Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
THE. DOOR.
Maam showing a sample of an Information:
This is an Information signed by the prosecutor. If you look at
the date, its October 29, 2008. And then the prosecutor sent
it to the City Prosecutor (CP). And how long does the City
Prosecutor have? 10 days, normal. On November 23, it was
approved by the CP. The part below is a certification. So aside
from the information itself, the prosecutor has to certify. And
this certification must be subscribed and sworn to before
another prosecutor. How many signatures do we have here?
We have the signature of the investigating prosecutor (IP), CP,
and of another prosecutor to whom the IP sworn to.
Now we have this case where there was an allegation there
that the information was not sworn to. Ito yun ______? But
the certification has to be sworn to. But theres also a case
which says walang certification, is it a fatal defect? Its not
really a fatal defect. It will not invalidate the information.
What case was that? [No one answered] Try to know
which case is that, bahala kayo dyan.
Lets go to the cases:
Artillero v. Casimiro: Here, the complainant has no right to
file a reply. Its not there in the rule. The complainant is not
entitled to a copy of the resolution of the prosecutor but the
complainant is entitled to a copy of the counter-affidavit. It is
there in Rule 112 Sec. 3.
Callo-Claridad v. Esteban:
Issues here are what are the 3 purposes of Preliminary
Investigation.
Three purposes of a preliminary investigation:
(1) to inquire concerning the commission of a crime and the
connection of the accused with it, in order that he may be
informed of the nature and character of the crime charged
against him, and, if there is probable cause for believing him
guilty, that the State may take the necessary steps to bring
him to trial;
(2) to preserve the evidence and keep the witnesses within
the control of the State; and
(3) to determine the amount of bail, if the offense is bailable.
Page
Arroyo v. DOJ:
Gloria Arroyo and Abalos were recommended to be subjected
to PI based on the evidences gathered by the fact finding
team and was submitted to the Joint Committee of COMELEC
and DOJ, which is conducting the PI. This is a criminal case
filed pursuant to Ominibus Election Code. Mike Arroyo insists
that the DOJ has no right to conduct PI as the right to conduct
PI is only when deputized by the COMELEC but DOJ cannot
exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the COMELEC.
Issue: Can the DOJ acquire jurisdiction in conduction PI in
election cases? YES
Held: R.A. 9369 provides the COMELEC and other prosecuting
arms of the government of such concurrent jurisdiction to
investigate and prosecute election offenses. So in other
words, it is the Comelec that has the authority to conduct PI
under BP 881 and this amendment by Section 43 of RA No.
9369, amending Section 265 of BP 881, here the Comelec and
other prosecuting arms of the govt. such as the DOJ now
exercise concurrent jurisdiction in the prosecution and
investigation of election offenses.
Remember what we discussed yesterday with regard to
election cases? The COMELEC according to Margarejo vs.
People, in BP 881, prosecutoring arms have a continuing
authority. No need of deputization. They have continuing
authority until revoked by the Comelec. Under this new law
RA 9369, they have concurrent jurisdiction, its not exclusive
na for the Comelec.
Now what about Gloria Arroyo, whats the issue with respect
to her?
Page
Held: No. Both the old and the new rules of criminal
procedure couched the procedure in negative terms making it
mandatory importing that the act shall not be done otherwise
than designated. No complaint or information may be filed or
dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without the prior
written authority or approval of the provincial or city
prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman
or his deputy. The functions of the Regional State Prosecutor
showed that they do not include that of approving the
Information filed or dismissed by the investigating prosecutor.
He is not among those officers that is allowed to do so. And
since Tolentino failed to comply with Sec. 4, Rule 112, it is a
ground for the ground of quashal
Page
Soriano vs Marcelo
Assistant City Prosecutor Balasbas issued a Resolution
recommending that Mely Palad bank examiner of the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas, be charged in court with Falsification of
Public Documents. City Prosecutor approved. Palad filed a
Motion to Re-Open Case on the ground that she was not given
a copy of the subpoena or any notice regarding the complaint
filed against her. City Pros approved Palads motion so
Balasbas issued a subpoena setting the case for investigation.
Because of this, Soriano the complainant, filed a criminal case
against Balasbas alleging that he committed gross inexcusable
negligence and bad faith for re-opening the case.
Issue: WON an investigating prosecutor can re-open the
case.
Held: Balasbas, as investigating prosecutor, had no power or
control over the final disposition of Palads motion to reopen
the case. Conducting a preliminary investigation for the
SECTION 4
SECTION 5
If you are the accused, make sure that you file the petition for
review before you are arraigned.
That is why during PI, the person that is charged with the
complaint is not called the accused but merely a respondent.
That is why the respondent is not required to take mugshots.
