Cri Azarcon vs.
Sandiganbayan – Cannot be brought
min
al
Pro
ced
ure
Separation of jurisdiction of each court in
criminal proceedings
What do you think of the basis of the separation?
Gravity of the offenses.
For example, RTC. Basis for jurisdiction of the
RTC? Is there such a thing as exclusive
jurisdiction or is there an overlap? No
concurrency because it would become appellate.
RTC has exclusive jurisdiction over matters that
other courts do not have jurisdiction over.
Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction
Is all offenses committed by public officials in
performance of their official functions are
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan? No. See
outline.
RA3019 - Those specific laws, specific officers.
If they do not violate RA3019, but is an offense
under RPC and during the performance of their
official function. See Sanchez case where Mayor
committed rape but was ruled not in its official
function.
EO1 and 2 – For recovery of ill-gotten wealth.
May not be a public official. This is for
sequestration, recovery. Thus, may be a private
individual.
Sanchez vs. Demetriou
MTQ vs. MTD – MTQ only pertains to allegations
of the information
People vs. Sandiganbayan – In filing an
information, look at the law at the time of the
institution of the action. Not the commission of
the offense.
Why not at the time of commission? Court has no
jurisdiction over the person yet. So, how do you
separate the 2? Jurisdiction is conferred by law.
Commission of the offense only determines the
nature of jurisdiction.
to the Sandiganbayan. He must be with a person
who is a public official that is also brought to the
Sandiganbayan as a co-principal, accomplice,
accessory.
It’s the nature of the functions that determines
the position whether it is a public officer. Not the
pay, name of the position.
GR: Rule 111 – Automatic institution of the ex
delicto civil case with the criminal case.
XPN: Reservation
Prior institution
Waiver
Billedo vs. Wagan – Sandiganbayan treats it
differently from Rule 111. Here, SC allowed the
filing of the civil case with the Sandiganbayan
even after the dismissal of the criminal case.
Note: Always follow the delict.
For you to institute a civil case, there must be an
existing criminllllal action. Otherwise, no more
basis and cannot file it anymore in the
Sandiganbayan. But you can file it in the regular
courts.
Complainants can forfeit but not reserve. This is
what the law provides. The civil case that is filed
in the regular courts will be transferred to the
Sandiganbayan. That is, if you want to pursue it.
But if not, you can suspend with the regular
courts and not pursue it.
Trenas vs. Sandiganbayan
People vs. Taroy
Union Bank vs. People – For a court to exercise
jurisdiction, 3 things must concur: Must have
jurisdiction over the subject matter (Conferred by
law), territory (Information determines this), and
the person of the accused (When he is arraigned.
Differentiate it from arrest as custody of the law
from jurisdiction of the court as arraigned).
Rule 110 – Prosecution of offenses
What does it mean? It talks about how offenses
are criminally tried and initiated.
How initiated? It depends if it requires PI or
inquest.
It PI mandatory? For certain cases, yes. Note 421:
4 years, 2 months, 1 day.
When you say mandatory, if not conducted,
void? No. Any criminal ruling, despite absence of
the mandatory PI, ruling is still valid.
Who can institute a criminal proceeding? OP,
peace officer, officer charged with the
enforcement of the law.
Who is the OP? One who has connection with the
victim or is prejudiced. Trace some basis.
And when is it deemed instituted?
Is a private complainant a party to a criminal
case? No. Just a witness.
Inquest – Informal determination of WON a
crime has occurred.
PI vs. Inquest – Both, in purpose and direction.
are geared to establish probable cause. But where
lies the difference? Inquest involves probable
cause on the warrantless arrest. Why? You cannot
detain the arrestee for so long. PI is for warranted
arrest or no arrest.
While their purpose is the same, they are not the
same.
Francisco vs. CA – In filing the complaint, it will
toll the running of the prescriptive period.
Why not reckoned on the filing of the
information? Because that is when the offender
will take action.
Republic vs. Cojuangco
Sec. 3 – What must be in the complaint? How
about the name? Need not specific if not known.
How about date? If material, be specific. Why?
Because it would be an essential element of the
crime. If not material, need not be exact.
Sec. 4 - How about information? Filed by the
prosecutor.
People vs. Valdez – When a circumstance is not
included in the information, even if evidence was
presented, it will not be given any evidentiary
value.
People vs. Asilan
Where do you file your complaint? It depends. If
regular courts, city prosecutor or DOJ. If
Sandiganbayan, Ombudsman. Does it matter if PI
is conducted? Yes. Because if PI is conducted by
the wrong office, and he files it, it is quashable on
jurisdictional defect.
People vs. Grey
Sec. 5 – Who must prosecute? Prosecutor
What does prosecute mean? File the information,
charge the accused
Metrobank vs. Reynado – Court cannot substitute
its judicial function to the prosecutor’s executive
function on finding PC.
When PC is found, and proper basis for inclusion
for respondents is found, it is correctible by
mandamus. It becomes a duty of the prosecutor
to include them. Not anymore discretionary.
People vs. Dollano – Prosecutor loses control of
the case after the information is filed with the
court.
Crespo vs. Mogul
PI/Inquest - Starts the whole criminal
proceedings
|
|
| Executive’s control – Decides whether to file
the case, what case, who is/are the accused, etc.
|
|
Filing of Complaint/Information – Demarcation
of control between Executive agencies and
Judicial agencies
|
|
| Judicial’s control -
|
|
Conviction/Acquittal – Ends the criminal
proceedings
If prosecution wants to drop C from the
Information against ABC after the filing of the
Information, file motion to withdraw. But it’s the
Court who decides already whether to drop C or
not.
Why is a MTQ not a remedy against finding PC?
It’s a judicial remedy. A MTQ is a remedy against
the Info. It’s against the non-transferability of
functions as per Crespo doctrine. It’s Pet.Rev.
which is an Administrative remedy.
But why is the SOJ still allowed to entertain
Pet.Rev. despite the fact that it cannot influence
the Court anyway? Whatever SOJ rules on, this is
still subject to the Court’s discretion.
Note – When case is with the SOJ already,
question is whether the finding of PC is correct or
not.
What can take place within the control of the
Court? What if prosecution charged the wrong
offense? It’s still the Court that decides.
How about the judicial probable cause?
GR: Public prosecutor handles the public
prosecution
XPN: Private prosecutor can be authorized by the
public prosecutor, if there’s private interest
involved. But it’s not all the time. It’s still the
public prosecutor. Thus, apply the 2 grounds
(Heavy work schedule, lack of public prosecutor)
in Sec. 5 Rule 110 in relation to the prosecution of
the private interest.
Sec. 8 – Designation of the offense. What is this?
State in the complaint/Information the elements
of the offense.
People vs. Elesterio – Bigger offense charged here
subsumes the lesser crime provided the essential
elements are provided in the Information.
Otherwise, a missing essential element would
result to an acquittal. Basis is right of the accused
to be informed of the accusation against him.
Sec. 13 – Duplicity of offense
Can you be convicted of a duplicitous offense?
Yes, if the accused did not challenge it.
What’s makes an Information duplicitous? It’s
the allegations of the elements. Thus, if the
Information only says the bounced check, it’s
only a case for BP 22, not BP 22 and estafa. You
must allege deceit, as an element, in the
information to make it duplicitous.
Amendment/Substitution
Is it a matter of choice? No. When is it proper and
not proper?
Before arraignment, amendment is possible with
or without LOC formally and/or substantially.
No prejudice is the basis.
So, to what extent can you amend after
arraignment?
Note – Once you’re arraigned, that’s it. Case runs
within the offense charged. No more re-
arraignment.
When is substitution allowed? Anytime. On what
ground?
Tehankee vs. Madayag
People vs. Casey
Leviste vs. Alameda
Difference between Leviste and Tehankee – The
presence of qualifying circumstances changes the
offense. There was no presence of such in
Tehankee. In Leviste, it changes the nature of the
offense.
Rule 111
Civil action ex delict. Civil liability arising from
delict. This is the one impliedly instituted with
the criminal case.
XPN: (1) When offended party waives it, or (2)
reserves it and file it separately, or (3) it was
priorly filed.
Are all the civil cases priorly filed related to the
criminal case? No. Only if the basis is delict.
What happens then? Suspend civil action priorly
filed. Why? Otherwise, there would be no civil
liability ex delicto that would arise.
What is the ratio for the implied institution rule
of the civil action with the criminal action? RPC
100. Unless the 3 XPNs are present, the civil case
cannot proceed without the criminal case.
Prejudicial question – An issue raised in a civil
action which is intimately connected/related
with the issue of the criminal action and the
resolution of which would be determinative of
the guilt or innocence of the accused in the
criminal action.
Elements:
 1. Previously instituted civil case involves
an issue similar/intimately related to the
issue raised in the subsequent criminal
case; and
2. Resolution of such issue determines WON
the criminal case may proceed.
Issue in criminal case – Guilt or innocence of the
accused.
Ras vs. Rasul – Civil case for double sale is a
prejudicial question to the estafa case.
Can it be the other way around? No. It’s only the
civil case issue that determines the
guilt/innocence of the accused in the criminal
case. Otherwise, any accused would
subsequently file a civil case and raise an issue
that would be intimately related to the criminal
case and result in the suspension of the latter.
Who are the parties in a PI? Complainant,
respondent.
Go vs. CA – PI can be waived on 2 grounds: (1)
Not participating, and (2) being absent. Refuses
to file counter-affidavit, refuses to participate in
PI, was absent in the PI. Here, a PI was conducted
but w/o the presence of Go. Go was constantly
asking for one where he would be present.
Is the presence of respondent necessary in a PI?
No. Then what’s necessary? Can the fiscal find
PC even w/o the respondent participating in the
PI? Yes.
Difference of judicial PC vs executive PC.
Judicial PC requirement – Personal determination
by the judge. For the issuance of a warrant.
Executive PC – Determination by the fiscal. For
the filing of the Complaint/Information.
Probable Cause – Facts and circumstances that
would excite the belief of a reasonable mind that
the person charged was guilty of the crime.
Basis – Evidence presented.
Note - Rules of Evidence are not strictly enforced
in the finding of executive PC. You’re only
determining the probability that an offense has
been committed and it’s the person charged that
committed it.
Prosecutor can solely base probable cause on the
complaint.
What happens in PI? Complaint is filed. Hearing
is conducted. Respondent can file a counter-
affidavit. No direct confrontation takes place.
Parties can just file and direct questions to the
fiscal.
Tamargo vs. Awingan – Res Inter Alios Acta Rule
applies.
Is the quantum of proof the same between PI and
trial is concerned?
Finding of probable cause
Submission of the respondent to the authorities
so that he may be bound to answer the
accusations against him
Arrest
Judicial vs. executive finding of PC – In judicial,
Judge need not personally examine complainant,
witnesses. In executive, fiscal needs to personally
examine them. But they have the same quantum
of proof: Beyond suspicion but not beyond moral
certainty. Proof beyond reasonable doubt comes
in conviction/acquittal.
Yadao – Need not be personal
Alunday – In flagrante delicto arrest was valid.
Sec. 5(a) R113 – Overt act is needed. You cannot
arrest a person in attempting to commit yet.
Hot pursuit – Immediacy does not mean time but
means the lead you are pursuing.
Judge can do 3 things: Issue warrant, dismiss,
require further evidence.
Court should still find PC even if accused is
already arrested and it is WON the case should
still proceed.
Quashal – Attacks Information
People vs. Santiago – Even if the illegal arrest was
properly challenged, case could proceed and
conviction can happen provided it is supported
by evidence.
Sy vs. People – Can’t question illegality of arrest
during appeal. Deemed waived. Do it before
arraignment.
DCC – Immediately after arrest.
Diega vs. CA – In not raising it timely, deemed
waived.
People vs. Racho
People vs. Doria – Information is not enough.
Validity of arrest depends on validity of the
search
People vs. Uyboco – It was not the arresting
officer who had personal knowledge of the
kidnapping. Hot pursuit.
Bail
When does bail become relevant?
Bail no bar rule – Application for bail is no bar to
any rights. Bail is only for provisional liberty.
Rules
As a matter of right
As a matter of discretion
MTC – As a matter of right, regardless of penalty
RTC – Depends on penalty imposed. Where does
discretion lie? Depends on the circumstances
present post-conviction
Leviste vs. CA
People vs Dacudao – Judge granted a bail w/o
notice and hearing.
Bravo vs. De Borja – After conviction, look at
penalty imposed. Before conviction, look at
penalty prescribed by law.
