CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OUTLINE

St. Mary’s College of Law

First Semester 2019

Part I: Jurisdiction in criminal cases

A. Venue in Criminal Cases is Jurisdictional

1. Isip v. People, G.R. No.. 170298, June 26, 2007

2. Landbank of the Philippines v. Belisata, G.R. No. 170298, June 26, 2007
3. People v. Taroy, G.R. No. 192466, September 07, 2011
4. Bonifacio v. RTC of Makati, G.R. No. 184800, May 05, 2010
5. Rationale: Union Bank vs. People, G.R. No. 192565, Feb. 28, 2012

B. Jurisdiction to Issue Hold Departure Orders

1. Mondejar v. Buban, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1349, July 12, 2001

2. Mupas v. Espanol, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1850, July 14, 2004

C. Jurisdiction determined from the allegations in the Complaint

1. Foz v. People, October 9, 2009, G.R. No. 167764

D. Creation of the Sandiganbayan

Section 4, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution

Republic Act 7995 approved March 10, 1995
Republic Act 8249 approved February 5, 1997

E. Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

1. People v. Sandiganbayan, August 25, 2009, G.R. No. 167304

2. Serrana v. Sandiganbayan, January 22, 2008, G.R. 162059
3. Esquivel v. Ombudsman, September 17, 2002, G.R. 137237

F. Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman

1. Department of Justice v. Liwag, February 11, 2005, G.R. No. 149311

2. Lazatin v. Desierto, June 5, 2009, G.R. No. 147097
3. Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact Finding Committee v. Desierto, July 24, 2007
4. Castro v. Deloria, January 27, 2009, G.R. No. 163586
5. Angeles v. Merceditas Gutierrez, G.R. Nos. 189161 & 189173, March 21, 2012

G. Review of Decisions of the Ombudsman

1. Antonino v. Desierto, December 18, 2008, G.R. No. 144492

2. Enemecio v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 146731, January 13, 2004
3. Baviera v. Zoleta, G.R. NO. 169098, October 12, 2006
4. Fabian vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742. September 16, 1998

H. Procedure before the Ombudsman

1. Sesbreno v. Aglugub, February 28, 2005, A.M. No. MTJ 05-1581

2. Enriquez v. Caminade, A.M. NO. RTJ-05-1966, March 21, 2006

I. Power of the Secretary of Justice over Prosecutors

1. Punzalan v. de la Pena, July 21, 2004, G.R. No. 158543

2. Dio et al. v. Olivarez, G.R. No. 170447, December 04, 2009

J. Role of the Office of the Solicitor General in Criminal Cases

1. People v. Duca, October 9, 2009, G.R. No. 171175

!1
 Part II: Requisites for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction

A. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused

1. Valdepeňas v. People, 16 SCRA 871

2. Jimenez v. Sorongon, 687 SCRA 151
3. Gimenez v. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 4
4. Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633
5. Miranda v. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377
6. Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, 603 SCRA 348
7. Cojuanco, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 388 SCRA 367

Custody of the law v. jurisdiction over the person

1. David v. Agbay, GR No. 199113, March 18, 2015

B. Jurisdiction over the territory

1. Treňas v. People, 664 SCRA 355

2. Union Bank of the Philippines v. People, 667 SCRA 113
3. Sections 6, 10, 15(a), Rule 110, Rules of Court

C. Jurisdiction over the subject matter

1. Magno v. People, 647 SCRA 362
2. Fukusume v. People, 474 SCRA 570
3. Cojuangco, Jr. v. Republic, 686 SCRA 472
4. Atienza v. People, GR No. 188694, February 12, 2014
5. Tolentino v. Social Security Commission, 138 SCRA 428
6. Cudia v. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 173
7. Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA 747
8. De Jesus v. Garcia, 19 SCRA 554
9. The Law Firm of Chavez v. Fria, 703 SCRA258

D. How jurisdiction over the subject matter determined

1. Mobilia Products v. Umezawa, 452 SCRA 736

2. Rapsing v. Ables, 684 SCRA 195

E. Use of the imposable penalty

1. People v. Buissan, 105 SCRA 547

2. People v. Purisima, 69 SCRA 341

F. Statute applicable

1. People v. Lagon, 185 SCRA 442

2. Palana v. People, 534 SCRA 296
3. People v. Cawaling, 293 SCRA 267
4. Asistio v. People, GR No. 200465, April 20, 2015

G. Principle of adherence of jurisdiction

1. People v. Cawaling, 293 SCRA 267

H. Objections on jurisdictional grounds

1. Fukuzume v. People, supra

2. Atienza v. People, supra
3. People v. Munar, 53 SCRA 278
4. Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29
5. Foz, Jr. v. People, 603 SCRA 124

!2
 I. Jurisdiction conferred by law
1. Bacalso vs. Ramolete, 21 SCRA 519
2. People vs. Estrebella, 164 SCRA 114
3. Heirs of Santiago Nisperos vs. Nisperos-Ducusin, 702 SCRA 721
4. Dolot vs. Paje, 703 SCRA 650