Take note: if the accused has already been arraigned, the DOJ
under its own rules cannot and should not take cognizance of
the petition for review.
Rule 112
Page
2.
Page
Jinggoy case
1.
The SC in many cases does not agree that the court can
dismiss the case on the ground that there was no probable
cause based on the records. The probable cause that the
court has to determine is only w/n to issue a warrant of
arrest.
2.
The functio
Purpose is
ground to b
offense cha
Ong filed her MR, claiming that the RTC erred in relying on
Sec. 6(a), Rule 112, since the said provision relates to the
issuance of a warrant of arrest, and it does not cover the
determination of probable cause for the filing of the
Information against Genio, which is executive in nature, a
power primarily vested in the Public Prosecutor.
RTC denied Ongs MR, holding that Rule 112, Sec. 6[a]
authorizes the RTC to evaluate not only the resolution of the
prosecutor who conducted the PI and eventually filed the
Information in court, but also the evidence upon which the
resolution was based. In the event that the evidence on
record clearly fails to establish probable cause, the RTC may
dismiss the case.
Issue:
Did the RTC have the authority to dismiss the
complaint for lack of probable cause?
Held: Yes. Pursuant to Rule 112, Sec. 6[a], the RTC judge,
upon the filing of an Information, has the following options:
1.
2.
3.
Page
No, despite the fact that a judge may dismiss the case under
section 5, such is appropriate only when no PC can be clearly
inferred from the evidence presented and not when its
existence is simply doubtful. After all, it cannot be expected
that upon the filing of the information in court, the prosecutor
would have already presented all the evidences necessary for
the conviction of the accused, the objective of a previously
conducted PI being merely to determine PC.
Here, there is no clear showing that the elements of estafa
presented were doubtful. Meaning, the elements were
uncontroverted in the information.
So, let us go now to a very important provision which is
Section 6, that is what we call inquest., when accused lawfully
arrested without warrant.
Ordinarily, when PI is conducted, where is the respondent? In
his house, he is not detained, therefore the PI can last even
for 45 days or 60 days, 1 year, because he is in his house or
wherever. Section 6 talks about a person who was already
detained because he was lawfully arrested without a warrant.
So that is Inquest.
Yes. He may ask for PI within 5 days after learning that the
complaint has been filed.
Is this 5 days after filing of the complaint or information?
Facts
On the evening of 11 June 2002, barangay tanods
invited Reynaldo De Castro to the barangay hall in connection
with a complaint for sexual assault filed by AAA, on behalf of
her daughter BBB. De Castro accepted the invitation without
any resistance.
Chronology of Events
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Now, what if the person detained had no idea on what was
going on, that an inquest was conducted, an information was
filed tapos biglang nakausap niya yung kasama niya sa prison
cell and asked him if he underwent Inquest, and so he learned
na he had this opportunity pala to file his counter affidavit but
it was still after the complaint or information was filed. Can he
still ask for PI?
Page
7.
8.
An Inquest.
He may pursue the case for a regular courts for the PI.
Pwedeng huminge ng PI ang private complainant with the
prosecutor. If in the information was filed in court, the private
complainant can also ask for a reinvestigation.
So let us go to Section 7.
Self explanatory.
Now, section 8 talks about cases not requiring PI or cases not
covered by the Summary Rule?
Page
Issue: w/n the heirs of de los alas can ask for reinvestigation
even if the information has been filed in court.
Now, there are cases that are filed directly to the MTC if there
is no prosecutors office in that place like it is a Municipality,
alangan naman punta ka pa ng City, you dont have to. You
can file directly with the MTC. Now, according to Section 8,
the judge may dismiss the complaint within 10 days after
filing of the complaint or information complaint anyway if
it is an information from the prosecutor ganun din then the
Section 5. He may dismiss or require the submission of
additional evidence. If the judge finds no probable cause,
again, just like Section 5 he shall dismiss despite additional
evidence no, he can dismiss.
What if he finds probable cause? Then he shall issue a
warrant of arrest, or commitment orders. Or he may issue
summons, okay, ayun, so this is the part that we have to
discuss. The rest, we already know that.
Page
2.
3.
A&A alleged that Judge B's order of arrest did not show
the necessity of placing A&A under custody so as "not to
frustrate the ends of justice. Judge B explained that the
warrant of arrest was issued in accordance with Sec. 6(b),
Rule 112
Atty. Suarez: Before you say all those things, you didnt even
tell the class or me that this case requires PI or not?
Answer: No need for PI maam. The penalty for this case
maam is only arresto Menor maam.
Atty. Suarez: So this is a case that does not require PI. So did
the judge follow section 8 or section 9 for that matter?
