SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
REVIEWERPART I
preliminaries
1. Jurisdiction is determined by the extent of the penalty which
the law imposes, on the basis of the facts as recited in the
complaint or information constitutive of the offense charged.
Not determined by:
what may be meted out to the offender after trial
the result of the evidence that would be presented during the
trial
Jurisdiction is retained regardless of:
whether the evidence proves a lesser offense than that charged
in the information,
the subsequent happening of events, although of a character
which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first
instance.
2. General Rule: Jurisdiction of a court to try criminal action
is to be determined by the law at the time of the institution of
the action.
Exception: where the statute expressly provides, or is construed
that it is intended to operate to actions pending before its
enactment, in which case, the court where the criminal action is
pending is ousted of jurisdiction and the pending action will have
to be transferred to the other tribunal which will continue the
proceeding.
3. Venue is jurisdictional. Thus: Action must be instituted and
tried in the municipality or territory where the offense has been
committed or where any one of the essential ingredients thereof
took place.
4. General Rule: the question of jurisdiction may be raised at
any stage of the proceedings.
Exception: may not be raised for the first time on appeal, where
there has been estoppel and laches on the party who raises the
question.
RULE 110 PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Institution of Criminal Actions
1. For offenses which require preliminary investigation:
By filing the complaint with the proper officer for preliminary
investigation.
Refers to a complaint-affidavit, and is different from the
complaint defined in Section 3 of Rule 110.
These offenses are those where the penalty prescribed by law is
at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of imprisonment without regard
to the fine.
2. For all other offenses, or for offenses which are penalized
by law with lower than at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day without
regard to the fine:
Instituted directly with the MTC and MCTC, or the complaint is
filed with the Office of the Prosecutor.
In Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint shall be
filed with the Office of the Prosecutor unless otherwise provided
in their charters.
3. Take Note: A complaint for offenses cognizable by the RTC is
NOT filed directly with the RTC either for purposes of preliminary
investigation or for commencement of the criminal prosecution.
4. The institution of the criminal action interrupts the running
of the period of prescription of the offense charged
Unless: otherwise provided in special laws.
Act No. 3323 governs the prescriptive periods of violations of
special laws, or offenses other than those penalized under the
Revised Penal Code.
5. The filing of a complaint for purposes of preliminary
investigation starts the prosecution process.
The complaint or information
1. Requisites:
in writing
in the name of the People of the Philippines
Against all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense
involved.
2. Who is the real offended party? The People of the
Philippines, but since the crime is also an outrage against the
offended party, he is entitled to intervene in its prosecution in
cases where the civil action is impliedly instituted therein.
Complaint
1. Definition: A complaint is a sworn written statement charging
a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any
peace officer, or other public officer charged with the enforcement
of the law violated.
2. The complaint as defined under Section 3 is different from
the complaint filed with the Prosecutors Office.
3. The complaint filed with the Prosecutors Office, from which
the latter may initiate a preliminary investigation, refers to: any
written complaint
filed by an offended party or not
not necessarily under oath, except in 2 instances:
complaint for commission of an offense which cannot be
prosecuted de officio or is private in nature
where the law requires that it is to be started by a complaint
sworn to by the offended party, or when it pertains to those which
need to be enforced by specified public officers.
4. Under the Rule on Summary Procedure: a complaint may be
directly filed in the MTC, provided that in Metro Manila and in
chartered cities, the criminal action may only be commenced by the
filing of information, which means by the prosecutor, except when
the offense cannot be prosecuted de officio as in private
crimes.
Information
1. Definition: An accusation in writing a person with an
offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court.
2. How is an Information different from a Complaint? Unlike a
complaint, which requires that it be under oath and is filed either
in the MTC or with the provincial/city prosecutors office, the
information does not have to be under oath and is always filed in
court. All that is required is that it be subscribed or signed by
the fiscal or prosecutor, which is an indispensable
requirement.
Who must prosecute criminal actions
1. May a criminal prosecution be restrained by injunction?
General Rule: No.
Reason: Public interest requires that criminal acts be
immediately investigated and prosecuted for the protection of
society.
Exceptions:
where injunction is justified by the necessity to afford
protection to the constitutional rights of the accused
when necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to
avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions
when there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice
when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
authority
where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or
regulation
when double jeopardy is clearly apparent
where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust
for vengeance
when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused
and the motion to quash on that ground has been denied
preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to
prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners.
2. Prior to the filing of the information in court, the
prosecutor has full control of the case. He decides who should be
charged in court and who should be excluded from the
information.
However: His decision on the matter is subject to review by:
the Secretary of Justice who exercises supervision and control
over his actions and who may sustain, modify or set aside his
resolution on the matter
in appropriate cases, by the courts when he acts with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
3. Private Prosecutor Participation:
May a public prosecutor allow a private prosecutor to actively
handle the conduct of the trial? Yes, where the civil action
arising from the crime is deemed instituted in the criminal
action.
Public Prosecutor must be present during the proceedings and
must take over the conduct of the trial from the private prosecutor
at any time the cause of the prosecution may be adversely
affected.
Thus, where the prosecutor has turned over the active conduct of
the trial to the private prosecutor who presented testimonial
evidence even when the public prosecutor was absent during the
trial, the evidence presented could not be considered valid
evidence of the People.
However: this rule applies only to courts which are provided by
law with prosecutors, and not to municipal courts which have no
trial prosecutors, in which case the evidence presented by the
private prosecutor can be considered as evidence for the
People.
*However, under an amendment made by the SC effective May 1,
2002, Rule 110 Section 5 now provides that All criminal actions
either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted
under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In case of
heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor or in the event of
lack of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be
authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the
Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the
approval of the court. Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal
action, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case
up to the end even in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless
the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn."
4. General Rule: In appeals, the Sol. Gen. has control. He may
abandon or discontinue the prosecution of the case in the exercise
of his sound discretion and may even recommend the acquittal of an
accused when he believes that the evidence does not warrant his
conviction.
Exception: provided for in RA 8249 which states in part that in
all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the SB to the SC,
the Office of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall
represent the People of the Philippines, except in cases filed
pursuant to EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
5. When it is said that the requirement of Art. 344 of RPC is
jurisdictional, what is meant is that it is the complaint that
starts the prosecutory proceeding. It is not the complaint which
confers jurisdiction on the court to try the case.
6. Once the complaint is filed, does death of the complainant in
a crime of adultery extinguish the criminal liability of the
accused? No. The participation of the offended party in private
crimes is essential not for the maintenance of the criminal action
but solely for the initiation thereof. Any pardon given by the
complainant or her death after the filing of the complaint would
not deprive the court of the jurisdiction to try the case.
7. The desistance of complainant:
Does not bar the People from prosecuting the criminal action
But: it does operate as a waiver of the right to pursue civil
indemnity.
Sufficiency of complaint or information
1. A complaint is sufficient if it states:
the name of the accused
the designation of the offense by a statute
the acts or omission complained of as constituting the
offense
the name of the offended party
the approximate time of the commission of the offense
the place where the offense was committed.
2. Purpose: to safeguard the constitutional right of an accused
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him.
Name of the accused
1. If name is known: the name and surname of the accused or any
appellation or nickname by which he has been or is known.
2. If name cannot be ascertained: a fictitious name with a
statement that his true name is unknown.
