2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
INTRODUCTION
1. SERANA vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 162059 | 2008
It is not only the salary grade that determines the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan—the Sandiganbayan
also has jurisdiction over other officers enumerated in
P.D. No. 1606.
2. GARCIA vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 165835 | 2005
The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over actions for
forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379, albeit the
proceeding thereunder is civil in nature—the civil liability
for forfeiture cases does not arise from the commission
of a criminal offense.
3. ESCOBAL vs GARCHITORENA | 124644 | 2004
The jurisdiction of the court over criminal cases is
determined by the allegations in the Information or the
Complaint and the statute in effect at the time of the
commencement of the action, unless such statute
provides for a retroactive application thereof.
For the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive jurisdiction
under Section 4(a) of PD 1606, as amended by PD 1861
over crimes committed by public officers in relation to
their office, it is essential that the facts showing the
intimate relation between the office and the offender
and the discharge of official duties must be alleged in the
Information.
It is not enough to merely allege in the Information that
the crime charged was committed by the offender in
relation to his office because that would be a conclusion
of law.
4. PEOPLE vs HENRY GO | 168539 | 2014
The Sandiganbayan is a special criminal court which has
exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving
violations of RA 3019 committed by certain public
officers, as enumerated in PD 1606 as amended by R.A.
8249.
The requirement before a private person may be indicted
for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, among others,
is that such private person must be alleged to have acted
in conspiracy with a public officer. The law, however,
does not require that such person must, in all instances,
be indicted together with the public officer. If
circumstances exist where the public officer may no
longer be charged in court, as in the present case where
the public officer has already died, the private person
may be indicted alone.
5. RAMISCAL vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 140576-99 | 2004
In finding of probable cause, it is the Ombudsman who
has the full discretion to determine whether or not a
criminal case should be filed in the Sandiganbayan, once
the case has been filed with the said court, it is the
Sandiganbayan, and no longer the Ombudsman which
has full control of the case.
6. RAMISCAL vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 140576-99 | 2004
I
Jurisdiction in libel cases belong to the RTC to the
exclusion of all other courts
II
The rule is well settled that the act of an accused in
posting bail or in filing motions seeking affirmative relief
is tantamount to submission of his person to the
jurisdiction of the court.
III
The Sandiganbayan is a special criminal court which has
exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving
violations of RA 3019 committed by certain public
officers, as enumerated in PD 1606 as amended by RA
8249.
This includes private individuals who are charged as coprincipals, accomplices or accessories with the said
public officers.
7. LACSON vs EXEC. SECRETARY | 128096 | 1999
I
Under Section 4, par. b of Republic Act 8249, what
determines the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction is the
official position or rank of the offender.
In enacting RA 8249, Congress simply restored the
original provisions of PD 1606 which does not mention
the criminal participation of the public officer as a
requisite to determine the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
II
RA 8249 is not a penal law. It is a substantive law on
jurisdiction which is not penal in character. Not being a
penal law, the retroactive application of RA 8249 cannot
be challenged as unconstitutional.
III
An offense is said to have been committed in relation to
the office if it is intimately connected with the office of
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES
1
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
the offender and perpetrated while he was in the
performance of his official functions.
Such intimate relation must be alleged in the information
which is essential in determining the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
IV
The jurisdiction of a court is defined by the Constitution
or statute. The elements of that definition must appear
in the complaint or information so as to ascertain which
court has jurisdiction over a case.
Hence the elementary rule that the jurisdiction of a court
is determined by the allegations in the complaint or
information, and not by the evidence presented by the
parties at the trial.
8. SANCHEZ vs DEMETRIOU | 111771-77 | 1993
The absence of a preliminary investigation does not
impair the validity of the information or otherwise
render the same defective and neither does it affect the
jurisdiction of the court over the case or constitute a
ground for quashing the information.
11. DISINI JR vs SEC. OF JUSTICE | 203335 | 2014
It is well-settled that the power to issue subpoenas is not
exclusively a judicial function. Executive agencies have
the power to issue subpoena as an adjunct of their
investigatory powers.
RULE 110 – PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
12. JIMENEZ vs SORONGON | 178607 | 2012
The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case
and only the OSG can represent the People in criminal
proceedings pending in the CA or in the SC.
13. PEOPLE vs VALDEZ | 175602 | 2012
The nature of the criminal charge is determined by the
actual recital of the facts in the complaint or information.
14. MIGUEL vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 172035 | 2012
The test of the information’s sufficiency is whether the
crime is described in intelligible terms and with such
particularity with reasonable certainty so that the
accused is duly informed of the offense charged.
15. PEOPLE VS SORIA | 172035 | 2012
The allegation in the information of the various ways of
committing the offense should be regarded as a
description of only one offense and the information is
not thereby rendered defective on the ground of
multifariousness.
16. UNION BANK vs PEOPLE | 192565 | 2012
The venue of action and of jurisdiction are deemed
sufficiently alleged where the Information states that the
offense was committed or some of its essential
ingredients occurred at a place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court.
RULE 111 – PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
17. SOLIDUM vs PEOPLE | 192123 | 2014
I
Civil liability must not rest on speculation but on
competent evidence.
II
The civil action for the recovery of civil liability that is
deemed instituted with the criminal action refers only to
that arising from the offense charged.
18. CASTILLO vs SALVADOR | 191240 | 2014
An acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of
the accused is not exempt from civil liability, which may
be proved by preponderance of evidence only.
19. LIM vs KOU CO PING | 175256 | 2012
If the action for the civil liability ex delicto is instituted
prior to or subsequent to the filing of the criminal action,
its proceedings are suspended until the final outcome of
the criminal action. Because of the distinct and
independent nature of the two kinds of civil liabilities,
jurisprudence holds that the offended party may pursue
the two types of civil liabilities simultaneously or
cumulatively, without of ending the rules on forum
shopping, litis pendentia, or res judicata.
20. CASUPANAN vs LAROYA | 145391 | 2002
The accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the
same act or omission he is accused of in the criminal
case. This is expressly allowed in paragraph 6, Section 1
of the present Rule 111 which states that the
counterclaim of the accused “may be litigated in a
separate civil action.”
21. PEOPLE vs ROMERO | 112985 | 1999
The death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the
civil liability ex delicto.
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES
2
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
22. MAGISTRADO vs PEOPLE | 148072 | 2007
There is no prejudicial question if the civil and the
criminal action can, according to law, proceed
independently of each other.