Answer: No maam. When conducting the examination maam
the judge must personally examine the witness and proceed
with searching questions under the rule. Judge here did not
personally examine De Lara and he did not personally sign the
statement that he provided maam, and also that judge failed
to propound searching questions. The court here ruled maam
that the statement of De Lara could not be used to find
probable cause against Tabuhara and Dayrit maam.
It is stated here, that if you file directly with the MTC and no
PI is required, it says here, if within 10 days after the filing of
the complaint or information and the judge finds no probable
cause after personally evaluating the evidence, or after
personally examine in writing the complainant or under oath
his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers,
he shall dismiss the same.
So according to the SC in this case, the judge abused his
discretion in issuing the order of finding probable cause to
hold the accused liable for trial and issued a warrant of arrest
because it was based solely on the statement of De Lara,
whom the judge did not personally examine under oath.
Neither did he propound searching questions. He merely
stated that he overlooked the statement of De Lara,
nevertheless, without conducting personal examination or
propounding searching questions. So the judge relied solely
on the affidavit of the statement of De Lara which was not
sworn to before him, so he failed to examine. Therefore he
deprived the accused the opportunity to test the veracity of
Dito sa Section 8 if you dont feel the need to put the accused
in custody because, maybe the crime is just minor, it doesnt
require PI, you just issue summons. The problem is, ano yung
nakalagay sa summons? What do you order him to what?
(Atty. Suarez being sarcastic with the rules kay vague pa rin
daw) unlike dito sa Section 3, issue the summons, order the
respondent to file his counter affidavit, dito wala. So, just take
note of what the provision is saying. This rules will be
amended soon, hopefully they will look at these vague
portions.
10
Page
Answer: No maam.
So, it is the judge who can cause the arrest of the person by
issuing a WOA. So we have here under Rule 113 the
procedure in making the arrest. However, let us review no
what you took up.
This is based in Section 2 Article 3 of 1987 Constitution.
The right of the people to be secured in their persons, house,
papers effects etc. against unreasonable searches shall be
inviolable and no search warrant or WOA shall issue except
upon PC to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath by the complainant and other
witnesses that he may produce and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the object to be seized.
Page
11
1.
2.
3.
4.
Why? Because there was no PI, this was not done by the
prosecutor. If the judge is not satisfied with what is submitted
to him he can examine the complainant and the witnesses. In
Section 5 there is no need because there are so many
documents already submitted for the PI. So the judge can
refer to those documents.
That is the procedure and this has already been affirmed in
the cases that we discussed already in the case of Borlongan
vs. Pena (section 5 digests ni maam):
The SC said that personal determination does not mean that
judges are ----- to conduct the personal examination of the
complainant and the witnesses, to require thus would be to
unduly laiden them with Preliminary examinations and
investigations of the criminal complaints instead of
concentrating on the hearing and deciding cases filed before
them. Rather, what is emphasized merely is the exclusive and
personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself
12
Page
What is the exception that John Doe warrants are void? If the
warrant describes a particular person to be arrested like
arrest the Chief of Police of Davao City, yun na un, there is
Only one. Or arrest the vice mayor of Kapalong.
So the WOA just sits there. Yung WOA nga namin 3 years na
yun. You know what the police are waiting for? The reality of
life, the police is waiting for something that you can give to
them.
1.
2.
3.
2)
Even if the arresting officer does not have the warrant with
him, the person arrested cannot complain. You can show the
warrant as soon as practicable.
Page
But this is very very common, lawyers ask for the suspension.
Even though we have this case, it is still being done.
13
the proceedings in abeyance and just wait and wait and wait
for the SOJ to give his resolution on the issue.
14
Page
Lawyer
Any member of the immediate family of the person arrested.
Ayun.. di pala pwede ang extended relatives
Any medical doctor, or priest or religious minister chosen by
him or any member of his immediate family or by his
counsellor.
Spouse
Fiance/Fiancee
Parent, child, brother or sister
Grandparent or grandchild
Uncle or aunt, nephew or niece
Guardian or ward
Exception: But there is one other entity who can do so, the
Commissioner
of
Customs
or
his
authorized
representatives for violation of Tariff and Customs
code, yun lang, other than that, wala.
Under this law, the police cannot prevent those persons from
visiting the detainee, otherwise, that policeman can be
arrested.
Who are the judges that can issue search warrants that can
be enforced outside the Judicial Region?
-
15
Page
What if the property was seized and the warrant turned out to
be void, pero na seize na yung property. Can the property be
returned to the person from whom it was seized?
-
seized items, and since these seized items have been taken
by the officers, then they must leave a receipt. One who
receives must sign a receipt.