If true name thereafter disclosed: such true name shall be
inserted in the complaint or information and record.
3. While one or more persons, along with specified and named
accused, may be sued as John Does, an information against all
accused described as John Does is void, and an arrest warrant
against them is also void.
Designation of the offense
1. In case of a conflict between the designation of the crime
and the recital of facts constituting the offense, the latter
prevails over the former.
2. The real question is not, did he commit a crime given in the
law some technical and specific name, but did he perform the acts
alleged in the body of the information. If he did, it is of no
consequence to him, either as a matter of procedure or of
substantive right, how the law denominates the crime.
Cause of accusation
1. If one or more elements of the offense have not been alleged
in the information, the accused cannot be convicted of the offense
charged, even if the missing elements have been proved during the
trial.
Even the accuseds entering a plea of guilty to such defective
information will not cure the defect, nor justify his conviction of
the offense charged.
2. Important: The new rule requires that the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances be alleged in the information.
3. Where the law alleged to have been violated:
prohibits generally acts therein defined
is intended to apply to all persons indiscriminately,
but prescribes certain limitations or exceptions from its
violation
the information is sufficient if it alleges facts which the
offender did as constituting a violation of law, without explicitly
negating the exception, as the exception is a matter of defense
which the accused has to prove.
4. Where the law alleged to have been violated
applies only to specific classes of persons and special
conditions
the exemptions from its violation are so incorporated in the
language defining the crime that the ingredients of the offense
cannot be accurately and clearly set forth if the exemption is
omitted,
the information must show that the accused does not fall within
the exemptions.
5. Where what is alleged in the information is a complex crime
and the evidence fails to support the charge as to one of the
component offenses, the defendant can only be convicted of the
offense proven.
Place of commission of the offense
May conviction be had even if it appears that the crime was
committed not at the place alleged in the information? Yes,
provided the place of actual commission was within the jurisdiction
of the court.
Unless: the particular place of commission is an essential
element of the offense charged.
Date of the commission of the offense
What is the determinative factor in the resolution of the
question involving a variance between the allegation and proof in
respect of the date of the crime? The element of surprise on the
part of the accused and his inability to defend himself
properly.
Name of the offended party
To constitute larceny, robbery, embezzlement, obtaining money by
false pretenses, malicious mischief, etc., the property obtained
must be that of another person, and indictment for such offense
must name the owner and a variance in this respect between the
indictment and the proof will be fatal.
Duplicity of the offense
1. Waiver:
When the accused fails, before arraignment, to move for the
quashal of the information which charges 2 or more offenses, he
thereby waives the objection and may be found guilty of as many
offenses as those charged and proved during the trial.
2. Where the law with respect to an offense may be committed in
any of the different modes provided by law, the indictment in the
information is sufficient if the offense is alleged to have been
committed in one, two or more modes specified therein. The various
ways of committing the offense should be considered as a
description of only one offense and the information cannot be
dismissed on the ground of multifariousness.
3. Exceptions to the rule on duplicity: continuous crimes and
complex crimes
Amendment or substitution
1. Before the accused enters his plea, the prosecutor may:
upgrade the offense
allege qualifying and aggravating circumstances or
change the offense charged
without leave of court, provided there is evidence thereon which
has been presented during the preliminary investigation.
2. However, prosecutor cannot:
downgrade the offense charged
exclude from the information a co-accused
without filing a motion to that effect, with notice to the
offended party, and subject to the approval of the court. The court
shall state the reasons in resolving the motion and copies thereof
furnished all parties, especially the offended party.
3. Technically, paragraph 2 of Section 14 does not refer to
amendment, but to substitution of the complaint or information by a
new one. If the substitution is made before the accused enters his
plea, the question of double jeopardy does not arise. If the filing
of new information is done after the plea and before judgment on
the ground that there has been a mistake in charging the proper
offense, the filing thereof may only be allowed if it will not
place the accused twice in jeopardy.
4. Test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by an
amendment:
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 new form as in the other.
5. General Rule: after arraignment, the prosecutor may no longer
amend the information which changes the nature of the crime, as it
will prejudice the substantial rights of the accused.
Exception: when a fact supervenes which changes the nature of
the crime charged in the information or upgrades it to a higher
crime, the prosecutor, with leave of court, may amend the
information to allege such supervening fact and upgrade the crime
charged to the higher crime brought about by such supervening
fact.
However: if the supervening event which changes the nature of
the crime to a more serious one occurred after the accused has been
convicted, which makes the amendment of the information no longer
the remedy of the prosecution, the prosecution can and should
charge the accused for such more serious crime, without placing the
accused in double jeopardy, there being no identity of the offense
charged in the first information and in the second one.
6. Section 14 applies only to original case and not to appealed
case.
Place where action is to be instituted
1. Venue in criminal case is jurisdictional, being an essential
element of jurisdiction.
2. General Rule: Penal laws are territorial; hence Philippine
courts have no jurisdiction over crimes committed outside the
Philippines.
Exceptions: those provided in Article 2 of the Revised Penal
Code. Those who commit any of the crimes contemplated therein can
be tried by Philippine courts.
Intervention of the offended party in criminal action
1. Where the offended party withdrew a reservation to file a
separate civil action, the private prosecutor may still intervene
in the prosecution of the criminal case, by conducting the
examination of witnesses under the control of the prosecutor.
However: once the offended party has filed a separate civil
action arising from the crime, he may not withdraw such civil case
in order to intervene in the criminal prosecution. He loses the
right to intervene. He no longer has any standing in the criminal
case, except to be a prosecution witness.
2. Where a criminal action has been provisionally dismissed upon
motion of the prosecutor, can the case be revived upon motion of
the offended party? No, because the offended party or complaining
witness cannot act for the prosecutor.
Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil ActionInstitution of criminal and
civil actions
1. General Rule: the institution or filing of the criminal
action includes the institution therein of the civil action for
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged.
Except in the following instances:
the offended party waives the civil action;
he reserves his right to institute the civil action separately;
or
he institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
2. The employer may not be held civilly liable for quasi-delict
in the criminal action as ruled in Maniago v. Court of Appeals
since quasi-delict is not deemed instituted with the criminal. If
at all, the only civil liability of the employer in the criminal
action would be his subsidiary liability under the Revised Penal
Code.
3. Two instances where no reservation shall be allowed:
a criminal action for violation of BP 22
unless a separate civil action has been filed before the
institution of the criminal action, no such civil action can be
instituted after the criminal action has been filed as the same has
been included therein.
A claim arising from an offense which is cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan.
a civil action filed prior to the criminal action has to be
transferred to the subsequently filed criminal action for joint
hearing (Sec. 4 of PD1606 as amended by RA 8249)
4. When the reservation of the right to institute the separate
civil actions shall be made: before the prosecution starts to
present its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended
party a reasonable opportunity to make such a reservation.
5. The rule requiring reservation to file a separate civil
action does not apply to civil actions which can be filed and
prosecuted independently of the criminal action, namely, those
provided in Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code.
6. Although the criminal and civil actions may be joined in the
criminal case, they are distinct from each other. The plaintiffs in
the two actions are different.