J. Jurisdiction vested in courts not judges

1. People vs. Fule, 105 Phil. 1171

K. Determination of jurisdiction
1. Treas vs. People, supra
2. Buaya vs. Polo, 169 SCRA 471

L. When jurisdiction attaches

1. Republic vs. Sunga, 162 SCRA 191

M. Withdrawal of information
1. Palana vs. People, 534 SCRA 296

N. Affidavit of desistance
1. People vs. Ballabare, G.R. No. 108871, November 19, 1996

Rule 110 : Prosecution of Offenses

A. Criminal actions, how instituted – Sec. 1

- Where preliminary investigation is required

- Where preliminary investigation is not required
- Effect of institution of the criminal action on the prescriptive period pertaining to
violations of ordinances
1. Jadewell Parking Systems Corp. vs. Hon. Judge Nelson F. Lidua Sr., G.R. No.
169588, October 7, 2013 (page 133 of case digest)
2. Zaldivia vs. Judge Reyes, G.R. No. 102342, July 3, 1992

- Computation of the prescriptive period, Arts. 90 & 91, RPC

- Act No. 3326, as amended by Act No. 3763
- Rule of prescription for violation of special law (B.P. 22)
1. People vs. Pangilinan (G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012)

B. Form of complaint or information – Sec. 2

- Name of People of the Philippines

1. Francisco Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 177720, February 18, 2009
2. Cases that cannot be prosecuted de oficio, namely adultery, concubinage,
seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness

C. Definition and distinction between complaint and information – Secs. 3 and 4

- When complaint or information is sufficient

1. Enrile vs. Manalastas, G.R. No. 166414, October 22, 2014
2. Rosaldes vs. People (G.R. No. 173988, October 08, 2014)
3. People v. Dimaano, 469 SCRA 647
4. Lasoy v. Zenarosa, 455 SCRA 360
5. People v. Batin, G.R. No. 177223, November 28, 2007
6. People v. Cachapero, G.R. No. 153008, May 20, 2004

D. Who must prosecute criminal actions – Sec.5

- Criminal actions in general

1. Ampatuan, Jr. vs. Sec. De Lima, G.R. No. 197291, April 3, 2013
2. Hasegawa vs. Giron, G.R. No. 184536, August 14, 2013
3. Crespo vs. Mogul , G.R. No. L-53373, June 30, 1987

- Discretion of public prosecutor

!3
 1. Pinote v. Ayco, 477 SCRA 409
2. Bureau of Customs v. Whelan, G.R. No. 190487, April 13, 2011
3. Flores v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 188197, August 03, 2010

- Criminal prosecution cannot be restrained; exceptions

1. Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Hon. Hontanosas, G.R. No. 157163, June 25,
2014

- Review by the Secretary of Justice

1. Department of Justice vs. Alaon, G.R. No. 189596, April 23, 2014

- When private offended party may bring special civil action of certiorari in criminal
proceedings
1. Perez vs. Hagonoy Rural Bank, G.R. No. 126210, March 9, 2000

- Prosecutors in election cases

1.Ejercito vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 212398, November 25, 2014

- Prosecution of private crimes

- Complainant in private crimes

1. Lee Pue Liong a.k.a. Paul Lee vs. Chua Pue Chin Lee, G.R. No. 181658, August
7, 2013
2. Art. 344, Art. 360, last par., Revised Penal Code

- Nature of requirement in Sec. 5, Rule 110 and Art. 344

- Who may file complaints committed against children under Sec. 27, RA 7610
(Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
Act)

E. Formal requisites of complaint or information – Sec. 6

- Sufficiency of complaint or information

1. Enrile vs. Manalastas, G.R. No. 166414, October 22, 2014

- Designation; acts or omissions

1. Rosaldes vs. People, G.R. No. 173988, October 8, 2014

- Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation

1. Constitutional Basis – Art. III, Sec. 14 (2), 1987 Constitution
2. People vs. Bayabos, G.R. No. 171222, February 18, 2015
3. Statutory Basis – Sec. 1(b), Rule 115

F. Name of accused – Sec. 7

1. Su Zhi Shan @ Alvin Ching So vs. People, G.R. No. 169933, March 9, 2007
2. People vs. Cagadas Jr., G.R. No. 88044, Jan 23, 1991

G. Designation of the offense – Sec. 8

1. People vs. Feliciano, Jr., G.R. No. 196735, May 5, 2014
2. Matrido vs. People, G.R. No. 179061, Juy 13, 2009

. - Effect of failure to designate the offense by the statute or to mention provision

violated
1. Licyayo vs. People, G.R. No. 169425, March 4, 2008
2. People vs. Padit, G.R. No. 202978, February 1 2016
3. People vs. Samillano, 56 SCRA 573 — Allegations in the information prevails
over the designation.

- Aggravating and qualifying circumstances must be alleged In the information

1. People vs. Mejia, G.R .No. 185723, August 4, 2009

!4
 2. Catiis vs. CA, G.R. No. 153979, Feb. 9, 2006 — aggravating circumstances must
be alleged and proven.