Quintero vs NBI
This case is weird. After the house where accused stayed was
searched by virtue of a warrant, the police asked her to sign
an inventory of the articles seized. Who should sign the
receipt? Its supposed to be the searching officer! Ipapapirma
mo doon sa may-ari ng bahay??! Then it is already
tantamount to admission, noh! The accused was a victim of a
clever ruse to make him sign the alleged receipt which in
effect is an extrajudicial confession of the commission of the
offense. It is unusual for the accused to be made to sign
receipts for what were taken from him. It is the police officers
who confiscated the same who should have signed receipts. It
is very clear in Section 11. The searching officer is the one
who should sign the receipt, and not the person whose house
was searched.
16
Any of those will give the arresting officer the right to search
him. So, incident to an arrest is a rightful or lawful search,
even though there is no search warrant.
Page
TAKE NOTE. The arrest must come first. Do not search like,
Uy, nakakita ako ng Shabu, then you arrest; It should be
that there must first be an arrest and then you search.
xxxx
ii.
iii.
The Supreme Court said that the procedure was not proper.
The rule says to deliver it to the court. Trial Courts are known
to take judicial notice of the practice of the police in retaining
possession of confiscated specimens suspected of being
marijuana by immediately forwarding them to the NBI for
examination before filing a case with the city prosecutors
office. The mere tolerance by trial courts of such a practice
does not make it right. This violates the mandatory
requirements of the law and defeats the very purpose for
which they were enacted.
1.
2.
2. Consented Search
We have what we call Valid Warrantless Searches. You
have already discussed this in your Consti, so we will just go
through it briefly.
Requisites:
i.
ii.
iii.
17
Page
i.
ii.
iii.
Requisites:
i.
i.
ii.
a)
b)
ii.
iii.
a.
a)
i.
ii.
a)
i.
ii.
ii.
iii.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Persons
Vehicles
Vessels
Aircraft
Land Enclosures
Warehouses
Stores
8. Jail Security
If you want to enter Maa City Jail, you must allow yourself to
be searched. This is recognized as part of precautionary
measures.
There were times during Martial Law that courts were closed
for months.
Principles:
18
Page
A warrant has been issued and you do not want that warrant
to be executed for whatever reason. You file a motion to
quash the warrant.
What if the warrant has been issued and items have already
been seized by virtue of the warrant? You dont want those
items to be used as evidence. You file a motion to suppress
evidence.
They flagged the vehicle down but it did not stop, forcing the
police to chase it until it reached Shilan, La Trinidad. A search
of the vehicle disclosed several pieces of Benguet pine lumber.
Petitioners could not produce the required DENR permit to cut
and transport the same.
Revaldo vs People
issue: A
19
Page
Adasa v Abalos
Plopinio v Carino
Facts: Plopinio here filed administrative and criminal charges
against Atty Carino. In the meantime, Atty Carino applied for
Clerk of Court of RTC in Camarines Sur. In her application, she
filled up an application form, a Personal Data Sheet which
contains a question "Have you ever been formally charged?"
For this question, she answered NO. It was because of this
that the present administrative case was filed by Plopinio
alleging that Carino did not disclose her previous charges
administrative and criminal charges which were already filed
against her.
Issue: On the determination of what the term formally
charged means. WON Atty Carino has indeed been formally
charged.
Ruling: In so ruling, the SC held that in criminal cases, the
determination of whether a person is deemed to have been
20
Page
Brion v Ruiz
Facts: An information was filed against Renato Brion for grave
threats in the MCTC. He questions now the issuance of Judge
Ruiz of a warrant of arrest on February 12 before the judge
conducted a preliminary investigation. He only received the
subpoena on February 17, 2002 or after the issuance of the
warrant of arrest. So he questions now why the judge already
issued a warrant of arrest without the preliminary
investigation.
Issue: WON a judge may issue a warrant of arrest before
preliminary investigation
Ruling: The SC clarified here the difference between
preliminary investigation to determine probable cause for the
judge to issue a warrant of arrest and the preliminary
investigation to determine probable cause to hold a person for
trial. So, the SC said the PI to determine probable cause to
issue a warrant of arrest is a judicial function or for a judge to
issue a warrant of arrest and the other one is PI to determine
probable cause to hold a person for trial. According to Section
6, Rule 112 of the (Old) Rules on Criminal Procedure, the
judge may still issue a warrant of arrest without waiting for
the conclusion of the preliminary investigation so as not to
frustrate the ends of justice. So the issuance of warrant of
arrest on February 12 before the receipt of subpoena on
February 17 is valid.
2.
1.
Redulla v Sandiganbayan
Facts: 5 complaints were filed by Commission on Audit against
Redulla and several others in the Office of the Ombudsman for
violation of RA3019 or Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
After the investigation conducted by Prosecutor Linco, the
Ombudsmans Office filed with the Sandiganbayan 3
informations for violation Section 3(e)of RA3019 in which in
one of the informations, Redulla was one of the accused.
