Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PART III
Criminal Procedure
5.1. General matters
Venue in criminal case
Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional. The place where the crime
was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an
essential element of jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule that for
jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense should
have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should have
taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. (Isip vs People)
Criminal Jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts as Special Agrarian
Courts; jurisdiction in criminal offenses for violation of RA No. 6657
is excluded from the power of DAR
Special Agrarian Courts, which are Regional Trial Courts, are given
original and exclusive jurisdiction over two categories of cases, to wit: (1) "all
petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners" and (2)
"the prosecution of all criminal offenses under [R.A. No. 6657]." The
provisions of 50 must be construed in harmony with this provision by
considering cases involving the determination of just compensation and
criminal cases for violations of R.A. No. 6657 as excepted from the plenitude
of power conferred on the DAR. Indeed, there is a reason for this distinction.
The DAR is an administrative agency which cannot be granted jurisdiction
over cases of eminent domain (for such are takings under R.A. No. 6657) and
over criminal cases. (LBP vs. Belista)
Jurisdiction to issue hold-departure orders within the RTC
Circular No. 39-97 limits the authority to issue hold-departure orders to
criminal cases within the jurisdiction of second level courts. Paragraph No. 1
of the said circular specifically provides that "hold- departure orders shall be
issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regional
trial courts." (Mondejar vs. Buban)
Venue in Libel Cases
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written
defamations shall be filed simultaneous or separately with the Regional Trial
Court of the province or city where the libellous article is printed and first
published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of
the commission of the offense. (Mary Rose A. Boto vs. Senior Assistant City
Prosecutor Villena, A.C. No. 9684, September 18, 2013)
Venue in estafa
In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. A court cannot exercise
jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed outside its
limited territory. The prosecution must not only prove that the offense
was committed, it must also prove the identity of the accused and
the fact that the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of
the court. In this case, the prosecution failed to show that the offense of
estafa under sec. 1(b) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) was
committed within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City.
Other than the lone allegation in the information, there is nothing in the
prosecution evidence which even mentions that any of the elements of the
offense were committed in Makati. The Affidavit of Complaint executed by
Elizabeth does not contain any allegation as to where the offense was
committed, and there is nothing in the documentary evidence offered by the
prosecution that points to where the offense, or any of its elements, was
committed. Although the prosecution alleged that the check issued by
petitioner was dishonored in a bank in Makati, such dishonor is not an
element of the offense of estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the RPC.
There being no showing that the offense was committed within Makati, the
Regional Trial Court of that city has no jurisdiction over the case. (Hector
Trenas v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 195002, January 25, 2012)
5.1.1. Distinguish jurisdiction over subject matter from jurisdiction
over person of the
Accused
The jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the
allegations in the complaint or information. And once it is so shown, the court
may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence adduced
during the trial show that the offense was committed somewhere else, the
court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. (Foz vs. Fajardo)
5.1.2. Criminal jurisdiction
What is criminal jurisdiction?
It is the authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose the
punishment for it (People v. Marinao, 71 SCRA 600, 604).
Requisites:
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and
injunction
may
be
issued
to
restrain
criminal
General rule:
Ordinarily, the determination of probable cause is not lodged with this Court.
Its duty in an appropriate case is confined to the issue of whether the
executive or judicial determination, as the case may be, of probable cause was
done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to want of jurisdiction. This is consistent with the general rule that
criminal prosecutions may not be restrained or stayed by injunction,
preliminary or final.
Exceptions
There are, however, exceptions to this rule. Among the exceptions are
enumerated in Brocka vs. Enrile, 74 as follows:
a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the
accused (Hernandez vs. Albano, et al.,L-19272, January 25, 1967, 19 SCRA
95);
b.When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid
oppression or multiplicity of actions (Dimayuga, et al. vs. Fernandez,43 Phil.
304; Hernandez vs. Albano, supra; Fortun vs. Labang, et al., L-38383, May
27, 1981, 104 SCRA 607);
c.When there is a prejudicial question which is sub-judice (De Leon vs.
Mabanag, 70 Phil. 202);
d.When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority (Planas
vs. Gil, 67 Phil. 62);
documents and the resolution of the case. The reason for this rule is because
the law aims not only to acquit the innocent but to like insulate the clearly
innocent from false charges and from the strong arm of the law. (OKABE VS.
GUTIERREZ)
Test of sufficiency of information
The test of sufficiency of Information is whether it enables a person of common
understanding to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly. x x x
The purpose is to allow the accused to fully prepare for his defense, precluding surprises during
the trial. (People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Feliciano Jr., et. al, G.R. No. 196735, May 5,
2014)
Appellants aver that the information filed before the trial court was
substantially defective considering that it accuses Abdul and Ampuan as one
and the same person when in fact they were identified as different persons.
As such, Ampuan was not able to comprehend the information read to him.
However, appellants failed to raise the issue of the defective Information
before the trial court through a motion for bill of particulars or a motion to
quash the information. Their failure to object to the alleged defect before
entering their pleas of not guilty amounted to a waiver of the defect in the
Information. Records even show that the information was accordingly
amended during trial to rectify this alleged defect but appellants did not
comment thereon. Moreover, objections as to matters of form or substance
in the information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. (People of the
Philippines v. Renandang Mamaruncas and Pendatum Ampuan, G.R. No.
179497, January 25, 2012)
5.2.6. Designation of offense
Designation of the offense
An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the statutory
designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof. In
other words, if the offense is stated in such a way that a person of ordinary
intelligence may immediately know what is meant, and the court can decide
the matter according to law, the inevitable conclusion is that the information
is valid. It is not necessary to follow the language of the statute in the
appellant merely put his penis in her mouth. Nevertheless, appellant failed to register any
objection that the Information alleged a different mode of the commission of the crime of rape.
Thus, appellant's conviction for rape by sexual assault must be sustained, the variance
notwithstanding. (PEOPLE vs. GULLERMO LOMAQUE, GR 189297, June 5, 2013)
Defect in the complaint court may still acquire jurisdiction
Even when a complaint is defective for being signed and filed by the
chief of police and not by the complainant, the court may still acquire
jurisdiction over the case. The complaint required in Art. 344 of the RPC is
but a condition precedent to the exercise by the proper authorities of the
power to prosecute the guilty parties. The complaint simply starts the
prosecutory proceeding but does not confer jurisdiction in the court to try the
case. Art. 344 is not determinative of the jurisdiction of courts over private
offenses because the same is governed by the Judiciary Law and not the
RPC. (People v. Yparraguire)
Minority is a special and qualifying circumstance in rape cases
In rape cases, the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her
relationship with the offender is a special qualifying circumstance which
should be both alleged (People v. Cantos) and proved (People v. Manggasin)
with certainty in order to warrant the imposition of the [maximum] penalty.
