CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
Case Facts Ruling
Institution of Criminal Action
People v - June 12 1999 – dispute between private complainant
Bautista Goyena and Bautista.
- Aug 11 – certification to file action by brgy chairman
- Aug 16 – complaint for slight physical injuries with
Office of City Prosecutor
- November 19 – joint resolution
- PI done, recommended filing of action, approved by
City Prosecutor
- June 20 2000 filing of case with MeTC
- Prescription? 60-day period for slight physical
injuries.
SEC v - 1994 evidence of criminal activity by Interport
Interport (insider trading etc)
- 1994 SEC starts investigation against them
- 1995 and 98, preliminary then writ of injunction by
CA barring SEC from filing a case against
respondents. Injunction sought by Interport.
- 2007 SC case
- Prescrptive period applicable special laws 12 years
*If you can detect that a step is necessary before filing
case, then that’s the beginning of the interruption.
People v - 2 bouncing checks issued by Pangilinan. Private
Pangilinan complainant Malolos informed of their dishonor
sometime latter part of 1995.
- Sept 1997 filed complaint with OCP
- Dec 1997 civil case by Pangilinan accounting,
recovery of commercial documents, etc. Claims
prejudicial question and asks for suspension of
criminal proceedings. Approved.
- January 1999 approval reversed by DOJ.
- Feb 2000 Actions filed.
- Filing of complaint with OCP interrupted running of
prescription.
- Did not begin to run anew after approval of City Prosecutor.
- Art 91 – shall commence to run when such proceedings terminate or
are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him
- unjust to deprive the injured party of the right to obtain vindication
on account of delays that are not under his control. All that the
victim of the offense may do on his part to initiate the prosecution is
to file the requisite complaint.
- more appropriate course of action should be the filing of an
administrative disciplinary action against the erring public officials.
- PI interrupts prescriptive period.
- Under law, criminal complaint is first filed with SEC. SEC must
investigate before recommendation is given to DOJ for PI. Similar to
a PI and also interrupts prescriptive period.
- SEC or any other body barred from investigation and filing for 12
years. By the actions of the respondents.
- Accordingly, it is only after this Court corrects the erroneous ruling
of the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated 20 August 1998 that
either the SEC or DOJ may properly conduct any kind of
investigation against the respondents for violations of Sections 8, 30
and 36 of the Revised Securities Act. Until then, the prescription
period is deemed interrupted.
- Prescriptive period 4 years.
- Act 3326 – prescription tolled when proceedings are instituted.
Interrupted by PI. No reason to hold different rule for special laws.
- it was respondent’s own motion for the suspension of the criminal
proceedings, which motion she predicated on her civil case for
accounting, that caused the filing in court of the 1997 initiated
proceedings only in 2000.
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 1
W ho must prosecute
People v Go - Case for Estafa. Trial stretches for 5 years. - Petition defective because missing indispensible party.
Respondents file motion to dismiss for failure to - all criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of
prosecute.
- Granted by RTC. Reconsideration by PP, granted.
Reconsideration respondents, denied.
- Certiorari by respondents with CA. But People not
impleaded in case.
- CA grants certiorari and dismisses cases.
Pinote v Ayco - In a criminal case, Judge Ayco orders on two - as a general rule, all criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the
hearings presentation of evidence by defendant even
without presence of PP (in hospital for medical
treatment)
- In subsequent hearings, PP refuses to cross-examine
witnesses. Claims that presentations conducted in his
absence were void.
the public prosecutor. Therefore, it behooved the petitioners
(respondents herein) to implead the People of the Philippines as
respondent in the CA case to enable the Solicitor General to
comment on the petition.
- An indispensable party is a party­in­interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action, and who shall be joined either
as plaintiffs or defendants. The joinder of indispensable parties is
mandatory. The presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest
the court with jurisdiction, which is "the authority to hear and
determine a cause, the right to act in a case." Thus, without the
presence of indispensable parties to a suit or proceeding, judgment of
a court cannot attain real finality. The absence of an indispensable
party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for
want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as
to those present.
- CA directed to reinstate proceedings.
control and direction of the public prosecutor. Because affront to
people of the Philippines.
- Respondent’s act of allowing the presentation of the defense
witnesses in the absence of complainant public prosecutor or a
private prosecutor designated for the purpose is thus a clear
transgression of the Rules which could not be rectified by
subsequently giving the prosecution a chance to cross­examine the
witnesses.
- Respondent’s intention to uphold the right of the accused to a speedy
disposition of the case, no matter how noble it may be, cannot justify
a breach of the Rules. If the accused is entitled to due process, so is
the State.
- That PP did not inform of absence mitigating, but does not excuse
utter disregard of rules.
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 2
World Wide - WWC being investigated for illegal toll bypass - However, a search warrant is obtained, not by the filing of a
Web Corp v operations to the prejudice of PLDT. complaint or an information, but by the filing of an application
People - Search warrants granted. WWC files motions to therefor.
quash. - merely as a process, generally issued by a court in the exercise of its
- PLDT opposes motions to quash. Granted by CA. ancillary jurisdiction, and not a criminal action to be entertained by a
- WWC – PLDT has no personality to file opposition court pursuant to its original jurisdiction.
without PP. - an application for a search warrant is not a criminal action.

*PLDT filed in court that issued search warrant.

Proper mode of appeal – if records already in court
trying criminal case, search warrant is
interlocutory/incidental to case, therefore certiorari
and only PP can appeal; if records still with court
issuing search warrant, search warrant is main question,
therefore ordinary appeal.
*This case for midterms!

People v - Libel case. Dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction. - sufficiently clear that they sought the reinstatement of the criminal
Piccio - Private complainants appeal dismissal, but without prosecution of respondents for libel.
OSG. OSG prays to be excluded from filing - only the OSG that may bring an appeal on the criminal aspect
appellant’s brief because no information about the representing the People
case. - In view of the corollary principle that every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party­in­interest who
*On appeal, PP becomes OSG. stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or by
the party entitled to the avails of the suit, an appeal of the criminal
case not filed by the People as represented by the OSG is perforce
dismissible. The private complainant or the offended party may,
however, file an appeal withoutthe intervention of the OSG but only
insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 3

 People v dela - Complaint for rape filed May 1997 - Complaint prior to Anti-Rape act reclassifying rape as crime against
Cerna - Private complainant affidavit of desistance July 3 persons. Thus, still required complaint by offended party, which
1998 would fail if pardon.
- But pardon must be given before complaint is filed.
- complaint is but a condition precedent to the exercise by the proper
authorities of the power to prosecute the guilty parties in the name of
the People of the Philippines. Such condition is imposed out of
consideration for the offended woman and her family who might
prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through with the
scandal of a public trial. Hence, once filed, control of the prosecution
is removed from the offended party's hands and any change of heart
by the victim will not affect the state's right to vindicate the atrocity
committed against itself.

Complaint and Information

People v - Balidoy dies in hazing activity of Phil Merchant - The crime of hazing is thus committed when the following essential
Bayabos Marine Academy elements are established: (1) a person is placed in some embarrassing
- Invalid information? or humiliating situation or subjected to physical or psychological
suffering or injury; and (2) these acts were employed as a prerequisite
for the person’s admission or entry into an organization.
- indictment merely states that psychological pain and physical injuries
were inflicted on the victim. There is no allegation that the purported
acts were employed as a prerequisite for admission or entry into the
organization. Failure to aver this crucial ingredient would prevent the
successful prosecution of the criminal responsibility of the accused,
either as principal or as accomplice, for the crime of hazing. Plain
reference to a technical term37 – in this case, hazing – is insufficient
and incomplete, as it is but a characterization of the acts allegedly
committed and thus a mere conclusion of law.
- The Special Prosecutor’s belated argument38 in his Petition before
this Court that the successful completion of the indoctrination and
orientation program was used as a prerequisite for continued
admission to the academy – i.e., attainment of active midshipman
status – does not cure this defect in the Information. Thus, the
Information must be quashed.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 4

Lasoy et al v - Information against accused – selling 42 grams of - information is valid as long as it distinctly states the statutory
Zenarosa dried marijuana. designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive
- Pleaded guilty and sentenced. thereof.
- PP moves for amendment of information because - first information is valid inasmuch as it sufficiently alleges the
grams instead of kilos. Would change jurisdiction manner by which the crime was committed. Verily the purpose of the
(RTC) and penalty. Granted. law, that is, to apprise the accused of the nature of the charge against
them, is reasonably complied with.
- given the far­reaching scope of an accused’s right against double
jeopardy, even an appeal based on an alleged misappreciation of
evidence will not lie.
- It is too late in the day for the prosecution to ask for the amendment
of the information and seek to try again accused for the same offense
without violating their rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
People v Puig - Informations for qualified theft. - Information need not use the exact language of the statute in alleging
- Dismissed because according to RTC failed to state the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. The
facts constituting the qualifying circumstance of grave test is whether it enables a person of common understanding to
abuse of confidence and the element of taking without the know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment
consent of the owner properly.
- Info states: “with grave abuse of confidence, being - beyond doubt that tellers, Cashiers, Bookkeepers and other
the Cashier and Bookkeeper of the Rural Bank of employees of a Bank who come into possession of the monies
Pototan, Inc., Pototan, Iloilo, without the knowledge deposited therein enjoy the confidence reposed in them by their
and/or consent of the management of the Bank” employer. Banks, on the other hand, where monies are deposited, are
considered the owners thereof.
People v - Cases for rape. Ceredon alleges information invalid - date or time of the commission of the rape need not be alleged with
Ceredon because: precision. It is enough for the information or complaint to state that
- Did not give specific time and date the crime has been committed at a time as near as possible to the
- Only stated that victim was youngest sister. in order date of its actual commission. Failure to allege the exact date when
for relationship to qualify in this case, it must be the crime happened does not render the information defective, much
mentioned that the victim is a "relative within the less void
third degree of consanguinity." - The date or time of the commission of rape is not a material
ingredient of the said crime because the gravamen of rape is carnal
knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation.
- what is required by the Rules is that "the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise
language
- Also raised issues only on appeal. Waiver.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 5

 People v - Information charges Soriano with multiple counts of - information charged more than one offense
Soriano rape, however, it did not specify exact number of - appellant did not seasonably object to the multiple offenses in the
offenses committed. information, the court may convict the appellant of as many as are
charged and proved.
Senador v - Senador charged with estafa. - Senador was charged with estafa, a crime against property that does
People - In information – obtained and received from Cynthia not absolutely require as indispensable the proper designation of the
Jayme various kinds of jewelry in the total amount of name of the offended party. Rather, what is absolutely necessary is
Php705k. the correct identification of the criminal act charged in the
- Senador – private complainant turned out to be Rita information. Thus, in case of an error in the designation of the
and not Cynthia. Cynthia never presented as witness. offended party in crimes against property, Rule 110, Sec. 12 of the
Violation of right to information and should be Rules of Court mandates the correction of the information, not its
acquitted. dismissal.
- In offenses against property, if the subject matter of the offense is
generic and not identifiable, an error in the designation of the
offended party is fatal and would result in the acquittal of the
accused. If the subject matter of the offense is specific and
identifiable, an error in the designation of the offended party is
immaterial.
- In this case – information specified the subject of the offense. The
charge was thereafter sufficiently fleshed out and proved by the Trust
Receipt Agreement, which enumerates jewelry.

Amendment/Substitution
People v - Casey sentenced to capital punishment for the death - There can be a violation of such right, however, only when the
Casey of Alfredo Valdez. amendment pertains to matters of substance. No substantial change
- 1st information filed against him for murder. Pleaded here.
not guilty. - The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment
- Later, information amended to include Ricardo Feliz of an information has been said to be whether a defense under the
as an accused. No new arraignment. information as it originally stood would be available after the
amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant might have
1st: “Together with one Ricardo Felix” – Felix was at would be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in
large at the time the other.
- Does not change the nature of the crime alleged therein, does not
2nd: “Together with accused Ricardo Felix” – amended expose the accused to a charge which could call for a higher penalty,
when Felix was caught does not affect the essence of the offense or cause surprise or
deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had
each been held to be one of form and not of substance.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 6

Fronda- - 4 separate informations for illegal recruitment filed - Does not violate rights. Done before entering her plea.
Baggao v against Baggao. - ROC to be interpreted liberally to promote objective of securing just,
People - Eludes arrest for more than 10 years. speedy, inexpensive disposition of cases. although it uses the singular
- After arrest, information amended so that there word complaint or information, it does not mean that two or more
would only be 1 information for large scale illegal complaints or Informations cannot be amended into only one
recruitment. Information. Surely, such could not have been intended by this
- Violates her substantial rights? More than one Court. Otherwise, there can be an absurd situation whereby two or
information can be amended? more complaints or Informations could no longer be amended into
one or more Informations.

Pacoy v Hon - Information for homicide against SSGT Pacoy. Shot - Merely an amendment. New charge necessarily includes first charge.
Cajigal and killed 2Lt commanding officer with aggravating - Merely a formal amendment. No change made in recital of facts.
circumstance of disregard of rank. - Since the facts alleged in the accusatory portion of the amended
- Pleaded not guilty. Information are identical with those of the original Information for
- Judge orders amendment of information because Homicide, there could not be any effect on the prosecution's theory
supposedly qualifying circumstance. Should be of the case; neither would there be any possible prejudice to the
murder. rights or defense of petitioner.
- Information amended. Homicide replaced with
murder in title and opening paragraph. (Also, name
of victim corrected.)