Where to file – You can post bail not only where
case is pending, but also where you are arrested.
But that is if there’s a case. If it’s a warrantless
arrest, any court in the province.
Remedy to denial of application for bail –
Depends. If as a matter of right, mandamus. If
discretionary, 65.
Alawiya vs. CA – Custody of the law vs.
Jurisdiction of the law
What comes first? It can be one before the other
or both. Custody means being
restrained/detained which is different from
jurisdiction of the law by voluntary appearance
or appearance by arrest.
Why differentiate the 2? Bail is only relevant if
there’s custody of the person, not jurisdiction.
Can you post bail before being arrested? Yes. It’s
called pre-emptive bail.
Rule 115
Right to be heard does not mean that the accused
must be actually heard. But that he had been
given the opportunity.
Court must conduct a searching inquiry on
whether the waiver to present evidence was
made knowledgeably and intelligently.
Right to choose counsel – Can you choose a high
priced lawyer despite not having to afford one?
Right against self-incrimination – Where lies the
difference an accused and a witness? When can
these 2 persons invoke the right? Accused can
claim such right even before a question
propounded to him. Witness can only invoke it
when a question is asked on him, not before.
Double Jeopardy – There must have been a 1st
jeopardy and such has been terminated. So, when
will 2nd jeopardy attach?
When is an accused in 1st jeopardy? Charged with
a valid information before a competent court.
Should the 2nd jeopardy be related to the 1st
jeopardy? Not necessarily.
Trial in absentia – Trial in the absence of the
accused. There must be an arraignment, accused
was notified, absence was unjustified. What’s the
basis? Deemed waiver by the accused.
New interpretation of inordinate delay –
Cobarubias ruling. Delaying a proceeding against
the accused for 16 years should be acquitted. If
you’re right to speedy trial is violated, you are
acquitted. Double jeopardy sets in.
It’s the reason of the delay, not number of times
being delayed, that would be considered. It
should be substantial and reasonable to be
considered as acceptable delay.
When can you raise this? In PI? Not yet. If a case
is filed, then you can move to dismiss on such
ground.
There are 2 stages in the Ombudsman, fact-
finding and formal PI. Fact-finding is not part of
PI. You’re not being proceeded against yet.
Rule 116 – Arraignment and ple
When does this take place? After judicial
probable cause is found.
What’s the first thing happens after an
Information is filed? Judicial probable cause
should be found first. Because not all cases need
an issuance of a warrant of arrest.
What takes place during arraignment? Read it in
a dialect the accused wants and known to him.
Court determines first whether accused can
understand the Information.
Then he is read the charges so as to inform him of
the charges against him. Then he pleads whether
or not he’s guilty.
People vs. Alicando
Is a defective arraignment annullable or void?
Void. But it doesn’t get void in trial. Only in
appeal. Then it gets remanded, it voids the entire
proceeding. In other words, it must still be
challenged by the accused.
Plea to a lesser offense – Accused does this. How
does this work?
Is it the accused’s right to plead to a lesser
offense? No. You need the consent of the
offended party and prosecution. Also, the court
still exercises discretion. Where does the
discretion lie? Upon the strength of the evidence
to be presented by the prosecution in order to
prove a conviction. If the court finds that the
evidence of the prosecution can lead to a
conviction, then greater offense can be tried.
Plea to a capital offense – What will happen if
accused pleads guilty? Court must conduct a
searching inquiry. Is there anything more the
court must find out aside from the voluntariness
and comprehension of the accused? Find out if
he’s the real accused or just a fall guy.
Does the plea of guilty, what are you plea-ing
guilty to? Not only to the offense charge, but also
the qualifying circumstances and other
averments stated in the Information. Does it
mean you’re waiving your right to present
evidence? No.
So how do you reconcile it with the plea of
guilty? Accused is allowed to present evidence to
lessen the penalty.
What’s an improvident plea?
People vs. Baharan – Searching inquiry was
defective but there was supporting evidence,
conviction is proper. But if it’s a defective
arraignment, it violates a right, not like defective
searching inquiry.
People vs. De Luna – You cannot have a
conditional plea. What made it conditional here?
Di ko sinasadya. Murder was the charge.
Illegal arrest waived if not raised in arraignment
Rule 117 – Motion to quash
A motion to challenge the insufficiency of the
Information. It seeks dismissal of the case? Not
all the time. How about granting one? Not all the
time. What will happen if it is granted? What will
guide the court in granting one? Court will see if
the Information is repairable. If not, dismiss the
case.
Are you going into the merits of the case? No.
What’s assailed are only the allegations in the
Information.
Are any of the grounds available after
arraignment? No. It would now be a motion to
dismiss. MTQ is no longer available after
arraignment. Why? You have already pleaded to
the Information and accepted the validity of it.
Antone vs. Beronilla - Evidentiary matter –
Unavailable in a MTQ if you’re not assailing the
insufficiency of the Information.
Double Jeopardy
Galzote vs Briones – You cannot resort to
certiorari if MTQ is denied by the court. Ground
was Information was flawed. Is the rule here still
applicable? Yes. If you can show GADALEJ,
Soriano vs People – Is an accused subjected to 2
penalties, subjected to 2 offenses? No. Separate
charges here are DOSRI and estafa.
Rule 119
May an accused be convicted in absentia? Yes.
Arraignment basically connotes that the RTC has
acquired jurisdiction and can try him even if he
absconds.
Several accused (A B C D) but C and D is still at
large – If A and B is acquitted, C and D can be
tried separately, but most likely be acquitted too
if acquittal was because the facts in the
Information does not constitute an offense.
Witness protected under the WPP. Difference
from state witness?
Protected – May or not be an accused. State –
Always an accused.
Demurrer to Evidence (DTE)
Assailing the evidence as insufficient. What’s the
quantum for DTE to be granted or prayed for?
Depends. If without leave of court, accused
waives the right to present evidence and the case
will be submitted for judgment. If with leave of
court, accused can still present evidence.
Granting of a DTE – Amounts to an acquittal. It’s
a declaration that there’s insufficiency of
evidence.
Rule 120 Judgment
What must be found in a judgment? Clear and
distinct facts, law.
Possibilities for acquittal - If prosecution failed to
prove the guilt of the accused, prove beyond
reasonable doubt.
Conviction – Criminal liability, civil liability.
Always has a pronouncement of the civil
liability? No. So what’s the rule?
Can you prove an offense not charged? No. It
violates the accused’s right to be informed of the
charges against him.
Must the court be contained to the evidence
presented by the prosecution? Yes. When the
evidence proves an offense greater/lesser than
the offense charged, what will the court do? In
greater, court must convict only on offense
charged because, if on the greater offense, it
violates the right to be informed.
Finality of acquittal rule – Judgment is final and
executory and double jeopardy sets in. There can
be no appeal. You can never appeal. But you can
65 and use, as basis, the 2 XPNs: Violation of due
process and GAD by the court.
MR also violates double jeopardy. Though not an
appeal, you are getting the court another look on
the final decision of acquittal.
Rule 122 Appeal
Ysidro vs. CA
Can the prosecution appeal? Yes. Any party can
appeal also but depending on the aspect to be
appealed of. As long as it does not violate the
rule on double jeopardy.
Effect of appeal on non-appellants – Will not
affect them. XPN is if it’s favorable and
applicable to them.
Salvatierra vs. CA
When a judgment on appeal is favorable to all
and non-appellants, do you apply the rule? Not
always. Why? It should not only be favorable, it
should be applicable as well.
Rule 126 Search and seizure
Search warrant. How does it come out? What
leads to the issuance? Judge must personally
examine complainant and witnesses and find
probable cause. Probable cause of what? There’s
a suspicion that a criminal activity has taken
place or is taking place and get the
proceeds/personal property of the crime. That
such was used in the commission in the offense.
Does a warrant of arrest expire? No. Search
warrant? 10 days.
Safeguards in issuance of a search warrant
State the place to be searched, thing to be seized,
name, place. It must be specific, cannot be a
general and make the searcher make an
unqualified search.
How about time? Can search anytime.
Can you file an application anywhere? Or is it
subject to the rule on territoriality? No. You can
file anywhere. At your option? No. You can
apply in any court whose territorial jurisdiction
the crime is being or was committed. Or for
compelling reasons, with any court within the
judicial region where the crime is being or was
committed.
Malalaon vs. CA – An application of a search
warrant is not a criminal proceeding, thus, not
bound by the rule on territoriality. You can apply
anywhere.
People vs. CA – Xpn should have plain view
doctrine.
Sandiganbayan (Other offenses of the officers
in relation to their office)
Sanchez vs. Demetriou - Sanchez was the Mayor
of Calauan, Laguna and was charged of rape
with homicide of Mary Sarmenta and killing of
Alan Gomez with the RTC. But Sanchez claims
that he is a public officer, thus, jurisdiction
should be with the Sandiganbayan. But SC said
there is no relation between rape and murder
with his public office. The office must be a
constituent element of the crime as defined in the
statute, such as, for instance, the crimes defined
and punished in Chapter Two to Six, Title Seven,
of the Revised Penal Code.
People vs. Sandiganbayan - Respondent was a
member of the SP of Toledo City with a salary
grade 25. He was charged of violating Sec. 89 of
the Auditing Code with the Sandiganbayan. But
he argues that Sec. 4 of PD 1606 says only those
with Salary 27 and above can be tried with the
Sandiganbayan. But SC said no. PD 1606 was
already amended during the filing of the
information against him which says that even if
person holds a SG 26 or below, Sandiganbayan
still has jurisdiction if PD 1606 mentions his/her
position. Those that are classified as Grade 26
and below may still fall within the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan provided that they hold the
positions thus enumerated by the same law.
Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan - The
Sandiganbayan will have jurisdiction over a
private individual, i.e. when the complaint
charges the private individual either as a co-
principal, accomplice or accessory of a public
officer or employee who has been charged with a
crime within its jurisdiction.
Re: Section 4 of RA 8249
Billedo vs. Wagan - A criminal case for violation
of a city ordinance was filed with the MeTC of
Pasay against respondents for drinking in public.
Subsequently, a civil case was filed against
petitioners (Arresting officers) by respondents for
unlawful arrest with the RTC. This was contested
by petitioners because it’s the Sandiganbayan
that has JD. But SC said no. There was no filing of
criminal case with the Sandiganbayan that would
necessarily include the civil case there.
Requisites for exercise of criminal jurisdiction
Trenas vs. People - Always allege in the
Information where the commission of the crime
was committed. Otherwise, case would be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Here,
prosecution did not state in the Information nor
in the affidavit of the victim-complainant where
the supposed estafa happened. Venue is an
essential element of jurisdiction in criminal cases.
A court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a person
charged with an offense committed outside its
limited territory.
People vs. Taroy - Unlike the previous case, the
place of the commission of the crime was alleged
here. Rape was alleged to be committed in the
house of the victim at Benguet, despite the
residence of the accused being at Baguio. Venue
is jurisdictional in criminal cases. It can neither be
waived nor subjected to stipulation. The right
venue must exist as a matter of law. Thus, for
territorial jurisdiction to attach, the criminal
action must be instituted and tried in the proper
court of the municipality, city, or province where
the offense was committed or where any of its
essential ingredients took place.
What is necessary for the prosecution to ensure
conviction is not absolute certainty but only
moral certainty that the accused is guilty of the
crime charged. Here, the prosecution has
sufficiently proved the guilt of Taroy beyond
reasonable doubt. DES’ testimony is worthy of
belief, she having no ill-motive to fabricate what
she said against her stepfather.
Union Bank vs. People - In perjury cases, venue
is determined where the oath or falsity was
committed. In this case, it was done in Makati.
Hence, it can be filed in Makati. The venue and
jurisdiction over criminal cases are placed not
only in the court where the offense was
committed, but also where any of its essential
ingredients took place.
Inquest
Leviste vs. Alameda – As to the topic of inquest.
Inquest is defined as an informal and summary
investigation conducted by a public prosecutor in
criminal cases involving persons arrested and
detained without the benefit of a warrant of
arrest issued by the court for the purpose of
determining whether said persons should remain
under custody and correspondingly be charged
in court.
