Rule 110

People vs Pangilinan
Facts: Complaint for violation of BP 22 was filed in September 16, 1997 but it was
only on February 3, 2000 that it reach MTC for trial proceedings.
Issue: WON the BP 22 (special law) case was already barred by prescription.
Held: No. Contention that a different rule should be applied to cases involving
special laws is bereft of merit. There is no more distinction between cases under the
RPC and those covered by special laws with respect to the interruption of the period
of prescription. Commencement of the proceedings for the prosecution of the
accused before the Office of the City Prosecutor effectively interrupted the
prescriptive period for the offenses they had been charged under BP Blg. 22. It is
unjust to deprive the injured party of the right to obtain vindication on account of
delays that are not under his control.
Sermonia vs CA
Facts: Jose Sermonia contracted second marriage it was duly registered in Office of
the Civil Registrar in 1975. An information was filed on 26 May 1992, against Jose C.
Sermonia for offense of bigamy. He alleged that such fact of registration makes it a
matter of public record and thus constitutes notice to the whole world.
Issue: WON the crime is already barred by prescription? WON the prescriptive period
is counted from registration of second marriage?
Held: No. Constructive notice was applies were land or property are involve and
certainly, marriage is not property. To compute the prescriptive period for the
offense of bigamy from registration thereof would amount to almost absolving the
offenders thereof for liability therefor. While it is true that the celebration of the
bigamous marriage may be said to be open and made of public record by its
registration, but the offender however is not truthful as he conceals from the
officiating authority and those concerned the existence of his previous subsisting
marriage. It is therefore reasonable that the prescriptive period for the crime of
bigamy should be counted only from the day on which the said crime was
discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agency.
Bravo vs CA
Pastor Bravo impute a fraudulent crime against Bibiano Vina for the purpose of e
causing dishonor, discredit and contempt upon Bibiano M. Via. Vina filed a case
against Bravo for libel before RTC of quezon City.
Issue: WON the court has jurisdiction over the case? Petitioner contends that he was
convicted of a libel charge which is at variance since it is specified in the
information that he was charged with libel allegedly to have been committed in
Quezon City and not in Naga City where said libel was allegedly committed?
Held: In the offense of libel, the place of its commission is not an indispensable
element pursuant to the aforementioned law for a libel case may be filed where the

libelous article was printed and first published or in the place where any of the
offended party resides, and since complainant Via resides in Quezon City at the
time of the commission of the supposed libelous article, then it follows that the
lower court had properly acquired jurisdiction to try said case.
Heirs of Del Gado Vs Gonzalez
Facts: The case was dismissed by CA for lack of probable cause. The Solicitor
General on behalf of the Republic faile to appeal on CA decision, thus the applate
court resolution became final.
Issue: WON the petitioner has legal standing to appeal file this case? The petitioner
contend that in criminal proceeding where only issue is probable cause or grave
abuse of discretion, the private complainant are the parties and People of the
Philippines is not yet involved as it becomes a party to the main criminal
proceedings only when the Information is filed with the trial court.
Held: The law clearly requires the Office of the Solicitor General to represent the
Government in the Supreme Court in all criminal proceedings before this Court.
Criminal proceeding is defined as a proceeding instituted to determine a persons
guilt or innocence or to set a convicted persons punishment. As provided under
Section 1(a) of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides: Institution of criminal
actions. Criminal actions shall be instituted as follows: (a) For offenses where a
preliminary investigation is required, by filing the complaint with the proper officer
for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation. Preliminary
investigation, is part of a criminal proceeding. In fact no criminal proceedings under
jurisdiction of RTC can be brought to trial unless a preliminary investigation is
conducted. People of the Philippines becomes a party in interest in a criminal
proceeding when an information is filed with the trial court.

Salvador Socrates vs Sandiganbayan

Facts: Rodriguez OIC Governor of the province of Palawan, filed before the Office of
the Tanodbayan two (2) complaints against the petitioner for violation of Section
3(b) and of Section 3(a) and (g) of the of Republic Act No. 3019. Salvador Socrates
was subsequently charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3(h),
and the second for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
Issue: WON the information filed against the petitioner is valid? Petitioner asserted
that the elements of the offenses charged in the complaints are different from those
stated in the informations which were filed before the Sandiganbayan, such
informations should be declared null and void for lack of due process.