23. PIMENTEL vs PIMENTEL | 172060 | 2010
Annulment of marriage is not a prejudicial question in
criminal case for parricide. Further, the resolution of the
civil action is not a prejudicial question that would
warrant the suspension of the criminal action. 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.
24. JM DOMINGUEZ vs LICLICAN | 208587 | 2015
As jurisprudence elucidates, a prejudicial question
generally exists in a situation where a civil action and a
criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the
former an issue that must be preemptively resolved
before the latter may proceed, because howsoever the
issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be
determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of
the accused in the criminal case. The rationale behind
the principle is to avoid two conflicting decisions, and its
existence rests on the concurrence of two essential
elements:
(i) The civil action involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the
criminal action; and
(ii) The resolution of such issue determines whether
or not the criminal action may proceed.
RULE 112 – PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
25. FENEQUITO vs VERGARA, JR. | 172829 | 2012
It is wrong for petitioners to argue that it is the OSG
which has authority to file an appeal with the RTC.
Section 35 (l), Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of Executive
Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative
Code of 1987, mandates the OSG to represent “the
Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals in all criminal proceedings.” On the other hand,
Section 11 of Presidential Decree No. 1275, entitled
“Reorganizing the Prosecution Staff of the Department
of Justice and the Offices of the Provincial and City
Fiscals, Regionalizing the Prosecution Service, and
Creating the National Prosecution Service,” which was
the law in force at the time the appeal was filed, provides
that the provincial or the city fiscal (now referred to as
prosecutor) “shall have charge of the prosecution of all
crimes, misdemeanors and violations of city or municipal
ordinances in the courts of such province or city and shall
therein discharge all the duties incident to the institution
of criminal prosecutions.”
26. BURGUNDY vs REYES | 181021 | 2012
It must be remembered that the finding of probable
cause was made after conducting a preliminary
investigation. A preliminary investigation constitutes a
realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of a case. Its
purpose is to determine whether (a) a crime has been
committed; and (b) whether there is a probable cause to
believe that the accused is guilty thereof.
It is not disputed that decisions or resolutions of
prosecutors are subject to appeal to the Secretary of
Justice who, under the Revised Administrative Code,
exercises the power of direct control and supervision
over said prosecutors; and who may thus affirm, nullify,
reverse or modify their rulings. Review as an act of
supervision and control by the justice secretary over the
fiscals and prosecutors finds basis in the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies which holds that
mistakes, abuses or negligence committed in the initial
steps of an administrative activity or by an administrative
agency should be corrected by higher administrative
authorities, and not directly by courts.
This Court need not overemphasize that in a preliminary
investigation, the public prosecutor merely determines
whether there is probable cause or sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty
thereof and should be held for trial.
It does not call for the application of rules and standards
of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial
on the merits. The complainant need not present at this
stage proof beyond reasonable doubt.
A preliminary investigation does not require a full and
exhaustive presentation of the parties’ evidence.
Precisely, there is a trial to allow the reception of
evidence for both parties to substantiate their respective
claims.
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES
3
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
27. ABANADO vs BAYONA | AM MTJ-12-1804 | 2012
The Department of Justice-National Prosecution Service
Manual states that the resolution of the investigating
prosecutor should be attached to the information only
“as far as practicable.” Thus, such attachment is not
mandatory or required under the rules.
28. HEIRS OF NESTOR TRIA vs OBIAS | 175887 | 2010
The justice secretary is not precluded from exercising his
power of review over the investigating prosecutor even
after the information has already been filed in court. The
justice secretary’s subsequent resolution withdrawing
the information or dismissing the case does not cause
the court to lose jurisdiction over the case.
29. UY vs JAVELLANA | A.M. No. MT.J-07-1666 | 2012
The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure does not
provide for a preliminary investigation prior to the filing
of a criminal case under said Rule.
Section 1, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure only requires that a preliminary investigation
be conducted before the filing of a complaint or
information for an offense where the penalty prescribed
by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one
(1) day without regard to the fine.
30. PEOPLE vs VALENCIA | 94511-13 | 1992
I
Information can be filed without a preliminary
investigation against an accused arrested without
warrant.
II
Preliminary investigation; deemed waived when not
invoked.
31. PCGG vs NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ | 194159 | 2015
I
Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal
information, has been defined as such facts as are
sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime
has been committed and that respondent is probably
guilty thereof.
The term does not mean "actual or positive cause" nor
does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on
opinion and reasonable belief. Probable cause does not
require an inquiry whether there is sufficient evidence to
procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that
the act or omission complained of constitutes the
offense charged.
II
Preliminary investigation is merely an inquisitorial mode
of discovering whether or not there is reasonable basis
to believe that a crime has been committed and that the
person charged should be held responsible for it. Being
merely based on opinion and belief, a finding of probable
cause does not require an inquiry as to whether there is
sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.
A preliminary investigation] is not the occasion for the
full and exhaustive display of [the prosecution's]
evidence. The presence and absence of the elements of
the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of
defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial
on the merits.
Hence, the validity and merits of a party's defense or
accusation, as well as the admissibility of testimonies and
evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than
at the preliminary investigation level.
32. DE LIMA vs REYES | AM MTJ-12-1804 | 2012
The prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not
determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. He does
not exercise adjudication nor rule-making functions.
Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and is
often the only means of discovering the persons who
may be reasonably charged with a crime and to enable
the fiscal to prepare his complaint or information.
It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no
purpose except that of determining whether a crime has
been committed and whether there is probable cause to
believe that the accused is guilty thereof. While the fiscal
makes that determination, he cannot be said to be acting
as a quasi-court, for it is the courts, ultimately, that pass
judgment on the accused, not the fiscal.
RULE 113 – ARREST
33. SARAUM vs PEOPLE | 205472 | 2016
The valid warrantless arrest gave the officers the right to
search the shanty for objects relating to the crime and
seize the drug paraphernalia they found. In the course of
their lawful intrusion, they inadvertently saw the various
drug paraphernalia. As these items were plainly visible,
the police officers were justified in seizing them.
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES
4
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
Considering that Saraum’s arrest was legal, the search
and seizure that resulted from it were likewise lawful.
The various drug paraphernalia that the police officers
found and seized in the shanty are, therefore, admissible
in evidence for having proceeded from a valid search and
seizure.
Since the confiscated drug paraphernalia are the very
corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court has no
choice but to sustain the judgment of conviction.
34. COMERCIANTE vs PEOPLE | 205926 | 2015
The balance lies in the concept of "suspiciousness"
present where the police officer finds himself or herself
in.