Thus: even if the accused started serving his sentence within
the 15-day period from the promulgation of the judgment of
conviction by the lower court, thereby making the judgment against
him final, the complainant may, within the 15-day reglementary
period, still ask that the civil liability be fixed by the court,
if the judgment does not adjudicate any civil liability, as the
judgment regarding civil liability has not become final and the
court still has jurisdiction to adjudge the civil liability.
7. Rules on Filing Fees:
No filing fees are required for amounts of actual damages.
Exception: criminal action for violation of BP 22 which is
deemed to include the corresponding civil action. The offended
party shall, upon the filing of the criminal and civil actions, pay
in full the filing fees based on the face value of the check as the
actual damages.
Purpose of Exception: to prevent the offended party from using
the prosecutors office and the court as vehicles for recovery of
the face value of the check, without paying the corresponding
filing fees therefor.
With respect to damages other than actual, if these damages are
specified in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing
fees should be paid, otherwise, the trial court will not acquire
jurisdiction over such other damages.
Where moral, exemplary and other damages are not specified in
the complaint or information, the grant and amount thereof are left
to the sound discretion of the trial court, the corresponding
filing fees need not be paid and shall simply constitute a first
lien on the judgment.
8. In an appeal of a criminal case:
The appellate court may impose additional damages or increase or
decrease the amounts of damages upon the accused-appellant.
However, additional penalties cannot be imposed upon a
co-accused who did not appeal, but modifications of the judgment
beneficial to him are considered in his favor.
9. The offended party in a criminal case may appeal the civil
aspect despite the acquittal of the accused. Where the trial court
convicted the accused, but dismissed the civil action instituted
therein, the offended party may appeal the dismissal to the CA.
10. Compromise on civil aspect: The offended party may
compromise the civil aspect of a crime, provided that it must be
entered before or during the litigation, and not after final
judgment. A compromise on the civil aspect is valid even if it
turns out to be unsatisfactory either to one or both of the
parties.
11. Important!: Section 1, Rule 111 now expressly provides that
no counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed
by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which
could have been subject thereof may be litigated in a separate
civil action.
Reasons:
the counterclaim of the accused will unnecessarily complicate
and confuse the criminal proceedings;
the trial court should confine itself to the criminal aspect and
the possible civil liability of the accused arising out of the
crime.
When separate civil action is suspended
Take Note: Article 29 of the Civil Code merely emphasizes that a
civil action for damages is not precluded by the acquittal of an
accused for the same criminal act or omission. It does not state
that the remedy can be availed of only in a separate civil
action.
When civil action may proceed independently
1. Prior reservation is not necessary to file separate civil
action under Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code. The
phrase which has been reserved that has caused conflicting rulings
in the past has now been deleted.
2. Actions based on quasi-delict may be filed independently of
the criminal action regardless of the result of the criminal
action, except that a plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for
the same act or omission of the defendant.
Effect of death of the accused on civil actions
1. After arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal
action:
General Rule: death extinguishes the civil liability arising
from delict or the offense
Except: where civil liability is predicated on other sources of
obligations such as law, contract, quasi-contract and
quasi-delict.
If such civil action which survives is impliedly instituted in
the criminal action, the legal representative or heir of the
deceased shall be substituted for the deceased. The criminal case
is reduced to a civil action.
However, if the civil action has been reserved and subsequently
filed or such civil action has been instituted, when the accused
died, then such civil action will proceed and substitution of
parties shall be ordered by the court pursuant to Sec.16 Rule 3 of
the Rules of Court.
2. Before arraignment:
The civil action impliedly instituted in the criminal action
shall be dismissed without prejudice to the offended partys filing
a civil action against the administrator of the estate of the
deceased.
3. Pending appeal of his conviction:
extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil
liability based solely thereon.
4. Prior to final judgment:
terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability
directly arising from and based solely on the offense
committed.
Judgment in civil action not a bar
The judgment in civil actions based on Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176
absolving the defendant from civil liability does not bar the
criminal action.
Prejudicial question
1. The prejudicial question may be raised during the preliminary
investigation of the offense or in court before the prosecution
rests its case.
2. The suspension of the criminal case due to a prejudicial
question is only a procedural matter, and is subject to a waiver by
virtue of prior acts of the accused.
3. There is no prejudicial question where one case is
administrative and the other is civil.
Rule 112 Preliminary Investigation
Preliminary investigation defined; when required
1. Preliminary investigation is:
not part of the trial of the criminal action in court. Nor is
its record part of the record of the case in the RTC.
subject to the requirements of both substantive and procedural
due process.
The right of an accused to a preliminary investigation is not a
constitutional but merely a statutory right. Nonetheless, it is a
component part of due process in criminal justice and is a
substantive right.
a personal right and may be waived expressly or by
implication.
Lack of PI is not a ground to quash or dismiss a complaint or
information, nor does it affect the courts jurisdiction. When there
is no preliminary investigation, the accused must invoke it at the
first opportunity and the court should hold in abeyance or suspend
proceedings and remand the case to the office of the prosecutor for
him to conduct PI.
2. The refusal of the court to remand the case for PI can be
controlled by certiorari and prohibition to prevent trial.Officers
authorized to conduct preliminary investigation
1. No longer authorized to conduct PI:
By implication, MTC judges in Manila and in chartered cities
have not been granted the authority to conduct PI, as the officers
authorized to do so are the prosecutors. Judges of RTCs
2. Two types of offenses may be filed in the MTC for preliminary
investigation:
a case cognizable by the RTC may be filed with the MTC for
PI;
even if it is cognizable by the MTC because it is an offense
where the penalty prescribed by law is at least 4 years 2 months
and 1 day.
3. Regarding offenses falling within the original jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan:
Prosecutors or municipal trial court judges conducting PI of
offenses falling within the original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan shall, after their conclusion, transmit the records
and their resolutions to the Ombudsman or his deputy for
appropriate action.
Moreover, the prosecutor or judge cannot dismiss the complaint
without the prior written authority of the Ombudsman or his deputy,
nor can the prosecutor file an information with the Sandiganbayan
without being deputized by, and without prior written authority of,
the Ombudsman or his deputy.
4. Regarding election offenses:
The exclusive jurisdiction of the Comelec to investigate and
prosecute election offenses inheres even if the offender is a
private individual or public officer or employee, and in the latter
instance, irrespective of whether the offense is committed in
relation to his official duties or not. In other words, it is the
nature of the offense, namely, an election offense as defined in
the Omnibus Election Code and in other election laws, and not the
personality of the offender that matters.
5. Regarding the Ombudsman:
The power of the Ombudsman to make investigation extends to any
illegal act or omission of any public official, whether or not the
same is committed in relation to his office.
Preliminary investigation by the Ombudsman is limited to cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and must be conducted pursuant to
Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman.
Section 4(d) of Administrative Order No. 07 disallows the filing
of a motion to quash or dismiss a complaint filed with the
Ombudsman, except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Which remedy may an aggrieved party avail of against resolutions
of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases? The law
is silent. Hence, appeal is not available as a remedy because the
right to appeal is a statutory privilege and may be availed of only
if there is a statute to that effect. However, an aggrieved party
is not without remedy, as he can resort to the special civil action
of certiorari under Rule 65.