- Minority and relationship must be alleged In the information

1. People vs. Malibiran, G.R. No 173471, March 17, 2009

H. Cause of accusation – Sec. 9

1. People vs. Umawid, G.R. No. 208719, June 9, 2014
2. Consigna vs. People, G.R. No. 175750-51, April 2, 2014
3. Art. 315 (2)(a) of the RPC

I. Place of commission – Sec. 10

1. U.S. vs. Cunanan, GR No. L-8267, Dec. 27,1913, 26 Phil 376

J. Date or time of commission – Sec. 11

1.People vs. Balino, G.R. No. 194833, July 2, 2014

2.Corpuz vs. People, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014
3.Bacasmas vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 189343, July 10, 2013
4.People vs. Delfin, G.R. No. 201572, July 9, 2014

K. Name of offended party – Sec. 12

1.Senador vs. People, G.R. No. 201620, March 6, 2013

L. Duplicity of offense – Sec. 13

1.Soriano vs. People, G.R. No, 159517-18, June 30, 2009
2.Teehankee Jr. vs. Madayag, G.R. No. 103102, March 6, 1992, 207 SCRA 134
3.People vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 62116, March 22, 1990, 183 SCRA 511
4.People vs. Quemaggan, G.R. No. 178205, July 27, 2009

M. Amendment or substitution of complaint or information – Sec. 14

- cf. Section 4, Rule 120
1. Mendez vs. People, G.R. No. 179962, June 11, 2014
2. Leviste vs. Alameda, G.R. No. 182677, August 3, 2010
3. Buhat v. CA, 333 Phil. 562 (1996)
4. Pacoy v. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472, September 28, 2007, 534 SCRA 338
5. Saludaga v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 184537, April 23, 2010
6. Bonifacio v. RTC of Makati, G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010
7. Cabo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. NO. 169509, June 16, 2006

- Filing of Information if there is pending Motion for Reconsideration

1. Ramiscal v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 172476-99, September 15, 2010

- Prescription
1. Panaguiton v. DOJ, G.R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008
2. People v. Romuladez, G.R. No. 166510, April 29, 2009

- Test of prejudice by amendment

1. Mendez vs. People, G.R. No. 179962, June 11, 2014

- Amendment or substitution of information

1. Pacoy vs. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472, September 28, 2007, 534 SCRA 338

- Remedy against a defective complaint or information

1. Amendment – Sec. 14
2. Motion to Quash – Sec. 4, Rule 117

N. Venue – Sec. 15

- Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional

1. Navaja vs. De Castro, G.R. No. 182926, June 22, 2015

2. Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People, G.R. No. 192565, February 28, 2012

!5
 - Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check is a transitory or continuing offense.
- Exception
1. People vs. Yabut, G.R. No. L-42847, April 29, 1977, 76 SCRA 624
2. People vs. Grospe, G.R. Nos. L-74053-54, January 20, 1988, 157 SCRA 154

- Violation of BP 22 is a continuing offense

1. Yalong vs. People, G.R. No. 187174, August 28, 2013
2. Rigor vs. People, G.R. No. 144887, November 17, 2004

- Libel
1. Bonifacio vs. Regional Trial Court of Makati, G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010

- Written defamation
1. Foz, Jr. vs. People, G.R. No 167764, October 9, 2009

- Illegal recruitment in large scale

1. People vs. Olermo, G.R. No. 127848, July 17, 2003, 406 SCRA 412

- Abduction is a continuing offense

1. People vs. Gorospe, G.R. No. L-51513, May 15, 1984, 129 SCRA 233

- Kidnapping is a continuing offense

1. People vs. Suriaga, G.R. No. 123779, April 17, 2002

- Estoppel to question jurisdiction

1. Figueroa vs. People, G.R. No. 147406, July 14, 2008
2. Austria vs. People, G.R. No. 83530, December 18, 1990, 192 SCRA 342

- Change of venue
1. People vs. Sola, G.R. No. , March 17, 1981, 103 SCRA 393

O. Intervention by offended party – Sec. 16

1. Lee Pue Liong a.k.a. Paul Lee vs. Chua Pue Chin Lee, G.R. No. 181658, August
7, 2013

RULE 111: Prosecution of Civil Action

A. Institution of criminal and civil actions – Sec. 1

- Revised Penal Code, Arts. 100-113

- Civil Code, Arts. 29, 32, 33, 34, 2176

1. People vs. Bayotas, 236 SCRA 239, GR No. 102007, Sept. 2, 1994

B. When separate civil action is suspended – Sec. 2

1. Manantan vs. CA, 350 SCRA 387 (2001)

C. When civil action may proceed independently – Sec. 3

D. Effect of death on civil actions – Sec. 4

E. Judgment in civil action not a bar – Sec. 5

F. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question – Sec. 6

1. Dreamwork Construction Inc. vs. Janiola, 591 SCRA 466 (2009)
G. Elements of prejudicial question – Sec. 7

RULE 112: Preliminary Investigation

A. Preliminary investigation defined; when required – Sec. 1

- Nature, purpose, scope of preliminary investigation

!6
 1. Sales vs. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 293 (2001)
2. Baytan vs. Comelec, 396 SCRA 703 (2003)
3. Paderanga vs. Drilon, 196 SCRA 86 (1991)
4. Go vs. CA, 206 SCRA 138 (1992)
5. Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan, 177 SCRA 354 (1989)
6. Webb vs. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652 (1995)