This may be undoubtedly based on the experience of the
police officer. Experienced police officers have personal
experience dealing with criminals and criminal behavior.
Hence, they should have the ability to discern - based on
facts that they themselves observe - whether an
individual is acting in a suspicious manner.
Clearly, a basic criterion would be that the police officer,
with his or her personal knowledge, must observe the
facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act.
35. LUZ vs PEOPLE | 197788 | 2012
At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of
the arresting officer to inform the latter of the reason for
the arrest and must show that person the warrant of
arrest, if any.
Persons shall be informed of their constitutional rights to
remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement
they might make could be used against them.
36. ANTIQUERA vs PEOPLE | 180661 | 2013
The failure of the accused to object to the irregularity of
his arrest by itself is not enough to sustain his conviction.
A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry
with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized
during the illegal warrantless arrest.
37. PEOPLE vs VASQUEZ | 200304 | 2014
Any objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest
must be made before the accused enters his plea on
arraignment.
RULE 114 – BAIL
38. FLORESTA vs UBIADAS | AM RTJ-03-1774 | 2004
Judges owe it the public and the legal profession to know
the very law they are supposed to apply to a given
controversy.
39. ZUNO vs CABEBE | AM OCA 03-1800-RTJ | 2004
The importance of a bail hearing and a summary of
evidence cannot be downplayed, these are considered
aspects of procedural due process for both the
prosecution and the defense; its absence will invalidate
the grant or denial of bail.
40. GOV’T OF HONGKONG vs OLALIA | 153675 | 2004*
The modern trend in public international law is the
primacy placed on the worth of the individual person and
the sanctity of human rights.
If bail can be granted in deportation cases, the Court sees
no justification why it should not also be allowed in
extradition cases—clearly, the right of a prospective
extraditee to apply for bail must be viewed in the light of
the various treaty obligations of the Philippines
concerning respect for the promotion and protection of
human rights.
41. PEOPLE vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 158754 | 2007
Even if the capital offense charged is bailable owing to
the weakness of the evidence of guilt, the right to bail
may justifiably still be denied if the probability of escape
is great. A grant of bail does not prevent the trier of facts,
the same Anti-Graft Court, from making a final
assessment of the evidence after full trial on the merits.
42. OKABE vs GUTIERREZ | 150185 | 2004
Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure is a new one, intended to modify previous
rulings of the Court that an application for bail or the
admission to bail by the accused shall be considered as a
waiver of his right to assail the warrant issued for his
arrest on the legalities or irregularities thereon; Curative
statutes are by their essence retroactive in application.
43. LEVISTE vs CA | 189122 | 2010
Under Sec 5 of Rule 114, bail is discretionary upon
conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES
5
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
Under par. 3 of the same rule if the penalty impose is
more than 6 years the accused shall be denied bail, or his
bail be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution,
with notice to the accused, of the following or other
circumstances:
a. That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual
delinquent, or has committed the crime
aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
b. That he has previously escaped from legal
confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the
conditions of his bail without a valid justification;
c. That he committed the offense while under
probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
d. That the circumstances of his case indicate the
probability of flight if released on bail; or
e. That there is undue risk that he may commit
another crime during the pendency of the appeal.
That bail is expressly declared to be discretionary
pending appeal and it cannot be said that CA committed
grave abuse of discretion. After conviction by the trial
court, the presumption of innocence terminates and,
accordingly, the constitutional right to bail ends, from
then on the grant of bail is subject to judicial discretion.
44. ENRILE vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 213847 | 2015
The primary objective of bail is to ensure that the
accused appears at trial.
Bail is a right and a matter of discretion – Right to bail is
afforded in Sec. 13, Art III of the 1987 Constitution and
repeated in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure to wit: “No person charged with a capital
offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when
evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the
criminal prosecution.”
The Sandiganbayan arbitrarily ignored the objective of
bail to ensure the appearance of the accused during the
trial; and unwarrantedly disregarded the clear showing
of the fragile health and advanced age of Enrile.
As such, the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion
in denying Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail.
The Court is further mindful of the Philippines’
responsibility in the international community arising
from the national commitment under the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights to uphold the fundamental
human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of
every person.
In the Courts view, his social and political standing and
his having immediately surrendered to the authorities
upon his being charged in court indicate that the risk of
his flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely.
Factors in this case:
 Voluntary surrender;
 Social and political standing;
 Clear showing of fragile health and advanced age;
and
 Responsibility being a signatory of the UDHR.
RULE 115 – RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
45. DEL CASTILLO vs PEOPLE | 185128| 2012
While it is not necessary that the property to be searched
or seized should be owned by the person against whom
the search warrant is issued, there must be sufficient
showing that the property is under appellants control or
possession.
46. MIGUEL vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 172035 | 2012
To be heard does not only mean oral arguments in court;
one may be heard also through pleadings. Where
opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments
or pleadings, has been accorded, no denial of procedural
due process exists.
47. PEOPLE vs LARA | 199877 | 2012
The right to counsel is deemed to have arisen at the
precise moment custodial investigation begins and being
made to stand in a police line-up is not the starting point
or a part of custodial investigation.
48. SANICO vs PEOPLE | 198753 | 2015
If the incompetence of counsel was so great and the
error committed as a result was so serious that the client
was prejudiced by a denial of his day in court, the
litigation ought to be reopened to give to the client
another chance to present his case.
49. PEOPLE vs AYSON | 85215 | 1989
The rights guaranteed a person under Art. III, Sec. 12 of
the Constitution are not available when he is not under
custodial investigation. Thus, a statement or confession
voluntarily given by an employee during an
administrative investigation that he had malversed his
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES
6
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
employer’s funds is admissible although without a prior
information of said rights and without the assistance of
counsel.
50. VILLAREAL vs PEOPLE | 151258 | 2012
The right to a speedy trial is violated when the
proceeding is attended with unjustified postponements
of trial, or when a long period of time is allowed to elapse
without the case being tried and for no cause or
justifiable motive.
RULE 116 – ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
51. PEOPLE vs ESTOMACA | 117485-86 | 1996
Section 1(a) of Rule 116 requires that the arraignment
should be made in open court by the judge himself or by
the clerk of court furnishing the accused a copy of the
complaint or information with the list of witnesses stated
therein, then reading the same in the language or dialect
that is known to him, and asking him what his plea is to
the charge. The requirement that the reading be made
in a language or dialect that the accused understands
and knows is a mandatory requirement, just as the
whole of said Section 1 should be strictly followed by
trial courts.