Held: The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or
preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law
alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law, but by the actual
recital of facts in the complaint or information. It is not the technical name given by
the fiscal appearing in the title of the information that determines the character of
the crime but the facts alleged in the body of the information.
Garcia vs Ca
Facts: Fidelino Garcia, Leopoldo Garcia, and Wilfredo Garcia were charged with
murder for killing Paulino Rodolfo y Olgena. All the accused were found guilty for
conspiracy of committing the crime of homicide.
Issue: WON CA erred in affirming petitioners conviction for conspiracy when it was
never alleged in the information nor proven during trial? The petitioner contends
that an accused cannot be convicted of any offense not alleged in the information,
as he has the right to be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is
charged before he is put on trial.
Held: In a conspiracy, the act of one becomes the act of all and the particular act of
an accused. Thus, it is essential that an accused must know from the information
whether he is criminally accountable not only for his acts but also for the acts of his
co-accused as well. In the case at bar the language used by the prosecution in
charging the three accused contains no reference to conspiracy. Conspiracy must be
alleged, not merely inferred, in the information. Absence of a particular statement in
the accusatory portion ofIn ththe charge sheet concerning any definitive act
constituting conspiracy in renders the indictment insufficient to hold one accused
liable for the individual acts of his co-accused. An accused must be furnished with a
description of the charge against him to enable him to make a proper defense and,
later, to avail himself properly of either a conviction or acquittal for his protection
against further prosecution for the same cause
Estrada vs Sandiganbayan
Facts: Five criminal complaints against the former President and members of his
family, his associates, friends and conspirators were filed with the respondent Office
of the Ombudsman. Sandiganbayan issued deny petitioners Motion to Quash and
Suspend and Very Urgent Omnibus Motion.
Issue: WON the information is sufficient to sustain the charge of conspiracy?
Petitioner also faults the respondent Sandiganbayan for sustaining the charge
against petitioner for alleged offenses and with alleged conspirators, with which and
with whom he is not even remotely connected contrary to the dictum that criminal
liability is personal, not vicarious results in the denial of substantive due process

Held: The requirements on sufficiency of allegations are different when conspiracy is

not charged as a crime in itself but only as the mode of committing the crime as in
the case at bar. Conspiracy must be alleged, not just inferred, in the information on
which basis an accused can aptly enter his plea, a matter that is not to be confused
with or likened to the adequacy of evidence that may be required to prove it. Such
an allegation, in the absence of the usual usage of the words conspired or
confederated or the phrase acting in conspiracy, must aptly appear in the
information in the form of definitive acts constituting conspiracy. In the case at bar,
the second paragraph of the Amended Information alleged in general terms how the
accused committed the crime of plunder. It used the words in connivance/
conspiracy with his co-accused. These words are sufficient to allege the conspiracy
of the accused with the former President in committing the crime of plunder.

People vs Tagana
Facts: REMEGIO TAGANNA was charged with two (2) counts of rape committed
against his daughter Maria C. Taganna. The first was allegedly committed in the
information in 1984 however during trial it was proven that the event happens on
1981.
Issue: WON his conviction in first rape can be sustained? Accused-appellant poses
the question of whether he should be convicted of rape committed "on or about the
year 1984." It was on redirect-examination however that the prosecution was able
to focus on the possible year (1981) when the first rape incident occurred.
Held: It is basic rules on criminal procedure, that it is not necessary to state in the
complaint or information the precise time at which the offense was committed
except when time is a material incident of the offense, but the act may be alleged
to have been committed at any time as near to the actual date when the offense
was committed. In the case at bar, a variance of three (3) years between the time
set in the indictment and that established by evidence during the trial constitutes
an error so serious as to warrant a reversal of conviction on that score. To sustain
the lower courts ruling in this regard would be to deprive accused-appellant of his
constitutionally enshrined right to be informed of the accusation against him.
People vs CFI Quezon
Facts: Godofredo Arrozal and Luis Flores, together with twenty (20) other John Does
whose identities are still unknown were charged for feloniously enter the land of one
Felicitacion Pujalte, and once inside, illegally cut, steal and carry away, without the
consent of the said owner and without any authority, lease license or permit, sixty
(60) logs of different species. CFI dismissed the case because the information fails
to substantially allege all elements of the crime.

