Case

Related
rule and
law

Doctrines/Lessons

Facts (2-3 Sentence)

PP
vs
Annabelle
Francisco

Rule 126
Search
and
Seizure; 1987
Constitution
Article 3 Sec 2

5 requisite of a valid search warrant are (1) probable cause (2)

personally determined by judge (3) the complaint and the
witnesses he may produce are personally examined by judge, in
writing and under oath or affirmation (4) applicant and his
witness testify to facts personally known to them (5) the
warrant specifically describes the things to be search and the
person to be seized. Absence will cause downright nullification
of warrant

Police filed for a search warrant to

search apartment number 122 but
conducted a search at apartment
number 120

Is the
valid?

Petitioner used PLDT lines for

their
business
to
provide
international
calls.
Search
warrant
(computers,
modem,
routers, computer items) were
issued on grounds of Theft. But
the RTC quashed the evidence on
the basis of being a general
warrant (as petitioner contends
were innocuous goods and not
illegal per se thus giving police
officers blanket authority to
determine whether illegal or no).
CA reversed

Whether
the
search warrant
is in the form of
a
general
warrant and is
thus void?

SEARCH
WARRANT
THE
SEARVH
ON
FRANCISC
OS
APPERTM
ENT 122 IS
INVALID
BECAUSE
THE
CONTROL
LING
SUBJECT
OF
ARREST
WARRANT
IS
THE
PLACE
INDICATE
D IN THE
WARRANT
Worldwide
Corporation
vs PLDT
GENERAL
WARRANT

not
particular
as to the
person
arrested or
the
property
seized

RA 6425 as
amended by
RA
7659
(CDDA)

Issue
(Corollary
to the
CRIM PRO)
search

Side:
Bakit
from RTC to
Supreme
Court?

The controlling subject of the arrest warrant is the place

indicated in the warrant and not the place identified by the
police
SCRA NOTE: The place to be searched cannot be changed,
enlarged, or amplified by the police

Rule 126
Search
and
Seizure, Rule
110 Sec 5
PD
401,
Revised Penal
Code on Theft

A search warrant is obtained not by filing a complaint or

information but filing an application therefor.
An application for a search warrant is not a criminal action.
The conformity of a public prosecutor is not necessary before an
aggrieved party moves for reconsideration of an order granting
a motion to quash of warrants
A trial judge finding probable cause may be set aside and the
search warrant issued by him based on findings maybe quashed
if the person against whom the warrant is issued, presents
clear and convincing evidence, that when police testified they
committed falsehood
A general warrant is defined as a search or arrest warrant that
is not particular as to the person to be arrested or the property

Ruling

No because they conducted the

search at Apartment 120 instead of
the Apartment 122 that was
indicated in the search warrant.
The search is wrong because the
controlling
subject
of
search
warrants is the place indicated in
the warrant itself and not the place
identified by the police. The
particularity of the place is essential
in the issuance of search warrants
to avoid the exercise by enforcing
officers of discretion.

No it the search warrant is not void

and it is not a general warrant
because the items specified bear a
direct relation to the offenses for
which the warrant is sought.

to be seized
In providing for a description of the place or thing to be
searched that will enable the officer making the search with
reasonable certainty to locate such place or thing sufficient
A search warrant need not describe the items to be seized in
precise and minute detail. The warrant is valid when it enables
police officers to readily identify the properties to be seized and
leaves them with no discretion regarding the articles to be
seized
A search warrant fulfils the requirement for the particularity of
the description of things to be seized when the thing described
are limited to those that bear a direct relation to the offense for
which the warrant is being issued

People
vs
Nacua
People vs.
Lamsen

Rule 121 New

Trial

MOTION
FOR
RECONSID
ERATION
and
New
trial
and
reconsidera
tion

Rule
125
Procedure in
the Supreme
Court

Eng. Dizon
vs.
Judge
Lopez

Article VII S
15
Constitution
Rule
120
Judgment

Recantations are viewed with suspicion and reservation. The

court looks with disfavour upon retractions of testimonies
previously given in court. It is settled that affidavit of
desistance made after conviction of the accused is not reliable
and only deserves scant attention