Redulla then filed with the Office of the Special Prosecutor a
motion for reinvestigation which was granted. After the
reinvestigation, the OSP found that there was no probable
cause to charge Redulla and recommended the withdrawal of
the information. Ombudsman Desierto then approved the
findings of the OSP and filed the motion to withdraw the
information with the Sandiganbayan. The motion was granted
and subsequently, the information was withdrawn. However,
after a year, the new Ombudsman, in the person of OMB
Marcelo ordered the review of the original complaints against
Redulla which was filed by COA. Acting on the order,
Prosecutor Coresis then reviewed the complaints and found
that there is sufficient evidence to charge Redulla for violation
21
Page
Yes, the SC asks why did the Judge dismiss the case for lack
of probable cause eh yan na yung probable cause oh found by
the investigating prosecutor plus the Superior plus the DOJ
and the Judge will dismiss it because the private complainant
did not want to testify? It is not a function of the Judge, it is
the function of the prosecutor, it is the function of the
Executive to determine probable cause. So a dismissal will
negate the entire process of PI. From the decisions of the SC,
even though it is there in Section 5 that the Judge may
dismiss the case, asa ka pa. Dinismiss na, nireverse ng
Supreme Court. The Judge based it on authority in Section 5
but the SC said NO, you dont have such authority.
August 3, 2015
Search Warrant, Rule 126
Section 2, We will look at the case which will provide for the
exception to Section 2.
Lets go to Section 3, so what may be seized by virtue of a
search warrant? So, a search warrant aside from searching
also authorizes an officer to seize the items. According to
Section 3, only (1) personal property subject of the offense,
(2)properties 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.
Personal property that is related. Its time to discuss Section
4. Remember the provisions under Rule 112, what the judge
must do before he issues a warrant of arrest.
Remember a search warrant may be issued even if there is no
pending a case. A warrant of arrest can only be issued when a
complaint or information has already been filed in court. We
have already an accused, but in searching, we dont need an
accused. Of course there is no prohibition of issuing a search
warrant if there is already a pending case kasi yun yung
nakalagay ditto sa Section 2, If a criminal action has already
been filed, the application shall only be made in the court
where the criminal action is pending. So pwede pa rin.
So what are the requisites? According to Section4, a search
warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause. The
probable cause that is determined by a judge in issuing a
warrant of arrest is different from the probable cause that is
determined in issuing a search warrant. It must be in
connection with one specific offense. One offense only. Di
pwedeng chopsuey na offense, estafa, robbery, rape, etc in
one warrant. No way, The probable cause must be determined
personally determined by the judge. So how does the judge
determine the probable cause? So this time, it is specifically
stated in Section 4 that is determined only after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce. It is no longer personal evaluation
of the record, it is personal examination of the complainant
and his witnesses and the warrant must particularly describe
the place to be searched and the things to be seized which
may be anywhere in the Philippines. So, it does not mean that
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
22
Page
23
Page
24
Peole v Tira
Page
Lets go to
Yes, so if the lawful occupant is not around, you can call the
brgy people to witness the search. Besides, she signed
whatever meaning she was around, so she has to proved that
she was not around when the search was conducted.
25
i.
ii.
Page
xxxx
Which court should resolve the motion to quash search
warrant in a case where the court that issued it is not the
court with which the case is filed as a consequence of the
service of the warrant?
August 10,2015
(Maam: The court where the case is pending will resolve the
issue, even if the motion is filed with the issuing court.)
Comendador vs De Villa
Now, what can he do? He is already detained. He was
xxxx
Lets say the case was filed in the MTC, and then bail was
granted. So, the accused is out on bail during the MTC
proceedings. What if he was convicted in the MTC and he
appeals to the RTC? Can his bail continue? YES. Based on the
same bail bond, YES. Only until the promulgation of
judgment by the RTC.
26
(2a)
Page
xxxx
What is the only time that the bail will not be enforced?
When it is cancelled. It shall lose its effectivity whether or
not judgment is rendered by the RTC.
Government vs Purganan
xxxx
HK Government vs Olalia
iii.
The approval of the bail will contain all the conditions. The
accused can read what he should do when he is out on bail.
27
Page
changed the nature of the offense from nonbailable to bailable, the application for bail can only
be filed with and resolved by the appellate court.
Should the court grant the application, the accused
may be allowed to continue on provisional liberty
during the pendency of the appeal under the same
bail subject to the consent of the bondsman.
Orbe vs Digandang
Any case under the jurisdiction of the MTC is bailable - crimes
with imposable penalty of not more than 6 years.
There are only two ways under Section 3 to transfer or
release a person. Other reasons are not admissible.