- Probable cause
1. Allado vs. Diokno, 232 SCRA 192 (1994)

B. Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations – Sec. 2

1. DOJ-NPS Manual, Sec. 6
2. RA 6770, Secs. 11 (4) (a), 15
3. Velasco vs. Casaclang, 294 SCRA 396 (1998)
4. Balgos vs. Sandiganbayan, 176 SCRA 287 (1989)
5. Alonzo vs. Concepcion, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1879, Jan. 17, 2005

C. Procedure – Sec. 3

- In cases cognizable by RTC; conducted by prosecutor

1. Rodil vs. Garcia, 104 SCRA 362 (1981)

- In cases cognizable by the MTC; conducted by prosecutor

1. A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, October 3, 2005
2. Conquilla vs. MTC Judge Bernardo, AM No. MTJ-09-1737, Feb. 9, 2011

- In cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan

1. Conducted by prosecutor; Sec. 3, 4, 5, 8, Rule 112
2. Conducted by Ombudsman/Special Prosecutor
- RA 6770
- Administrative Order No. 07, Rule II, Secs. 1-7
- Ombudsman and DOJ MOA, April 19, 2012

- Procedure in cases not requiring preliminary investigation

A. MTC cases or those covered by Summary Procedure; Sec. 9, Rule 112

B. When person lawfully arrested without a warrant
- Section 7, Rule 112
- DOJ Dept. Order No. 61, Sept. 21, 1993
- Leviste vs. Alameda, 626 SCRA 575 (2010)

D. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review – Sec. 4

E. Resolution of investigating judge and its review – Sec. 5

F. When warrant of arrest may issue – Sec. 6

G. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant – Sec. 7

H. Records – Sec. 8

I. Cases not requiring a preliminary investigation nor covered by the Rule on Summary
Procedure – Sec. 9

J. Remedies from preliminary investigation

A. Appeal
1. Dimatullac vs. Villon, 297 SCRA 679 (1998)
2. Ty vs. NBI, 638 SCRA 671 (2010)

B. Reinvestigation/Preliminary Investigation
1. Crespo vs. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462 (1987)
2. Roberts vs. CA, 254 SCRA 307 (1996)
3. Dungog vs. CA, 159 SCRA 145 (1988)

!7
 4. Velasquez vs. Undersecretary of Justice, 182 SCRA 388 (1990)
5. People vs. Beriales, 70 SCRA 361 (1976)

- Effect of absence of or irregularity of preliminary investigation

1. Go vs. CA, 206 SCRA 138 (1992)
2. Socrates vs. Sandiganbayan, 253 SCRA 773 (1996)

C. Reconsideration

D. Injunction in proper cases

1. Primicis vs. Pangasinan, 93 SCRA 462 (1979)
2. Guingona, Jr. vs. City Fiscal, 137 SCRA 597 (1985)
3. People vs. Grey, 625 SCRA 523 (2010)
4. Brocka vs. Enrile, 192 SCRA 183 (1990)

E. Petition for Certiorari; Rule 65

1. Ty vs. NBI, 638 SCRA 671 (2010)

F. Bail

- Effect of posting bail

- Rule 114, Sec. 26
1. Go vs. CA, 206 SCRA 138 (1992)
2. Larranaga vs. CA, 287 SCRA 581 (1998)

RULE 113 – ARREST

A. Nature and Definition

- Definition: Sec. 1

- How made: Sec. 2

1. Sanchez v. Demetriou, 227 SCRA 627 (1993);

2. People v. Sequiῆo, 264 SCRA 79 (1996);
3. Defensor- Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 663 (1993);

- Diplomatic and parliamentary immunities from arrest

1. Const. (1987), art. VI, sec. 11;

2. Rev. Pen. Code, Art. 145;
3. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Arts. 31-37;
4. Visiting Forces Agreement, Art. V;

B. Types

- With a warrant

- When and how warrant issued

1. Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 2;

2. Rule 112, sec. 6;

- May dismiss instead of issue warrant

1. Ong vs. Genio, 609 SCRA 188, Dec. 23, 2009

- Requisites for issuance

1. Const. (1987), Art. III, sec. 2

- By a Regional Trial Court;

1. People vs. Grey, 625 SCRA 523 (2010);

!8
 2. Allado vs. Diokno, 232 SCRA 192 (1994);
3. Placer vs. Villanueva, 126 SCRA 463 (1983)
4. People vs. Inting, 187 SCRA 788 (1990);
5. Cojuangco vs. Sandiganbayan, 300 SCRA 367 (1998)

