1.

Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over a charge of non-disclosure of assets in the
SALN against a BIR Regional Director with Salary Grade 26?
- No. Under Section 4(A)(1) of R.A. No. 8429, the Sandiganbayan would have jurisdiction over a
Regional Director only if his salary grade is 27 or higher. A Regional Director is not included
among the public officials specifically enumerated in Section 4(A)(1)(a) to (g) of the law, wherein
the requirement of Salary Grade 27 does not apply. (Duncano v. Sandiganbayan, 15 July 2015,
Peralta, J.).

2. Bail when a matter of right, when discretionary

Bail as a matter of right

1. Before or after conviction by the MeTC, MTC, MTCC or MCTC; NOTE: All criminal cases under
their jurisdiction are bailable offense because these courts have no jurisdiction to try cases
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.(Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 213847, August 18, 2015)

2. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment (Sec. 4, Rule 114); and

3. Before final conviction by all children in conflict with the law for an offense not punishable by
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.

Bail as a matter of discretion

1. Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment;
2. Regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution, a person charged with a capital offense,
or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is
not strong (Sec. 7, Rule 114); and

3. A child in conflict with the law charged with an offense punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment when evidence of guilt is not strong (Sec. 28, A.M. No. 02-1-18-
SC)

3. Right to independent and competent counsel (Rights of Accused)

The accused shall be entitled to be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of
the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, however,
waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is
specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification. The absence of the accused without
justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be
present thereat. When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his
right to be present on all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained. Upon motion,
the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court
that he can properly protect his right without the assistance of counsel (Sec.1 c, Rule 115).

4. Right to speedy trial/ disposition of cases (Rights of Accused)

The accused shall be entitled to To have speedy, impartial and public trial (Sec.1 h, Rule 115).

5. Arraignment is Mandatory
It is the formal mode of implementing the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of
the nature of the accusation against him (People v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 171020, March 14,
2007).

The accused must be arraigned before the court where the complaint or information was filed
or assigned for trial [Sec. 1 (a), Rule 116]. The accused cannot waive the reading of the
information to him and just enter his plea because it is constitutionally required.

GR: Judgment is void if accused has not been validly arraigned.

XPN: If accused went into trial without being arraigned, the procedural defect was cured. The
active participation in hearing is a clear indication that the accused is fully aware of the charges
against him (People v. Pangilina, G.R. No. 171020, March 14, 2007).

6. Meritorious motion to quash

The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following
grounds:

(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;

(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;

(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused;

(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;

(e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;

(f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various
offenses is prescribed by law;

(g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;

(h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification;
and
 (i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or
the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent
(Sec.3, Rule 117).

7. Pre- Trial
All agreements or admissions made or entered into during the pre-trial conference shall be
reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel; otherwise the same cannot be used
against the accused (Sec. 2, Rule 118).

8. Demurrer of Evidence
After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for
dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief
(Sec. 23, Rule 119).
Ground for Demurrer:
That upon the facts and the law, the plaintiff has shown no right to relief.
Effect of Demurrer:
The granting of demurrer to evidence is tantamount to acquittal. Although the grant of a
demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal and that the order of dismissal is not subject to
appeal, it may be reviewed thru certiorari (People vs. Sandiganbayan, August 5, 2015).

The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer it
shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment (Section 23, Rule 119).

9. Discharge of an accused as a state witness

Requisites before an accused may become a State witness:
1. Two or more accused are jointly charged with the commission of an offense;
2. The motion for discharge is filed by the prosecution before it rests its case;
3. The prosecution is required to present evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed
state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge;
4. The accused gives his consent to be a state witness; and
5. The trial court is satisfied that:
a. There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
b. There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense
committed, except the testimony of the said accused;
c. The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
d. Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
e. Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude
(Sec. 17, Rule 119).

10. Remedy of accused who fails to attend promulgation despite notice to counsel
 In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation of judgment despite
notice, the promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and
serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru his counsel.

If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable
cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these rules against the judgment and the court
shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the
accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall
state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his
absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen
(15) days from notice (Sec. 6, Rule 120).

11. Admissible oral confession during custodial interrogation

12. Double jeopardy

Any party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the accused will be placed in
double jeopardy (Sec.1, Rule 122).

Effect of appeal by the accused

When the accused appeals his conviction, he waives the protection on the prohibition against
double jeopardy and runs the risk of being sentenced to a penalty higher than that imposed by
the trial court (Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. People, GR No. 147703 April 14, 2004).

The Prosecution may not appeal a judgement of acquittal because the accused would be
subjected to double jeopardy.

13. Executive and Judicial determination of probable cause

For the executive determination of probable cause, it is determined by the investigating

prosecutor to ascertain whether the offender should be held for trial or be released, while
judicial probable cause is made by a judge for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.