This the law affords the accused by way of
implementation of the all-important constitutional
mandate regarding the right of an accused to be
informed of the precise nature of the accusation leveled
at him and is, therefore, really an avenue for him to be
able to hoist the necessary defense in rebuttal thereof. It
is an integral aspect of the due process clause under the
Constitution.
52. PEOPLE vs PANGILINAN | 171020 | 2007
Procedural defect of belated arraignment was cured
when the counsel of the accused participated in the trial
without raising any objection that his client had yet to be
arraigned.
53. DAAN vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 163972-77 | 2008
I
Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a process whereby the
accused and the prosecution work out a mutually
satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court
approval—it usually involves the defendant’s pleading
guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the
counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter
sentence than that for the graver charge.
II
Ordinarily, plea bargaining is made during the pre-trial
stage of the proceedings but it may also be made during
the trial proper and even after the prosecution has
finished presenting its evidence and rested its case.
54. PEOPLE VS JANJALANI | 188314 | 2011
I
All trial judges must refrain from accepting with alacrity
an accused’s plea of guilty, for while justice demands a
speedy administration, judges are duty bound to be extra
solicitous in seeing to it that when an accused pleads
guilty, he understands fully the meaning of his plea and
the import of an inevitable conviction.
The requirement for a judge to conduct a searching
inquiry applies more so in cases of re-arraignment.
II
The requirement to conduct a searching inquiry should
not be deemed satisfied in cases in which it was the
defense counsel who explained the consequences of a
“guilty” plea to the accused—the conduct of a searching
inquiry remains the duty of judges, as they are mandated
by the rules to satisfy themselves that the accused had
not been under coercion or duress; mistaken
impressions; or a misunderstanding of the significance,
effects, and consequences of their guilty plea.
III
Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set
aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment.
55. ABS-CBN CORP vs GOZON | 195956 | 2015
SEC. 11. Suspension of arraignment.—Upon motion by
the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in
the following cases: (a) The accused appears to be
suffering from an unsound mental condition which
effectively renders him unable to fully understand the
charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto. In
such case, the court shall order his mental examination
and, if necessary, his confinement for such purpose; (b)
There exists a prejudicial question; and (c) A petition for
review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at
either the Department of Justice, or the Office of the
President; provided that the period of suspension shall
not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the
petition with the reviewing office.
56. ENRILE vs PEOPLE | 213455 | 2015
The grant or denial of a motion for bill of particulars is
discretionary on the court where the Information is filed.
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES
7
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
As usual in matters of discretion, the ruling of the trial
court will not be reversed unless grave abuse of
discretion or a manifestly erroneous order amounting to
grave abuse of discretion is shown.
The rule requires the information to describe the offense
with sufficient particularity to apprise the accused of the
crime charged with and to enable the court to pronounce
judgment. The particularity must be such that persons of
ordinary intelligence may immediately know what the
Information means. The general function of a bill of
particulars, whether in civil or criminal proceedings, is to
guard against surprises during trial. It is not the function
of the bill to furnish the accused with the evidence of the
prosecution. Thus, the prosecutor shall not be required
to include in the bill of particulars matters of evidence
relating to how the people intend to prove the elements
of the offense charged or how the people intend to prove
any item of factual information included in the bill of
particulars.
RULE 117 – MOTION TO QUASH
57. PEOPLE vs LACSON | 149453 | 2003
The interpretation of Sec. 8 of Rule 117 to the effect that
in the event that the accused is prosecuted anew with
the same offense, albeit under an identical information,
the new proceedings being conducted as if the accused
has been charged afresh has in its favor the soundest
policy considerations based no less on the fundamental
objectives of procedural rules.
Section 1 (g) of Rule 116—Unless a shorter period is
provided by special law or Supreme Court circular, the
arraignment shall be held within thirty (30) days from the
date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of
the accused. The time of the pendency or a motion to
quash or for a bill of particulars or other causes justifying
suspension of the arraignment shall be excluded in
computing the period.
58. PANAGUITON vs DOJ | 167571 | 2008
The prescriptive period is interrupted by the institution
of proceedings for preliminary investigation against the
accused. Petitioner’s filing of his complaint-affidavit
before the office of the City Prosecutor on 24 August
1995 signified the commencement of the proceedings
for the prosecution of the accused and thus effectively
interrupted the prescriptive period for the offenses they
had been charged under BP 22.
59. PEOPLE vs DUMLAO | 168918 | 2009
Insufficiency of evidence is not one of the grounds of a
Motion to Quash. Insufficiency of evidence is a ground
for dismissal of an action only after the prosecution rests
its case.
Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure provides – Demurrer to evidence. After the
prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the
action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on
its own initiative after giving the prosecution the
opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to
evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of
court.
60. SORIANO vs PEOPLE | 159517-18 | 2009
The fundamental test in considering a motion to quash
anchored on Section 3 (a), 19 Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules
on Criminal Procedure, is the sufficiency of the
averments in the information; that is, whether the facts
alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the
essential elements of the offense charged as defined by
law. The trial court may not consider a situation contrary
to that set forth in the criminal complaint or information.
Facts that constitute the defense of the petitioners
against the charge under the information must be
proved by them during trial. Such facts or circumstances
do not constitute proper grounds for a motion to quash
the information on the ground that the material
averments do not constitute the offense.
61. CEREZO vs PEOPLE | 185230 | 2011
Well-entrenched is the rule that once a case is filed with
the court, any disposition of it rests on the sound
discretion of the court. In thus resolving a motion to
dismiss a case or to withdraw an Information, the trial
court should not rely solely and merely on the findings of
the public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice.
It is the court’s bounden duty to assess independently
the merits of the motion, and this assessment must be
embodied in a written order disposing of the motion.
While the recommendation of the prosecutor or the
ruling of the Secretary of Justice is persuasive, it is not
binding on courts.
62. CO vs NEW PROSPERITY | 183994 | 2014
While the Court recognizes the accused's right to speedy
trial and adheres to a policy of speedy administration of
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES
8
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
justice, we cannot deprive the State of a reasonable
opportunity to fairly prosecute criminals.
Unjustified postponements which prolong the trial for an
unreasonable length of time are what offend the right of
the accused to speedy trial.