Facts alleged in the information is controlling
It is not the designation of the offense in the complaint or information
that is controlling (People v. Samillano, 56 SCRA 573); the facts alleged
therein and not its title determine the nature of the crime
(People v. Magdowa, 73 Phil 512).
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 body of the information and its commission is established by
evidence (Buhat v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 701).
An accused could not be convicted under one act when he is charged
with a violation of another if the change from one statue to the other
involves:
a. a change in the theory of the trial;
b. requires of the defendant a different defense; or
c. surprise the accused in any way. (U.S. v. Panlilio, 28 Phil 603).
5.2.7. Cause of the accusation
PURPOSE:
1. To enable the court to pronounce a proper judgment;
2. To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge as to
enable him to make a defense;
3. As a protection against further prosecution for the same cause.
( U.S. v. Karelsen).
5.2.8. Duplicity of the offense; exception
General rule:
An information or complaint must charge only one offense, unless the
law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses
Exceptions to the rule on duplicity
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
continuing crimes
complex crimes
special complex crimes
crimes susceptible of being committed in various modes
crimes of which another offense is an ingredient
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been
instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found
before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last until final judgment
is rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before judgment on the
merits 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. In case of consolidation, the evidence already adduced in
the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal
action without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the
witnesses presented by the offended party in the criminal case and of the
parties to present additional evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil
actions shall be tried and decided jointly.
When suspension of the civil action allowed?
In Gandiongco vs. Penaranda [155 SCRA 725], it was held that suspension is
allowable only if the civil action arises from the criminal act subject of the
criminal case. The civil action must be intended to enforce civil liability
arising from the offense charged.
5.3.4. Effect of death of the accused or convict on civil action
Finally, we observe that the Court of Appeals did not rule on the effect
of the death of Eddie Malogsi during the pendency of this case. Considering
that no final judgment had been rendered against him at the time of his
death, whether or not he was guilty of the crime charged had become
irrelevant because even assuming that he did incur criminal liability and civil
liability ex delicto, these were totally extinguished by his death, following
Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code and, by analogy, our ruling in People
v. Bayotas. Therefore, the present criminal case should be dismissed with
respect only to the deceased Eddie Malogsi. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
MARCELINO DADAO, et al., G.R. No. 201860, January 22, 2014)
5.3.5. Prejudicial question
Prejudicial Question meaning; rationale
A prejudicial question is understood in law to be that which arises in a case the resolution of
which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in the criminal case, and the cognizance of
which pertains to another tribunal. It is determinative of the criminal case, but the jurisdiction to
try and resolve it is lodged in another court or tribunal. It is based on a fact distinct and separate
from the crime but is so intimately connected with the crime that it determines the guilt or
innocence of the accused. The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid
conflicting decisions. (San Miguel Properties, Inc. vs. SEC. Hernando B. Perez, et al., GR No.
166836, September 4, 2013)
Elements of Prejudicial Question
The essential elements of a prejudicial question are provided in Section 7, Rule 111 of the Rules
of Court, to wit: (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. (San Miguel Properties, Inc. vs.
SEC. Hernando B. Perez, et al., GR No. 166836, September 4, 2013)
Action for specific performance is a prejudicial question
in criminal case for violation of Sec. 25, PD No. 957
BF Homes posture that the administrative case for specific performance in the HLURB
posed a prejudicial question that must first be determined before the criminal case for violation
of Section 25 of the PD No. 957 could be resolved is correct.
Raising prejudicial question is hypothetical admission of sufficiency of the information
A party who raises a prejudicial question is deemed to have hypothetically admitted that all the
essential elements of the crime have been adequately alleged in the information, considering that
the Prosecution has not yet presented a single piece of evidence on the indictment or may not
have rested its case. A challenge to the allegations in the information on the ground of prejudicial
question is in effect a question on the merits of the criminal charge through a non-criminal suit.
(San Miguel Properties, Inc. vs. SEC. Hernando B. Perez, et al., GR No. 166836, September 4,
2013)
Action for Rescission of Contract not a prejudicial question to violation of BP 22
To properly appreciate if there is a prejudicial question to warrant the suspension of the criminal
actions, reference is made to the elements of the crimes charged. The violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 requires the concurrence of the following elements, namely: (1) the making,
drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the
maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the
subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or
dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to
stop payment. The issue in the criminal actions upon the violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is,
therefore, whether or not Reyes issued the dishonoured checks knowing them to be without
funds upon presentment. On the other hand, the issue in the civil action for rescission is whether
or not the breach in the fulfillment of Advanced Foundations obligation warranted the rescission
of the conditional sale. If, after trial on the merits in the civil action, Advanced Foundation would
be found to have committed material breach as to warrant the rescission of the contract, such
result would not necessarily mean that Reyes would be absolved of the criminal responsibility
for issuing the dishonored checks because, as the aforementioned elements show, he already
committed the violations upon the dishonor of the checks that he had issued at a time when the
conditional sale was still fully binding upon the parties. His obligation to fund the checks or to
make arrangements for them with the drawee bank should not be tied up to the future event of
extinguishment of the obligation under the contract of sale through rescission. Indeed, under
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the mere issuance of a worthless check was already the offense in itself.
Under such circumstances, the criminal proceedings for the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
could proceed despite the pendency of the civil action for rescission of the conditional sale.
(Teodoro A. Reyes vs. Ettore Rossi, GR No. 159823, February 18, 2013)
5.3.6. Rule on filing fees in civil action deemed instituted with the
criminal action
Payment of filing fees in case civil aspect is deemed impliedly
instituted in the criminal action
The amendments were deliberated on and adopted by this Court
after the Manchester doctrine has been enunciated. Yet, observe that the last
two (2) paragraphs prescribe a rule different from that in Manchester, and in
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Under the 1985 Rule, the filing fees
for the civil action impliedly instituted with the criminal had to be paid first to
the Clerk of Court where the criminal action was commenced, without regard
to whether the claim for such damages was set out in the information or not.
Under the 1988 Rules however, it is only when the amount of damages, other
than the actual, is alleged in the complaint or information that the
corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing
thereof in court for trial. In any other case i.e., when the amount of
damages other than actual is NOT alleged in the information the filing fees
for the civil action to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of
moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages x x x shall merely
constitute a first lien on the judgment except in an award for actual
damages. This Courts plain intent to make the Manchester doctrine,
requiring payment of filing fees at the time of the commencement of an
action applicable to impliedly instituted civil actions under Section 1, Rule
111 only when the amount of damages other than actual is alleged in the
complaint or information has thus been made manifest by the language of
the amendatory provisions.
