Você está na página 1de 59

The law on criminal procedure intersects and interweaves with constitutional law because of the inherent

clash between the interest of the State to preserve public order, and the interest of the individual to have
his rights protected. A discussion of criminal procedure would therefore be incomplete without a
discussion of the Bill of Rights.

This reviewer therefore integrates the important points of the Bill of Rights together with the details
of remedial criminal procedure in order to give the reader a more holistic understanding of criminal
procedure. Substantive law, particularly criminal law, is likewise discussed when necessary.



RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS


Although the rights of the accused as enumerated under Rule 115, Sec. 1 pertain to the trial stage
of the criminal prosecution, they are discussed here at the start of this reviewer in order to set the
subsequent discussion of criminal procedure within the perspective of protection of the rights of the
accused.


























Right to discovery

Is there a right of discovery for the accused in criminal cases?

See the following provisions:
Right to be presumed innocent
Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
Right to be heard personally or by counsel
Right to speedy, impartial and public trial
Right to confront witnesses
Right to compulsory process

Rule 119, Sec. 12 -- Conditional examination of witnesses on behalf of
accused
Rule 116, Sec. 10 -- Production or inspection of material evidence in
possession of prosecution
Rule 116, Sec. 9 -- Motion for bill of particulars
Rule 112, Sec. 3(b), par. 2 -- Issuance of subpoena by prosecutor to
accused attaching to it a copy of the complaint and its
supporting affidavits and documents
(Note however that this is during preliminary
investigation.)

It was held in the case of People v. Webb that a denial of discovery procedures to an accused in
a criminal case is tantamount to a deprivation of the accuseds right to compulsory process which is
guaranteed in the Constitution.

Is there a right of discovery for the prosecution in criminal cases?

Yes. See Rule 119, Sec. 15 (examination of witnesses for the prosecution)

Why is it that the right of discovery cannot be the same for both prosecution and accused?

It might violate the accuseds right against self-incrimination.





Scope of the privilege

The scope of the privilege against self-incrimination covers compulsory testimonial self-
incrimination, i.e. that which will entail use of mental processes and/or communicative faculties. It has
since been extended to include any evidence communicative in nature, acquired under circumstances of
duress. (People v. Olvis, 154 SCRA 525)

Effect of violation

When the privilege against self-incrimination is violated outside of court (e.g., by the police), then
testimony is not admissible under the exclusionary rule.

When the privilege is violated by the court itself, i.e. by the judge, the court is ousted of its
jurisdiction, and all its proceedings are null and void, and is as if no judgment has been rendered. (See
Chavez v. CA, 34 SCRA 663)
Right against self-incrimination

CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION

INTRODUCTION




Custodial investigation defined

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 the 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. (People
v. Marra, 236 SCRA 565)

As provided for in Sec. 2, R.A. 7438, custodial investigation includes the practice of issuing an
"invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have
committed. This shall be without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.



(1) Right against arbitrary detention (Art. 125 RPC)
(2) Right against torture, inhumane treatment (Art. 3, Sec. 12 #2 Consti)
(3) Right to remain silent (Art. 3 Sec. 12 #1 Consti)
(4) Right against solitary confinement (Art. 3 Sec. 12 #2 Consti)
(5) Right to be assisted by counsel at all times (RA 857) or by a national/ international
NGO duly accredited by the Office of the President (EO 155) see RA 7438
(6) Right to be informed that anything he says may and will be used against him ( Miranda
rights)
(7) Right to privacy of correspondence and communication (Art. 3 Sec. 3 #1 Consti)
(8) Right against unreasonable searches and seizures (Art 3 Sec. 2 Consti)
(9) Right to competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice and be provided
with one if he cant afford the services of counsel (Art. 3 Sec. 12 #1 Consti)
(10) Right to waive assistance of counsel provided it be done intelligently and with assistance
of counsel (ibid)


1. Is there a right to conjugal visits?

No such right in custodial investigation, but see RA 7438, Sec. 2f.

2. Must the suspect be informed that his silence will not be used against him? Must he be given
a mini-lecture on Crim. Pro?

Nowhere in the consti or ROC is it provided that the suspect must be informed that his silence does
not bear any adverse consequence. However, it is believed that for a suspect to be considered as
truly informed of his constitutional right to silence, he must be advised that such silence will not be
Constitutional basis
Rights of person under custodial investigation
taken against him. This is due to the fact that in many instances, persons arrested feel that it looks
worse for them if they remain absolutely silent.

3. Is the right to be informed of the above rights satisfied if they are typewritten?

No. In People vs. Galit, it was held that each right must be explained to the accused in simple
words in his own dialect/language. Such is the requirement for warnings to be valid and effective.






IS A POLICE LINE-UP DEEMED PART OF CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION?

In the case of Gamboa v. Cruz (162 SCRA 642), the petitioner had not yet been
held to answer for a criminal offense when he was identified by the complainant at the
police line-up. The Court held that in this case, the police line-up was not part of
custodial investigation and therefore the right to counsel did not attach at that time. The
Court held that when the process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the
accusatory as when police investigation does not elicit a confession, the accused may
not yet avail of the services of his lawyer.

The Gamboa ruling was reiterated in the case of People v. Santos (236 SCRA
686; 1993), wherein the Court noted that there was nothing in the records of the case that
would show that in the course of the line-up, the police investigators sought to extract
any admission or confession from the accused.

In the US case of US v. Wade (908 U.S. 218; 1957) however, which involved a
post-indictment line-up, it was held that the absence of counsel during the line-up was
violative of the accused's rights. The Court held that the post-indictment line-up was a
critical stage of the prosecution at which the accused was as much entitled to the aid of
counsel as at the trial itself.






Rights embodied in the Miranda doctrine

a. right to remain silent
b. right to counsel
c. right to be informed of the above rights


Constitutional changes in the Miranda doctrine

d. Waiver of assistance of counsel must now be in writing and in the presence of counsel
e. Persons under investigation are not only entitled to counsel, they are entitled to competent
and independent counsel


4. Harmonize the ruling in Galman v. Pamaran with People v. Ayson

Police line-ups
Miranda Doctrine
In Galman v. Pamaran, the court opined that the incriminatory testimonies given in the investigation
conducted by the Agrava Board were not admissible in evidence by reason of non-compliance with
the Miranda warnings. This ruling was made despite its acknowledgment that said testimonies were
given before an administrative body, not in a criminal case, and that the suspects werent in custody
at the time they gave their testimonies. The reason given was that the protection granted under the
Phil. Consti was wider in scope than in the US because the word custodial was not included in our
constitution, which extends its protection to any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense.

In Pp vs. Ayson, the Court held that the constitutionally mandated Miranda warnings of the accuseds
right to silence and counsel are applicable only to police in-custody interrogation as the
commencement of adversarial proceedings against the suspect.

To harmonize the 2 cases, Prof. Tadiar commented that although the proceedings before the Agrava
Board were certainly not police investigations, they undoubtedly were an integral part of a criminal
investigation looking in the double murder. As such, the Agrava proceedings could be held as the
commencement of the adversarial criminal process that mandates the right to counsel. This is
inapplicable to the Ayson case which involved an administrative investigation by PAL management of
a ticket clerk for alleged irregularities in the sale of tickets.

5. When do the Miranda rights apply?

From the moment of arrest.

6. Are Miranda rights available in checkpoints and Stop and Frisk situations?

No. There is as yet no arrest. The fact that one consents to the search in the face of armed military
men does not constitute waiver of the right against Illegal Search (the person searched may still
question the legality of the search).

7. Police ran after a suspect who later hid himself in a building. The police sealed off all points
of ingress and egress and later talked to the suspect by megaphone. The police used the
information given against him later. Was the suspect deprived of Miranda rights? When is a
person considered under detention?

Bautista said: A DOJ circular stated that when the questioning is already removed from in-field
questioning, one the person is restricted in his physical movements in any significant way, then the
rights arise already Theres no need to put the persons in a cell for him to be considered under
detention. Going by the said definition, it is submitted that in the problem above, the suspect is
effectively under detention as he is already surrounded by the police with no possible means of
escape.

8. Bautista says:

Not that the scope of exclusion regarding the Privilege against Self-Incrimination and Miranda Rights
is not as broad as that afforded when there is a violation of the Right against Privacy of
Correspondence and Communication. In the latter, any evidence obtained in violation of said right
will be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

9. Is there any presumption regarding statements given under police custody?

Yes. The presumption is that such statements were involuntarily made.

10. Is the taping of Bautistas lectures a violation of the Anti-Wiretapping law?

No, since it is with his consent and involves communication that is not the private one contemplated
by law.

11. An illegal wiretap was made on the telephone of the accused and from listening to the wiretap,
the police came to know of the name and address of a witness who they later got to testify
against the accuse. Can such testimony be suppressed on the ground that the name and
address of the witness was obtained by an illegal wiretap?

No. The fact the he voluntarily testified in court does not make it the fruit of a poisonous tree and
though it may have an effect of attenuating the testimony of a witness; not however Sec. 4 of RA
4200: any communicated/spoken word, or the existence of contents, substance, purport, or meaning
of the same or any part thereof, or any info therein contained and obtained/secured by any person in
violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial,
quasi-judicial, legislative/administrative investigation/hearing.

12. If the suspect is a lawyer, do the Miranda warning still have to be made?

Yes, because educational attainment is immaterial.


13. Is videotaping a film shown in the theater a violation of RA 4200?

No, thats not a private communication although said act may be a violation of the Copyright law.





What may be waived

The right to remain silent and to counsel may be waived, but never the right to be given the
Miranda warnings.

Requirements for a valid waiver

(1) The waiver must be in writing.

(2) The waiver must made in the presence of counsel.


Burden of proving voluntariness of waiver

The burden of proving the voluntariness of the waiver of the Miranda warnings lies with the
prosecution. (People v. Jara, 144 SCRA 516; 1986)





What is the so-called exclusionary rule?

Any confession or admission obtained from the accused in violation of Sec. 12 (custodial
investigation) or Sec. 17 (right against self-incrimination) of the Constitution shall be inadmissible in
evidence against the accused.
Waiver of Miranda rights
Exclusionary rule

Implications: (1) The confession / admission can be used against the co-accused.
(2) It can be used in impeachment cases.
(3) It can be used in rebuttal.

When is the exclusionary rule not applicable?

The Miranda rule, and therefore the exclusionary rule, are not applicable in the following
situations:

(1) Confessions executed before Jan. 17, 1973;

(2) Res gestae statements (People v. Dy, 158 SCRA 111; 1988)

The declaration of the accused acknowledging guilt made to the police desk officer after
the crime was committed may be given in evidence against him by the police officer to
whom the admission was made, as part of the res gestae. (People v. Dy)

(3) Statements given in administrative investigations (People v. Ayson, 175 SCRA 216; 1989)

(4) Official forms prepared and accomplished in the normal course of audit regularly conducted
by the Commission on Audit (Kimpo v. Sandiganbayan, 235 SCRA 53);

(5) X-ray examinations of the body (People v. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455)





Any evidence obtained pursuant to an illegal search or seizure shall be inadmissible against
him. And any evidence obtained pursuant to such illegally-obtained evidence shall likewise be
inadmissible.

Qualification to the rule: If the evidence could have been discovered even without the
poisonous tree, then it is admissible.




What is the doctrine of attenuated taint?

If the taint is so diffused or remote, then the evidence need no longer be excluded. For example,
if the name of a witness is obtained through an illegal wiretap, but such witness voluntarily agrees to
testify.


If the suspect in police custody voluntarily starts answering questions without aid of counsel, are
the statements given admissible?

No, unless before doing so he had waived the right to remain silent and to counsel in writing and
in the presence of counsel.

The theory in Miranda v. Arizona is that the atmosphere in police interrogation is inherently
coercive, therefore, statements given under police custody are presumptively involuntary and the burden
of showing voluntariness is on the prosecution.