Policemen were charged and

convicted of robbery with homicide
by the RTC, affirmed by the CA
who also denied the subsequent
MR. The appeal to the SC was
denied. Respondent RAMOS and
Abulencia filed for Motion for
reconsideration
at
the
SC,
LAMSEN filed for Motion for New
Trial on the ground of newly
obtained
evidence
and
Reconsideration on the ground
that 2 witnesses recanted

Whether
new
trial
and
reconsideration
should
be
granted

It is clear that merely reading the dispositve portion to the

accused is not sufficient. It is the judgement that must be read
to him, stating the facts and the law in which the judgement
was based

This is an administrative case

against Judge Lopez on the
grounds of violation of the
constitution, serious misconduct,
inefficiency
and
falsification.
Judge Lopez decided over a
criminal case for falsification of
private document. She has read
the dispositive portion to the
accused within the prescribed law
required
to
promulgate
judgement. However the complete
decision, after being protested,
came out only 1 year and 8
months after.

Whether Judge
Lopez
committed
a
violation
against the 3
month rule to
promulgate
a
decision

Sin perjuico is a judgement without a statement of facts in

support of its conclusion to be later supplemented by final
judgement As early as 1923, the Court already expressed its
disapproval of rendering sin perjuico judgements

No the trial should not be

considered despite the recantation
made by prosecution testimonies
after conviction. In this case, the
Supreme Court denied the MR and
Motion for New Trial on the ground
of newly obtained evidence and held
that recantations are viewed with
suspicion and reservation and that
the Court looks with disfavour upon
retractions of testimonies previously
given by the court. The court saw
the affidavits of recantation as last
minute attempts to save
Yes because the judgement which
was read on her first reading only
contains the dispositive portion and
the Court did not consider this as an
actual promulgation of judgement.
In this case the court has held that
merely reading the dispositive
portion to the accused is not
sufficient. It is the judgement that
must be read to him, stating the
facts and the law in which the
judgement was based. It was more
than a year when said judgement
was given to the accused; hence she
violated the constitutional mandate
to promulgate judgement within 3
months, her court being a RTC.

People
vs
Sandiganba
yan
June
26, 2013
STATE
WITNESS

People
vs
Manansala
MANANSA
LA
CONVICTE
D
OF
ILLEGAL
POSSESSI
ON
BECAUSE
ILLEGAL
POSSESSI
ON
IS
NECESSAR
ILY
INCLUDE
D
IN
ILLEGAL
SALE
People
Likiran
LIKIRAN

vs

Sec 17 Rule
119

Discharge of
an accused to
be
state
witness, Trial

The authority to grant immunity is not an inherent judicial

function.

Rules of Court
Sec 5 rule
120
on
Judgement

Rules of Court
Sec 2 Rule
118 on Pretrial

This is a case where the

Ombudsman filed a petition to the
SC asking to reverse the
Sandiganbayan ruling denying the
discharge of the accused Mercado
to be admitted as state witness.
The case involves violation of RA
3019 (anti-graft and corrupt
practices act). The Sandiganbayan
already has jurisdiction of the
accused and denied the motion to
discharge on the ground of (1) they
have assumed jurisdiction and (2)
failed to establish conditions
required in sec 17 rule 199

Whether
Mercado
may
be admitted as
state witness

The rule is that when there is variance between the offense

charged in the complaint and information, and that proved or
established by evidence, and the offense charged necessarily
includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of
the offense proved necessarily included in the offense charged

The regional trial court, which is

affirmed by the CA, found the
respondent guilty of crime of
illegal possession of marijuana.
The original information charged
against the accused was illegal
sale of marijuana but was not
proven by the prosecution because
the poseur-buyer was not able to
testify on the sale. The RTC
however found the accused guilty
of illegal possession. The basis of
the contention of the appellant is
his right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation
against him.