- Inferior Courts

1. Tabujara III vs. People, 570 SCRA 229 (2008)

- Not mandatory to issue warrant

1. Gutierrez v. Hernandez, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1628, June 8, 2007,

C. How effected or served

1. Rule 113, Sections 2, 3, 4, 6, 7

2. People vs. Lumayok, 139 SCRA 1 (1985);
3. People vs. Albior, 163 SCRA 332 (1988);

D. Assistance; breaking into and out of building or enclosure

1. Rule 113, Sections. 10, 11, 12

2. People vs. Huang Zhen Hua, G.R. No. 139301, September 29, 2004

E. In flagrante Delicto & “Hot Pursuit”

- When justified:

1. Rule 113, sec. 5

2. Umil vs. Ramos, 187 SCRA 311 (1990); Umil vs. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251
(1991);
3. Go vs. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 138 (1992);
4. Larranaga vs. C.A., 287 SCRA 581 (1998);
5. People vs. Tudtud, 412 SCRA 142 (2003);
6. People vs. Molina, G.R. No. 133917, February 19, 2001;
7. People vs. Chua, 396 SCRA 657 (2003);
8. People vs. Mendez, G.R. No. 147671, November 21, 2002;
9. People vs. Doria, 301 SCRA 668 (1999);
10. Cadua vs. CA, 312 SCRA 703 (1999);
11. People vs. Montilla, 285 SCRA 703 (1998);
12. People vs. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 (1986);
13. People vs. Jayson, 282 SCRA 166 (1997);
14. Terry vs. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968);
15. Padilla vs. C.A. 269 SCRA 402 (1997);
16. People vs. Racho, 626 SCRA 633 (2010)

- Method of arrest by officer without warrant

1. Rule 113, Sec. 8

2. People vs. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455 (1999)
3. R.A. 7438 [Guidelines, procedures and duties of officers arresting, detaining,
inviting or investigating at the time of arrest or at custodial interrogation]

- Method of arrest by private person

1. Rule 113, sec. 9

- Post-arrest procedure

1. Rule 112, sec. 7

- Exceptions construed strictly

1. People vs. Valdez, 304 SCRA 140 (1999)

2. People vs. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 (1985)

!9
 - Special Rule for Juveniles in Conflict with Law

1. Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with Law (RJCL), Sections. 6, 7

2. Rep. Act. No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006; JJWA),
Sections 21, 22;

F. John Doe warrants:

1. People vs. Veloso, 48 Phil. 169;

2. Pangandaman vs. Casar, 159 SCRA 599 (1988);
3. DOJ Circular No. 50, October 29, 1990

G. Invitations

1. Babst, et al. v. NIB, 132 SCRA 316 (1984);

2. People v. Sequiῆo, 264 SCRA 79 (1996);
3. People v. Del Rosario, 305 SCRA 740 (1999);
4. R.A. No. 7438

H. Custodial Investigation

- Definition

1. People vs. Pasudag, G.R. No. 128822, May 4, 2001;

2. People vs. Zuela, 323 SCRA 589 (2000);
3. People vs. Abe Valdez, G.R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000, 341 SCRA
25;

- Duty of police during custodial investigation, procedure

1. Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 12;

2. Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966);
3. People vs. Obrero, 332 SCRA 190 (2000);
4. People vs. Duero, 104 SCRA 379 (1981);
5. Republic Act No. 7438, sec. 2 (b), (c), (d);

- Rights Involved and consequences of violation

- Rights involved

1. Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 12 (1), (2);

2. Republic Act. No. 7438, sec. 2(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f);
3. People vs. Obrero, 332 SCRA 190 (2000);
4. People vs. Mojello, G.R. No. 145566, March 9, 2004

- Consequences of violation

1. Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 12 (3)

2. Harris vs. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971);
3. New York vs. Quarles, 104 S. Ct. 2626 (1984);
4. People vs. Duero, 104 SCRA 379 (1981);
5. People vs. Figueroa, 335 SCRA 299 (2000);
6. Gumabon vs. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 429 (1971);
7. Republic Act. No. 7438, sec. 4:

- Waiver of right to counsel

1. People vs. Caguioa, 141 SCRA 289 (1980);

2. People vs. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985);
3. People vs. Continente, 339 SCRA 1 (2000);
4. People vs. Quidato Jr., 297 SCRA 1 (1998);

- Counsel of choice during custodial investigation

1. People vs. Obrero, 332 SCRA 190 (2000);

2. People vs. Labtan, 320 SCRA 140 (1999);

!10
 3. People vs. Samulde, 336 SCRA 632 (2000);
4. People vs. Gallardo, 323 SCRA 218 (2000);

- Compliance with requirement to inform person detained of rights

1. People vs. Canoy, 328 SCRA 385 (2000);

2. People vs. Sapal, 328 SCRA 417 (2000);
3. People vs. Jara, 144 SCRA 517 (1986);
4. People vs. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289 (1986)
5. People vs. Continente, 339 SCRA 1 (2000);