Doctrine of fruit of the poisonous tree
Doctrine of attenuated taint
ARREST


NOTES:

The 2000 Rules changed the power of an RTC judge to issue warrants of arrest. See Rule 112, Sec. 6 of
the old and new rules.

In general




A warrant of arrest is an order addressed to a law enforcement officer commanding him to
physically restrain a person to make him answer for the commission of an offense. (Rule 113, Sec. 1)





With warrant
Without warrant




When arrest takes place: What is the importance of knowing when?

Why is it important to know the precise time of arrest?

To determine whether or not there has been violation of the law against Arbitrary Detention.


Arrest with warrant




The only ground for issuance of a warrant of arrest is probable cause. Probable cause refers to
such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense had been committed by the person sought to be arrested.





Who may issue (not effect) a warrant of arrest in our jurisdiction?

According to Harvey v. Santiago:
a. Judge if the purpose of the arrest is to enable the suspect to answer for a charge
b. CID Commissioner if the purpose is to execute a decision/order

Arrest defined
Kinds of arrests
When arrest takes place
Grounds for issuance of warrant
Who may issue







How arrest is made

An arrest is made by an actual restraint of a person to be arrested, or by his submission to the
custody of the person making the arrest. (Rule 113, Sec. 2)

Who may serve a warrant of arrest

Can anybody be authorized to serve a warrant of arrest?

No. R.113 S.3 says the arresting officer (although it was not expounded who these arresting officers
are).

Duty of arresting officer

It is the duty of the officer executing the warrant to arrest the accused and deliver him to the
nearest police station or jail without unnecessary delay. (Rule 113, Sec. 3)

Time of arrest

An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night. (Rule 113, Sec. 6)

Method of arrest

No violence of unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest. The arrested shall not be
subject to a greater restraint than is necessary for his detention. (Rule 113, Sec. 2, 2
nd
paragraph)



Warrantless arrests

Grounds

Who may effect; how effected

By peace officer

By private person


When is a warrant of arrest not necessary?

(1) When the accused is already under detention pursuant to a warrant issued by the MTC judge in Rule
112, Sec. 6 (b);

Procedure for issuance
Executing the warrant
(2) When the complaint or information was filed pursuant to Rule 112, Sec. 7, i.e. a valid warrantless
arrest;

(3) When the offense is penalized by fine only. (Rule 112, Sec. 6 (c))

(4) When the accused lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued (Rule 113, Sec. 13)


Consequences of an unlawful arrest

Modes of attacking the validity

How can you attack an unlawful arrest?

(1) Motion to quash (Alimpoos v. CA)

(2) Habeas Corpus (See Rule 102)

(3) Bail (but then you dont really go into the validity of the arrest here Note that under the
new rules, an application for or admission to bail is no longer a bar to challenge the validity of
an arrest)

Standing to challenge


Time to challenge


Sanctions


What are the consequences of an unlawful arrest?

Illegal arrest is a crime.


How much time between the commission of the offense and the arrest, a week ago? IN
determining whether a warrantless arrest is valid or not do we inquire into whether there was
adequate opportunity to obtain a warrant? Is the existence of opportunity and time a
consideration in determining the validity of a warrantless arrest?

No. See People v. Amundin.


Bautista: take note of the crimes referred to in R. 113 Sec. 5a as continuing crimes laid down by
Umil v. Ramos: rebellion, subversion, conspiracy/proposal to commit such crimes, and
crimes/offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith.


Does a warrant of arrest have to state the name of the person?

No. If unknown name, a sufficient description will do.

If you only have a picture of the suspect, is that enough?

It is submitted that there still has to be a sufficient description.


Does the warrant of arrest have a lifetime?

No, although after 10 days from receipt of the warrant of arrest, the head of the office to whom the
warrant was delivered for execution must report to the issuing judge in case of failure to execute the
same.

Can the warrant of arrest be served anywhere in the Phil?

Yes.

Anytime?

Yes.


Do you know what a reliable asset is?
Police informer.

Q. Mobil car 1 calls police in Mobil car 2 and says that they have a warrant of arrest for B who is now in
Mobil car 2s area. Mobil car 1 says please assist us in arresting him. Police in car 2 sees B. Can
they arrest him?
A. Yes. R113 S7. The officer need not have the warrant of arrest in his possession at the time of the
arrest, but after the arrest, if the person arrested so requires, the warrant shall be shown to him as
soon as practicable.

Q. Recently, I had a client, a collector of customs. An importer complained to him that a collector was
hustling for a bribe in consideration for something. The matter was referred to the NBI who set an
entrapment. The NBI officer posted himself outside of Alfredos. There was a meeting between the
Chinese and the collector of customs and according to the collector, they handed some envelopes
containing marked money. After that they arrested him without warrant. Is the arrest valid?
A. Yes. The person arrested has actually committed a crime in his presence. Arrested person can be
said to have been caught in flagrante, hence arrest in valid. [US v. Fortaleza] An offense is
committed in the presence of within the view of an officer within the meaning of the rule authorizing
an arrest without a warrant when the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the
disturbance created.


On what grounds may a warrant of arrest be issued?

Only one ground: probable cause.

On what ground may a warrantless arrest be made?

Probable cause.

Q. There is this Chinese importer who complained to the Commissioner of Customs that this customs
official is trying to extort money from him. You are the legal adviser of the commissioner of
customs. You advise him to get a warrant first. How do you go about getting a warrant for the arrest
of this customs official?
A. Commissioner of Customs executes a complaint under oath, brings it and the Chinese to a judge
who shall personally examine him and the Chinese to determine probable cause. If he determines
probable cause exists, he issues a warrant of arrest.

Can the NBI agent make a warrantless arrest on the basis of information of a very reliable asset
who proves to be correct?

No.

But can it be the basis of obtaining a warrant of arrest?

No, if on the basis of that information only.

Spouse was charged with an offense cognizable by the RTC and the information is filed. You
are arrested without a warrant and there was no preliminary investigation. What should you do?

Before entering a plea, file a motion for preliminary investigation [People v. Monteverde].

Q. Does the filing of the complaint in the fiscals office interrupt the prescriptive period for the offense?
A. Yes. R110 S1 last paragraph

SEARCH & SEIZURE



A. Scope of Constitutional Restraint
B. Scope of Protection
C. Requisites of a Valid Warrant
D. Grounds for Issuance
E. Form of Search Warrant





The prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is imposed only upon the
government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. It does not extend to acts
committed by private individuals.




The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is personal; it may be invoked only by the
person entitled to it.





Waiver of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures may be express or implied, but
only by the person whose right is invaded, not by one who is not duly authorized to effect such waiver.


Constitutional basis
Scope of the prohibition
Nature of right against unreasonable searches & seizures
Waiver of right
SEARCHES WITH WARRANT




A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed
by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property described
therein and bring it before the court. (Rule 126, Sec. 1)





(1) Probable cause

Probable cause refers to such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet
and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection
with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.

(2) Personally determined by the judge

Only a judge can determine probable cause to justify the issuance of a search warrant. In doing
so, he cannot rely on the prosecutor's findings or certification.

Note: This is to be distinguished from the determination of probable cause by a judge in the
issuance of a warrant of arrest. With warrants of arrest, a judge can issue a warrant on the basis
of the information filed by the fiscal and the certification of probable cause. (See Rule 112, Sec.
6)

(3) One specific offense

Generally, a search warrant can be issued only in relation to one specific offense.

However, when existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various offenses, then one search
warrant may be validly issued for several violations of the same law, as in the case of PD 1866 (See
Prudente v. Dayrit, 180 SCRA 69) and R.A. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act (See People v. Dichoso,
223 SCRA 174).

(4) After an examination under oath and in writing of facts personally
known to the complainant and the witnesses he may produce;

The judge must take depositions and attach them to the record of the case. (Mata v. Bayona)

(5) Particularity of description

PURPOSE: To leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles
they should seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures may not
be made and abuses may not be committed.

SUFFICIENCY: The description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with
the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended
to be searched. (Prudente v. Dayrit)

Search Warrant defined
Requirements of a valid search warrant
Failure to state with particularity the place to be searched and items to be seized makes the
warrant used for fishing evidence a general warrant which is void.

However, it was held in the case of Kho v. Judge Makalintal (April 21, 1999) that the failure to
specify detailed descriptions in the warrant does not necessarily make the warrant a general
warrant. The description of the property need not be technically accurate nor necessarily precise, and its
nature will necessarily vary according to whether the identity of the property or its character is a
concern. Further, the description is required to be specific only insofar as circumstances will allow.





Where filed


Examination





Period of Validity of search warrant


Time


Property to be seized

The personal property that may be seized pursuant to the search warrant are:

(1) Subject of the offense;
(2) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or
(3) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. (Rule 126, Sec. 3)

It is not necessary that the property to be searched or seized should be owned by the person
against whom the warrant is issued; it is sufficient that the property is within his control or
possession. (Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800)


Procedure

(1) Admittance to the place of directed search

The officer, upon reaching the place of directed search, must give notice of his purpose
and authority to conduct the search to the lawful occupant of the place.

If the officer is refused admittance, he may break open any outer or inner door or window
of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate
himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein. (Rule 126,
Sec. 7)
Procedure for Issuance of a Search Warrant
How Search is effected

(2) Conduct of search

Upon admittance, the officer must conduct the search in the presence of the lawful
occupant of the premises or any member of his family, or in the absence of the latter, two
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. (Rule 126, Sec.
8) Failure to comply with this requirement invalidates the search. (People v. Gesmundo)

(3) Seizure of property and issuance of receipt for the property seized

Once the property described in the warrant has been found and seized, the officer must
give a detailed receipt for such property to the lawful occupant of the premises. In the
absence of such occupant, the officer must leave a receipt in the place in which he found
the seized property in the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality. (Rule 126, Sec. 11)

(4) Delivery of property and inventory to the court

The officer must then make a return on the warrant and deliver forthwith the property
seized to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof duly
verified under oath. The judge shall ascertain whether the seizing officer complied with
Rule 126, Sec. 11 (as regards issuance of the detailed receipt).

The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of the log book
on search warrant s who shall enter therein the date of the return, the result, and other
actions of the judge. (Rule 126, Sec. 12)

A violation of these requirements shall constitute contempt of court. (Rule 126, Sec. 12)


WARRANTLESS SEARCHES



When may a valid warrantless search be made?

1. Search incident to a lawful arrest
2. Search of moving vehicles (But what about mobile homes?)
3. Customs searches or seizure of goods concealed to avoid duties [Uykhetin v. Villareal, Papa v.
Magno]
4. Seizure of evidence in plain view
5. Consented searches, or when there is a waiver of the right [De Garcia v. Locisin]
6. Administrative searches
7. Border searches
8. Checkpoints
9. Stop-and-frisk
10. Private searches (People v. Marti)

Search incident to a lawful arrest

As a general rule, as an incident of an arrest, the place of premises where the arrest was made
can also be searched without a search warrant. (Nolasco v. Cruz-Pano)

PERMISSIBLE AREA OF SEARCH:

(1) Person of the accused;
(2) premises or surroundings within the accused's immediate control

PURPOSE: (1) A weapon held by the arrested person may be turned against his captor; and
(2) The accused may destroy the proof of the crime if the arrested officer has to
first apply for a search warrant.

You arrested a person without a warrant in the first floor of his house. Can you search the second
floor without a search warrant?

No. The Nolasco v. Pano [ 139 SCRA 152] ruling was reconsidered in Nolasco v. Pano [147 SCRA 509]
which held that a warrantless search made as an incident to a lawful arrest is to be strictly applied and
absolutely limited only to a search of the person and of the place where the arrest was made.



Consensual / Consented Searches

The requisites for a valid waiver or consented search are as follows:

(1) The Constitutional right exists;
(2) The person involved had either actual or constructive knowledge of such right; and
(3) There was an actual intention to relinquish the right.