In any event, the Court now makes that intent plainer, and in the
interest of clarity and certainty, categorically declares for the guidance of all
concerned that when the civil action is deemed impliedly instituted with the
criminal in accordance with Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court
because the offended party has not waived the civil action, or reserved the
right to institute it separately, or instituted the civil action prior to the
criminal action the rule is as follows: (1) when the amount of the
damages, other than actual, is alleged in the complaint or information filed in
court, then the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party
upon filing thereof in court for trial; and (2) in any other case, however
i.e., when the amount of damages is not so alleged in the complaint or
information filed in court the corresponding filing fees need not be paid and
shall simply constitute a first lien on the judgment, except in an award for
actual damages. (Honesto General vs. Hon. Graduacion Reyes Claravall, et
al., 195 SCRA 623)
5.3.7 Extinguishment/Maintenance of civil liability despite acquittal
The civil action based on delict may be deemed extinguished if there is a finding on the final
judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise
did not exist or where the accused did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him. (Lee Pue
Liong vs. Chua Pue Chin Lee, 703 SCRA 240)
Civil liability in case of estafa
An accused, though acquitted of estafa, may still be held civilly liable where the
preponderance of the established facts so warrants. (People of the Philippines vs. Gilbert
Reyes Wagas, GR NO. 157943, September 4, 2013)
5.4. Preliminary investigation
Nature of Preliminary Investigation
A preliminary investigation is essentially prefatory and
inquisitorial. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose
except to determine whether a crime has been committed, and whether
there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty of that crime. A
preliminary investigation is not the occasion for a full and exhaustive display
of the parties evidence, which needs to be presented only to engender a
well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed, and that the
accused is probably guilty thereof (Community Rural Bank vs. Judge Telavera)
Resolution on the motion for reinvestigation
We rule that the trial court in a criminal case which takes cognizance of
an accuseds motion for review of the resolution of the investigating
prosecutor or for reinvestigation and defers the arraignment until resolution
of the said motion must act on the resolution reversing the investigating
prosecutors finding or on a motion to dismiss based thereon only upon proof
that such resolution is already final in that no appeal was taken therefrom to
the Department of Justice. (Serag vs. CA)
Preliminary investigation not part of the trial
It is not part of the trial of the criminal action in court. Nor is its
record part of the record of the case in the RTC. The dismissal of the case
by the investigator will not constitute double jeopardy and will not bar
the filing of another complaint for the same offense, but if re-filed, the
accused is entitled to another preliminary investigation (U.S. v. Marfori, 35
Phil 666).
Reply is not mandatory in preliminary investigation; hence, no
deprivation of due process if denied
There is no provision in Rule 112 of the Rules of Court that gives the
Complainant or requires the prosecutor to observe the right to file a Reply to
the accuseds counter-affidavit. To illustrate the non-mandatory nature of
filing a Reply in preliminary investigations, Section 3 (d) of Rule 112 gives the
prosecutor, in certain instances, the right to resolve the Complaint even
without a counter-affidavit, viz: (d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed,
of if subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day
period, the investigating officer shall resolve the complaint based on the
evidence presented by the complainant. On the other hand, petitioner was
entitled to receive a copy of the Counter-affidavit filed by Aguillon. (P/Insp.
Ariel S. Artillero v. Orlando C. Casimiro, etc., et al, G.R. No. 190569, April 25,
2012)
5.4.1. Nature of right of the Ombudsman to conduct preliminary
investigation
The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct preliminary
investigation and to prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers and
employees, not only those within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but
those within the jurisdiction of the regular courts as well. 15 of RA 6770
(Ombudsman Act of 1989) does not make any distinction. Any illegal act or
omission of any public official is broad enough to embrace any crime
committed by a public officer or employee. Such grant of primary jurisdiction
over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan does not necessarily imply the
exclusion from its jurisdiction of cases involving public officers and
employees cognizable by the other courts (Uy v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
105965-70(2001)
5.4.2. Purposes of preliminary investigation
Probable cause meaning and determination
Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, exists when the facts are
sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the
respondent is probably guilty thereof. It does not mean actual and positive cause nor does it
import absolute certainty. Rather, it is based merely on opinion and reasonable belief.
Accordingly, probable cause does not require an inquiry whether there is sufficient evidence to
procure a conviction; it is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of
constitutes the offense charged. (Iris Kristine Balois Alberto vs. CA, GR No. 182130, June 19,
2013)
Probable cause for purposes of filing a criminal information is defined as such
facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be
held for trial. The prosecution evidence fails to establish probable cause
against petitioner HPG officers. (P/C Insp. Lawrence B. Cajipe, P/C Insp. Joell.
Mendoza, P/C Insp. Gerardo B. Balatucan, PO3 Jolito P. Mamanao, Jr., P03
Fernando Reys. Gapuz, Po2 Eduardo G. Blanco, Po2 Edwin Santos And Po1
Josil Rey I. Lucena, G.R. No. 203605, April 23, 2014)
Evidence required in finding of probable cause
A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that
more likely than not a crime has been committed and there is enough reason
to believe that it was committed by the accused. It need not be based on
clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing
absolute certainty of guilt. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the
suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt. The term does not
mean actual and positive cause nor does it import absolute certainty. It is
merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Probable cause does not
require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a
conviction. (Cruz v. Hon. Gonzales, et al, G.R. No. 173844, April 11, 2012)
The determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules
and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on
the merits.28 As implied by the words themselves, "probable cause" is
concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The
prosecution need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man, not the
exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial. (Century Chinese
Medicine Co., et al. vs. People of the Philippines and Ling Na Lau, GR No.