Mendez v - Information against Mendez for violation of Tax
People Reform Act of 1997 (tax evasion). Pleaded not guilty.
- Information amended.
- Amendments sought by the prosecution pertains to
(i) the alleged change in the date in the commission
of the crime from 2001 to 2002; (ii) the addition of
the phrase "doing business under the name and style
of Mendez Medical Group;" (iii) the change and/or
addition of the branches of petitioner’s operation;
and (iv) the addition of the phrase "for income
earned."
- Amendments that do not charge another offense different from that
charged in the original one;27 or do not alter the prosecution's theory
of the case so as to cause surprise to the accused and affect the form
of defense he has or will assume are considered merely as formal
amendments.
- Date of commission – changed to be consistent with taxable year that
information covers (2001, so tax returns must have been filed 2002).
- “For income earned” – just for more precision
- Business and place of business – tax returns must be filed in place of
principal business under law, regardless of number and location of
other branches. Does not change prosecution’s theory of failure to
file tax return.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 7

V enue
Macasaet v - Information for libel filed against petitioners in RTC - RPC The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written
People QC. defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed
- But place of publication in Manila. And offended simultaneously or separately with the Court of First Instance of the
party, a private citizen, resided in Marikina. province or city where the libelous article is printed and first
- Evidence and supplemental pleadings to show that published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the
offended party actually lived in QC. time of the commission of the offense
- Either one of these statements must be alleged in the information
itself and the absence of both from the very face of the information
renders the latter fatally defective.
- Other than perfunctorily stating "Quezon City" at the beginning of
the information, the assistant city prosecutor who prepared the
information did not bother to indicate whether the jurisdiction of
RTC Quezon City was invoked either because Abante was printed in
that place or private respondent was a resident of said city at the time
the claimed libelous article came out.
- Evidence and supplemental pleadings do not cure defect in
information.
-
Bonifacio v - Allegedly libelous material against Gimenez in - Before article 360 was amended, the rule was that a criminal action
RTC pepcoalition.com for libel may be instituted in any jurisdiction where the libelous article
- Filed case for libel in RTC Makati was published or circulated, irrespective of where it was written or
- Reasoning – website is accessible in Makati, Gimenez printed (People v. Borja, 43 Phil. 618). Under that rule, the criminal
first accessed website in Makati. action is transitory and the injured party has a choice of venue.
Experience had shown that under that old rule the offended party
could harass the accused in a libel case by laying the venue of the
criminal action in a remote or distant place.
- The same measure cannot be reasonably expected when it pertains to
defamatory material appearing on a website on the internet as there
would be no way of determining the sites of its printing and first
publication. To credit Gimenez’s premise of equating his first access
to the defamatory article on petitioners’ website in Makati with
"printing and first publication" would spawn the very ills that the
amendment to Article 360 of the RPC sought to discourage and
prevent.
- Could have still filed in place of residence.
- Court did not acquire jurisdiction.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 8

Rigor v People - Rigor draws, issues, and delivers a check for 500k at - Violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 are categorized as transitory
San Juan branch of RBSJ. or continuing crimes. In such crimes, some acts material and essential
- Check dishonored for insufficiency of funds at Tarlac to the crimes and requisite to their consummation occur in one
branch. municipality or territory and some in another, in which event, the
- Case filed for violation of BP 22 with RTC Pasig. court of either has jurisdiction to try the cases, it being understood
that the first court taking cognizance of the case excludes the other.
- Material acts – (1) drawing, (2) issuing, (3) delivery, (4) dishonor of
check.
- Undated check was issued and delivered at the Rural Bank of San
Juan 1989 and subsequently the check was dated thereat 1990. On
May 25, 1990, the check was deposited with PS Bank, San Juan
Branch, Metro Manila.

Unionbank v - Tomas files 2 cases for complaint of sum of money. - Elements of perjury: (a) That the accused made a statement under
People In both, she executes and signs a Certificate against oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter. (b) That the
Forum Shopping. statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer,
- Information for perjury filed against her in Makati. authorized to receive and administer oath. (c) That in the statement
- Tomas – certificates used in Pasay. Should have filed or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a
in Pasay. falsehood. (d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the
falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose.
- All elements alleged to have been committed in Makati, where
certificates were subscribed and notarized.
- Crime of perjury committed through the making of a false affidavit
under Article 183 of the RPC is committed at the time the affiant
subscribes and swears to his or her affidavit since it is at that time
that all the elements of the crime of perjury are executed. When the
crime is committed through false testimony under oath in a
proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, venue is at the place
where the testimony under oath is given. If in lieu of or as
supplement to the actual testimony made in a proceeding that is
neither criminal nor civil, a written sworn statement is submitted,
venue may either be at the place where the sworn statement is
submitted or where the oath was taken as the taking of the oath and
the submission are both material ingredients of the crime committed.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 9

 Trenas v - Margarita wants to buy land. Her niece Elizabeth - elements of estafa are as follows: (1) that money, goods or other
People secures the service of Atty. Trenas, who is given 150k personal property is received by the offender in trust or on
for attorney’s fees, capital gains tax, documentary commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation
stamp, misc expenses. involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same; (2) that
- Hectors gives Elizabeth receipts which turn out to be there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property
fake. Turns out he used money for own transactions. by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such
- Repays 120k (minus attorney’s fees) using check. misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of
Check is dishonored because closed account. another; and (4) there is demand by the offended party to the
- Information for estafa filed in RTC Makati. offender. All acts were done in Ilo-ilo.
- Information only alleges that money given to Trenas in Makati (but
not supported by affidavit of complaint or other documentary
evidence). Affidavit of complaint alleges check was dishonored in
Makati (but such is not an essential element of estafa). Thus,
dismissed.

Sections 1-3; 5 of Rule 111

Cancio v Isip - Cancio is owner of Cancio’s Money Exchange. On - Essential element of res judicata – identity of cause.
several occasion, Isip issued 3 checks in favor of - Cancio’s cause of action is based on culpa contractual, an
Cancio amounting to 190k. independent civil action. Separate and distinct from any criminal
- Checks were dishonored for insufficient funds. prosecution.
- Cancio files cases for BP 22 and Estafa. All dismissed - Neither does it matter that the civil action reserved in the October
for failure to prosecute, with prosecution reseving 21, 1997 order of the trial court was the civil action ex delicto. To
right to file separate civil action. reiterate, an independent civil action arising from contracts, as in the
- Cancio files civil case for collection of sum of money. instant case, may be filed separately and prosecuted independently
- Res judicata? even without any reservation in the criminal action.

Ferrer v - Criminal case against Ferrer for violation of 3019 - An absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to administrative
Sandiganbayan (awarded a contract without public bidding and prosecution, or vice versa.
ordering construction without building permit or - The two liabilities are different. The bases for the liabilities are also
clearance). different.
- Administrative case filed for same reasons already - Independent nature of a criminal prosecution dictates that the
previously dismissed. Sandiganbayan must determine petitioner's criminal liability without its
- (a) complainants guilty of forum shopping? (b) hands being tied by what transpired in the administrative case. The
dismissal of admin case (substantive proof)warrants court is duty­bound to exercise its independent judgment. It is not
dismissal of criminal case (proof beyond reasonable ousted of its jurisdiction by the ruling in the administrative
doubt). proceeding.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 10

Sarmiento v - Limpin and Apostol borrow 495k through letter of - reservation may not necessarily be express but may be implied which
CA credit from Associated Banking. Sarmiento as may be inferred not only from the acts of the offended party but also
surety/guarantor. from acts other than those of the latter.
- Failed to pay. - appearance of the offended party in the criminal case through a
- Criminal case against them for violation of Trust private prosecutor may not per se be considered either as an implied
Receipt Law. Limpin convicted. election to have his claim for damages determined in said
- Filing of civil case against them for sum of money. proceedings or a waiver of his right to have it determined separately.
- Sarmiento dropped from criminal case. So no issue He must actually or actively intervene in the criminal proceedings as
of civil case being barred. Limpin – barred because to leave no doubt with respect to his intention to press a claim for
not expressly reserved in criminal action? damages in the same action.
- undisputed that in the early proceedings of the criminal action,
*Doctrine – if court decision is completely silent on private respondent’s counsel moved to withdraw his appearance.
civil liability, this is deemed an implied reservation. But - Further, independent civil action because obligation ex contractu.
must also be supported by circumstances of the case
(cf Corpus v Siapno).

Salazar v - Salazar buys cavans of rice. 1st check she pays with is - If acquitted in criminal case, accused and offended party have right to
People not issued but merely indorsed by her, insufficient appeal civil judgement.
funds. 2nd check issued returned because not yet - Accused has option to file demurrer to evidence (akin to a motion to
cleared. dismiss for failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; if filed
- Acquitted (estafa penalizes only issue and not with leave of court, may adduce evidence in his defense [unless court
indorser of check, 2nd check not by reason of rules that civil liability does not exist]; if filed without leave of court,
insufficient funds). waives right to adduce evidence and submits case for judgement) or
- Salazar files demurrer to evidence. adduce evidence. After trial, court to render judgement based on
- But trial court renders judgement on her civil liability evidence presented by prosecution and defense.
(ordered Salazar to remit check) without Salazar - Denied right to due process.
having adduced evidence thereon.
- Denied due process?

Corpus v - Several cases filed against Judge Siapno for various - Concomitant with his rendition of a guilty verdict, respondent should
Siapno reasons (eg used chambers as residence). likewise make a finding on the accused’s civil liability (unless
- Everything dismissed with exception of Ignorance of reservation made by offended party) because it is basic that every
Law charge, for failure to award civil damages in 2 person criminally liable is also civilly liable
criminal cases (only fines for cost of damage to - it behooves respondent to require the production of evidence to
property). make a finding on civil liability. This is especially so where the
- Defense – prosecution did not present evidence accused has pleaded guilty and has therefore admitted his liability.
regarding civil aspect of case.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 11

Cruz v CA - Cruz charged with estafa (alleged she was sole heir in - Copy furnished to PP defective. But also new rule – when appealing
affidavit for self-adjudication of a parcel of land). civil aspect, furnish copy not only on PP and private counsel, and
- Acquitted (reasonable doubt) but (civil judgement) offended party if he is not assisted by counsel (this is the new rule
ordered return of other surviving heirs of parcel of added, because real party in interest). Petitioner given 5 days to serve
land in Bulacan. copy of MR.
- Filed motion for reconsideration of civil aspect. - Being a civil liability arising from the offense charged, the governing
Furnished copy to PP. law is the Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the civil procedure rules
- Questioning whether Manila RTC has jurisdiction which pertain to civil action arising from the initiatory pleading that
over civil aspect, when land was in Bulacan. gives rise to the suit.
- Where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the
person of the accused, and the crime was committed within its
territorial jurisdiction, the court necessarily exercises jurisdiction over
all issues that the law requires the court to resolve. One of the issues
in a criminal case is the civil liability of the accused arising from the
crime.

Tiong v - In 1997, Balboa filed a case for collection of sum of - There is forum shopping when the following elements concur: (1)
Balboa money against Tiong and Cheng (for amounts in identity of the parties; (2) identity of the rights asserted and relief
three checks that bounced, amounting to over 5M). prayed for; and (3) identity of the two preceding particulars, such that
Later that year, two criminal actions for violation of any judgment rendered in the other action will amount to res judicata
BP 22 were also filed. in the action under consideration or will constitute litis pendentia.
- In 1998, Tiong and Cheng were found liable in the - Both cases above were filed prior to adoption of SC Circular and
civil case (and thus ordered to pay the 5M, plus 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, which proscribed reservation of
interest). In 2001, they were acquitted in the criminal civil action in case of violation of BP22. The prevailing rule is under
case, but with a judgement on their civil liability for the 1985 Rules of Court – offended party has right to institute civil
the amounts covered by checks (but this judgement action prior to criminal action (note: actually this is also allowed
on civil liability later deleted). under 2000 Rules).
- Is Balboa guilty of forum shopping for filing both a - Since respondent instituted the civil action prior to the criminal
civil case and criminal case against petitioners? action, then the civil case may proceed independently of the criminal
cases, and there is no forum shopping to speak of.
- Moreover, the RTC presiding over the criminal cases, already deleted
the award of civil damages. There is, therefore, no double recovery of
the amounts covered by the checks or unjust enrichment on the part
of respondent.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 12

 Cheng v Sy - Cheng filed 2 estafa cases against Sys. Dismissed with
no declaration as to civil liability. Note – dismissal of
estafa cases produced legal effect of reservation of
right institute civil action separately.
- 1999 filed 2 cases for violation of BP 22. 2005
dismissed on account of failure of Cheng to identify
accused in open court. No pronouncement as to civil
liability. Note – filing of BP 22 cases deemed as
election by Cheng to prosecute civil action with the
former.
- 2005 complaint for collection of sum of money.
- 2000 Rules on Crim Pro apply. Because pending case at time they
were enforced.
- Under present rules, criminal action for BP 22 includes civil action.
Reservation prohibited. Only way to separate civil action is to file it
ahead of criminal action.
- If dissatisfied with civil judgement, must appeal. But petitioner did
not appeal. Thus, waived right.
- BUT injustice in this case. Cheng did not have private counsel, and
PP failed to appeal civil action. Gross mistake on part of PP.

Co v Munoz - Munoz charged with libel. - Applies to all claims for civil liability, regardless if filed separately or
- Convicted by RTC but acquitted by CA because not.
privileged information (Co a wealthy businessman is - If, as Muñoz suggests, the extinction of the penal action carries with
public figure, issue on manipulation of government it the extinction of the civil action that was instituted with the
bidding a matter of public interest, fair comment). criminal action, then Section 2, Rule 120 of the ROC becomes an
- Co appealing civil aspect. irrelevant provision.
- Interpretation of “extinction of penal action does not - But in this case, no civil liability can be awarded because no libel.
carry with it extinction of civil action.” Applies only Without crime, no civil liability ex delicto may be claimed.
when civil action is instituted separately?