Q. You stay in a room at Philippine Plaza. Scenario:
NBI: [knocks]
A girl from the room: Sino sila?
NBI: NBI ho. Ito ho ba ang kwarto ni Mr. B?
Girl: Opo.
NBI: Nandyan ba siya?
Girl: Wala ho, nasa ibaba, baka nagdisco.
NBI: Pwede bang pumasok?
Girl: Pwede ho. [opens door]
NBI: [enters] Pwede bang tumingin-tingin?
Girl: Kahit ano ho pwede. [NBI finds shabu and dirty pictures]
Valid warrantless search?

A. Yes. [Lopez v. Commissioner of Customs 68 SCRA 320] Under the circumstances, that was the most
prudent course of action (for the woman). It would save her and even petitioner Velasco himself from any
gossip or innuendo. Nor could the officers of the law be blamed if they would act on the
appearances. There was a person inside who from all indications was ready to accede to their
request. Even ordinary courtesy would preclude them from inquiring too closely as to why she was there.

Bernas comment: If the right against unreasonable search and seizure is a personal right, may it be waived by
somebody other than the person himself?
Bautista: Why, is the girl authorized to give consent?


Plain View

Requisites for a valid warrantless search under the plain view doctrine:

(1) Prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally
present in the pursuit of their official duties;
(2) The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where
they are;
(3) The evidence must be immediately apparent;
(4) Plain view justified the seizure of the evidence without any further search;
(5) The thing itself is illegal or prohibited.


The plain view doctrine is not applicable in cases wherein the subject items are not illegal per se, e.g. boy
scout uniforms that are suspected to be counterfeit items.

Suppose there is a warrant for the search of the premises of B for shabu but they find betamax
tapes which are pirated. Can they seize the tapes which are displayed?

No. Plain view doctrine presupposes that the criminal nature of the articles is clear at that point
without further search. Perhaps, if they were armalites, yes, because B cannot possibly be licensed to
have an armalite as he is not a soldier.


Checkpoints and Roadblocks

In the case of Valmonte v. De Villa (178 SCRA 211; 1989), it was held that a warrantless search
at a checkpoint or roadblock is valid for as long as the vehicle is subjected to a mere visual search, and
the occupants are not subjected to a body search.


Private Searches

In the case of People v. Marti (193 SCRA 57; 1991), it was held that if a search is made at the
behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purposes and
without the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot
be invoked.

Remedies against unlawful searches and seizures


(1) Suppression of the evidence through either

(a) quashal of the search warrant - available only when there is a search warrant
(b) motion to suppress evidence - available whether or not there is a search warrant

(2) Criminal actions for illegal search
(3) Civil actions against those responsible
(4) Administrative actions


What is the remedy to an illegal search?

A motion to quash the search warrant and/or to suppress evidence. (See Rule 126, Sec. 14)


Search only up to the point within the immediate control of arrestee. If you arrested him in the front lawn
of his house, you cannot go inside.


Dorm matron, UP security. Matron is very well trained, well equipped and said ok when security
asked to search premises. Search valid?

Consent given by the matron is valid with respect to the general areas of the dormitory but with respect to
the individual rooms, consent is not validly given unless the residents themselves would give consent.



PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

INTRODUCTION






PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION


I. PURPOSE

II. ENTITLEMENT AS OF RIGHT

A. Effect of denial

III. WHO MAY CONDUCT

IV. PROCEDURE: Differences between:

A. By MTC judge
B. By prosecutor / Ombudsman

V. REMEDIES FOR LACK OF / IRREGULAR P.I.






Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient
ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is
probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. (Rule 112, Sec. 1)




The primary objective of preliminary investigation is to free the respondent from the
inconvenience, expense, ignominy and stress of defending himself in the course of a formal trial, until the
reasonable probability of his guilt has been passed upon in a more or less summary proceeding by a
competent officer designated for that purpose.

Definition and attributes of a corporation
Preliminary investigation defined
Purpose of preliminary investigation
Preliminary investigation serves as a sieve, funnel, in which you can filter cases which cannot
stand the rigorous test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The overriding consideration is that the
accused should not be subjected to hasty, ill-considered or malicious prosecution. (Bautista)





Is P.I. part of due process? What about those not entitled to P.I.? Are they denied of due
process?

If it is granted by statute but denied, then there is violation of due process. If not granted by statute, then
there is no denial of due process.

Is P.I. a constitutional right?

No, it is only a statutory right.

When required to be conducted

Preliminary invesitgation is required to be conducted before the filing of a complaint or information
for offenses where the penalty prescribed by law is at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day (Prision
correccional in its maximum period, upwards. Please check this, though.), regardless of the fine. (Rule
112, Sec. 1) Note that this is to be taken together with Rule 112, Sec. 7 (which deals with warrantless
arrests).


Effect of denial of preliminary investigation

Preliminary investigation if denied can be demanded, but only before arraignment. Once a plea
has been entered, PI can no longer be availed of. (Rule 114, Sec. 26)

Note that the ruling in Go v. CA is exceptional owing to the circumstances in that case.





The following are authorized by law to conduct preliminary investigations:

1. Provincial or city prosecutors and their assistants

2. Judges of the MTC and MCTC judges (note that Metropolitan Trial Court judges are not
included)

3. National and regional state prosecutors

4. Such other officers as may be authorized by law

Ombudsman;
Metropolitan Trial Court judges of chartered cities where their charter allows
them to do so;
COMELEC (Verify this!)
SEC (Verify this!)
SSS (Verify this!)
ENTITLEMENT AS OF RIGHT
WHO MAY CONDUCT
Suppose the MTC judge conducts the P.I. and he finds no probable cause. What will he do?

Transmit to the fiscal the records of the case and recommend dismissal.

Suppose the fiscal disagrees with the judge, and he thinks that a case should be filed. Can he
base a review of the records sent up to him by the judge to file an information?

No, fiscal has to conduct his own preliminary investigation.





In what instances can an MTC judge issue summons instead of a warrant of arrest?

See Rule 112, Sec. 9 (b), last sentence: If the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for
placing the accused under custody, he may issue summons
instead of a warrant of arrest.

Compare the procedure for the conduct of preliminary investigation by an MTC judge and by a
prosecutor or the Ombudsman.

Differences: (1) MTC judge still has to submit his findings to the provincial / city
prosecutor for approval.

(2) MTC judge can issue warrants of arrest. (Rule 112, Sec. 6 (b))

In what instances is the reviewing prosecutor required to make a written ruling / resolution on the
findings being reviewed?

See Rule 112, Sec. 5, par. 2: In all cases.



Can the respondent file a motion to dismiss in a preliminary investigation?

NO. Rule 112, Sec. 3 (c) explicitly provides that no motion to dismiss shall be filed in lieu of a counter-
affidavit.





What is the remedy for lack of / or irregular preliminary investigation?

Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus.

Prohibition to prohibit arraignment. Mandamus to compel preliminary investigation.






PROCEDURE
REMEDIES FOR LACK OF / IRREGULAR PI
JURISDICTION

INTRODUCTION





VENUE

INTRODUCTION





COMPLAINT & INFORMATION




OLD RULES 2000 RULES COMMENTARY

Rule 110, Sec. 1. How instituted. -- For
offenses not subject to the rule on
summary procedure in special cases,
the institution of criminal actions shall
be as follows:

(a) For offenses falling under the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Courts, by filing the complaint with
the appropriate officer for the purpose
of conducting the requisite preliminary
investigation therein;


(b) For offenses falling under the
jurisdiction of the MTCs and MCTCs,
by filing the complaint or information
directly with the said courts, or a
complaint with the fiscal's
office. However, in Metro Manila and
other chartered cities, the complaint
may be filed only with the office of the
fiscal.


In all cases, such institution shall
interrupt the period of prescription of

Rule 110, Sec. 1. Institution of criminal
actions - Criminal actions shall be
instituted as follows:



(a) FOR OFFENSES WHERE A
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 1 OF RULE 112, by filing
the complaint with the proper officer
for the purpose of conducting the
requisite preliminary investigation

(b) For all other offenses, by filing
the complaint or information directly
with the MTCs and MCTCs, or the
complaint 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.

The institution of the criminal
action shall interrupt the running of
the period of prescription of the

The phrase "for offenses not subject
to the rule on summary procedure in
special cases" was deleted. Thus,
under the new rules, the institution of
all criminal actions shall be the same.

Under Sec. 1 of Rule 112,
preliminary investigation is required
for offenses punishable
by imprisonment of at least 4 years, 2
months and 1 day (subject to the
exception in Sec. 7 of Rule 112, i.e. lawful
warrantless arrests)












This amendment is pursuant to the
ruling in Zaldivia v. Reyes (211 SCRA
Definition and attributes of a corporation
Definition and attributes of a corporation
Comparison of the old and new rules
the offense charged. offense charged UNLESS
OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN
SPECIAL LAWS.
277), where the Supreme Court held
that the Rules of Court cannot amend
special laws.






Rule 110, Sec. 8. Designation of the
offense. - Whenever possible, a
complaint or information should state
the designation given to the offense by
the statute, besides the statement of
the acts or omissions constituting the
same, and if there is no such
designation, reference should be made
to the section or subsection of the
statute punishing it.


Rule 110, Sec. 9. Cause of
accusation. The acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the
offense must be stated in ordinary and
concise language without repetition,
not necessarily in the terms of the
statute defining the offense, but in
such form as is sufficient to enable a
person of common understanding to
know what offense is intended to be
charged, and enable the court to
pronounce proper judgment.

Rule 110, Sec. 8. Designation of the offense
- The complaint or information shall
state the designation of the offense
given by the statute, aver the acts or
omissions constituting the offense, and
SPECIFY ITS QUALIFYING AND
AGGRAVATING CIRCUM-
STANCES. If there is no designation
of the offense, reference shall be made
to the section or subsection of the
statute punishing it.

Rule 110, Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation.
-The acts or omissions complained of
as constituting the offense and the
QUALIFYING AND AGGRAVA-
TING CIRCUMSTANCES must be
stated in ordinary and concise language
and not necessarily in the language
used in the statute but in terms
sufficient to enable a person of
common understanding to know what
offense is being charged as well as its
QUALIFYING AND AGGRA-
VATING CIRCUMSTANCES and
for the court to pronounce judgment.








The Rules now require the
information to allege the qualifying
and aggravating circumstances.

Rule 110, Sec. 5. Who must prosecute
criminal actions.

Refer to codal for text.

Rule 110, Sec. 5. Who must prosecute
criminal actions.

Refer to codal for text.

Rape is no longer considered a
private offense since it is now
classified as a crime against persons
under R.A. 8353. Thus, it may be
prosecuted by any person and not just
upon a complaint filed by the
offended party or her parents,
grandparents or guardian.

Rule 110, Sec. 14. Amendment. - The
information or complaint may be
amended, in substance or form,
without leave of court, at any time
before the accused pleads; and
thereafter and during the trial as to all
matters of form, by leave and at the
discretion of the court, when the same
can be done without prejudice to the
rights of the accused.









Rule 110, Sec. 14. Amendment OR
SUBSTITUTION. - A Complaint Or
Information May Be Amended, In
Form Or In Substance, Without Leave
Of Court, At Any Time Before The
Accused Enters His Plea. After The
Plea And During The Trial, A Formal
Amendment May Only Be Made With
Leave Of Court And When It Can Be
Done Without Causing Prejudice To
The Rights Of The Accused.
HOWEVER, ANY
AMENDMENT BEFORE PLEA
WHICH DOWNGRADES THE
NATURE OF THE OFFENSE
CHARGED IN OR EXCLUDES
ANY ACCUSED FROM THE
COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION,














This is self-explanatory.











