michelledulcemarianocandelaria

Criminalproceduremidtermexam |Judge Vibandor|Arellano University School of Law|

SY 2015
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
1. Co vs Munoz
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE CIVIL ACTION IS INSTITUTED WITH THE
CRIMINAL ACTION OR WHETHER OR NOT THE EXTINCTION OF THE
CRIMINAL ACTION, ALSO EXTINGUISHES CIVIL LIABLITY
Legal Basis: Sec 2 para 4 Rule 111, ROC
The Extinction of the penal or criminal action does not carry with it the
extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on DELICT shall
be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the
Criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise
DID NOT EXIST.
HELD:
In the case at bar, the SC held that Munoz is not CIVILLY LIABLE because
there was no crime (LIBEL) committed. As a general rule, WITHOUT A CRIME,
NO CIVIL LIABILITY EX DELICTO may be claimed. There is NO act from which
civil liability may arise that exists.
As held in the instant case, Munoz libelous remarks against Co are privileged
communications Since Co is a public figure, the subject matter of the libelous
remarks was of public interest, and the context of Munozs statements were
FAIR COMMENTS. Malice (in LIBEL case) is NOT PRESUMED when Imputation
were made against a PUBLIC FIGURE, SUBJECT OF IMPUTATIONS WERE
MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND FAIR COMMENTS. The CA found that
Munoz acted without MALICE. Thus, there was NO LIBEL COMMITTED.

michelledulcemarianocandelaria
Criminalproceduremidtermexam |Judge Vibandor|Arellano University School of Law|
SY 2015
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
2. Coscolluela vs Sandigabayan
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE OMBUDSMAN FAILURE TO RESOLVE
CASES UNDER PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION FOR 8 YEARS HELD TO
BE UNJUSTIFIABLE AND VIOLATED RIGHT OF PETITIONERS TO A
SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF THEIR CASES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
Legal Basis:
Section 2, Rule 111 ROC
Section 16, Article 3 of the 1987 PC
ALL PERSONS SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF
THEIR
CASES
BEFORE
ALL
JUDICIAL,
QUASI-JUDICIAL
OR
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES
Section 3, Rule 112 ROC
HELD:
The Constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases is not limited to the accused
in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, be it civil or
administrative in nature, as well as all proceedings, either judicial or quasi-judicial.
In this accord, any party to a case may demand expeditious action to all officials
who are tasked with the administration of justice.
As a general rule under the rules of procedure of the office of the
Ombudsman that NO INFORMATION MAY BE FILED AND NO COMPLAINT
MAY BE DISMISSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORITY OR APPROVAL OF
THE OMBUDSMAN IN CASES FALLING UNDER THE SB.
The above cited provision readily reveals that there is no complete resolution of a
case under PI until the ombudsman approves the investigating officers
recommendation to either FILE AN INFORMATION with the SB or DISMISS the
complaint. Therefore, in the case at bar, the PI proceedings against the petitioners
were NOT TERMINATED upon CANARES preparation of the MARCH 27, 2003
Resolution and Information but rather, ONLY at the time CASIMIRO finally approved
the same for filing with the SB. The proceedings were terminated only on MAY 21,
2009 for almost 8 years after the filing of the complaint
*The province/respondent is not PRECLUDED from instituting a subsequent CIVIL
ACTION based on the DELICT if only to RECOVER the amount of 2M in public funds
attributable to petitioners alleged malfeasance. This case is dismissed based on the

michelledulcemarianocandelaria
Criminalproceduremidtermexam |Judge Vibandor|Arellano University School of Law|
SY 2015
violation of petitioners right to speedy disposition of cases, even before the
prosecution or the defense has been given the chance to present any evidence.