Prejudicial question
Dreamwork v - Feb 2 2005 – Dreamwork construction files - Civil case must be instituted prior to criminal case. Stat con –
Janiola information for violation of BP22 against Janiola. amendment to insert “previously instituted” in rules shows clear
- Sept 20 2006 – Janiola files civil case against legislative intent. The clause “before any criminal action may be
Dreamwork for rescission of construction agreement instituted or may proceed” in Civil Code can be interpreted to mean
between parties. Note – check subject of BP22 case that motion to suspend may be filed during PI or during trial.
were issued in consideration of construction - Evil sought to be avoided – filing civil actions merely to delay
agreement. criminal proceedings. (Evident in this case – more than 2 years after
- July 2007 – Janiola files motion to suspend criminal case, and 3 years from execution of construction agreement.)
proceedings, claiming prejudicial question. - No question determinative of guilt or innocence. Gravamen of BP22
is issuance of a bad check. The fact that there exists a valid contract
or agreement to support the issuance of the check/s or that the
checks were issued for valuable consideration does not make up the
elements of the crime.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 13

First - First Producers Bank adopts resolution to purchase
Producers v shares in Manila Polo Club, to be placed in the
Co names of three of their board members (including
Co).
- When Co is separated from service, he refuses to
assign certificate of shares back to corporation.
Instead, he registers loss of said share by executing
false Affidavit of Loss, then secures a replacement
certificate in his name.
- March 13 1997 – criminal case for estafa and perjury.
- Nov 16 1997 – Co files civil case alleging ownership
of shares. Dec 10 – motion to suspend proceedings
in criminal case.
- Note – this case was prior to amendment of
prejudicial question provision.
San Miguel v - 1992-1993 – San Miguel Properties purchases 130
Perez residential lots from BF Homes, through its receiver
Atty. Orendain.
- 20 of the TCTs are not delivered to them, even
despite demand. BF’s defense – Atty. Orendain had
ceased to be receiver (1989) at the time of
transactions. Had no authority to sell lots.
- San Miguel files criminal complaint for violation of
PD957 (non-delivery of titles) and case for specific
performance with HLURB.
- HLURB suspends proceedings on case, waiting for
SEC to resolve issue of Orendain’s authority.
- Criminal complaint dismissed because prejudicial
question with HLURB?
- Civil case clearly dilatory, filed only to delay criminal proceedings.
Filed only 8 months after criminal case, and 3 years after First
Producers made demand on Co (in all this time, he never contested
the latter’s claim of ownership). Co also knows that he can raise
question of ownership in criminal case.
- Rules of procedure, including the rule on prejudicial questions, were
conceived to afford parties an expeditious and just disposition of
cases. This Court will not countenance their misuse and abuse to
frustrate or delay the delivery of justice.
- Issue of ownership not a necessary element of estafa. Victim of fraud
need not be owner of goods.
- Civil case? Action for specific performance is civil action, albeit it
could be filed only with administrative body (note doctrine of
primary jurisdiction).
- Prejudicial? PD957 regulates real estate business. Action for specific
performance in the HLURB would determine whether or not San
Miguel Properties was legally entitled to demand the delivery of the
remaining 20 TCTs, while the criminal action would decide whether
or not BF Homes’ directors and officers were criminally liable for
withholding the 20 TCTs. hould the HLURB hold San Miguel
Properties to be not entitled to the delivery of the 20 TCTs because
Atty. Orendain did not have the authority to represent BF Homes in
the sale due to his receivership having been terminated by the SEC,
the basis for the criminal liability for the violation of Section 25 of
Presidential Decree No. 957 would evaporate, thereby negating the
need to proceed with the criminal case.
- Prejudicial question need not conclusively resolve the guilt or
innocence of the accused. It is enough for the prejudicial question to
simply test the sufficiency of the allegations in the information in
order to sustain the further prosecution of the criminal case.
- Rule on prejudicial question makes no distinction as to who is
allowed to raise defense. Applicable even if it was San Miguel who
filed civil case.
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 14
Pimentel v - Oct 25 2004 Chrysantine files action for frustrated - Civil case instituted after criminal case.
Pimentel parricide against Joselito.
- Feb 7 2005 civil case for annulment of marriage
based on psychological incapacity.
- Joselito files motion to suspend criminal case.
Gaditano v - Spouses Gaditano in business of buying and selling - The prejudicial question in the civil case involves the dishonor of
San Miguel beer. Purchase beer from SMC and pay with check
Corp worth 285k (April 7 2000) which is dishonored (April
13 2000) for insufficient funds. Despite 3 demands,
Gaditanos fail to make good the check.
- Criminal case for BP22 and Estafa.
- Gaditano – checking account automatically funded
by savings account. In 1999, one Fatima borrows 30k
from them, pays with check worth 378k. Gaditanos
deposit check, withdraw, and refund to Fatima, who
in turn pays her loan.
- As of April 13 2000, their savings account contained
412k. On same day, informed that their check from
Fatima not cleared (material alteration). Bank
garnished 378k from their savings account.
- Oct 23 2000 Gaditanos file action for specific
performance against Fatima and bank.
- Although relationship is key element in parricide, issue in the
annulment of marriage (whether Joselito is psychologically
incapacitated) is not similar or intimately related to the issue in the
criminal case for parricide (whether accused killed victim).
- Subsequent dissolution of their marriage, in case the petition in civil
case is granted, will have no effect on the alleged crime that was
committed at the time of the subsistence of the marriage. In short,
even if the marriage between petitioner and respondent is annulled,
petitioner could still be held criminally liable since at the time of the
commission of the alleged crime, he was still married to respondent.
- Even a marriage void ab initio may still produce legal consequences.
Does not affect penal laws.
another check. On the other hand, the issue in the preliminary
investigation is whether petitioners issued a bad check to SMC for
the payment of beer products.
- Furthermore, three notices of dishonor were sent to petitioners, who
then, should have immediately funded the check. When they did not,
their liabilities under the bouncing checks law attached. Such liability
cannot be affected by the alleged prejudicial question because their
failure to fund the check upon notice of dishonour is itself the
offense.
- As for estafa. Records show that a notice of dishonor as well as
demands for payment, were sent to petitioners. The presumption of
deceit applies, and petitioners must overcome this presumption
through substantial evidence.
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 15
 Reyes v Rossi - Reyes purchases a dredging pump from Rossi - Rescission of contract results in extinguishment of obligatory
(Advanced Foundation Construction Systems) worth
10M. Pays balance of 7M with 9 post-dated checks.
- Checks dishonored, or stop payment, or account
closed.
- July 29 1998 Reyes files civil case for rescission of
contract, alleging defects in dredging pump.
- Sept 8 1998 criminal case for estafa (5 counts) and
BP 22 (6 counts).
relation. Until contract is rescinded, juridical tie subsists.
- The issue in the criminal actions upon the violations of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 is, therefore, whether or not Reyes issued the
dishonoured checks knowing them to be without funds upon
presentment. On the other hand, the issue in the civil action for
rescission is whether or not the breach in the fulfillment of Advanced
Foundation’s obligation warranted the rescission of the conditional
sale. If, after trial on the merits in the civil action, Advanced
Foundation would be found to have committed material breach as to
warrant the rescission of the contract, such result would not
necessarily mean that Reyes would be absolved of the criminal
responsibility for issuing the dishonored checks because, as the
aforementioned elements show, he already committed the violations
upon the dishonor of the checks that he had issued at a time when
the conditional sale was still fully binding upon the parties.
- under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the mere issuance of a worthless check
was already the offense in itself.

Effect of Death on Actions

People v - Bayotas charged with and convicted of rape, but dies - Art 89 RPC – liability extinguished when death occurs prior to final
Bayotas pending appeal of conviction. judgement. Final judgment (looking at Spanish text and other
- Is civil liability also extinguished? provisions of RPC and ROC) means judgement beyond recall. Really,
as long as a judgment has not become executory, it cannot be
Doctrine: If accused dies prior to final judgment of truthfully said that defendant is definitely guilty of the felony charged
criminal case, it is allowable to separate civil case which against him.
does not depend on the felony. Such sources of civil - Contrary ruling in Sendaydiego wrong, which (a) used Art 30 CC
action may be from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, (filing of civil action as though no criminal action had been filed) and
quasi-delicts. (b) ROC (recovery of sum of money may be continued on appeal
after death). (a) had the effect of converting such claims from one
If there is already final judgment (provided that the which is dependent on the outcome of the criminal action to an
court was not silent regarding the matter), then civil entirely new and separate one, the prosecution of which does not
case has already been ruled. even necessitate the filing of criminal proceedings. It is to be borne in
mind that in recovering civil liability ex delicto, the same has perforce
to be determined in the criminal action, rooted as it is in the court's
pronouncement of the guilt or innocence of the accused. (b) rule of
procedure in ordinary civil actions.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 16


Preliminary Investigation
Santos-Concio - Wowowee stampede which claimed 71 lives and injured
v DOJ Sec hundreds.
- DILG investigates stampede. DOJ creates evaluating
panel to evaluate DILG report and determine whether
there is basis to proceed with PI. Conclude that there is
no sufficient basis to proceed with PI, because not
enough information submitted. Case referred to NBI
for further investigation.
- NBI recommends conduct of PI for reckless
imprudence resulting in multiple homicide and multiple
phyisical injuries.
- Petitioners – (a) DOJ does not have the power to
conduct both PI and criminal investigation in the same
case, (b) NBI report (which they allege is complaint-
affidavits) not under oath and does not state acts or
omissions constituting crime, (c) respondents have
prejudged case.
Estrada v - Copy of complaint for plunder served against Jinggoy
Ombudsman Estrada.
- Estrada requests to be furnished with copies of
counter-affidavits of other respondents. Ombudsman
rejects requests.
- Estrada also complains that he was not allowed to
cross-examine witnesses. Question – should due
process requirements given in Ang Tibay
(administrative due process) apply in PI?
- If the private offended party, upon extinction of the civil liability ex
delicto desires to recover damages from the same act or omission
complained of, he must file a separate civil action, this time predicated
not on the felony previously charged but on other sources of
obligation. If the same act or omission complained of also arises
from quasi­delict or may, by provision of law, result in an injury to
person or property (real or personal), the separate civil action must
be filed against the executor or administrator of the estate. If the
same act or omission complained of also arises from contract, the
separate civil action must be filed against the estate of the accused.
- (a) Measures taken by evaluating panel do not partake of criminal
investigation. Done only in aid of evaluation, and dissolved after
doing their job. If doing criminal investigation, they would have
gathered lacking documents. It was NBI which did criminal
investigation.
- (b) Complaint for PI different from complaint for instituting case.
Allegations need not be contained in a single document. Can proceed
even if NBI report not under oath, on the basis of complaint-
affidavit of any competent person (which were attached to report).
Does not need requirements of complaint for instituting case.
- (c) No partiality proven. Evaluating panel even recommended
dismissal. Even accorded a PI even if less than 4-2-1.
- No law or rule which requires furnishing of counter-affidavits of
respondents.
- No right to cross-examine etc. The admissibility or inadmissibility shall
be ventitlated during trial proper.
- PI different from trial. Finding of probable cause only versus guilt.
Rights of accused in Constitution do not kick in until trial. Until then,
rights limited by procedural law.
- Low quantum and quality of evidence needed. Can be established even
by hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting
hearsay. Probability of guilt should be determined in a summary manner.
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 17
Racho v Miro - Anonymous complain to Ombudsman, accusing BIR - Ombudsman has wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory
official Racho of accumulating wealth powers. Hence, unless there are good and compelling reasons to do
disproportionate to income. Photocopied bank so, the Court will refrain from interfering with the exercise of the
records 5M. Ombudsman’s powers. The abuse of discretion must be so patent
- Investigating officer dismisses complaint. and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty; or to a
Ombudsman director Palanca-Santiago disapproves virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law; or to act at all in
resolution and finds probable cause to charge Racho contemplation of law, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary
with falsification of public documents. and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.
- Racho – denied due process because Palanca- - As long as substantial evidence supports the Ombudsman’s ruling,
Santiago handles both PI and reinvestigation. his decision will not be overturned. Here discrepancy between SALN
and bank records sufficient.
- No manifest abuse of discretion in refusal to inhibit herself in the
reinvestigation. Not considered judges, by the nature of their
functions, but merely quasi­judicial officers. One adverse ruling by
itself would not prove bias and prejudice against a party sufficient to
disqualify even a judge. Hence, absent proven allegations of specific
conduct showing prejudice and hostility, we cannot impute grave
abuse of discretion here on respondent director. To ask prosecutors
to recuse themselves on reinvestigation upon every unfavorable
ruling in a case would cause unwarranted delays in the prosecution of
actions.

Tolentino v - Tecklo charged with violation of SSS Act (failure to - Regional State Prosecutor is not included among the law officers
Paqueo Jr remit premiums due to employee). authorized to approve the filing or dismissal of the Information of
- Tecklo moves for deferment of arraignment, and the investigating prosecutor (city, provincial, or chief state prosec).
then files motion to quash information on ground Non­compliance was a ground to quash the Information.
that it was filed by Regional State Prosecutor - Motion to quash was timely (before arraignment). No need for
Tolentino. No legal personality to commence evidence because error was immediately apparent.
prosecution because not city or provincial prosec.
- Judge quashes information.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 18

Aguirre v DOJ - Adoptive parents of Larry, mentally deficient 24-yr- - By the nature of his office, a public prosecutor is under no compulsion to
old, approach Dr. Agatep to have Larry
vasectomized.
- Dr. Agatep performs procedure on the basis of
report from psychiatrist that Larry is unable to give
full consent to procedure, decision-making may be
given to parent or guardian.
- Vasectomy is performed.
- Sister files complaint for mutilation and falsification - Not to discount the possibility of the commission of abuses. This, however,
of documents.
- Prosec dismisses complaint
Crespo v - Information for estafa is filed against Crespo.
Mogul - Pending arraignment, Undersecretary of Justice
reverses resolution of provincial fiscal and moves for
immediate dismissal of information.
- Judge Mogul denies motion to dismiss and schedules -
arraignment.
*Does not mean that court has appellate review over
prosecution. Prosecution maintains direction and
control of prosecuting case.
Judicial determination of probable cause is not
appellate review. - What is prosecutor to do, if his motion to dismiss is rejected? role is to see
file a particular criminal information where he is not convinced that he has
evidence to prop up the averments thereof, or that the evidence at hand
points to a different conclusion. Wide range of discretion. This Court has
consistently adhered to the policy of non­interference in the conduct of
preliminary investigations, and to leave to the investigating prosecutor
sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes
sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of an
information against the supposed offender
does not render his act amenable to correction and annulment by the
extraordinary remedy of certiorari, absent any showing of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. One seeking the writ must be
able to establish that the investigating prosecutor exercised his power in an
arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and
it must be patent and gross as would amount to an evasion or to a unilateral
refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law.
Grave abuse of discretion is not enough. Excess of jurisdiction signifies that
he had jurisdiction over the case but has transcended the same or acted
without authority.
- Good reasons for dismissing complaint. Complaints do not make up crimes
alleged based on elements found in the RPC.
- Preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of
determining whether a prima facie case exists warranting the prosecution of
the accused is terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper
court.
Filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a criminal action. The
Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case. Even before arraignment.
- While it is true that the fiscal has the quasi judicial discretion to determine
whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court or not, once the case
had already been brought to Court whatever disposition the fiscal may feel
should be proper in the case thereafter should be addressed for the
consideration of the Court. The only qualification is that the action of the
Court must not impair the substantial rights of the accused. or the right of
the People to due process of law.
that justice is done and not necessarily to secure the conviction of the
person accused before the Courts duty of the fiscal to proceed with the
presentation of evidence of the prosecution to the Court to enable the Court
to arrive at its own independent judgment as to whether the accused should
be convicted or acquitted.
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 19
Baltazar v - Car hits pedicab. One passenger dies, another is - The task of the presiding judge when the Information is first and
People severely injured. Witnesses allege that car ran over foremost to determine the existence of probable cause for the arrest
victims after hitting pedicab. of the accused.
- After PI, resolution recommending dismissal of - The preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does not bind the
murder charge against Bautista. Instead, information Judge. It merely assists him in making the determination of probable
for reckless imprudence against Santos (Bautista’s cause. The Judge does not have to follow what the Prosecutor
nephew who admitted to be driving car) presents to him. It is the report, the affidavits, the transcripts of
recommended. stenographic notes (if any), and all other supporting documents
- Provincial prosecutor reverses findings and finds behind the Prosecutor’s certification which are material in assisting
probable cause to merit indictment for murder. the Judge in making his determination.
- Judge Concepcion issues warrant of arrest. - Withdrawal of the Information in this case based on the following
- Bautista files petition for review with DOJ. DOJ Sec grounds: (1) witnesses failed to categorically identify private
reverses findings of provincial prosecutor. respondent as the culprit; (2) Santos, voluntarily admitted that he was
- Judge Concepcion dismisses case. the one driving the car; (3) no malice or intent to cause injury (dolo) to
Erlinda Baltazar; and (4) simple case of criminal negligence or
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide or less serious physical
injury.
- No grave abuse of discretion.