188526, November 22, 2013)
5.4.5. Review
Principle of non-interference in the review of the DOJ Secretary
In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of
Appeals in line with the principle of non-interference with the prerogative of
the Secretary of Justice to review the resolutions of the public prosecutor in
the determination of the existence of probable cause. The Secretary of
Justice found sufficient evidence to indict petitioner. It was adequately
established by DBP and found by the Secretary of Justice that the funds
would not have been released pursuant to the subsidiary loan agreement if
HSLBI had no sub-borrowers/Investment Enterprises to speak of. As it turned
out, not only were the collaterals submitted inexistent, all the purported subborrowers/Investment Enterprises were also fictitious and inexistent. In fact,
the signatures of the sub-borrowers and the supporting documents
submitted to DBP by petitioner and her co-respondents were all forged. The
findings of probable cause against petitioner was based on the document
showing that petitioners opinion was instrumental in the deceit committed
against DBP. (Cruz v. Hon. Gonzales, et al, G.R. No. 173844, April 11, 2012)
Non-interference of the court in finding probable cause
prosecutor; Exceptions; Remedy of certiorari under Rule 65
by
Courts of law are precluded from disturbing the findings of public prosecutors and the
DOJ on the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the purpose of filing criminal
information, unless such findings are tainted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction. The rationale behind the general rule rests on the principle of separation of
powers, dictating that the determination of probable cause for the purpose of indicting a suspect
is properly an executive function; while the exception hinges on the limiting principle of checks
and balances, whereby the judiciary, through a special civil action of certiorari, has been tasked
by the present Constitution to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of the Government. (Iris Kristine Balois Alberto vs. CA, GR No. 182130, June 19, 2013)
The rule is that this Court will not interfere in the findings of the DOJ Secretary on the
insufficiency of the evidence presented to establish probable cause unless it is shown that the
questioned acts were done in a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment evidencing a clear
case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of
discretion, thus means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction. The party seeking the writ of certiorari must establish that the DOJ
Secretary exercised his executive power in an arbitrary and despotic manner, by reason of
passion or personal hostility, and the abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as would
amount to an evasion or to a unilateral refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in
contemplation of law. (Rosalinda Punzalan vs. Michael Plata, GR No. 160316, September 2,
2013)
We have consistently held in jurisprudence that the resolution of such a factual question
is best left to the sound judgment of the trial court, and that, absent any misapprehension of facts
or grave abuse of discretion, the findings of the trial court shall not be dismissed. (People of the
Philippines vs. Marcelino Dadao, et al., GR No. 201860, January 22, 2014)
(1) dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly failed to establish probable cause;
(2) issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause; and
(3) order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five days
from notice in case of doubt as to the existence of probable cause. (People
vs. Hon. Dela Torre-Yadao, G.R.
5.4.7. Cases not requiring a preliminary investigation
Sec. 9, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides
for a situation where preliminary investigation is not required. It states that:
Section 9. Cases not requiring a preliminary investigation nor covered
by the Rule on Summary Procedure.
(a)If filed with the prosecutor. If the complaint is filed directly with
the prosecutor involving an offense punishable by imprisonment of less than
four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, the procedure outlined in
section 3(a) of this Rule shall be observed. The prosecutor shall act on the
complaint based on the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted
by the complainant within ten (10) days from its filing.
(b)If filed with the Municipal Trial Court. If the complaint or
information is filed with the Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court
for an offense covered by this section, the procedure in section 3(a) of this
Rule shall be observed. If within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint
or information, the judge finds no probable cause after personally evaluating
the evidence, or after personally examining in writing and under oath the
complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and
answers, he shall dismiss the same. He may, however, require the
submission of additional evidence, within ten (10) days from notice, to
determine further the existence of probable cause. If the judge still finds no
probable cause despite the additional evidence, he shall, within ten (10) days
from its submission or expiration of said period, dismiss the case. When he
finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment
order if the accused had already been arrested, and hold him for trial.
However, if the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for placing the
accused under custody, he may issue summons instead of a warrant of
arrest.
5.4.8. Remedies of accused if there was no preliminary
investigation
Right to Bail Pending Preliminary Investigation
A person lawfully arrested may post bail before the filing of the
information or even after the filing without waiving his right to PI, provided
that he asks for a PI by the proper officer within the period fixed in the said
rule. (People v. Court of Appeals, May 29, 1995).
Remedies of the accused in case of denial of his right to preliminary
investigation: Waiver
a)The accused who is denied the mandatory preliminary investigation
may refuse to enter a plea upon arraignment and to object to the
continuation of further proceedings based on lack of preliminary
investigation. If he pleads without objection, he cannot raise the issue on
appeal. (People vs. Mabuyo, 63 SCRA 532; People vs. Lazo; 198 SCRA 274)
b) Although it is entirely possible that the investigating fiscal may
erroneously exercise the discretion and annulment by the extraordinary
remedy of certiorari, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess of jurisdiction. (Hegerty vs. Court of Appeals, 409 SCRA
285 [2003])
Habeas Corpus not proper remedy in case of denial of preliminary
investigation: Remedies available
a)A petition for habeas corpus is not a proper remedy if the accused
was not accorded preliminary investigation which he did not waive. The
remedy is a motion to quash the warrant of arrest and/or information or to
ask for an investigation/re-investigation of the case. (Ilagan vs. Enrile 139
SCRA; Paredes vs. Sandiganbayan, 193 SCRA 464)
5.4.9. Inquest
A preliminary investigation is a proceeding distinct from an inquest. A
preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether
there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be
held for trial. An inquest is a summary inquiry conducted by a prosecutor
for the purpose of determining whether the warrantless arrest of a person
was based on probable cause. (Imelda S. Enriquez vs. Olegario R.
Sarmiento, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-06-2011, August 7, 2006)
5.5. Arrest
Arrest is defined under Sec. 1, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure as:
Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be
bound to answer for the commission of an offense.
Warrantless search
The following searches and seizures are deemed permissible by
jurisprudence: (1) search of moving vehicles (2) seizure in plain view (3)
customs searches (4) waiver or consent searches (5) stop and frisk situations
(Terry Search) and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last includes a
valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless
arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with
a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court recognize permissible
warrantless arrests, to wit: (1) arrests in flagrante delicto, (2) arrests effected
in hot pursuit, and, (3) arrests of escaped prisoners. (Valdez vs. People)
5.5.3. Method of arrest
By officer without warrant
A person may be arrested lawfully even without a warrant of arrest,
under any of the circumstances provided under Section 5, Rule 113 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure:
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
a.When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
b.When an offense has just been committed and he has probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that
the person to be arrested has committed it; and
c.When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police
station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of
Rule 112.
Circumstances in a valid warrantless arrest:
An arrest made during the commission of a crime does not require a
warrant. Such warrantless arrest is considered reasonable and valid under
Rule 113, section 5(a) of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. In the
instant case, contrary to accused-appellants contention, there was indeed a
valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto. Consider the circumstances
immediately prior to and surrounding the arrest of accused-appellants: (1)
the police officers received information from an operative about an ongoing
shipment of contraband; (2) the police officers, with the operative,
proceeded to Villa Vicenta Resort in Barangay Bignay II, Sariaya, Quezon; (3)
they observed the goings-on at the resort from a distance of around 50
meters; and (4) they spotted the six accused-appellants loading transparent
bags containing a white substance into a white L-300 van. Evidently, the
arresting police officers had probable cause to suspect that accusedappellants were loading and transporting contraband, more so when Hwan,
upon being accosted, readily mentioned that they were loading shabu and
pointed to Tan as their leader. Thus, the arrest of accused-appellants who
were caught in flagrante delicto of possessing, and in the act of loading into
a white L-300 van, shabu, a prohibited drug under RA 6425, as amended is
valid. (People of the Philippines vs. Ng Yik bun, et al, G.R. No. 180452.