Issue: WON the information is substantial? While it was admitted that the
information did not precisely allege that the taking of the logs in question was
"without the consent of the state," nevertheless, said information expressly stated
that the accused "illegally cut, gather, take, steal and carry away therefrom, without
the consent of said owner and without any authority under a license agreement,
lease, lease, license or permit, sixty (60) logs of different species. Hence the
information is sufficient.
Held: The failure of the information to allege that the logs taken were owned by the
state is not fatal. It should be noted that the logs subject of the complaint were
taken not from a public forest but from a private woodland registered in the name of
complainant's deceased father, Macario Prudente. The fact that only the state can
grant a license agreement, license or lease does not make the state the owner of all
the logs and timber products produced in the Philippines including those produced
in private woodlands. Private ownership of forest products grown in private lands is
retained under the principle in civil law that ownership of the land includes
everything found on its surface.
Loney vs People
Facts: Petitioners were officers of Marcopper Mining Corporation ("Marcopper"), a
corporation engaged in mining in the province of Marinduque. Their mining pit had
discharged millions of tons of tailings into the Boac and Makalupnit rivers. DOJ
separately charged petitioners MTC of Boac with violation of Article Water Code of
the Philippines ("PD 1067"), National Pollution Control Decree of 1976 ("PD 984"),
the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 ("RA 7942"), and Article 365 of the Revised Penal
Code ("RPC") for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property.
Issue: WON the informations were "duplicitous" as the Department of Justice
charged more than one offense for a single act? Petitioners contend that they
should be charged with one offense only Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Damage to Property because (1) all the charges filed against them "proceed from
and are based on a single act or incident of polluting the Boac and Makalupnit rivers
thru dumping of mine tailings" and (2) the charge for violation of Article 365 of the
RPC "absorbs" the other charges since the element of "lack of necessary or
adequate protection, negligence, recklessness and imprudence" is common among
them.
Held: No. In Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code what must be proven is the lack of
necessary or adequate precaution, negligence, recklessness and imprudence on the
part of the accused to prevent damage to property. This element is not required
under the previous laws. Unquestionably, it is different from dumping of mine
tailings without permit, or causing pollution to the Boac river system, much more
from violation or neglect to abide by the terms of the Environmental Compliance
Certificate. Moreover, the offenses punished by special law are mal[a] prohibita in
contrast with those punished by the Revised Penal Code which are mala in se.
On petitioners claim that the charge for violation of Article 365 of the RPC
"absorbs" the charges for violation of PD 1067, PD 984, and RA 7942, suffice it to

say that a mala in se felony (such as Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to

Property) cannot absorb mala prohibita crimes (such as those violating PD 1067, PD
984, and RA 7942). What makes the former a felony is criminal intent (dolo) or
negligence (culpa); what makes the latter crimes are the special laws enacting
them.
Reodica vs Ca
Facts: Isabelita Reodica was driving a van along when her van hit the car Norberto
Bonsol. As a result, complainant sustained physical injuries, while the damage to his
car amounted to P8, 542.00. Information was filed before the RTC of Makati charging
petitioner with Reckless Imprudence resulting in Damage to Property with Slight
Physical Injury.
Issue: Whether the rule on complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code applies to the quasi offenses in question? Whether the duplicity of the
information may be questioned for the first time on appeal?
Held: No. Applying article 48, it follows that if one offense is light, there is no
complex crime. The resulting offenses may be treated as separate or the light
felony may be absorbed by the grave felony. Thus, the light felonies of damage to
property and slight physical injuries, both resulting from a single act of imprudence,
do not constitute a complex crime. They cannot be charged in one
information. They are separate offenses subject to distinct penalties.
No. Petitioner may no longer question, at this stage, the duplicitous character of the
information, i.e., charging two separate offenses in one information: (1) reckless
imprudence resulting in damage to property; and (2) reckless imprudence resulting
in slight physical injuries. This defect was deemed waived by her failure to raise it in
a motion to quash before she pleaded to the information.
Albert vs Sandiganbayan
Facts: Petitioner and his co-accused, were charged before the Sandiganbayan with
violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019) or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act.