3. People vs Desmond
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE CA erred in finding no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the RTC when it dismissed the subject
information for lack of probable cause
Legal Basis:
Section 5 (a) Rule 112 ROC, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure explicitly
states that a Judge may immediately dismiss a case if the evidence on
record clearly fails to establish probable cause
HELD:
In the instant case, the court finds that the RTCs immediate dismissal, as
affirmed by the CA, was improper as the standard of clear lack of probable cause
was not observed.
Once the information is filed with the court and the Judge proceeds with his
primordial task of evaluating the evidence on record, he may either ISSUE A
WARRANT OF ARREST, IF HE FINDS PROBABLE CAUSE OR IMMEDIATELY
DISMISSED THE CASE, IF THE EVIDENCE IN RECORD FAILS TO ESTABLISH
PROBABLE CAUSE OR ORDER THE PROSECUTOR TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE, IN CASE HE DOUBTS THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE.
In the instant case, there is no clearly showing that the evidence presented upon
the filing of information does not established probable cause. Certain essential
facts as to the elements of the crime of Estafa under article 315 (2)(a) and 315
(1)(b) of the RPC had already been established, thereby, rendering the RTCs
immediate dismissal of the case highly IMPROPER.
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
4. DALURAYA VS OLIVAR
FACTS: Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision
finding petitioner Antonio L. Daluraya (Daluraya) civilly liable for the death
of Marina Arabit Oliva (Marina Oliva) despite having been acquitted for
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide on the ground of insufficiency
of evidence.

michelledulcemarianocandelaria
Criminalproceduremidtermexam |Judge Vibandor|Arellano University School of Law|
SY 2015
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION
EXTINGUISHES CIVIL LIABILITY
Legal Basis:
Held:

WARRANTLESS ARREST
5. ANTIQUERA VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE PEEKING INSIDE PARTIALLY OPENED
DOOR NOT VALID GROUND FOR WARANTLESS ARREST AND SEARCH.
Legal Basis:
Section 5 (a) Rule 113 of the Rules of Procedure provides that a
peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person
when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing or is attempting to commit an offense. This is an arrest in
flagrante delicto. The overt act constituting the crime is done in the presence
or within the view of the arresting officer.
Held:
In the case at bar, the present circumstances as held is not a case of arrest
made in flagrante delicto. One of the circumstances given is when the police
officers peeked through the houses partially opened door; they saw no
activity that warranted their entering it. Clearly NO CRIME was plainly
exposed to the view of the arresting officers that authorized the arrest of
accused Antiquera without warrant under Sec 5 (a) of Rule 113 of the ROC.
Considering that his arrest is ILLEGAL, the search and seizure that resulted
from it was likewise illegal. Evidence seized is inadmissible having been
proceeded from an invalid searched and seizure.
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
6. CAPILI VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

michelledulcemarianocandelaria
Criminalproceduremidtermexam |Judge Vibandor|Arellano University School of Law|
SY 2015
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE DECLARATION OF VOIDNESS OF THE
SECOND MARRIAGE NOT A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL OF BIGAMY?
Legal Basis:
Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes the crime
of Bigamy.
Sec 5 Rule 111, ROC provides that Judgment in CIVIL ACTION NOT
A BAR to a CRIMINAL ACTION against the Defendant for the same act
or omission subject of the civil action
Held:
In the case at bar, the SC held that the subsequent judicial declaration of the
VOIDNESS of the Second Marriage for being bigamous in nature DOES NOT
BAR the prosecution of the petitioner for the crime of bigamy. The SC ruled
that what makes the person criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts
a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid first
marriage. Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial
declaration of the first marriage assumes risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.
It is a settled rule that the criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon
the commission of the offense and from that instant, liability appends to him
until extinguished by law. It is clear then that the crime of bigamy was
committed by petitioner from the time he contracted the second marriage
with private respondent. Thus, the finality of the judicial declaration of nullity
of petitioners second marriage DOES NOT IMPEDE the filing of a CRIMINAL
CHARGE for BIGAMY against him.
7. LEE PUE LIONG VS CHUA
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT A PRIVATE PROSECUTOR MAY PARTICIPATE
IN CRIMINAL CASE EVEN IF NO CIVIL LIABILITY EXISTS IN THE CRIME
Legal Basis:
Section 1, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
Section1. INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL ACTION. (a) When
a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil
liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted
with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil
action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the
civil action prior to the criminal action.
Sec 16 Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides
that for the recovery of CIVIL LIABILITY in the criminal action, the
appearance of a private prosecutor is ALLOWED

