requires material allegations of ultimate facts in a
petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data.
Contents of Return
The respondent, within five (5) working days from
the service of the writ, unless reasonably extended
by the Court, shall file a verified return containing:
a. Lawful defenses such as national security, state
secrets, privileged communication,
confidentiality of the source of information of
media and others;
b. If respondent in charge, in possession or in
control of the data or information subject of the
petition:
i. Disclosure of the data or information
about petitioner, nature of such data or
information, and purpose of its collection;
ii. Steps or actions taken by respondent to
ensure the security and confidentiality of
the data or information;
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
iii. Currency and accuracy of the data and
information held; and
c. Other allegations relevant to the resolution of
the proceeding;
A general denial of the allegations in the petition
shall not be allowed. (Sec. 10, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
NOTE: In case the respondent fails to file a return,
the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the
petition ex parte, granting the petitioner such relief
as the petition may warrant unless the court in its
discretion requires the petitioner to submit
evidence. (Sec. 14, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
The court, justice or judge may punish with
imprisonment or fine a respondent who commits
contempt by making a false return, or refusing to
make a return; or any person who otherwise
disobeys or resist a lawful process or order of the
court. (Sec. 11, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
Instances when Petition may be Heard in
Chambers
Hearing in chambers may be conducted where
respondent invokes the defense that the release of
the data or information shall compromise:
1. National security;
2. State secrets; and
3. When the data or information cannot be
divulged to the public due its nature or
privileged character. (Sec. 12, A.M. No. 08-1-16-
SC)
Consolidation
1. When a criminal action is filed subsequent to
the filing of a petition for the writ, the latter
shall be consolidated with the criminal action;
or
2. When a criminal action and a separate civil
action are filed subsequent to a petition for a
writ of habeas data, the petition shall be
consolidated with the criminal action.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
After consolidation, the procedure under the Rule
shall continue to govern the disposition of the reliefs
in the petition. (Sec. 21, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
Effect of filing of a Criminal Action
When a criminal action has been commenced, no
separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The
reliefs under the writ shall only be available by
motion in the criminal case. (Sec. 22, A.M. No. 08-1-
16-SC)
Institution of Separate Action
This Rule shall not preclude the filing of a separate
criminal, civil or administrative actions. (Sec. 20,
A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
Quantum of Proof in Application for Issuance of
Writ of Habeas Data
If the allegations in the petition are proven by
substantial evidence, the court shall enjoin the act
complained of, or order the deletion, destruction, or
rectification of the erroneous data or information
and grant other relevant reliefs as may be just and
equitable; otherwise, the privilege of the writ shall
be denied. (Sec. 16, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
NOTE: The Court has ruled that in view of the
recognition of the evidentiary difficulties attendant
to the filing of a petition for the privilege of the writs
of amparo and habeas data, not only direct evidence,
but circumstantial evidence, indicia, and
presumptions may be considered, so long as they
lead to conclusions consistent with the admissible
evidence adduced. (Saez v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R.
No. 183533, 25 Sep. 2012)
Judgment
1. The court shall render judgment within ten (10)
days from the time the petition is submitted for
decision. (Sec. 16, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
2. Upon its finality, the judgment shall be enforced
by the sheriff or any lawful officers as may be
designated by the court, justice or judge within
5 working days. (Sec. 16, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
440
C2
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
13. R.A. No. 7586, National Integrated Protected
Areas System Act including all laws, decrees,
orders, proclamations and issuances
establishing protected areas;
14. R.A. No. 7611, Strategic Environmental Plan
for Palawan Act;
15. R.A. No. 7942, Philippine Mining Act;
16. R.A. No. 8371, Indigenous Peoples Rights Act;
17. R.A. No. 8550, Philippine Fisheries Code;
18. R.A. No. 8749, Clean Air Act;
19. R.A. No. 9003, Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act;
20. R.A. No. 9072, National Caves and Cave
Resource Management Act;
21. R.A. No. 9147, Wildlife Conservation and
Protection Act;
22. R.A. No. 9175, Chainsaw Act;
23. R.A. No. 9275, Clean Water Act;
24. R.A. No. 9483, Oil Spill Compensation Act of
2007; and
25. Provisions in C.A. No. 141, The Public Land Act;
R.A. No. 6657, Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988; R.A. No. 7160, Local
Government Code of 1991; R.A. No. 7161, Tax
Laws Incorporated in the Revised Forestry
Code and Other Environmental Laws
(Amending the NIRC); R.A. No. 7308, Seed
Industry Development Act of 1992; R.A. No.
7900, High-Value Crops Development Act; R.A.
No. 8048, Coconut Preservation Act; R.A. No.
8435, Agriculture and Fisheries
Modernization Act of 1997; R.A. No. 9522, The
Philippine Archipelagic Baselines Law; R.A. No.
9593, Renewable Energy Act of 2008; R.A. No.
9637, Philippine Biofuels Act; and other
existing laws that relate to the conservation,
development, preservation, protection and
utilization of the environment and natural
resources. (Sec. 2, Rule 1, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC,
The Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases)
NOTE: The rules remain consistent with prevailing
jurisprudence regarding the doctrine of exhaustion
of administrative remedies and primary
jurisdiction.
These Rules apply to environmental cases arising
from laws that relate to the conservation,
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
development, preservation, protection and
utilization of the environment and natural
resources. These may include environmental laws
and those laws that may contain provisions that
relate to the environment but are not
environmental laws per se (e.g. C.A. No. 141, “The
Public Land Act”; R.A. No. 7160, “The Local
Government Code of 1990”, etc.). While this section
includes a list of such applicable laws, it is not meant
to be exhaustive. (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Annotation to
the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, p.
100)
Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation
(SLAPP)
A legal action filed to harass, vex, exert undue
pressure or stifle any legal recourse that any person,
institution or the government has taken or may take
in the enforcement of environmental laws,
protection of the environment or assertion of
environmental rights shall be treated as a SLAPP
and shall be governed by these Rules. (Sec. 1, Rule 6,
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Q: Go filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus with
Custody of his children against Mercado. Go,
with his parents, also filed 10 criminal cases
against Mercado for libel and child abuse,
among others. Meanwhile, Mercado filed a
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition arguing
that the cases filed by private respondents
against them are forms of SLAPP intended to
harass, intimidate and silence them. Mercado
prayed that the Court declare the subject cases
as SLAPP and for the Court to issue a TRO/Writ
of Preliminary Injunction directing public
respondents to desist from conducting further
hearings on the subject cases and for the
immediate dismissal of the same. Is Mercado
correct?
A: NO. Under the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases, the allegation of SLAPP is set
up as a defense in cases claimed to have been filed
merely as harassment suit against environmental
actions. The Court finds no occasion to apply the
rules on SLAPP as the petition has no relation at all
to “the enforcement of environmental laws,
442
C2
VI. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SPECIAL WRITS
protection of the environment or assertion of
environmental rights.” R.A. No. 9262, which
involves cases of violence against women and their
children, is not among those laws included under
the scope of SLAPP. (Mercado v. Lopena, G.R. No.
230170, 06 June 2018)
Prohibition against Temporary Restraining
Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction
Only the SC can issue a TRO or writ of preliminary
injunction against lawful actions of government
agencies that enforce environmental laws or
prevent violations thereof. (Sec. 10, Rule 2, A.M. No.
09-6-8-SC)
NOTE: The judge shall report any action taken on a
TEPO, EPO, TRO or a preliminary injunction,
including its modification and dissolution within 10
days from the action taken to the SC, through the
Office of the Court Administrator. (Sec. 11, Rule 2,
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Q: What is the difference between a TEPO and
the prohibition against issuance of TRO?
A: A TEPO is premised on the violation of an
environmental law or a threatened damage or
injury to the environment by any person, even the
government and its agencies while the prohibition
against the issuance of a TRO or preliminary
injunction is premised on the presumption of
regularity on the government and its agencies in
enforcing environmental laws and protecting the
environment. (Annotation to the Rules of Procedure
for Environmental Cases, pp. 116-117)
1. TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ORDER (TEPO)
Environmental Protection Order
It is an order issued by the court directing or
enjoining any person or government agency to
perform or desist from performing an act in order to
protect, preserve or rehabilitate the environment.
(Sec. 4(d), Rule 1, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
443
Issuance of a Temporary Environmental
Protection Order (TEPO)
If it appears from the verified complaint with a
prayer for the issuance of a TEPO that the matter is
of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer
grave injustice and irreparable injury, the executive
judge of the multiple-sala court before raffle or the
presiding judge of a single-sala court as the case
maybe, may issue ex parte a TEPO effective for only
72 hours from date of the receipt of the TEPO by the
party or person enjoined. (Sec. 8, Rule 2, A.M. No. 09-
6-8-SC)
NOTE: Within said period, the court where the case
is assigned, shall conduct a summary hearing to
determine whether the TEPO may be extended until
the termination of the case. The court where the
case is assigned shall periodically monitor the
existence of acts that are the subject matter of the
TEPO even if issued by the executive judge and may
lift the same at any time as circumstances may
warrant. (Sec. 8, Rule 2, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Exemption from Posting of Bond
The applicant shall be exempted from the posting of
a bond for the issuance of a TEPO. (Sec. 8, Rule 2, A.M.
No. 09-6-8-SC)
Dissolution of TEPO
The TEPO may be dissolved if it appears after
hearing that its issuance or continuance would
cause irreparable damage to the party or person
enjoined while the applicant may be fully
compensated for such damages as he may suffer and
subject to the posting of a sufficient bond by the
party or person enjoined. (Sec. 8, Rule 2, A.M. No. 09-
6-8-SC)
NOTE: The grounds for motion to dissolve a TEPO
shall be supported by affidavits of the party or
person enjoined which the applicant may oppose,
also by affidavits. (Sec. 9, Rule 2, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Q: When may the court convert a TEPO to a
permanent EPO? When may the court issue a
writ of continuing mandamus?
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
A: In the judgment, the court may convert the TEPO
to a permanent EPO or issue a writ of continuing
mandamus directing the performance of acts which
shall be effective until the judgment is fully satisfied.
(Sec. 3, Rule 5, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
NOTE: The court may, by itself or through the
appropriate government agency, monitor the
execution of the judgment and require the party
concerned to submit written reports on a quarterly
basis or sooner as may be necessary, detailing the
progress of the execution and satisfaction of the
judgment. The other party may, at its option, submit
its comments or observations on the execution of
the judgment. (Sec. 3, Rule 5, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Issuance of TEPO in a Petition for a Writ of
Continuing Mandamus
The court in which the petition for a writ of
continuing mandamus is filed may:
1. Issue such orders to expedite the proceedings;
and
2. Grant a TEPO for the preservation of the rights
of the parties pending such proceedings. (Sec. 5,
Rule 8, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
NOTE: A writ of continuing mandamus is issued by
a court in an environmental case directing any
agency or instrumentality of the government or
officer thereof to perform an act or series of acts
decreed by final judgment which shall remain
effective until judgment is fully satisfied. (Sec. 4 (c),
Rule 1, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
2. WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS
It is a writ issued by a court in an environmental
case directing any agency or instrumentality of the
government or officer thereof to perform an act or
series of acts decreed by final judgment which shall
remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied.
(Sec. 4 (c), Rule 1, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
NOTE: The writ of continuing mandamus was first
introduced in Metropolitan Manila Development
Authority (MMDA) v. Concerned Residents of Manila
Bay (G.R. Nos. 171947-48, 18 Dec. 2008), as a special
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
civil action that may be availed of to compel the
performance of an act specially enjoined by law. The
petition should mainly involve an environmental
and other related law, rule or regulation or a right
therein. A writ of continuing mandamus is, in
essence, a command of continuing compliance with
a final judgment as it “permits the court to retain
jurisdiction after judgment in order to ensure the
successful implementation of the reliefs mandated
under the court’s decision.” (Dolot v. Paje, G.R. No.
199199, 27 Aug. 2013)
When a Writ of Continuing Mandamus may be
Availed of
A person may file a verified petition for a writ of
continuing mandamus when any of the following
instances are present:
1. When the respondent either:
a. Unlawfully neglects to perform a duty
specifically enjoined by law, arising from
an office, trust or station, in relation to
the enforcement or violation of an
environmental law, rule or regulation or
a right; or
b. Unlawfully excludes another from the use
or enjoyment of such right; and
2. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Sec. 1,
Rule 8, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
NOTE: The verified petition should also contain a
sworn certification of non-forum shopping. (Sec. 1,
Rule 8, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Q: Hannibal, Donna, Florence and Joel,
concerned residents of Laguna de Bay, filed a
complaint for mandamus against the Laguna
Lake Development Authority, the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, the
Department of Public Work and Highways,
Department of Interior and Local Government,
Department of Agriculture, Department of
Budget, and Philippine National Police before
the RTC of Laguna alleging that the continued
neglect of defendants in performing their duties
444
C2
VI. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SPECIAL WRITS
has resulted in serious deterioration of the
water quality of the lake and the degradation of
the marine life in the lake. The plaintiffs prayed
that said government agencies be ordered to
clean up Laguna de Bay and restore its water
quality to Class C waters as prescribed by
Presidential Decree No. 1152, otherwise known
as the Philippine Environment Code. Defendants
raise the defense that the cleanup of the lake is
not a ministerial function and they cannot be
compelled by mandamus to perform the same.
The RTC of Laguna rendered a decision
declaring that it is the duty of the agencies to
clean up Laguna de Bay and issued a permanent
writ of mandamus ordering said agencies to
perform their duties prescribed by law relating
to the cleanup of Laguna de Bay. Is the RTC
correct in issuing the writ of mandamus?
Explain. (2016 BAR)
A: YES. In MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila
Bay, (G.R. No. 171947-48, 18 Dec. 2008), the SC held
that the cleaning or rehabilitation of Manila Bay can
be compelled by mandamus. The ruling
in MMDA may be applied by analogy to the clean-up
of the Laguna de Bay.
While the term issued by the RTC of Laguna is
a permanent writ of mandamus, this should be
considered only as a semantic error and that what
the RTC really intended to issue is a writ
of continuing mandamus. There is no such thing as
a permanent writ of mandamus since the writ shall
cease to be effective once the judgment is fully
satisfied.
Q: To address the clamor for a more tangible
response to climate change, Former President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued A.O. No. 171
which created Presidential Task Force on
Climate Change (PTFCC). This body was
reorganized through E.O. No. 774 and expressed
what is now referred to by the petitioners as the
“Road Sharing Principle” which provides that
“those who have less wheels must have more in
road. For this purpose, the system shall favor
non-motorized locomotion and collective
transportation system (walking, bicycling, and
445
the manpowered mini-train). Later, Congress
passed the Climate Change Act. It created the
Climate Change Commission which absorbed the
functions of the PTFCC and became the lead
policy-making body of the government which
shall be tasked to coordinate, monitor and
evaluate the programs and action plans of the
government relating to climate change.
Herein petitioners wrote respondents
regarding their pleas for implementation of the
Road Sharing Principle, demanding the reform
of the road and transportation system in the
whole country within 30 days from receipt of the
said letter—foremost, through bifurcation of
roads and the reduction of official and
government fuel consumption by 50%. Claiming
to have not received a response, they filed this
petition. Should a Writ of Kalikasan and/or
Continuing Mandamus issue in petitioners’
favor?
A: NO. Petitioners failed to establish the requisites
for the issuance of the writs prayed for. A party
claiming the privilege for the issuance of a writ of
kalikasan has to show that a law, rule or regulation
was violated or would be violated. In this case, apart
from repeated invocation of the constitutional right
to health and to a balanced and healthful ecology
and bare allegations that their right was violated,
the petitioners failed to show that public
respondents are guilty of any unlawful act or
omission that constitutes a violation of the
petitioners’ right to a balanced and healthful
ecology.
Similarly, the writ of continuing mandamus cannot
issue. First, the petitioners failed to prove direct or
personal injury arising from acts attributable to the
respondents to be entitled to the writ. Second, the
Road Sharing Principle is precisely as it is
denominated—a principle. Mandamus lies to
compel the performance of duties that are purely
ministerial in nature, not those that are
discretionary, and the official can only be directed
by mandamus to act but not to act one way or the
other. The duty being enjoined in mandamus must
be one according to the terms provided in the law
itself.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
In this case, there is no showing of unlawful neglect
on the part of the respondents to perform any act
that the law specifically enjoins as a duty - there
being nothing in the executive issuances relied upon
by the petitioners that specifically enjoins the
bifurcation of roads to implement the Road Sharing
Principle. Clearly, the determination of the means to
be taken by the executive in implementing or
actualizing any stated legislative or executive policy
relating to the environment requires the use of
discretion. (Segovia v. Climate Change Commission,
G.R. No. 211010, 07 Mar. 2017)
Where to File the Petition
1. RTC which has territorial jurisdiction over the
unlawful act or omission;
2. CA; or
3. SC (Sec. 2, Rule 8, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Contents of a Verified Petition
1. Allegation of facts;
2. Specific allegation that the petition concerns an
environmental law, rule or regulation;
3. Prayer that judgment be rendered commanding
the respondent to do an act or series of acts
until the judgment is fully satisfied;
4. Prayer for payment of damages sustained by
the plaintiff due to malicious neglect to perform
legal duties; and
5. Sworn certification of non-forum shopping (Sec.
1, Rule 8, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Payment of Docket Fees NOT required
The petitioner is exempt from payment of docket
fees. (Sec. 3, Rule 8, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Issuance of the Writ of Continuing Mandamus
If the court finds the petition to be sufficient in form
and substance, it shall issue the writ and require the
respondent to comment on the petition within 10
days from receipt of a copy thereof. (Sec. 4, Rule 8,
A.M. No. 09-6-78-SC)
NOTE: The order to comment shall be served on the
respondents in such manner as the court may direct,
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
together with a copy of the petition and any annexes
thereto. (Sec. 4, Rule 8, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Expediting Proceedings
The court in which the petition is filed may:
1. Issue such orders to expedite the proceedings;
and
2. Grant a TEPO for the preservation of the rights
of the parties pending such proceedings. (Sec. 5,
Rule 8, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Nature of the Hearing
It is summary in nature. The court, after the
comment is filed or the time for the filing thereof has
expired, shall require the parties to submit
memoranda. (Sec. 6, Rule 8, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Resolution of the Petition
The petition shall be resolved without delay within
60 days from the date of the submission of the
petition for resolution. (Sec. 6, Rule 8, A.M. No. 09-6-
8-SC)
Q: A law was passed declaring Mt. Karbungko as
a protected area since it was a major watershed.
The protected area covered a portion located in
Municipality of the Province I and a portion
located in the City of Z of Province II. Maingat is
the leader of Samahan ng Tagapag-ingat ng
Karbungko (STK), a people's organization. He
learned that a portion of the mountain located in
the City of Z of Province II was extremely
damaged when it was bulldozed and leveled to
the ground, and several trees and plants were
cut down and burned by workers of World
Pleasure Resorts, Inc. (WPRI) for the
construction of a hotel and golf course.
Upon inquiry with the project site engineer if
they had a permit for the project, Maingat was
shown a copy of the Environmental Compliance
Certificate (ECC) issued by the DENR-EMB,
Regional Director (RD-DENR-EMB).
Immediately, Maingat and STK filed a petition
for the issuance of a writ of continuing
446
C2