Held: The test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment
of a complaint or information is when a defense under the complaint or information,
as it originally stood, would no longer be available after the amendment is made,
and when any evidence the accused might have, would be inapplicable to the
complaint or information as amended. On the other hand, an amendment which
merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in the
original information and which, therefore, adds nothing essential for conviction for
the crime charged is an amendment to form that can be made at any time.
In this case, the amendment entails the deletion of the phrase "gross neglect of
duty" from the Information. Although this may be considered a substantial

amendment, the same is allowable even after arraignment and plea being beneficial
to the accused.
Fronda Baggao vs. People
Facts: Four separate Informations for illegal recruitment against Susan FrondaBaggao, petitioner, and Lawrence Lee. The prosecutor filed with the trial court a
motion to amend the Informations. They prayed that the four separate Informations
for illegal recruitment be amended so that there would only be one Information for
illegal recruitment in large scale.
Held:
Before the accused enters his plea, a formal or substantial amendment of the
complaint or information may be made without leave of court. After the entry
of a plea, only a formal amendment may be made but with leave of court and
only if it does not prejudice the rights of the accused. After arraignment, a
substantial amendment is proscribed except if the same is beneficial to the
accused. Following the above provisions and considering that petitioner has
not yet entered her plea, the four Informations could still be amended.
A careful scrutiny of the above Rule shows that although it uses the singular
word complaint or information, it does not mean that two or more
complaints or Informations cannot be amended into only one Information.
Surely, such could not have been intended by this Court. Otherwise, there
can be an absurd situation whereby two or more complaints or Informations
could no longer be amended into one or more Informations.
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. As stated
earlier, petitioner has not yet been arraigned. Hence, she cannot invoke the
said provision.

SSGT. Pacol vs. Hon.Cajigal

Facts: Upon arraignment, petitioner, duly assisted by counsel de parte, pleaded not
guilty to the charge of Homicide. However, on the same day and after the
arraignment, the respondent judge issued another Order, directing the trial
prosecutor to correct and amend the Information to Murder in view of the
aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank alleged in the Information.

Held: The first paragraph provides the rules for amendment of

the information or complaint, while the second paragraph refers to
the substitution of the information or complaint.
It may accordingly be posited that both amendment and
substitution of the information may be made before or after the
defendant pleads, but they differ in the following respects:
1. Amendment may involve either formal or substantial changes,
while substitution necessarily involves a substantial change from the
original charge;
2. Amendment before plea has been entered can be effected
without leave of court, but substitution of information must be with
leave of court as the original information has to be dismissed;
3. Where the amendment is only as to form, there is no need for
another preliminary investigation and the retaking of the plea of the
accused; in
substitution
of
information,
another
preliminary
investigation is entailed and the accused has to plead anew to the new
information; and
4. An amended information refers to the same offense charged
in the original information or to an offense which necessarily includes
or is necessarily included in the original charge, hence substantial
amendments to the information after the plea has been taken cannot
be made over the objection of the accused, for if the original
information would be withdrawn, the accused could invoke double
jeopardy. On the other hand, substitution requires or presupposes that
the new information involves a different offense which does not include
or is not necessarily included in the original charge, hence the accused
cannot claim double jeopardy.
In determining, therefore, whether there should be an amendment under the first
paragraph of Section 14, Rule 110, otherwise, where the new information charges
an offense which is distinct and different from that initially charged, a substitution is
in order.
In the present case, the change of the offense charged from Homicide to Murder is
merely a formal amendment and not a substantial amendment or a substitution.

Ricarze vs. CA
Facts: Petitioner argues that the substitution of Caltex by PCIB as private
complainant at this late stage of the trial is prejudicial to his defense. He argues

that the substitution is tantamount to a substantial amendment of the Informations

which is prohibited under Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.
Held: The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment is
whether a defense under the information as it originally stood would be available
after the amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant might have
would be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in the other. An
amendment to an information which does not change the nature of the crime
alleged therein does not affect the essence of the offense or cause surprise or
deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each been
held to be one of form and not of substance.
In the case at bar, the substitution of Caltex by PCIB as private complaint is not a
substantial amendment. The substitution did not alter the basis of the charge in
both Informations, nor did it result in any prejudice to petitioner. The documentary
evidence in the form of the forged checks remained the same, and all such evidence
was available to petitioner well before the trial. Thus, he cannot claim any surprise
by virtue of the substitution.