michelledulcemarianocandelaria
Criminalproceduremidtermexam |Judge Vibandor|Arellano University School of Law|
SY 2015
Held:
In the instant case, there was NEITHER a waiver nor a reservation made; nor
did the OP institute a separate CIVIL ACTION. It follows that evidence should
be allowed in criminal proceedings to establish civil liability arising from the
offense committed, and the private offended party has the right to
INTERVENE through the PRIVATE PROSECUTORS as provided for by the law.

ARRAIGNMENT
8. PEOPLE VS GALVEZ
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURTS CONDUCTED SEARCHING
INQUIRY INTO VOLUNTARINESS AND FULL COMPREHENSION OF PLEA
OF GUILT BY THE ACCUSED.
Legal Basis:
Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, set the following
guidelines for receiving a plea of guilt in a case involving a capital
offense: (applied in the case of People vs Aranzado, this section is also
known as the Aranzado Doctrine)
(1)The court MUST CONDUCT a searching inquiry into the
VOLUNTARINESS and FULL comprehension of the consequences of
the plea;
(2)The court MUST REQUIRE the prosecution to present eveidence
to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his
culpability;
(3)The court MUST ASK the accused if he desires to present evidence
in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.
Held:

michelledulcemarianocandelaria
Criminalproceduremidtermexam |Judge Vibandor|Arellano University School of Law|
SY 2015
In the instant case, it is clear that the trial judge did not conduct searching
inquiry into the voluntariness of appellants plea of guilt and full
comprehension thereof. Moreover, there is no showing that the accuseds
counsel explained to appellant the consequence of his plea.
SC noted that that lower court should have been exerted careful effort to
inquire into why the accused changed his plea from not guilty to guilty, and
the accused refusal to present evidence in his defense.
A plea of guilt is IMPROVIDENTLY accepted where there is NO EFFORT made
to explain to the accused that such plea, in case involving capital offense
may result in the imposition of the death penalty.
The SC held that when the punishment to be inflicted is DEATH, it is not
enough that the information be read to the ACCUSED or even translated into
the dialect they speak. This is because the implementation of such penalty is
irrevocable and experience shown that innocent persons have at all times
pleaded guilty.
The TC must AVOID IMPROVIDENT pleas of guilt, since the accused might be
admitting their guilt and thus forfeiting their lives and liberties without having
fully understood the meaning, significance, or consequences of their pleas.

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

9. PEOPLE VS CRISTOBAL
Issue: (1) WHETHER OR NOT RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS MANDATORY IN
CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION
(2)
WHETHER
OR
NOT
HER
EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION IS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE BECAUSE
IT WAS MADE WITHOUT A COUNSEL
Legal Basis:
Section 26, Rule 130 ROC
Section 30, Rule 120, ROC provides that A CONFESSION is a
declaration of an accused acknowledging the guilt for the offense
charged, or for any offense necessarily included therein.
Section 12, Article III 1987 PC provides that ANY PERSON under
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to
be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person