VI. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SPECIAL WRITS

mandamus against RD-DENR-EMB and WPRI
with the RTC of Province I, a designated
environmental court, as the RD-DENR-EMB
negligently issued the ECC to WPRI.

On scrutiny of the petition, the court determined

that the area where the alleged actionable
neglect or omission subject of the petition took
place in the City of Z of Province II, and therefore
cognizable by the RTC of Province II. Thus, the
court dismissed outright the petition for lack of
jurisdiction.

a. Was the court correct in motu proprio

dismissing the petition? Assuming that the
court did not dismiss the petition, the RD-
DENR-EMB in his Comment moved to
dismiss the petition on the ground that
petitioners failed to appeal the issuance of
the ECC and to exhaust administrative
remedies provided in the DENR Rules and
Regulations.

A: NO. The court was not correct in motu proprio

dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. In a
case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held
that the requirement that the petition be filed in the
area where the actionable neglect or omission took
place relates to venue and not to subject-matter
jurisdiction. Since what is involved is improper
venue and not subject-matter jurisdiction, it was
wrong for the court to dismiss outright the petition
since venue may be waived. (Dolot v. Paje, G.R. No.
199199, 27 Aug. 2013)

b. Should the court dismiss the petition?

A: NO. The court should not dismiss the petition.

The Supreme Court has held that in environmental
cases, the defense of failure to exhaust
administrative remedies by appealing the ECC
issuance would apply only if the defect in the
issuance of the ECC does not have any causal
relation to the environmental damage. Here the
issuance of the ECC has a direct causal relation to
the environmental damage since it permitted the
bulldozing of a portion of the mountain and the
cutting down and burning of several trees and
plants. (Paje v. Casiño, G.R. 207257, 03 Feb. 2015)

447 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2

REMEDIAL LAW
Procedure for a Writ of Continuing Mandamus

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 448

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
C2

REMEDIAL LAW
recovery of damages. duty of the respondent. 1. The government, as represented by a public
(Sec. 15, Rule 7) (Sec. 1, Rule 8) official or employee; or
2. A private individual or entity. (Sec. 1, Rule 7,
3. WRIT OF KALIKASAN A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)

Requisites for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan

It is an extraordinary remedy which may be issued
depending on the magnitude of environmental
1. There is an actual or threatened violation of the
damage. The environmental damage must be of
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
ecology;
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces. (Sec. 1, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rules of
2. The actual or threatened violation arises from
Procedure for Environmental Cases)
an unlawful act or omission of a public official
or employee, or private individual or entity; and
Court which has Jurisdiction

3. The actual or threatened violation involves or

The verified petition should be filed with the SC or
will lead to an environmental damage of such
with the CA. (Sec. 3, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
Magnitude of Environmental Damage
provinces. (Segovia v. The Climate Change
Commission, G.R. No. 211010, 07 Mar. 2017; LNL
It must involve environmental damage of such
Archipelago Minerals Inc. v. Agham Party List,
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
G.R. No. 209165, 12 April 2016)
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces. (Sec. 1, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Contents of a Verified Petition
Persons who may file a Petition for a Writ of
1. Personal circumstances of the petitioner;
Kalikasan
2. Name and personal circumstances of the
respondent or if the name and personal
1. Natural or juridical person;
circumstances are unknown and uncertain, the
2. Entity authorized by law; or
respondent may be described by an assumed
3. People’s organization, non-governmental
appellation;
organization, or any public interest group
3. The environment law, rule or regulation
accredited by or registered with any
violated or threatened to be violated;
government agency. (Sec. 1, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-
4. The act or omission complained of;
6-8-SC)
5. The environmental damage of such magnitude
as to prejudice the life, health or property of
NOTE: The petition must be on behalf of persons
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces;
whose constitutional right to a balanced and
6. All relevant and material evidence consisting of
healthful ecology is violated or threatened with
affidavit of witnesses, documentary evidence,
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public
scientific or other expert studies, and if
official or employee, or private individual or entity,
possible, object evidence;
involving environmental damage of such magnitude
7. Should be accompanied by certification against
as to prejudice the life, health, or property of
forum shopping; and
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. (Sec.
8. The reliefs prayed for which may include a
1, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
prayer for the issuance of a TEPO. (Sec. 2, Rule
7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Persons against whom a Petition for a Writ of
Kalikasan is Filed
NOTE: A verified petition is jurisdictional.