- Police line-up

1. Gamboa vs. Cruz, June 27, 1988;

2. United States vs. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967);
3. People vs. Pavillare, 329 SCRA 684 (2000);

- Proof of voluntariness of confession; burden on prosecution

1. People vs. Jara, 144 SCRA 516 (1986);

2. People vs. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 (1986);

- Exceptional cases of uncounseled confessions not held to be excluded

1. People vs. Andan, 269 SCRA 95 (1997);

2. People vs. Domantay, 307 SCRA 1 (1999);

I. Rights and Remedies

- Rights of persons under arrest

1. Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 12;

2. Rule 113, sec. 14;
3. RA No. 7438, sec. 2;
4. People vs. Ramos, 186 SCRA 184 (1990);
5. People vs. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985);
6. People vs. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289 (1986);
7. People vs. Decierdo, 149 SCRA 496 (1987);
8. Mendoza, The Right to Counsel in Custodial Interrogations, 61 PHIL. L. J.
409 (1986);

- Remedies

Motion to Quash Warrant

1. Miranda vs. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377 (2006)

2. Talag vs. Reyes, 430 SCRA 428 (2004)
3. De Joya vs. Marquez, 481 SCRA 376 (2006)

Motion to quash information; Preliminary investigation/ Reinvestigation

1. Rule 117, secs. 1, 3;

2. Luna vs. Plaza, 26 SCRA 310 (1968);
3. Alimpoos vs. CA, 106 SCRA 159 (1981);

Bail

1. Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 14;

2. Rule 114, sec. 26;
3. Panada vs. Veneracion, 269 SCRA 371 (1997);

Habeas Corpus

1. Rule 102

!11
 2. Sec. of National Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, Oct. 7, 2008
3. Ilagan vs. Enrile, 139 SCRA 349 ( 1985);
4. Velasco vs. CA, 245 SCRA 677 (1995)
5. Moncupa vs. Enrile, 141 SCRA 233 (1986);

Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC) &

1. Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16 SC)

2. Navla vs. Pardico, G.R. No. 184467, June 19, 2012**
3. Rubrico vs. Macapagal- Arroyo, 613 SCRA 233 (2010)
4. Yano vs. Sanchez, 612 SCRA 347 (2010)
5. Razon, Jr. vs. Tagitis, 612 SCRA 685 (2010)

- Effects of plea on objections to legality of arrest

1. People v. Alojado, 305 SCRA 236 (1999);

2. People v. Rondero, 320 SCRA 383 (1999);

- Non-curability of illegal nature of arrest

1. Umil vs. Ramos, 187 SCRA 311 (1990)

2. Umil vs. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251 (1991);
3. Bagcal vs. Villaraza, 120 SCRA 525 (1983);

- Criminal liability for unlawful arrest

1. Rev. Pen. Code, Arts. 124-126;

- Suppression of evidence obtained

1. Const. (1987), art. III, secs. 3(2), 12(3), 12 (4);

2. Brown vs. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975);
3. Sayo vs. Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 859 (1948);
4. Cf. Rule 126, sec. 14;

RULE 114 – BAIL

A. Nature and Definition

- Definition; persons covered or required to post bail

1. Rule 114, sections 1, 3

2. Feliciano vs. Pasciolan, 2 SCRA 888 (1961);
3. Villasenor vs. Abano, G.R. No. L-23599, September 29, 1967;
4. Defensor-Santiago vs. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 663 (1993);
5. Miranda vs. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377 (2006);
6. Cortes vs. Catral, 279 SCRA 1 (1997);
7. People vs. Manallo, 400 SCRA 129 (2003);
8. People vs. Nitcha, 240 SCRA 283 (1995)

B. Nature

- Matter of right

1. Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 13;

2. Rule 114, sec.4;
3. People vs. Donato, 198 SCRA 130 (1991);
4. Lavides v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129670, Feburary 1, 2000;
5. Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, 396 SCRA 443 (2003);

- Discretionary

1. Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 13

2. Rule 114, sections. 5,6,7,8, 24
3. Teehankee vs. Director of Prisons, 76 Phil. 756 (1946);

!12
 4. People vs. San Diego, 26 SCRA 522 (1988);
5. Ocampo vs. Bernabe, 77 Phil. 55 (1946);
6. Siazon vs. Judge, 4 SCRA 184 (1971);
7. Mamolo vs. Narisima, 252 SCRA 613 (1995);
8. Cortes vs. Catral, 279 SCRA 1 (1997);
9. People vs. Tuppal, 395 SCRA 72 (2003);
10. Enrile vs. Perez, G.R. No. 147785 (resolution of the Supreme Court En banc
dated May 5,2001)