If it appears at any time before
judgment that a mistake has been
made in charging the proper offense,
the court shall dismiss the original
complaint or information upon the
filing of a new one charging the proper
offense in accordance with Rule 119,
Sec. 11, provided the accused shall not
be placed in double jeopardy, and may
also require the witnesses to give bail
for their appearance at the trial.

CAN BE MADE ONLY UPON
MOTION BY THE PROSECUTOR,
WITH NOTICE TO THE
OFFENDED PARTY AND WITH
LEAVE OF COURT. THE COURT
SHALL STATE ITS REASONS IN
RESOLVING THE MOTION AND
COPIES OF ITS ORDER SHALL
BE FURNISHED ALL PARTIES,
ESPECIALLY THE OFFENDED
PARTY.
If it appears at any time before
judgment that a mistake has been
made in charging the proper offense,
the court shall dismiss the original
complaint or information upon the
filing of a new one charging the proper
offense in accordance with sec. 19, rule
119, provided the accused shall not be
placed in double jeopardy. The court
may require the witnesses to give bail
for their appearance at the trial.


I. Definition of complaint and information

II. How and where instituted

III. Who must prosecute

IV. Requisites of a complaint or information

V. Amendment of complaint or information

VI. Effect of filing on interruption of prescriptive period

VII. Remedies against a defective complaint or information









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. Note that it is the imposable penalty that governs; not the
penalty which the court may impose or actually imposes. (People v. Lagon, 185 SCRA 442)





Generally, the fiscal. However, in MTCs, MeTCs or MCTCs where the fiscal is not available, the offended
party or a peace officer or public officer may prosecute.

Definition of complaint and information
How and where instituted
Who must prosecute
Note that once the complaint or information has been filed in court, the fiscal loses jurisdiction to dispose
of the case as he deems fit. (Republic v. Sunga, 162 SCRA 191)





Name of accused
Designation of offense
Acts / Omissions constituting offense
Name of offended party
Date of Commission of Offense
Place of Commission





Before arraignment: If amendment is either in substance or form, without need for leave of
Court

After arraignment,
during trial: Amendment in form only, with leave of court at its discretion, provided
that such amendment does not prejudice the rights of the accused.

Formal amendment: one that does not prejudice any essential right of the accused, nor affect the
essence of the crime charged.

Substantial amendment: one that would change the basic theory of the prosecution by alleging a new
way of committing the offense.

What is the test to determine whether an amendment is substantial or formal?

(1) If the amendment changes the nature of the information;
(2) Eliminates a defense;
(3) Increases quantum of evidence

Note: Conspiracy is neither formal nor substantial per se. It depends on the circumstances of the case.
















Requisites of a complaint or information
Amendment of complaint or information
Effect of filing on interruption of prescriptive period
Remedies against a defective complaint or information
THE CIVIL ASPECT





OLD RULES 2000 RULES COMMENTARY

Rule 111, Sec. 1. Institution of
criminal and civil actions. - When a
criminal action is instituted, the civil
action for the recovery of civil liability
is impliedly instituted with the criminal
action, unless the offended party
waives the civil action, reserves his
right to institute it separately, or
institutes the civil action prior to the
criminal action.


Such civil action includes recovery
of indemnity under the Revised Penal
Code, and damages under Art. 32, 33,
34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines arising from the same act
or omission of the accused.

A waiver of any of the civil actions
extinguishes the others. The
institution of, or the reservation of the
right to file, any of the said civil
actions separately waives the others.











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 reservation.

In no case may the offended party
recover damages twice for the same act
or omission of the accused.


When the offended party seeks to
enforce civil liability against the
accused by way of moral, nominal,

Rule 111, Sec. 1. Institution of
criminal and civil actions. -
(a) When a criminal action is
instituted, the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability arising from
the offense charged shall be deemed
impliedly instituted with the criminal
action, unless the offended party
waives the civil action, reserves his
right to institute it separately, or
institutes the civil action prior to the
criminal action.
























The reservation of the right to
institute separately the civil action shall
be made before the prosecution starts
presenting its evidence and under
circumstances affording the offended
party a reasonable opportunity to make
such reservation.

In no case, however, may the
offended party recover damages twice
for the same act or omission charged
in the criminal action. (Sec. 3)

When the offended party seeks to
enforce civil liability against the

Under the 2000 Rules, only the civil
liability arising from the offense
chargedis deemed instituted. This
means that recovery of damages for
civil liability under Art. 32, 33, 34 and
2176 of the Civil Code is not impliedly
instituted in the criminal case, and may
therefore be prosecuted separately
even without a reservation. This is in
contrast to the old Rules where all civil
liability was deemed instituted in the
criminal case.







Under the former rule, a waiver of
any of the civil actions extinguishes the
others. The institution of, or the
reservation of the right to file, any of
the civil actions separately waives the
others. This is no longer provided
for. The reservation and waiver
referred to pertain only to the civil
action for the recovery of civil liability
arising from the offense charged. This
does not include recovery under Art.
32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code
arising from the same act or omission,
which may be prosecuted separately
even without a reservation.









This provision was moved to Sec. 3
of Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules. The
change is merely one of style and not
of substance.




Comparison of old and new rules
temperate or exemplary damages, the
filing fees for such civil action as
provided in these Rules shall constitute
a first lien on the judgment except in
an award for actual damages.


In cases wherein the amount of
damages, other than actual, is alleged
in the complaint or information, the
corresponding filing fees shall be paid
by the offended party upon the filing
thereof in court for trial.
accused by way of moral, nominal,
temperate or exemplary
damages without specifying the
amount thereof in the complaint or
information, the filing fees
thereof shall constitute a first lien on
the judgment awarding such damages.

Where the amount of damages,
other than actual, is specified in the
complaint or information, the
corresponding filing fees shall be paid
by the offended party upon the filing
thereof in court.

Except as otherwise provided in
these Rules, no filing fees shall be
required for actual damages.


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 the subject thereof may
be litigated in a separate civil
action.






(b) The criminal action for
violation of BP 22 shall be deemed
to include the corresponding civil
action. No reservation to file such
civil action separately shall be
allowed.

Upon filing of the aforesaid joint
criminal and civil actions, the
offended party shall pay in full the
filing fees based on the amount of
the check involved, which shall be
considered as the actual damages
claimed. Where the complaint or
information also seeks to recover
liquidated, moral, nominal,
temperate or exemplary damages,
the offended party shall pay
additional filing fees based on the
amounts alleged therein. If the
amounts are not so alleged but any
of these damages are subsequently
awarded by the court, the filing fees
based on the amount awarded shall
constitute a first lien on the
judgment.

Where the civil action has been
filed separately and trial thereof has
not yet commenced, it may be














The exceptions are BP 22 cases,
those civil actions not instituted within
the proper time, and cases before the
Sandiganbayan.

The 2000 rules have repealed the
rulings in Shafer v. Judge, RTC of
Olongapo (167 SCRA 376), Javier vs. IAC
(171 SCRA 376) and Cabaero v.
Cantos (citation unknown) which
previously allowed the filing of third-
party complaints as well as
counterclaims. Now, under the 2000
Rules, these pleadings are no longer
allowed. Any claim which could have
been the subject thereof may be
litigated in a separate civil action.

The 2000 Rules have incorporated
Supreme Court Circular 57-97 on the
filing of actions for violation of BP 22
mandating the inclusion of the
corresponding civil action for which
the filing fee shall be paid based on the
amount of the check involved.

Note that in other cases (non-BP
22 cases), no filing fees are required
for actual damages.
consolidated with the criminal
action upon application with the
court trying the latter case. If the
application is granted, the trial of
both actions shall proceed in
accordance with Sec. 2 of this Rule
governing consolidation of the civil
and criminal action.

No counterpart provision.



Rule 111, Sec. 2, paragraph 2.
During the pendency of the
criminal action, the running of the
period of prescription of the civil
action which cannot be instituted
separately or whose proceeding has
been suspended shall be tolled.

The action contemplated herein is a
civil action arising from the offense
charged. If such civil action is either
reserved, or filed separately ahead of
the criminal case, the period of
prescription does not run.

However, the period of
prescription for civil actions under Art.
32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code
is not suspended because such actions
can be instituted separately.

No counterpart provision.

Rule 111, Sec. 4. Effect of death on
civil actions - The death of the
accused after arraignment and
during the pendency of the criminal
action shall extinguish the civil
liability arising from the
delict. However, the independent
civil action instituted under Sec. 3
of this Rule or which thereafter is
instituted to enforce liability arising
from other sources of obligation
may be continued against the estate
or legal representative of the
accused after proper substitution or
against said estate, as the case may
be. The heirs of the accused may
be substituted for the deceased
without requiring the appointment
of an executor or administrator and
the court may appoint a
guardian ad litem for the minor
heirs.

The court shall forthwith order
said legal representative or
representatives to appear and be
substituted within a period of 30
days from notice.

A final judgment entered in
favor of the offended party shall be
enforced in the manner especially
provided in these rules for
prosecuting claims against the
estate of the deceased.

If the accused dies before
arraignment, the case shall be
dismissed without prejudice to any
civil action the offended party may
file against the estate of the

deceased.

Rule 111, Sec. 5. Elements of
prejudicial question. - The 2
essential elements of a prejudicial
question are: (a) the civil action
involves an issue similar or intimately
related to the issue raised in the
criminal action; and (b) the resolution
of such issue determines whether or
not the criminal action may proceed.


Rule 111, Sec. 7. Elements of
prejudicial question. - The elements
of a prejudicial question are: (a)
thepreviously instituted civil action
involves an issue similar or intimately
related to the issue raised in
thesubsequent criminal action; and
(b) the resolution of such issue
determines whether or not the criminal
action may proceed.


The 2000 Rules expressly state that
for a civil action to be deemed a
prejudicial question, it must have been
instituted prior to the criminal action.







Note that under the 2000 Rules, the only civil action deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal
action is that for civil liability arising from the offense charged. All other civil actions arising from sources
other than the delict are not impliedly instituted.

Note that under both the old and new rules, the exceptions to the general rule of the implied
institution of the civil aspect are:

(1) When the offended party waives the civil action;
(2) When the offended party reserves his right to institute it separately; and
(3) When he institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.


Does the offended party have the absolute right to institute a civil action ex delicto separately?

YES, except in the following cases:

(1) BP 22 cases (Rule 111, Sec. 1 (b));
(2) When not instituted within the proper time;
(3) Cases before the Sandiganbayan.










What is the effect of death of the accused on the civil actions?

It depends:

(1) If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice to any
civil action the offended party may file against the estate of the deceased.

(2) If the accused dies after arraignment and during pendency of the criminal action, civil liability
arising from the delict shall be extinguished. HOWEVER, an independent civil action
IMPLIED INSTITUTION OF THE CIVIL ASPECT
RESERVATION OF CIVIL ACTION
EFFECT OF DEATH OF THE ACCUSED
instituted under Rule 111, Sec. 3 or from other sources of obligation may be continued
against (a) the estate or (b) legal representative of the accused after proper substitution, as
the case may be. (Rule 111, Sec. 4)





Must filing fees be paid every time a criminal case is filed?

It depends on whether the claim is only for actual damages, or if there is an additional claim for
moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages.

If only actual damages are claimed?

Generally, no filing fees are required. However, if the case is one involving BP 22, filing fees
must be paid basd on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual
damages claimed. (Rule 111, Sec. 1b)

If the complaint or information seeks to also recover liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or
exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay additional filing fees based on the amounts alleged
therein. (Rule 111, Sec. 1 (b))





As a general rule, criminal actions are preferred over civil actions, i.e. the civil action shall be
suspended when the criminal action has been filed.

However, there are exceptions to this rule of preference, namely:

(1) Independent civil actions, i.e. Art. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code;
(2) When the civil case is subsequently consolidated with the criminal action
(Sec. 2, Rule 111); and
(3) A civil action involving a prejudicial question

What is a prejudicial question?