Ambil vs SB
28
Page
WON the order issued by Judge Maceda. Yes. What the latter
should have done instead was to increase the bail bond if
there was possibility of escape.
Lets say the RTC denied the bail. What will the accused do?
He can file a motion before the CA or SB, questioning the
denial of the RTC. The CA or SB may review or reverse the
RTC.
People vs IAC
Bravo vs Borja
xxxx
29
Page
Chua vs. CA
Rufina Chua charged Chiok in the crime of estafa. After trial,
the court set date for promulgation of decision but Chiok and
his counsel failed to appear despite notice. Trial court reset
the date. They failed to appear again. Finally, Chiok was
convicted of estafa as promulgated by the court. On the same
day, Chua filed a motion to cancel the bail of Chiok alleging
that the latter has the possibility to flee or commit another
crime. A hearing was set for the motion of cancellation of
bail. Trial court cancelled the bail of Chiok, but the latter
appealed to CA. But instead of filing petition for review, what
he filed was a separate civil action for certiorari.
Issues:
1.
2.
1.
2.
30
Page
Suarez: Bail should have been denied here. What does it say
in Sec. 7? After conviction by the RTC pending appeal of an
offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
automatic denial. So Judge Mangotara had no business
increasing the bail bond. The accused here had no right to bail
anymore.
People v. Hu
Hu was the General Manager of Extra Excel International
Philippines, Inc., who was charged of qualified theft. The
prosecutor file the information in court and commanded that
bail be set at 40k. but the trial court denied stating that since
the penalty for the offense charged is reclusion perpetua, Hu
is not entitled to be given bail. So Hu contends that DOJ
Circular No. 74 which provides that qualified theft should be
applied. Although it is not binding to the court, it represents
the_____ of the Sec. of Justice and Circular No. 74 was issued
after the Court promulgated its decision in People v.
Hernando.
Issue: WON qualified theft is a bailable offense as gleaned
from DOJ Department Circular No. 74
Held: NO. Both Sec. 7 of Rule 114 and the Constitution
provides that when a person is charged of an offense
punishable by rec. pertpetua, etc. he shall be denied bail WON
the prosecution recommends bail under DOJ Cir. No. 74. But
when he has been brought before the court, he filed a petition
for bail. If the court finds that the evidence of guilt against
him is strong, the court should deny bail. But if not, then he
shall be released on provisional liberty and the amount will be
set in tandem with DOJ Cir. No. 74
Suarez: Yes, it does not mean just because there is this
Circular, the accused is automatically entitled to bail. There
must be this hearing to prove that evidence of guilt is strong.
If it is not strong, then you follow the circular for the amount
of bail bond.
Valerio vs. CA
Information for parricide was filed against the victims wife,
Milagros E. Valerio. Milagros filed an application for bail
claiming that the evidence of guilt against her was not
strong. RTC granted Milagros application for bail. Herein
petitioners, Laarni N. Valerio, sister of the victim, and the
People of the Philippines, elevated the case to the Court of
Appeals ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the RTC judge
for granting Milagros bail.
Issue: WON Milagros is entitled to bail
Held: No. Bail is not a matter of right in cases where the
person is charged with a capital offense or an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Article
114, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
states, No person charged with a capital offense, or an
offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
shall be admitted to bail when the evidence of guilt is strong,
regardless of the stage of the criminal action.
In this case, the trial court had disregarded the glaring fact
that the killer himself has confessed to the crime and has
implicated Milagros as the mastermind. When taken in
conjunction with the other evidence on record, these facts
show very strongly that Milagros may have participated as
principal by inducement in the murder of JunValerio. Thus,
bail should be denied.
Suarez: Yes. This is an illustration of that phrase, whether or
not the evidence of guilt is strong. So here she was charged
of parricide with the penalty of rec. perpetua to death. But the
court granted bail upon application ignoring the fact that the
hitman himself admitted that Milagros is the mastermind.
When you conduct a bail hearing, you dont have to prove the
innocence of the accused. You just have to indicate or show
proof, that the evidence of guilt is strong. So that is enough!
Even if the hitman was lying, there was already an indication
that perhaps this woman planned to kill her husband. This is
enough to state the evidence of guilt is strong and bail should
be denied.
Issue: WON the judge is right for granting the bail without
conducting a hearing
Held: No. Sec. 7 Rule 114 applies. In this case, Atty Gacal
upon learning the approval of the bail, filed a Very Urgent
Motion For Reconsideration And/Or To Cancel Bailbond But
this was denied by Judge Infante.