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 450

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
VI. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SPECIAL WRITS
Exemption from Payment of Docket Fees
The petitioner is exempt from payment of docket
fees. (Sec. 4, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
The exemption encourages public participation of
availing the remedy. (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Annotation
to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases)
Issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan
Within 3 days from the date of filing of the petition,
if the petition is sufficient in form and substance, the
court shall give an order:
a. Issuing the writ; and
b. Requiring the respondent to file a verified
return as provided in Sec. 8 of Rule 7. (Sec. 5,
Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Return
Within a non-extendible period of 10 days after
service of the writ, the respondent shall file a
verified return which shall contain all defenses of
the respondent. (Sec. 8, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
NOTE: All defenses not raised in the return shall be
deemed waived. (Sec. 8, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Failure to file a Verified Return
Failure to file a return shall make the court to
proceed to hear the petition ex parte. (Sec. 10, Rule
7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Contempt
After hearing, the court may punish the respondent
who refuses or unduly delays the filing of a return
or who makes a false return or any person who
disobeys or resists a lawful process or order of the
court for indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the
Rules of Court. (Sec. 13, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Preliminary Conference
After receipt of the return, the court may call for a
preliminary conference; the hearing including the
451
preliminary conference shall not extend beyond 60
days and shall be given the same priority as
petitions for the writs of habeas corpus, amparo and
habeas data. (Sec. 11, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
NOTE: After hearing, the court shall issue an order
submitting the case for decision and may require
the filing of memoranda. (Sec. 14, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-
6-8-SC)
Reliefs that may be granted under the Writ
1. Directing respondent to permanently cease and
desist from committing acts or neglecting the
performance of a duty in violation of
environmental laws resulting in environmental
destruction and damage;
2. Directing respondent to protect, preserve,
rehabilitate or restore the environment;
3. Directing respondent to monitor strict
compliance with the decision and orders of the
court;
4. Directing respondent to make periodic reports
on the execution of the final judgment; and
5. Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology or to
the protection, preservation, rehabilitation or
restoration of the environment, except the
award of damages to individual petitioners.
(Sec. 15, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Judgment
Within 60 days from the time the petition is
submitted for decision, the court shall render
judgment granting or denying the privilege of the
writ of kalikasan.
Appeal
Within 15 days from the date of notice of the
adverse judgment or denial of motion for
reconsideration, any party may appeal to the SC
under Rule 45. This is an exception to Rule 45 since
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
it may raise question of facts on appeal under Rule
45. (Sec. 16, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Institution of Separate Actions
The filing of the petition for the writ of kalikasan
shall not preclude the filing of separate civil,
criminal or administrative actions. (Sec. 17, Rule 7,
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
Q: The officers of “Ang Kapaligiran ay Alagaan,
Inc.” engaged your services to file an action
against ABC Mining Corporation which is
engaged in mining operations in Sta. Cruz,
Marinduque. ABC used highly toxic chemicals in
extracting gold. ABC’s toxic mine tailings were
accidentally released from its storage dams and
were discharged into the rivers of said town.
The mine tailings found their way to Calancan
Bay and allegedly to the waters of nearby
Romblon and Quezon. The damage to the crops
and loss of earnings were estimated at P1
Billion. Damage to the environment is estimated
at P1 Billion. As lawyer for the organization, you
are requested to explain the advantages derived
from a petition for writ of kalikasan before the
Supreme Court over a complaint for damages
before the RTC of Marinduque or vice-versa.
What action will you recommend? Explain.
(2016 Bar)
A: I will recommend the filing of a Petition for
the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan. The following
are the advantages of such a petition over a civil
complaint for damages. Firstly, there will be no
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
issue regarding the legal standing or legal capacity
of the Ang Kapaligiran ay Alagaan Inc.” (AKAI) to file
the action. Sec. 1, Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases (RPEC) provides that the writ
of Kalikasan is available to a people’s organization,
non-governmental organization, or any public
interest group. On the other hand, the legal capacity
of AKAI to file an action for damages in behalf of its
members may be questioned since a corporation
has a personality separate from that of its members.
Secondly, the petitioner in a petition for writ of
kalikasan is exempt from the payment of docket fees
unlike in a civil complaint for damages. Thirdly in a
petition for writ of kalikasan, the petitioners may
avail of the precautionary principle in
environmental cases which provides that when
human activities may lead to threats of serious and
irreversible damage to the environment that is
scientifically plausible but uncertain, action shall be
taken to avoid or diminish that threat.
In effect, the precautionary principle shifts the
burden of evidence of harm away from those likely
to suffer harm and onto those desiring to change the
status quo. In a civil complaint for damages, the
burden of proof to show damages is on the
plaintiff. Finally, the judgment is a writ of kalikasan
case is immediately executory unlike in a civil
complaint for damages. The advantage of the civil
complaint for damages is that the court may award
damages to the Petitioners for the injury suffered
which is not the case in a petition for writ of
kalikasan. At any rate a person who avails of the
Writ of Kalikasan may also file a separate suit for the
recovery of damages.
452
C2

VI. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SPECIAL WRITS

Procedure for a Writ of Kalikasan

453 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
C2
VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
of any trial court. (Cudia v. CA, G.R. No. 110315, 16
Jan. 1998)
How Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter is
determined
While jurisdiction of courts is conferred by law,
jurisdiction over the criminal case is determined by
the allegations in the complaint or information in
relation to the law prevailing at the time of the filing
of the filing of complaint or information. (Asistio v.
People, G.R. No. 200465, 20 Apr. 2015) It is the
averments in the information which characterize
the crime to be prosecuted and the court before
which it must be tried. (Pangilinan v. CA, G.R. No.
117363, 17 Dec. 1999)
In determining whether the court has jurisdiction
over an offense, the penalty which may be imposed
upon the accused and not the actual penalty
imposed after the trial shall be considered. (People
v. Savellano, G.R. No. L-39951, 09 Sept. 1982)
Jurisdiction over the Territory
Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of
jurisdiction. Hence, for jurisdiction to be acquired
by a court in a criminal case, the offense should have
been committed or any one of its essential
ingredients should have taken place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court. It is in that court
where the criminal action shall be instituted. (Sec.
15(a), Rule 110, ROC, as amended; Foz, Jr. v. People,
G.R. No. 167764, 09 Oct. 2009; Brodeth v. People, G.R.
No. 197849, 29 Nov. 2017)
Stated otherwise, in criminal cases, venue is
jurisdictional. (Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation
v. Romars International Gases Corporation, G.R. No.
189669, 16 Feb. 2015)
Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is
acquired upon his arrest or apprehension, with or
without a warrant, or his voluntary appearance or
submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
(Valdepenas v. People, G.R. No. L-20687, 30 Apr.
1966)
455
The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby
the court acquires jurisdiction over his person, is
accomplished either by his pleading to the merits
(such as by filing a motion to quash or other
pleadings requiring the exercise of the court’s
jurisdiction thereover, appearing for arraignment,
entering trial) or by filing bail. (David v. Agbay, G.R.
No. 199113, 18 Mar. 2015)
Custody of the Law
Custody of the law is required 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 a waiver of the defense of lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused. (Ibid.)
Custody of the Law vs. Jurisdiction over the
Person of the Accused
Custody of the law 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, such as
when a person arrested by virtue of a warrant files
a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant.
On the other hand, one can be subject to the
jurisdiction of the court over his person, and yet not
be in the custody of the law, such as when an
accused escapes custody after his trial has
commenced. Being in the custody of the law
signifies restraint on the person, who is thereby
deprived of his own will and liberty, binding him to
become obedient to the will of the law. Custody of
the law is literally custody over the body of the
accused. It includes, but is not limited to, detention.
(Ibid.)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
C2
C2

REMEDIAL LAW
Regional Trial Court (RTC) government at the time of the commission of
the offense:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal a. Officials of the executive branch occupying
cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the positions of regional director and
any court, tribunal, or body, except those now higher, otherwise classified as Grade “27”
falling under the exclusive and concurrent and higher of R.A. No. 6758;
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan; (Sec. 20, B.P.
129) i. Provincial governors, vice-governors,
members of the sanggunian
2. Original jurisdiction in the issuance of writs of panlalawigan and provincial
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo treasurers, assessors, engineers, and
warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction, other provincial departmental heads;
enforceable in any part of their respective ii. City mayors, vice-mayors, members of
regions; (Sec. 21(1), B.P. 129) the sangguniang panlungsod, city
treasurer, assessors, engineers and the
3. Appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by city department heads;
the MTC within its territorial jurisdiction; (Sec. iii. Officials of the diplomatic service
22, B.P. 129) occupying the position of consul and
higher;
4. Special jurisdiction of certain branches to iv. Philippine army and air force colonels,
handle exclusively criminal cases as may be naval captain, and all officers of higher
determined by the Supreme Court; (Sec. 23, B.P. rank;
129); and v. Officers of the Philippine National
Police while occupying the position of
5. Jurisdiction over criminal cases under specific provincial director and those holding
laws such as: the rank of senior superintendent or
higher;
a. Criminal and civil aspects of written vi. City and provincial prosecutors and
defamation; (Art. 360, RPC) their assistants, and officials and
b. Designated special courts over cases in prosecutors in the Office of the
violation of the Comprehensive Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002; (Sec. 90, R.A. vii. Presidents, directors or trustees, or
No. 9165) managers of government-owned or-
c. Violation of intellectual property rights; controlled corporations, state
and (A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC) universities or educational institutions
d. All cases on money laundering. However, or foundations;
those committed by public officers and
private persons who are in conspiracy b. Members of Congress and officials thereof
with such public officers, shall be under classified as Grade “27” and up under R.A.
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. No. 6758;
(Sec. 5, R.A. No. 9160)
i. Members of the judiciary without
Sandiganbayan (P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. prejudice to the provisions of the
7975 and R.A. 8249) Constitution;
ii. Chairmen and members of
1. Violations of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379, and Constitutional Commissions, without
Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II of the RPC, prejudice to the provisions of the
where one or more of the accused are officials Constitution; and
occupying the following positions in the

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 458

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2

VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

iii. All other national and local officials
classified as Grade “27” and higher
under R.A. No. 6758.
2. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
complexed with other crimes committed by the
public officials and employees abovementioned
in relation to their office;
3. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in
connection with E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A; and
4. Appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,
resolutions, or orders of trial courts in cases
where none of the accused is occupying
position corresponding to salary grade “27” or
higher. (Sec. 4, P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. No.
7975 and as amended further by R.A. No. 8249)
Requisites for an Offense to fall under the
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan
1. The offense committed is a violation of:
a. R.A. No. 3019, as amended (the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act),
b. R.A. No. 1379 (the law on ill-gotten
wealth),
c. Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book
II of the Revised Penal Code (the
law on bribery),
d. Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and
14-A, issued in
(sequestration cases), or
e. Other offenses or felonies whether
simple or complexed with other
crimes.
Officials and Employees with a Salary Grade of
27 or higher
While the first part of Sec. 4(a) of P.D. No. 1606, as
amended covers only officials with the salary grade
27 and higher, the second part specifically includes
other executive officials whose positions may not be
with salary grade 27 and higher but who are, by
express provision of law, placed under the
jurisdiction of the said court. Thus, if the position is
enumerated under Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction
and as long as the offense was committed in relation
to their office, regardless of salary grade,
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. (Geduspan v.
People, G.R. No. 158187, 11 Feb. 2005)
An Offense is deemed to be Committed in
relation to the Public Office upon showing of any
of the following:
1. When such office is an element of the crime
charged; or
2. When the offense charged is intimately
connected with the charge of the official
functions of the accused.
Q: The accused public officer, a Senior Labor
Regulation Officer and Chief of the Labor
Regulations Section, conspired and connived
with the other accused, Elino Coronel, a Labor
Regulation Officer of the same office, took
advantage of their official positions, prepared
and falsified an official document, to wit: the CS
Personal Data Sheet, by making it appear in said
1986 document that accused had taken and passed
the Career Service. Sandiganbayan convicted
petitioners of Falsification of a Public Document.
Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over
the case?