The Ombudsman does not have the power:
to prosecute before the Sandiganbayan any impeachable officers
with any offense which carries with it the penalty of removal from
office, or any penalty service of which would amount to removal
from office because by constitutional mandate, they can only be
removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable
violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust
to prosecute public officers or employees who have committed
election offenses.
to file an information for an offense cognizable by the regular
courts.
6. Effect of an incomplete PI: does not warrant the quashal of
the information
does not affect the courts jurisdiction or the validity of the
information.
Procedure
1. By reason of the abbreviated nature of PI, a dismissal of the
charges as a result thereof is not equivalent to a judicial
pronouncement of acquittal.
2. The accused or respondent in a criminal prosecution may avail
himself of discovery remedies either during preliminary
investigation or when the information has already been filed in
court.
3. A motion to dismiss is now a prohibited pleading during
preliminary investigation.
4. The respondent is now required to submit counter-affidavits
and other supporting documents relied upon by him for his
defense.
5. The respondent now has the right to examine the evidence
submitted by the complainant of which he may not have been
furnished and to obtain copies thereof at his expense.
Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review
1. After having filed the information, the prosecutor is called
upon to prosecute the case in court. It has been said that at this
stage, unlike judges who are mandated to display cold neutrality in
hearing cases, the prosecutors are not required to divest
themselves of their personal convictions and refrain from
exhibiting partiality. But while he may strike hard blows, he is
not at liberty to strike foul ones.
2. Effect of exclusion of other persons from the
information:
If during the trial, evidence is shown that such persons should
have been charged, the fact that they were not included in the
information does not relieve them of criminal liability, and they
can be subsequently prosecuted.
The accused who has been charged with the offense is not allowed
to escape punishment merely because it develops in the course of
the trial that there were other guilty participants in the
crime.
It does not vitiate the validity of the information. Neither is
the same a ground for a motion to quash.
3. Role of Secretary of Justice:
The Secretary of Justice is not prevented from entertaining an
appeal from the accused or from the offended party even after the
information has been filed and the trial court has arraigned the
accused. Section 4 of DOJ 223 should be construed as merely
enjoining the Secretary of Justice to refrain, as far as
practicable, from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from
the action of the prosecutor once the complaint or information is
filed in court. If the Secretary reverses the ruling of the
prosecutor, the latter has to file the necessary motion to dismiss
the complaint or information, the grant or denial of which is
subject to the discretion of the trial court.
4. Effect if the information is filed by someone not authorized
by law:
The court does not acquire jurisdiction. The accuseds failure to
assert lack of authority on the part of the prosecutor in filing
the information does not constitute a waiver thereof.
5. The prosecutor is required to resolve the complaint based on
the evidence presented by the complainant in the event that the
respondent cannot be subpoenaed or the respondent, if subpoenaed,
does not submit a counter-affidavit within the 10-day period.
Resolution of investigating judge and its review
Non-judicial function:
When a municipal judge conducts PI, he performs a non-judicial
function. Consequently, the findings of the investigating judge are
subject to review by the provincial prosecutor whose findings in
turn may also be reviewed by the Secretary of Justice in
appropriate cases.
When warrant of arrest may issue
1. Invalid: A warrant issued by the judge solely on the basis of
the report and recommendation of the investigating prosecutor,
without personally determining the existence of probable cause by
independently examining sufficient evidence submitted by the
parties during the PI
2. Effect of a finding of probable cause:
merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a
pronouncement of guilt.
3. What the accused who believes that there is no probable cause
to hold him for trial may do:
to file with the trial court a motion to dismiss on such ground
or for the determination of probable cause.
if the warrant of arrest has been issued, the accused may file a
motion to quash the arrest warrant or to recall the same on the
ground of lack of probable cause.
4. Where an information has already been filed in court, and the
Secretary of Justice reversed the prosecutors finding of probable
cause, what should the trial court do upon the prosecutors motion
to dismiss? He must make his own assessment of the evidence and not
just rely on the conclusion of the prosecutor, otherwise the court
becomes a mere rubber stamp.
5. Regarding reinvestigation:
Once the complaint or information is filed in court, any motion
for reinvestigation is addressed to the sound discretion of the
court.
While the trial court judge has the power to order the
reinvestigation of the case by the prosecutor, he may not, before
the prosecutor concluded the reinvestigation, recall said order,
set the case for arraignment and trial, without gravely abusing his
discretion.
6. Municipal judge may issue arrest warrant before conclusion of
preliminary investigation if: he finds that probable cause exists
and
there is a necessity of placing respondent under immediate
custody.
7. Important: The rule is now that the investigating judges
power to order the arrest of the accused is limited to instances in
which there is a necessity for placing him in custody in order not
to frustrate the ends of justice. Thus, even if the judge finds
probable cause, he cannot, on such ground alone, issue a warrant of
arrest. He must further find there is a necessity of placing the
accused under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends
of justice.
8. The investigating judge has no power to reduce or change the
crime charged in order to justify the grant of bail to the accused.
The power belongs to the prosecutor.
9. After the conclusion of his PI, the judge has to transmit to
the provincial prosecutor his resolution and entire records of the
case, regardless of whether he finds a probable cause or sufficient
ground to issue a warrant of arrest.
When accused lawfully arrested without warrant
1. General Rule: No complaint or information shall be filed for
an offense which is penalized by imprisonment of not less than 4
years, 2 months and 1 day without PI.
Exception: when the accused has been lawfully arrested without
warrant, in which case, an inquest must be conducted by an inquest
prosecutor who will determine whether his arrest without warrant is
lawful. The inquest prosecutor may order the release of the
arrested person if he finds no sufficient ground to hold him
without prejudice to conducting further investigation, or file
complaint or information within the period specified in Art. 125 of
the RPC.
2. In case a person is arrested without a warrant, a complaint
or information may only be filed after an inquest conducted in
accordance with existing rules.
Provided: that in the absence or unavailability of an inquest
prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended party or a
peace officer directly with the proper court on the basis of the
affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person.
3. Before the filing of a complaint or information, the person
arrested without a warrant may ask for a preliminary investigation
by a proper officer, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of
Art. 125 of the RPC.
4. If the accused allows himself to be arraigned without asking
for a preliminary investigation, he is deemed to have waived the
right to such PI.
Cases not requiring preliminary investigation nor covered by the
Rule on Summary Procedure
The respondent or accused is not entitled to preliminary
investigation in the following cases:
cases governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure;
cases where the punishment does not exceed 4 years 2 months and
1 day.
Rule 113 Arrest
Definition of arrest
Application of actual force, manual touching of the body,
physical restraint or formal declaration of arrest is not required.
Arrest includes submission to the custody of the person making the
arrest.
Execution of warrant
1. The judge issues a warrant of arrest in 2 instances:
(1) Upon the filing of the information by the prosecutor.
In issuing this kind of warrant, the judge does not personally
examine the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, but he
merely evaluates personally the report and supporting documents and
other evidence adduced during the preliminary investigation and
submitted to him by the prosecutor, and if he finds probable cause
on the basis thereof he issues the warrant for the arrest of the
accused.
(2) Upon application of a peace officer.
In this kind of warrant, the judge must personally examine the
applicant and the witnesses he may produce, to find out whether
there exists probable cause, otherwise the warrant issued is null
and void. He must subject the complainant and the witnesses to
searching questions. The reason for this is there is yet no
evidence on record upon which he may determine the existence of
probable cause.