RULE 119 – TRIAL
63. SALVANERA vs PEOPLE | 143093 | 2007
In the discharge of an accused in order that he may be a
state witness, the following conditions must be present,
namely:
1) Two or more accused are jointly charged with the
commission of an offense;
2) The motion for discharge is filed by the
prosecution before it rests its case;
3) The prosecution is required to present evidence
and the sworn statement of each proposed state
witness at a hearing in support of the discharge;
4) The accused gives his consent to be a state
witness; and
5) The trial court is satisfied that:
a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony
of the accused whose discharge is requested;
b) There is no other direct evidence available for
the proper prosecution of the offense
committed, except the testimony of said
accused;
c) The testimony of said accused can be
substantially corroborated in its material
points;
d) Said accused does not appear to be the most
guilty; and,
e) Said accused has not at any time been
convicted of any offense involving moral
turpitude.
64. VDA DE MANGUERRA vs RISOS | 152643 | 2008
It is thus required that the conditional examination be
made before the court where the case is pending.
It is also necessary that the accused be notified, so that
he can attend the examination, subject to his right to
waive the same after reasonable notice.
As to the manner of examination, the Rules mandate that
it be conducted in the same manner as an examination
during trial, that is, through question and answer.
65. PEOPLE vs JIMENEZ | 209195 | 2014
The requirement is that a state witness does not need to
be found to be the least guilty; he or she should not only
"appear to be the most guilty."
66. PEOPLE vs DE GRANO | 167710 | 2009
Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution, authorizing
trials in absentia, allows the accused to be absent at the
trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit:
(a) At arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or
of guilt;
(b) During trial, whenever necessary for identification
purposes; and
(c) At the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a
light offense, in which case, the accused may
appear by counsel or representative.
At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is
required and cannot be waived.
67. ASISTIO vs PEOPLE | 200465 | 2015
Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, the
defendant is acquitted because the evidence does not
show that the defendant's guilt is beyond reasonable
doubt; but dismissal does not decide the case on the
merits or that the defendant is not guilty.
Dismissal terminates the proceeding, either because the
court is not a court of competent jurisdiction, or the
evidence does not show that the offense was committed
within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the
complaint or information is not valid or sufficient in form
and substance, etc."
68. CABADOR vs PEOPLE | 186001 | 2009
One can avail of a demurrer to evidence only after the
plaintiff or the prosecution has rested its case. Resting
one’s case requires a formal offer of evidence which has
been commented on or has been opposed and the court
has already ruled on the formal offer of evidence
together with the opposition or comment thereto.
69. PEOPLE vs TAN | 167526 | 2010
The elements of double jeopardy are:
(1) The complaint or information was sufficient in
form and substance to sustain a conviction;
(2) The court had jurisdiction;
(3) The accused had been arraigned and had pleaded;
and
(4) The accused was convicted or acquitted, or the
case was dismissed without his express consent.
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES
9
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
The only instance when double jeopardy will not attach
is when the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion.
70. IMPERIAL vs JOSON | 160067 | 2010
The right to speedy trial is considered violated only when
the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious and
oppressive delays.
71. PEOPLE vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 171671 | 2012
In criminal cases, grant of a demurrer to evidence
amounts to an acquittal and the dismissal order may not
be appealed because it would place accused in double
jeopardy.
It is still reviewable but only through certiorari under
Rule 65.
72. BANGAYAN JR vs BANGAYAN | 172777 | 2011
In criminal cases, acquittal of accused or dismissal of case
against him can only be appealed by Solicitor General.
Court cannot review an order granting demurrer to
evidence.
Acquitting the accused on ground by insufficiency of
evidence is of such based on the merits, thus to do so will
place accused in double jeopardy.
73. PEOPLE vs JOSE GO | 191015 | 2014
The court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence
raised in a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain
whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to
sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.
74. PEOPLE VS. PEPINO | 174471 | 2016
Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in
various ways. It is done thru show-ups where the suspect
alone is brought face to face with the witness for
identification.
It is done thru mug shots where photographs are shown
to the witness to identify the suspect. It is also done thru
lineups where a witness identifies the suspect from a
group of persons lined up for the purpose.
In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-ofcourt identification of suspects, courts have adopted the
totality of circumstances test where they consider the
following factors, viz:
(1) The witness' opportunity to view the criminal at
the time of the crime;
(2) The witness' degree of attention at that time;
(3) The accuracy of any prior description given by the
witness;
(4) The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness
at the identification;
(5) The length of time between the crime and the
identification; and
(6) The suggestiveness of the identification
procedure.
At any rate, the appellants' respective convictions in this
case were based on an independent in-court
identification made by Edward and Jocelyn, and not on
the out-of-court identification during the police lineup.
RULE 120 – JUDGMENT
Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a
demurrer thereto is such evidence in character, weight
or amount as will legally justify the judicial or official
action demanded according to the circumstances.
75. LLAMAS vs CA | 149588 | 2009
The remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be availed
of in criminal cases.
To be considered sufficient therefore, the evidence must
prove:
(a) The commission of the crime; and
(b) The precise degree of participation therein by the
accused.
76. PEOPLE vs MONTECLAROS | 181084 | 2009
When a crime is committed by many, each one has a
distinct part in the commission of crime and though all
the persons who took part in commission of the crime
are liable, the liability is not equally shared among them.
Thus, when the accused files a demurrer, the court must
evaluate whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient
enough to warrant the conviction of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
It becomes relevant to determine the particular amount
for which each accused is liable when they have different
degrees of responsibility in the commission of crime and
consequently, differing degrees of liability.
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES
10
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
The particular liability that each accused is responsible
for depends on nature and degree of his participation in
commission of crime.
77. HIPOS SR vs BAY | 174813-15 | 2009
Mandamus is never available to direct the exercise of
judgment or discretion in a particular way or the
retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the
exercise of either.
If petitioners believed that the respondent Judge
committed grave abuse of discretion in issuance of Order
denying Motion to Withdraw Information, the proper
remedy of petitioners should have been to file a petition
for certiorari against the assailed order.
Furthermore, once a criminal complaint or an
information is filed in court, any disposition or dismissal
of the case or acquittal or conviction of the accused rests
within the jurisdiction, competence, and discretion of
the trial court.
78. PEOPLE vs LORENZO | 184760 | 2010
Presumption of innocence of accused is fleshed out by
procedural rules which place on the prosecution the
burden of proving that an accused in guilty of offense
charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction
must rest on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence
and not on the weakness of the defense.
79. PEOPLE vs BARON | 185209 | 2010
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to produce a
conviction that the appellant conspired with his coaccused in committing the crime of robbery with
homicide.
His claim that he acted under the impulse of
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury could
not be sustained because there was no genuine,
imminent, and reasonable threat, preventing his escape
that compelled him to take part in the commission of the
offense charged.