A preliminary investigation is required before the name of the offended party, the approximate
filing of a complaint or information for an offense date, and the place of the offense." The
where the penalty prescribed by law is at least Information herein complied with these
four years, two months and one day without conditions.
regard to fine. As an exception, the rules provide
However, an Information which lacks essential
that there is no need for a preliminary
allegations may still sustain a conviction when
investigation in cases of a lawful arrest without a
the accused fails to object to its sufficiency during
warrant involving such type of offense, so long as
the trial, and the deficiency was cured by
an inquest, where available, has been conducted.
competent evidence presented therein. In this
case, Asilan not only failed to question the
sufficiency of the Information at any time during
Prescription
the pendency of his case before the RTC, he also
Francisco vs. CA - Complaint was first for allowed the prosecution to present evidence,
intriguing against honor. Then it was changed to proving the elements of treachery in the
grave oral defamation. Then, lastly, changed to commission of the offense.
simple slander. CFI still convicted petitioners. But
People vs. Posada – An Information is fatally
petitioners argue prescription because simple
defective when it is clear that it does not really
slander’s prescription, a lesser offense than grave
charge an offense or when an essential element of
oral defamation, has already lapsed. SC agreed.
the crime has not been sufficiently alleged.
What tolls the prescription is the filing of the
complaint in court. The filing of the complaint in
the Municipal Court, even if is merely for the
Injunction vs. Criminal Prosecution
purposes of preliminary examination or
investigation – should and indeed interrupts the People vs. Grey - There is a distinction between
prescriptive period – even if the court where it the preliminary inquiry which determines
was filed cannot try the case on its merits. probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of
arrest and the preliminary investigation proper
Republic vs. Cojuangco, Jr. - In the prosecution
which ascertains whether the offender should be
of cases of behest loans, the Court reckoned the
held for trial or be released. The determination of
prescriptive period from the discovery of such
probable cause for purposes of issuing the
loans. The reason for this is that the government,
warrant of arrest is made by the judge. The
as aggrieved party, could not have known that
preliminary investigation proper—whether or
those loans existed when they were made. Both
not there is reasonable ground to believe that the
parties to such loans supposedly conspired to
accused is guilty of the offense charged—is the
perpetrate fraud against the government
function of the investigating prosecutor.
Injunction will not lie to enjoin a criminal
Information prosecution because public interest requires that
criminal acts be immediately investigated and
People vs. Valdez - Always allege with
prosecuted for the protection of society.
specificity the ultimate facts so as to constitute
However, it is also true that various decisions of
every element and circumstance of the crime
this Court have laid down exceptions to this rule.
charged. Otherwise, it would violate the
accused’s right to be duly informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him. The
Who must prosecute
sufficiency of the allegations of the facts and
circumstances constituting the elements of the Metrobank vs. Reynado - Section 2, Rule 110 of
crime charged is crucial in every criminal the Rules of Court mandates that all criminal
prosecution. In this case, treachery was not stated actions must be commenced either by complaint
in the information, thus, murder charge was or information in the name of the People of
downgraded to a homicide conviction. the Philippines against all persons who appear to
be responsible therefor. Here, Metrobank filed a
People vs. Asilan - The Information is sufficient
complaint for estafa but the prosecutor failed to
if it contains the full name of the accused, the
give merits on the sufficiency of the evidence
designation of the offense given by the statute,
the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the
given by the former. He committed GAD as ruled
by the SC.
Control of prosecutor
People vs. Dollano - Once the case is filed in
court, control of the prosecution is removed from
the offended party’s hands and any change of
heart by the victim will not affect the state’s right
to vindicate the atrocity committed against itself.
What happened here is that AAA and BBB were
sisters and were raped by their father at different
occasions. This was reported to the DSWD and
police authorities and led to the filing of rape
charges against the accused. But after 4 years,
AAA and BBB recanted their testimonies as they
have forgiven their father. But the RTC and CA
still convicted the accused. SC also affirmed the
conviction. It is true that the victim-witnesses’
testimony are accorded great weight in rape
cases. But even if they recant their testimonies, it
is still up to the court’s discretion on WON to
convict the accused. It is out of the prosecution’s
control. Also, the true aggrieved party is the
People. That is why the courts are given wide
control and discretion.
Control by court
Crespo vs. Mogul - Once the information was
already filed in Court, it is the Court which shall
exercise discretion as to whether or not to grant
the motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal,
notwithstanding the resolution of the Secretary of
Justice.
Perez vs. Hagonoy Rural Bank - Judge should
make an independent assessment on WON the
dismissal of the information was warranted. He
must himself be convinced that there was indeed
no sufficient evidence against the accused, and
this conclusion can be arrived at only after an
assessment of the evidence in the possession of
the prosecution. He should not rely solely on the
recommendation of the SOJ/Fiscal which said
that there was no sufficient evidence to convict
the accused as what the Judge in this case did. In
failing to make an independent finding of the
merits of the case and merely anchoring the
dismissal on the revised position of the
prosecution, the trial judge relinquished the
discretion he was duty bound to exercise. In
effect, it was the DOJ that decided over the case,
not the Court. Thus, RTC Judge acted with
GADALEJ.
Sta. Rosa Mining Co. vs. Zabala - The fiscal can
be compelled via mandamus if he refuses to
prosecute the case assigned to him after being
denied a MTD the criminal case. This is because
the case is already filed in court and it has
discretion WON to dismiss the case.
After the case had already been filed in court, a
fiscal is not clothed with power, without the
court's consent, to dismiss a criminal action
actually instituted and pending further
proceedings; Power to dismiss criminal actions is
vested solely in the court.
Designation of offense (Including qualifying
circumstances)
People vs. Elesterio - The nature and cause of the
accusation are determined not by the name given
to the offense but by the description of the
manner and circumstances in which it was
committed. The designation of the offense or of
the law violated is a conclusion of law made by
the prosecuting officer but this is not binding on
the court. Here, Elesterio was charged violating
G.O. 6 in relation to PD 9. He was convicted and
was sentenced to life imprisonment. But the SC
modified the ruling, stating that the Information
did not allege the 2nd element of violating G.O. 6.
At best, the Information alleged out the facts that
would violated Illegal Possession under the
Admin Code. Hence, accused’s penalty should be
lowered.
Duplicity of offense (Only one offense)
Manuel vs. Pano
Amendment or substation (Who may initiate?)
Tehankee vs. Madayag - Accused was originally
charged for frustrated murder. But victim died
during trial, thus, Information was amended to
consummated murder. SC said this is a formal
amendment only since frustrated murder is but a
stage in the execution of a crime. The essential
elements and qualifying circumstances of murder
were still present in the amended Information. It
did not charge new offense against the accused.
Thus, it did not require another PI as it would be
redundant since another PI would still elicit the
very same facts in the first PI. Prosecution
amended it.
People vs. Casey – The test as to whether a
defendant is prejudiced by the amendment of an
information has been said to be whether a
defense under the information as it originally
stood would be available after the amendment is
made, and whether any evidence defendant
might have would be equally applicable to the
information in the one form as in the other.
(Compare the two informations) Accused Casey
was first charged with murder. But it was
amended later on to include co-accused Felix as
he was still at large when the first Information
was charged against Casey. Both were convicted.
But Casey alleged that he was not arraigned
during the 2nd Information, thus, violating his
constitutional right to be informed of the charge
against him. SC said no. This was only an
amendment as to form. The 2nd Information did
not change the nature of the crime. Nor did it
impose a higher penalty. Also, defense available
in the 1st Information was available in the 2nd
Information. Thus, only a formal amendment.
Prosecution initiated the amendment.
Need for new preliminary investigation if
substantial amendment
Leviste vs. Alameda – On the topic of need for
new PI if there’s substantial amendment.
Amending an Information, after plea, from
homicide to murder is a substantial amendment
that would entitle the accused another PI. That is
why the respondents filed to defer proceedings
until a reinvestigation is completed. But since the
Information is already filed in court, it is the
court that would exercise discretion whether to
allow this or not. But here, the court allowed it.
Use the test in previous case.
Civil liability, basis thereof
Lim vs. Mindanao Wines & Liquor Galleria –
BP 22 cases against Lim were dismissed because
1 essential element was missing, the fact of the
bank’s dishonor.
Preponderance of evidence - The weight, credit, and
value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is
usually considered to be synonymous with the term
greater weight of the evidence or greater weight of
the credible evidence. It is evidence which is more
convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that
which is offered in opposition thereto.
Consolidation of criminal action with civil case
Naguiat vs. IAC – A court may order several
actions pending before it to be tried together
where they arise from same or like issues, and
depend largely or substantially on the same
evidence, provided the court has jurisdiction over
the cases to be consolidated and that a joint trial
with not benefit nor prejudice one party.
Purpose - To avoid multiplicity of suits to guard
against oppression and abuse to prevent delay to
clear the dockets of the courts and to simplify the
work of the courts.
Here, Naguiat filed a criminal case against
respondent for violating PD 957 (Regulation of
sale of subdivision lots) after the latter failed to
comply with the terms of their sale contract.
Naguiat also filed for specific performance
wherein the latter should deliver the 3 TCTs to
petitioner after paying in full for the 4 lots.
Naguiat then filed for consolidation. SC allowed
this even if 1st case was criminal and the 2nd being
civil because both involved the same issues,
evidence, and no prejudice was done to a party.
Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Sison - Petitioners filed for
libel against respondent for the published article
in the latter’s graphic magazine as the article
imputes malice on Gretchen Oppencojuangco.
They also moved to consolidate the libel case
with the civil case based on NCC33. Respondent
opposed. But the SC allowed the consolidation
because both cases involve common issues of fact
and law which would make the filing of separate
cases in the same court useless.
An independent civil action for the recovery of
civil liability, authorized under Articles 32, 33, 34
or 2176 of the Civil Code, filed before the
institution of the criminal case, may be
consolidated with the latter, subject to the
condition that no final judgment has been
rendered in the criminal case.
Purpose – Other than to avoid multiplicity of
suits, it is also to guard against oppression or
abuse, prevent delay, clear congested dockets,
simplify the work of the trial court, and save
unnecessary costs or expense; in short, the
attainment of justice with the least expense and
vexation to the parties’ litigants.
People vs. Bayotas – Death of the accused
pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his
criminal liability as well as civil liability if its
solely based on delict. Civil liability would only
survive the death of the accused if it is based on a
different source of obligation other than delict.
Here, it came from the act of rape. Thus, civil
liability should not survive.
Prejudicial question
Ras vs. Rasul - A prejudicial question is defined
as that which arises in a case the resolution of
which is a logical antecedent of the issue
involved therein, and the cognizance of which
pertains to another tribunal. The prejudicial
question must be determinative of the case before
the court but the jurisdiction to try and resolve
the question must be lodged in another court or
tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct
and separate from the crime but so intimately
connected with it that it determines the guilt or
innocence of the accused.
For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a
criminal action as to cause the suspension of the
criminal action pending the determination of the
civil, it must appear not only that the civil case
involves the same facts upon which the criminal
prosecution is based, but also that the resolution
of the issues raised in said civil action would be
necessarily determinative of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.
Librodo vs. Coscolluela - No prejudicial question
here that would entitle the suspension of the
criminal case for theft of sugar crops against
petitioner, filed by respondents as heirs. Intestate
case is a case between co-heirs and resolution of
the issues there is not determinative of the
criminal liability of the accused. Nor is the
ejectment and damages cases.
Preliminary Investigation (Definition and
nature; Mandatory)
Go vs. CA – The right to preliminary
investigation is waived when the accused fails to
invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea
at arraignment. The failure to accord preliminary
investigation did not impair the validity of the
information for murder nor affect the jurisdiction
of the trial court.
Here, Rolito Go was charged of frustrated
homicide for the shooting of Eldon Maguan. The
filing was done without the benefit of Go having
gone thru a PI since he refused to sign the waiver
under RPC 125. Hence, arraignment and trial
pushed through w/o the benefit of a PI. But
during trial, prosecution filed to defer and
conduct a PI. RTC granted. Go assailed this. SC
allowed the deferment and a PI should be
conducted (Apply Crespo doctrine, court’s
discretion). Go has not waived his right to a PI as
he constantly asked for one. This is a substantial
right that should be afforded to an accused. Thus,
even if arraignment and trial had already started,
a PI should be conducted.
Executive function
Abanado vs. Bayona – The conduct of a
preliminary investigation is primarily an
executive function. Thus, the courts must
consider the rules of procedure of the
Department of Justice in conducting preliminary
investigations whenever the actions of a public
prosecutor is put in question. The Department of
Justice-National Prosecution Service (DOJ-NPS)
Manual states that the resolution of the
investigating prosecutor should be attached to
the information only as far as practicable. Such
attachment is not mandatory or required under
the rules.