2. The offender committing the offenses in
items (a), (b), (c) and (e) is a public official
or employee holding any of the positions
enumerated in par. A of Sec. 4 of R.A. No.
8249; and
3. The offense committed is in relation to the
office. (Adaza v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
154886, 28 July 2005)
A: NO. In the instant case, there is no showing that
the alleged falsification was committed by the
accused, if at all, as a consequence of, and while they
were discharging official functions. The information
does not allege that there was an intimate
connection between the discharge of official duties
and the commission of the offense. Besides,
falsification of an official document may be
committed not only by public officers and

459 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
employees but even by private persons. Public office
is not an essential ingredient of the offense such that
the offense cannot exist without the office.
Therefore, as the alleged falsification was not an
offense committed in relation to the office of the
accused, it did not come under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. It follows that all its acts in the
instant case are null and void ab initio. (Bartolome v.
People, G.R. No. L-64548, 07 July 1986)
Q: Engr. Magna Nakaw, the District Engineer of
the DPWH in the Province of Walang Progreso,
and Mr. Pork Chop, a private contractor, were
both charged in the Office of the Ombudsman for
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act (R.A. No. 3019) under a conspiracy theory.
While the charges were undergoing
investigation in the Office of the Ombudsman,
Engr. Magna Nakaw passed away. Mr. Pork Chop
immediately filed a motion to terminate the
investigation and to dismiss the charges against
him, arguing that because he was charged in
conspiracy with the deceased, there was no
longer a conspiracy to speak of and,
consequently, any legal ground to hold him for
trial had been extinguished. Rule on the motion
to terminate filed by Mr. Pork Chop, with brief
reasons. (2017 BAR)
A: The motion should be denied. The death of any
public officer with whom the respondent can be
charged for the said violation does not mean that
the allegation of conspiracy between them can no
longer be proved or that their alleged conspiracy is
already expunged. The law does not require that
such person must, in all instances, be indicted
together with the public officer. If circumstances
exist where the public officer may no longer be
charged in court, as in the present case where the
public officer has already died, the private person
may be indicted alone. Moreover, the only thing
extinguished by the death of Engr. Magna Nakaw is
his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish
the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge
of conspiracy between him and private respondent.
(People v. Go, G.R. No. 168539, 25 Mar. 2014)
Q: The Ombudsman found probable cause to
charge with plunder the provincial governor,
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
vice governor, treasurer, budget officer, and
accountant. An Information for plunder was
filed with the Sandiganbayan against the
provincial officials except for the treasurer who
was granted immunity when he agreed to
cooperate with the Ombudsman in the
prosecution of the case. Immediately, the
governor filed with the Sandiganbayan a
petition for certiorari against the Ombudsman,
claiming that there was grave abuse of
discretion in excluding the treasurer from the
Information.
a. Was the remedy taken by the governor
correct?
A: NO. The remedy taken by the governor was not
correct. The SC has held that the proper remedy
from the Ombudsman’s orders or resolutions in
criminal cases is a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 filed with the Supreme Court. (Quarto v. OMB,
G.R. No. 169402, 05 Oct. 2011; Cortes v. OMB, G.R. No.
187896-97, 10 June 2013). Here, the petition for
certiorari was filed not with the Supreme Court but
with the Sandiganbayan. Hence, the remedy taken
was not correct.
b. Will the writ of mandamus lie to compel the
Ombudsman to include the treasurer in the
Information?
A: NO. The writ of mandamus will not lie to compel
the Ombudsman to include the treasurer in the
information. The Supreme Court has held that
mandamus will lie only if the exclusion of a person
from the information was arbitrary. Here, the
exclusion was not arbitrary but based on Sec. 17 of
R.A. No. 6770 which empowers the Ombudsman to
grant immunity to witnesses. (Ibid.)
c. Can the Special Prosecutor move for the
discharge of the budget officer to
corroborate the testimony of the treasurer
in the course of presenting its evidence?
(2015 BAR)
A: NO. The Special Prosecutor cannot move for the
discharge of the budget officer to corroborate the
testimony of the treasurer. Under Sec. 17 of Rule 119
460
C2
VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
of the Rules of Court, a requirement for discharge is
that there is no other direct evidence available for
the prosecution of the offense and that there is
absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused
whose discharge is requested. Here, since the
budget officer’s testimony is merely corroborative,
there is no absolute necessity for it. Necessity is not
there when the testimony would simply
corroborate or otherwise strengthen the
prosecution’s evidence. (Jimenez v. People, G.R. No.
209195, 17 Sept. 2014). Hence, the Special
Prosecutor cannot move for the discharge of the
budget officer.
2. WHEN INJUNCTION MAY BE FILED
When Injunction may be Issued to Restrain
Criminal Prosecution (1999 BAR)
GR: The long-standing doctrine that writs of
injunction or prohibition will not lie to restrain a
criminal prosecution for the reason that public
interest requires that criminal acts be immediately
investigated and prosecuted for the protection of
society. (Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
109376, 20 Jan. 2000)
XPNs:
1. To prevent the use of the strong arm of the law
in an oppressive and vindictive manner; (Ibid.)
2. To afford adequate protection to
constitutional rights; (Ibid.)
3. For the orderly administration of justice;
(Hernandez v. Albano, G.R. No. 19272, 25 Jan.
1967);
4. To avoid multiplicity of actions; (Ibid.)
5. In proper cases, because the statute relied
upon is unconstitutional, or was held invalid;
(Ibid.)
6. When the acts of the officer are without or in
excess of authority; (Planas v. Gil, G.R. No. L-
46440, 18 Jan. 1939)
7. When the court has no jurisdiction over the
offense; (Lopez v. City Judge, G.R. No. L-25795,
29 Oct. 1966)
8. When there is a prejudicial question which is
sub judice (before a court or judge for
consideration);
461
9. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law,
ordinance or regulation;
10. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
11. Where it is a case of persecution rather than
prosecution;
12. Where the charges are manifestly false and
motivated by lust for vengeance; and
13. Where there is clearly no prima facie case
against the accused and a motion to quash on
that ground has been denied.
Mandamus to Compel Prosecution
Settled is the rule that the writ of mandamus is not
available to control discretion nor may it be issued
to compel the exercise of discretion. Truly, it is a
matter of discretion on the part of the prosecutor to
determine which persons appear responsible for
the commission of a crime. However, the moment he
finds one to be so liable it becomes his inescapable
duty to charge him therewith and to prosecute him
for the same. In such a situation, the rule loses its
discretionary character and becomes mandatory.
Thus, in cases where despite the sufficiency of the
evidence before the prosecutor, he or she refuses to
file the corresponding information against the
person responsible, he or she abuses his discretion.
His act is tantamount to a deliberate refusal to
perform a duty enjoined by law. As such, mandamus
is a proper remedy when the resolution of the
prosecutor is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
(Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Reynaldo,
G.R. No. 164538, 09 Aug. 2010)
B. PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
(RULE 110)
CRIMINAL ACTIONS, HOW INSTITUTED
Criminal Action
One by which the State prosecutes a person for an
act or omission punishable by law.
Criminal actions are instituted by:
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
1. Where preliminary investigation is required
– filing the complaint with the proper officer for
the purpose of conducting the requisite
preliminary investigation; or
2. For all other offenses – filing the complaint or
information directly with the MTC and MCTC, or
the complaint with the office of the prosecutor.
(Sec. 1, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: There is no direct filing of an information or
complaint with the RTC because its jurisdiction
covers offenses which require preliminary
investigation.
There is likewise no direct filing with the MeTC
because in Metro Manila and other chartered cities,
the complaint shall be filed with the office of the
prosecutor, unless otherwise provided by their
charters. In case of conflict between a city charter
and a provision of the Rules of Court, the former,
being substantive law, prevails.
Effect of Institution of a Criminal Action
GR: It interrupts the running of the period of
prescription of the offense charged. (Sec. 1, Rule 110,
ROC, as amended)
XPN: When a different rule is provided for in special
laws.
NOTE: Under Art. 91 of the Revised Penal Code, the
prescriptive period shall be interrupted “by the
filing of the complaint or information.” The said
article does not distinguish whether the complaint
is filed for preliminary examination or investigation
only or for an action on the merits. Thus, the filing
of the complaint even with the fiscal's office
suspends the running of the statute of limitations.
(Reodica v. CA, G.R. No. 125066, 08 July 1998)
There is no more Distinction between Cases
under the RPC and those covered by Special
Laws
In cases involving special laws, the Court has held
that the institution of proceedings for preliminary
investigation against the accused interrupts the
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
period of prescription. (People v. Pangilinan, G.R. No.
152662, 13 June 2012; Sanrio Company Limited v.
Lim, G.R. No. 168662, 19 Feb. 2008; Ingco v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 112584, 23 May 1997) As
such, the rule laid down in Zaldivia v. Reyes (G.R. No.
102342, 03 July 1992), is no longer controlling in
special laws.
For violation of a special law or ordinance, the
period of prescription shall commence to run from
the day of the commission of the violation, and if the
same is not known at the time, from the discovery
and the institution of judicial proceedings for its
investigation and punishment. The prescription
shall be interrupted only by the filing of the
complaint or information in court and shall begin to
run again if the proceedings are dismissed for
reasons not constituting double jeopardy. (National
Prosecutors Service Manual for Prosecutors, as cited
in Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation v. Lidua, Sr.,
G.R. No. 169588, 07 Oct. 2013)
While it may be observed that the term “judicial
proceedings” in Sec. 2 of Act No. 3326 appears before
“investigation and punishment” in the old law, with
the subsequent change in set-up whereby the
investigation of the charge for purposes of
prosecution has become the exclusive function of
the executive branch, the term “proceedings” should
now be understood either executive or judicial in
character: executive when it involves the
investigation phase and judicial when it refers to the
trial and judgment stage. With this clarification, any
kind of investigative proceeding instituted against
the guilty person which may ultimately lead to his
prosecution should be sufficient to toll prescription.
(Panaguiton v. DOJ, G.R. No. 167571, 25 Nov. 2008)
The prevailing rule is, therefore, that irrespective of
whether the offense charged is punishable by the
RPC or by a special penal law, it is the filing of the
complaint or information in the office of the public
prosecutor for purposes of preliminary
investigation that interrupts the period of
prescription. (Riano, 2019 citing Disini v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos 169823-24, 11 Sept. 2013)
462
C2
VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Who may File them, Crimes that cannot be
Prosecuted de Officio
GR: All criminal actions initiated by complaint or
information are filed by the prosecutor.
XPNs: Offenses or crimes that cannot be prosecuted
de officio.
These are crimes or offenses which cannot be
prosecuted except on complaint filed by the
offended party or, if the offended party is a minor,
by the parents, grandparents or the guardian. These
crimes are:
1. Adultery and concubinage;
2. Seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness;
and
3. Criminal actions for defamation imputing the
abovementioned offenses. (Sec. 5, Rule 110,
ROC, as amended)
NOTE: These crimes are known as private crimes
(which means that these crimes cannot be
prosecuted except upon the complaint initiated by
the offended party). (Art. 344, RPC)
1. Party who may legally file a complaint for
adultery or concubinage
Only the offended spouse may file a complaint for
adultery or concubinage. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC, as
amended)
NOTE: The offended spouse cannot institute a
criminal action for adultery without including the
guilty parties if both are alive; or if the offended
party has consented to the offense or pardoned the
offenders. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
If the complainant has already been divorced, he can
no longer file the complaint. This is considered as
lack of status. (Pilapil v. Somera, G.R. No. 80116, 30
June 1989)
2. Parties who may file a complaint for seduction,
abduction, or acts of lasciviousness
a. The offended party;
b. Parents of the offended party;
463
c. Grandparents of the offended party; or
d. Guardian of the offended party. (Sec. 5, Rule 110,
ROC, as amended)
NOTE: Such crimes cannot be prosecuted if the
offender has been expressly pardoned by any of the
abovementioned parties. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC, as
amended)
Filing a Complaint by a Minor for Seduction,
Abduction, or Acts of Lasciviousness (2000 BAR)
GR: The offended party, even if a minor, has the
right to initiate the prosecution of such offenses
independently of the said offended party’s parents,
grandparents or guardian.
XPNs: If the minor is:
1. Incompetent; or
2. Incapable of doing so. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC, as
amended)
NOTE: If the minor fails to file a complaint, the said
minor’s parents, grandparents or guardian may file
the same. The right granted to the latter shall be
exclusive and successive in the order herein
provided. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
Q: Fey, a minor orphan, was subjected to acts of
lasciviousness performed by her uncle Polo. She
informed her grandparents but was told not to
file charges.
a. Fey now asks you as counsel how she could
make her uncle liable. What would your
advice be? Explain.
A: Fey may file the complaint independently of her
grandparents because she is not incompetent or
incapable of doing so upon grounds other than her
minority. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
b. Suppose the crime committed against Fey by
her uncle is rape, witnessed by your mutual
friend, Isay. But this time, Fey was prevailed
upon by her grandparents not to file
charges. Isay asks you if she can initiate the
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
C2
VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
While the offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or
acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted
except upon a complaint filed by the offended party
or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor in
any case, if the offender has been expressly
pardoned by the above-named persons, as the case
may be, the pardon to justify the dismissal of the
complaint should have been made prior to the
institution of the criminal action. (Alonte v.
Savellano, G.R. No. 131652, 09 Mar. 1998)
Subsequent Marriage of the Accused and
Offended Party
GR: The subsequent marriage between the party
and the accused, even after the filing of the
complaint, extinguishes the criminal liability of the
latter, together with that of the co-principals,
accomplices, and accessories.
XPNs:
1. Where the marriage was invalid or contracted
in bad faith in order to escape criminal
liability;
2. In “private libel” or the libelous imputation of
the commission of the crimes of concubinage,
adultery, seduction, abduction, rape or acts of
lasciviousness and in slander by deed; and
3. In multiple rape, in so far as the other accused
in the other acts of rape committed by them
are concerned.
3. Party who may file a Complaint for Defamation
which consist in the imputation of the offenses of
Adultery, Concubinage, Seduction, Abduction,
Acts of Lasciviousness
It shall be brought at the instance of and upon the
complaint filed by the offended party. (Sec. 5, Rule
110, ROC, as amended)
Effect of Death of the Offended Party to the
Criminal Action
1. Prior to the filing of the case in court but after
a complaint was filed before the prosecutor –
465
the death of the complainant will not be
sufficient justification for the dismissal of the
information.
2. During the pendency of the case – the death of
the complainant will not extinguish the criminal
liability of the accused whether total or partial.
(Donio-Teves v. Vamenta, G.R. No. L-38308, 26
Dec. 1984)
Criminal Actions, When Enjoined
GR: The long-standing doctrine that writs of
injunction or prohibition will not lie to restrain a
criminal prosecution for the reason that public
interest requires that criminal acts be immediately
investigated and prosecuted for the protection of
society. (Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
109376, 20 Jan. 2000)
XPNs:
1. To prevent the use of the strong arm of the law
in an oppressive and vindictive manner;
2. To afford adequate protection to
constitutional rights;
3. For the orderly administration of justice;
(Hernandez v. Albano, supra)
4. To avoid multiplicity of actions;
5. In proper cases, because the statute relied
upon is unconstitutional, or was held invalid;
6. When the acts of the officer are without or in
excess of authority; (Planas v. Gil, G.R. No. L-
46440, 18 Jan. 1939)
7. When the court has no jurisdiction over the
offense; (Lopez v. City Judge, G.R. No. L-25795,
29 Oct. 1966)
8. When there is a prejudicial question which is
sub judice (before a court or judge for
consideration);
9. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law,
ordinance or regulation;
10. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
11. Where it is a case of persecution rather than
prosecution;
12. Where the charges are manifestly false and
motivated by lust for vengeance; and
13. Where there is clearly no prima facie case
against the accused and a motion to quash on
that ground has been denied.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Control of Prosecution
GR: The public prosecutor shall prosecute, direct,
and control all criminal actions commenced by a
complaint or information. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC, as
amended)
Since a criminal offense is an outrage against the
sovereignty of the State, it necessarily follows that a
representative of the State shall direct and control
the prosecution thereof.
XPN: The private prosecutor (private counsel) may
prosecute the case provided that:
1. The public prosecutor has heavy work
schedule; or
2. There is lack of public prosecutors.
NOTE: The private prosecutor must be authorized
in writing by the Chief Prosecution Office or
Regional State Prosecution, and such will be subject
to the court’s approval. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC, as
amended)
In cases where only the civil liability is being
prosecuted by a private prosecutor, the head of the
prosecution office must issue in favor of the private
prosecutor a written authority to try the case even
in the absence of the public prosecutor. The written
authority must be submitted to the court prior to
the presentation of evidence by the private
prosecutor in accordance with Sec. 5, Rule 110. (A.M.
No. 15-06-10-SC)
With this authority on record, the court may set the
trial in the case and in other cases tried by private
prosecutors with delegated authority on separate
days when the presence of the public prosecutor
may be dispensed with. (Ibid.)
Prescription of the Authority of the Private
Prosecutor
The authority of the private prosecutor shall
continue until the end of the trial unless the
authority is revoked or withdrawn. (Sec. 5, Rule 110,
ROC, as amended)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
Matters within the Control and Supervision of
the Prosecutor
1. What charge to file;
2. Whom to prosecute;
3. Manner of prosecution; and
4. Right to withdraw information before
arraignment even without notice and hearing.
NOTE: Once a complaint or information is filed in
court, any disposition of the case rests in the sound
discretion of the court. Although the fiscal retains
the direction and control of the prosecution of
criminal cases even while the case is already in
court, he cannot impose his opinion on the trial
court. The determination of the case is within the
court’s exclusive jurisdiction and competence.
(Crespo v. Mogul, G.R. No. L-53373, 30 June 1987)
Only the OSG may question before the Supreme
Court and the Court of Appeals matters involving
the criminal aspect of the case. Yet, there are
instances where the Court allowed the private
complainant to file an appeal or a petition for
certiorari, without the OSG’s participation,
questioning the acquittal of the accused, the
dismissal of the criminal case, and interlocutory
orders rendered in the criminal proceedings.
Foremost, the Court recognized that private
complainants have legal standing to question the
acquittal of the accused or dismissal of the criminal
case equivalent to an acquittal only through a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or denial
of due process rendering the judgment void.
(Austria v. AAA and BBB, G.R. No. 205275, 28 June
2022)
The reviewing court shall require the OSG to file
comment within a non-extendible period of thirty
(30) days from notice on the private complainant’s
petition for certiorari questioning the acquittal of
the accused, the dismissal of the criminal case, and
the interlocutory orders in criminal proceedings on
the ground of grave abuse of discretion or denial of
due process. (OCA Circular No. 56-2023,
promulgated in February 2023)
466
C2
VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Matters within the Control of the Court after the
Case is filed
1. Suspension of arraignment;
2. Reinvestigation;
3. Prosecution by the fiscal;
4. Dismissal of the case; and
5. Downgrading of offense or dropping of accused
even before plea.
Limitations on the Court’s Power of Control
1. Prosecution is entitled to notice of hearing;
2. Prosecution’s stand to maintain prosecution
should be respected by the court;
3. The court must make its own independent
assessment of evidence in granting or
dismissing motion to dismiss. Otherwise, the
judgment is void; and
4. Court has authority to review the Secretary of
Justice’s recommendation and reject it if there
is grave abuse of discretion. (Villanueva v.
Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 162187, 18 Nov.
2005)
Q: After the requisite proceedings, the
Provincial Prosecutor filed an Information for
homicide against Peter. The latter however,
timely filed a Petition for Review of the
Resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor with the
Secretary of Justice who, in due time, issued a
Resolution reversing the resolution of the
Provincial Prosecutor and directing him to
withdraw the Information. Before the Provincial
Prosecutor could comply with the directive of
the Secretary of Justice, the court issued a
warrant of arrest against Peter. The Public
Prosecutor filed a Motion to Quash the Warrant
of Arrest and to withdraw the Information,
attaching to it the Resolution of the Secretary of
Justice. The court denied the motion. Was there
a legal basis for the court to deny the motion?
(2002 BAR)
A: YES. There is a legal basis for the court to deny
the motion to quash the warrant of arrest and to
withdraw the information. The court is not bound
by the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice. This is
because once an information is filed in court, any
467
disposition of the case as its dismissal or the
conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the
sound discretion of the court. (Crespo v. Mogul, G.R.
No. L-53373, 30 June 1987)
NOTE: When a trial court is confronted to rule on a
motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw an