Chan v DOJ - Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force hands - Crespo does not bar the Justice Secretary from reviewing the findings
Sec evidence for shabu pushing by Chan to prosec.
- State prosec Formaran recommend filing of
information. Information filed.
- Chan files review with DOJ. Denied. Files petition
for certiorari with CA. Denied.
- CA – without authority to restrain the lower court
from proceeding with the case since the latter had
already assumed jurisdiction.
of the investigating prosecutor in the exercise of his power of control
over his subordinates. power or authority of the Justice Secretary to
review the prosecutor’s findings subsists even after the Information
is filed in court. The court, however, is not bound by the Resolution
of the Justice Secretary, but must evaluate it before proceeding with
the trial. While the ruling of the Justice Secretary is persuasive, it is
not binding on courts.
- CA is not being asked to cause the dismissal of the case in the trial
court, but only to resolve the issue of whether the Justice Secretary
acted with grave abuse of discretion in affirming the finding of
probable cause by the investigating prosecutor. Should it determine
that the Justice Secretary acted with grave abuse of discretion, it
could nullify his resolution and direct the State Prosecutor to
withdraw the Information by filing the appropriate motion with the
trial court. But the rule stands — the decision whether to dismiss the
case or not rests on the sound discretion of the trial court where the
Information was filed.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 20

Villaflor v - Fight between Villaflor and Vivar. Vivar charged - Absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of
Vivar with slight physical injuries. the information or otherwise render it defective. Neither does it
- When Villaflor’s injuries turn out to be more serious, affect the jurisdiction of the court. The trial court, instead of
information amended. More serious physical injuries. dismissing the information, should hold in abeyance the proceedings
Case for grave threats also filed. and order the public prosecutor to conduct a preliminary
- Vivar files motion to quash because no PI on investigation. Not a ground for motion to quash.
amended information. Denied. - Hence, the RTC in this case erred when it dismissed the two criminal
- Petition for certiorari with RTC. Granted. cases for serious physical injuries and grave threats on the ground
that the public prosecutor had failed to conduct a preliminary
investigation.
- Furthermore, we do not agree that a preliminary investigation was
not conducted. And new preliminary investigation cannot be
demanded by respondent. This is because the charge made by the
public prosecutor was only a formal amendment.
Tabujara v - Tabujara and Dayrit allege that they went to Afable’s - First, wrong remedy in this case overlooked because justice.
People house to thresh out matters regarding missing - The procedure described in Section 6 of Rule 112 is mandatory
jewelry. Afable files complaint for trespass to because failure to follow the same would amount to a denial of due
MTC case no dwelling and grave threats. process. Necessary that the judge be satisfied that probable cause
PI needed. - In preliminary examination, complaints dismissed for exists: 1) through an examination under oath and in writing of the
lack of probable cause (merely leverage to estafa complainant and his witnesses; which examination should be 2) in the
case). Later, judge reverses order. Reason – statement form of searching questions and answers. This rule is not merely a
by witness Lara that he saw Afable being forcibly procedural but a substantive rule because it gives flesh to two of the
taken by 3 persons overlooked. most sacrosanct guarantees found in the fundamental law: the
guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures and the due
process requirement.
(NOT DISCUSSED IN CLASS but we asked GSA - Judge gravely abused his discretion. Because it was based solely on the
after class regarding this. He said that if case directly statement of witness Mauro De Lara whom Judge Adriatico did not
filed before the MTC then RoC provides that there personally examine in writing and under htoath; neither did he
should be a personal determination of the judge propound searching questions. Cannot be relied upon for finding of
regarding probable cause, however, he disagrees since probable cause.
he thinks that since the case was opened for the first - Worse, petitioners’ arguments that De Lara’s affidavit was hearsay
time (no PI yet) then the judge should personally was disregarded by the investigating judge despite the fact that the
examine witnesses and affidavits.) allegations therein were completely rebutted by petitioners’ and their
witnesses’ affidavits, all of whom appeared before and were
personally examined by the investigating judge.
- Note also: warrants of arrest not mandatory and need not be issued if
not flight risk, as in this case.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 21

Mendoza v - Complaint against Alfredo (used car supervisor sold - The executive determination of probable cause concerns itself with
People cars without remitting payment) for qualified theft whether there is enough evidence to support an Information being
and estafa. Information filed against him. filed. The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other
- Trial court dismisses complaint on grounds of hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.
insubstantial evidence. Juno Cars (complainant) failed - Judicial determination is independent of executive determination and
to prove ownership of cars, receipt of cars by rests with discretion of court. However, judge must proceed with
Alfredo, etc. caution considering preliminary nature of evidence before it.
- If no probable cause, can dismiss case.
- Judge correctly dismissed case against Alfredo.

Sesbreno v - Complaints against Marcelino, Nunez, and Tabazon - Warrant of arrest not mandatory. Issuance is based on discretion of
Aglugub for falsification (dismissed), grave threats (dismissed), the judge.
and usurpation of authority (set for arraignment). - Judge administratively accountable at most for sending review of
- Only Marcelino fails to appear at arraignment. Thus, dismissal of RA10 (performing acts pertaining to government) to
warrant of arrest issued against him only. Sesbreno prosec and not to Ombudsman absent any proof of fraud or evil
files motion for arrest of all accused. motive.
- Sesbreno also alleges that accused were charged with - For usurpation of authority, no PI needed. If no PI needed, warrant
violation of RA10. Judge finds that charge was not of arrest discretionary still. And judge not required to transmit case to
resolved due to oversight, but anyway dismisses prosec for review.
charge because no probable cause.

San Agustin v - Complaint against Brgy Chairman San Agustin for - San Agustin was unlawfully arrested without a warrant of arrest.
People serious illegal detention (illegally detained Vicente - Lawful warrantless arrests – a) When, in his presence, the person to
Tan on suspicion of being a snatcher). be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
- San Agustin subpoenaed and ordered to present commit an offense; (b) When an offense has been committed and he
himself to NBI with brgy logbook. No entry for has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of facts
arrest of Tan in logbook. or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it;
- San Agustin immediately placed under arrest. Inquest and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
investigation on same day, finds probable cause. while being transferred from one confinement to another.
Information filed. - Inquest investigation void. Entitled to PI.
- But absence of PI does not affect jurisdiction of court or validity of
information. Trial court should suspend proceedings and order PI.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 22

 Ladlad v - GMA proclaims state of national emergency.
Velasco - Beltran arrested without a warrant, because of speech
given at a rally witnessed by arresting officers.
Subjected to inquest for Inciting to Sedition. Days
later, 2nd inquest for rebellion. Resolution finding
probable cause, and information for rebellion filed.
- Other petitioners subjected to PI based on
unsubscribed letters from CIDG, in which
eyewitness subscribes to affidavits then handed out
to media (before being given to petitioners).
Petitioners then required to submit counter-affidavits
in 10 days, but only given complete copy of
attachments to CIDG letters 4 days later.
- Inquest proceedings proper only when lawful warrantless arrest. In
this case, 2nd inquest was void. Beltran would have been entitled to a
preliminary investigation had he not asked the trial court to make a
judicial determination of probable cause, which effectively took the
place of such proceeding.
- in the few exceptional cases where the prosecutor abused his
discretion by ignoring a clear insufficiency of evidence to support a
finding of probable cause, thus denying the accused his right to
substantive and procedural due process, we have not hesitated to
intervene and exercise our review power under Rule 65. In this case –
rebellion is crime of masses. What these documents prove, at best, is
that Beltran was in Bucal, Padre Garcia, Batangas on 20 February
2006 and that 14 years earlier, he was present during the 1992 CPP
Plenum. None of the affidavits stated that Beltran committed specific
acts of promoting, maintaining, or heading a rebellion as found in the
DOJ Resolution
- Did not follow PI procedure. Right to a preliminary investigation as
not "a mere formal or technical right" but a "substantive" one.

Arrest
AAA v - AAA is raped by Arzadon. An information for rape - Constitutional provision does not mandatorily require judge to
Carbonell is filed before the court of Judge Carbonell.
- Arzadon files motion for judicial determination of
probable cause for purpose of issuing arrest.
Carbonell grants motion and orders AAA and her
witnesses to take the witness stand.
- AAA refuses to take the witness stand.
- Carbonell dismisses the case for lack of probable
cause.
personally examine complainant and witnesses. Instead, he may opt
to personally evaluate the report and supporting documents
submitted by the prosecutor or he may disregard the prosecutor’s
report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of
witnesses.
- what the law requires as personal determination on the part of the judge
is that he should not rely solely on the report of the investigating
prosecutor.
- Probable cause has been established in this case. Resolutions of
prosecutor and DOJ. AAA’s affidavit and evidence adduced in
clarificatory hearings. Child and birth certificate.
- Thus, Judge Carbonell exercised grave abuse of discretion as he
dismissed the case solely because of the absence of AAA in the
witness stand.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 23

People v - May 2000 police receive information that a marijuana - Valid warrantless arrest. Caught in flagrante delicto.
Alunday plantation exists somewhere in Mount Churyon, - Further, any objection to arrest must be made before entering plea.
Sadanga. Waived right to object warrantless arrest.
- Conduct series of validations. Finally validate - And since the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the
information on August 2 2000. court over the person of the accused, any defect in the arrest of the
- August 3, a team is sent to the marijuana plantation, accused may be deemed cured when he voluntarily submits to the
where they find Alunday harvesting the marijuana. jurisdiction of the trial court. We have also held in a number of cases
- Alunday is arrested. Information for violation of that the illegal arrest of an accused is not a sufficient cause for setting
DDA filed against him. Pleads not guilty. aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a
- On appeal to SC, raises issue of validity of trial free from error; such arrest does not negate the validity of the
warrantless arrest. conviction of the accused.

People v del - Del Rosario found guilty of robbery with homicide - Not guilty. Forced to participate in robbery as getaway tricycle at
Rosario and sentenced to death. gunpoint.
- How he was arrested – police find out name of - Deprived of rights during custodial investigation. Custodial
tricycle driver in incident. May 13, they go to his investigation is the stage where the police investigation is no longer a
house and invite him for interview. He is kept in general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a
detention until May 22, during which time he makes particular suspect taken into custody by the police who carry out a
his statement and executes waiver of detention. process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating
statements. It is well­settled that it encompasses any question
initiated by law enforces after a person has been taken into custody
or otherwise deprive of his freedom of action in any significant way.
Includes "the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is
investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have
committed."
- Warrantless arrest illegal. Not in flagrante delicto. Not hot pursuit.
Done one whole day after incident and arresting officers had no
personal knowledge of facts indicating that Del Rosario committed
crime. They became aware of his identity as the tricycle driver only
during custodial investigation.
- Anyway, waived right by participating in trial.
People v - Police receive information of a shootout in - Warrantless arrest legal. Arresting officers acted on basis of personal
Jayson - Go to the scene where they find victim. Witnesses knowledge of death of victim and facts indicating Jayson as assailant.
point to Jayson, who was then fleeing, as the shooter. - Search and seizure of gun lawful. Incidental to a lawful warrantless
- Police chase and catch him. They find a gun on him. arrest.
- Charged with homicide and (in this case) illegal
possession of firearm.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 24

People v - Police, with an informant, go to parking lot of McDo
Edano for entrapment operation.
- Edano arrives in a car. Informant approaches him
and talks to him. Informant waves to police. Police
approach the car.
- Edano runs away. Caught by the police, and a plastic
bag of a white substance is found in his right hand,
and a gun tucked in his waist.
- Edano arrested and plastic bag seized.
- Charged for violation of RA9165.
Pestilos v - 3:15am altercation between petitioners and Generoso.
Generoso - Generoso calls police. Police arrive at the scene of the
crime less than an hour later. They find Generoso
bloodied and badly beaten.
- Generoso points to petitioners as those who mauled him.
Police invite (aka arrest) petitioners to police station for
investigation.
This case was used by the SC to illustrate a brief history of
the rule regarding hot pursuit.
Prior to 1940 RoC: Probable cause as a reasonable ground of
suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves as to warrant a reasonable man in believing that
the accused is guilty. Arresting officer need also be in good
faith.
1940 and 1964 RoC: The Rules required that there should be
actual commission of an offense, thus, removing the element
of the arresting officer’s “reasonable suspicion of the
commission of an offense.”
1985 RoC: More importantly, however, it added a
qualification that the commission of the offense should not
only have been "committed" but should have been "just
committed." This limited the arresting officer's time frame
for conducting an investigation for purposes of gathering
information indicating that the person sought to be arrested
has committed the crime. * It is clear that the present rules
have "objectified" the previously subjective determination of
- Arrest unlawful. No overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise.
Simply talking to informant.
- Flight per se is not synonymous with guilt and must not always be
attributed to one’s consciousness of guilt. It is not a reliable indicator
of guilt without other circumstances, for even in high crime areas
there are many innocent reasons for flight, including fear of
retribution for speaking to officers, unwillingness to appear as
witnesses, and fear of being wrongfully apprehended as a guilty party.
- Considering that the appellant’s warrantless arrest was unlawful, the
search and seizure that resulted from it was likewise illegal.
- Probable cause of arresting officer – operates on the basis of more
limited facts, evidence or available information that he must
personally gather within a limited time frame. Oftentimes, he has no
opportunity to make proper investigation but must act in haste on his
own belief to prevent the escape of the criminal.
- Key element is immediacy. There must be a large measure of
immediacy between the time the offense was committed and the time
of the arrest. If there was an appreciable lapse of time between the
arrest and the commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest must be
secured.
- The following must be present for a valid warrantless arrest: 1) the
crime should have been just committed; and 2) the arresting officer's
exercise of discretion is limited by the standard of probable cause to
be determined from the facts and circumstances within his personal
knowledge. The requirement of the existence of probable cause
objectifies the reasonableness of the warrantless arrest for purposes
of compliance with the Constitutional mandate against unreasonable
arrests.
- Personal knowledge of a crime just committed under the terms of the
above­cited provision, does not require actual presence at the scene
while a crime was being committed; it is enough that evidence of the
recent commission of the crime is patent (as in this case) and the
police officer has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested
has recently committed the crime.
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 25
the arresting officer as to the (1) commission of the crime;
and (2) whether the person sought to be arrested committed
the crime. According to Feria, these changes were adopted
to minimize arrests based on mere suspicion or hearsay.