January 10, 2010.)
Warrantless arrest by private person: Citizen arrest
Moreover, Section 5, par. (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure authorizes a warrantless arrest, otherwise called a citizens
arrest when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense. Thus, although
officially assigned in Baguio City, Lt. Anchetas act of arresting accusedappellant (after the latter offered to sell him marijuana in San Fernando, La
Union) is justified, not only because it is his duty as a law enforcer but also
by Section 5 of Rule 113, which authorizes instances of warrantless arrest or
citizens arrests. (People of the Philippines vs. Jose Rayray Areola, 241 SCRA
1)
A private person may effect an arrest under any of the circumstances
provided under Section 9,
Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. It states that:
Section. 9. Method of arrest by private person. When making an
arrest, a private person shall inform the person to be arrested of the
intention to arrest him and the cause of the arrest, unless the latter is either
engaged in the commission of an offense, is pursued immediately after its
commission, or has escaped, flees, or forcibly resists before the person
making the arrest has opportunity to so inform him, or when the giving of
such information will imperil the arrest. (Emphasis supplied)
5.5.4. Requisites of a valid warrant of arrest
with a violation of the Articles of War. (Aswat v. Galido, 204 SCRA 205)
When a matter of discretion?
Section 5. Bail, when discretionary. Upon conviction by the Regional Trial
Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The application for bail may
be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of
appeal, provided it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate
court. However, if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused
changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the
application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court.
Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to
continue on provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the
same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman.
Exceptions to the grant of discretionary bail
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six
(6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon
a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or
other similar circumstances:
a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has
committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
b)That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence,
or violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification;
c)That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or
conditional pardon;
d)That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if
released on bail; or
e)That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the
pendency of the appeal.
Power of the appellate court to review
The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, review the
resolution of the Regional Trial Court after notice to the adverse party in
either case.
bail bond for the accused. For this act alone, respondent is already
administratively liable. Section 14, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure specifies the persons with whom a cash bail bond may be
deposited, namely: the collector of internal revenue or the provincial, city or
municipal treasurer. A judge is not authorized to receive the deposit of cash
as bail nor should such cash be kept in his office. (TRINIDAD LACHICA V
JUDGE ROSABELLATORMIS)
Conduct of hearing on bail discretionary
The matter of whether or not to conduct a joint hearing of two or more
petitions for bail filed by two different accused or to conduct a hearing of
said petition jointly with the trial against another accused is addressed to the
sound discretion of the trial court.
Unless grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction is shown, the Court will not
interfere with the exercise by the SB of its discretion (SERAPIO V.
SANDIGANBAYAN)
5.6.5. Guidelines in Recognizancel
The following are cases where the court may order the release
onrecognizance of any person under detention
a. when the offense charged is for violation of an ordinance, a light, or
a criminal offense, the imposable penalty of which does not exceed 6 months
imprisonment and/or P2000 fine, under the circumstances provided in RA No.
6036
b. where a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more
than the minimum of the imposable principal penalty, without application of
the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying circumstance, in which
case the court, in its discretion, may allow his release on his own
recognizance
c. where the accused has applied for probation, pending resolution of
the case but no bail was filed or the accused is incapable of filing one d. in
case of a youthful offender held for physical and mental examination, trial, or
appeal, if he is unable to furnish bail and under circumstances envisaged in
PD No. 603 as amended. (Espiritu v. Jovellanos, A.M. No. MTJ-97-1139 (1997)
5.6.6. Bail when not required
Instances when bail is no longer required
No bail shall be required in the following instances, to wit:
they shall be prima facie evidence of the existence of guilt of the accused
and shift the burden of proof provided there be a rational connection
between the facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed so that the
inference of the one from proof of the other is not unreasonable and arbitrary
experience. People v. Mingoa, 92 Phil 856 (1953)
An accused may not be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly
charged in the complaint or information. To convict him of an offense other
than that charged in the complaint or information would be a violation of this
constitutional right. People v. Ortega, 276 SCRA 166 (2003)
The accused may waive his right to be present during the trial. However, his
presence may be compelled when he is to be identified. Aquino, Jr. v. Military
Commission, 63 SCRA 546 (1975)
Right to a speedy trial peculiarly a criminal concept
It must be clarified right off that the right to a speedy disposition of case and the
accused's right to a speedy trial are distinct, albeit kindred, guarantees, the most obvious
difference being that a speedy disposition of cases, as provided in Article III, Section 16 of the
Constitution, obtains regardless of the nature of the case:
Section 16 All persons shall have the right to speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
In fine, the right to a speedy trial is available only to an accused and is a peculiarly
criminal law concept, while the broader right to a speedy disposition of cases may be tapped in
any proceedings conducted by stage agencies. (Danilo Ursua vs. Republic of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 178193, January 24, 2012)
5.7.1. Rights of accused at the trial
An escapee who has been duly tried in absentia waives his right to
present evidence on his own behalf and to confront and cross-examine
witnesses that have testified against him. Gimenez v. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 1
(1988)
Non-appearance of the accused on the hearing constitute a waiver
Non appearance of an accused on a day set for hearing would result to
the waiver of his right to present evidence only for the particular day or
until he has appeared for hearing. There is no reason for the
Sandiganbayan to totally foreclose Crisostomos right to present evidence
merely on an absence of 1 day in view of (1) the provision just cited and (2)
the fact that Crisostomo may possibly face a death sentence. Given the
gravity of the penalty, it behooved the Sandiganbayan to have given
Crisostomo the opportunity to present evidence. Besides, this was the only
time Crisostomo absented himself as he was always faithful present during
Arraignment is the formal mode and manner of implementing the constitutional right of
an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The purpose of
arraignment is, thus, to apprise the accused of the possible loss of freedom, even of his life,
depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him, or at the very least to inform him of why
the prosecuting arm of the State is mobilized against him. As an indispensable requirement of
due process, and arraignment cannot be regarded lightly or brushed aside peremptorily.
Otherwise, absence of arraignment results in the nullity of the proceedings before the trial court.
(Estrella Taglay vs. Judge Marivic Daray, G.R. No. 164258, August 22, 2012)
Arraignment and plea, how made?
The following rules shall be observed in the conduct of arraignment
and plea of the accused in criminal proceedings:
a) The accused must be arraigned before the court where the
complaint or information was filed or assigned for trial. The arraignment shall
be made in open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused with a
copy of the complaint or information, reading the same in the language or
dialect known to him, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty.
The prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than those named in
the complaint or information.
b) The accused must be present at the arraignment and must
personally enter his plea. Both arraignment and plea shall be made of record,
but failure to do so shall not affect the validity of the proceedings.
c)When the accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea, a
plea of not guilty shall be entered for him.
d)When the accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory
evidence, his plea shall be deemed withdrawn and a plea of not guilty shall
be entered for him.
e)When the accused is under preventive detention, his case shall
be raffled and its records transmitted to the judge to whom the case was
raffled within three (3) days from the filing of the information or complaint.
The accused shall be arraigned within ten (10) days from the date of the
raffle. The pre-trial conference of his case shall be held within ten (10) days
after arraignment.
f) The private offended party shall be required to appear at the
arraignment for purposes of plea bargaining, determination of civil liability,
and other matters requiring his presence. In case of failure of the offended
party to appear despite due notice, the court may allow the accused to enter
a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the
offense charged with the conformity of the trial prosecutor alone.
(3) to inquire whether or not the accused wishes to present evidence in his behalf and
allow him to do so if he desires.
Rationale
The rationale behind the rule is that the courts must proceed with more care where the
possible punishment is in its severest form, namely death, for the reason that the execution of
such a sentence is irreversible.
Primordial purpose
The primordial purpose is to avoid improvident pleas of guilt on the part of an accused
where grave crimes are involved since he might be admitting his guilt before the court and thus
forfeiting his life and liberty without having fully understood the meaning, significance and
consequence of his plea.
Taking of further evidence as requirement
Moreover, the requirement of taking further evidence would aid this Court on appellate
review in determining the propriety or impropriety of the plea.
Anent the first requisite, the searching inquiry determines whether the plea of guilt was
based on a free and informed judgement. The inquiry must focus on the voluntariness of the plea
and the full comprehension of the consequences of the plea. This Court finds no cogent reason
for deviating from the guidelines provided by jurisprudence and thus, adopts the same.
Although there is no definite and concrete rule as to how a trial judge must conduct a
searching inquiry, we have held that the following guidelines should be observed:
1. Ascertain from the accused himself
(a) how he was brought into the custody of the law;
(b) whether he had the assistance of a competent counsel during the custodial and
preliminary investigations; and
(c) under what conditions he was detained and interrogated during the investigations.
This is intended to rule out the possibility that the accused has been coerced or placed under a
state of duress either by actual threats of physical harm coming from malevolent quarters or
simply because of the judges intimidating robes.
2. Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether he had conferred with, and
completely explained to, the accused the meaning and consequences of a plea of guilty.
3. Elicit information about the personality profile of the accused, such as his age, socioeconomic status, and educational background, which may serve as a trustworthy index of his
capacity to give a free and informed plea of guilty.
4. Inform the accused the exact length of imprisonment or nature of the penalty under the
law and the certainty that he will serve such sentence. For not infrequently, an accused pleads
guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment or upon bad advice or because of promises of the
authorities or parties of a lighter penalty should he admit guilt or express remorse. It is the duty
of the judge to ensure that the accused does not labor under these mistaken impressions because
a plea of guilty carries with it not only the admission of authorship of the crime proper but also
of the aggravating circumstances attending it, that increase punishment.
5. Inquire if the accused knows the crime with which he is charged and fully explain to
him the elements of the crime which is the basis of his indictment. Failure of the court to do so
would constitute a violation of his fundamental right to be informed of the precise nature of the
accusation against him and a denial of his right to due process.
6. All questions posed to the accused should be in a language known and understood by
the latter.
7. The trial judge must satisfy himself that the accused, in pleading guilty, is truly guilty.
The accused must be required to narrate the tragedy or reenact the crime or furnish its missing
details.
As a general rule, convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside and the
cases are remanded for further proceedings if such plea is the sole basis of judgement. If the trial
court, however, relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused, as it did in this
case, the conviction must be sustained, because then it is predicated not merely on the guilty plea
but on evidence proving the commission of the offense charged.
The manner by which the plea of guilty is made, whether improvidently or not, loses
legal significance where the conviction can be based on independent evidence proving the
commission of the crime by the accused. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HALIL
GAMBAO y ESMAIL, EDDIEKARIM y USO, EDWIN DUKILMAN y SUBOH, TONY ABAO y
SULA, RAUL UDAL y KAGUI, THENG DILANGALEN y NANDING, JAMAN MACALINBOL y
KATOL, MONETTE RONAS y AMPIL, NORA EVAD y MULOK, THIAN PERPENIAN y RAFON
a.k.a LARINA PERPENIAN and JOHNDOES, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013)
Searching inquiry
Anent the first requisite, the searching inquiry determines whether the
plea of guilt was based on a free and informed judgement. The inquiry must
focus on the voluntariness of the plea and the full comprehension of the
consequences of the plea. This Court finds no cogent reason for deviating
from the guidelines provided by jurisprudence and thus, adopts the same.
Although there is no definite and concrete rule as to how a trial judge
must conduct a searching inquiry, we have held that the following
guidelines should be observed:
b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
offense charged;
c)That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
person of the accused;
d) That the officer
authority to do so;
who
filed
the
information
had
no
criminal
action
or
liability
if
has
true,
been
would
a.Issue and order which contains the plea bargaining arrived at;
b.Proceed to receive evidence on the civil aspect of the case; and
c.Render and promulgate judgment of conviction, including the civil
liability or damages duly established by the evidence. (Sec. 5, B)
5.10.3. Pre-trial agreement
Section 2. Pre-trial agreement. All agreements or admissions made
or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and
signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against
the accused. The agreements covering the matters referred to in section 1 of
this Rule shall be approved by the court.
Non-appearance during pre-trial
The court may sanction or penalize counsel for the accused if the following concur : (1)
counsel does not appear at the pre-trial conference AND (2) counsel does not offer an acceptable
excuse. (Atty.Emelita Garayblas & Atty. Renato G. Dela Cruz, Vs. Hon. Gregory Ong. Et Al,M
G.R. Nos. 174507-30, August 3, 2011)
5.10.5. Pre-trial order
The trial judge shall issue a Pre-trial Order within ten (10) days after
the termination of the pre-trial setting forth the actions taken during the pretrial conference, the facts stipulated, the admissions made, evidence
marked, the number of witnesses to be presented and the schedule of trial.
Said Order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of
and control the course of the action during the trial. (As amended. A.M. No.
03-1-09 SC) [Sec. 10, B]
5.10.6. Referral of some cases for court annexed mediation and
judicial dispute resolution
Criminal cases which are mediation-able under the court annexed
mediation
To overcome the problem, the Supreme Court in 2001 authorized the
use of court-annexed mediation (CAM) as a form of alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) for the following in criminal cases:
a. The civil aspect or claim for damages for violation of B.P. 22 (bouncing
checks)
b. Simple theft
c. Libel
d. Estafa
Offenses not mediatable
However, (a) acts of violence against women and their children; (b)
criminal violation of tax laws; and (c) civil forfeiture under the Anti Money
Laundering Law (R.A. No. 9160) cannot be referred to mediation. The
prohibition for compromise extends to (d) civil status of persons; (e) validity
of marriage; (f) legal separation (counselling is more appropriate), (g) ground
for legal separation; (h) future support; (i) legitime; and (j) jurisdiction.