Information, it is its bounden duty to assess
independently the merits of the motion, and this
assessment must be embodied in a written order
disposing of the motion. (Jose v. Suarez, G.R. No.
176111, 17 July 2013)
Sufficiency of Complaint or Information
A complaint or information is deemed sufficient if it
contains the following:
1. Name of the accused, if the offense is
committed by more than one person, all of
them shall be included in the complaint or
information;
2. Designation of the offense given by the
statute;
3. Acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense;
4. Name of the offended party;
5. Approximate date of the commission of the
offense; and
6. Place where the offense was committed. (Sec.
6, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
Test of Sufficiency of the Complaint or
Information
The test is whether the crime is described in
intelligible terms with such particularity as to
apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of
the offense charged.
The raison d’etre of the rule is to enable the accused
to suitably prepare his defense. (Miranda v. Hon.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 154098, 27 July 2005)
Another purpose is to enable accused, if found
guilty, to plead his conviction in a subsequent
prosecution for the same offense. (Serapio v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148468, 28 Jan. 2003)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
C2
VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
designation by which it is known or may be
identified, without need of averring that it is a
juridical person. (Sec. 12(c), Rule 110, ROC, as
amended)
NOTE: In offenses against property, if the subject
matter of the offense is generic and not identifiable,
such as the money unlawfully taken, an error in the
designation of the offended party is fatal and would
result in the acquittal of the accused.
However, if the subject matter of the offense is
specific and identifiable, such as a warrant, or a
check, an error in the designation of the offended
party is immaterial. (Senador v. People, G.R. No.
201620, 6 Mar. 2013)
Particularity of the Date of the Commission of
the Offense in the Complaint or Information
GR: It is not required. It suffices that the allegation
approximates or be as near as the actual date when
the offense was committed. (Sec. 11, Rule 110, ROC,
as amended)
NOTE: Variance in the date of commission of the
offense as alleged in the information and as
established in evidence becomes fatal when such
discrepancy is so great that it induces the
perception that the information and the evidence
are no longer pertaining to one and the same
offense. In this event, the defective allegation in the
information is not deemed supplanted by the
evidence nor can it be amended, but must be struck
down for being violative of the right of the accused
to be informed of the specific charge against him or
her. (People v. Delfin, G.R. No. 201572, 09 July 2014)
XPN: If the date of the commission of the offense
constitutes an essential element of the offense (e.g.,
infanticide, abortion, bigamy). (Sec. 11, Rule 110,
ROC, as amended)
NOTE: The remedy against an indictment that fails
to allege the time of commission of the offense with
sufficient definiteness is a motion for bill of
particulars under Sec. 10, Rule 116 of the Rules of
Court. (People v. Elpedes, G.R. Nos. 137106-07, 31 Jan.
2001)
469
Place of the Commission of the Crime
GR: The complaint or the information is sufficient if
it can be understood from its allegation that the
offense was committed, or some of its essential
ingredients occurred at some place within the
jurisdiction of the court.
XPN: When the place of commission constitutes an
essential element of the offense charged or is
necessary for its identification (e.g., trespass to
dwelling, destructive arson, robbery in an inhabited
place). (Sec. 10, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
Designation of Offense (2001 Bar)
The designation of the offense given by the statute
must be stated in the complaint or information, with
the averment of acts or omissions constituting the
offense and the attendant qualifying and
aggravating circumstances. If there is no
designation of the offense, reference shall be made
to the section or subsection of the statute punishing
it. (Sec. 8, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
Q: Accused was charged with the offense of
estafa through falsification of public documents
under Art. 315 in relation to Art. 171 of the RPC
in an information filed by the prosecutor before
the RTC of Quezon City. Accused assailed the
information claiming that the information is
invalid because the word “fraud” or “deceit” was
not alleged in the information. Decide the case.
A: Any error in the information, with regard to the
specification of the particular mode of estafa,
allegedly committed by petitioners will not result in
its invalidation because the allegations therein
sufficiently informed petitioners that they are being
charged with estafa through falsification of public
documents.
The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides
that an information shall be deemed sufficient if it
states, among others, the designation of the offense
given by the statute and the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense. However,
the Court has clarified in several cases that the
designation of the offense, by making reference to
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
the section or subsection of the statute punishing, it,
is not controlling; what actually determines the
nature and character of the crime charged are the
facts alleged in the information. (Batulanon v.
People, G.R. No. 139857, 15 Sept. 2006; People v.
Delector, G.R. 200026, 04 Oct. 2017)
Conflict between the Designation of the Crime
and the Recital of the Facts constituting the
Offense
The title of the information or designation of the
offense is not controlling. An Information does not
have to employ the exact language of the statute in
stating the charge. The criminal charge is
determined from the recital of facts, and not from
the caption, preamble, or formal specification of the
violated law. The information is deemed sufficient
as long as the controlling words in the body of the
Information adequately determine the crime
charged. (Bustillo v. People, G.R. No. 216933, 15 Mar.
2021)
Effect of Failure to Designate the Offense by the
Statute
The failure to designate the offense by statute, or to
mention the specific provision penalizing the act, or
an erroneous specification of the law violated does
not vitiate the information if the facts alleged clearly
recite the facts constituting the crime charged. What
controls is not the title of the information or the
designation of the offense, but the actual facts
recited in the information. In other words, it is the
recital of facts of the commission of the offense, not
the nomenclature of the offense that determines the
crime being charged in the information. (Malto v.
People, G.R. No. 164733, 21 Sept. 2007)
Q: May the accused be convicted of a crime more
serious than that named in the information?
GR: YES. The accused may be convicted of a crime
more serious than that named in the title or
preliminary part if such crime is covered by the facts
alleged in the information and its commission is
established by evidence. (Buhat v. CA, G.R. No.
119601, 17 Dec. 1996)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
XPN: An accused could not be convicted under one
act when he is charged with a violation of another if
the change from the statute to the other:
1. Involves change in the theory of the trial;
2. Requires of the defendant a different defense;
or
3. Surprises the accused in any way. (US v. Panlilio,
G.R. No. L-9876, 08 Dec. 1914)
Cause of the Accusation
The acts or omissions complained of as constituting
the offense and the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances must be stated in ordinary and
concise language and not necessarily in the
language used in the statute but in terms sufficient
to enable a person of common understanding to
know what the offense is being charged as well as
the qualifying and aggravating circumstances. (Sec.
9, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
Purposes of requiring that every Element must
be alleged
1. To enable the court to pronounce the proper
judgment;
2. To furnish the accused with such a description
of the charge as to enable him to make a
defense; and
3. As a protection against further prosecution for
the same cause. (Herrera, 2007)
Effect when one or more Elements of the Offense
have NOT been Alleged in the Information
The accused cannot be convicted of the offense
charged, even if the missing elements have been
proved during the trial. Even the accused’s plea of
guilty to such defective information will not cure the
defect, nor justify his conviction of the offense
charged.
Statement of the Qualifying and Aggravating
Circumstances in the Information
The qualifying and aggravating circumstances must
be specified in the information. They must not only
be proven but they must also be alleged, otherwise,
470
C2
VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
they should not be considered. (Catiis v. CA, G.R. No.
153979, 06 Feb. 2006)
Negative Averments
GR: Where the statute alleged to have been violated
prohibits generally acts therein defined and is
intended to apply to all persons indiscriminately,
but prescribes certain limitations or exceptions
from its violation, the complaint or information is
sufficient if it alleges facts which the offender did as
constituting a violation of law, without explicitly
negating the exception, as the exception is a matter
of right which the accused has to prove.
XPN: Where the statute alleged to have been
violated applies only to specific classes of persons
and special conditions and the exemptions from its
violations are incorporated in the language defining
the crime that the ingredients of the offense cannot
be accurately and clearly set forth if the exemption
is omitted, then the indictment must show that the
accused does not fall within the exemptions.
(Herrera, 2007)
Matter/s to be alleged if the Crime is “committed
in relation to his Office”
Mere allegation in the information that the offense
was committed by the accused public officer in
relation to his office is not sufficient. The phrase is
merely “a conclusion of law,” not a factual averment
that would show close intimacy between the offense
charged and the discharge of the accused’s official
duties. What is controlling is the specific actual
allegation in the information. (Lacson v. Executive
Secretary, G.R. No. 128006, 20 Jan. 1999)
NOTE: An offense is deemed committed in relation
to public office when the “office” is a constituent
element of the offense. The test is whether the
offense cannot exist without the office. (Crisostomo
v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152398, 14 Apr. 2005) The
offense need not be connected with official duties. It
is enough that it is in relation to office. (Lecaroz v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 130872, 25 Mar. 1999)
471
Duplicity of the Offense; Exceptions
GR: A complaint or information must charge only
one offense.
XPN: When the law prescribes a single punishment
for various offenses: (Sec. 13, Rule 110, ROC, as
amended)
1. Complex crimes;
2. Special complex crimes;
3. Continuous crimes or delito continuado;
4. Crimes susceptible of being committed in
various modes; and
5. Crimes of which another offense is an
ingredient.
NOTE: Should there be duplicity of offense in the
information, the accused must move for the quashal
of the same before arraignment. (Sec. 3, Rule 117,
ROC, as amended) Otherwise, he or she is deemed to
have waived the objection and may be found guilty
of as many offenses as those charged and proved
during the trial. (Sec. 3, Rule 120, ROC, as amended)
AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTION
OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
Amendment
An amendment is the correction of an error or an
omission in a complaint or an information.
Under Sec. 1, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, it is
effected by adding or striking out an allegation or
the name of any party, or by correcting a mistaken
or inadequate allegation or description in any other
respect, so that the actual merits of the controversy
may speedily be determined, without regard to
technicalities, and in the most and expeditious and
inexpensive manner. (Riano, 2019)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
C2
VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
essential for conviction for the crime charged.
(Ricarze v. CA, G.R. No. 160451, 09 Feb. 2007)
Effect of a Formal Amendment
There is no need for another preliminary
amendment and retaking of the plea of the accused
if such were already conducted.
Substantial Amendment
An amendment is substantial when it covers
matters involving the recital of facts constituting the
offense charged and determinative of the
jurisdiction of the court.
NOTE: Any amendment—be it formal or
substantial—may be made without leave of court
before the arraignment. Once the arraignment is
conducted, however, formal amendments may be
made but only if there is leave of court and if such
amendment does not prejudice the rights of the
accused. A substantial amendment, on the other
hand, is no longer allowed unless it “is beneficial to
the accused.”
Unlike for a substantial amendment, a second
arraignment is not required for a formal
amendment. This is so because a formal amendment
does not charge a new offense, alter the
prosecution’s theory, or adversely affect the
accused’s substantial rights. (Villarba v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 227777, 15 June 2020)
After arraignment, a substantial amendment is
prohibited except if the same is beneficial to the
accused. Substantial amendment after the plea has
been taken cannot be made over the objection of the
accused, for if the original would be withdrawn, the
accused could invoke double jeopardy. (Pacoy v.
Cajical, G.R. No. 157472, 28 Sept. 2007)
Q: An Information for Homicide was filed in the
RTC against petitioner. Upon arraignment,
petitioner, duly assisted by counsel de parte,
pleaded not guilty to the charge of
Homicide. However, on the same day and after
the arraignment, the respondent judge issued
another Order directing the trial prosecutor to
473
correct and amend the Information to Murder in
view of the aggravating circumstance of
disregard of rank alleged in the Information
which public respondent registered as having
qualified the crime to Murder. Acting upon such
Order, the prosecutor entered his amendment
by crossing out the word “Homicide” and instead
wrote the word “Murder” in the caption and in
the opening paragraph of the Information. The
accusatory portion remained exactly the same
as that of the original Information for Homicide.
Petitioner argued that the amendment and/or
correction ordered by the respondent judge was
substantial; and under Sec. 14, Rule 110 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, this cannot
be done, since petitioner had already been
arraigned and he would be placed in double
jeopardy. Decide the case.
A: In the present case, the change of the offense
charged from homicide to murder is merely a formal
amendment and not a substantial amendment or a
substitution. There was no change in the recital of
facts constituting the offense charged or in the
determination of the jurisdiction of the court.
Sec. 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure also provides that in allowing formal
amendments in cases in which the accused has
already pleaded, it is necessary that the
amendments do not prejudice the rights of the
accused. The test of whether the rights of an accused
are prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or
information is whether a defense under the
complaint or information, as it originally stood,
would no longer be available after the amendment
is made; and when any evidence the accused might
have would be inapplicable to the complaint or
information. Since the facts alleged in the
accusatory portion of the amended Information are
identical with those of the original Information for
Homicide, there could not be any effect on the
prosecution's theory of the case; neither would
there be any possible prejudice to the rights or
defense of petitioner. (Pacoy v. Cajigal, G.R. No.
157472, 28 Sept. 2007)
Q: Espinosa was shot by Samonte in Nueva Ecija,
causing his death. Samonte was caught in
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
flagrante delicto and was arrested. After the
inquest proceedings, an information for murder
was filed against him. Upon arraignment,
Samonte admitted to the killing but pleaded self-
defense. Trial on the merits ensued. The
witnesses against the accused were duly
presented through affidavits of witnesses.
According to one of the witnesses, it was alleged
that it was Corpuz who instructed Samonte to
Kill Espinosa. Thus, probable cause was found to
indict Corpus for the murder of Espinosa and an
amended information before the RTC was filed
imputing conspiracy against Corpuz together
with Samonte for the murder of Espinosa. The
charge against Corpuz was however dismissed.
Subsequently, the Regional Trial Court, after
personally examining the amended information
and its supporting documents, found probable
cause and granted the amended information
issuing the warrant of arrest against Corpus and
denying the motion to defer/suspend
arraignment and further proceedings. Thus, a
direct recourse to this Court via a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65. Did the trial court
correctly admit the amended Information in
clear defiance of law and jurisprudence, which
proscribes substantial amendment of
information prejudicial to the right of the
accused?
A: NO. An allegation of conspiracy to add a new
accused without changing the prosecution's theory
that the accused willfully shot the victim is merely a
formal amendment. However, the rule provides that
only formal amendments not prejudicial to the
rights of the accused are allowed after plea. The test
of whether an accused is prejudiced by an
amendment is to determine whether a defense
under the original information will still be available
even after the amendment is made and if any
evidence that an accused might have would remain
applicable even in the amended information. It is
undisputed that upon arraignment under the
original information, Samonte admitted the killing
but pleaded self-defense. While conspiracy is
merely a formal amendment, Samonte will be
prejudiced if the amendment will be allowed after
his plea. Applying the test, his defense and
corresponding evidence will not be compatible with
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
the allegation of conspiracy in the new information.
Therefore, such formal amendment after plea is not
allowed. (Samonte v. Pamular, G.R. 186403, 05 Sept.
2018)
Amendment in the Information which changes
the Nature of the Crime after Arraignment
GR: The prosecutor can no longer amend the
information after arraignment as it would prejudice
the substantial rights of the accused.
XPN: When a fact supervenes which changes the
nature of the crime charged in the information or
upgrades it to a higher crime, the prosecutor, with
leave of court, may amend the information to allege
such supervening fact and upgrade the crime
charged to the higher crime brought about by such
supervening fact.
When Substitution is Proper
If it appears any time before judgment that a
mistake has been made in charging the proper
offense, the court shall dismiss the original
complaint or information upon the filing of a new
one charging the proper offense, provided the
accused shall not be placed in double jeopardy. (Sec.
14, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
Limitations on Substitution (2002 BAR)
1. No judgment has yet been rendered;
2. The accused cannot be convicted of the offense
charged or of any other offense necessarily
included therein; and
3. The accused would not be placed in double
jeopardy. (Herrera, 2007)
Effect of a Substitution
Substitution of the information entails another
preliminary investigation and plea to the new
information.
474
C2
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
6. Libel – The action may be instituted at the
election of the offended or suing party in the
municipality or city where:
a. The libelous article is printed and first
published;
b. If one of the offended parties is a private
individual, where said private individual
actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense; or
c. If the offended party is a public official,
where the latter holds office at the time of
the commission of the offense.
7. B.P. 22 cases – The criminal action shall be filed
at the place where the check was drawn, issued,
delivered, or dishonored. In case of crossed
check, the place of the depositary or the
collecting bank;
8. Perjury – The criminal action may be instituted
at the place where the testimony under oath is
given or where the statement is submitted,
since both are material ingredients of the crime
committed; (Union Bank v. People, G.R. No.
192562, 28 Feb. 2012)
9. Violation of Sec. 9 of Migrant Worker and
Oversees Filipino Act of 1995 – It shall be filed
not only in RTC where the offense was
committed but it may also be filed where the
offended party actually resides at the time of
the commission of the offense. The first court to
acquire jurisdiction excludes others;
10. Art. 315(2)(d) of the RPC – It may be instituted
at the place where the deceit or damage may
arise;
11. Where the Supreme Court, pursuant to its
constitutional powers orders a change of venue
or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice;
(Sec. 5(4), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines)
12. Cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan – Where
the case is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, the
jurisdiction of which depends upon the nature
of the offense and the position of the accused.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
The offense need not be tried in the place where
the act was committed but where the court
actually sits in Quezon City.
Q: Mike was charged with libel. The information
however failed to allege that complainant Roy
was a resident of the place over which the court
has jurisdiction. May Mike file a motion to quash
based on such defect in the Information?
A: YES. In libel cases, failure to allege in the
information that the offended party is a resident of
the place over which the court where the
information was filed has jurisdiction and the fact
that the articles were first published and printed in
said place is a substantial defect that can be a proper
ground for a motion to quash on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction. Such defect is not merely as to form
which can be properly amended. (Agustin v. De Leon,
G.R. No. 164938, 22 Aug. 2005)
Intervention of Offended Party
GR: The offended party has the right to intervene by
counsel in the prosecution of the criminal action
where the civil action for the recovery of civil
liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant
to Rule 111. (Sec. 16, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
XPNs:
1. From the nature of the crime and the law
defining or punishing it, no civil liability arises
in favor of the offended party, e.g., sedition,
rebellion, treason (crimes against national
security);
2. The offended party waived the right to civil
indemnity;
3. The offended party had already instituted
separate action; or
4. The offended party reserved the right to
institute it separately.
Q: Gary requested the Ombudsman to
investigate the petitioner, Retired Brig. Gen.
Jose S. Ramiscal, Jr., then President of the AFP-
RSBS together with 27 other persons for
allegedly conspiring in misappropriating AFP-
RSBS funds and in defrauding the government
476
C2
VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
millions of pesos in capital gains and
documentary stamp taxes. Special Prosecutor
Joy C. Rubillar-Arao filed 24 separate
Informations with the Sandiganbayan against
the petitioner and several other accused.
Ramiscal filed an Urgent Manifestation and
Motion to Suspend Proceedings, because of the
pendency of his motion for reinvestigation with
the Office of the Ombudsman. Pending
resolution of the aforementioned motions, the
law firm of Albano & Associates filed a “Notice of
Appearance” as private prosecutors. The notice
of appearance was apparently made
conformably to the letter-request of Retired
Commodore Ismael Aparri and Retired Brig.
Gen. Pedro Navarro, who are members
Association of Generals and Flag Officers, Inc.
(AGFOI). Petitioner opposed the appearance of
the law firm of Albano & Associates as private
prosecutors, contending that the charges
brought against him were purely public crimes
which did not involve damage or injury to any
private party; thus, no civil liability had arisen.
Is the contention of petitioner tenable? (2015
BAR)