Rule 111
Asilo Jr. vs People
Doctrine: Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal
liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. However the claim for civil liability
survives notwithstanding the death of (the) accused, if the same may also be predicated on
a source of obligation other than delict.
In the case at bar Death of Mayor Comendador during the pendency of the case could have
extinguished the civil liability if the same arose directly from the crime committed. However,
in this case, the civil liability is based on another source of obligation, the law on human
relations.
Giosiaco vs Ching
Doctrine: The general rule is that a corporate officer who issues a bouncing corporate check
can only be held civilly liable when he is convicted. The civil liability of a corporate officer in
a B.P. Blg. 22 case is extinguished with the criminal liability.
Nowhere in B.P. Blg. 22 is it provided that a juridical person may be impleaded as an accused
or defendant in the prosecution for violations of that law, even in the litigation of the civil
aspect thereof. Nonetheless, the substantive right of a creditor to recover due and
demandable obligations against a debtor-corporation cannot be denied or diminished by a
rule of procedure.
Hyatt and Silangan
Held: The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to
necessarily include the corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file such action
separately shall be allowed or recognized.

Rodriguez vs Hon. Ponferrada

Doctrine: Settled is the rule that the single act of issuing a bouncing check may give rise to
two distinct criminal offenses: estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22). The
Rules of Court allow the offended party to intervene via a private prosecutor in each of these
two penal proceedings. However, the recovery of the single civil liability arising from the
single act of issuing a bouncing check in either criminal case bars the recovery of the same
civil liability in the other criminal action. While the law allows two simultaneous civil
remedies for the offended party, it authorizes recovery in only one. In short, while two
crimes arise from a single set of facts, only one civil liability attaches to it.
Ark Travel Agency vs. Abrogar
Doctrine: The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action
involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal
action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action
may proceed.
The falsity of the subject testimonies of private respondents is yet to be established. It is
noted that at the time of the filing of the criminal complaints, the civil case filed by Ark
Travel is still pending decision. Ark Travel has yet to prove the validity of its monetary claims
and damages against NFMAI. It is only after trial that the RTC can assess the veracity or
falsity of the testimony and correspondingly render a decision. Thus, the civil case is so
intimately connected with the subject crime that it is determinative of the guilt or innocence
of the respondents in the criminal cases.

Dreamworks vs Janiola
Doctrine: Prejudicial Question
As to the 1st element: 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. The civil action must be
instituted prior to the institution of the criminal action.
2nd element: Moreover agreement surrounding the issuance of dishonored checks is
irrelevant to the prosecution for violation of BP 22. The gravamen of the offense charge is
the issuance of a bad check. The purpose for which the check was issued, the terms and
conditions relating to its issuance, or any agreement surrounding such issuance are
irrelevant to the prosecution and conviction of petitioner.
Pimentel vs Pimentel
Doctrine: There is a prejudicial question when a civil action and a criminal action are both
pending, and there exists in the civil action an issue which must be preemptively resolved
before the criminal action may proceed because howsoever the issue raised in the civil
action is resolved would be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the
criminal case.

The issue in the annulment of marriage is not similar or intimately related to the issue in the
criminal case for parricide. Further, the relationship between the offender and the victim is
not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The issue in the civil case for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code is
whether petitioner is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations. The issue in parricide is whether the accused killed the victim. In this case, since
petitioner was charged with frustrated parricide, the issue is whether he performed all the
acts of execution which would have killed respondent as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of petitioners will. At the
time of the commission of the alleged crime, petitioner and respondent were married. The
subsequent dissolution of their marriage, in case the petition in Civil Case No. 04-7392 is
granted, will have no effect on the alleged crime that was committed at the time of the
subsistence of the marriage. In short, even if the marriage between petitioner and
respondent is annulled, petitioner could still be held criminally liable since at the time of the
commission of the alleged crime, he was still married to respondent.
Tenebro vs CA

Judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage Retroacts to the date of the celebration of the
marriage insofar as the vinculum between the spouses is concerned, it is significant to note that said
marriage is not without legal effects. Among these effects is that children conceived or born before
the judgment of absolute nullity of the marriage shall be considered legitimate.There is therefore a
recognition written into the law itself that such a marriage, although void ab initio, may still produce
legal consequences. Among these legal consequences is incurring criminal liability for bigamy.