A prejudicial question is understood in law as that which must precede the criminal action and
which requires a decision before a final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action with which said
question is closely connected. (Berbari v. Concepcion, 40 Phil. 837) A civil question is prejudicial when it
refers to a fact separate and distinct from the offense but intimately connected with it, which question
determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. (De Leon v. Mabanag, 70 Phil. 202)

The doctrine of prejudicial question comes into play generally in a situation where the civil and
criminal actions are pending and in the former an issue must be preemptively resolved before the criminal
action may proceed. This does not apply where no civil, but only an administrative, case is
involved. (Manikad, et al. v. Tanodbayan, G.R. No. 65097, Feb. 20, 1984)


What are the elements of a prejudicial question?

(1) The previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the
issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and

FILING FEES
PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONS
(2) The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed. (Rule 111, Sec. 7)

In cases of prejudicial questions, is reservation required?

No. See the cases of Maniago v. CA and San Ildefonso Lines.


Where can a petition for suspension of the criminal action based on a prejudicial question in a
civil action be filed?

(1) If the criminal action has not yet been filed in court for trial, it may be filed in the
office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. Note
that this is the earliest time.

(2) If the criminal actions has already been filed in court, it may be filed in the same
criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests. (Rule 111, Sec. 6) Note
that this is the latest time.


In case of prejudicial question, which action is suspended?

Criminal action. This is because the issue in a civil action is intimately connected to the issue in
the criminal action and thus needs to be determined first before the criminal action may proceed.

Examples of prejudicial questions:

Civil action for annulment of marriage filed by the woman, where there is a criminal action for
abduction and filed by her against he male contracting party. The dismissal of said action
and the consequent declaration of the validity of said marriage constitutes a defense or mode
of extinction of said criminal case under Art. 344 of the Revised Penal Code. (Montilla v.
Yatco, 61 O.G. 8376)

Civil action brought by plaintiff to annul the sale of land by defendant to a 3
rd
person, and a
criminal case for estafa, where plaintiff alleged that the same land was previously sold by
defendant to him but where defendant raised the defense that his signature appearing on the
deed of sale to the plaintiff was falsified. (Ras v. Rasul, Sept. 18, 1980)

Examples of actions not deemed to be prejudicial questions:

Civil action for dissolution of the conjugal partnership on the ground of mismanagement by
the husband, where the criminal offense is concubinage (Cabahug-Mendoza v. Valera, 92
Phil 1001)

Civil action for the annulment of a certificate of title issued upon the basis of a falsified
affidavit of adjudication, where the criminal offense is falsification (De la Cruz v. City Fiscal of
Dagupan, 106 Phil. 851)

Civil case for quieting of title to property alleged to have been the subject of a falsified deed
of sale, where the criminal offense is falsification (Dasalla, et al. v. City Attorney of Quezon
City, May 30, 1962)

Civil case for annulment of the second marriage brought by the second wife, where the first
wife has filed a criminal case against the husband for bigamy (People v. Aragon, 94 Phil. 357;
Landicho v. Relova, Feb. 23, 1968)

However, where the husband was charged with bigamy by the second wife and the
husband filed a civil action against the second wife for the annulment of the marriage
on the ground that he was forced to contract said subsequent marriage, such civil
action is prejudicial since annulment on that ground would establish that his act in
contracting the second marriage was involuntary, and hence, no criminal liability
would attach. (Zapanta v. Montesa, Feb. 28, 1962)

Validity of a receipt, impugned in a civil action as having been obtained by fraud, where the
criminal case is one for estafa. Such defense may be passed upon in said criminal case or
conviction may be based on other grounds. (Jimenez v. Averia, et al., Mar. 29, 1968)





Is it possible for the accused to be acquitted, and yet to be civilly liable for the act charged to be
criminal?

Yes, if the court made no finding in the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or
omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. Extinction of the penal action generally does
not carry with it extinction of the civil action. (Rule 111, Sec. 2)





Said query whether an action for breach of contract arising from the same act or omission as the
basis of the criminal charge, is impliedly instituted you think that the express mention of the
articles of the CC excludes culpa contractual?

The way I read it, the 2
nd
paragraph amplifies the general statement in the first paragraph. The civil
liability in the first paragraph consists of the 5 mentioned in the 2
nd
par.

That may be so because of the wording. I think you are right. However, it may be a failure to consider
the intention really is to assimilate all the civil actions based on the same act or omission. I think the
express enumeration may have left open the matter of culpa contractual. In fact, culpa contractual is not
mentioned among those actions, which may be prosecuted independently and separately and
concurrently with the criminal action. But it can. That also pulls the rug under your expressio unios
argument. I think that this one can also be prosecuted separately. It should be impliedly instituted.

Sir: We have a private prosecutor in a criminal proceeding and have a civil litigation together with a
criminal case.
The accused has a right to refuse to take the witness stand. Can the private prosecutor call him
to the stand as an adverse party witness in respect to the civil liability? Since we have fused/merged
trial. You notice the provision which speaks of the civil action being consolidated if it was already pending
before, it would be consolidated with the criminal action although you can ask additional evidence and
also in defining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
What is the peculiarity in cases before the Sandiganbayan about the civil aspect of offenses being
tried by the Sandiganbayan? All cases bearing on the civil aspect of the crime should be jointly tried in
the Sandiganbayan proceeding and if not so tried, then it should be waived.
Cannot be expressly reserved, be separately instituted. Perhaps Apples point may acquire some
added validity when reckoned with the Sandiganbayan decree ecause in those cases, it would be
extremely unfair for an accused who has a cause of action for breach of contract not to be able to institute
an independent action for breach of contract because theres a criminal case filed in Sandiganbayan
because in that case, there is absolute prohibition for a separate action. What is the rationale for giving
EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL ON CIVIL LIABILITY
priority to this criminal aciton over the civil action? Why do we say, go ahead first with the criminal action
and let us suspend the civil action except in those cases where an independent civil action may be
prosecuted.
You remember the Seneris doctrine?
A: There could be a finding in the criminal action that the fact from which the civil liability might arise
did not exist.

Sir: Good. But also what if there could be a finding? So you save time so there is no need for a civil
case. You may be able to save the time and expenditure for a civil case. You may be able to save the
time and expenditure for a civil case. Give me an instance of a case where such a finding may be made
that he basis for civil liability does not exist.
A: 2 women claiming to be wife of one person. The first files criminal charge of bigamy, but in a civil
case, the issue of validity of the first marriage comes up.


Sir: The right to reserve the institution of a separate civil action is given in all cases. True or false?
A: True, except Sandiganbayan.
Sir: R 111, S 1, 2
nd
par. When you have the right to independent action, you have a right to
reserve. What does that mean? They can be instituted concurrently?
These are the different concepts. One is the right to reserve. That is given in all cases. Now, the
right to proceed concurrently is limited to those 4 cases in 2
nd
paragraph, without having to wait. In all
cases, you have the right to reserve. Its only a question if you can do it at the same time or you have to
wait.

Sir: Is there a deadline for making a reservation in a criminal action?
A: Yes, before prosecution starts to present its evidence.
Sir: Unless? In other words, there might be a time even after the prosecution has started its evidence,
still you may be allowed to make your reservation.
Example?
A: If fiscal instituted action without intervention of offended party. After arraignment, proceeded to
present its evidence without the private party having the chance to reserve.
Sir: Possible. Or more commonly if the accused pleads guilty right away.

Sir: An action based on contract may proceed independently. So, our conclusion a while ago that
only civil actions based on 32, 33, 34 and 2176 CC may proceed independently is not completely correct.
A: Yes, in that sense.


Sir: A court in criminal case may issue a writ of preliminary attachment. How about MTC? The civil
liability arising from the offense on civil action impliedly instituted in the criminal action in the MTC might
involve more than P 20,000. May MTC issue writ of preliminary attachment to secure claim for more
than?
A: Yes.
Sir: So it has larger civil jurisdiction in a criminal case than it has in a civil case.

BAIL

INTRODUCTION



I. Definition and purpose
II. Kinds
III. Rules for when bail may be availed of

A. When Allowed
(1) Matter of Right
(2) Matter of Discretion
B. When not allowed
C. When not required

IV. Conditions
V. Entitlement
VI. Application (includes who may grant)
VII. Posting
VIII. Forfeiture






The right to bail flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. (De la Camara
v. Enage, 41 SCRA 1)










When bail is a matter of right

Bail is a matter of right in the following instances:

In criminal cases before the MTC: Before or after conviction
In criminal cases before the RTC: Before conviction, where the penalty is
less than reclusion perpetua, death or
life imprisonment

When bail is a matter of discretion

(1) Matter of Discretion

Constitutional basis
Definition and purpose
When right may be invoked
Rules for when bail may be availed of
Bail is a matter of discretion in the following instances:

In criminal cases before the RTC: After conviction, where the penalty is
less than reclusion perpetua, death or
life imprisonment

When bail is not allowed


Bail is not allowed when the crime involved is a capital offense where evidence of guilt is
strong. (Note that it is the prosecution which has the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong.)

Bail is likewise not allowed after final judgment. The exception to this is when the accused
applies for probation before the judgement becomes final. (Note that the Probation Law must be
applicable to both the penalty and the offense.)


When bail is not required






A. Surety Bond
B. Property Bond
C. Cash Bond
D. Recognizance - Personal underwriting by accused or good citizen of community.







At what stages of the criminal action is the accused required to be present?

1. arraignment
2. for identification
3. promulgation of judgment, except if the case is one involving a light offense


Right to bail and the right to travel abroad












Kinds
Conditions
Standards for fixing bail
Entitlement




Where does one apply for bail? (Rule 114, Sec. 17)

As a general rule, bail is applied for / filed with the court where the case is pending.

Exceptions:

1. judge where case is pending is not available
2. Accused arrested in a place other than where case is pending
3. Accused has not yet been charged

Until when is bail good?

Unless cancelled, bail remains in force at all stages of the case until promulgation of judgment by
RTC. (Rule 114, Sec. 2)










What is the effect of failure of the accused out on bail to attend a hearing despite due notice?

(1) Bond -- If the hearing is one wherein the accuseds presence is mandatory, the
bond is forfeited. (However, if his presence is not required, there will be no
effect on the bond.) Moreover, the Court will give the sureties 30 days within
which to produce their principal (or to give the reason for his non-production),
and to show cause why no judgment should be rendered against them for the
amount of their bail (i.e., explain why the accused did not appear before the court
when first required to do so).


(2) Trial -- Trial in absentia, provided that accused has already been arraigned.

Question: Is the accuseds presence waived for that date only or for all other
dates thereafter?




Who are NOT entitled to bail as of right?

1. reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, death when evidence of guilt is strong

2. after conviction by the RTC imposing penalty of imprisonment exceeding 6 years but not
more than 20 years and any of the grounds enumerated

3. conviction reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, death

Application (includes who may grant)
Posting
Forfeiture
Waiver of the right to bail


Sirs view If you are convicted and penalty is more than 6 years, not as a matter of right but
discretionary if any of the 5 conditions

Matter of right
a. before or after conviction by MTC
Bail MTC RTC; still good upon appeal

b. before conviction by RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment
6 years and above 20 + 5 grounds = no discretion
SEC 24. If there is final judgment no bail because convicted, but can apply for
probation before finality


What are the stages of bail?

(1) applying
(2) fixing
(3) posting


Where to apply not the same as where to post
look at type of bond see sec 11 and sec 14

Court where you apply fixes amount of bail
but this is NOT necessarily the court which will release you but where you post bail
e.g. charged in RTC Manila. Fix bail at P30,000. Can you post bail in RTC QC? Yes, 2
nd
paragraph sec
19

If post with treasurer get receipt and go to court you want the warrant to be recalled by the
court

Applying v. Fixing v. Posting
just because court approves bail does not equate to posting
after approval of bail get ? then post

posting= where? any where case is pending or arrested?
theres no provision where to post bail
can post bail anywhere

Must forward what?
e.g. issue warrant Manila
release Q.C. ( cant approve application but once Manila approves, QC can release)

Bail = confusing = as to applying, fixing and posting

When is the liability of surety extinguished?