In this case, investigating prosecutor Jarder
found no PC against accused Palo, thus,
recommended the dismissal of the criminal case.
But it was reviewed by petitioner and found PC.
Thus, complainant disapproved the former’s
resolution and recommended the filing of the
criminal case. As to the arrest warrant,
respondent Judge issued an order directing
petitioner to present certain copies such as a
Memo of transfer of case assignment to enable
him to determine PC. Petitioner said there was no
memorandum. Respondent Judge did not accept
this and ask petitioner why he should be cited in
contempt. This prompted petitioner to file for a
TRO to stop the contempt proceedings. SC then
ruled that the memo is not part of the records
anymore. PI is an executive function to which the
courts must consider the DOJ’s rules. And the
DOJ rules state that only those practicable
documents are part of the records of a case.
Can be waived?
Villarin vs. People - The absence of a proper
preliminary investigation must be timely raised
and must not have been waived. What happened
here was that the act of entering a plea and
actively participating in trial were acts that were
considered as waiver of right to PI. Villarin was
charged of violating PD705 (Possessing timber
w/o legal docs) but only raised the lack of PI
twice, 1st being in his motion for reinvestigation
and 2nd in the MR after the RTC convicted him.
Section 6, Rule 112
People vs. De La Torre-Yadao – Kuratong
Baleleng case. Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of
Court. Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court
gives the trial court three options upon the filing
of the criminal information: (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.
Distinguish preliminary investigation and
inquest (Remedies before and after filing of
Information after Inquest)
Leviste vs. Alameda – As to the topic of remedies
before and after filing of Information after
inquest.
BEFORE - The private complainant may proceed
in coordinating with the arresting officer and the
inquest officer during the latter's conduct of
inquest. Meanwhile, the arrested person has the
option to avail of a 15-day preliminary
investigation, provided he duly signs a waiver of
any objection against delay in his delivery to the
proper judicial authorities under Article 125 of
the Revised Penal Code. For obvious reasons, this
remedy is not available to the private
complainant since he cannot waive what he does
not have. The benefit of the provisions of Article
125, which requires the filing of a complaint or
information with the proper judicial authorities
within the applicable period, belongs to the
arrested person.
AFTER – Accused is given another opportunity
to ask for a preliminary investigation within 5
days from the time he learns of its filing. The
Rules of Court and the New Rules on Inquest are
silent, however, on whether the private
complainant could invoke, as respondent heirs of
the victim did in the present case, a similar right
to ask for a reinvestigation.
In this case, Leviste was charged with homicide
for the death of Rafael de las Alas. But
respondents asked for deferment of the
proceedings and asked for reinvestigation, which
the RTC granted. Accused assailed this. But the
SC ruled that its proper. It explained that a PI is
for those offenses that have the 421 minimum
penalty. Inquest is for cases involving
warrantless arrests. The accused in the latter is
given the option of availing a 15-day PI, provided
he waives RPC125 (BEFORE filing an Info) or
availing a PI within 5 days after he learns the
filing of an Info against him (AFTER filing an
Info). In BEFORE, private complainant does not
have the option to avail it because he cannot have
what he does not have. In AFTER, ROC is silent
as to whether private complainant can ask for it.
But in the present case, they did ask for it, but for
a reinvestigation.
What is probable cause?
Drilon vs. CA – As to basis of probable cause.
Probable cause need not be based on clear and
convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence
establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and
definitely not on evidence establishing absolute
certainty of guilt. It implies probability of guilt
and requires more than “bare suspicion” but
“less than evidence which would justify
conviction.
In this case, respondent Dr. Aguila was charged
with kidnapping with frustrated murder of
Godofredo Anonuevo. But he filed a motion to
defer the proceedings and restrain the DOJ from
proceeding with the case. But the SC said that the
DOJ cannot be prohibited from such because PI is
only the determination of PC and whether to
charge an offense against the accused herein. It is
not an auto conviction. The DOJ cannot be
prevented from doing a PI as it is part of its
quasi-judicial function.
Note – Beyond suspicion, but not more than
moral certainty.
Allado vs. Diokno – As to the definition of
probable cause. Probable cause is facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonable
discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed by the person sought
to be arrested. And as a protection against false
prosecution and arrest, it is the knowledge of
facts, actual or apparent, strong enough to justify
a reasonable man in the belief that he was lawful
grounds for arresting the accused.
What was discussed here is that probable cause
for the issuance of an arrest warrant is different
from probable cause in PI. What’s involved here
is the former because that is what was assailed by
petitioners. The SC ruled that the RTC Judge
heavily relied on the prosecutor’s
recommendation rather than making his own
assessment of probable cause in issuing the arrest
warrant. The prosecutors, in turn, heavily relied
on Umbal’s sworn statement. But it was
inconsistent when he was PI’d.
Soria vs. Desierto - SC has consistently refrained
from interfering with the investigatory and
prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman absent
any compelling reason.
Basis - This policy is based on constitutional,
statutory and practical considerations. The
Constitution and RA 6770 endowed the Office of
the Ombudsman with a wide latitude of
investigatory and prosecutorial powers, virtually
free from legislative, executive or judicial
intervention, in order to insulate it from outside
pressure and improper influence.
Moreover, a preliminary investigation is in effect
a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of the
case. Sufficient proof of the guilt of the accused
must be adduced so that when the case is tried,
the trial court may not be bound, as a matter of
law, to order an acquittal.
Hence, if the Ombudsman, using professional
judgment, finds the case dismissible, the Court
shall respect such findings, unless clothed with
grave abuse of discretion. Otherwise, the
functions of the courts will be grievously
hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the
dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted
by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to
complaints filed before it.
Preferred Home Specialties, Inc. vs. CA -
Probable cause implies probability of guilt and
requires more than bare suspicion but less than
evidence which would justify a conviction. A
finding of probable cause needs only to rest on
evidence showing that more likely than not, a
crime has been committed by the suspect.
Respondent Sy (Son of Henry Sy) was charged
with estafa by petitioner for defrauding the latter
by making misrepresentation that SOI was still in
business. But Sy’s 65 petition prospered in the
CA when it ruled that the SOJ committed
GADALEJ in finding PC in filing the Information
since the SOJ and Yu ignored the SEC documents
that says that SOI was really not in business
anymore. Hence, a 65 petition would prosper if
the SOJ commits GADALEJ in finding PC.
Pineda-Ng vs. People - An Information for
Qualified Theft was filed against petitioner as her
co-accused, Mailada Aquino, drew 7 checks in
favor of petitioner which the latter approved
despite knowledge that the account from which
the checks were drawn, was closed. RTC Judge
found PC to issue a warrant. Petitioner filed a
certiorari case, arguing that the finding of PC by
the RTC Judge was solely based on the
prosecutor’s recommendation, thus, not making
an independent assessment. But the SC ruled no.
RTC Judge cited jurisprudence, indicating clearly
of her reliance on it. Thus, a judge should make
an independent assessment and evaluation and
should not solely rely on the recommendations of
the prosecution.
Tamargo vs. Awingan -When confronted with a
motion to withdraw an Information (on the
ground of lack of probable cause to hold the
accused for trial based on a resolution of the DOJ
Secretary), the trial court has the duty to make an
independent assessment of the merits of the
motion. It may either agree or disagree with the
recommendation of the Secretary. Reliance alone
on the resolution of the Secretary would be an
abdication of the trial courts duty and jurisdiction
to determine a prima facie case. The court must
itself be convinced that there is indeed no
sufficient evidence against the accused.
Remedy vs. probable cause
Flores vs. Gonzales – Remedies in determination
of probable cause are: (1) Appeal to SOJ via
motion for reconsideration from the Prosecutor’s
Resolution; or (2) A Rule 65 petition, assailing
GADALEJ against the SOJ, if there is an adverse
decision and GADALEJ.
In this case, petitioner Flores filed a complaint for
estafa against respondent. This was dismissed for
lack of PC up until the SOJ. But upon MR, SOJ
reversed and filed a case with the MTCC. Lim,
however, MR-ed the SOJ reversal ruling which
was granted. Prosecutors now filed to withdraw
the Information but the MTCC denied. SC said
that the case was already filed in court, thus,
following Crespo doctrine. Discretion is now with
the MTCC. Court is not bound to adopt the SOJ’s
resolution, in spite of being affirmed by appellate
courts (Like RTC, CA, SC). This is because courts
are mandated to an independent evaluation of
the merits of the case. Thus, complaint for
RPC318 should proceed.
Upon filing of Information, court duty?
Options?
People vs. CA - The task of the presiding judge
when the Information is filed with the court is
first and foremost to determine the existence or
non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of
the accused; The purpose of the mandate of the
judge to first determine probable cause for the
arrest of the accused is to insulate from the very
start those falsely charged with crimes from the
tribulations, expenses and anxiety of a public
trial.
Equipoise Rule; The equipoise rule has been
generally applied when the parties have already
concluded the presentation of their respective
evidence.
Upon the filing of an Information, the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) judge has the following
options: (1) dismiss the case if the evidence on
record clearly failed to establish probable cause;
(2) if he or she finds probable cause, issue a
warrant of arrest; and (3) in case of doubt as to
the existence of probable cause, order the
prosecutor to present additional evidence within
five days from notice, the issue to be resolved by
the court within thirty days from the filing of the
information. (Rule 112)
Appeal to DOJ, not to courts
Alejandro vs. Bernas - Petitioner is a lessee-
buyer of a condo unit in Discovery Center in
Pasig. Lessor-seller was OPI. But petitioner
suspended payment when he found a defect in
the aircon in the condo unit. This prompted OPI
to file an ejectment case. MeTC ruled for
petitioner. RTC reversed. This also prompted
petitioner to file for grave coercion against
respondents. But Pasig prosecutors ruled that
respondents can’t be charged because there was
no violence used. Petitioner appealed to the SOJ.
But latter affirms. Petitioner appealed to the CA.
CA and SC still affirm. Dismissal of petitioner’s
appeal was not only based on technical grounds
(By failing to submit a true copy of respondents’
joint counter-affidavit) but also that the courts,
particularly the CA, does not have authority to
determine PC.
No need to personally examine complainant
and his witnesses or conduct trial de novo in
determining probable cause
People vs. Dela Torre-Yadao – The judge is not
required, when determining PC for the issuance
of arrest warrants, to conduct a de novo hearing.
The judge only needs to personally review the
initial determination of the prosecutor finding a
PC to see if it is supported by substantial
evidence.
But in this case, Judge Yadao held a hearing and
examined the witnesses because of the latter’s
inconsistent statements made and documents
executed when they recanted their position.
Meaning of “in his presence”
People vs. Alunday - Herein accused was caught
in flagrante delicto and arrested by SPO1 Saipen
during the raid at the Mountain Province where
there was an alleged marijuana plantation.
Accused Alunday was seen actually and
personally cutting and gathering marijuana
plants when SPO1 Saipen saw him. Thus, arrest
in flagrante delicto was lawful.
When to challenge
People vs. Santiago – An accused is estopped
from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he
fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal
of the information against him on this ground
before arraignment. Any objection involving a
warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the
court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
accused must be made before he enters his plea;
otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.
Roselle Pabalinas was arrested w/o a warrant
because of a buy-bust operation. Her poseur-
buyer, Esguerra, was actually a police officer.
Esguerra first bought from Roselle a sachet of
shabu and then marked it as Tisay. 2nd time he
bought was when the busy-bust operation was
done. Esguerra marked it as RPS. RTC convicted
Roselle of violating RA9165. In the CA, Roselle
challenged the warrantless arrest done by
Esguerra. SC ruled that the time to challenge a
warrantless arrest should be made during
arraignment, not during appeal. If it was not
made during arraignment, such objections are
deemed waived. But Roselle was eventually
acquitted because the chain of custody was
broken.
Sy vs. People – Quashal of arrest must be done
before making the plea. Otherwise, objections are
deemed waived. Here, Sy was arrested without a
warrant for flicking a clear plastic sachet in broad
daylight because the 2 policemen chanced upon
him. He only questioned his arrest at the SC.
When waived? Effect?
Diega vs. CA - Diega was questioned by the
police 3 times and was detained for a long time (2
days and 5 days and 1 day). He was charged and
convicted by the RTC and CA of rape with
homicide. He then questions his warrantless
arrest before the SC. But SC said Diega waived
this objection. He even entered a plea, thus,
submitting himself to the court’s jurisdiction,
instead of filing a MTQ.
People vs. Racho - The legality of an arrest
affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the
person of the accused. A waiver of an illegal,
warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver
of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during
an illegal warrantless arrest.