2. A warrant of arrest has no expiry date. It remains valid
until arrest is effected or the warrant is lifted.
However, Sec. 4 of Rule 113 requires the head of the office who
applied for warrant to execute the same within 10 days from receipt
thereof and for the arresting officer assigned to execute the same
to submit, within 10 days from the expiration of the first 10-day
period, a report to the judge who issued the warrant.
Arrest without warrant; when lawful
1. In a citizens arrest, the person may be arrested and searched
of his body and of his personal effects or belongings, for
dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the
commission of an offense, without need of a search warrant.
2. Sec. 5(a) refers to arrest in flagrante delicto while Sec.
5(b) refers to hot pursuit.
3. Sec. 5(b) authorizes warrantless arrest when an offense has
in fact just been committed. The word just implies immediacy in
point of time.
4. Delivery of the detained person to the proper judicial
authorities means the filing of the complaint or information with
the municipal trial court or with the inquest fiscal or prosecutor
who shall then decide either to order the release of the detained
person or to file the corresponding information in court.
Method of arrest by officer without warrant
1. Custodial investigation
Involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers
after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of
his freedom of action in any significant way. It is only after
investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime
and begins to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect is taken
into custody, and the police carries out a process of
interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating
statements that the rule begins to operate.
Embraced in custodial investigation:
invited for questioning
re-enactment
Not embraced in custodial investigation:
police line-up
ultraviolet ray examination
normal audit examination by the COA of the accountability of a
public officer
2. When the threat or promise was made by, or in the presence
of, a person in authority, who has, OR is supposed by the accused
to have power or authority to fulfill the threat or promise, the
confession of the accused is inadmissible.
3. Presumption of regularity in the performance of duties:
Does not apply during in-custody investigation, nor can it
prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed
innocent.
4. The arresting officer may be held civilly liable for damages
under Art. 32 of the Civil Code. The very nature of Art. 32 is that
the wrong may be civil or criminal. It is not necessary that there
should be malice or bad faith.
5. On Civil Procedure:
Section 20 Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides
in part that the inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds
aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance. Section 8 Rule 15
provides that subject to the provisions of Section 1 Rule 9, a
motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment or proceeding shall
include all objections then available, and all objections not so
included shall be deemed waived. These changes in the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure are applicable to criminal cases as Section 3 Rule
1 thereof provides that these rules shall govern the procedure to
be observed in actions, civil or criminal, and special proceedings.
Moreover, the omnibus motion rule applies to motions to quash.
6. Section 26 of Rule 114 of the New Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides that bail is not a bar to objection on illegal arrest,
lack of or irregular preliminary investigation. This is an
abandonment of the Cojuangco, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan ruling.
Rule 114 Bail
Bail defined
1. Purpose:
to honor the presumption of innocence until his guilt is proven
beyond reasonable doubt
to enable him to prepare his defense without being subject to
punishment prior to conviction.
2. Upon assumption of the obligation of bail, the sureties
become in law the jailers of their principal.3. As bail is intended
to obtain or secure ones provisional liberty, the same cannot be
posted before custody over him has been acquired by the court.
Rationale: it discourages and prevents resort to the pernicious
practice whereby an accused could just send another in his stead to
post his bail, without recognizing the jurisdiction of the court by
his personal appearance therein and compliance with the
requirements thereof.
Conditions of the bail; requirements
1. The suretys liability covers all these 3 stages:
trial
promulgation
the execution of the sentence.
Unless the court directs otherwise, the bail bond posted by an
accused remains in force at all stages of the case until its final
determination.
2. If the accused presents his notice of appeal, the trial court
will order the accused to be taken into custody in the absence of a
new bail bond on appeal duly approved by the court. If the accused
does not appeal, the bondsman must produce the accused on the 15th
day from promulgation of sentence for service of sentence.
Bail, as a matter of right; exception
1. When bail is a matter of right:
before or after conviction by the MTC
before conviction, for all offenses punishable by lower than
reclusion perpetua
prosecution does not have the right to oppose or to present
evidence for its denial.
2. When bail is a matter of discretion:
before conviction, in offenses punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment
after conviction by the RTC of a non-capital offense
prosecution is entitled to present evidence for its denial.
3. Right to bail may be waived.
4. Bail in court-martial offenses:
The right to bail of an accused military personnel triable by
courts-martial does not exist, as an exception to the general rule
that an accused is entitled to bail except in a capital offense
where the evidence of guilt is strong.
Rationale: The unique structure of the military justifies
exempting military men from the constitutional coverage on the
right to bail.
5. Notice of hearing required:
Whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, reasonable
notice of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor or
fiscal or at least he must be asked for his recommendation because
in fixing the amount of bail, the judge is required to take into
account a number of factors such as the applicants character and
reputation, forfeiture of other bonds or whether he is a fugitive
from justice.
6. Summary of the evidence for the prosecution The courts order
granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence
for the prosecution, otherwise the order granting or denying bail
may be invalidated because the summary of the evidence for the
prosecution which contains the judges evaluation of the evidence
may be considered as an aspect of procedural due process for both
the prosecution and the defense.
7. It would be premature, not to say incongruous, to file a
petition for bail for someone whose freedom has yet to be
curtailed.Bail, when discretionary
1. Not entitled to bail: An accused who has been convicted of an
offense which carries a penalty of more than 20 years is not
entitled to bail during the pendency of his appeal.
An accused who is convicted of a capital offense is no longer
entitled to bail on appeal since his conviction imports that the
evidence of guilt is strong.
2. Trial court may grant bail before appeal is perfected
Whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, the trial court
may grant bail and approve the amount of the bail bond before the
accused has perfected his appeal, appeal being perfected upon
filing of a written notice of appeal and furnishing the adverse
party copy thereof.
However if the decision of the trial court convicting the
accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to
bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and
resolved by the appellate court.
Even if there is no notice of appeal, if the decision of the TC
convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from
non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be
filed with and resolved by the appellate court.
3. After appeal is perfected, the trial court loses jurisdiction
to grant bail and to approve bail bond.
However, the accused may apply for bail or provisional liberty
with the appellate court.
Capital offense defined
The capital nature of an offense is determined by the penalty
prescribed by law, and not by the penalty that may be imposed after
trial and on the basis of the evidence adduced and the presence of
aggravating or mitigating circumstance.
Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment, not bailable
1. Distinction between life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua,
insofar as bail is concerned, is not important.
Why? because in both cases, the grant of bail before conviction
by the trial court is a matter of discretion when evidence of guilt
is strong.
2. The constitutional mandate makes the grant or denial of bail
in capital offenses hinge on the issue of whether or not the
evidence of guilt is strong.
3. Meaning of conviction The word conviction in Section 13,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution refers to conviction by the
trial court, which has not become final, as the accused still has
the right to appeal. After conviction by the trial court, the
accused convicted of a capital offense is no longer entitled to
bail, and can only be released when the conviction is reversed by
the appellate court.
Burden of proof in bail application
1. Evidence of guilt in the Constitution and the Rules refers to
a finding of innocence or culpability, regardless of the modifying
circumstances.