80. ABELLANA vs PEOPLE | 174654 | 2011
Simply stated, civil liability arises when one, by reason of
his own act or omission, done intentionally or
negligently, causes damage to another. Hence, for
petitioner to be civilly liable to spouses Alonto, it must be
proven that the acts he committed had caused damage
to the spouses.
81. PEOPLE vs ASIS | 173089 | 2010
I
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not appeal, is the
remedy to question a verdict of acquittal whether at the
trial court or at the appellate level.
II
While certiorari may be availed of to correct an
erroneous acquittal, the petitioner in such an
extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that
the trial court blatantly abused its authority to a point so
grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense
justice.
III
An appellate court in a petition for certiorari cannot
review a trial court s evaluation of the evidence and
factual findings. Errors of judgment cannot be raised in a
Rule 65 petition as a writ of certiorari can only correct
errors of jurisdiction or those involving the commission
of grave abuse of discretion.
82. BASILONIA vs VILLARUZ | 173089 | 2010
I
An action for revival of judgment is not intended to
reopen any issue affecting the merits of the case or the
propriety or correctness of the first judgment.
The purpose is not to reexamine and retry issues already
decided but to revive the judgment; its cause of action is
the judgment itself and not the merits of the original
action. However, being a mere right of action, the
judgment sought to be revived is subject to defenses and
counterclaims like matters of jurisdiction and those
arising after the finality of the first judgment or which
may have arisen subsequent to the date it became
effective such as prescription, payment, or
counterclaims arising out of transactions not connected
with the former controversy.
II
Once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party is
entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution the
issuance of which is the trial court’s ministerial duty,
compellable by mandamus.
Yet, a writ issued after the expiration of the period is null
and void. The limitation that a judgment be enforced by
execution within the stated period, otherwise it loses
efficacy, goes to the very jurisdiction of the court. Failure
to object to a writ issued after such period does not
validate it, for the reason that jurisdiction of courts is
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES
11
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
solely conferred by law and not by express or implied will
of the parties.
Nonetheless, jurisprudence is replete with a number of
exceptions wherein the Court, on meritorious grounds,
allowed execution of judgment despite nonobservance
of the time bar. In Lancita, et al. v. Magbanua, et al., 7
SCRA 42 (1963), it was held: In computing the time
limited for suing out an execution, although there is
authority to the contrary, the general rule is that there
should not be included the time when execution is
stayed, either by agreement of the parties for a definite
time, by injunction, by the taking of an appeal or writ of
error so as to operate as a supersedeas, by the death of
a party, or otherwise.
Any interruption or delay occasioned by the debtor will
extend the time within which the writ may be issued
without scire facias.
III
It is opportune to remind judges that once a judgment of
conviction becomes final and executory, the trial court
has the ministerial duty to immediately execute the
penalty of imprisonment and/or pecuniary penalty (fine).
A motion to execute judgment of conviction is not
necessary.
With respect to the penalty of imprisonment, the trial
court should cancel the bail bond and issue a warrant of
arrest, if the accused is not yet under detention. If the
convicted accused is already under detention by virtue of
the warrant of arrest issued, the trial court should
immediately issue the corresponding mittimus or
commitment order for the immediate transfer of the
accused to the National Penitentiary to serve his
sentence, if the penalty imposed requires the service of
sentence in the National Penitentiary. The commitment
order should state that an appeal had been filed, but the
same had been withdrawn/dismissed/decided with
finality.
IV
In cases where the accused is a detention prisoner, i.e.,
those convicted of capital offenses or convicted of
noncapital offenses where bail is denied, or refused to
post bail, a mittimus or commitment order should be
immediately issued after the promulgation of judgment
by the trial court as long as the penalty imposed requires
the service of sentence in the National Penitentiary.
The filing of a motion for reconsideration, motion for
new trial, or notice of appeal should not stop the lower
court from performing its ministerial duty in issuing the
commitment order, unless a special order has been
issued by the Court in specific cases — to the effect that
the convicted accused shall remain under detention in
the provincial jail or city jail while the motion is being
heard or resolved.
83. MORILLO VS. PEOPLE | 198270 | 2015
I
Basic is the rule that a dismissal of a case is different from
an acquittal of the accused therein. Except in a dismissal
based on a Demurrer to Evidence filed by the accused, or
for violation of the right of the accused to a speedy trial,
the dismissal of a criminal case against the accused will
not result in his acquittal.
This argument or reasoning is predicated on a confusion
of the legal concepts of dismissal and acquittal. Acquittal
is always based on the merits, that is, the defendant is
acquitted because the evidence does not show that
defendant’s guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt; but
dismissal does tint decide the case on the merits or that
the defendant is not guilty.
Dismissal terminates the proceeding, either because the
court is not a court of competent jurisdiction, or the
evidence does not show that the offense was committed
within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the
complaint or information is not valid or sufficient in form
and substance, etc.
The only case in which the word dismissal is commonly
but not correctly used, instead of the proper term
acquittal, is when, after the prosecution has presented
all its: evidence, the defendant moves for me dismissal
and the court dismisses the ease on the ground that the
evidence tails to show beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant is guilty; for in such case the dismissal is in
reality an acquittal because the case is decided on the
merits. If the prosecution fails to prove that the
II
Thus, when there exists meritorious grounds to overlook
strict procedural matters, the Court cannot turn a blind
eye thereto lest the administration of justice be derailed
by an overly stringent application of the rules. Rules of
procedure are meant to be tools to facilitate a fair and
orderly conduct of proceedings. Strict adherence thereto
must not get in the way of achieving substantial justice.
As long as their purpose is sufficiently met and no
violation of due process and fair play takes place, the
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES
12
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
rules should be liberally construed. Dismissal of appeals
purely on technical grounds is frowned upon where the
policy of the court is to encourage hearings of appeals on
their merits and the rules of procedure ought not to be
applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure
are used only to help secure, not override substantial
justice.
It is a far better and more prudent course of action for
the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the
parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends
of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality
and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false
impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually
resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice.
RULE 121 – NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION
84. ESTINO vs PEOPLE | 163957-58 | 2009
Rule 121 of the Rules of Court allows the conduct of a
new trial before a judgment of conviction becomes final
when new and material evidence has been discovered
which the accused could not with reasonable diligence
have discovered and produced at the trial and which if
introduced and admitted would probably change the
judgment.