Rule 112
Balanguan vs CA
Special Prosecutor of DOJ dismissed the case for lack of probable cause. On appeal
to CA by way of certiorari CA
Held: It is elementary in remedial law that a writ of certiorari will not issue where
the remedy of appeal is available to an aggrieved party. A remedy is considered
"plain, speedy and adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioners from the
injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency. In this
case, appeal was not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy.
Courts general policy not to interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations,
leaving the investigating officers sufficient discretion to determine probable
cause, we have nonetheless made some exceptions to the general rule, such as
when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority.
Torres vs Aguinaldo

Doctrine: In sum, prosecutors control and direct the prosecution of criminal

offenses, including the conduct of preliminary investigation, subject to review by the
Secretary of Justice. While his resolution is persuasive, it is not binding on the
courts. The trial court must at all times make its own independent assessment of
the merits of each case.
Thus, it is only where the decision of the Justice Secretary, or the trial court, as the
case may be, is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction that the Court of Appeals may take cognizance of the case in a
petition for certiorari
In the case at barhe Court of Appeals erred in relying solely on the affidavitcomplaint and the NBI report and disregarding totally the counter-affidavit and
documentary evidence of petitioner. It is well to note that Section 3, Rule 112 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure not only requires the submission of the
complaint and the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other
supporting documents, but also directs the respondent to submit his counteraffidavit and that of his witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for
his defense.
Baltazar vs People
The preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does not bind the Judge. It merely
assists him in making the determination of probable cause for issuance of the
warrant of arrest.
The task of the presiding judge when the Information is filed with the court is first
and foremost to determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the
arrest of the accused.
Judge Concepcions Order granting the withdrawal of the Information for murder
against private respondent was not issued with grave abuse of discretion. There was
no hint of whimsicality, nor of gross and patent abuse of discretion as would amount
to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by
law or to act at all in contemplation of law on the part of Judge Concepcion. To the
contrary, Judge Concepcion came to the conclusion that there was no probable
cause for private respondent to commit murder, by applying basic precepts of
criminal law to the facts, allegations, and evidence on record.
Leviste vs Hon. Almeda
Bail: By applying for bail, petitioner did not waive his right to challenge the
regularity of the reinvestigation of the charge against him, the validity of the
admission of the Amended Information, and the legality of his arrest under
the Amended Information, as he vigorously raised them prior to his
arraignment.
The principle that the accused is precluded after arraignment from
questioning the illegal arrest or the lack of or irregular preliminary
investigation applies only if hevoluntarily enters his plea and participates
during trial, without previously invoking his objections thereto.

 Amendment: More importantly, reinvestigation is required in cases involving

a substantial amendment of the information. Due process of law demands
that no substantial amendment of an information may be admitted without
conducting another or a new preliminary investigation, unless the amended
information contains a charge related to or is included in the original
Information.
Preliminary Investigation: Considering that another or a new preliminary
investigation is required, the fact that what was conducted in the present
case was a reinvestigation does not invalidate the substantial amendment of
the Information. There is no substantial distinction between a preliminary
investigation and a reinvestigation since both are conducted in the same
manner and for the same objective of determining whether there exists
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. What is essential is that petitioner was placed on guard to defend
himself from the charge of murder after the claimed circumstances were
made known to him as early as the first motion.

Metrobank vs Reynado
Doctrine: Mandamus a proper remedy when resolution of public respondent is
tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Mandamus is a remedial measure for parties aggrieved. It shall issue when any
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance
of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust
or station. The writ of mandamus is not available to control discretion neither may it
be issued to compel the exercise of discretion. However, Mandamus a proper
remedy when resolution of public respondent is tainted with grave abuse of
discretion.
The present case calls for the application of the exception. Given the facts of this
case, petitioner has clearly established that the public prosecutor and the Secretary
of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion.

Rule 113
People vs Florague
Doctrine: Accused-appellant must be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender. Although a warrant of arrest had in fact been issued against him, accusedappellant had not been arrested when he surrendered to the group of Police Chief Inspector
Marlou Cortez Chan.
De Vera vs De Vera