C. Types and conditions of bail

- Corporate surety

1. Rule 114, sections. 1, 2, 10, 13, 21, 22

- Cash deposit

1. Rule 114, sections. 1, 2, 14, 21

- Property

1. Rule 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22;

- Recognizance

1. Rule 114, sections. 1, 2,15,16;

2. R.A. No. 10389

D. Amount of bail; when not required

- Guidelines

1. Rule 114, sec.9;

2. Dela Camara vs. Enage, 41 SCRA 1 (1971);
3. Villaseῆor vs. Abaῆo, 21 SCRA 321 (1967);

E. When not required or reduced

1. Rule 114, sections. 16, 20;

2. Rep. Act. No. 6036;

F. Forfeiture and cancellation of bail; remedies for violation of bail conditions

1. Rule 114, Sections. 21, 22, 23; Bail

G. Bail filed with other courts:

1. Rule 114, Sec. 17

2. Anynomous Letter-complaint against Hon. Tamang, 617 SCRA 428 (2010)

H. Bail on Appeal:

1. Leviste vs C.A., G.R. No. 189122. March 17, 2010

RULE 115 – RIGHTS OF ACCUSED

A. Presumption of Innocence

1. Section 1 (a), Rule 115

2. People vs. Espera, 706 SCRA 704
3. People vs. Sy, 590 SCRA 511
4. People vs. Cantalejo, 586 SCRA 777

B. Proof beyond reasonable doubt; meaning

- Rules of Court, Rule 133, Section 2

!13
 - People vs. Clara, 702 SCRA 273
- Equipoise rule: People vs. Erguiza, 571 SCRA 660; Atienza vs. People, G.R.
No. 188694, February 12, 2014.

C. Right to be informed

- Pielago vs. People, 693 SCRA 476

- People vs. Lagarde, 576 SCRA 809
- People vs. Noque, 610 SCRA 195
- People vs. Posada, 667 SCRA 790

D. Right to counsel and be present during trial

- 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 14 (2)

- Id., Section 12 (1)
- Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code
- R.A. 7438, Section 2 (b)
- Rules of Court, Rule 115, Section 1 (c)
- People vs. Bermas, 306 SCRA 135
- Under custodial investigation: People vs. Rapeza, 520 SCRA 596
- Police line-up: People vs. Tolentino, 423 SCRA 448; People vs. Lara, 678
SCRA 332
- Right to choose counsel: People vs. Siongco, 623 SCRA 501
- Waiver of right to counsel: People vs. Del Castillo, 439 SCRA 601
- Competent and independent counsel: People vs. Deniega, 251 SCRA 626
- Administrative cases: Ampong vs. CSC, 563 SCRA 293

E. Right to speedy trial

- 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 14 (2)

- Ombudsman vs. Jurado, 561 SCRA 135
- Mari vs. Gonzales, 657 SCRA 414
- Coscolluella vs. Sandiganbayan, 701 SCRA 188
- Barcelona vs. Lim, G.R. No. 189171, June 3, 2014
- Violation, Effect: Corpuz vs. Sandiganbayan, 442 SCRA 294; Condrada vs.
People, 398 SCRA 482; Bonsubre, Jr. vs. Yerro, G.R. No. 205952, Feb. 11,
2015
- Remedy: Rule of Court, Rule 119, Section 9
- Waiver: Tan vs. People, 586 SCRA 139; Perez vs. People, 544 SCRA 532
- Speedy Trial Act. R.A. 8493
- Rule on Continuous Trial, OCA Circular No. 101-2017

F. Privilege against self-incrimination

-1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 17

- People vs. Besonia, 422 SCRA 210
- Chavez vs. CA, 24 SCRA 663
- Testimonial compulsion only: Chavez vs. CA, supra
- Forced re-enactments: People vs. Olvis, G.R. No. 71092, Sept. 30, 1987
- Writings or samples: Marcelo vs. Sandiganbayan, 302 SCRA 102
- Where asserted: People vs. Ayson, 175 SCRA 216; Mapa vs. Sandiganbayan,
231 SCRA 783
- Waiver: Chavez vs. CA, supra.
- Immunity: Kastigar vs. US, 406 U.S. 441; Tanchanco vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 141675-96, Nov. 25, 2005

G. Right to defend, be heard, confront witnesses agains him and be present

- Rules of Court, Rule 115, Section 1 (c)

- Id., Section 1 (d)
- People vs Ortillas, 428 SCRA 659
- Equitable PCI Bank vs. RCBC, 433 SCRA 562

H. Right to compulsory process

!14
 - 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 17 against self-incrimination

-1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 14 (2)

- Rules of Court, Rule 21

I. Right to appeal

- Hilario vs. People, 551 SCRA 191

- Appeal throws the whole case for review: Guy vs. People, 582 SCRA 108
- People vs. Tambis, 560 SCRA 343
- People vs. Sison, 555 SCRA 156

RULE 116
ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA

I. Arraignment

A. Nature and Purpose

- Rule 116, Section 1(a), (b), (e)

- People vs. Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 (1995)
- People vs. Estomaca, 256 SCRA 421 (1996)