2. Regarding minors charged with a capital offense: If the
person charged with a capital offense, such as murder, admittedly a
minor, which would entitle him, if convicted, to a penalty next
lower than that prescribed by law, he is entitled to bail
regardless of whether the evidence of guilt is strong. The reason
for this is that one who faces a probable death sentence has a
particularly strong temptation to flee. This reason does not hold
where the accused has been established without objection to be
minor who by law cannot be sentenced to death.
3. Duty of judge to conduct hearing:
Where the prosecution agrees with the accuseds application for
bail or foregoes the introduction of evidence, the court must
nonetheless set the application for hearing. It is mandatory for
the judge to conduct a hearing and ask searching and clarificatory
questions for the purpose of determining the existence of strong
evidence against the accused; and the order, after such hearing,
should make a finding that the evidence against the accused is
strong.
Corporate surety
The term of the bail bond is not dependent upon faithful payment
of the bond premium.
Justification of sureties
Before accepting a surety or bail bond, the following requisites
must be complied with:
photographs of the accused;
affidavit of justification;
clearance from the Supreme Court;
certificate of compliance with Circular No. 66 dated September
19, 1996;
authority of the agent; and
current certificate of authority issued by the Insurance
Commissioner with a financial statement showing the maximum
underwriting capacity of the surety company.
Deposit of cash as bail
The trial judge has no authority to strictly require that only
cash bond, instead of a surety bond, be deposited for the
provisional release of the accused.
Recognizance
1. The release of the accused may be on his own recognizance,
which means that he has become his own jailer. It may be to a
responsible person. Persons charged with offenses falling under the
Rule on Summary Procedure may be released either on bail or on
recognizance of a responsible citizen acceptable to the court.
2. In Espiritu v. Jovellanos (280 SCRA 579, 1997), the Court
held that the release on recognizance of any person under detention
may be ordered only by a court and only in the following cases:
when the offense charged is for violation of an ordinance, a
light, or a criminal offense, the imposable penalty of which does
not exceed 6 months imprisonment and/or P2000 fine, under the
circumstances provided in RA No. 6036
where a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more
than the minimum of the imposable principal penalty, without
application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying
circumstance, in which case the court, in its discretion, may allow
his release on his own recognizance
where the accused has applied for probation, pending resolution
of the case but no bail was filed or the accused is incapable of
filing one
in case of a youthful offender held for physical and mental
examination, trial, or appeal, if he is unable to furnish bail and
under circumstances envisaged in PD No. 603 as amended.
Bail, where filed
A judge presiding in one branch has no power to grant bail to an
accused who is being tried in another branch presided by another
judge who is not absent or unavailable, and his act of releasing
him on bail constitutes ignorance of law which subjects him to
disciplinary sanction.
Forfeiture of bail
1. When bail bond forfeited:
only in instances where the presence of the accused is
specifically required by the court or the Rules of Court and,
despite due notice to the bondsmen to produce him before the court
on a given date, the accused fails to appear in person as so
required.
2. To justify exemption from liability on a bail bond or
reduction thereof, two requisites must be satisfied: production or
surrender of the person of the accused within 30 days from notice
of the order of the court to produce the body of the accused or
giving reasons for its non-production
satisfactory explanations for the non-appearance of the accused
when first required by the trial court to appear.
Compliance with the first requisite without meeting the second
requisite will not justify non-forfeiture of a bail bond or
reduction of liability.
Arrest of accused out on bail
1. The bondsmen who put the bail bond for the accused become the
jailers and they or the police officer to whom authority is
endorsed may arrest the accused for the purpose of surrendering him
to the court. The accused cannot leave the country without the
permission of the bondsmen and the court.
2. Regarding hold-departure orders: Supreme Court Circular No.
39-97 dated June 19, 1997 limits the authority to issue hold
departure orders to the RTCs in criminal cases within their
exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, MTC judges have no authority
to issue hold-departure orders, following the maxim, express
mention implies the exclusion. Neither does he have authority to
cancel one which he issued.
No bail after final judgment; exception
General Rule: no bail shall be allowed after the judgment has
become final, as what is left is for him to serve the sentence.
Exception: when he has applied for probation before commencing
to serve sentence, the penalty and the offense being within the
purview of the Probation Law.
Exception to the exception: the accused shall not be allowed to
be released on bail after he has commenced to serve his
sentence.
Bail is not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or
irregular preliminary investigation
Important: An application for admission to bail shall not bar
the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the
legality of the warrant issued therefore, or from assailing the
regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary
investigation of the charge against him, provided that he raises
them before entering his plea. The court shall observe the matter
as early as practicable but not later than the start of the trial
of the case.
Rule 115 Rights of Accused
Rights of the accused at the trial
1. Is the constitutional presumption of innocence violated by
the presumption of guilt established by law arising from certain
facts proved and by shifting to the accused the burden of proof to
show his innocence? No. The state having the right to declare what
acts are criminal, within certain defined limitations, has a right
to specify what act or acts shall constitute a crime, as well as
what proof shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt. The
constitutional presumption of innocence will not apply as long as
there is some rational connection between the fact proved and the
ultimate fact presumed, and the inference of one fact from proof of
another shall not be so unreasonable as to be purely arbitrary.
2. Equipoise rule:
If the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or
more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of
the accused and the other with his guilt, then the evidence does
not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to
support a conviction of the accused. Hence, where the evidence of
the parties in a criminal case are evenly balanced, the
constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in
favor of the accused and he must be acquitted.
3. If the judgment of conviction had become final and executory,
it may still be recalled, and the accused afforded the opportunity
to be heard by counsel, where he has been denied the right to
counsel during the hearing.
4. Where an accused was represented in the RTC by a person who
claimed to be a lawyer and was thereafter convicted, but it was
later discovered that his counsel was not really a lawyer, he is
entitled to have his conviction set aside and a new trial
undertaken.
5. Transactional and Use immunity distinguished: Transactional
immunity is broader in the scope of its application. By its grant,
a witness can no longer be prosecuted for any offense whatsoever
arising out of the act or transaction. In contrast, by the grant of
use-and-derivative-use immunity, a witness is only assured that his
or her particular testimony and evidence derived from it will not
be used against him or her in a subsequent prosecution.
6. The right against self-incrimination is a protection only
against testimonial compulsion.
7. The accuseds right to meet the witnesses face to face is
limited to proceedings before the trial court, during trial, and
not during custodial or preliminary investigation.
8. Requests by a party for the issuance of subpoenas do not
require notice to other parties to the action.
9. The sanctions of arrest and contempt in respect to
disobedience to subpoena are not applicable to a witness who
resides more than 100 kilometers from the residence to the place
where he is to testify, or if he is a detention prisoner no
permission of the court in which his case is pending was
obtained.
10. Public trial should not be confused with trial by publicity
which is proscribed.
11. Requisites for valid waiver of right: existence of right
knowledge of existence thereof
intention to relinquish such right, which must be shown clearly
and convincingly
where the law or the Constitution so provides, the waiver must
be with the assistance of counsel, to be valid.
RULE 116 ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
Arraignment and plea; how made
1. Definition: Arraignment is the stage where the issues are
joined in criminal action and without which the proceedings cannot
advance further or, if held, will otherwise be void.