* Probable cause may rest on reasonably trustworthy

information as well as personal knowledge. Thus, the
arresting officer may rely on information supplied by a
witness or a victim of a crime; and under the circumstances,
the arresting officer need not verify such information.

Provision:
When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it.
* We see in the provision two elements that must be present
in order to validly arrest someone without a warrant while in
hot pursuit. These are Immediacy and Circumstance.

Immediacy - the police officer's determination of probable

cause would necessarily be limited to raw or uncontaminated
facts or circumstances, gathered as they were within a very
limited period of time.
Reason: The reason for the element of the immediacy is this
- as the time gap from the commission of the crime to the
arrest widens, the pieces of information gathered are prone
to become contaminated and subjected to external factors,
interpretations and hearsay.

Circumstance - Circumstances may pertain to events or

actions within the actual perception, personal evaluation or
observation of the police officer at the scene of the crime.
Thus, even though the police officer has not seen someone
actually fleeing, he could still make a warrantless arrest if,
based on his personal evaluation of the circumstances at the
scene of the crime, he could determine the existence of
probable cause that the person sought to be arrested has
committed the crime.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 26

Bail
San Miguel v - San Miguel is arrested for sale of shabu, punishable - 60k bail could not be cancelled, as there was nothing left to cancel.
Maceda by prision correcional.
- Bail is set for 60k. He jumps bail.
- Bail is raised to 120k.
- Prosecution files motion to cancel recommended bail
on ground of high probability of flight.
- Judge Maceda issues order, without a hearing,
granting motion.
- 2 months later, issues order clarifying that first order,
saying he only meant to cancel the 60k bail.
Further, prosecution’s request was clearly to cancel the 120k bail.
- First order gave the clear impression that bail had been cancelled, and
from then up to the clarificatory order, San Miguel stayed in jail
because he had lost his right to bail.
- Bail in this case still a matter of right. where bail is a matter of right
and prior absconding and forfeiture is not excepted from such right,
bail must be allowed irrespective of such circumstance. The existence
of a high degree of probability that the defendant will abscond
confers upon the court no greater discretion than to increase the
bond.
- Other defense of judge is that 3 days before order, San Miguel was
detained for murder. But even in this case, bail can still be given
according to discretion of the courts.

Taborite v - Divino allegedly commits murder. He is arrested. He - whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, the prosecutor must be
Sollesta files petition for bail. given reasonable notice of hearing or he must be asked to submit his
- Bail hearing is set, but notice is not given to public recommendation.
prosecutor. Thus, only counsel for the accused was - discretion of the court in cases involving capital offenses may be
present during the hearing. exercised only after there has been a hearing called to ascertain the
- Petition granted and Divino released. weight of the evidence against the accused. Prosecution must first be
accorded an opportunity to present evidence. It is on the basis of
such evidence that judicial discretion is exercised in determining
whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong.
- Granting bail in non­bailable offenses without hearing is gross
ignorance of the law.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 27

Serapio v - Serapio is indicted for plunder along with Erap and - The arraignment of an accused is not a prerequisite to the conduct of
Sandiganbayan several others.
- Warrant of arrest issued. Serapio voluntarily
surrenders and is detained at Camp Crame. He files
with the Sandiganbayan an urgent petition for bail.
There are a lot of delays.
- Issues:
- (1) Should there be arraignment before bail hearing
(Sandiganbayan deferred hearing so that Serapio may - The matter of whether or not to conduct a joint hearing of two or
be arraigned first)
- (2) Can accused file motion to quash information
during pendency of bail hearing
- (3) is joint hearing of bail hearing with hearing of
others accused mandatory
- (4) did the People waive their right to adduce
evidence in bail hearing
hearings on his petition for bail. A person is allowed to petition for
bail as soon as he is deprived of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or
voluntary surrender. Otherwise, the accused may be precluded from
filing a motion to quash.
- No such inconsistency exists between an application of an accused
for bail and his filing of a motion to quash. These two reliefs have
objectives which are not necessarily antithetical to each other.
more petitions for bail etc is addressed to the sound discretion of the
trial court. SC will not interfere unless GAD. It may be underscored
that in the exercise of its discretion, the Sandiganbayan must take into
account not only the convenience of the State, including the
prosecution, but also that of the accused and the witnesses of both
the prosecution and the accused and the right of accused to a speedy
trial. -> However, in the cases at bar, the joinder of the hearings of
the petition for bail of petitioner with the trial of the case against
former President Joseph E. Estrada should not be done. The
proceedings will no longer be summary. As against former President
Joseph E. Estrada, the proceedings will be a full­blown trial which is
antithetical to the nature of a bail hearing.
- Even in cases where the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence in
opposition to an application for bail by an accused charged with a
capital offense, the trial court is still under duty to conduct a hearing
on said application. Since the discretion is directed to the weight of
the evidence and since evidence cannot properly be weighed if not
duly exhibited or produced before the court, it is obvious that a
proper exercise of judicial discretion requires that the evidence of
guilt be submitted to the court.
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 28
Andres v - Andres is charged with murder. Granted bail.
Beltran - Case is set for hearing. Andres appears at hearing,
but his counsel does not (note: later, it was found
that counsel did not appear because no notice was
given to him).
- Judge cancels bail bond on the ground that (a)
counsel did not appear and (b) presentation of
evidence for defense had been delayed for almost a
year.
Leviste v CA - Leviste is convicted for homicide.
- He appeals his conviction and files application for
admission to bail pending appeal.
- CA denies his petition for bail.
- Is denial proper, even when none of the bail-negating - Judicial discretion is choice. Court must be allowed reasonable
conditions are present?
- after the accused shall have been admitted to bail, the court may,
"upon good cause shown," either increase or decrease the amount of
the same. Needless to state, this would entail a hearing for the
purpose of showing "good cause" and hence, would require not only
the presence of the accused but also of the latter's counsel. Neither
can the bail of the accused be forfeited since it is not disputed that
accused did not violate the conditions of the bail as he was present at
the scheduled hearing.
- Failure of counsel for the accused to appear at the scheduled hearing
is not a valid ground for cancellation of bail. alleged delay in the
presentation of evidence by the defense is likewise not substantiated.
- After conviction by the trial court, the presumption of innocence
terminates and the constitutional right to bail ends. From then on,
the grant of bail is subject to judicial discretion. Such discretion must
be exercised with grave caution and only for strong reasons.
latitude to express its own views.
- An application for bail pending appeal may be denied even if the
bail­negating circumstances are absent.
- Two stages in application for bail pending appeal: (1) determination
of discretion stage, where the appellate court must determine whether
any of the bail-negating circumstances is present and (2) the exercise
of discretion stage. If circumstances present, stringent discretion to
determine for a fact whether circumstances exist (if it so determines,
must deny bail). If circumstances not present, exercise sound
discretion.
- Further, provision refers to “the following and other circumstances”
(not exclusive). Further, trend in jurisprudence is towards more
restrictive approach to bail.
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 29
People v - Fitzgerald is charged with violation of RA7610 for - First on CA jurisdiction – when motion for new trial is granted by
Fitzgerald prostitution of a minor. Found guilty and sentenced CA, retains jurisdiction over the case and has authority to hear bail
to minimum 8-0-1. application.
- Filed appeal, then a motion for new trial, then a - By ordering new trial, CA set aside its own decision on case, but RTC
petition for bail. CA grants motion for new trial, and decision finding Fitzgerald guilty remained effective.
then petition for bail on the ground that Fitzgerald is - Under RTC decision, sentenced to more than 6 years. Further,
of old age and not in the best of health. conviction is strong evidence of guilt. Such strong findings have not
been overturned by new evidence. Of particular significance – finding
of potential risk of committing similar offense (pedophilia is a disease
intense and recurrent).
- Bail is not a sick pass for an ailing or aged detainee or prisoner
needing medical care outside the prison facility. A mere claim of
illness is not a ground for bail. It may be that the trend now is for
courts to permit bail for prisoners who are seriously sick. But, in this
particular case, the CA made no specific finding that respondent
suffers from an ailment of such gravity that his continued
confinement during trial will permanently impair his health or put his
life in danger.

Chua v CA - Chiok is convicted for estafa. Sentenced to minimum - To be entitled to an injunctive writ, the applicant must show that (1)
12-0-0. Chiok appeals. he has a clear existing right to be protected; and (2) the acts against
- Trial court issued order canceling his bail . which the injunction is to be directed are in violation of such right.
- CA issues writ of preliminary injunction against trial - Respondent has no right to be freed on bail pending his appeal from
court’s order. the trial court’s judgment. His conviction carries a penalty of
imprisonment exceeding 6 years which justifies the cancellation of his
*Remedy to question decision – motion for review bail pursuant to the third paragraph of Section 5 (b), (d) and (e) of
(bail should not be subject of independent action) Rule 114.
- Moreover, he failed to appear despite notice during the promulgation
of judgment. His inexcusable non­appearance not only violated the
condition of his bail that he "shall appear" before the court
"whenever required" by the latter or the Rules, but also showed the
probability that he might flee or commit another crime while released
on bail.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 30

Esteban v - Gerardo is the accused in 4 criminal cases. His sister- - Bail cannot be cancelled. Section 22 contemplates of a situation
Alhambra in-law Anita posts 20k bail in each case for his where, among others, the surety or bondsman surrenders the accused
temporary liberty. to the court that ordered the latter’s arrest. Thereafter, the court,
- While out on bail, Gerardo again charged for another upon application by the surety or bondsman, cancels the bail bond.
crime. Arrested and detained. Petitioner did not surrender the accused, charged in the four criminal
- Anita files application for cancellation of cash bonds. cases, to the trial court. The accused was arrested and detained
because he was charged in a subsequent criminal case.
- Moreover, cash bond, as far as State is concerned, is regarded as
money of the accused. Rules of Court state that it shall be applied to
payment of any fine and costs which may be imposed by the court.
Excess, if any, shall be returned to accused or any person who made
deposit.

Heirs of - Co is charged with 2 counts of murder and 2 counts - Participation of OSG needed, and private offended party not
Burgos v CA of frustrated murder. Files petition for bail. Granted involved. Question of granting bail to the accused is but an aspect of
after hearing in which RTC determines that evidence the criminal action, preventing him from eluding punishment in the
of guilt is not strong. event of conviction. The grant of bail or its denial has no impact on
- Heirs of murder victim file certiorari, without the civil liability of the accused that depends on conviction by final
involving OSG. judgment.
- In one case wherein bail was granted without participation of OSG,
appeal by private offended party was allowed to correct such grave
abuse of discretion. But in this case, no grave abuse of discretion.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 31

Enrile - Enrile charged with plunder, an offense punishable - Purpose of bail is to guarantee appearance of accused at trial.
by reclusion perpetua. - The country’s commitment to UDHR. National commitment to human
- Should he be released on bail? SC says yes for the rights includes right to be admitted to bail. upon a clear and convincing
following reasons -> showing: (1) that the detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger to the
community; and (2) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling
circumstances.
- Enrile’s 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.
- Currently fragile state of Enrile’s health presents another compelling
justification for his admission to bail. Bail for the provisional liberty of the
accused, regardless of the crime charged, should be allowed independently
of the merits of the charge, provided his continued incarceration is clearly
shown to be injurious to his health or to endanger his life. In fact, granting
him bail would allow him to get proper treatment at hospitals of his choice,
which would aid him in appearing for trial. On the other hand, keeping him
in jail would not serve this purpose, and would only be a life risk.