Whether
the
accused
may
held guild of
illegal
possession
of
marijuana
despite the fact
that the charge
against him is
illegal sale

Sec 2, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court provides that all

agreements and admissions made during pre-trial conference
shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused otherwise
they cannot be used against the accused. In this case, the pre-

During the town fiesta of

Malaybalay City, a fight ensued
Jerome Mercado shot Sarano
several times and after that

Whether
the
death
certificate may
be admitted in

Courts should generally defer to the judgement of the

prosecution and deny a motion to discharge an accused so that
he can be used as witness only in clear cases of failure to meet
requirements in Sec 17 Rule 119 of the Rules of Court

Yes because he, as stated in the

facts, satisfies all the requisites
required to be a state witness.
Reversing the Sandiganbayan, the
court found that the testimony of
Mercado
as
indispensable
in
establishing the perpetrated crime
and held that he alone can provide
a detailed picture of the fraudulent
scheme that went into the approval
of tax credit certificates. While it is
true that the Sandiganbayan,
having acquired jurisdiction, has
the power to decide whether or not
accused
Mendoza
may
be
discharged as state witness. The
court should generally defer to the
judgement of the prosecution and
deny a motion to discharge an
accused so that he can be used as
witness only in clear cases of failure
to meet the requirements as stated
in Section 17 Rule 119.
Yes the accused maybe held liable
for illegal possession of marijuana
despite being charged of illegal sale
because
illegal
possession
of
marijuana is necessarily included in
the crime of illegal sale. According
to jurisprudence in People vs.
Lacerna, the crime of illegal sale of
marijuana
implies
the
prior
possession of marijuana. Section 5,
Rule 120 of the Rules on Criminal
procedure provides that when there
is variance between the offense
charged in the complaint and
information, and that proved or
established by evidence, and the
offense charged necessarily includes
the offense proved, the accused shall
be convicted of the offense proved
necessarily included in the offense
charged.
Yes because it was not objected to
by the defence. While Sec. 2, Rule
118 of the Rules of Court provides
that all agreements and admissions

trial agreement was signed only by the prosecution and the

defence counsel, the same may nevertheless be admitted given
that the defence failed to object to its admission Moreover a
death certificate issued by the municipal health officer in the
regular performance of his duty is prima facie evidence of the
cause of death of the victim

WAS
CONVICTE
D
OF
MURDER
BECAUSE
THE
DEATH
CERTIFIC
ATE WAS
ACCEPTE
D HAVING
NOT BEEN
RAISED
DURING
PRE-TRIAL

People
Lara

vs

LARA WAS
CONVICTE
D
OF
ROBBERY
BECAUSE
ILLEGAL
ARREST IS
NOT
SUFFICIE
NT
TO
REVERSE
OR
SET
ASIDE
A
CONVICTI
ON THAT
WAS
ARRIVE
UPON
A
COMPLAI
NT DULY
FILED
AND
TRIAL
CONDUCT
ED
WITHOUT
ERROR

Rules of Court
on Motion to
Quash Sec 9
Rule 117
Also Sec 3
rule
117
grounds
for
motion
to
quash for lack
of jurisdiction
over
the
person of the
accused
Rights of the
Accused

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused may be acquired

through compulsory process such as a warrant of arrest or
through his voluntary appearance, such as when he surrenders
to the police or to the court. Any objection to the arrest or
acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must
be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is
deemed waived. An accused submits to the jurisdiction of the
trial court upon entering a plea and actively participating in
the trial and this precludes him any irregularities that may
have attended to his arrest. Furthermore, the illegal arrest of
an accused is not a sufficient ground to reverse and set aside a
conviction that was arrived upon complaint duly filed and trial
conducted without error
Others Police line-up is not part of custodial investigation

accused-appelant stabbed Sarano

in the back as well. The RTC
convicted Sarano with murder
which the CA affirmed. One of the
controversies in this case is that in
the death certificate admitted in
this case was admitted into
evidence based on a pre-trial
agreement signed by the counsel
of the defense and the prosecution.
The said death certificate is
admitted as proof to the death of
the accused and the cause of the
such death accused (by multiple
stab wounds)

evidence?