2. No trial in absentia can be validly held without first
arraigning the accused, and he cannot be arraigned without his
personal appearance in court.3. Presence of offended party required
The presence of the offended party is now required at the
arraignment and also to discuss the matter of accuseds civil
liability. In case the offended party fails to appear despite due
notice, the trial court may allow the accused to plead guilty to a
lower offense with solely the conformity of the trial
prosecutor.
4. Accused under preventive detention
While RA 8493, or the Speedy Trial Act, provides that the
accused shall be arraigned within 30 days from the time a court
acquires jurisdiction over his person, Rule 116 section 1(e)
provides for a shorter time within which an accused who is under
preventive detention should be arraigned. When an accused is
detained, his case should be raffled within 3 days from the filing
of the information or complaint against him, and the judge to whom
his case is raffled shall have him arraigned within 10 days from
receipt by the judge of the records of the case. The pre-trial
conference shall be held within 10 days after the arraignment.
5. The arraignment shall be held within 30 days from the date
the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused,
unless a shorter period is provided by special law or by SC
Circular.
Certain laws and SC Circulars provide for a shorter time within
which the accused should be arraigned:
RA 4908 in criminal cases where the complainant is about to
depart from the Philippines with no definite date of return, the
accused should be arraigned without delay and his trial should
commence within 3 days from the arraignment and that no
postponement of the initial hearing should be granted except on the
ground of illness on the part of the accused or other grounds
beyond the control of the court.
RA 7610 (Child Abuse Act) the trial shall be commenced within 3
days from arraignment
Dangerous Drugs Law
SC AO 104-96, i.e., heinous crimes, violations of the
Intellectual Property Rights Law these cases must be tried
continuously until terminated within 60 days from commencement of
the trial and to be decided within 30 days from the submission of
the case
Plea of guilty to a lesser offense
1. The new rule provides that the accused may be allowed by the
trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is
necessarily included in the offense charged, and deleted the
phrase, regardless of whether or not it is necessarily included in
the crime charged, or is cognizable by a court of lesser
jurisdiction than the trial court.
It should be noted, however, that the amendment did not say that
an accused may be allowed to plead to a lesser offense only if the
same is necessarily included in the offense charged. The provision
employs the word may, which is permissive and implies that the
court may still allow an accused to plead guilty to a lesser
offense, even if the latter is not included in the offense
charged.
2. Consent of offended party required:
The consent of the offended party to allowing the accused to
plead guilty to a lesser offense is necessary. It has been held
that if the plea of guilty to a lesser offense is made without the
consent of the prosecutor and the offended party, the conviction of
the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an
offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the
former information.
3. Change of plea After the prosecution has rested its case, a
change of plea to a lesser offense may be granted by the judge,
with the approval of the prosecutor and the offended party and only
when the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to establish
the guilt of the crime charged. The judge cannot on its own grant
the change of plea.
Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence
1. An improvident plea means a plea without proper information
as to all the circumstances affecting it; based upon a mistaken
assumption or misleading information or advice.
2. Conviction in a capital offense cannot rest alone on a plea
of guilty, a free and intelligent plea. It is mandatory for the
trial court to require the prosecution to present its evidence and,
if the accused so desires, to allow him to submit his evidence.
This is so even if the accused formally manifests that he waives
presentation of evidence by the prosecution.
Plea of guilty to non-capital offense; reception of evidence,
discretionary
1. What a plea of guilty includes: The plea of guilty covers
both the crime as well as its attendant circumstances alleged in
the complaint or information, qualifying and/or aggravating the
crime. Such plea removes the necessity of presenting further
evidence and for all intents and purposes the case is deemed tried
on its merits and submitted for decision. It leaves the court with
no alternative but to impose the penalty prescribed by law.
2. Mitigating circumstances: The trial court may allow an
accused to plead guilty and at the same time allow him to prove
other mitigating circumstances. However, if what the accused would
prove is an exempting circumstance, which would amount to a
withdrawal of his plea of not guilty, the trial court may not allow
him to take the witness stand.
3. If the accused is permitted to present evidence after his
plea of guilty to a non-capital offense and such shows that the
accused is not guilty of the crime charged, the accused must be
acquitted, for there is no rule which provides that simply because
the accused pleaded guilty to the charge that his conviction
automatically follows. Additional evidence independent of the plea
may be considered to convince the judge that it was intelligently
made.
Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty
1. When it may be done:
at any time before the judgment of conviction becomes final.
2. Effect:
change of the accuseds plea from guilty to that of not guilty is
the setting aside of the judgment of conviction and the re-opening
of the case for new trial.
3. The withdrawal must at least have a rational basis. The
accused should state that he has a meritorious defense to the
charge. The motion should be set for hearing and the prosecution
heard thereon.
Time for counsel de officio to prepare
Express demand:
Counsel for the accused must expressly demand the right to be
given reasonable time to consult with the accused. Only when so
demanded does denial thereof constitute reversible error and a
ground for new trial.
Bill of particulars
1. Rule 12 of Civil Procedure on bill of particulars is
applicable in criminal proceedings.2. It is not the office of the
bill of particulars to:
Supply material allegation necessary to the validity of a
pleading
Change a cause of action or defense stated in the pleading, or
to state a cause of action or defense other than the one
stated.
Set forth the pleaders theory of his cause of action or a rule
of evidence on which he intends to rely
Furnish evidentiary information whether such information
consists of evidence which the pleader proposes to introduce or of
facts which constitute a defense or offset for the other party or
which will enable the opposite party to establish an affirmative
defense not yet pleaded.
3. The filing of a motion for bill of particulars suspends the
period to file a responsive pleading.
If the motion is granted, the moving party has the remaining
period or at least 5 days to file his answer from service of the
bill of particulars.
If the motion is denied, he has the same period to file his
responsive pleading from receipt of the order denying the
motion.
Suspension of arraignment
Tests to determine insanity:
the test of cognition (which is used in this jurisdiction) or
the complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the criminal
act
the test of volition or that there be a total deprivation of
freedom of the will.
Rule 117 Motion to Quash
Time to move to quash
1. Quashal and nolle prosequi distinguished:
The quashal of complaint or information is different from a
nolle prosequi, although both have one result, which is the
dismissal of the case.
A nolle prosequi is initiated by the prosecutor while a quashal
of information is upon motion to quash filed by the accused.
A nolle prosequi is a dismissal of the criminal case by the
government before the accused is placed on trial and before he is
called to plead, with the approval of the court in the exercise of
its judicial discretion. It partakes of the nature of a nonuser or
discontinuance in a civil suit and leaves the matter in the same
condition in which it was before the commencement of the
prosecution. It is not an acquittal; it is not a final disposition
of the case; and it does not bar a subsequent prosecution for the
same offense.
2. General Rule: A MTQ may be filed by the accused at any time
before the accused enters his plea. Thereafter, no MTQ can be
entertained by the court.
Exception: under the circumstances mentioned in Sec. 9, Rule
117, which adopts the omnibus motion rule. This means that a MTQ
may still be filed after arraignment on the ground that the facts
alleged in the information charge no offense, that the offense or
penalty has prescribed, or that the doctrine of double jeopardy
precludes the filing of the information.
3. The right to file a MTQ belongs only to the accused. There is
nothing in the rules which authorizes the court or judge to motu
propio initiate a MTQ by issuing an order requiring why the
information may not be quashed on the ground stated in said
order.