Accused Racho arrived in Baler via bus. He then
boarded a tricycle. But it was blocked by a van
with the arresting officers in it. He was arrested
due to a tip from a confidential agent that he was
carrying shabu. RTC and CA convicted him of
violating RA9165. But SC said that, even if Racho
did not question the illegality of his arrest, it does
not carry with it the waiver of inadmissibility of
evidence. Racho was not committing any crime in
the presence of the arresting officers, nor was he
doing anything suspicious. Arrest was made only
due to the tip. But it does not constitute probable
cause to make a warrantless arrest.
Meaning of “probabale cause”; “Reliable
information not enough”
People vs. Doria - PNP Narcom was tipped by 2
confidential informants (CI), saying that Jun was
selling marijuana in Mandaluyong City. As a
result, PNP conducted a buy-busy operation
wherein PO3 Manlangit bought from Jun
marijuana for 1.6k. But Jun said that he had to get
it from his supplier, so buyer should wait 1 hour.
When Jun returned, he gave PO3 Manlangit the
drugs and arrested him. But the marked money
was with the supplier. So, PNP went to the
supplier, Neneth, to get the marked money. But
instead, they arrested Neneth too as the PNP
found in the latter’s box 10 bricks of marijuana.
This led to the conviction of the 2. But SC said
that only Doria is convicted. Neneth’s
warrantless arrest was unlawful, thus, the seizing
by the PNP of the 10 bricks of marijuana in
Neneth’s box are inadmissible. Neneth was not
comitting any crime when PNP found her. Also,
she was not in hot pursuit (As the prosecution
claims) because when the PNP went to her house,
she was actually doing chores. Tip from the CIs
was not enough to make the warrantless arrest of
Neneth valid.
People vs. Racho – As to the topic of meaning of
probable cause and reliable information not
enough. GR always is that arrest must precede
the search. XPN is that when the police officer
has probable cause to make the arrest at the
outset of the search. But in applying the XPN,
reliable information alone is not sufficient to
justify a warrantless arrest. The rule requires, in
addition, that the accused perform some overt act
that would indicate that he has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense.
In this case, Racho was not committing any crime
in the presence of the police when he alighted
form the bus and waited for a tricycle. He was
also not acting in any suspicious manner that
would warrant reasonable ground for the police
officers to suspect and conclude that he was
committing or intending to commit a crime.
Personal knowledge / Hot pursuit
People vs. Uyboco - Jepson Dichaves‘ kids were
kidnapped by appellant and was asking for a
P10M ransom that was to be made in Magallanes.
Jepson asked for help from ERAP and the latter
ordered PNP to help them. When the pay-off
took place, police was able to take 24 photos.
After the pay-off, police tailed the appellant’s car
and was able to apprehend them. This led to
appellant’s conviction of 3 counts of kidnap for
ransom. SC ruled on the validity of his
warrantless arrest as valid as it goes under the
Sec. 5(b) of R113 where a crime has just been
committed and the arresting officer had personal
knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the
arrest (When police took 24 photos and had a
close observation).
Bail (Definition)
Zuo vs. Cabebe - A case for illegal possession of
drugs was filed against police officers with the
RTC (I’m assuming that the offense carries a
death, RP, or LI penalty). They pleaded not guilty
and they filed a MTD based on right to speedy
trial. But the RTC Judge issued an order granting
bail to the accused even if the latter did not ask
for apply for one. SC ruled that this was not
proper because a hearing is mandatory in bail
proceedings WON it’s a matter of right or
discretionary. Hearing is required because this is
the time when the Judge will determine whether
the evidence of guilt is strong so as to deny the
application for bail. If the prosecution did not
present evidence or objection, hearing is still
mandatory. Judge will just ask clarificatory
questions which the former can infer on the
strength of the evidence of guilt, or lack of it, so
as to consider in whether granting bail or not to
the accused. Here, there was no hearing that was
made. Thus, RTC Judge erred in granting bail.
A hearing is mandatory in granting bail whether
it is a matter of right or discretion. The grant or
the denial of bail in cases where bail is a matter of
discretion, hinges on the issue of whether or not
the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong, and
the determination of whether or not the evidence
is strong is a matter of judicial discretion which
remains with the judge. In order for the latter to
properly exercise his discretion, he must first
conduct a hearing to determine whether the
evidence of guilt is strong.
Bail after conviction
Leviste vs. CA - Petitioner Leviste was charged
of murder but was convicted of homicide only.
On appeal, he applied for bail, citing his
advanced age and health. CA denied. At the SC,
he argued that none of the circumstances in Sec. 5
Rule 114 were present. But SC affirmed the denial
of his bail. Absence of the Sec. 5 circumstances
does not mean auto bail. It is still discretionary.
There are 2 scenarios in Sec 5: (1) If there is no
presence of the Sec. 5 circumstance, bail is
discretionary; (2) In the 2nd scenario, a
circumstance is present.
But in the 2nd scenario, prosecution still has to
prove that such circumstance is present: (a) If
present, court must automatically deny bail; (b) If
the prosecution was not able to prove the
existence of the circumstance, it does not mean
the court will auto grant bail. It’s just that the
circumstance is not present, thus,
granting/denial of bail is still subject to the
court’s discretion (Which will now fall under the
1st scenario).
Capital offense
People vs. Dacudao - A case for murder was filed
with the RTC against Accused Paclibar. He
applied for bail which the RTC Judge granted
w/o conducting a hearing. This was contested by
the Private Prosecutor because it violates due
process and there’s no way the RTC Judge could
determine the strength of the evidence of guilty
in ex-parte hearings. Accused’s lawyer opposes
and also argues that Paclibar is entitled to bail,
considering that murder is no longer a capital
offense. But SC ruled that RTC Judge erred in not
setting a hearing. As to bail in murder cases,
Constitution replaced the word capital offense
with offenses punishable by RP, LI. Thus, making
it appear that bail in such offenses are
discretionary, and not as a matter of right.
Bravo vs. Borja - Bravo was charged with
murder. He applied for bail because he was a
minor, even if the evidence of guilt is strong. SC
granted bail and ruled that it was a matter of
right since the penalty to be applied in his
murder case was 1 degree lower as per RPC 68.
So, regardless of the penalty attaced to the capital
offense, bail was made as a matter of right in
Bravo’s case.
Note – If minor, always a matter of right.
Custody of the law vs. Jurisdiction over the
person of the accused: Relevance?
Miranda vs. Tuliao - Custody of the law is
required before a court can act upon an
application for bail, but it is not requried for the
adjudication of other reliefs sought by the
defendant where the bail application constitutes a
waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over
the person of the accused. While jurisdiciton of
the court is required in quashal of warrants. Not
the other way around.
One can be under the custody of the law but not
yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his
person, such as when a person arrested by virtue
of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to
quash the warrant. On the other hand, one can be
subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his
person, and yet not be in the custody of the law,
such as when an accused escapes custody after
his trial has commenced. Being in the custody of
the law signifies restraint on the person, who is
thereby deprived of his own will and liberty,
binding him to become obedient to the will of the
law. Custody of the law is literally custody over
the body of the accused. It includes, but is not
limited to, detention.
Alawiya vs. CA - Apply Miranda vs. Tuliao
ruling. Accuseds here were policemen who were
charged with kidnapping for ransom but were
not yet arrested. The latter filed for Pet.Rev. and
moved to quash the Information filed against
them because the Prosecutor had no authority to
file one. SOJ and CA ruled to dismiss the
Information. But SC ruled to reinstate it. The
remedy of the accused of filing a MTQ against
the Information is proper despite no arrest was
made. What’s important is that when the accused
filed a MTQ, they submitted themselves to the
jurisdiction of the court. Custody of the law is
only needed in bail proceedings.
Rights of the accused
Due process
Marquez vs. Sandiganbayan - Joey Marquez was
the Paranaque Mayor who was charged for 3
Informations for violation of Anti-Graft and
Corruptions Act when he procured overpriced
bullets from an Ammunitions dealer who was
even registered as such with the PNP and DTI.
Marquez sought, as defense, that the signatures
in the vouchers, purchase requests were forged.
Thus, he sought referral to the NBI for this. But
the Prosecution and the Sandiganbayan did not
allow this. SC ruled that this violated Joey
Marquez’s right to due process. Those vouchers,
etc. were in the prosecution and Sandiganbayan’s
possession and must be made available for the
accused. He cannot be denied such.
To be informed
People vs. Francisco - Prince Francisco was
charged of murder for the killing of Ramil
Tablate by use of a kitchen knife and stabbed
him. During arraignment, he pleaded guilty. RTC
then made searching questions to determine the
voluntariness of his plea. But after the
prosecution rested its case, defense argued that
accused should’ve been convicted of homicide
only, not murder. RTC and CA convicted him of
murder.
SC affirms. It ruled that even if accused pleaded
guilty, prosecution is still mandated to present
evidence on how precise the crime was
committed, what was the precise participation of
the accused, and the attending circumstances.
Also, accused may even present evidence in
order to have mitigating circumstances
appreciated. It is not solely based on the plea
made by the accused. RTC fulfilled its duty when
accused made his plea by conducting a searching
inquiry. Purpose is to ascertain whether accused
voluntarily gave his plea and he was not coerced
or was under duress. TSN here did not indicate
on how searching inquiry was made. But SC
applied presumption of regularity.
To present evidence and be heard
People vs. Bodoso – The standard of waiver
requires that it must not only be voluntary, but
must also be knowing, intelligent, and done with
sufficient awareness of the relevant
circumstances and likely consequences.
Case arose when the TSN did not indicate in the
April 2, 2004 hearing that the accused was
present. In the hearings after that, accused’s
lawyer stated that it did not intend to present
evidence. This led to the accused’s conviction. SC
said that there was no valid waiver of right to
present evidence. There was no voluntary,
knowledgeable, and intelligent waiver done by
the accused. Lower court failed to make a
searching inquiry from the accused himself.
Miguel vs. Sandiganbayan - Petitioner Miguel
was charged of violating RA3019 and for
falsification of public docs. (RPC171) in
connection with the construction of the
Koronadal City public market project.
Ombudsman moved to suspend Miguel from
office pendente lite. Miguel filed a vigorous
opposition and argued that there was no actual
pre-suspension hearing that was conducted.
Sandiganbayan still granted the suspension. SC
affirmed. Pre-suspension hearing is not a pre-
requisite. Right to due process can be satisfied
not only by oral hearing but also by filing of
pleadings, oppositions, etc. where the public
officer is given an opportunity to be heard on his
possible defenses. Here, Miguel was able to file a
vigorous opposition, MR-ed after the
Sandiganbayan granted the suspension, and
replied to the Ombudsman’s motion to suspend.
Note – A public officer is going suspended when
charged of anti-graft cases.
To confront accusers and witnesses
Go vs. People – The right of confrontation is held
to apply specifically to criminal proceedings and
to have a twofold purpose: (1) to afford the
accused an opportunity to test the testimony of
witnesses by cross-examination, and (2) to allow
the judge to observe the deportment of witnesses.
Accused was charged of estafa for defrauding
Highdone Co. As represented by Li Ping. Li Ping
did not appear in the hearings after Sept. 9, 2004
because of his old age and health condition. As
such, private prosecutor moved to depose Li Ping
who was in Cambodia. Petitioner opposed to
this. MTC granted. RTC and CA reversed and
ruled for petitioner. SC affirmed. The deposition
taking of the complaining witness in Cambodia
violates the right of the accused to confront the
witnesses face to face. Main purpose of requiring
a witness to appear and testify at trial is to secure
for the adverse party the opportunity of cross-
examination and to allow the judge to observe
the demeanor of the witness.
To counsel of own choice
People vs. Serzo, Jr. - Right to counsel is
guaranteed by the Constitution. It covers the
period, beginning from custodial investigation,
well into the rendition of judgment, and even on
appeal. Accused may exercise this right either by
a court-appointed lawyer or by one of his own
choice. In this case, Mario Serzo, Jr. was accused
of killing Alfredo Alcantara. But during the
proceedings, he alleged he was denied his right
to counsel. But SC said no because he was
appointed 3 counsel de oficio and was even given
ample time to find one of his own choice but did
not find one. It only caused delay to the offended
parties and the prosecution. The case does not
constitute a deprivation of accused’s right to
counsel.
People vs. Lara – Right to counsel is deemed to
have arisen at the precise moment of custodial
investigation begins. But being made to stand in
a police-line up is not part of custodial
investigation, thus right to counsel is not violated
when suspect does not have a lawyer here.