This is a robbery case wherein

petitioner, convicted by the RTC,
decision of which was affirmed by
the CA, questions the decision of
the CA in his assignment of errors
that he should be acquitted
because he was illegally arrested.

Whether
the
court
should
dismiss
the
case on the
ground
of
illegal arrest?

made during pre-trial conference

shall be reduced in writing and
signed by the accused. In this case,
while the pre-trial agreement was
signed only by the prosecution and
the defence counsel, the same may
nevertheless be admitted given that
the defence failed to raise the issue
of the cause of death in the trial
court and therefore failed to object
to its admission.
In this case, the court considered
that a death certificate issued by
the municipal health officer in the
regular performance of his duty is
prima facie evidence of the cause of
death of the victim
No because (1) his allegation of illegal
arrest was deemed waived and the court
has not lost jurisdiction to decide on his
case and also (2) the court held that
illegal arrest of an accused is not a
sufficient ground to reverse and set
aside a conviction that was arrived upon
complaint duly filed and trial conducted
without error.

What he could have done was raise

the issue and oust the court of
jurisdiction by filing a motion to
quash on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the
accused before he entered his plea.
But his failure to do so constituted a
waiver of such as stated in Sec 9
Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.

Francisco
vs. CA
FRANCISC
O
WAS
DENIED
PROBATIO
N
BECAUSE
HE FILED
AN
APPEAL

People
vs
Rodriguez
RODRIGU
EZ
WAS
ACQUITTE
D
BECAUSE
THE
COURT
ACQUITTE
D HIS COACCUSED

Probation
Law
in
relation
to
judgement,
appeal of the
rules of court

Probation should be availed at the first opportunity by convicts

who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated who manifest
spontaneity, contrition and remorse.
The grant of probation rest solely on the discretion of the court
to be exercised primarily for the benefit of an organized society,
and only incidentally for the benefit of the accused
Sec. 4 Probation Law No application for probation shall be
entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal
from the judgment of conviction

CALANGA
NG
WAS
CORRECT
IN FILING
FOR RULE
65

Whether
petitioner
should
allowed
apply
probation?

Accused-appellant and co-accused

Rodriguez were charged of killing
Security Guard Ibay. Co-accused
Rodriguez made an extrajudicial
confession to the police stating
that he and the accused appellant
with 3 more men killed the victim
Ibay. The extrajudicial was made
4 days after their arrest with the
assistance of PAO Lawyer. The
PAO lawyer was only able to
assist during the giving of the
confession.
The
trial
court
convicted the accused-appelant
and the Rodriguez based on
Rodriguez
confession.
The
accused-appellant was the only
one who appealed as Rodriguez
did not due to financial reasons

Whether
the
Rodriguez
be
acquitted of the
charge despite
not appealing.

Accused was charged for perjury

but due to gross negligence (found
by the SC) of his counsel, she was
convicted of perjury. She filed a
motion for new trial at the MTC
on such ground. The court denied
stating its not one of the grounds.
She filed a special civil action
under rule 65 at RTC which was

Whether
petitioner was
correct in filing
for under rule
65 and whether
new
trial
should
be
allowed

be
to
for

No he should not because he filed an

appeal. Probation should be availed
at the first opportunity. Sec 4
Probation Law states that No
application for probation shall be
granted if the defendant has
perfected an appeal from the
judgement of conviction

The multiple prison terms are distinct from each other and if
none of the terms exceeds the limit set out in probation law i.e
not more than 6 years, then he is entitled to probation unless
he is otherwise specifically disqualified