michelledulcemarianocandelaria
Criminalproceduremidtermexam |Judge Vibandor|Arellano University School of Law|
SY 2015
cannot afford the service of counsel, he must be provided with one.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence
of counsel.
Held:
(1) In the case at bar, there was no need for a counsel to have assisted the
accused when she wrote the letter because she spontaneously made it
while NOT UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION. Her insistence on the
assistance of a counsel might be valid and better appreciated had she
made the letter while under arrest, or during custodial investigation, or
under coercion by the investigating authorities of the government.
The situation of the accused was NOT SIMILAR from that of a person
arrested or detained or under CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION for the commission
of an offense. Thus, the rights of the accused contemplated under Sec 12
Article III are not available to her.
(2) The letter was NOT an extrajudicial confession whose validity depended
on its being executed with the assistance of counsel and its being under
oath, but a VOLUNTARY PARTY ADMISSION under Section 26, Rule 130 ROC
that was admissible against her. An admission, if voluntary, is admissible
against the admitter for the reason that it is fair to presume that the
admission corresponds with the truth. And by virtue of being made by
himself, AN ADMISSION is competent primary evidence against the
admitter.
Also, the letter was NOT a CONFESSION due to its NOT expressly
acknowledging the guilt of the accused for qualified theft. Because under
Section 30, Rule 120, ROC provides that A CONFESSION is a
declaration of an accused acknowledging the guilt for the offense
charged, or for any offense necessarily included therein.
WHEN BAIL A MATTER OF RIGHT OR A MATTER OF
DISCRETION?
10.LEVISTE VS CA
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT BAIL SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE GRANTED
ABSENT ANY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN SEC 5 PARA 3,
RULE 114 OF THE ROC

Legal Basis:

michelledulcemarianocandelaria
Criminalproceduremidtermexam |Judge Vibandor|Arellano University School of Law|
SY 2015
Section 5 Rule 115 ROC provides that: BAIL, when discretionary
. Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not
punishable by DEATH, RP, OR LI, admission to bail is DISCRETIONARY.
Section 13, Article II of the PC provides that: ALL PERSONS
except those charged with offenses punishable by RP when evidence
of guilt is STRONG, shall, before conviction, be BAILABLE BY
SUFFICIENT SURETIES, or be released on recognizance as may be
provided by law.
Held:
NO. The accused is not entitled or not granted bail. ABSENT any
circumstances mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of Section 5 of Rule 114 means
that a less stringent approach in granting BAIL ONLY SUBJECT to the
DISCRETION of the court to grant bail.
The third paragraph of Sec 5, Rule 114 applies to two scenarios where the
penalty imposed on the appellant applying for BAIL is imprisonment
exceeding 6 years. The first scenario deals with the circumstances
enumerated in the said paragraph, and the 2 nd scenario contemplates the
existence of at least one of the said circumstances.
BAIL IS EITHER A MATTER OF RIGHTS OR DISCRETION. It is a matter
of RIGHT when the OFFENSE charged is not punishable by death, RP
or LI. On the other hand, upon conviction by the RTC of an offense
NOT PUNISHABLE by DEATH, RP OR LI bail becomes a matter of
DISCRETION. Justice Herrera
The SC held that a finding that none of the said circumstances is
present WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY result in the grant of bail. Such
finding will simply authorize the court to use the less stringent
approach sound discretion approach.
The appellates court denial of bail pending appeal where none of
the said circumstances exists does not by itself constitute ABUSE OF
DISCRETION.

PLEA BARGAINING
11.

DAAN VS SB

michelledulcemarianocandelaria
Criminalproceduremidtermexam |Judge Vibandor|Arellano University School of Law|
SY 2015
Issue: WHETHER THE ACUSSED SHALL BE GRANTED A LESSER
OFFENSE
Legal Basis:

Held:

In this case, the allegations in the Informations filed against petitioner are
sufficient to hold petitioner liable for the lesser offenses. Thus, in the
charge for Falsification of Public Documents, petitioner may plead guilty to
the lesser offense of Falsification by Private Individuals inasmuch as it
does not appear that petitioner took advantage of his official position in
allegedly falsifying the timebook and payroll of the Municipality of Bato,
Leyte.
In the same vein, with regard to the crime of Malversation of Public
Funds, while the Informations contain allegations which make out a case
for Malversation against petitioner, nevertheless, absent the element of
conversion, theoretically, petitioner may still be held liable for Failure to
Render Account by an Accountable Officer if it is shown that the failure to
render account was in violation of a law or regulation that requires him to
render such an accounting within the prescribed period.