Ratio – Police line-up is still part of the
investigatory process. Usually, it is the witness or
the complainant who is interrogated and who
gives a statement in the course of the line-up. It is
not yet part of the accusatory process.
XPN to the police line-up – When the accused
had been the focus of the police attention at the
start of the investigation.
In this case, Lara was charged of robbery with
homicide for stealing P230k and killing Bautista
thereafter. At the police station, he was made part
of a police line-up and was identified by
Sumulong and Atie. Lara contests this because he
was not afforded his right to counsel during the
police line-up. SC said that this right was not
violated because a police-line up is not part of the
custodial investigation. It is still part of the
investigatory process wherein the focus is not yet
on the accused.
Waiver of right to counsel
People vs. Nicandro – The right of a person
under interrogation "to be informed" implies a
correlative obligation on the part of the police
investigator to explain and contemplates an
effective communication that results in
understanding what is conveyed.
Accused was entrapped by the PNP during a
drug raid at Manila for selling 4 sticks of
marijuana cigarretes. She was allegedly apprised
of her constitutional rights and even admitted
that she sold such 4 sticks to the poser-buyer. Pat.
Joves testified to this. SC ruled that Joves did not
comply with the miranda rights. He testified that
he informed the accused of her rights but was not
able to specify what rights were stated. SC said
that the degree of comprehension and
intelligence of the accuse must be taken into
account in order to know what degree of
explanation must be made by the police officer.
Here, accused was an illiterate and cannot be
expected to grasp the significance of her right to
reamin silent and right to counsel. Hence,
acquitted.
Against self-incrimination
People vs. Yatar – The right against self-
incrimination is simply against the legal process
of extracting form the lips of the accused an
admission of guilty. In this case, accused was
charged of rape with homicide. He was convicted
because of the help of the DNA testing from the
semen of the cadaver and blood samples from the
white t shirt covered with blood near the cadaver.
Accused invokes right against self-incrimination.
But SC said that such right only applies against
testimonial compulsion.
Against double jeopardy
Bangayan vs. Bangayan – Double jeopardy sets
in when the accused‘s demurrer to evidence
(DTE) is granted, right after the prosecution rests
its case. This is because the granting of the DTE is
an adjudication on the merits of the case. Thus,
Sally Go (complainant) can’t file a 65 petition
against the DTE. Also, RTC did not commit GAD
in granting the DTE.
Court cannot review an order granting the
demurrer to evidence and acquitting the accused
on the ground of insufficiency of evidence
because to do so will place the accused in double
jeopardy.
People vs. CA – A verdict of acquittal is
immediately final and a re-examination of the
merits of such acquittal, even in the appellate
courts, will put the accused in double jeopardy
for the same offense. In this case, CA acquitted
the Hilario’s of falsification of public document.
An appeal or even an MR will put them in double
jeopardy.
People vs. Sandiganbayan – The only XPN
where double jeopardy cannot be invoked is
where there’s a finding of mistrial resulting in
denial of due process or the court committed
GADALEJ. In this case, respondents were
charged of violating RA3019 in connection with
the deepening and dredging of the Palto and
Pakulayo Rivers in Sasmuan, Pampanga. But
they were acquitted by the Sandiganbayan
because the prosecution was not able to
overcome proof beyond reasonable doubt. Hence,
they filed a 65 petition. But the SC denied it
because error raised here is an error of judgment,
not of jurisdiction. A 65 petition cannot correct an
error of judgment.
Ysidoro vs. De Castro – Ysidoro was acquitted
by the Sandiganbayan of the charge of violating
Sec. 3 of RA 3019. The People filed a 65 petition,
but was denied because it did not fall under the 2
XPNs. A 65 petition involves issues relating to
jurisdictional errors, not one of fact, law, or both.
In certiorari iproceedings, 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.
People vs. Sandiganbayan - 2 cases for
malversation were filed against respondents
(Public officers) where they made it appear that
cash advances amounting to P57M were made to
a private foundation but were represented by one
of the respondents. They filed a DTE and was
granted. Petitioner now files a 65 petition. But SC
said that there are only 2 XPNs which would
allow the 65 petition to prosper and not violate
double jeopardy: (1) GADALEJ; and (2) Violates
due process. Both are not present here. Petitioner
did not prove that its Special Prosecutor was
negligent. Petitioner did not also prove why the
Sandiganbayan should allow the presenting of
additional evidence as there was no provision in
CrimPro that would allow it.
People vs. Atienza – XPN to double jeopardy
involved in this case is denial of due process. But
65 the petition of the prosecution was also
denied. Granting of DTE filed by the accused
operates as an acquittal/adjudication on the
merits of the case. Prosecution was present on all
hearings and filed numerous pleadings.
Trial in absentia
Parada vs. Veneracion - Parada was accused of 4
counts of estafa in the RTC Manila presided by
Judge Ortile. He filed for change of address. But
the case was re-raffled to Judge Veneracion.
Latter judge set 4 hearings in June, 1994 and sent
notice to Parada based on his old address. This
caused Parada to be absent on the June 3 hearing.
This also led to the arrest of Parada, confiscation
of bond, trial in absentia, and conviction. Parada
then filed for habeas corpus and annulment of
judgment. SC ruled for Parada because not all the
requisites of trial in absentia were present. Judge
Veneracion already knew that the old address
was not the address on record.
Requisites of a valid trial in absentia: (1) The
accused has already been arraigned; (2) He has
been duly notified of the trial; and (3) His failure
to appear is unjustifiable.
Effect of death of witness
Fulgado vs. CA – The principle requiring a
testing of testimonial statements by cross-
examination has always been understood as
requring, not necessarily an actual cross-
examination, but merely an opportunity to
exercise the right to cross-examine, if desired.
In this case, respondents and their lawyer failed
to appear at the pre-trial conference which
resulted to them being declared and default and
allowed petitioenr to present evidence ex parte.
But they were able to overturn this at the CA and
let the case be remanded back to the RTC. But at
the RTC, 1st witness already died and the 2nd
witness was abroad. So, the RTC dismissed the
case. But the SC ruled that the death of the
witness who was not cross-examined must
remain on record. This is because respondents
were given an opportunity to cross-examine but
the waived it. Due process is satisfied not by
actual cross-examination but by being given the
opportunity to cross-examine. But, as stated,
respondents did not avail of it. As to the 2nd
witness, they should’ve opted to use the modes
of discovery.
Right to speedy trial
Villareal vs. People - The right to speedy trial is
deemed violated when the proceeding is
attended with unjust postponements of trial or
when a long period of time is allowed to elapse
without the case being tried and for no cause or
justifiable motive. Factors to be considered are
the length of the delay, the assertion or non-
assertion of the right and the prejudice wrought
upon the defendant. A dismissal of a case
pursuant to the right of the accused to speedy
trial is tantamount to acquittal and an appeal or
reconsideration of the dismissal would amount to
double jeopardy.
In determining the right of the accused to speedy
trial, courts should do more than a mathematical
computation of the number of postponements of
the scheduled hearings of the case. The conduct
of both the prosecution and the defense must be
weighed. Also to be considered are factors such
as the length of delay, the assertion or non-
assertion of the right, and the prejudice wrought
upon the defendant.
Mari vs. Gonzales – In determining w/n the
accused is deprived of the right to speedy trial,
the following factors are to be considered:
a. Duration of the delay
b. Reason for such delay
c. Assertion of the right (to speedy trial) or
failure to assert it
d. Prejudice caused by such delay
Also, in determining the right to a speedy trial,
the courts are required to do more than a
mathematical equation. The only delay that may
be excluded from the time limit are those
resulting from the proceedings concerning the
accused. The change of venue proceeding can
only be excluded if the accused was the one who
filed for it, contrary to what happened in this
case.
In this case, Paloma’s right to speedy trial was
violated by petitioners when they failed to
appear at arraignment, pre-trial, and trial, for
different reasons. Accused was deprived of
liberty for 4 months when he was first
incarcerated, and 6 months after the Information
was filed before the RTC.
Imperial vs. Joson – Right to speedy trial of a
person is not violated when he is the one causing
the delay. In this case, 3 cases were filed, one of
which was a criminal case for reckless
imprudence resulting to multiple homicides,
multiple serious physical injuries, and damage to
property against petitioner Francisco. This was
filed with the RTC of Saraiya, Quezon. Pre-trial
conference was postponed 9 times because 3
different Public Prosecutors were assigned to this
case for different reasons and because petitioner
filed a motion to compel the 1st Public Prosecutor
assigned to admit the stipulation of facts
proposed by petitioner. Sariaya RTC denied this
motion. This prompted petitioner to file 2 65
petitions with the RTC of Lucena City, invoking
one of the grounds was violation of right to
speedy trial. SC ruled that it was not violated
because petitioner was the one who caused the
delay when he filed the motion to compel the 1st
Public Prosecutor assigned to admit the former’s
stipulation of facts. Also, it did not satisfy the
requirements in Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan.
Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan - While justice is
administered with dispatch, the essential
ingredient is orderly, expeditious and not mere
speed. It cannot be definitely said how long is too
long in a system where justice is supposed to be
swift, but deliberate. It is consistent with delays
and depends upon circumstances. It secures
rights to the accused, but it does not preclude the
rights of public justice. Also, it must be borne in
mind that the rights given to the accused by the
Constitution and the Rules of Court are shields,
not weapons; hence, courts are to give meaning
to that intent.
A balancing test of applying societal interests and
the rights of the accused necessarily compels the
court to approach speedy trial cases on an ad
hoc basis. In determining whether the accused has
been deprived of his right to a speedy disposition
of the case and to a speedy trial, four factors must
be considered: (a) length of delay; (b) the reason
for the delay; (c) the defendants assertion of his
right; and (d) prejudice to the defendant.
Effect of denial
People vs. Alicando
No arraignment in absentia
Nolasco vs. Enrile – There can be no arraignment
or plea in absentia. Under the Rules of Court and
CrimPro, a defendant must be present at the
arraignment and must personally enter his plea.
In this case, Aguilar was charged with rebellion
and subversion. While she was at large, an
arraignment was held wherein a plea of “not
guilty” was entered for her. SC ruled that Aguilar
had not been legally arraigned when a plea of
“not guilty” had been entered for her.
Plea to a lesser offense
Gonzales III vs. Office of the President –
Christian Kalaw filed separate charges against
Manila Police District Senior Insp. Rolando
Mendoza and 4 others for robbery, grave threat,
robbery extortion, and physical injuries. This,
then, led to the filing of administrative charges
for grave misconduct against them.
The approval or disapproval of the PLEBARA by
the Sandiganbayan is of no consequence to an
administrative finding of liability against
petitioner Barreras-Sulit. While the court's
determination of the propriety of a plea bargain
is on the basis of the existing prosecution
evidence on record, the disciplinary authority's
determination of the prosecutor's administrative
liability is based on whether the plea bargain is
consistent with the conscientious consideration of
the government's best interest and the diligent
and efficient performance by the prosecution of
its public duty to prosecute crimes against the
State.
Consequently, the disciplining authority's finding
of ineptitude, neglect or willfulness on the part of
the prosecution, more particularly petitioner
Special Prosecutor Barreras-Sulit, in failing to
pursue or build a strong case for the government
or, in this case, entering into an agreement which
the government finds "grossly disadvantageous,"
could result in administrative liability,
notwithstanding court approval of the plea
bargaining agreement entered into.
Plea bargaining is a process in criminal cases
whereby the accused and the prosecution work
out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case
subject to court approval. The essence of a plea
bargaining agreement is the allowance of an
accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense than
that charged against him.
Plea to a capital offense
People vs. Camay - This case involved an
automatic review by the SC to ascertain that the
proceedings in the trial court rendered are wholly
in accord with law and jurisprudence considering
that the accused pleaded guilty to the crime of
robbery with homicide, a capital offense.
Even after the accused had entered a plea of
guilty and signed the Certificate of Arraignment,
all the time with the assistance of counsel de
oficio, still the trial court addressed three
questions to the accused, to wit:
1. Whether or not he knew that his plea of
guilty was for the crime of robbery with
homicide;
2. Whether or not he understood the gravity
of the penalty of death by electric chair for
the offense to which he pleaded guilty;
and
 3. Whether or not, knowing the severity of
the penalty, he still insisted on his plea of
guilty.
In this case, the accused answered all these 3
questions in the affirmative. Subsequently, the
trial court ordered the prosecution to present its
witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused in the
presence of the accused and his counsel.