1. acquitted
2. dismissal
3. death
4. convicted and surrenders

Sec 21 = appeared as required


There used to be a letter of instruction waiving presence of accused

Bail fixed at P100,000 if surety or P10,000 if cash. Is this valid? Yes.

Bail if in cash can it be applied to fine and civil damages
fine Yes
Civil liability No, might not be his money


What if explain why cant produce
produce body OR give reason for his non-production
possibility that liability of bondsman will be reduced


If out on bail, can he travel abroad? No, unless with court permission may lose jurisdiction
impairs contract of bondsman
Is this not impairment of liberty? Still in jail although out on bail bondsman is his jailer =
bondman can arrest (no need for warrant) sec 23

practice notice to the bondsman is notice to the accused


Sir: Who is not entitled to bail? Is there anyone not entitled to bail?
A: No.
Sir: Everybody is entitled to bail. There is no one not entitled to bail. Everybody is entitled even
those charged with reclusion perpetua and where evidence of guilt is strong. (?)

Sir: Even after conviction but pending appeal, they are entitled to bail?
A: Yes.

Sir: What is the difference of (1) those accused with offenses punishable by lesser penalties or RP
where evidence of guilt is not strong; and (2) those accused with RP evidence is strong?
A: (1) Bail is a matter of right. (2) Bail is discretionary upon court

Sir: If you are charged with an offense in the RTC, may you apply for bail in the MTC of the same
province?
A: R 114, S 14, 2
nd
sentence, ....bail may be filed also in MTC.
Sir: I said applied. Here are the concepts. The court which fixes the bail. The court that accepts
the bail, and therefore releases the accused on bail.

Sir: May the MTC of QC fix and release on bail a person not charged before it? I did not say accept
the bail.
A: S 16, 2
nd
par. ...file xxx.
Sir: But that provision presupposes that the bail was fixed. I am talking of QC-MTC fixing and
accepting bail of one not charged before it. In S 16, 2
nd
paragraph, why should he file bail when it has not
yet been fixed?

Sir: Read provision where accused is arrested and not yet charged, and he can put up bail?
A: R 114, S 14 (c) xxx apply

Sir: Apply. That means is has not yet been fixed.
A: But S 6 The judge who granted the application shall fix the bail. So in S 14 (c), if the person
applies for bail in court, necessarily the court who approves application must also fix the bail. Thus,
whoever approves application may fix the bail.

Sir: But a bail already fixed may be filed in another court other than that which fixed it.
A: Rules for fixing of baill and acceptance of bail is under S 14. Once bail is fixed, the court
authorized t accept bail should only be pending unless branch is unavailable, or arrested somewhere
else.

Sir: How about if he is arrested without being charged?
A: He can file it in any court where he is held.

Sir: What amount if bail? Who will fix the bail?
A: Where he applied.

Sir: So that is different now. The court will fix the bail. Who will fix the bail of person arrested but not
charged? Any court in the province where he is held.

Sir: What are the kinds of bail? Can the court require of accused to fix bail at P 20,000 surety, but if
case P 10,000 lang?
How about: the court required that if the bail be real property bond that if be real estate in the
province and must have been owned by surety for at least 5 years. Is that reasonable bail
requirement? The requirement that is must have been owned for at least 5 years has been held to be
unreasonable if the property is Torrens titled. The implication was that it was reasonable if property was
not titled.

Sir: P 500,000 bail for homicide charge where the accused is a government clerk?

Sir: Regarding problem on P 20,000 surety bond or P 10,000 cash bond. Usually, to attain a bail
bond of P 20,000, you might be asked to put up collateral, even cash, sometimes for P 10,000. But there
are time like right now where there are very few bonding companies that have clearance to issue bail
bonds about 5. If the accused is a government clerk only and he is charged with homicide, half a million
bail excessive? What is the test? What is the impact of his financial capacity? Whether bail is excessive
or not depends on the circumstances of the accused and the crimes charged like where some crimes are
very rampant, the Court may be justified in fixing very stiff bail.


ARRAIGNMENT & PLEA


I. Nature and purpose of arraignment
II. Procedure
III. Plea

A. Purpose
B. Types

(1) Guilty
(2) Not Guilty
(3) Refusal to enter plea
(4) Qualified or Conditional admission
(5) Plea Bargain

IV. Pre-Arraignment Remedies
V. Effects of Arraignment and Entry of Plea
VI. Availability of Provisional Remedies




What is arraignment? (Rule 116, Sec. 1)

Pagbabasa in Filipino. The information is read to the accused in a language which he
understands and is given a copy thereof. He is then asked to enter his plea. If he doesnt have a lawyer,
he is given a counsel de oficio.











Purpose of plea


Types of plea

(1) Guilty
(2) Not Guilty
(3) Refusal to enter plea
(4) Qualified or Conditional admission
(5) Plea Bargain

What are the possible pleas?

(1) Guilty
(2) Not guilty
(3) Conditional plea of guilty (This is considered as not guilty.)
(4) Pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence (Considered as not guilty)
(5) Plea of guilty to a lesser offense
(6) Mute (This is considered as not guilty.)
(7) Evasive (considered as not guilty)


Plea of guilty: when is reception of evidence mandatory? discretionary?

If the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, reception of evidence as to the voluntariness and
full comprehension of the consequences of his plea, proof of guilt, and precise degree of culpability
is mandatory. This is so that the Supreme Court will have something to review once the case goes up on
automatic review.

However, if the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense, reception of evidence is
merely discretionary.


Is a negotiated plea or a plea to a lesser offense allowed?

Nature and purpose of arraignment
Procedure
Plea
Yes. Under the Rules, a lesser offense is one that is necessarily included in the offense
charged. (Rule 116, Sec. 2) It is allowed to be made either during arraignment, or after arraignment but
before trial provided that the earlier plea of not guilty is withdrawn. It can also be made by the trial
prosecutor in the event that the accused fails to appear during the arraignment despite due notice. (Rule
116, Sec. 1(f))

Note: An offense charged is deemed to be necessarily included in the offense
proved when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of
those constituting the latter. (Rule 120, Sec. 5)

It must be stressed, however, that a plea to a lesser offense or to one that is necessarily included
in the offense charged does NOT apply to crimes covered by special laws (e.g. possession of drugs
under the Dangerous Drugs Act)


When is a plea deemed improvident? What are its effects?

A plea is deemed improvident when the accused finds out that there was a mistake in the
admission. The Court may permit an improvident plea of guilty to be withdrawn and be substituted by a
plea of not guilty. (Rule 116, Sec. 5)

Note: If the accused pleaded guilty because he misappreciated the penalty to be
Imposed, this is not deemed an improvident plea.


Can a withdrawn plea of guilty be used as an admission?

No, doesnt make sense if used against him



Plea Bargaining














Is it possible for the accused to waive reading of information?

Generally, no.



Even if pleads guilty if later on there is evidence to show incomplete self -defense change to
not guilty

Pre-Arraignment Remedies
Availability of Provisional Remedies
mute not guilty
evasive not guilty


Who are required to be present during arraignment? (Rule 116, Sec. 1 (f))

1. accused - Must be present.

2. offended party for plea bargaining and civil liability. If the offended party fails to appear
despite due notice, a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the
offense charged may be entered with the conformity of the trial prosecutor alone.





What are the consequences of an entry of plea?

The moment you plea, you can no longer:

1. move to quash (except on those 4 exceptional grounds);
2. question validity of the arrest;
3. question lack of preliminary investigation;
4. amend the information without leave of court;
5. move for a bill of particulars (Rule 116, Sec. 9)

Moreover,

Sec 7, Rule 117 (b) 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
complaint or information if the facts constituting the graver charge became known or were
discovered only after a plea was entered in the former complaint or information.

Jeopardy attaches, since one of the requirements is that the accused has been arraigned.

Trial can be conducted in absentia thereafter.


Do we allow for reconsidered plea?

Yes. If prosecution and offended party consents provided further that it is necessarily included in
the information.


variance can be convicted if elements of lesser offense are included

plea of guilt can be withdrawn = before conviction
plea of guilty can be withdrawn before reception

Time Frame : 30 days from date court acquires jurisdiction over person
What are the exceptions? Motion to quash, etc.

reserve action = reserve before prosecution starts presenting evidence (R111, sec 1 par2)

Answer as long as deny allegations in information, its up to prosecution to prove
Effects of Arraignment and Entry of Plea
at pre-trail there can be some admission (ex. reserve trial)

Plea signifies that accused understands charge
a denial (like answer)
jeopardy attaches


New Rules aggravating circumstances = must be alleged in the complaint (even generic)

Plea of guilt can be withdrawn before judgment improvident plea
What if pending appeal? Yes like a withdrawal of appeal (sec 12, R122)
What about withdrawal of appeal if already in appellate court?
see sec 18 R 124 = Civil cases
can withdraw sec 3 R50 before filing of appellees brief as a matter of right

Can decisions of the RTC be reviewed by Sandiganbayan? Yes, if salary grade is below 27

Negotiated Plea Bargainin like blackjack favorable to both accused and prosecution State
conviction saves time/resources


Can the accused be arraigned in absentia?

No. Not even if he is going to plead guilty.

May a plea of guilty be withdrawn? up to when?


May a plea of not guilty be withdrawn? When is the last time you can change it?


Sir: The accused plead guilty to information which does not allege any aggravating circumstance nor
any civil liability and yet the court convicted him and sentence him taking into consideration account of
aggravating circumstance and imposed civil liability, is it correct?
Sir: Even generic aggravating cannot be taken into account in imposing penalty to the accused who
enters plea of guilty? Can the court take into account generic aggravating in sentencing accused who
pleads guilty to an information that does not allege any such circumstance?
Sir: No, nor any civil liability which is not allege. Reason: where he pleads guilty, a plea of guilt
means an admission of all the material allegations of the information. Only those that are alleged.


Accused charged with rebellion can he plead guilty to unjust vexation?

Yes.

He cannot plead guilty to rape because it more serious offense than rebellion.
A: Yes.

Sir: Even if the lesser offense is not within the jurisdiction of the Court?
A: Yes.

Sir: Even if the lesser offense is not necessarily included in the offense charged?
A: Yes.

Sir: Under what conditions can such plea to unjust vexation be accepted?
A: If the offended party consents and the fiscal.

Sir: Regarding aggravating circumstance and plea of guilt. In that case of plea of guilt, I was
assuming that no evidence was received. Remember: generic aggravating although not alleged may be
proved because it is not an essential element of the offense. So, if not alleged nor proved, cannot be
taken into account. However, if not alleged nor proved, cannot be taken into account because what is the
basis.
Sir: So if not alleged, pleaded guilty, but proved, it can be taken into consideration
Sir: R 116, S 2. Conviction under plea is equivalent to conviction for double jeopardy. Is it not
absurd that ex. charge of murder, pleads guilty to unjust vexation, he cannot be prosecuted for murder
anymore?
Sir: Only absurd if you do not understand the philosophy behind plea bargaining. State encourages
plea bargaining. Quid pro quo? The trade off? Saves time and resources of state.


Sir: What is the status of Trono doctrine promulgated by RP SC under US period and affirmed by US
SC, but in recent decision of US SC now that we are no longer under US rule, was reversed
implicitly? The facts are like this supposed: supposed you are charged with murder but convicted of
homicide, and then you appeal, can the appellate court convict you of murder?
Same facts, charged with murder. Convicted of homicide. You appeal. On appeal, new trial was
ordered, New trial held. Convicted of murder. Pwede ba? Under Trono case, yes.