Leonen - The provisions on bail provide a balance between the accused’s right to be presumed innocent on one hand and the due process
dissent rights of the state to be able to effect the accused’s prosecution on the other hand. That balance is not exclusively judicially
determined. The Constitution frames judicial discretion.
- Majority’s opinion—other than the invocation of a general human rights principle—does not provide clear legal basis for the grant of
bail on humanitarian grounds. Bail for humanitarian considerations is neither presently provided in our Rules of Court nor found in
any statute or provision of the Constitution.
- Bail granted without hearing, based only on doctor’s certification. Nowhere in the rules of procedure do we allow the grant of bail
based on judicial notice of a doctor's certification. In doing so, we effectively suspend our rules on evidence by doing away with
cross-examination and authentication of Dr. Gonzales' findings on petitioner's health in a hearing whose main purpose is to
determine whether no kind of alternative detention is possible. Further, to the Sandiganbayan, based upon the facts as presented to it,
accused does not seem to be suffering from a unique debilitating disease whose treatment cannot be provided for by our detention
facilities and temporary hospital arrest in accordance with their order. How the majority arrived at a conclusion different from the
Sandiganbayan has not been thoroughly explained. Neither did this issue become the subject of intense discussion by the parties
through their pleadings.
- If this case applies to all, no guidance provided as to application for other cases. Usually, when there is a medical emergency that
would make detention in the hospital necessary, courts do not grant bail. They merely modify the conditions for the accused’s
detention. There is now no clarity as to when special bail based on medical conditions and modified arrest should be imposed.
Further, there is no rule on whether the grant of provisional liberty on the basis of humanitarian considerations extends even after the
medical emergency has passed. Would weaken administration of justice.
- If this is a special case, consider all the accused similarly situated, who are not given the same privileges because they are not Enrile.
Consider the liberty not only of this one accused, but our collective liberty, which is put at risk if justice is wanting. Mercy and
compassion temper justice, but they should never replace justice.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 32

Rights of the Accused
Perez v People - Perez (municipal treasurer) is found guilty of - (1) no counsel needed in administrative hearing, because not criminal
malversation of public funds.
- (1) In administrative hearing, he admits to using
funds for loan of brother, food of family, and
medicine. He is not assisted by counsel in admin - (2) Fixed-time period vs. demand-waiver rule vs. balancing test. A
case. In criminal case (assisted by counsel), he
revokes previous admission and says he did not use
funds for personal benefit.
- (2) Sandiganbayan took 12 years to decide case
(charged 1989; decision 2003).
Benares v Lim - Benares accused of estafa.
- After prosecution presented last witness, it is given
15 days to formally offer evidence. Fails to do so.
Given another 15 days. Fails again. Court grants
Benares’ motion to have case dismissed.
- Lim (private offended party) moves to reconsider
dismissal, claiming that prosecution had difficulty
securing documents from the court which were
marked during trial (lost by the judge). Case is
reinstated.
- Note: sched for original formal offer was around Dec
2001. Case is reinstated Jan 2002.
- Did dismissal of case amount to acquittal, barring
reinstatement of case?
in nature. Further, Rule 130, Section 26 of the Rules of Court
provides that the "act, declaration or omission of a party as to a
relevant fact may be given against him."
balancing test necessarily compels courts to approach speedy trial
cases on an ad hoc basis. We can do little more than identify some of
the factors which courts should assess in determining whether a
particular defendant has been deprived of his right. Though some
might express them in different ways, we identify four such factors:
Length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of
his right, and prejudice to the defendant. The Philippines subscribes
to balancing test.
- Right to speedy trial deemed violated only when the proceeding is
attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when
unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or
when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is
allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.
- Perez was given all the chances in the world to present his case, and
the Sandiganbayan rendered its decision only after considering all the
pieces of evidence presented before it. Never filed a single motion or
manifestation questioning pace of case. Slept on his right.
- Double jeopardy attaches only (1) upon a valid indictment, (2) before
a competent court, (3) after arraignment, (4) when a valid plea has
been entered, and (5) when the defendant was convicted or acquitted,
or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express
consent of the accused. A dismissal with the express consent or upon
motion of the accused does not result in double jeopardy, except in
two instances, to wit: (1) the dismissal is based on insufficiency of
evidence or (2) the case is dismissed for violation of the accused's
right to speedy trial.
- The prosecution's delay cannot be considered vexatious, capricious,
and oppressive. There was justifiable reason.
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 33
People v - Body of an 11yo girl is found by Juanito. At the - Constitutional provision on custodial investigation does not apply to
Baloloy wake, Juanito confesses to Brgy Captain Ceniza that a spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the
he raped and killed the girl. authorities but given in an ordinary manner whereby the suspect
- Ceniza and Juanito go to the courtroom of Judge orally admits having committed the crime. Neither can it apply to
Dicon to swear to their affidavits. Juanito admits to admissions or confessions made by a suspect in the commission of a
crime to Judge Dicon. crime before he is placed under investigation. The rights under
Section 12 of the Constitution are guaranteed to preclude the
slightest use of coercion by the state as would lead the accused to
admit something false, not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily
telling the truth.
- Confession to Ceniza voluntary and before Juanito was placed under
custody.
- Confession to Dicon however, made when Ceniza was already a
suspect of the crime. Judge Dicon’s claim that no complaint has yet
been filed and that neither was he conducting a preliminary
investigation deserves scant consideration. The fact remains that at
that time JUANITO was already under the custody of the police
authorities, who had already taken the statement of the witnesses
who were then before Judge Dicon for the administration of their
oaths on their statements. At any rate, while it is true that
JUANITO’s extrajudicial confession before Judge Dicon was made
without the advice and assistance of counsel and hence inadmissible
in evidence, it could however be treated as a verbal admission of the
accused, which could be established through the testimonies of the
persons who heard it or who conducted the investigation of the
accused.

People v - Teves is found guilty of the crime of parricide. - Pre-trial identification was pointedly suggestive, generated confidence
Teves - Evidence against him – witness testimony claiming where there was none, activated visual imagination and, all told,
she recognized him driving jeep she passed before subverted the identification of the appellant by the witness. This
coming upon body. Aunt of victim alleging that he method of identification is as tainted as an uncounseled confession
confessed to crime to him, that he fought with his and thus, falls within the same ambit of the constitutionally
wife, etc. entrenched protection.
- Pre-trial identification of Teves and his jeep – while - Testimonies of witnesses doubtful.
already under custody and without counsel, made to - Conviction of an accused must be based on the strength of the
ride jeep and stick his hand out, as if doing some prosecution's evidence and not on the weakness or absence of
kind of reenactment. evidence of the defense.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 34

People v Musa - Respondents found guilty of special complex crim of - In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out­of­court
robbery with homicide. Robbed a jeepney and shot identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of
one of the passengers. circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz: (1)
- Passengers Nancy and Harold identified the 6 the witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime;
persons who held them up at the hospital, after being (2) the witness’ degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of
shown pictures of different people. any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty
- Nancy gives description of robbers to police demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of
inspector. time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the
- 5 days after robbery (delay because Harold would not suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
let her leave him at hospital), Nancy went to police - Applying this test, we find Nancy’s out­of­court identification to be
station after being informed that arrests had been reliable and, hence, admissible. (add: no evidence that the police
made. Identifies robbers in detention cell. either prodded Nancy to point to the appellants as the robbers, or
- Another passenger Ryan executes sworn statement suggested to her that the appellants were the suspects in the June 11,
before police 5 days after robbery, identifying 2001 robbery. That she readily recognized them was not surprising as
robbers. they were her fellow passengers before the hold­up took place.)
- Nancy positively identifies appellants during trial. - Proper procedure on photographic identification: first, a series of
photographs must be shown and not merely that of the suspect; and
second, when a witness is shown a group of pictures, their
arrangement and display should in no way suggest which one of the
pictures pertains to the suspect. The records are bereft of any
evidence showing that Nancy’s photographic identification was
attended by an impermissible suggestion that singled out the
appellants and Barredo as the robbers.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 35

Aquino v - Aquino involved in crime of estafa against Paiste - When petitioner was brought by respondent before the NBI­NCR on
Paiste (selling fake gold bar). She is brought to NBI by
Paiste, where she executes amicable settlement
accepting fault and agreeing to pay half of amount
swindled (25k) to Paiste. In settlement, she also
- Aquino fails to adduce evidence that Atty Uy was not competent and
waives her right to counsel.
- Charged with and found guilty of estafa.
March 27, 1991 to be investigated, she was already under custodial
investigation and the constitutional guarantee for her rights under the
Miranda Rule has set in. Since she did not have a lawyer then, she was
provided with one in the person of Atty. Uy, which fact is undisputed.
independent counsel, or that she was coerced into signing settlement (a
confession is not rendered involuntary merely because defendant was told
that he should tell the truth or that it would be better for him to tell the
truth. Stated elsewise, telling the accused that it would be better for him to
speak or tell the truth does not furnish any inducement, or a sufficient
inducement, to render objectionable a confession thereby obtained, unless
threats or promises are applied. These threats or promises which the
accused must successfully prove in order to make his confession
inadmissible, must take the form of violence, intimidation, a promise of
reward or leniency).
- Never raised objection to representation by Uy. when "the accused never
raised any objection against the lawyer’s appointment during the course of
the investigation and the accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his
statement before the swearing officer" the accused is deemed to have
engaged such lawyer.

People v Serzo - Serzo is charged with murder.
- Appears at arraignment without counsel. Moves for
arraignment to be re-set in order to allow him time to
find counsel of his choice granted. But next month, still
no counsel. Arraigned with court-appointed counsel
(who also serves as counsel during start of trial).
- For presentation of defense, Serzo again manifests
desire to find counsel of his choice. But continues to
appear without counsel. Court appoints different
counsel for him twice.
- Parties were ordered to submit their respective
memoranda in ten days, after which the case would be
submitted for decision. Atty. Garcia was further
ordered to manifest within the same period whether
appellant would change his mind and cooperate with
her.
- Note: 2 years from time Serzo manifested desire to
obtain council de parte.
- While his right to be represented by counsel is immutable, his option
to secure the services of counsel de parte, however, is not absolute.
The court is obliged to balance the privilege to retain a counsel of
choice against the states's and the offended party's equally important
right to speedy and adequate justice.
- Appellant had been given ample time to secure the services of a
counsel de parte, but his subsequent appearances in court without
such counsel and his act of allowing this situation to continue until
the presentation of his evidence betrays his lack of intention to do so.
It even appears that he was merely delaying his own presentation of
evidence on purpose to the prejudice of the offended party, the trial
court and the orderly administration of justice.
- Furthermore, appellant did not demonstrate in what way the services
of his counsels de oficio were unsatisfactory. In short, he was afforded
a chance to be heard by counsel of his own choice, but by his own
neglect or mischief, he effectively waived such right.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 36

 Dela Cruz v - Dela Cruz is arrested for extortion.
People - While at NBI office, required to extract urine for
drug test. Refused, but request is denied.
- Urine tests positive for drugs. Charged with violation
of DDA.
Arraignment and Plea
People v - Magat is charged with raping his minor daughter.
Magat - 1st arraignment – pleads guilty, but bargain for lesser
penalty. Sentenced to 10 years for each of the 2
counts of rape.
- Complainant asks for revival of cases because penalty
is too light.
- 2nd arraignment – pleads not guilty. Later, changes
plea to guilty. Sentenced to death for each of the 2
counts.
- DDA allows drug test only for those arrested in relation to violations
of DDA. To allow drug test for all persons arrested would amount to
violation of privacy and right against self-incrimination. Singled out
and impleaded against their will.
- We emphasize that the circumstances in Gutang (where drug test was
valid and admissible as evidence) are clearly different from the
circumstances of petitioner in the instant case. First, Gutang was
arrested in relation to a drug case. Second, he volunteered to give his
urine. Third, there were other pieces of evidence that point to his
culpability for the crimes charged. In the present case, though,
petitioner was arrested for extortion; he resisted having his urine
sample taken; and finally, his urine sample was the only available
evidence that was used as basis for his conviction for the use of
illegal drugs.
- The drug test was a violation of petitioner’s right to privacy and right
against self­incrimination.
- First conviction is void ab initio because plea bargaining not sanctioned
by rules. The only instance where a plea bargaining is allowed under the
Rules is when an accused pleads guilty to a lesser offense. the reduction
of the penalty is only a consequence of the plea of guilt to a lesser
penalty. Not what happened in this case.
- Plea of guilty to offense imputed to him must be unconditional.
Accused­appellant's plea of guilty is undoubtedly a conditional plea.
Hence, the trial court should have vacated such a plea and entered a plea
of not guilty for a conditional plea of guilty, or one subject to the
proviso that a certain penalty be imposed upon him, is equivalent to a
plea of not guilty and would, therefore, require a full­blown trial before
judgment may be rendered.
- Nonetheless, whatever procedural infirmity in the arraignment of the
accused­appellant was rectified when he was re­arraigned and entered a
new plea.
- 2nd arraignment - trial judge has faithfully discharged his bounden duty
as minister of the law to determine the voluntariness and full
understanding of accused­appellants' plea of guilty.
- Moreover, the prosecution has already presented its evidence. Thus,
even assuming that there was an improvident plea of guilt, the evidence
on record can sustain the conviction of the accused­appellant.
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 37
People v Ulit - Ulit charged with qualified rape.
- Pleads not guilty at arraignment. But after
presentation of evidence by prosecution, changes
plea to guilty.
- Judge gives him 45 mins to confer with counsel, and - GUIDELINES:
warned that he could be sentenced to death. Lilit
reiterates plea of guilty.
- Sentenced to death.
- Trial court is also required to probe thoroughly into the reasons or
- In any case, even with improvident plea, guilt proved beyond reasonable
- When the appellant informed the trial court of his decision to change
his plea of "not guilty" to "guilty," it behooved the trial court to
conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full
comprehension of the consequences of his plea. Failed to do so.
(1) Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was brought into
the custody of the law; (b) whether he had the assistance of a
competent counsel during the custodial and preliminary
investigations; and (c) under what conditions he was detained and
interrogated during the investigations. These the court shall do in
order to rule out the possibility that the accused has been coerced or
placed under a state of duress either by actual threats of physical
harm coming from malevolent or avenging quarters.
(2) Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether he
had conferred with, and completely explained to, the accused the
meaning and consequences of a plea of guilty.
(3) Elicit information about the personality profile of the accused,
such as his age, socio­economic status, and educational background,
which may serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free
and informed plea of guilty.
(4) Inform the accused the exact length of imprisonment or nature of
the penalty under the law and the certainty that he will serve such
sentence.
(5) Require the accused to fully narrate the incident that spawned the
charges against him or make him reenact the manner in which he
perpetrated the crime, or cause him to supply missing details or
significance.
motivations, as well as the facts and circumstances for a change of plea
of the accused and his comprehension of his plea; explain to him the
elements of the crime for which he is charged as well as the nature and
effect of any modifying circumstances attendant to the commission of
the offense, inclusive of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, as
well as the qualifying and special qualifying circumstances, and inform
him of the imposable penalty and his civil liabilities for the crime for
which he would plead guilty to.
doubt.
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 38
Daan v - Daan is accused of malversation of public funds and - Acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not
Sandiganbayan falsification of public documents. demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is a matter that is
- Offers to withdraw plea of not guilty and replace addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the trial court.
with guilty, provided convicted of lesser crimes Sandiganbayan – no public good out of granting plea bargain.
(falsification by private individual, failure of an - But also consider fairness. After this case, plea bargain was granted to
accountable officer to render accounts). Estrada in crime of plunder, which involved 25M.
- Similar considerations in this case as in the Estrada case, and more –
favorable recommendation by prosecutor, restitution of amount,
voluntarily surrendered, not the most guilty, lesser offenses
necessarily included in crimes charged.
- Where gross inequity will result in a discriminatory dispensation of
justice, the Court will not hesitate to intervene in order to equalize
the imbalance.