A: YES. The court agreed with the contention of the
petitioner that the AGFOI, and even Commodore
Aparri and Brig. Gen. Navarro, are not the offended
parties envisaged in Sec. 16, Rule 110, in relation to
Sec. 1, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Under Sec. 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure, all criminal actions covered by
a complaint or information shall be prosecuted
under the direct supervision and control of the
public prosecutor. The prosecution of offenses is a
public function.
Under Sec. 16, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure, the offended party may intervene in the
criminal action personally or by counsel, who will
act as private prosecutor for the protection of his
interests and in the interest of the speedy and
inexpensive administration of justice. However, the
offended party is the government, which was
allegedly deprived by the petitioner and the other
accused of the capital gains and documentary stamp
taxes, based on the actual and correct purchase
price of the property stated therein in favor of the
477
AFP-RSBS. The AGFOI was not involved whatsoever
in the sales subject of the crimes charged; neither
was it prejudiced by the said transactions, nor is it
entitled to the civil liability of the petitioner for said
cases. Thus, it is not the offended party in the said
cases. (Ramiscal Jr., v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
140576-99, 13 Dec. 2004)
C. PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
RULE 111
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also
civilly liable. (Art. 100, RPC) The prime purpose of
the criminal action is to punish the offender in order
to deter him and others from committing the same
or similar offense, to isolate him from society,
reform and rehabilitate him or, in general, to
maintain social order. On the other hand, the sole
purpose of the civil action is for the resolution,
reparation, or indemnification of the private
offended party for the damage or injury he
sustained by reason of the delictual or felonious act
of the accused. (Ricarze v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
160451, 09 Feb. 2007)
Generally, a criminal case has two aspects, the civil
and the criminal.
Rule on Implied Institution of Civil Action with
Criminal Action
GR: The institution or filing of the criminal action
includes the institution therein of the civil action for
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged.
XPNs: When the offended party:
1. Waives the civil action;
2. Reserves his right to file a separate civil action;
or
3. Institutes a civil action prior to the criminal
action. (Sec. 1, Rule 111, ROC, as amended)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Reservation to file a Separate Civil Action
Jurisprudence instructs that the reservation may
not be necessarily expressed, but may be implied,
which may be inferred not only from the acts of the
offended party, but also from acts other than those
of the latter. (Herrera, 2007)
NOTE: Failure of the court to pronounce judgment
as to the civil liability amounts to the reservation of
the right to a separate civil action. (Ibid.)
Period when Reservation of the Right to file Civil
Action shall be made
The reservation of the right to institute separately
the civil action shall be made before the prosecution
starts presenting the evidence, and under
circumstances affording the offended party a
reasonable opportunity to make the reservation.
(Sec. 1(2), Rule 111, ROC, as amended)
Effect of Reserving the Right to file a Separate
Civil Action
The prescriptive period of the civil action that was
reserved shall be tolled. (Sec. 2, Rule 111, ROC, as
amended)
Real Parties in interest in the Civil Aspect of the
Cases
The real parties in interest in the civil aspect of a
decision are the offended party and the accused.
Hence, either the offended party or the accused may
appeal the civil aspect of the judgment despite the
acquittal of the accused. The public prosecutor
generally has no interest in appealing the civil
aspect of a decision acquitting the accused. (Hun
Hyung Park v. Eun Wong Choi, G.R. No. 165496, 12
Feb. 2007)
Instances when the Reservation to file a
Separate Civil Action is NOT Allowed
1. Criminal action for violation of BP 22; (Sec.
1(b), Rule 111, ROC, as amended)
2. A claim arising from an offense which is
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan; and
(Herrera, 2007)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
3. Tax cases. (Sec. 7(b)(1), R.A. No. 9282)
NOTE: Only the civil liability arising from the crime
charged (cause of action arising from delict) as a
felony is now deemed instituted. (Sarmiento, Jr. v.
Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 122502, 27 Dec. 2002)
Q: In an action for violation of B.P. 22, the court
granted the accused's demurrer to evidence
filed without leave of court. However, the
accused was required to pay private
complainant the face value of the check. The
accused filed a motion for reconsideration
regarding the order to pay the face value of the
check on the ground that the demurrer to
evidence applied only to the criminal aspect of
the case. Resolve the motion for
reconsideration. (2001, 2003 BAR)
A: The motion for reconsideration should be denied.
The ground that the demurrer to evidence applied
only to the criminal aspect of the case was not
correct. Under Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, the
criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 shall be
deemed to include the corresponding civil action.
No reservation to file such civil action separately
shall be allowed.
Q: May the offended party compromise the civil
aspect of a crime?
A: YES. Provided that it must be entered before or
during the litigation and not after final judgment.
Q: Can an employer be held civilly liable for
quasi-delict in a criminal action filed against his
employee?
A: NO. The employer cannot be held civilly liable for
quasi-delict since quasi-delict is not deemed
instituted with the criminal action. If at all, the only
civil liability of the employer would be his
subsidiary liability under the RPC. Noteworthy is
the fact that the subsidiary liability established in
Arts. 102 and 103 of the RPC may be enforced in the
same criminal case by filing in said criminal action a
motion for execution against the person subsidiarily
liable. (Maniago v. CA, G.R. No. 104392, 20 Feb. 1996)
478
C2
VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Instances when Civil Actions may proceed
Independently (2005, 2010 BAR)
1. Arising from breach of contract; and
2. Independent civil actions or those based on
Arts. 32, 33, 34 and Art. 2176 of the NCC or quasi-
delict. (Herrera, 2007)
The quantum of evidence required is merely
preponderance of evidence. (Sec. 3, Rule 111, ROC, as
amended)
Reservation of the Right to file Independent Civil
Action
The failure to reserve the right to file the above-
enumerated actions does not amount to a waiver to
institute a separate civil action. (Herrera, 2007)
Recovery of civil liability under Arts. 32, 33, 34 and
2176 of the NCC may be prosecuted separately even
without reservation. (DMPI Employees Credit
Cooperative v. Velez, G.R. No. 129282, 29 Nov. 2001)
NOTE: In no case, however, may the offended party
recover damages twice for the same act or omission
charged in the criminal action.
Q: Tomas was criminally charged with serious
physical injuries allegedly committed against
Darvin. During the pendency of the criminal
case, Darvin filed a separate civil action for
damages based on the injuries he had sustained.
Tomas filed a motion to dismiss the separate
civil action on the ground of litis
pendentia, pointing out that when the criminal
action was filed against him, the civil action to
recover the civil liability from the offense
charged was also deemed instituted. He insisted
that the basis of the separate civil action was the
very same act that gave rise to the criminal
action. Rule on Tomas' motion to dismiss, with
brief reasons. (2017 BAR)
A: Tomas’ motion to dismiss on the ground of litis
pendentia should be denied. In cases of physical
injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate
and distinct from the criminal action, may be
brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of the criminal action and
479
hence may not be dismissed on the ground of litis
pendentia. (Art. 33, NCC; Sec. 3, Rule 111, ROC, as
amended)
When Separate Civil Action is Suspended
GR: If the civil action is instituted before the
criminal action, the pending civil action, in whatever
stage it may be found, shall be suspended until final
judgment of the criminal action has been rendered.
(Sec. 2, Rule 111, ROC, as amended)
XPNs:
1. Independent civil actions based on Arts. 32, 33,
34 and Art. 2176 of the NCC;
2. Civil action presenting a prejudicial question;
and
3. Civil action is not one intended to enforce the
civil liability arising from the offense.
Consolidation of Civil Action and Criminal
Action
Before judgment on the merit is rendered in the civil
action, the same may, upon motion of the offended
party, be consolidated with the criminal action in
the court trying the criminal action. (Sec. 2, Rule 111,
ROC, as amended)
NOTE: In cases where the consolidation is given due
course, the evidence presented and admitted in the
civil case shall be deemed automatically reproduced
in the criminal action without prejudice to
admission of additional evidence and right to cross-
examination. (Sec. 2, Rule 111, ROC, as amended)
Effect of Death of Accused or Convict on Civil
Action
If the accused died:
1. After arraignment and during the pendency
of the criminal action
GR: The civil liability of the accused based on
the crime (civil liability ex delicto) is
extinguished.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
XPNs:
a. Independent civil action based on Arts. 32,
33, 34 and Art. 2176 of the NCC; and
b. Civil liability predicated on other sources of
obligations, i.e., law, contract, and quasi-
contract, which are subsequently
instituted.
2. Before arraignment – the offended party may
file the civil action against the estate of the
deceased. (Sec. 4, Rule 111, ROC, as amended)
3. Pending appeal
a. Civil liability arising from the crime is
extinguished; or
b. Civil liability predicated from another source
survives i.e., civil liability arising from law,
contracts, quasi-contract, and quasi-delict.
NOTE: In Nos. 1 and 3(b), the civil action may be
continued against the estate or legal representative
of the accused after proper substitution, as the case
may be. (Sec. 4, Rule 111, ROC, as amended)
Where the civil liability survives, it may be pursued
by the filing of a separate civil action unless
otherwise waived, reserved, or instituted prior to
the institution of the criminal action. (Herrera,
2007)
Q: Democrito Paras was charged with one count
of rape. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found
Paras guilty as charged which was affirmed by
the Court of Appeals (CA). Paras appealed the
decision of CA before the Supreme Court.
However, the Court was informed that Paras had
died at the New Bilibid Prison Hospital. Is the
civil liability of Paras extinguished together
with his criminal liability in case of death
pending appeal?
A: YES. Under Art. 89 (1) of the RPC, as amended, the
death of an accused pending his appeal extinguishes
both his criminal and civil liability ex delicto. In this
case, when Paras died on 24 Jan. 2013, his appeal to
the Court was still pending. The death of Paras, thus,
extinguished his criminal liability, as well as his civil
liability directly arising from and based solely on the
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
crime committed. (People v. Paras, G.R. No. 192912,
03 Oct. 2014)
Extinguishment of Criminal Liability
GR: The extinction of the penal action does not
extinguish the civil action.
XPN: When there is a finding in a final judgment in
the criminal action that the act or omission from
which the civil liability might arise did not exist.
(Sec. 2, Rule 111, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: The civil action that is extinguished refers
exclusively to civil liability arising from the crime
and does not include civil actions:
1. Based on quasi-delict;
2. Based on Arts. 32, 33 and 34 of the NCC
(independent civil actions); and
3. Civil obligation not based on the criminal
offense. (Herrera, 2007)
Effect of the Acquittal of the Accused on his Civil
Liability
1. If the acquittal is based on the ground that he
was not the author of the crime – it will
extinguish his civil liability which may arise
from the offence; or
2. If the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt
on the guilt of the accused – the civil liability of
the accused arising from the crime may be
proved by preponderance of evidence.
(Herrera, 2007)
NOTE: When the trial court acquits the accused
based on reasonable doubt, it could make a
pronouncement on the civil liability of the accused.
(Lontoc v. Jarantilla, G.R. No. 80194, 21 Mar. 1989)
The court may be compelled to include in the
judgment of acquittal the civil liability through a
petition for mandamus. (Maximo v. Gerochi, G.R. Nos.
L-47994-97, 24 Sept. 1986)
480
C2
VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Instances where the Acquittal of the Accused
does NOT bar the continuation of the Civil Case
1. Acquittal based on reasonable doubt;
2. The decision contains a declaration that the
liability of the accused is not criminal but only
civil in nature;
3. The civil liability is not derived from or based
on the criminal act of which the accused is
acquitted;
4. When the statute so declares (e.g., Art. 332 of the
RPC);
5. Art. 11(4) of the RPC; and
6. Art. 12(1-6) of the RPC.
Q: Does a judgment in favor of the defendant in
a civil action bar a criminal action for the same
act?
A: NO. Final judgment rendered in a civil action
absolving the defendant from civil liability is not a
bar to criminal action against the defendant for the
same act or omission subject of the civil action (Sec.
5, Rule 111, ROC, as amended) unless the civil action
is a prejudicial question which involves an issue
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in
the criminal action, the resolution of which
determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed.
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
It is an issue involved in a civil action which is
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in a
criminal action, the resolution of which determines
whether the criminal action may proceed.
A prejudicial question generally exists in a situation
where a civil action and a criminal action are both
pending, and there exists in the former an issue that
must be pre-emptively resolved before the latter
may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in
the civil action is resolved would be determinative
of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the
criminal case. The rationale behind the principle is
to avoid two conflicting decisions. (Reyes v. Rossi,
G.R. No. 159823, 18 Feb. 2013)
481
NOTE: A petition for suspension of the criminal
action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial
question may be raised during the preliminary
investigation. When the criminal action has been
filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall
be filed in the same criminal action at any time
before the prosecution rests. (Sec. 6, Rule 111, ROC,
as amended)
Elements of a Prejudicial Question
1. The civil action must be instituted prior to the
criminal action;
2. The civil action involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action; and
3. The resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may
proceed. (Sec. 7, Rule 111, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: For the principle of prejudicial question to
apply, it is essential that there be two cases
involved, invariably a civil case and a criminal case.
Hence, it may not be invoked when:
(a) Both cases are criminal;
(b) Both are civil;
(c) Both are administrative;
(d) One case is administrative and the other is
civil; or
(e) One case is administrative and the other is
criminal.
Further, the law limits a prejudicial question to a
previously instituted civil action not to a subsequent
one.
The tenor of Sec. 7, likewise, presupposes that the
issue that leads to a prejudicial question is one that
arises in the civil case and not in the criminal case.
The former needs to be resolved first before it is
determined whether or not the criminal case should
proceed or whether or not there should be, in the
criminal case, a judgment of acquittal or conviction.
(Riano, 2019)
Q: Rafael Consing together with his mother
obtained several loans from Unicapital Inc,
secured by a real estate mortgage. However, it
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
appears that the former are not the true owners
of the property and the Transfer Certificate Title
presented is spurious. Consing then filed a
petition for injunctive relief in the RTC of Pasig
seeking to enjoin Unicapital to proceed against
him on the ground that he merely acted as agent
of his mother. Unicapital, on the other hand,
initiated a criminal complaint for estafa through
falsification of public document. Unicapital also
filed a civil case in RTC of Makati for recovery of
sum of money and damages, with application for
a writ of preliminary attachment. Consing
moved to defer his arraignment in the Makati
criminal case on the ground of the existence of a
prejudicial question due to the pendency of the
Pasig and Makati civil case. Is there a prejudicial
question?
A: NONE. An independent civil action based on
fraud initiated by the defrauded party does not raise
a prejudicial question to stop the proceedings in a
pending criminal prosecution of the defendant for
estafa through falsification. This is because the
result of the independent civil action, the civil case
for damages and attachment, is irrelevant to the
issue of guilt or innocence of the accused. As far as
the Pasig civil case is concerned, the issue of
Consing’s being a mere agent of his mother, poses
no prejudicial question, and even if respondent is
declared merely an agent of his mother, he cannot
be adjudged free from criminal liability. Hence, the
determination of the issue involved in the civil case
for injunctive relief is irrelevant to the guilt or
innocence of the respondent in the criminal case for
estafa through falsification of public document.
(Consing v. People, G.R. No. 161075, 15 July 2013)
Q: Solomon and Faith got married in 2005. In
2010, Solomon contracted a second marriage
with Hope. When Faith found out about the
second marriage of Solomon and Hope, she filed
a criminal case for bigamy before the RTC of
Manila sometime in 2011. Meanwhile, Solomon
filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his
first marriage with Faith in 2012, while the case
for bigamy before the RTC of Manila is ongoing.
Subsequently, Solomon filed a motion to
suspend the proceedings in the bigamy case on
the ground of prejudicial question. He asserts
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
that the proceedings in the criminal case should
be suspended because if his first marriage with
Faith will be declared null and void, it will have
subsequent effect of exculpating him from the
crime of bigamy. Decide. (2014 BAR)
A: The motion filed by Solomon should be denied.
The elements of a prejudicial question are:
(a) The previously instituted civil action
involves an issue similar or intimately related
to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal
action; and
(b) The resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may
proceed.
Thus, in order for a prejudicial question to exist, the
civil action must precede the filing of the criminal
action. (Dreamwork Construction, Inc. v. Janiola, G.R.
No. 184861, 30 June 2009) Since the criminal case for
bigamy was filed ahead of the civil action for
declaration of nullity of marriage, the principle of
prejudicial action cannot apply.
Moreover, it has been settled that a pending case for
declaration of nullity of marriage does not raise a
prejudicial question to a charge of bigamy because a
person, by having contracted a second marriage
without first awaiting a judicial declaration of
nullity of his marriage, has already committed
bigamy. (People v. Odtuhan, G.R. No. 191566, 17 July
2013)
Q: Is the resolution of the action for annulment
of marriage a prejudicial question that warrants
the suspension of the criminal case for
frustrated parricide?
A: NO. There is a prejudicial question when a civil
action and a criminal action are both pending, and
there exists in the civil action an issue which must
be preemptively resolved before the criminal action
may proceed because the resolved issue raised in
the civil action would be determinative of the guilt
or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.
The issue in the annulment of marriage is not
similar or intimately related to the issue in the
criminal case for parricide. Further, the
482
C2
VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
relationship between the offender and the victim is
not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the
accused. Even if the marriage between petitioner
and respondent is annulled, petitioner could still be
held criminally liable since at the time of the
commission of the alleged crime, he was still
married to respondent. (Pimentel v. Pimentel, G.R.
No. 172060, 13 Sept. 2010)
Q: Atty. Alfred obtained a loan from Bing
covered by several postdated checks. The
checks were dishonored by the bank when Bing
tried to encash them. Bing filed a case for
violation of B.P. 22 before the MTC. Bing also
filed a disbarment case. Atty. Alfred argues that
the criminal prosecution constitutes a
prejudicial question in the administrative
proceedings for his disbarment. Is Atty. Alfred
correct?
A: NO. Administrative cases against lawyers are sui
generis. They are distinct from and may proceed
independently of criminal cases. The burden of
proof in a criminal case is guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, while in an administrative case, only
substantial evidence is required. Thus, a criminal
prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial
question even if the same facts and circumstances
are attendant in the administrative proceedings. (Yu
v. Palaña, A.C. No. 7747, 14 July 2008)
Void ab initio Marriage is a Valid Defense in the
Prosecution for Bigamy even without a Judicial
Declaration of Absolute Nullity
The case of Pulido v. People (G.R. No. 220149, 27 July
2021, J. Hernando) provides the opportune
occasion to revisit and examine earlier
pronouncements that a judicial declaration of the
absolute nullity of a prior void ab initio marriage
secured prior to remarriage is required before a
prior void ab initio marriage may be considered a
valid defense in the prosecution of bigamy. For
resolution of the Court is the subsequent judicial
declaration of the absolute nullity of Pulido’s first
marriage with Arcon which he presented as a
defense in the criminal prosecution for bigamy
against him.
483
After a careful scrutiny of the records and rigorous
reexamination of the applicable law and
jurisprudence, the Court found that there was
enough basis to abandon the earlier
pronouncement and now hold that a void ab
initio marriage is a valid defense in the prosecution
for bigamy even without a judicial declaration of
absolute nullity. Consequently, a judicial
declaration of absolute nullity of either the first and
second marriages obtained by the accused is
considered a valid defense in bigamy. Thus, when
both the prior and subsequent marriages were
contracted prior to the effectivity of the Family
Code, a void ab initio marriage can be raised as a
defense in a bigamy case even without a judicial
declaration of its nullity. Nonetheless, an action for
nullity of the second marriage is a prejudicial
question to the criminal prosecution for bigamy.
Action in the Event there Exists a Prejudicial
Question
A petition for the suspension of the criminal action
based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question
in a civil case may be filed in the office of the
prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary
investigation. (Sec. 6, Rule 111, ROC, as amended) It
cannot be done motu propio by the court. (Yap v.
Paras, G.R. No. 101236, 30 Jan. 1992)
Suspension of a criminal case does not warrant its
dismissal but only authorizes its suspension
pending the final determination of the issues in the
civil case. (Riano, 2019)
The petition to suspend can be filed only in the
criminal action. The determination of the pendency
of a prejudicial question should be made at the first
instance in the criminal action and not before the
Supreme Court in an appeal from the civil action.
(IBP v. Atienza, G.R. No. 175241, 24 Feb. 2010)
Where to File the Petition for Suspension
1. The Office of the Prosecutor; or
2. The court where the criminal action has been
filed for trial at any time before the prosecution
rests. (Sec. 6, Rule 111, ROC, as amended)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2