In that light, the failure of Judge Infante to conduct a hearing
prior to the grant of bail in capital offenses was inexcusable
and reflected gross ignorance of the law and the rules as well
as a cavalier disregard of its requirement. He well knew that
the determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is
strong was a matter of judicial discretion, and that the
discretion lay not in the determination of whether or not a
hearing should be held, but in the appreciation and evaluation
of the weight of the Prosecutions evidence of guilt against the
accused. His fault was made worse by his granting bail
despite the absence of a petition for bail from the accused.
Suarez: (Empasizing the basic) If the crime is punishable by
rec perpetua to death, bail is a matter of right or it should be
denied. There is no discretion as to whether to grant the bail
or deny it. During the hearing, the prosecution must prove
that the evidence of guilt is strong. If it is not proven, then
bail must be granted as a matter of right. If it is proven, then
bail is denied. Bail is not discretionary when the penalty is rec
perpetua to death! Bail is discretionary ONLY under Sec. 5.
Now maybe during the hearing the court exercises a bit of
discretion in deciding WON the evidence of guilt is strong. But
that discretion ends there. Once the court has decided, ah
the evidence of guilt is strong, it has no longer any
discretion. It has to what? Deny bail.
In this case, when the prosecutor recommended bail, the
judge immediately granted it. So the private prosecutor, the
lawyer of the offended party, filed a motion. The purpose of
the motion is to determine WON the evidence of guilt is
strong. But the prosecutor did not appear on the first hearing
date. When he was ordered to file a Comment, another date
was set for the prosecution to prove that the evidence of guilt
31
Page
In the present case, the records show that Judge Clapis set
the first bail hearing on 29 March 2010 yet the Petition For
Bail was filed only on 8 April 2010. Furthermore, the 12, 13
and 14 April 2010 bail hearings reveal that the prosecution
was not given the opportunity to be heard in court. Clearly,
Judge Clapis failed to observe the proper procedure in
granting bail.
Page
32
Section 9
Sec. 9. How much should the bail be? Normally, this is
recommended by the prosecutor. They have their own
guidelines, circulars issued by the DOJ. But Sec 9 also gives
some guidelines.
Remember the cases that we took up? Just get the approval
of the government counsel whether the pub prosecutor or the
SG.
Section 11
Section 12
Sec. 12 is related to Sec. 11. Who can be a bonds man?
Under Sec. 12 (a), it must be real property, hindi kotse kundi
house and lot. May be condominium. In Sec. 12 (b), lets say
the amount is approved, the bond is 2M, but the property is
only worth 1M, kulang yan. The accused has to get another
title from another friend for the 1M. Now he has two
bondsmen.
In the last paragraph, you cannot be a bondsman if you are
undertaking 1M pero ang worth mo is 500k. It has to be more
than the amount.
Section 13
For example Lucio Tan tapos the bail bond is only 5k. Wala
syang pakialam ma-cancel ang bail bond thats just 5k. So it
should also be taken in to consideration.
Section 10
Section 14
Sec. 14. Where do you deposit your cash bond? In the rules,
sa nearest BIR, etc. but the procedure in the court is that you
deposit it to them, then they will deposit it to the bank.
(d)
(e)
(b)
(c)
33
Section 15
pay applying for bail and be asked for release on your own on
recognizance.
in case of a youthful offender held for physical and mental
examination, trial, or appeal, if he is unable to furnish bail and
under the circumstances envisaged in P.D. No. 603, as
amended (Art. 191)
Under RA 7610 Sec. 25 (d): Section 25. Rights of Children
Arrested for Reasons Related to Armed Conflict. Any
child who has been arrested for reasons related to armed
conflict, either as combatant, courier, guide or spy is entitled
to the following rights;
(d) Release of the child on recognizance within twenty-four
(24) hours to the custody of the Department of Social Welfare
and Development or any responsible member of the
community as determined by the court.
Same with PD 603. Who will recommend? DSWD.
Page
34
Page
Section 17
Section 16
Suarez: So there are times when a person is accused, an
information is filed against him, then he is arrested, he has to
post bail. But if a law, or a particular Rule says no need for
bail, the accused can be released without bail, then so be it.
Like RA 6036, putting up a bail bond is not required. If you
comply with the requirements, you can be released on
recognizance. No need to put up bail. And under Rule 114 Sec
16this accused we talked about earlier charged with
homicide. Penalty is rec temporal, the minimum is 12 years
and maximum is 20 years. What if he has already been in jail
for 22 years, hindi pa tapos kanyang trial. Na-serve na nya
yung kanyang maximum penalty. What does Sec. 16 say, a
period equal to or more than the possible maximum
imprisonment prescribe for the offense charged, he shall be
released immediately. He has already served his sentence.
Heto without prejudice to the continuation of the trial or the
proceedings on appeal. The case can go on pero sya released
na kasi nga served na ang sentence.