Rules of Court
on Appeal Sec
11 Rule 22
Article III Sec
12 of the 1987
Constitution
Rights of the
Accused
during
Custodial
Investigation

Where the evidence against and the conviction of both are

inextricably linked, the acquittal of the accused who appealed,
which is applicable and favourable to other who did not appeal
should benefit the latter
The requisites of admissibility of confession are (VCEW,
voluntarily, assistance of counsel, expressed, in writing) (1) the
confession must be voluntary, (2) the confession must be made
with the assistance of a competent counsel (3) that the
confession must be express and (4) the confessin must be in
writing
Custodial investigation refers to a critical pre-trial stage when
the investigation is no longer an general inquiry into an
unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular person as
suspect
Custodial investigation must continuously have a counsel
assisting him from the start thereof

Calangan
vs People

The METC found petitioner guilty

for grave oral defamation. He
appealed to the RTC who affirmed
his
conviction
but
with
modification. When the case was
set for execution and he was about
to be arrested, he applied for
probation which was denied

Appeal
Motion
new trial

for

Procedure in
the Court of
Appeals

No appeal may be taken from denial of motion for

reconsideration. In such case an aggrieved party may file an
appropriate civil action for certiorari under rule 65
Special action for certiorari under rule 65 is the proper remedy
to question an order denying motion for new trial
The negligence of counsel binds his client except when (1)
where there is gross negligence that deprives the due process of
law (2) when its application will outright deprive clients liberty

The main issue in this case is that

the conviction of the accused is
doubted because of the illegality of
the extrajudicial confession which
the trial court relied on for its
judgement. Rodriguez confession
came about on an illegal conduct of
custodial investigation because he
was not read his Miranda rights
and he was not assisted by counsel
from the very start. Therefore, the
confession cannot be admitted and
hence conviction is wrong.
As to the corollary issue, the answer
is yes because the finding of the
court will be favourable to him as
the appellant was acquitted. Our
Rules of Court provides that when
the judgement of an appellate court
is favourable and applicable, it shall
affect not only those who appealed
but also those who did not appeal.
Yes because rule 41 disallows
appeal
against
motion
for
reconsideration. The court held that
the proper remedy is to file a special
action for certiorari for grave abuse
of discretion or lack or excess of
jurisdiction under rule 65 to
question denial of motion for
reconsideration/new trial. As to

or property (3) where interest of justice so requires

BECAUSE
RULE
41
DISALLOW
S

denied

The general rule is that a client is bound by the mistakes of

counsel, save when the negligence is so gross, reckless and
inexcusable that the client is deprived his day in court

People
vs
Monica
Mendoza

Motion
to
quash

illegal arrest,
illegal search

An appellant who fails to raise the issue of illegal arrest before

arraignment is estopped from assailing the validity of arrest

This is a case involving illegal sale

of drugs. The accused was
arrested in a buy-bust operation
by selling drugs. She questions
her arrest saying she was not
served any warrant.

Should
the
court consider
her claim of
illegal arrest

People
Panlilio

Jurisdiction,
Section
15
Rules 110

Where an offense is committed on a railroad train, in an

aircraft, or in any other public vehicle, while in the course of
the trip, the criminal action may be instituted and tried in the
court of municipality or territory where such train, aircraft or
other vehicle passed during such trip, including the place of
departure or arrival

Girl was a St. Jude student

kidnapped and forced to board a
jeepney where accused took her
earing. The defense was not able
to prove the place where she
boarded or was robbed

Whether
the
court where the
PD
523
complaint has
jurisdiction
over the case

vs

appeal to the Supreme Court, the

Court granted a new trial because
the negligence of the accused
counsel was s//o gross that it
deprived him hiw
No there was none as it is a buybuys operation and she was caught
in flagrante delito or caught in the
act of selling illegal drugs. Also, the
court held that the appellant is
estopped from assailing the validy
of her arrest having failed to raise
the issue before arraignment
No because defense was not able to
establish that they boarded in
Valenzuela