5.11. Trial
Is hearing and trial the same?
A hearing does not necessarily imply the presentation of oral or
documentary evidence in open court but that the parties are afforded an
opportunity to be heard. Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 416 SCRA 133 (2003)
Time limit of trial
Time limit within which trial must commence after arraignment see
Sec. 6 Rule 119, ROC
The time limit with respect to the period from arraignment to trial
shall be 80 days. SC ruled that 111 days have elapsed from the time the
accused were arraigned on June 15, 2001 up to the filing of their Motion to
Dismiss on October 4, 2001.
When is the right violated?
The right is violated only when the proceeding is attended by
vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays. SC held here that the
cancellation of hearings by the prosecution w/o any valid ground is certainly
vexatious, capricious and oppressive. A dismissal by the court based on this
ground is not tantamount to GADLEJ. (PEOPLE vs. JUDGE HERNANDEZ (Pasig
RTC), ATTY. SALAYON and ATTY. LLORENTE (2006)_
5.11.1. Instances when presence of accused is required by law
5.11.2. Requisite before trial can be suspended on account of
absence of witness
5.11.3. Trial in absentia
The purpose of trial in absentia is to speed up the disposition of
with it the extinguishment of the civil liability of the accused. Section 2(b) of
the same Rule, also quoted earlier, provided in part: (b) Extinction of the
penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the
extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from
which the civil might arise did not exist. NICDAO VS CHING
5.12.1. Requisites of a judgment
What is judgment?
Section 1, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure defines
and sets forth the requirements for a valid judgment:
Section 1. Judgment; definition and form. Judgment is the
adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty of the
offense charged and the imposition on him of the proper penalty and civil
liability, if any. It must be written in the official language, personally and
directly prepared by the judge and signed by him and shall contain clearly
and distinctly a statement of the facts and law upon which it is based.
Requirements for a valid judgment
Thus, a judgment, to be valid, must have been personally and directly
prepared by the judge, and duly signed by him. Corollarily, a decision or
resolution of the court becomes such, for all legal intents and purposes, only
from the moment of its promulgation. Promulgation of judgment, in turn,
signifies that on the date it was made, the judge or judges who signed the
decision continued to support it. If at the time of the promulgation, a judge or
member of a collegiate court has already vacated his office, his vote is
automatically withdrawn. In criminal cases, promulgation of judgment is
made by reading it in the presence of the accused and any judge of the court
in which it was rendered. Judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court
only when the judge is absent or outside the province or city.
Effects of death of the judge who penned the judgment
It is clear then, that a judge who takes over the sala of another judge
who died during office cannot validly promulgate a decision penned by the
latter. In fact, decisions promulgated after the judge who penned the same
had been appointed to and qualified in another office are null and void. To be
binding, a judgment must be duly signed and promulgated during the
incumbency of the judge whose signature appears thereon. In single courts
like the regional trial courts and the municipal trial courts, a decision may no
longer be promulgated after the ponente has vacated his office.
The respondent judge cannot, likewise, claim that his only participation
Fresh period to appeal after denial of the Motion for new trial or
reconsideration
In Neypes vs CA., the court allowed a fresh period of 15 days within
which to file a notice of appeal in the RTC, counted from receipt of the order
dismissing or denying a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration.
SUMIRAN VS SPOUSES DAMASO
What is the fresh period rule?
The fresh period rule is a procedural law as it prescribes a fresh
period of 15 days within which an appeal may be made in the event that the
motion for reconsideration is denied by the lower court. Following the rule on
retroactivity of procedural laws, the fresh period rule should be applied to
pending actions. SUMIRAN VS SPOUSES DAMASO
Grounds for a Motion for Reconsideration
Sec. 3, Rule 121 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure sets forth the
grounds for the reconsideration of the judgment in a criminal proceedings. It
provides that:
Sec. 3. Ground for reconsideration. The court shall grant reconsideration
on the ground of errors of law or fact in the judgment which requires no
further proceedings.
5.14. Appeal
What is Appeal?
An appeal is a proceeding undertaken to have a decision reconsidered
by bringing it to a higher court authority. It is not a right but a mere statutory
privilege to be exercised only and in the manner and in accordance with the
provisions of law. PEOPLE v. ABON
Review jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals
However, the escape of the accused-appellant did not preclude the
Court of Appeals from exercising its review jurisdiction, considering that what
was involved was capital punishment. Automatic review being mandatory, it
is not only a power of the court but a duty to review all death penalty cases.
PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO TARUC
Appeal as a Statutory Right; Relaxation of the Rule
Section 6, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for the period
when an appeal from a judgment or final order in a criminal case should be taken, viz:
Sec. 6. When appeal to be taken. An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days
from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from. This
period for perfecting an appeal shall be suspended from the time a motion for new trial or
reconsideration is filed until notice of the order overruling the motions has been served upon the
accused or his counsel at which time the balance of the period begins
to run.
In this case, the judgment convicting the petitioner of the crime of Estafa was
promulgated on March 25, 2009. Instead of filing a notice of appeal within fifteen (15) days from
the promulgation or notice of judgment, the petitioner filed with the RTC a motion to lift warrant
of arrest and to reinstate bail bond three (3) months later. It was only in November 2010 or more
than a year later since the RTC denied her motion that the petitioner filed with the CA her motion
to admit notice of appeal. At that point, her judgment of conviction has already attained finality
and cannot be modified or set aside anymore in accordance with Section 7, Rule 120 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The Court has already stressed that the right to appeal is not a natural right and is not
part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in accordance
with the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the
Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.
Grounds for relaxation of the period to appeal
In exceptional cases, the Court has in fact relaxed the period for perfecting an appeal on
grounds of substantial justice or when there are other special and meritorious circumstances
and issues.
Thus, in Remulla v. Manlongat, the Court considered the one-day late filing of the
prosecutions notice of appeal as excusable given the diligent efforts exerted by the private
prosecutor in following up its filing with the public prosecutor.(ANITA RAMIREZ vs. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 197832, October 2, 2013)
5.14.1. Effect of an appeal
Only judgments of conviction can be reviewed in an ordinary appeal or
a Rule 45 petition. As explained by the Supreme Court in People v. Nazareno,
the constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy proscribes
appeals of judgments of acquittal through the remedies of ordinary appeal
and a Rule 45 petition. However, the rule against double jeopardy
cannot be properly invoked in a Rule 65 petition, predicated on two (2)
exceptional grounds, namely: in a judgment of acquittal rendered with grave
abuse of discretion by the court; and where the prosecution had been
deprived of due process. The rule against double jeopardy does not apply in
these instances because a Rule 65 petition does not involve a review of facts
and law on the merits in the manner done in an appeal. In certiorari
proceedings, judicial review does not examine and assess the evidence of
the parties nor weigh the probative value of the evidence. It does not include
an inquiry on the correctness of the evaluation of the evidence. A review
under Rule 65 only asks the question of whether there has been a validly
rendered decision, not the question of whether the decision is legally correct.