Thereafter, the prosecution made its formal offer
of evidence. The accused was then asked to
present his evidence, but, maintaining his plea of
guilty, he, without much ado, by and through his
counsel de oficio, submitted the case for decision.
What is searching inquiry?
People vs. Dayot – Where the accused desires to
plead guilty to a capital offense, the court is
enjoined to observe the following:
1. It must conduct a searching inquiry into
the voluntariness and full comprehension
of the consequences of his plea;
2. The court must require the prosecution to
present evidence to prove the guilt of the
accused and the precise degree of his
culpability; and
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
The procedure is mandatory and a judge who
fails to observes it commits GADALEJ. Here,
Rolando Dayot was charged of robbery with
homicide and frustrated homicide for taking cash
and jewelries from Martin Legaspi and during
such, killed Martin by stabbing him and Martin’s
mother. At first, he pleaded not guilty. But, on
trial, his lawyer said that accused was willing to
change his plea. RTC then convicted him. But SC
said RTC Judge did not make a searching inquiry
into the voluntariness and understanding of the
accused that the latter knows fully well the
consequences of his plea.
Searching inquiry - Means more than informing
cursorily the accused that he faces a jail term
(because the accused is aware of that) but so also,
the exact length of imprisonment under the law
and the certainty that he will serve time at the
national penitentiary or a penal colony. Not
infrequently indeed, an accused pleads guilty in
the hope of a lenient treatment, or upon a bad
advice or 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 see that he
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.
A searching inquiry likewise compels the judge
to content himself reasonably that the accused
has not been coerced or placed under a state of
duress and that his guilty plea has not therefore
been given improvidently - either by actual
threats of physical harm from malevolent
quarters or simply because of his, the judge's,
intimidating robes.
While there can be no hard and fast rule as to
how a judge may conduct a "searching inquiry,"
as to the number and character of questions he
may put to the accused, or as to the earnestness
with which he may conduct it, since each case
must be measured according to its individual
merit, taking into consideration the age,
educational attainment, and social status of the
accused confessing guilt, among other things, the
singular barometer is that the judge must in all
cases, fully convince himself that: (1) the accused,
in pleading guilty, is doing so voluntarily, and (2)
he, in so doing, is truly guilty, and that there
exists a rational basis for a finding of guilt, based
on his testimony.
People vs. Alicando – Same as Nolasco case. RTC
Judge did not sufficiently make a searching
inquiry into the voluntariness and full
comprehension of the accused’s plea of guilty as
to the charge of rape with homicide. RTC Judge
did not consider the age, education, socio-
economic status of the accused in making the
searching inquiry.
Effect of improvident plea of guilty
People vs. Baharan – The accused in this case
were charged of multiple frustrated murder for
bombing an RRCG bus along Edsa. As per the
pre-trial stipulations, RTC then asked them if
they’re amenable to changing their not guilty
plea to the charge of multiple frustrated murder
since they pled guilty to the heavier charge of
multiple murder. The defense lawyer explained it
the accused of the consequences of their plea. The
latter then changed their plea. SC ruled that this
was an improvident plea since the requirement of
searching inquiry is a duty of the judge, not of
the defense counsel.
Convictions based on an improvident plea of
guilt are set aside only if such plea is the sole
basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on
sufficient and credible evidence to convict the
accused, the conviction must be sustained,
because then it is predicated not merely on the
guilty plea of the accused but on evidence
proving his commission of the offense charged.
Plea must be unconditional
People vs. De Luna – In this case, De Luna was
charged of murder. But he entered the plea with
the qualification that he did not mean it (Hindi
ko sinasadya). RTC convicted. SC ruled that there
was no valid plea. In order to be valid, the plea
must be unconditional. It must be of such nature
as to foreclose the defendant’s right to defend
himself from said charge, thus, leaving the court
no alternative but to impose the penalty fixed by
law. The repeated and emphatic qualification
stated by the defendant-appellant as regards his
plea of guilty should have drawn the attention of
the trial court that the plea was made without a
full knowledge of its consequences
Illegal arrest waived if not raised in
arraignment
People vs. Aminola – Challenging the legality of
a warrantless arrest should be made at
arraignment, not on appeal. Otherwise,
opportunity to challenge it is deemed waived.
People vs. Tan
Motion to quash (Defined)
Antone vs. Beronilla – A motion to quash an
Information is a mode by which an accused
assails the validity of a criminal complaint or
Information filed against him for insufficiency on
its face in point of law, or for defects which are
apparent in the face of the Information. It is a
hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the
Information, for which reason, the court cannot
consider allegations contrary to those appearing
on the face of the information.
Cruz vs. CA – The test in considering a motion to
quash on this ground is whether the facts alleged
will establish the essential elements of the offense
defined in the law. Exceptions:
1. New allegations are admitted by the
prosecution;
2. When the Rules so permit, such as upon
the grounds of extinction of criminal
liability and double jeopardy; and
3. When facts have been established by
evidence presented by both parties which
destroyed the prima facie truth of the
allegations in the information during the
hearing on a motion to quash based on
the ground that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense as the prosecution of
the case is already shown to be weak.
Here, ground was the facts alleged did not
consitute an offense. It is inconsistent with the
accused’s allegation that his 1st marriage was
already annulled because this would consitute as
a defense. SC ruled that matters of defense
cannot be raised in a MTQ. A MTQ assails the
validity of the complaint/information for
insufficiency on its face in point of law, or defects
which are apparent on the face of the
complaint/information. You only need to allege
that the allegations in the Information has defects
that would necessarily constitute as no offense
charged.
No jurisdiction over person
People vs. Palma - As to the topic of JD over the
person, courts acquired JD over the accused
Palma because he participated in trial, pleaded
during arraignment, and did not raise any
objection as to the legality of his warrantless
arrest. He only questioned it on appeal. Case was
about rape under a bridge.
Rebellion vs. People – Same as previous case. JD
over the accused Salvador Rebellion was
acquired when he participated in trial, pleaded
not guilty during arraignment. His act of
questioning his warrantless arrest was deemed
waived when he only did it on appeal. Besides,
warrantless arrest was valid because he was
caught in flagrante delicto when the 2 patrol
policemen chanced upon them when accused
was handing a sachet to his buyer.
Facts do not constitute offense
People vs. Soriano
Test of identity of offenses
People vs. Pimentel - If two different laws
punish the same offense, a conviction or acquittal
on one will not warrant the application of the
double jeopardy rule. In order that the protection
against double jeopardy may inure to the benefit
of an accused, the following requisites must have
obtained in the first criminal action: (a) a valid
complaint or information; (b) a competent court;
(c) the defendant had pleaded to the charge; and
(d) the defendant was acquitted, or convicted, or
the case against him was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent.
In this case, Antonio Tujan was 1st charged with
Subversion. But he was only arrested 7 years
after. And when he was arrested, a gun and 6
ammunitions were found in his possession. Thus,
he was charged for illegal possession. Accused
now says there’s DJ in his MTQ. But SC ruled no.
1st charge and 2nd charge are different from each
other. They are punished by different laws. Also,
accused’s MTQ did not actually raise DJ because
it had not risen yet since accused was not yet
arraigned in the 1st charge.
People vs. Doriquez – The protection against
double jeopardy may be invoked only for the
same offense or identical offense. But where 2
different laws (Or articles or the same code)
define 2 crimes, prior jeopardy as to one of them
is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other,
although both offenses arise from the same facts,
if each crime involves some important act which
is not an essential element of the other.
In this case, accused Doriqez was charged of
grave oral defamation and discharge of firearm.
He then filed a MTQ alleging double jeopardy.
But SC ruled there is no DJ because there was no
identity of offenses. The 2 indictments do not
describe the same felony – alarm and scandal is
an offense against public order while discharge of
firearm is a crime against persons. The
indispensable element of the alarm and scandal is
discharge of firearm calculated to cause alarm or
danger to the public, while the gravamen of
discharge of firearms against or a certain person
without intent to kill. The 2 indictments are
perfectly distinct in point of law, however,
closely they may appear to be connected in fact.
Galzote vs. Briones
Galzote vs. Briones – Remedy to a denial of a
MTQ is to raise the denial of his motion to quash
not only as an error committee by the trial court,
but as an added ground to overturn the trial
court’s ruling. In this case, petitioner was charged
of robbery but was convicted of the lesser offense
of malicious mischief. He then moved to quash
the Information, alleging that it was irregular and
flawed in form and substance. MeTC denied.
RTC denied. He then filed a 65 petition with the
CA. CA also denied because it’s a wrong remedy.
SC also denied. Remedy should’ve been proceed
with trial, and, if the ruling is still not favorable,
appeal and assign it as error. Denial of MTQ is
only an interlocutory order.
Difference between state witness and protected
witness (RA 6981)
Yu vs. Hon. Presiding Judge - Former IPB
President Atty. Tan and his driver were
kidnapped and murdered. Information against
Ochoa and De Los Santos were filed. But they
were later made to execute sworn statements that
implicated petitioner Yu as an accomplice. As
such, 3 Informations were filed against Yu. Yu
contested this because Ochoa and De Los Santos
did not comply with the requirements of RA 6981
to become state witnesses. SC ruled they did.
Requirement in Rule 119 is different from
RA6981 because these 2 are separate and distinct
modes of becoming a state witness.
The discharge of an accused to be a state witness
under RA 6981 is only one of the modes for a
participant in the commission of a crime to be a
state witness. Rule 119, Section 17 is another
mode of discharge. The immunity provided
under RA 6981 is granted by the DOJ while the
other is granted by the court.
Rule 119, Section 17 contemplates a situation
where the information has been filed and the
accused had been arraigned and the case is
undergoing trial. The discharge of an accused
under this rule may be ordered upon motion of
the prosecution before resting its case, that is, at
any stage of the proceedings, from the filing of
the information to the time the defense starts to
offer any evidence. On the other hand, in the
discharge of an accused under RA 6981, only
compliance with the requirement of Section 14,
Rule 110 is required but not the requirement of
Rule 119, Section 17.
The rule prevailing in this jurisdiction is that the
discharge of an accused to be utilized as a state
witness because he does not appear to be the
most guilty, is highly factual in nature. The
discretionary judgment of the trial court on this
factual issue is seldom interfered with by the
appellate courts except in case of GAD, which we
find not present in the case at bar.
Soberano vs. People – When no amendment to
the information is involved as a by-product of
reinvestigation and trial proceeds thereafter, the
discharge of the accused falls squarely and solely
within the ambit of Section 17, Rule 119.
In this case, accused was charged with double
murder for the killing of Salvador Dacer and his
driver. But the prosecution moved to amend the
Information by discharging 4 of the accused as
state witnesses, substitute 2 police officers as
accused, and add 3 police officers as accused.
Petitioners opposed the discharge. RTC denied
the prosecution’s motion to amend. Thus, the
latter filed a 65 petition. CA granted its amended
Information. Petitioners now question this
because they were alleging that Rule 110, Sec. 14
AND Rule 119, Sec. 17 should both be complied
with. SC ruled that no. Rule 110 on amendment
may be based on different grounds other than
being a state witness. It may have been lack of
PC, etc. This is based on the executive branch’s
discretionary power on who to prosecute. It is
different from Rule 119 where the only ground is
to discharge as state witness.
Demurrer
People vs. Sandiganbayan -
Once the court grants the demurrer, the grant
amounts to an acquittal. Any further prosecution
of the accused would violate the constitutional
proscription on double jeopardy. Accused-
respondents were charged of malversation of
public funds. Prosecution presented COA
Auditor Cortez as witness. But after resting its
case, accused filed a DTE by way of MTD.
Sandiganbayan granted it. People filed a 65
petition, imputing GADALEJ on the
Sandiganbayan when it only considered the face
of the DTE motions. SC ruled that there is no
requirement by the rules that the courts must
require the prosecution to present additional
evidence when the accused files a DTE.
Prosecution must prove GADALEJ. Otherwise, it
won’t prosper. Also, granting of DTE amounts to
an acquittal where DJ sets in.
Ong vs. People - Private complainant Zeny
bought a paper bag-making machine for P362k
from Solid Cement Corp. When she went to the
corp.’s plant, no machine could be given to her
because it was sold earlier to its
creditor/mortgagor. As a result, Zeny filed a case
for estafa under RPC318. Prosecution then
presented its sole witness and submitted
documentary evidence. Accused Ong filed a DTE
because the documents presented as evidence
were mere photox and not even authenticated.