REMEDIAL LAW
Q: Sps. Rafael and Aurora Granda entered into
three sale transactions with Uy siblings and
Lastrilla, covering several parcels of land. After
the execution of the Deeds of Sale, the first and
second Deeds of Sale were annotated on the
respective TCTs. As a result, these TCTs were
cancelled and new TCTs were issued in the
names of the respective vendees. Sps. Granda
eventually died. After Aurora’s death, Rafaelo
Granda, the grandson of Sps. Granda, filed a
complaint for falsification which was allegedly
made by Lastrilla, Camenforte, and Uy siblings.
While the criminal cases against the Lastrillas
and Uys were pending, Benjamin Granda filed a
complaint for Nullification of Title and Deeds
with damages against Lastrilla and Uy siblings.
Will the criminal case prosper?
A: NO. The action is already barred by operation of
the doctrine of prejudicial question. Prejudicial
question is understood in law to be that which must
precede the criminal action that requires a decision
before a final judgment is rendered in the principal
action with which said question is closely
connected.
1. Actual damages
GR: No filing fee is required.
XPN: B.P. 22 cases, wherein the amount of the
filing fees shall be equivalent to the amount of
the check involved.
2. Liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or
exemplary damages – The filing fee shall be
based on the amount alleged in the complaint or
information. (Sec. 1(4), Rule 111, ROC, as
amended)
NOTE: If the amount of the damages claimed is
not specifically alleged in the complaint or
information, but the court subsequently awards
such, the filing fees based on the amount
awarded shall constitute a first lien on the
judgment. (Sec. 1(3), Rule 111, ROC, as amended)
D. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
(RULE 112)