QUASHAL

QUASHAL PROPER




OLD RULES 2000 RULES COMMENTARY

No counterpart provision.

Rule 117, Sec. 8. Provisional
dismissal. - A case shall not be
provisionally dismissed except with the
express consent of the accused and
with notice to the offended party.

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.

The 2000 Rules finally codify the
practice of the courts of granting
provisional dismissals.


I. Concept of quashal
II. Grounds for Motion to Quash
III. Concept of Double Jeopardy
IV. Effect of Failure to Move to Quash
Comparison of old and new rules
V. Remedies for Denial of Motion to Quash





Is it possible to move to quash and plead at the same time?

The rule says that a motion to quash must be made before the accused enters his plea. (Rule
117, Sec. 1. Previously, in the pre-85 Rules, you were allowed to plead AND file a motion to quash. This
is no longer true.)

What is the consequence of resorting to a motion to quash?

Jeopardy will not attach since the accused will not be entering a plea.





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;

In this case, the prosecution shall be given an opportunity to correct the defect by
amendment. The motion shall be granted if the prosecution fails to make the amendment, or the
complaint or information still suffers from the same defect despite the amendment. (Rule 117, Sec.
4, 2
nd
paragraph)

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

The court can consider this ground even if it has not been alleged in the complaint or
information. (Rule 117, Sec. 2)

(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;

If the motion to quash is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or information which can be
cured by amendment, the court shall order that an amendment be made. (Rule 117, Sec. 4,
1
st
paragraph)

(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

Is the insanity of the accused a ground to motion to quash?

It is. The basis is in letter G Sec. 3 of Rule 117 i.e.. That it contains averments which if found
true would constitute a legal excuse or justification.

CONCEPT OF QUASHAL
GROUNDS FOR MOTION TO QUASH
(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


What are the grounds for a motion to quash (MTQ) which are not barred even though not raised
before the accused pleads, in other words, grounds, which may be raised even after plea?

(1) Lack of jurisdiction over the offence charged or the person of the accused;

(2) Extinction of the criminal action or liability;
Note: Prescription, pardon, and amnesty fall under extinction of criminal liability.

(3) Double jeopardy; and

(4) The facts charged do not constitute an offense (Rule 117, Sec. 8)



Is there evidentiary hearing in a motion to quash?

There is, (Note: In P. v. Qadabis the SC held that matters of defense can be produced when the grounds
for a motion to quash are extinction of criminal liability; prescription and double jeopardy. In P. v. De La
Rosa, the SC held that when the prosecution asks the court to present evidence; as did the other party,
the accused; the court cannot close its eyes on such evidence presented.



Sir: The problematical ground is where the ground for the MTQ is that the information does not
allege facts sufficient to constitute the offense. In civil procedure, the oft-repeated rule that motion for
dismissal based on the ground that the complaint does not allege a sufficient cause of action shall be
resolved only on the basis of the complaint is no longer absolutely true. The court may consider all
evidence already on record as that in the case of Tan v. Bureau of Forestry. The case involved a
boundary dispute over timber concession. During the hearing on preliminary injunction, a Map was
presented wherein the boundaries were marked so that it was clear that the allegations of the complaint
has no basis.

The courts may consider evidence already on record, second matters of judicial notice, and
3
rd,
admissions. This is also the case where the grounds for MTQ is failure to allege facts sufficient to
constitute an offense. In P. v. de la Rosa, the famous gold bar case, a German lady was apprehended at
the then Manila International Airport for bringing several gold bars. She was charged on violation of
Tariff and Customs Code for bringing in dutiable items without declaring them for customs purposes. She
moved to quash on the ground that the information did not charge an offense. Surprisingly, it was even
the fiscal who moved for hearing where evidence was adduced to the effect that she was just a transit
passenger and was really bound for Taipei. Thats why she was book overnight long at the Hilton. There
was no connecting flight to Taipei then she had to stay overnight. These were considered. The court
said that based on the evidence on record, together with the admissions of the fiscal, it was clear that
she had no intent: to import the gold bar to the Philippines and dismissed/ Quashed the information for
failure to charge an offense.




Suspension of arraignment sec 11 R116
new = petition for review pending with DOJ or Office of the President shall not exceed
60 days ---- taken from the case of Roberts 349 Pepsi case


If inadequate or lack of PI not move to quash
remedy = ask for PI and move to suspend
Deadline; before entering his pleas
Qualification: if arrested without warrant, RPC 125 ---ask for PI (sec 7 R 112) 5 days

Can move for production of evidence even after arraignment

Insanity legal excuse or justification- ground for quashal if it contains averments which if true

Is there evidentiary hearing on a motion to quash?
General Rule NO
In evaluating motion to quash on grounds court NOT limited to allegations but may consider
all evidence already on record, matters of judicial notice


CONCEPT OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY

OLD RULES 2000 RULES COMMENTARY

Rule 117, Sec. 3. Grounds. - The
accused may move to quash the
complaint or information on any of
the following grounds:

(h) That the accused has been
previously convicted or in jeopardy of
being convicted, or acquitted of the
offense charged.

Rule 117, Sec. 3. Grounds. - The accused
may move to quash the complaint or
information on any of the following grounds:

(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.






The 2000 Rules now expressly
enumerate the 4 instances by which an
accused is protected by law from being
placed under jeopardy a second time.

Rule 117, Sec. 7, second paragraph.
Former conviction or acquittal;
double jeopardy. -
However, 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 complaint or
information under any of the following
instances:

(a) the graver offense developed
due to supervening facts arising from
the same act or omission constituting
the former charge;

(b) the facts constituting the graver
charge became known or were
discovered only after the filing of the
former complaint or information; or


(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser
offense was made without the consent
of the fiscal and of the offended party.



Rule 117, Sec. 7, second paragraph.
Former conviction or acquittal; double
jeopardy. -
However, 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 complaint or
information under any of the following
instances:

(a) the graver offense developed due to
supervening facts arising from the same act or
omission constituting the former charge;

(b) the facts constituting the graver charge
became known or were discovered only
after a plea was entered in the former
complaint or information; or

(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense
was made without the consent of
the prosecutor and of the offended
party, except as provided in Sec. 1 (f) of
Rule 116.

In any of the foregoing cases, where the
accused satisfies or serves in whole or in part













No change.



The reckoning point is now date of
entry of plea and no longer the date of
filing of the complaint or information.



Sec. 1 (f) of Rule 116 provides that in
case of failure of the offended party to
appear despite due notice, the court
may allow the accused to enter a plea of
guilty to a lesser offense which is

In any of the foregoing cases, where
the accused satisfies or serves in whole
or in part the judgment, he shall be
credited with the same in the event of
conviction for the graver offense.
the judgment, he shall be credited with the
same in the event of conviction for the graver
offense.
necessarily included in the offense
charged with the conformity of the trial
prosecutor alone.









Double Jeopardy cornerstone of criminal procedure





What is the purpose for the principle of double jeopardy?

Because of vast resources of the State, should give it only one chance; otherwise, harassment

Sir: Jeopardy is the pillar of our criminal justice system. How important it is need not be stressed. You
can imagine what kind of system we will have if we do not have that rule. Perhaps the best way to
understand the provision if to quote it. Is it a long provision? Its only a sentence isnt it except for that
qualification about the ordinance. What are the critical words or phrases in the provision? Actually,
Jeopardy lang and same offense. So the questions to ask are: When are you put in jeopardy of
punishment first, when are you put in jeopardy at all, so that you would know that the next time you
are put twice. The next question is, is it for the same offense? The rules of court in Rule 117; Sec. 7
refines and expands the constitutional provision. First it expands the meaning of same offense to include
if frustrated and attempted; necessarily included and includes in the offense charged. The rules also
define when you are put in jeopardy for the first time. What are the instances that create jeopardy? In
other words, what acts or events in a criminal litigation will put a person in jeopardy without which he is
not in jeopardy at all? The Rules define that very clearly and enumerates several instances, which
constitutes jeopardy. What are they?

A. Conviction or Acquittal of the accused, dismissal or termination of the case without his express consent
and after he has pleaded. (Sec. 7 R. 117)






What are the elements of double jeopardy?

(1) Court of competent jurisdiction;
(2) Complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction;
(3) Arraignment and plea by the accused;
(4) Conviction, acquittal, dismissal or termination of the case without the express consent of the
accused




DOUBLE JEOPARDY DEFINED
Purpose of double jeopardy
Elements of double jeopardy



Subsequent prosecution is barred for the following:

(1) Same offense
(2) Attempt of the same offense
(3) Frustration of the same offense
(4) Offense necessarily included in the 1
st
offense
(5) Offense that necessarily includes the 1
st
offense


Order of dismissal is bar to subsequent prosecution if:

1. prescription
2. extinguished
3. double jeopardy
4. without consent of accused

What are the exceptions to the double jeopardy rule?

(1) Doctrine of supervening facts: If the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising
from the same act or omission constituting the former charge;

(2) Doctrine of subsequent discovery (Prof. Barlongays term): If the facts constituting the graver
charge became known or were discovered only after the filing of the former complaint or
information

(3) The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the fiscal and the
offended party


What are the principles of double jeopardy?

1. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the SAME OFFENSE

2. If an ACT is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either
shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the SAME ACT.



ATTACHMENT OF JEOPARDY

When is a person first put in jeopardy?

1. charged with the same offense in 2 separate cases
2. accused is prosecuted after the same had been convicted or acquitted
3. prosecution appeals from a judgment in the same case





CONCEPT OF "SAME OFFENSE"

same OFFENSE not equal to same ACT
Crimes covered under double jeopardy
Except that where an act is punished by both a law and by ordinance

Basic rule act offense
act may be several offenses


Problem A charged with direct bribery
RA 3019
Code of Ethics

Important amendment to 3 and 4
Old Rules = R117 sec 3 previously convicted OR IN JEOPARDY
this was omitted. Why? it implies litis pendentia. Now under New
Rules no more litis jeopardy

X charged with BP22. X moves to quash due to prescription.
ISSUE: Do you count period from issuance of check or date of dishonor?

If motion to quash is granted and prosecution appeals is this jeopardy?
Motion to quash= consent of accused

1
st
case for estafa for selling property which is mortgaged without disclosing to buyer
RPC 316 (2) NO
Chattel mortgage law Jeopardy

Mr. Casis shoots clock (no intent to kill)
2 crimes: illegal discharge and alarms and scandal. Can they be prosecuted for 2 crimes?

People v del Carmen
charged with malicious mischief acquitted
for doing the same thing prosecuted for grave coercion
Is second prosecution barred by jeopardy? R120 sec 5

If accused is charged with rape and grave coercion, is this allowed?

Relova case electric meter and qualified theft under #2 same act

Rule on provisional dismissal accused must consent (no jeopardy since with consent)

If prosecution is not ready with the evidence and keeps on postponing remedy = move for trial
and if not ready then ask for dismissal for failure to prosecute

Accused cant say to court that jeopardy, must invoke that at the 2
nd
court with prejudice

If a criminal charge is dismissed by accused on ground of prescription, can the dismissal be
appealed? Yes, State can appeal.


If you are charged with murder and convicted of homicide and you appeal, can you be convicted
of murder?
Trono Case: accused charged with murder convicted of homicide. CA convicted him for
murder ---no double jeopardy

reasoning of Green Case: when the conviction for 2
nd
degree murder (lesser offense), he is
acquitted of the higher offense

Our theory- appeal vacates the judgment
sec 11, R124 (applies to SC by virtue of R125, sec1) ---can INCREASE
cant = must make a finding if there is civil liability or not

Double Jeopardy Res Judicata

3 men barge into a house, robbed 4 poker players. One of the masked men, charged for robbery
of a poker player. Acquitted. Can the same robber be charged against other player?
Theory: one chance only by State




Sir: By the way, when we took up civil procedure, I dont think we discussed the Sibonghanoy case
(Tijam v. Sibonghanoy). Thats a civil case where plaintiff lost after trial. Later on, he challenged the
jurisdiction of the court.
When a party himself invokes the jurisdiction of the court and goes as far as judgment, then later
when he loses, turns around and wants to invalidate the judgment on the ground that there was no
jurisdiction applying equitable principle, the SC said in the particular situation, the party is estopped
from challenging jurisdiction. Whether they will apply in criminal cases, I dont know.