85. BRIONES vs PEOPLE | 156009 | 2009
For new trial to be granted on the ground of newly
discovered evidence, the concurrence of the following
conditions must obtain:
(a) The evidence must have been discovered after
trial;
(b) The evidence could not have been discovered at
the trial even with the exercise of reasonable
diligence;
(c) The evidence is material, not merely cumulative,
corroborative, or impeaching; and
(d) The evidence must affect the merits of the case
and produce a different result if admitted.
86. SALUDAGA vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 184537 | 2010
The Rules of Court, the requisites for newly discovered
evidence are:
(a) The evidence was discovered after trial (in this
case, after investigation);
(b) Such evidence could not have been discovered and
produced at the trial with reasonable diligence;
and
(c) That it is material, not merely cumulative,
corroborative or impeaching, and is of such weight
that, if admitted, will probably change the
judgment.
87. LUMANOG vs PEOPLE | 182555 | 2011
To justify a new trial or setting aside of the judgment of
conviction on the basis of such evidence, it must be
shown that the evidence was "newly discovered."
Evidence, to be considered newly discovered, must be
one that could not, by the exercise of due diligence, have
been discovered before the trial in the court.
88. PAYUMO vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 182555 | 2011
Rule 121, Section 2 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal
Procedure enumerates the grounds for a new trial, to
wit:
Sec. 2. Grounds for a new trial. The court shall grant a
new trial on any of the following grounds:
(a) That errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the
substantial rights of the accused have been
committed during trial;
(b) That new and material evidence has been
discovered which the accused could not with
reasonable diligence have discovered and
produced at the trial and which if introduced and
admitted would probably change the judgment.
RULE 122-125 - APPEALS
89. MACAPAGAL vs PEOPLE | 193217 | 2014
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court must contain a certified true copy or
duplicate original of the assailed decision, final order or
judgment. Failure to comply with such requirement shall
be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
90. PEOPLE vs SALDAA | 148518 | 2004
For this Court to allow a motion for new trial on grounds
other than those provided in Section 2, Rule 121 of the
Rules of Court, the movant must cite peculiar
circumstances obtaining in the case sufficient to warrant
a new trial, if only to give the accused an opportunity to
establish his innocence of the crime charged. In this case
no such citation of exceptional circumstance happened.
91. QUIDET vs PEOPLE | 170289 | 2010
Rules of Court, Rule 122, Section 11 – The rule is that an
appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not
affect those who did not appeal except insofar as the
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES
13
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
judgment of the appellate court is favorable and
applicable to the latter.
92. BALABA vs PEOPLE | 169519 | 2009
An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals
shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall
be dismissed outright.
93. PEOPLE vs OLIVIO | 177768 | 2009
Rules of Court, Rule 122, Section 11 – The rule is that an
appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not
affect those who did not appeal except insofar as the
judgment of the appellate court is favorable and
applicable to the latter.
In this case, an acquittal was given to one of the accused,
the court held that the same shall be given to the other
co-accused who failed to file an appeal.
94. GUASCH vs DELA CRUZ | 176015| 2009
In exceptional cases, substantial justice and equity
considerations warrant the giving of due course to an
appeal by suspending the enforcement of statutory and
mandatory rules of procedure.
Certain elements are considered for the appeal to be
given due course, such as:
(1) The existence of special or compelling
circumstances;
(2) The merits of the case;
(3) A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or
negligence of the party favored by the suspension
of the rules;
(4) Lack of any showing that the review sought is
merely frivolous and dilatory; and
(5) The other party will not be unduly prejudiced
thereby.
97. COLINARES vs PEOPLE | 182748 | 2011
While it is true that probation is a mere privilege, the
point is not that the accused has the right to such
privilege; he certainly does not have. What he has is the
right to apply for that privilege.
The Court finds that his maximum jail term should only
be two years and four months.
If the Court allows him to apply for probation because of
the lowered penalty, it is still up to the trial judge to
decide whether or not to grant him the privilege of
probation, taking into account the full circumstances of
his case.
The Probation Law never intended to deny an accused
his right to probation through no fault of his. The
underlying philosophy of probation is one of liberality
towards the accused. Such philosophy is not served by a
harsh and stringent interpretation of the statutory
provisions.
As Justice Vicente V. Mendoza said in his dissent in
Francisco, the Probation Law must not be regarded as a
mere privilege to be given to the accused only where it
clearly appears he comes within its letter.
To do so would be to disregard the teaching in many
cases that the Probation Law should be applied in favor
of the accused not because it is a criminal law but to
achieve its beneficent purpose.
AUTHOR’S NOTES: Application for probation was
granted despite the perfection of an appeal by reason
that the appeal was grounded upon the erroneousness
of the penalty given unto the defendant.
95. PEOPLE vs TARUC | 185202 | 2009
Once an accused escapes from prison or confinement or
jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, he loses his
standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to
the jurisdiction of the court he is deemed to have waived
any right to seek relief from the court.
98. VILLAREAL vs PEOPLE | 151258 | 2012
The finality of a CA decision will not bar the state from
seeking the annulment of the judgment via a Rule 65
petition; finality of judgment evinced in Section 7 of Rule
120 does not confer blanket invincibility on criminal
judgments.
96. TIU vs PEOPLE | 162370 | 2009
Settled is the rule that only the Solicitor General may
bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal
proceedings before this Court and the Court of Appeals.
99. DUNGO vs PEOPLE | 209464 | 2015
The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a
component of due process. It is a mere statutory
privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and
in accordance with the provisions of law.
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES
14
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
Section 13(c), Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03, dated
October 15, 2004, governs the procedure on the appeal
from the CA to the Court when the penalty imposed is
either reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
According to the said provision, "[i]n cases where the
Court of Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it shall render and
enter judgment imposing such penalty. The judgment
may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of
appeal filed with the Court of Appeals."
Hence, an accused, upon whom the penalty of reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment had been imposed by the
CA, can simply file a notice of appeal to allow him to
pursue an appeal as a matter of right before the Court.
An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for
review on any question including one not raised by the
parties. Section 13(c), Rule 124 recognizes the
constitutionally conferred jurisdiction of the Court in all
criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher.
An accused, nevertheless, is not precluded in resorting to
an appeal by certiorari to the Court via Rule 45 under the
Rules of Court. An appeal to this Court by petition for
review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law.
Moreover, such review is not a matter of right, but of
sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when
there are special and important reasons.
In other words, when the CA imposed a penalty of
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, an accused
may:
(1) File a notice of appeal under Section 13(c), Rule
124 to avail of an appeal as a matter of right before
the Court and open the entire case for review on
any question; or
(2) File a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45 to resort to an appeal as a matter of discretion
and raise only questions of law.