Given the foregoing, the Court finds that although

1. EXECUTIVE vs. JUDICIAL DETERMINATION
the facts of this case involve a criminal action which OF PROBABLE CAUSE
preceded the institution of a civil action, a
prejudicial question nevertheless exists. Sec. 7 of
There are two kinds of determination of probable
Rule 111 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
cause: executive and judicial.
is more directory than mandatory and must give
way to the chief litmus test of whether the actions
1. The executive determination of probable
involve prejudicial issues and facts that are
cause is one made during preliminary
intimately related so a resolution in one concludes
investigation. It is a function that properly
that resolution in the other.
pertains to the public prosecutor who is given a
broad discretion to determine whether
In sum, prejudicial factual finding of genuineness of
probable cause exists and to charge those
Sps. Granda’s signatures on the questioned deeds
whom he believes to have committed the crime
must operate to bar the prosecution of respondents
as defined by law and thus should be held for
for falsification of the same signatures. (People v.
trial.
Camenforte and Lastrilla, G.R. No. 220916, 14 June
2021)
2. The judicial determination of probable cause
is one made by the judge to ascertain whether a
Rule on Filing Fees in Civil Action deemed
warrant of arrest should be issued against the
Instituted with the Criminal Action
accused. The judge must satisfy himself that
based on the evidence submitted, there is
Filing fees shall be paid when damages are being
necessity for placing the accused under custody
claimed by the offended party.
in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 484

2023 GOLDEN NOTES