Doctrine: In this case, it appears that the Information was filed with the RTC on February 24,
2005. On March 1, 2005, the court issued an Order finding probable cause for the accused to
stand trial for the crime of bigamy and for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
In the afternoon of the same day, Geren surrendered to the court and filed a motion for
reduction of bail. Mere filing of an information and/or the issuance of a warrant of
arrest will not automatically make the surrender "involuntary.
People vs Lozano
Doctrine: The requisites of voluntary surrender in this case are present: a. offender has not
been actually arrested, b. offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or the
latters agent, and c. the surrender was voluntary. Appellant, upon learning the issuance of
warrant, and without having been served on him, through his co-accused, contacted City
Director, Police Sptd. to voluntarily surrender. He was then fetched by the authority and
brought to the PNP Jail.
Colorado vs Agapito
Doctrine: Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, arrest may be made on any day and at any
time of the day or night. It is of no moment that the warrant of arrest was issued on a Friday
because nowhere in the Rules or in jurisprudence we can find that a warrant of arrest issued
on a Friday is prohibited.
People vs Recepcion

Doctrine: The arrest of appellants has been made in hot pursuit, an exception from
the rule that warrantless arrests are illegal. (Ito lang ang sinabi ng SC about hot
pursuit, pero nadiscuss na natin to kay Atty. Gallant, and doctrine daw ng kaso na to
ay na kahit isang araw na nakalipas nung ginawa yung crimen valid pa rin yung
warrantless arrest dito na hot pursuit)

Rule 114:
Ruiz vs Beldia
1. Whether or not respondent Judge may validly grant the bail application of Santos
2. Whether or not respondent Judge may grant the petition for bail without giving
notice to the prosecutor
Held:
NO, record shows that Executive Judge De la Cruz and Presiding Judge Enriquez
were present to act on the bail application of Santos. When respondent Judge Beldia
acted on the bail application of Santos his designation was merely an assisting
judge in the RTC-Marikina City, his permanent station being in Branch 57, RTC-San
Carlos City, Negros Occidental. As such, his authority in the Marikina court is limited
and he could only act on an application for bail filed therewith in the absence or
unavailability of the regular judge.
Section 17, par. (c) of Rule 114 distinctly states:

SEC. 17. Bail, where filed.

(c) Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail with
any court in the province, city, or municipality where he is held. (Emphasis supplied)
The Certificate of Detention shows that Santos was detained at Camp Crame in
Quezon City. Thus, as correctly pointed out by the OCA, the application for bail
should have been filed before the proper Quezon City court and not in Marikina City.
NO, it appears that no formal application or petition for the grant of bail was filed
before the RTC-Marikina City. Under the present rules, a hearing on an application
for bail is mandatory, we ruled that in all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or
of discretion, reasonable notice of hearing must be given to the prosecutor, or at
least his recommendation on the matter must be sought. The rationale for this was
explained in this wise:
Bail should be fixed according to the circumstances of each case. The amount fixed
should be sufficient to ensure the presence of the accused at the trial yet
reasonable enough to comply with the constitutional provision that bail should not
be excessive. Therefore, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, reasonable
notice of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor or fiscal or at least he
must be asked for his recommendation because in fixing the amount of bail, the
judge is required to take into account a number of factors such as the applicants
character and reputation, forfeiture of other bonds or whether he is a fugitive from
justice.

Government of HK vs Judge Olaila

Held: Yes. While this Court in Purganan limited the exercise of the right to bail to
criminal proceedings, however, in light of the various international treaties giving
recognition and protection to human rights, particularly the right to life and liberty,
a reexamination of this Courts ruling in Purganan is in order.
First, xxx Respondents in administrative proceedings, such as deportation and
quarantine,4 have likewise been detained.
Second, to limit bail to criminal proceedings would be to close our eyes to our
jurisprudential history. Philippine jurisprudence has not limited the exercise of the
right to bail to criminal proceedings only. xxx In fact, bail has been allowed in this
jurisdiction to persons in detention during the pendency of administrative
proceedings, taking into cognizance the obligation of the Philippines under
international conventions to uphold human rights.

Records show that private had been detained for over two (2) years without having
been convicted of any crime. By any standard, such an extended period of
detention is a serious deprivation of his fundamental right to liberty xxx which
prompted the extradition court to grant him bail.
While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an extraditee,
however, there is no provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, a
right to due process under the Constitution.
*THIS CASE WAS REMANDED to the trial court to determine whether Muoz is
entitled to bail on the basis of clear and convincing evidence .
In his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice
Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new standard which he termed "clear and
convincing evidence" should be used in granting bail in extradition cases. According
to him, this standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but
higher than preponderance of evidence. The potential extraditee must prove by
"clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the
orders and processes of the