100. MANANSALA vs PEOPLE | 215424 | 2015
In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide
open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct
errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or
even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds
other than those that the parties raised as errors. The
appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over
the case and renders such court competent to examine
records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase
the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal
law.
RULE 126- SEARCH AND SEIZURE
101. MICLAT VS. PEOPLE | 176077| 2011
I
Under RA 9165; and the implementing provision of
Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of RA 9165, the failure of the law enforcers
to comply strictly with the rule is not fatal. It does not
render petitioner’s arrest illegal nor the evidence
adduced against him inadmissible. What is essential is
"the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized
in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused."
II
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right
to be in a position to have that view are subject to
seizure even without a search warrant and may be
introduced in evidence. For the plain view doctrine to
be valid, the elements are:
a) A prior valid intrusion based on the valid
warrantless arrest in which the police are legally
present in the pursuit of their official duties;
b) The evidence was inadvertently discovered by
the police who have the right to be where they
are;
c) The evidence must be immediately apparent;
and
d) “Plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence
without further search.
III
The 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and
consequent seizure must be carried out with a judicial
warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable, and any
evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding. The right against
warrantless searches and seizure, however, is subject to
legal and judicial exceptions, namely:
1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
2) Search of evidence in "plain view";
3) Search of a moving vehicle;
4) Consented warrantless search;
5) Customs search;
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES
15
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
6) Stop and Frisk; and
7) Exigent and emergency circumstances.
102. PEOPLE vs MARIACOS | 188611 | 2010
When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive
search, such a warrantless search has been held to be
valid only as long as the officers conducting the search
have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the
search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence
pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched.
RATIO: It is impracticable to secure a judicial warrant
before searching a vehicle since it can be quickly moved
out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant
may be sought.
103. PEOPLE vs TUAN | 176066 | 2010
A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if
the officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable
effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and
distinguish it from other places in the community.
A designation or description that points out the place to
be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry
unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the
constitutional requirement of definiteness.
104. ESQUILLO VS. PEOPLE | 182010 | 2010
In a “stop-and-frisk,” it is essential is that a genuine
reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s
experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the
belief that the person who manifests unusual suspicious
conduct has weapons or contraband concealed about
him.
Such a “stop-and-frisk” practice serves a dual purpose:
(1) The general interest of effective crime prevention
and detection, which underlies the recognition
that a police officer may, under appropriate
circumstances and in an appropriate manner,
approach a person for purposes of investigating
possible criminal behavior even without probable
cause; and
(2) The more pressing interest of safety and selfpreservation which permit the police officer to
take steps to assure himself that the person with
whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon
that could unexpectedly and fatally be used
against the police officer.
105. MARIMLA VS. PEOPLE | 158467 | 2009
I
Administrative Matter No. 99-10-09-SC authorizes the
Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of the RTCs of
Manila and Quezon City to act on all applications for
search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal
gambling, dangerous drugs and illegal possession of
firearms on application filed by the PNP, NBI, PAOC-TF,
and REACT-TF.
On the other hand, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure provides that the application for
search warrant shall be filed with: (a) any court within
whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed, and
(b) for compelling reasons, any court within the judicial
region where the crime was committed if the place of the
commission of the crime is known, or any court within
the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced.
A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC provides that the guidelines on the
enforceability of search warrants provided therein shall
continue until further orders from the Supreme Court. In
fact, the guidelines in A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC are
reiterated in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC entitled Guidelines On
The Selection And Designation Of Executive Judges And
Defining Their Powers, Prerogatives And Duties, which
explicitly stated that the guidelines in the issuance of
search warrants in special criminal cases by the RTCs of
Manila and Quezon City shall be an exception to Section
2 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the two
provisions are in harmony thus no violation in the
enforcement of the search warrant.
II
As a rule, search warrants should be filed with the court
within whose territorial jurisdiction the crime was
committed (Sec. 2 (a), Rule 126, Rules of Court). The
exceptions to the general rule are:
(a) For compelling reasons, it can be filed with the
court within whose judicial region the offense was
committed or where the warrant is to be served;
(b) But if the criminal action has already been filed, the
application for a search warrant can only be made
in the court where the criminal action is pending;
and
(c) In case of search warrants involving heinous
crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of
firearms and ammunitions as well as violations of
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
the Intellectual Property Code, the Anti- Money
Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES
16
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
Code, the Executive Judges and, whenever they
are on official leave of absence or are not
physically present in the station, the ViceExecutive Judges of the RTC of Manila and Quezon
City shall have authority to act on applications filed
by the NBI, PNP and the Anti- Crime Task Force
(ACTAF), Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task
Force (PAOC-TF), and the Reaction Against Crime
Task Force (REACT-TF).
106. PEOPLE vs PUNZALAN | 199087 | 2015
I
Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure provides that no search of a house, room, or
any other premises shall be made except in the presence
of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his
family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.
As correctly ruled by the CA, even if the barangay officials
were not present during the initial search, the search was
witnessed by accused-appellants themselves, hence, the
search was valid since the rule that "two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same
locality" must be present applies only in the absence of
either the lawful occupant of the premises or any
member of his family.
II
Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC clearly
authorizes the Executive Judges and the Vice Executive
Judges of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila and
Quezon City to issue search warrants to be served in
places outside their territorial jurisdiction in special
criminal cases such as those involving heinous crimes,
illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions as well as violations of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 for as long as the
parameters under the said section have been complied
with.
III
There is no exact test for the determination of probable
cause in the issuance of search warrants. It is a matter
wholly dependent on the finding of trial judges in the
process of exercising their judicial function.
must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but
must make his own inquiry on the intent and justification
of the application.
IV
This Court has time and again adopted the chain of
custody rule, a method of authenticating evidence which
requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter
in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This
would include testimony about every link in the chain,
from the moment the item was picked up to the time it
is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person
who touched the exhibit would describe how and from
whom it was received, where it was and what happened
to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in
which it was received and the condition in which it was
delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses
would then describe the precautions taken to ensure
that there had been no change in the condition of the
item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to
have possession of the same.
It is essential for the prosecution to prove that the
prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the
suspect is the very same substance offered in court as
exhibit. Its identity must be established with unwavering
exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt.
AUTHOR’S NOTES: Keep in mind the ruling in Roan vs
Gonzales wherein the court held that: It is axiomatic that
the magistrate must be probing and exhaustive, not
merely routinary or pro-forma, if the claimed probable
cause is to be established. The examining magistrate
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES
17