MTC denied the DTE. RTC reversed. CA affirms
RTC.
SC ruled to grant the DTE. Prosecution did not
have sufficient evidence to support a conviction
for estafa because the doc. Evidence were mere
photox and not authenticated. Standard of
sufficiency is such evidence in character, weight
or amount as will legally justify the judicial or
official action demanded according to the
circumstances. To be considered sufficient,
therefore, the evidence must prove: (a) the
commission of the crime, and (b) the precise
degree of participation therein by the accused.
Bautista vs. Cuneta-Pangilinan – Granting of
DTE is an adjudication on the merits of the case
which is tantamount to an acquittal and may no
longer be appealed. Any further prosecution of
the accused after an acquittal would violate the
right to double jeopardy.
Requirements of a valid judgment
D’aigle vs. People – Petitioner was convicted for
estafa in the RTC for stealing company property
and equipment while he was still a director and
president of SPI, a corporation engaged in the
business of manufacturing underwires and
brasseries. CA also convicted him. He goes to the
SC where he questions the RTC ruling because
the dispositive portion did not expressly state
that he was found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for the crime charged.
But SC ruled that despite the absence of such, the
ratio decidendi of the RTC Decision extensively
discussed the guilt of the petitioner and no
scintilla of doubt against the same was
entertained by the trial court and the CA. A
judgment is not rendered defective just because
of the absence of a declaration of guilty beyond
reasonable doubt in the dispositive portion.
Abellana vs. People – A judgment of acquittal
shall state whether the evidence of the
prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of
the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the
judgment shall determine if the act or omission charged is included in or necessarily includes the
from which the civil liability might arise did not offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of
exist. the offense proved which is included in the
offense charged, or of the offense charged which
In this case, Abellana was charged of estafa but
is included in the offense proved.
was alleged to have just forged the signatures of
Sps. Alonto in the Deed of Sale over 2 Cebu lots.
RTC acquitted him because he can only be
State may challenge acquittal/dismissal
convicted of falsification of a private document.
CA affirms acquittal but imposed civil liability. Villareal vs. People
SC ruled that CA erred because a
judgment/acquittal should state whether the Merciales vs. CA - This is an XPN to the GR that
evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to acquittal cannot be challenged on appeal. This is
prove the guilty of the accused or failed to prove because the public prosecutor was remiss in his
beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, it should duty to present evidence that would sufficiently
also state if civil liability existed or not in the support a conviction. Even if the witness was
act/omission. Here, RTC ruled in a way where it already present in court, public prosecutor did
is shown that no damage resulted to Sps. Alonto. not present the witness. RTC also remiss in its
Thus, CA cannot impose civil liability. duty, knowing fully well that the prosecution’s
evidence was not enough. It violated not only the
private complainant’s right to due process, but
also of the public interest.
Judgment for 2 or more offenses (In case of
variance)
People vs. Villamar - Villamar was a mother SKIPPED New Trial or Reconsideration
who wanted to put her child for adoption. As
such, Cortez adopted her child. But Villamar Saludaga vs. Sandiganbayan
changed her mind and went to Cortez to retrieve Payumo vs. Sandiganbayan
her child. But Cortez refused. This resulted to
Villamar getting a pair of scissors and threatened Agulto vs. CA
Cortez to get their contract of adoption, money,
and a getaway car. But Villamar was
apprehended by police and was charged of illegal Appeal
detention and frustrated murder. RTC convicted
Procedural remedies
her of illegal detention. SC ruled that RTC is
wrong. Villamar had no intention of depriving Ysidro vs. De Castro - Accused former Mayor of
Cortez of her liberty or extort money. But SC still Leyte Ysidro was charged of violating Sec. 3(e) of
convicted her of grave coercion, an offense RA3019 for deleting the names of the private
necessarily included in illegal detention. complainants in the payroll. But Sandiganbayan
acquitted him. People now filed a 65 petition. SC
People vs. Rellota - When there is a variance
denies it because it was an appeal in nature,
between the offense charged in the complaint or
disguised as a 65 petition. SC now enumerated
information, and the offense as charged is
the 3 kinds of appeal remedies: (1) Ordinary
included in or necessarily includes the offense
appeal which resolves factual and legal issues; (2)
proved, the accused shall be convicted of the
Review on certiorari under Rule 45 which is
offense proved which is included in the offense
generally limited to the review of legal issues;
charged, or of the offense charged which is
and (3) Rule 65 review which is strictly confined
included in the offense proved.
to jurisdictional errors.
In this case, Rellota was charged and convicted of
NOTE: Only judgments of conviction can be
3 counts of rape by the RTC. CA modified 1 count
reviewed in an ordinary appeal or a Rule 45
as attempted rape only. Rellota now argues that
petition. Also, the rule against double jeopardy
he only touched her. SC now convicts Rellota of
does not apply in this instance because a Rule 65
acts of lasciviousness (AOL) even if the charge
petition does not involve a review of facts and
was rape. Under Section 4, Rule 120, when there
law on the merits in the manner done in an
is a variance between the offense charged in the
appeal.
complaint or information, and the offense as
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.
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
GAD by the court; and where the prosecution
had been deprived of due process.
Not part of due process; only statutory privilege
Dimarucot vs. People – 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.
Here, petitioner/accused was charged and
convicted of frustrated murder by the RTC. He
filed a notice to file appellant’s brief but did not
do so. Instead, he filed for 4 extensions with the
CA. SC ruled that the right to appeal is not a
natural right and is not part of due process. It’s
merely a statutory right.
Who can appeal acquittal/dismissal?
Bautista vs. Cuneta-Pangilinan – As to the topic
of who can appeal acquittal/dismissal. In
criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the
dismissal of the case against him can only be
appealed by the Solicitor General, acting on
behalf of the State. The private complainant or
the offended party may question such acquittal
or dismissal only insofar as the civil liability of
the accused is concerned. Thus, he may appeal
(Or even a 65 petition) despite acquittal.
Here, it was Sharon who appealed the acquittal
of the 2 editors of a newspaper that made an
article about her.
Note – Jurisprudence said that if the private
complainant appeals the criminal case and the
OSG joins, the procedural defect becomes moot
and academic.
Period to appeal
Yu vs. Samson-Tatad - Petitioner was charged
and convicted of estafa by the RTC. 14 days later,
petitioner filed for new trial but it was denied. Yu
then filed a notice of appeal. SC granted this
because Neypes rule also applies in criminal
cases.
Ratio - BP129 makes no distinction, Sec. 3 of Rule
41 and Sec. 6 of Rule 122 are exactly the same,
and Neypes case particularly considered its
applicability in Rule 42 and 45 which are both
applicable to Sec. 3 of Rule 122.
Appeal will “open whole case” for review
People vs. Maraorao – It is well-settled that an
appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for
review. The SC is clothed with ample authority to
review matters, even those not raised on appeal,
if we find them necessary in arriving at a just
disposition of the case. Every circumstance in
favor of the accused shall be considered.
Basis - This is in keeping with the constitutional
mandate that every accused shall be presumed
innocent unless his guilt is proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
Accused Maraorao was arrested without a
warrant during a drug bust. The police found
shabu in the bag dropped by the accused. The
RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of possession of illegal drugs. filed a Notice of
Appeal. The entire records of the case were
elevated to the SC then to the CA. The SC is
clothed with ample authority to review matters,
even those not raised on appeal. The SC found
that the prosecution’s evidence failed to
overcome the presumption of innocence, and
thus, appellant is entitled to an acquittal.
People vs. Dulay - Dulay was charged of rape as
a co-principal and was convicted as such by the
RTC and CA. But SC changed it to violation of
RA7610. This is because SC has the power to
review the whole criminal case and the reviewing
court even if not assigned as errors.
People vs. Brainer - Points of law, theories,
issues, and arguments not adequately brought to
the attention of the lower court need not be, and
ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing
court as they cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal.
Effect of appeal on non-appellants
Salvatierra vs. CA – R122, Sec 11 An appeal
taken by one or more of several accused shall not
affect those who did not appeal except insofar as
the judgment of the appellate court is favorable
and applicable to the latter. Emphasis on
favorable and applicable.
5 people were charged and convicted of homicide
by the RTC. 3/5 appealed to the CA. Affirmed.
Only 1/5 appealed to the SC. SC acquitted 4/5
except for Salina. He was the one who actually
stabbed the victim. The other 4 were acquitted,
even if 2 did not appeal to the SC because there
was no conspiracy b/w the 4 of them and as per
Sec. 11, Rule 122.
People vs. Brillantes - De la Cruz was charged of
possession while Brillantes was charged of illegal
sale and possession. They were both convicted by
the RTC. Only De la Cruz appealed. But during
his appeal, Brillantes died in prison. SC ruled that
his death extinguished his criminal liability and
fine. But it did not affect De la Cruz’s appeal.
Search warrant
Distinguish from warrant of arrest (Where
applied; what may be seized; requisites to
issuance)
Mantaring vs. Roman - A search warrant was
issued against Gamo and Mantaring, Jr. and
resulted in the seizure of Gamo’s homemade gun,
hand grenade, and ammunitions. Firearms and
ammunition were also found in the house of
Mantaring, Sr. and his son. As such, MTC Judge
Molato found PC and issued an arrest warrant.
Mantaring Sr. then filed an admin. case against
MTC Judge Molato. SC ruled that Mantaring Sr.
can be searched despite not being included in the
search warrant. It is different from an arrest
warrant.
The issuance of a search warrant and of a warrant
of arrest requires the showing of probabilities as
to different facts. In the case of search warrants,
the determination is based on the finding that (1)
the articles to be seized are connected to a
criminal activity and (2) they are found in the
place to be searched. It is not necessary that a
particular person be implicated.
In arrest cases, the determination of probable
cause is based on a finding that a crime has been
committed and that the person to be arrested has
committed it. In issuing warrants of arrest in
preliminary investigations, the investigating
judge must: (a) have examined in writing and
under oath the complainant and his witnesses by
searching questions and answers; (b) be satisfied
that probable cause exists; and (c) that there is a
need to place the respondent under immediate
custody in order not to frustrate the ends of
justice.
Malaloan vs. CA - Police office Salboro filed an
application for a search warrant with the RTC of
Caloocan. Serach was then conducted in QC
where 61 people were searched and released with
the XPNs of petitioners as they were indicted for
violation of PD1866. Case was filed in RTC of
QC. Petitioners now moves to quash the search
warrant because it is only the issuing court, the
RTC of Caloocan, can take cognizance of the case.
SC says no. A search warrant can be enforced
within the non-issuing court’s jurisdiction.
It may be conceded, as a matter of policy, that
where a criminal case is pending, the court
wherein it was filed, or the assigned branch
thereof, has primary jurisdiction to issue the
search warrant; and where no such criminal case
has yet been filed, that the executive judges or
their lawful substitutes in the areas and for the
offenses contemplated in Circular No. 19 shall
have primary jurisdiction.
Validity of warrant (Search and seizure without
warrant; instances)
People vs. CA - Brilliantes applied for a search
warrant against Azfar Hussain, who was
allegedly in possession of firearms and
explosives at Abigail Variety Store. Judge issued
the warrant but not for Abigail Variety Store, but
for Apartment No. 1 and it resulted to the arrest
of 4 Pakistanis and their belongings. The latter
moved to quash the warrant. SC quashed it.
Police officers already knew that the place stated
in the warrant was wrong because it stated
Apartment No. 1207, not Apartment No. 1. What
is material in determining the validity of a search
is the place stated in the warrant itself, not what
the applicants had in their thoughts, or had
represented in the proofs they submitted to the
court issuing the warrant.
What is material in determining the validity of a
search is the place stated in the warrant itself, not
what the applicants had in their thoughts, or had
represented in the proofs they submitted to the
court issuing the warrant.
The place to be searched, as set out in the
warrant, cannot be amplified or modified by the
officers’ own personal knowledge of the
premises, or the evidence they adduced in
support of their application for the warrant. Such
a change is proscribed by the Constitution which
requires inter alia the search warrant to
particularly describe the place to be searched as
well as the persons or things to be seized.
It would concede to police officers the power of
choosing the place to be searched, even if not be
that delineated in the warrant. It would open
wide the door to abuse of search process, and
grant to officers executing a search warrant that
discretion which the Constitution has precisely
removed from them.
The particularization of the description of the
place to be searched may properly be done only
by the Judge, and only in the warrant itself; it
cannot be left to the discretion of the police
officers conducting the search.