Aguinaldo v - December 2, 2002 – complaint-affidavit for estafa - While the pendency of a petition for review is a ground for
Ventus filed against Aguinaldo and Perez. suspension of the arraignment, Section 11(c) of Rule 116 limits the
- July 16, 2003 – Information for estafa filed in court. deferment of the arraignment to a period of 60 days reckoned from
- August 4, 2003 – petitioners file motion for the filing of the petition with the reviewing office. It follows,
reconsideration with Office of the City Prosecutor of therefore, that after the expiration of said period, the trial court is
Manila, of prosecutor’s recommendation to file bound to arraign the accused or to deny the motion to defer
Information. Motion is denied. arraignment.
- February 27, 2004 – petitioners file petition for - While rules of procedure are liberally construed, the provisions on
review with DOJ. reglementary periods are strictly applied, indispensable as they are to
- April 16, 2004 – arraignment is ordered deferred. the prevention of needless delays, and are necessary to the orderly
- May 16, 2005 – warrants of arrest of petitioners and speedy discharge of judicial business. Relaxation or suspension of
ordered. procedural rules, or the exemption of a case from their operation, is
- August 23, 2005 – court issues order setting warranted only by compelling reasons or when the purpose of justice
petitioners’ arraignment. requires it. Delay in the resolution does not extend the period of 60
days.
- Further, petitioners given ample time, from order deferring
arraignment to order of arrest, to secure resolution of petition for
review. Besides, they may be faulted for the delay in the resolution of
their petition. Their counsel received the letter dated April 15, 2004
(from the DOJ requiring her to submit the pertinent pleadings
relative to petitioners' petition for review). Admittedly, however, the
same was complied with only on October 15, 2004.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 39

Motion to Quash
Antone v - Antone files complaint for bigamy against Beronilla. - No double jeopardy in re-opening case. Respondent has not yet
Beronilla Alleges that they married in 1987. And they were still
married when Beronilla married Maguillo in 1991.
- Beronilla moves to quash information on the ground
that the facts charged do not constitute an
offense. Defense – marriage with Antone was
declared void ab initio in 2007. Since the marriage
had been declared null and void from the beginning,
there was actually no first marriage to speak of.
Absent a first valid marriage, the facts alleged in - The fundamental test in considering a motion to quash on above
the Information do not constitute the crime of
bigamy.
- Trial court grants motion to quash.
*Elements of bigamy.
(1) that the offender has been legally married;
(2) that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved
or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent
spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to - Exception to test of validity of information - when facts have been
the Civil Code;
(3) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage;
and
(4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the
essential requisites for validity.
entered his plea to the charge when he filed the Motion to Quash
the Information, and the case was dismissed not merely with his
consent but, in fact, at his instance. Jeopardy does not attach in favor
of the accused on account of an order sustaining a motion to quash.
More specifically, the granting of a motion to quash anchored
on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an
offense is "not a bar to another prosecution for the same
offense."
ground is whether the facts alleged in the information, if
hypothetically admitted, will establish the essential elements of the
offense as defined in the law. A reading of the information will
disclose that the essential elements of the offense charged are
sufficiently alleged.
- Beronilla’s defense should not have been considered at all
because matters of defense cannot be raised in a motion to
quash.
established by evidence presented by both parties which destroyed
the prima facie truth of the allegations in the information during the
hearing on a motion to quash based on the ground that the facts
charged do not constitute an offense, and "it would be pure
technicality for the court to close its eyes to said facts and still give
due course to the prosecution of the case already shown to be weak
even to support possible conviction.
- But in this case – Family Code. The absolute nullity of a
previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage
on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such marriage
void.
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 40
People v - Romualdez charged with violation of 3019. From
Romualdez 1976 to 1986, served as provincial governor of
Leyte and ambassador to China, Saudi Arabia, and
US, thereby enabling himself to collect dual
compensation. 5M.
- Romualdez moves to quash information on the ff
grounds:
- (1) Facts alleged do not constitute an offense.
Receiving dual compensation not covered by
cited provision in 3019 (public officers charged with
grant of permit, licenses, etc). No damage to govt
because he rendered services for which he was
paid.
- (2) Criminal action has been extinguished by
prescription. 15 yr prescription under 3019. Offense
1976-Feb 1986. PI June 2001. Case filed with
Sandiganbayan Nov 2001.
*Rule 65 (certiorari)/rule 45 (appeal)
People v - Saballegue charged with violation of Social Security
Garfin Act. Failing to remit premiums due to his
employees to the SSS. Php17k
- Complaint was filed by special prosec Tolentino.
- Sabellague is arraigned and pleads not guilty.
- 3 days later, files motion to dismiss on the ground
that the information was filed without prior
written authority or approval of city prosec.
- Tolentino – duly designated to assist city prosec
in investigation and prosecution of SSS cases.
Authority given by regional state prosec, who
takes authority from DOJ sec.
- Clearly barred by prescription.
- PCGG had attempted to file similar criminal cases against private
respondent Feb 1989. However, said cases were quashed based on
prevailing jurisprudence that informations filed by the PCGG and
not the OSP/Ombudsman are null and void for lack of authority on
the part of the PCGG to file the same. (PCGG only handles ill-
gotten wealth, absent authority from Pres).
- Filing which is null and void cannot toll prescriptive period.
- For criminal violations of Rep. Act No. 3019, the prescriptive
period is tolled only when the Office of the Ombudsman
receives a complaint or otherwise initiates its investigation. As
such preliminary investigation was commenced more than 15 years
after the imputed acts were committed, the offense had already
prescribed as of such time.
- Case must be filed by provincial or city prosecutor or chief state
prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his deputy.
- Regional state prosec has no authority to authorize Tolentino to
file cases.
- That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do
so is a ground for motion to quash.
- Information must be properly filed in order to give jurisdiction to
court.
- As this infirmity in the information constitutes a jurisdictional defect
that cannot be cured, cannot be waived, the respondent judge did not
err in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Arraignment not a
waiver for this ground. Based on Villa ruling.
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 41
Perez v - Information for violation of 3019 (purchase of - Filing was not yet approved by Ombudsman.
Sandiganbayan computer for 120k by personal canvass) filed - Under RA6770, ombudsman given power to prosecute (not just
against Perez and Apostol (mayor and treasurer of investigate) cases cognizable by the Sandiganybayan. Special prosec
a Pangasinan town). included under office of ombudsman. Special prosec given power
- Ombudsman (in marginal note on memorandum) “under supervision and control and upon the authority of the
orders further study of case (if there was unwarranted ombudsman” to investigate and prosecute.
advantage given to seller of computer, even if no - Doctrine of qualified political agency, wherein the acts of a
actual damage caused). Further, requests for subordinate bears the implied approval of his superior, not
recommendation to be submitted soonest. applicable to Ombudsman which is an apolitical agency and far
- Assst special prosec Galisanao conducts further different from bureaucracy to which said doctrine applies. The
investigation. Recommends amendment of Ombudsman would be severely hampered from exercising his power
information. Since Php20k max if without bidding. of control if we are to allow the Special Prosecutor to authorize the
- Special prosec Villa-Ignacio approves filing of informations in the first instance.
recommendation. Amended information filed.

People v - Soriano (religious minister) charged with violation of - Elements of BP22 violation – issuing/etc of check, knowledge
Laggui estafa and BP22 (which he gave to Hizon). at time of issue that insufficient funds to pay check upon
Information alleges that he issued 250k check presentment, check is dishonored.
“knowing fully well that he had no - Judge’s interpretation is erroneous. The maker's knowledge of the
funds/sufficient funds in the bank.” insufficiency of his funds is legally presumed from the dishonor of
- Soriano is arraigned and pleas not guilty. his check for insufficiency of funds.
- Trial court acquits Soriano because information - However, since in the present case the accused Eliseo Soriano had
defective. Should have alleged that he knew funds been arraigned, pleaded "not guilty," and was tried upon a valid
would be insufficient to pay check in full “upon and sufficient information (although the lower court erroneously
presentment.” thought otherwise) and the case against him was dismissed by
decision of the trial court (hence, without his consent and not
upon his motion), he has been placed in jeopardy or danger of
punishment for the offense charged. For this Court to re­assess
the evidence against him pursuant to the Government's appeal,
would place him twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 42

People v - Information for parricide (killed her wife) against
Honrales Jonathan Honrales filed with RTC Manila.
- Assistant prosecutor’s motion for reinvestigation
granted. Later, recommends withdrawal of
information and filing of one for reckless
imprudence resulting in parricide instead.
- While motion to withdraw still pending, reckless
imprudence information filed before MeTC of Manila.
- Pleads guilty and sentenced in MeTC.
- RTC withdraws information because no supporting
resolution.
- CA finds that RTC failed to make independent
assessment of merits of the case, but relied solely
on manifestation of prosec that it is abiding by
DOJ Sec’s resolution.
- RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the
withdrawal of the Information for parricide and recalling the
warrant of arrest without making an independent assessment of
the merits of the case and the evidence on record. Abdicated its judicial
power and refused to perform a positive duty enjoined by law.
- MeTC took cognizance of the Information for reckless
imprudence resulting in parricide while the criminal case for
parricide was still pending before the RTC
- Once jurisdiction is acquired by the court in which the Information is
filed, it is there retained. Therefore, as the offense of reckless
imprudence resulting in parricide was included in the charge for
intentional parricide pending before the RTC, the MeTC clearly had
no jurisdiction over the criminal case filed before it.
- No double jeopardy because no court of competent jurisdiction.

Quiambao v - Information against petitioners for violation of BP68 - RTC order to dismiss case, being the subject of review by SC, was
People with MTC. not yet final and executory. An appeal to this Court via a Petition for
- Petitioners file certiorari with RTC (allege that there is Review on Certiorari stays the judgment, award or order appealed from.
no probable cause to charge them with crime). MTC acted without jurisdiction when it issued its Order of
RTC directs MTC to dismiss case. Dismissal
- Private respondents’ MR denied. Bring petition for - Moreover, the jurisdiction over the issue of probable cause in
review on certiorari to SC. Criminal Case No. 89724 had already been acquired by this Court.
- MTC dismissed criminal case. Private respondents From the moment the case had been elevated to us, the MTC no
file MR. MTC grants MR and issues order for longer had authority to further act on the issue which was pending
revival of case. review. The perfecting of an appeal taken from said judgment deprives
- Double jeopardy? the trial court of its jurisdiction over said judgment and said jurisdiction
is transferred to the appellate court, and the trial court cannot modify or
revoke any order of execution of the said judgment after the appeal
taken therefrom is perfected.
- Order of Revival that followed should be declared null and void.
Suffers from the same infirmity of having been issued without
jurisdiction. Void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at
all. It cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation.
No legal rights can emanate from a resolution that is null and void.
- 2 requisites not met – no court of competent jurisdiction, case not
dismissed (because void judgement).

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 43

Villalon v - Amelia married to Chua. Later, allegedly as Villalon,
Chan Chua marries Erlinda.
- Amelia is in US and asks others to file case for
bigamy for her.
- In case, Atty. Atencia appears in behalf of Amelia.
Villalon files motion to seek his disqualification
(because Amelia not party to case, not having
filed case herself). RTC grants motion. (March –
dismissing attorney)
- Amelia files petition for certiorari with CA. CA
issues TRO against RTC.
- RTC trial proceeds. Case dismissed. (September –
dismissing case)
- CA grants Amelia’s petition and orders re-raffle
of case.
- Double jeopardy?
- Review by the CA on whether the RTC committed grave abuse
of discretion encompassed, not only the issuance of the motion
disqualifying Atty Atencia, but all proceedings in the bigamy
case thereafter. (Amelia’s petition alleged that hearings on case
without private prosec’s participation is without jurisdiction.)
- RTC dismissal against the TRO of CA is without force and effect and
would not serve as basis for the petitioners to claim that their right
against double jeopardy.
- RTC should have allowed, and should not have disqualified,
Atty. Atencia from intervening in the bigamy case as the
respondent, being the offended party, is afforded by law the
right to participate through counsel in the prosecution of the
offense with respect to the civil aspect of the case.
- Petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by the respondent is
a special civil action separate and independent from the bigamy
case filed against the petitioners. For these reasons, the "People
of the Philippines" need not be impleaded as a party in a petition for
certiorari and prohibition.

People v De - Joven, Armando, Domingo, and Estanislao charged - judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a petition for
Grano with murder. Out on bail. certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, but only upon a clear
- Found guilty. However, only Estanislao is present showing by the petitioner that the lower court, in acquitting the accused,
during promulgation of judgement despite due notice committed not merely reversible errors of judgment but also grave abuse
to the others. of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or to a denial of
- Joven, Armando, Domingo, Estanislao file MR. MR due process, thus rendering the assailed judgment void. petitioner must
granted and Domingo, Estanislao found guilty of clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the lower court blatantly
homicide, the rest acquitted. abused its authority to a point so grave and so severe as to deprive it of
- People trying to revive the case. CA dismisses its very power to dispense justice.
- Being at large, Joven and Domingo have not regained their standing in
petition for certiorari on the ground of double
court. Once an accused jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, or
jeopardy.
escapes from prison or confinement, 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.
- Thus, Joven, Armando, and Domingo, were not placed in double
jeopardy because, from the very beginning, the lower tribunal had acted
without jurisdiction. Verily, any ruling issued without jurisdiction is, in
legal contemplation, necessarily null and void and does not exist. In
criminal cases, it cannot be the source of an acquittal.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 44

Suero v - Suero charged in RTC for falsification of public - It is undisputed that the two charges stem from the same transaction.
People documents.
- Both he and ombudsman file motion to suspend
proceedings, on the ground that charge for 3019
involving the same primordial issue is being tried in
the Sandiganbayan. Granted.
- Sandiganbayan acquits him of 3019 violation.
- Ombudsman has case for falsification re-filed.
- Double jeopardy?
However, it has been consistently held that the same act may give rise to
two or more separate and distinct offenses. No double jeopardy attaches,
as long as there is a variance between the elements of the offenses
charged. The constitutional right against double jeopardy protects from a
second prosecution for the same offense, not for a different one.
- Not the same elements. Falsification – falsifying document. 3019 –
giving unwarranted benefit to a party, acting with manifest partiality.
Common elements – public officer and act relating to public position.
- Joint Motion to Suspend filed by the accused and the respondent
ombudsman cannot be deemed an admission on the part of the latter
with respect to the so­called primordial legal issue involved in both
cases. Estoppel arising from the act of agents of the government does
not operate against the latter.