Form and contents
Factual and legal grounds must be stated
This provision requiring that the factual and legal grounds be
stated in the motion allows that facts outside the information
itself may be introduced to prove any of the grounds of a MTQ,
enumerated in Sec. 3. Such inquiry into outside facts may also be
allowed even when the ground invoked is that the allegation in the
information does not constitute the offense charged.
Grounds
1. In a MTQ based on the ground that the facts alleged in the
information do not constitute the offense charged, the trial court
should limit its inquiry to:
the averments in the information, as hypothetically
admitted;
facts admitted by the prosecution; and
indubitable facts.
2. Where ground for MTQ is illegal arrest: If the accused
believes that the arrest, with or without warrant, is illegal, he
should move to quash the information on such ground, along with
other grounds as otherwise such other grounds will be deemed waived
if not included in the MTQ, except no offense charged, lack of
jurisdiction over the offense, prescription of offense or
liability, or double jeopardy.
3. The prosecutor who signed the information must have
territorial jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation
of the offense, otherwise the information filed by him would be
invalid and can be quashed on such ground.
4. The fact that the allegations in the complaint or information
are vague or broad, is not generally a ground for a motion to
quash, the remedy being to file a motion for bill of
particulars.
6. The period of prescription of violation of special laws or
offenses not penalized by the Revised Penal Code but by special
laws, and municipal ordinances is governed by Act No. 3326 which
took effect on December 4, 1926.
7. Doctrine of Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on
Behest Loans v. Desierto, 317 SCRA 272 (1999):
If the commission of the crime is known, the prescriptive period
shall commence to run on the day it was committed, otherwise on the
date of its discovery. In the very nature of things, acts made
criminal by special laws are frequently not immoral or obviously
immoral in themselves. For this reason, the applicable statute
requires that if the violation of the special law is not known at
the time, the prescriptive period begins to run only from the
discovery thereof, that is, discovery of the unlawful nature of the
constitutive act or acts, in connection with which there should be
evidence.
8. Regarding prescriptive periods: Where an accused has been
found to have committed a lesser offense includible within the
offense charged, he cannot be convicted of the lesser offense if it
has already prescribed. To hold otherwise would be to sanction the
circumvention of the law on prescription by the simple expedient of
accusing the defendant of the graver offense.
The rule that if the last day falls on a Sunday or a holiday,
the act can still be done the following day does not apply to the
computation of the period of prescription of a crime, in which the
rule is that if the last day in the period of prescription of a
felony falls on a Sunday or legal holiday, the information
concerning said felony cannot be filed on the next working day, as
the offense has by then already prescribed.
The period of a continuing crimes prescription is counted from
the latest or last act constituting the series of acts continuing
the single crime.
The prescriptive period of offenses penalized by special laws
and ordinances is interrupted only by the filing of complaint or
information in court. This is without distinction as to whether the
cases are covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure.
The period of prescription does not run when the offender is
absent from the Philippines.
9. Regarding pardon:
Unless grounded on the persons innocence, a pardon by the
President cannot bring back lost reputation for honesty, integrity
and fair dealing. The pardoned offender regains his eligibility for
appointment to public office which was forfeited by reason of the
conviction of the offense. But since pardon does not necessarily
result in automatic reinstatement because the offender has to apply
for reappointment, he is not entitled to back wages.
10. Contentious motions:
Contentious motions in criminal cases must comply with the
requirements that they be set for hearing at a specified date with
prior notice to the adverse party or the prosecutor at least 3 days
before the hearing, the notice of hearing should be addressed to
adverse counsel or the prosecutor, and proof of service of the
motion upon the adverse party or prosecutor at least 3 days prior
to such hearing. This is mandatory.
11. Remedy of aggrieved party While an order granting a motion
to quash, unlike a denial thereof, is appealable, as the proper
remedy, this rule does not preclude the aggrieved party from filing
a special civil action of certiorari, as a substitute for the
remedy of a lost appeal, where there is a patent, capricious and
whimsical exercise of discretion by a trial judge or where an
appeal will not promptly relieve the aggrieved party from the
injurious effect of the disputed order, as in the quashal of an
information for incomplete preliminary investigation.
Amendment of complaint or information
1. An information does not charge an offense if one or more of
its essential elements have not been alleged therein. The amendment
of the information to allege the element(s) not stated in the
information is a material amendment, but the same can be done
because the accused has not been arraigned, nor can a dismissal of
the information on such ground put the accused twice in
jeopardy.
2. A good tactical move may require that the accused should
first plead to the information and thereafter file a motion to
quash either before or after the prosecution has presented its
evidence. Pursuant to Sec. 9 of Rule 117, an accused, even after he
has entered his plea, may still move to quash the information on
the ground that it does not charge an offense. If the case is
dismissed on such ground, the prosecution may not be permitted to
correct the information because the accused has already pleaded and
to allow such amendment may place the accused twice in
jeopardy.
Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy
1. Double jeopardy will apply... when the complaint or
information is dismissed by a court of competent jurisdiction after
the prosecution has presented its evidence even if the dismissal is
in the mistaken ground of lack of jurisdiction.
even if the dismissal is made with the express consent of the
accused, or upon his own motion, if it is predicated on
insufficiency of the prosecution evidence or denial of the right to
a speedy trial. In both instances, the dismissal has the effect of
acquittal.
2. Double jeopardy will not apply in case of a conviction of a
crime under a special law, which also constitutes an offense under
the Revised Penal Code.
Reason: the former is malum prohibitum, while the latter is
malum in se.
Thus, it has been held that conviction for the crime of illegal
recruitment under the Labor Code does not preclude punishment for
the offense of estafa under the RPC.
where 2 informations are filed charging the same accused with 2
different elements, as in the issuance of bouncing check for estafa
under the RPC and violation of BP 22.
where after trial of a charge of serious physical injuries, the
municipal trial court dismissed the case to give way to the filing
of a complaint for frustrated murder, as it believed that what was
proved was frustrated murder, the dismissal was null and void
because the trial court should have rendered judgment based on the
charge alleged in the information and the evidence adduced during
the trial. Since the dismissal was null and void, it did not place
the accused twice in jeopardy for the continuation of the
proceedings for serious physical injuries.
where the accused has been sentenced to suffer a wrong penalty
by the trial court, the petition for certiorari filed by the
prosecutor to correct the penalty which should be lower than that
imposed does not place the accused twice in jeopardy because it
would shorten the penalty and is favorable to the accused.
where one case is administrative in nature and the other
criminal. Neither does it apply in preliminary investigations.
Provisional dismissal
1. Important!: A trial court may not order a provisional
dismissal of the case without the express consent of the accused
and prior notice to the offended party. The trial court, cannot, on
its own, provisionally dismiss the case, nor can it dismiss it
provisionally without the express consent of the prosecutor.
2. Important!: The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable
by imprisonment not exceeding 6 years or a fine of any amount, or
both, shall become permanent 1 year after issuance of the order
without the case having been revived. With respect to offenses
punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 years, their provisional
dismissal shall become permanent 2 years after issuance of the
order without the case having been revived.
Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor
The accused may still file a motion to dismiss the information
based on the following grounds even if he has already pleaded not
guilty:
the information charges no offense;
the trial court has no jurisdiction over the offense
charged;
the penalty or the offense has been extinguished; and
double jeopardy has attached.
1