Now, with respect to the qualification in the constitutional provision, which is the subject of the Relova
case In the Relova case, the accused was charged with tampering with the electric meter of his ice
plant so that the registration of the electric consumption was less. He was charged with violating a
municipal ordinance, but was acquitted on the ground of prescription. Based on the same facts, he was
charged again for theft under the Revised Penal Code. The second charge was dismissed on the ground
of jeopardy. applying the second clause of the constitutional provision. The SC in the opinion written by
Justice Feliciano claims that if an act is punished by 2 different statutes, he can be charged of as many
offenses as there are statutes or sections of statutes violated. The test would be the identity of offenses
test. But if the same act constitutes a violation of the statute and also an ordinance, the test is identity of
the acts, why so? Whats the reason for the exception? Did I not tell you before that you could be
convicted of estafa and BP 22 at the same time after issuing a bouncing check same way you could be
convicted of theft of motor vehicle which is qualified theft of a motor vehicle and violation of the anti-
carnapping law(?) Why did these things happen, but not the one in Relova? What is the reason for the
proviso in the constitution?

The reason is because an ordinance and a statute are made by two different law-making bodies.

Problem: Casino barges into his classroom He pulls his .38 calibre gun and fires at him (Jose Rizals
portrait), doing it while we are having a class. He was charged and convicted of alarms and
scandals. Then he is charged again for the same act of illegal discharge without intention to kill. Is the
second charge barred by jeopardy?

A. No, Since the 2 charges fall under the same law, the penal code; Casino is not being prosecuted for
the same offense.

Now about that famous Del Carmen case involving the media agua and banguera ? First, accused was
charged in the information in the inferior court with malicious mischief for removing and destroying with
resentment, hate, revenge the banguera of complainant. He was acquitted for lack of proof. Based on the
same act, he was charged with grave coercion for allegedly having prevented complainant from keeping
his agua and banguera. Is there Double Jeopardy?

A. SC: There is jeopardy, - single act giving rise to malicious mischief and grave coercion. (Handwritten)
No. There is no identity of offenses (Typewritten)

See Rule 117 how it defines identity of offenses. In that case, it was held that there is jeopardy because
you cannot segment an offense into integral parts and make out several, as many offenses a part of each
may make. Thats what the rules of court say. Otherwise, according to Justice Paras, in prosecution for
rape, you can again prosecute the same act for preventing the girl from keeping her virginity
intact. Puede mo rin gawin grave coercion yung rape. You think about that.

Accused is first charge with violation of the chattel mortgage law for allegedly having sold a property,
which is mortgaged, to the complainant without the written consent of the mortgagee. Convicted.
Thereafter, he is charged again based on the same act, for estafa for selling the same property without
telling the buyer that the property is encumbered. Will the second prosecution survive an attack on the
ground of jeopardy? One is under the chattel mortgage law, the other is estafa under the Revised Penal
Code.

A. No.
To understand jeopardy, obviously you have to know the elements of the offense. (Draws on the board)-
The violation of the chattel mortgage law is the act of selling the property. Also, yung violation on estafa is
the act of selling. There is a common element the act of selling. (shaded area in the drawing) But they
have non-common elements. In violation of the mortgage law, there is an additional element of not
obtaining the consent of the mortgagee. Estafa is for the protection of the buyer, the additional element is
not telling the buyer of prior encumbrances and selling the property and unencumbered . While there is a
common element, they are not the same offense in order to constitute necessarily includes. What is the
definition of necessarily includes?

A. Rule 120 Sec. 5
So it does not mean situations like this. It means those situation like Casinos.

You remember the Melo doctrine (P.v. Melo)? Accused hurled a stone at complainant, wounding the
latter. On the basis of that act, information for slight physical injuries was filed, stating that the wound took
5 to 9 days to heal. Tried, convicted. Later, found out there was going to be a deformity or a scar. The
accused was charged with serious physical injuries. Is there jeopardy? This is now covered by specific
codal provision.

No. Basis is Rule 117, Sec. 7 (b)



PRE-TRIAL

INTRODUCTION






PRE-TRIAL






Definition and attributes of a corporation




















Mandatory
must be conducted with a certain period
but no time period as to when court acquires jurisdiction --- up to law enforcement agencies


Purpose and when proper
Subject matter of pre-trial conference
Requisite of pre-trial agreements
Pre-Trial Order


TRIAL

INTRODUCTION


















I. Order of Trial

II. Rights of the Accused at Trial

A. Against self-incrimination
B. Compulsory process
C. Discovery
D. Right to Counsel
E. Presumption of Innocence
F. Speedy Trial

III. Discharge of Accused

IV. Provisional Dismissals






I. Order of trial (Rule 119, Sec. 11)

Note however that when the accused admits the crime but interposes a lawful defense, the
order of trial may be modified. (Rule 119, Sec. 11 (e))





Definition and attributes of a corporation
ORDER OF TRIAL
RIGHTS OF ACCUSED AT TRIAL
a. against self-incrimination (i.e. handwriting)
i. If he takes stand, can he be examined like any other witness?

No, only covered by direct. See sec 132, sec 6 (all matters)

Note that when the accused takes witness stand, the prosecution can only impeach his
character as to truth telling. Failure to take stand wont prejudice him.

b. compulsory process

c. discovery

d. right to counsel

e. presumption of innocence

demurrer to evidence insufficient evidence

If granted, it amounts to an acquittal.
When filed? After prosecution rests

Is it a matter of right?

with leave or without leave if without and denied= waives opportunity to
present evidence
deadline 10 days
If motion for leave is denied, what is his remedy? present evidence, no
more certiorari or appeal

Sir doubts constitutionality that no remedy if denied motion for leave of court
It emasculates your right to test sufficiency of the prosecutions evidence

If you allow state to cross-examine accused, gives state a chance to improve on its case

If court denies demurrer to evidence means evidence of guilt is strong (with regard to bail)

If non-bailable offense dont ask for demurrer to evidence


Right to speedy trial

See Rule 119, Sec. 9-10.

Burden on prosecution to prove dates excluded




Webb v. De Leon: What was sought to be discovered? Affidavit of Alfaro, lab reports

Webb claimed witnesses in California wanted to depose. Trial court denied. CA allowed. SC said
no need since evidence is merely corroborative
Davide concurring said the issue must be resolved (citing several rules) If allowed in
civil cases, all the more allowed in criminal cases
Puno - alluded to Webb v De Leon, even at PI stage allowed; suppression = denial of
due process

Prosecution witnesses allowed since doesnt get info from the accused





R119 affidavit state it in the affidavit
What if unable to testify?
o conditions under the law and the Rules of court (see sec 3 and sec 10)

What if most guilty but discharged nonetheless or other evidence is available, will this
amount to an acquittal? If not hearing = void not acquitted (Flores v Sandiganbayan)


Can the prosecution withdraw the information during the pendency of the case?

It depends:

(1) If accused has already been arraigned and it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake
has been made in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or
information upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in accordance with Sec. 19,
Rule 119, provided the accused shall not be placed in double jeopardy. (Rule 110, Sec. 14, last
paragraph)

(2) If the accused has not yet been arraigned, the complaint or information can be amended or
withdrawn without leave of court. (Rule 110, Sec. 14)

Note however that double jeopardy attaches if the new information includes the original
information. (?)




What are the 2 instances when the Court can dismiss on motion of the prosecution?

(1) Rule 110, Sec. 14, par. 2 -- An accused may be excluded from the complaint or
information at any time before entry of plea
(2) Rule 119, Sec. 19 -- ?

In the case of Chua v. CA, it was held that an accused can be discharged at any time before
the defendants have entered upon their defense, i.e. before the prosecution rests. There is no need to
complete the presentation of evidence since it is the prosecution which knows who is most guilty.

As a general rule, the discharge or exclusion of a co-accused from the Information, in order
that he may be utilized as a prosecution witness rests upon the sound discretion of the trial court, this
discretion should be exercised by it strictly on the basis of the conditions set forth in Rule 119, Sec. 17.


When can an accused be discharged as a state witness?

See Rule 119, Sec. 17.

DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED
Compare discharge of an accused under Rule 119, Sec. 17 and under the Witness Protection
Program (RA 6981).

Discharge under Rules of
Court
Witness Protection
Program

Rule 119, Sec. 17

RA 6981, Sec. 10

Immunity granted

Transactional immunity

Transactional immunity

Who may avail

Only an accused

Anyone, even the accused

Effect of discharge

Operates as an acquittal,
which means that the accused
is charged first then
discharged or excluded from
the information.


Witness will no longer be
charged at all.

Is threat to life
necessary?

No.

Yes.

Note that under the Rules of Court, to be discharged, there must still be a hearing.

Which is better: to be discharged under the Rules of Court or under the Witness Protection
Program?

The Witness Protection Program. For one, you do not need to be charged. The advantage there
is that the prescriptive period runs, and you have no criminal record.




(though placed under Motion to Quash, I think its more properly
placed here)

Requirements for a provisional dismissal (Rule 117, Sec. 8)

(1) Express consent of the accused
(2) Notice to the offended party


What are the periods?

If penalty of imprisonment of not more than 6 years or fine: becomes permanent after 1 year
without case being revived

If penalty of more than 6 years: becomes permanent after 2 years
Provisional Dismissals

JUDGMENT & POST-CONVICTION
REMEDIES

INTRODUCTION





I. Judgment defined
II. General rules on Judgments
III. Form and Content
IV. Rules in case of variance between allegation and proof
V. Promulgation of judgment
VI. Modification of judgment

A. Motion for Reconsideration
B. Motion for New Trial
C. Appeal

VII.


Form = writing, signed by judge, degree of participation, finding of civil liability, circumstances
mitigating or aggravating

promulgation what is read? Entire
presence of accused = required to be there unless light offense

If doesnt appear and convicted no remedies available: probation/appeal

Probation law If availed of, cant appeal conviction









When judgment becomes final

When does judgment in a criminal case become final?

(1) Acquittal

(2) Lapse of period to appeal

Definition and attributes of a corporation
Judgment defined
General rules on Judgments
Note the qualifications.

(3) Written waiver of right to appeal

(4) Probation

(5) Service of sentence














Effect of failure of the accused to appear during promulgation

If accused is acquitted, no problem.

If accused is convicted, and his failure to appear was without justifiable cause, he loses the
remedies available in the Rules against the judgment. Also, the Court will order his arrest.

However, should the accused surrender within 15 days from promulgation of judgment, he
may file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. (Rule 120, Sec. 6)





Motion for Reconsideration


Motion for New Trial


Appeal

Appeal v. Certiorari

Appeal is resorted to when the judgment is erroneous. Certiorari when the judgment is void.
Form and Content
Rules in case of variance between allegation and proof
Promulgation of judgment
Modification of judgment


NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION

grounds/ effect different

When is judgment Final?
acquittal final immediately
applies for probation
waiver
satisfies the sentence
escapes
15 days with qualification

new evidence
see R121 sec 3, R 124 sec 14

effect of Death criminal liability extinguished, civil liability arising from crime also extinguished

certiorari from order of dismissal on legal grounds, double jeopardy, prescription, jurisdiction
prosecution can appeal

Acquittal can use R 65, Why? theory judgment VOID, grave abuse of discretion or no
jurisdiction

Galman case: no jurisdiction because Not impartial

If certiorari is available, is habeas corpus available?