In other words, the focus of the review is to determine whether the judgment
is per se void on jurisdictional grounds. (Arnold James M. Ysidoro v. Hon.
Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro, et al, G.R. No. 171513, February 6, 2012)
Applying these legal concepts to this case, the Supreme Court found
that, while the People was procedurally correct in filing its petition for
certiorari under Rule 65, the petition does not raise any jurisdictional error
committed by the Sandiganbayan. On the contrary, what is clear is the
obvious attempt by the People to have the evidence in the case reviewed by
the Court under the guise of a Rule 65 petition. This much can be deduced
by examining the petition itself which does not allege any bias, partiality or
bad faith committed by the Sandiganbayan in its proceedings. The petition
does not also raise any denial of the Peoples due process in the proceedings
before the Sandiganbayan. It was also observed by the Supreme Court that
the grounds relied in the petition relate to factual errors of judgment which
are more appropriate in an ordinary appeal rather than in a Rule 65 petition.
The grounds cited in the petition call for the Courts own appreciation of the
factual findings of the Sandiganbayan on the sufficiency of the Peoples
evidence in proving the element of bad faith, and the sufficiency of the
evidence denying productivity bonus to Doller. (Arnold James M. Ysidoro v.
Hon. Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro, et al, G.R. No. 171513, February 6,
2012.)
5.14.2. Where to appeal
Intermediate review of the CA of cases involving death penalty
At the outset, the Court notes that these cases were elevated to Us on automatic review in
view of the RTC's imposition of the death penalty upon appellant in its June 25, 1997 Decision.
However, with the Court's pronouncement in the 2004 case of People vs. Mateo, providing for
and making mandatory the intermediate review by the CA of cases involving the death penalty,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the proper course of action would be to remand these
cases to the appellate court for the conduct of an intermediate review.(People of the Philippines
vs. Val Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 130714 & 139634, October 16, 2012)
5.14.3. How appeal taken
Sec. 3. How appeal taken. (a) The appeal to the Regional Trial Court, or to the Court of
Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction,
shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final
order appealed from and by serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.
(b) The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review under Rule 42.
(c) The appeal to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed by the Regional
Trial Court is reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, or where a lesser penalty is imposed but
for offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence that
gave rise to the more serious offense for which the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment is imposed, shall be by filing a notice of appeal in accordance with paragraph (a)
of this section.
(d) No notice of appeal is necessary in cases where the death penalty is imposed by the
Regional Trial Court. The same shall be automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court as
provided in section 10 of this Rule.
Except as provided in the last paragraph of section 13, Rule 124, all other appeals to the
Supreme Court shall be by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
5.14.4. Effect of appeal by any of several accused
Petitioner likewise erred in contending that Section 8, Rule 124 of the
Rules of Court prohibits the dismissal of the certiorari petition when appellant
is represented by a counsel de oficio. First, said provision only refers to
dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. Second, the
dismissal of the appeal is conditioned on the appellant's failure to file a brief.
An appellant's brief is a pleading filed in an ordinary appeal. Clearly, Section
8 contemplates an ordinary appeal filed before the Court of Appeals. DEUS V.
PEOPLE
5.14.5. Grounds for dismissal of appeal
5.15. Search and seizure
Where a search warrant is issued by one court and the criminal action
based on the results of the search is afterwards commenced in another
court, a motion to quash the warrant/to retrieve things thereunder seized
may be filed for the first time in either the issuing court or that in which the
property is unessential. The said rule [Sec. 2, Rule 126] does not require that
the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom the
search warrant is directed. It may or may not be owned by him. As provided,
under sub-section (b) of the above-quoted Section 2, one of the properties
that may be owned by one other than the person in whose possession it may
be at the time of search and seizure. Ownership, therefore, is of no
consequence, and it is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is
directed has control or possession of the property sought to be seized, as
petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. was alleged to have in relation to the articles and
property seized under the warrants.
5.15.8. Exceptions to search warrant requirement
To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5 of Rule 113, two
requisites must concur:
(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
(2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. (Ambre vs.
People, G.R. No. 191532, August 15, 2012)
a) Search incidental to lawful arrest
Sec. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person lawfully arrested may be searched
for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense without a search warrant.
b) Consented search
Determination of Voluntary Consent to a Search
Whether consent to the search was in fact voluntary is a question of fact to be determined
from the totality of all the circumstances. Relevant to this determination are the following
characteristics of the person giving consent and the environment in which consent is given:
(1) the age of the defendant;
(2) whether the defendant was in a public or a secluded location;
(3) whether the defendant objected to the search or passively looked on;
(4) the education and intelligence of the defendant;
(5) the presence of coercive police procedures;
(6) the defendants belief that no incriminating evidence would be found;
(7) the nature of the police questioning;
(8) the environment in which the questioning took place; and
(9) the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person consenting. It is the State that
has the burden of proving, by clear and positive testimony, that the necessary consent was
obtained, and was freely and voluntarily given. In this case, all that was alleged was that
petitioner was alone at the police station at three in the morning, accompanied by several police
officers. These circumstances weigh heavily against a finding of valid consent to a warrantless
search.(Luz vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012)
c) Search of moving vehicle
d) Check points; body checks in airport
Airport Frisking
Persons may lose the protection if the search and seizure clause by
exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a
lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is
prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport
security procedures. With increased concern about airplane high jacking and
terrorism has come increased security at the nations airports. Passengers
attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors; their
carry-on baggage as well as checked luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray
scans. Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious objects,
physical searches are conducted to determine what the objects are. There is
little question that such searches are reasonable, given their minimal
intrusiveness, the gravity of safety interests involved, and the reduced
privacy expectations associated with airline travel. (People of the Philippines
vs. Hadji Socor Cadidia, GR No. 191263, October 16, 2013)
e) Plain view situation
Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an officer, who has a
right to be in the position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be presented as
evidence. It applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in
search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he
can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c)
it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an
initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the
course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating
the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand, and its discovery inadvertent. (Elenita C.
Fajardo vs. People of the Philippines., G.R. No. 190889, January 10, 2011)
f) Stop and frisk situation
g) Enforcement of custom laws