Here, [in this part] If the maximum penalty to which the
accused may be sentenced is destierro Oh, destierro lang.
kahit na sabihin mo 1 day lang sya andun sa kulungan, eh the
Section 18
So, Sec. 18 is a continuation of Sec. 8. What is Sec 8?
Hearing. You have to undergo hearing to determine this and
that. WON the evidence of guilt is strong. So, the court must
give reasonable notice of the hearing to the prosecutor, to
prepare the evidence.
Now, what if bail is a matter of right? As already mentioned,
there is a little hearing. What if theres no prosecutor in the
court? Hindi pwede yan, kailangan may prosecutor.
Sometimes yung Judge when someone applies for bail tapos
absent yung prosecutor nya, the court will just borrow a
prosecutor from another sala.
35
Page
Section 19
Held: Judge Ines violated Sec 17 Rule 114 because there was
no showing of the unavailability of Judge Ante at that
time. Following the said rule, respondent judge clearly erred
in entertaining the bail application despite knowledge of
the pendency of the falsification case before the MTCC
of Vigan.
Suarez: The case was filed in RTC Santiago. The accused filed
bail in MTC San Mateo which is another city or municipality of
the same province. The judge of MTC should right away deny
Page
36
Page
37
Suarez: The judge did not acquire jurisdiction over the what?
We have jurisdiction over the person, the subject matter
Answer: The person of the accused. How do you acquire
jurisdiction? Either when the accused voluntarily surrendered
or when he was lawfully arrested.
Suarez: This is another case that illustrates the chaos created
by the fact that judges are allowed to conduct PI before.
Imagine ha, him, the judge will conduct the PI. And the he
will be the one to be the presiding judge over the same case.
Definitely, he would issue the arrest warrant and he would
grant bail. Diba parang hes almighty.
In this case, the judge conducted PI when they were no
longer allowed to do so. The PI is therefore void. And the fact
that the case was already in his sala, was also void because PI
is required in this particular case. Therefore, every act that he
did, the granting of bail, the issuance of arrest, all those acts
were in excess of his jurisdiction. He had absolutely no
38
Page
Section 21
There is a condition for being released on bail and that is to
appear. What if the accused is required to appear and he did
not? Well, if he is his own bondsman, thats a problem but if
he has a bondsman like a surety bondsman, or property
bondsmen yung friend na hiniraman nya ng title. That friend
na akala nya hanggang pagpapahiram lang ng property sya,
he take responsibility for the appearance of the accused. The
bondsman has to produce the accused.
What is the effect of failure to appear? Bail is forfeited. Just
read Sec. 21
Reliance Surety vs. Amante, check p. 222, Suarez book.
Andre vs. Beltran, p. 223
Mendoza v. Alarma
Spouses Fernando and Fausta Alarma are the owners a parcel
of land
which was posted as a property bond for the
provisional liberty of a certain Joselito Mayo.
RULE 117
Xxx
Xxxx
That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
person of the accused.
That the officer who filed the information had no authority to
do so. xxxxxx
e.
f.
WHO CA
The inve
his own.
This case
approval
g.
1.
2.
3.
4.
h.
a.
b.
c.
d.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
This means that the court granted the motion to quash. Does
the case end there? No. The court may order that another
complaint or information be filed except those provided under
section 6. In other words, if the information is quashed, it can
either be amended (?) or it can be refiled.
Exception:
2.
SECTION 5
These are the only 2 grounds that will bar the refiling of the
information.
39
1.
Page
Dabalos v. RTC
Dabalos was charged of violation of RA 9262. In the
information, it was alleged that the offense was committed
during the relationship of Dabalos and the victim. Upon
arrest, Dabalos filed a Motion for Judicial determination of
probable cause with Motion to Quash contending that the
offense was committed after his relationship with the victim.
In RA 9262, it is essential that there is a relationship between
the victim and the accused.
2.
a.
3.
a.
b.
40
1.
a.
Page
The first part of Section 7 talks about double jeopardy for the
same offense. Requisites:
1.
a.
i.
ii.
b.
c.
i.
2.
a.
i.
Exception:
1.
2.
ii.
iii.
c.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
WoN the RTC was correct in denying the Motion to Quash. Yes.
Under Section 4, Rule 117 of the RRoCP, if the defect in the
amendment can be cured by an amendment, the court shall
order the amendment. The RTC was correct in ordering the
amendment of the information and denying the motion to
quash.
2)
b.
i.
ii.
1)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
1)
2)
v.
1)
2)
3)
1)
2)
vi.
Effect of consent to dismissal: the accused is deemed to
have waived his right against double jeopardy
3.
a.
i.
b.
i.
c.
i.
ii.
41
jeopardy? No, because the plea bargain was made without the
consent of the offended party
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.
Page
No Transcription =(