B. Procedure, appointment of counsel de officio

- Rule 116, Sections 1(a), (f), 6, 7, 8

- Art. III, Section 11, 1987 Consti.
- R.A. 8493, Section 7, par. 2

C. Pre-arraignment procedure and remedies

1. Raffle and transmittal of records

- SC A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, Part B1

2. Motion for Bill of Particulars

- Rule 116, Section 9

- People vs. Gutierrez, 91 Phil. 876 (1952)
- People vs. Abad Santos, 76 Phil. 744 (1946)
- People vs. Arlegui, 128 SCRA 556 (1984)

3. Motion for production and inspection of material evidence in possession of

the prosecution

- Rule 116, Section 10

- People vs. Roldan 99 SCRA 422 (1980)
- People vs. Palacios, 108 Phil. 220 (1960)

4. Suspension of arraignment

- Rule 116, Section 11

- Rule 111, Sections 6, 7
- DOJ Department Order No. 70, Series of 2000
- Program for Juveniles in conflict with the law, RJCL Sections 19-25

II. Plea

!15
A. Nature and purpose; procedure

- Rule 116, Section 1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)
- RJCL, Section 27
- SC A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, Part B(2), (3), (4)

Type of pleas

1. Not guilty

- Denial; presumption of innocence

- Art. III, Section 14(2), 1987 Consti.
- People vs. Alba, 305 SCRA 811 (1999)

Refusal to enter a plea; conditional plea

- Rule 116, Section 1(c)

Plea of guilty but with exculpatory evidence

- Rule 116, Section 1(d)

Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilt

- Rule 116, Section 5
- People vs. De Ocampo Gonzaga, 127 SCRA 158 (1984)

2. Guilty

To a lesser offense (plea bargain)

- Rule 116, Section 2

- Rule 118, Section 1(a)
- SC A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, Part B(5)
- People vs. Villarama, 210 SCRA 246 (1992)
- People vs. Mamarion, 412 SCRA 438 (2003)

Plea of guilty to a non-capital offense

- Rule 118, Section 4

Plea of guilty to a capital offense

- R.A. No. 9346

- Rule 116, Section 3
- People vs. Sevilleno, 305 SCRA 519 (1999)
- People vs. Laki-Idanum, 304 SCRA 429 (1999)
- People vs. Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 (1995)
- People vs. Serna, 130 SCRA 550 (1984)
- People vs. Tiongson, 130 SCRA 614 (1984)
- People vs. Canay, 152 SCRA 401 (1973)

Effects of improvident plea

- People vs. Violna, G.R. No. 141129-33, December 14, 2001

RULE 117
MOTION TO QUASH

!16
A. Nature
- Time to file motion: Section 1
- Form and contents: Section 2

B. Grounds

1. No offense charged
Rule 110, secs. 6-9;
People v. Asuncion, 161 SCRA 490 (1988);

2. No jurisdiction over offense or person

- Lopez vs. City Judge, 18 SCRA 616 (1966)
- UY vs. CA, 276 SCRA 371 (1977)

3. No authority to file Information -

- Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sections 3-5
- People v. Navarro, 270 SCRA 393 (1997)

4. Does not conform to prescribed form

− Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sections 6-8;

5. More than one offense charged

− Rules of Court, Rule 110, Section 13

6. Extinction of criminal action or 'liability

− Rev. Pen. Code, Articles 89-90;

7. Double jeopardy
- Manantan v. CA, 350 SCRA 387 (2001);
- Gaknan v. Sandiganbayan, 144 SCRA 43 (1981);
- Galman v. Pamaran, 133 SCRA 294 (1984);
- Sta. Rita v. CA, 247 SCRA 484 (1995);
- People v. Degamo, 402 SCRA 133 (2003);

C. Effects of sustaining the motion - Rule 117, secs. 5, 6;

D. Failure to move to quash or allege any ground therefor: Rule of Court, Rule 117,
Section 9

RULE 118
PRE-TRIAL

A. Nature and Purpose

- Rule 118, Section 1

- SC A.M. No. 03-1009-SC, Part B(5), (6)
- RJCL, Section 28

B. Matters covered by pre-trial; effect of pre-trial agreement and pre-trial order

!17
 - Rule 118, Sections 1, 2, 4
- SC A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, Part B(7), (8), (9), (10)
- People vs. Abelita, 210 SCRA 446 (1992)
- People vs. Uy, 327 SCRA 335 (2000)

C. Effect of non-appearance

- Rule 118, Section 3

- Fule vs. CA, 162 SCRA 446 (1985)

F. Dismissal of the complaint because of inordinate delay

1. Tatad v. Sandiganbayan, 159 SCRA 70

2. Cervantes v. Sandiganbayan, 307 SCRA 149
3. People vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., GR 189063, Dec. 11, 2013

G. Anti-Graft Cases in the Sandiganbayan

1. Venus v. Desierto, 298 SCRA 219

2. Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan, 238 SCRA 687
3. Magcusi v. Sandiganbayan, 240 SCRA 13
4. Sistoza v. Desierto , G.R. No. 144784, September 3, 2002

!18