People v - Respondents charged with special complex crime of - "[W]hen an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he
Torres robbery with homicide. waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and
- RTC rules that they can only be liable for murder. throws the whole case open to the review of the appellate court,
Finds them guilty of murder. which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice
- Respondents appeal case to CA. dictate, whether favorable or unfavorable to the appellant."
- CA revereses RTC ruling. Finds them guilty of - Since it became the duty of the appellate court to correct errors as
robbery with homicide. (Reason: intent was clearly to may be found in the appealed judgment.
rob and not to kill.) - Appellant is guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide.
- Cannot be found guilty of robbery, because acquitted
by RTC? Double jeopardy?

Torres v - Torres charged with falsification of public document. - A motion to withdraw information differs from a motion to dismiss.
Aguinaldo - DOJ Sec reverses findings of public prosec and
orders withdrawal of information. Information
withdrawn June 11 2003.
- Aguinaldo (private offended party) files petition for
certiorari before CA.
- CA orders case reinstated March 22 2004.
- Torres – order dismissing case was final if no appeal
perfected in time.
While both put an end to an action filed in court, their legal effect
varies. The order granting the withdrawal of the information attains
finality after fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof, without prejudice
to the re­filing of the information upon reinvestigation. On the other
hand, the order granting a motion to dismiss becomes final fifteen
(15) days after receipt thereof, with prejudice to the re­filing of the
same case once such order achieves finality.
- A motion to withdraw information is not time­barred and does not
fall within the ambit of Section 8, Rule 117.
- Note: SC finds CA decision was wrong. There was indeed lack of
probable cause, and withdrawal of information was correct.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 45

Co v New - New Prosperity (represented by Uy) files complaint - Missing requisite for time-bar to apply – notice to offended party. If
Prosperity for BP22 against Co. the offended party is represented by a private counsel the better rule
Plastic - In open court, Co moves for provisional dismissal of is that the reckoning period should commence to run from the time
Products case. Granted June 9 2003. such private counsel was actually notified of the order of provisional
- Uy receives copy of order on July 2 2003. Files dismissal.
motion to revive case July 2 2004. - Since the period for filing a motion to revive is reckoned from the
- Co assails that the 1-yr period has already expired. private counsel's receipt of the order of provisional dismissal, it
necessarily follows that the reckoning period for the permanent
dismissal is likewise the private counsel's date of receipt of the order
of provisional dismissal.
- 1 year is 12 months. The number of days is irrelevant.
- Contention that both the filing of the motion to revive the case and
the court order reviving it must be made prior to the expiration of
the one­year period is unsustainable. Unfair.

Los Banos v - Pedro charged for violation of gun ban during 2001 - To recapitulate, quashal and provisional dismissal are different
Pedro elections. concepts whose respective rules refer to different situations that
- Moves to quash information. Ground: information should not be confused with one another. If the problem relates to
contained availments which if true would constitute an intrinsic or extrinsic deficiency of the complaint or information, as
legal excuse/facts charged do not constitute an shown on its face, the remedy is a motion to quash under the terms
offense. Presents Comelec certification exempting of Section 3, Rule 117. All other reasons for seeking the dismissal of
him from gun ban as evidence. RTC grants motion the complaint or information, before arraignment and under the
to quash Dec 10 2001. circumstances outlined in Section 8, fall under provisional dismissal.
- Prosec moves to reopen case. Says Comelec - RTC had authority to reopen case.
certification was falsified. RTC reopens case (after - Information duly charged a specific offense and provides the details
Dec 10 2002). on how the offense was committed. This COMELEC Certification is
- Pedro – dismissal had become permanent. a matter aliunde that is not an appropriate motion to raise in, and
cannot support, a motion to quash grounded on legal excuse or
Motion to quash =/= Provisional Dismissal justification found on the face of the Information. As a consequence,
a valid Information still stands, on the basis of which Pedro should
now be arraigned and stand trial.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 46

Pre-Trial
Bayas v - Matuday and Bayas (mayor and reasurer of Kabayan,
Sandiganbayan Benguet) charged with violation of 3019 and
malversation through falsification.
- Pretrial conference is re-set twice (October 15 à
November 5 à December 10) because defense
counsel Atty Molintas is unprepared/sick.
Sandiganbayan urges petitioners to discuss stipulation
of facts drafted by Ombudsman with counsel.
- Parties submit joint stipulation of facts and
documents. Includes checks as evidence. And
statement that accused admits disbursement of 565k.
- Pretrial again re-set (January 14 à February 14)
because of absence of defense counsel. Motion
to withdraw as counsel (re-set: February 14 à
March 31) and replaced by Atty Cinco (April 26)
- Atty Cinco moves to withdraw stipulation of
facts and documents. Reason – incompetence of
previous counsel. Maintain that stipulation should
be withdrawn before pretrial order approving them.
- May pre-trial stipulations be withdrawn?
- No.
- Indispensable role of stipulations in the speedy disposition of cases.
If we allow parties to renege on stipulations they validly entered into
during the course of pretrial proceedings, there would be no end to
litigations.
- Once validly entered into, stipulations will not be set aside
unless for good cause. The party who validly made them can be
relieved therefrom only upon a showing of collusion, duress,
fraud, misrepresentation as to facts, and undue influence, or
upon a showing of sufficient cause on such terms as will serve
justice in a particular case. Moreover, the power to relieve a party
from a stipulation validly made lies in the court’s sound discretion
which, unless exercised with grave abuse, will not be disturbed on
appeal.
- To be a ground for relief against a stipulation, a mistake must be one
of fact ­­ not, as in this case, a mere lack of full knowledge of fact
because of failure to exercise due diligence in ascertaining it. Parties
are bound by the action or the inaction of their counsel. The
rule extends even to the mistakes and the simple negligence
committed by the counsel.
- Joint Stipulation made by the prosecution and petitioners was a
waiver of the right to present evidence on the facts and the
documents freely admitted by them. There could have been no
impairment of petitioners’ right to be presumed innocent, right to
due process or right against self­incrimination because the waiver
was voluntary, made with the assistance of counsel and is
sanctioned by the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
- No need for pretrial order from court to bind stipulation
(requisites: writing and signed by accused/counsel)
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 47
Trial
Visbal v - Judge Vanilla is presiding over a criminal case. - Yes.
Vanilla - Hearing is reset twice (from June 23 à Aug 27 à - A criminal case can be archived if after the issuance of the
Oct 9) due to absence of the accused or failure to warrant of arrest, the accused remains at large for six (6)
send notice of hearing to accused (changed months from delivery of the warrant to the proper peace officer.
address without informing court). Not followed in this case.
- Court issues warrant for arrest of the accused and - Neither does the case fall under the circumstances where the
(on the same day) orders case archived, to be court may archive the case motu propio. (1 – accused = unsound
revived upon arrest of the accused. mental condition; 2- valid prejudicial question; 3 – interlocutory order
- Ignorance of the law? or incident elevated and is pending resolution; 4 – accused has
jumped bail before arraignment and cannot be arrested by his
bondsman)
- Should have proceeded with trial in absentia. All requisites are
present in this case. (a) that accused has been arraigned (Jan 28
2003); (b) that he has been notified (deemed to have received notice
because did not inform court of change of address), and (c) that his
failure to appear is unjustified.

People v De - Joven, Armando, Domingo, and Estanislao - Being at large, Joven and Domingo have not regained their
Grano charged with murder against Mendoza. Out on bail. standing in court. Once an accused jumps bail or flees to a
- Found guilty. However, only Estanislao is foreign country, or escapes from prison or confinement, he
present during promulgation of judgement loses his standing in court; and unless he surrenders or submits to
despite due notice to the others. the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right
- Joven, Armando, Domingo, Estanislao file MR. to seek relief from the court.
MR granted and Domingo, Estanislao found - Thus, Joven, Armando, and Domingo, were not placed in
guilty of homicide, the rest acquitted. double jeopardy because, from the very beginning, the lower
- People trying to revive the case. CA dismisses tribunal had acted without jurisdiction. Verily, any ruling issued
petition for certiorari on the ground of double without jurisdiction is, in legal contemplation, necessarily null and
jeopardy. void and does not exist. In criminal cases, it cannot be the source of
an acquittal.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 48

Cabador v - Cabador is charged with murder (conspiracy against
People Atty. Valerio).
- Case drags on for 5 years. RTC declares end of
prosecution’s presentation of evidence and
requires prosecution to make written or formal
offer of evidence. Prosec asks for extension to file
formal offer thrice.
- Cabador files motion to dismiss case. On the
same day as his motion, prosec files formal offer.
- RTC issues order treating Cabador’s motion as
demurrer. Since filed without leave of court,
Cabador deemed to have waived his right to
present evidence. Deemed the case submitted for
decision.
- Demurrer of evidence without leave of court?
- No.
- To determine whether the pleading filed is a demurrer to evidence or
a motion to dismiss, the Court must consider (1) the allegations in
it made in good faith; (2) the stage of the proceeding at which it
is filed; and (3) the primary objective of the party filing it.
- In this case, motion to dismiss points out how case dragged on for
years, with long gaps between hearings, and hearings often
postponed because of prosecutor’s absence. Cabador invoked right
to speedy trial, which is a ground for motion to dismiss.
- Did mention evidence in 2 (out of 15) paragraphs of motion to
dismiss – to point out that no formal evidence had been filed, to
say that evidence had no leg to stand on (witnesses had no
knowledge of Cabador’s connection to case). But these were mere
conclusions, highlighting what five years of trial had accomplished.
Did not state what evidence the prosecution had presented against
him to show in what respects such evidence failed to meet the
elements of the crime charged.
- Besides, a demurrer to evidence assumes that the prosecution
has already rested its case. The trial court still needed to give
him an opportunity to object to the admission of those exhibits.
It also needed to rule on the formal offer. And only after such a
ruling could the prosecution be deemed to have rested its case.
- Cabador filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of violation of
his right to speedy trial, not a demurrer to evidence. He cannot
be declared to have waived his right to present evidence in his
defense.
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 49
Park v Choi - Choi is charged for violation of BP22 (PNB check - When demurrer filed without leave of court, court must decide
for Php1,875,000) on criminal and civil aspect of case, unless separate civil action
- After prosecution rests case, files motion for waived or reserved.
leave of court to file demurrer. Files demurrer - If with leave of court – two cases to consider. If demurrer is
(assertion: prosecution failed to prove that he denied as to criminal aspect, demurrer must also be denied as
received notice of dishonor, hence presumption of to civil aspect (because of lesser proof required). If demurrer is
knowledge of insufficiency of funds did not arise). granted as to criminal aspect, does not follow that demurrer
Granted. should be granted as to civil aspect (same evidence could be
- Park appeals civil aspect of case. sufficient for civil aspect). Thus if court grants demurrer, proceedings
- RTC orders remand of case to MeTC for further on civil aspect generally proceeds. The only recognized instance
proceedings. when an acquittal on demurrer carries with it the dismissal of the civil
aspect is when there is a finding that the act or omission from which
the civil liability may arise did not exist.
- MeTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the case without any
finding that the act or omission from which the civil liability may
arise did not exist.
- Indicatively, respondent stands by his defense that he merely
borrowed P1,500,000 with the remainder representing the interest,
and that he already made a partial payment of P1,590,000. Petitioner
counters, however, that the payments made by respondent pertained
to other transactions. Given these conflicting claims which are
factual, a remand of the case would afford the fullest
opportunity for the parties to ventilate, and for the trial court to
resolve the same.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 50

Cabarles v - Cabarles is charged with murder. Pleads not guilty.
Maceda - Some confusion in trial dates causes prosec not
to be able to present evidence during first 4
hearings. 2 of its witnesses – testimony is
dispensed with since defense counsel agreed to
stipulation of facts. Its 2 other witnesses do not
appear despite several subpoenas -> “Addressee
moved”
- Judge gives prosecution last chance to present
witnesses. With no witnesses to present, prosec
rests its case.
- Cabarles filed demurrer with leave of court but
denied by Judge Maceda.
- A day before scheduled promulgation, judge
issues order reopening case. On ground that
prosec was denied its day in court.
- Judge may reopen?
- No.
- Existing jurisprudence stress the following requirements for
reopening a case: (1) the reopening must be before the finality of
a judgment of conviction; (2) the order is issued by the judge on
his own initiative or upon motion; (3) the order is issued only
after a hearing is conducted; (4) the order intends to prevent a
miscarriage of justice; and (5) the presentation of additional
and/or further evidence should be terminated within thirty days
from the issuance of the order.
- Judge’s order was without notice and hearing and without giving the
prosecution and accused an opportunity to manifest their position on
the matter. Violation of due process.
- Although the defense participated in the proceedings after the
case was reopened, the same does not amount to a waiver.
Cabarles filed the present petition seeking for a writ of certiorari
against Judge. Also, when asked to comment on the prosecution’s
formal offer of evidence taken after the case was reopened, Cabarles
objected to its admission on the ground that the same was
inadmissible having been received by the court after Judge Maceda
issued the questioned order.
- No manifest injustice. In this particular case, the prosecution was
given ample opportunity to present all its witnesses but it failed to do
so. The failure of the prosecution to take full advantage of the
opportunities given does not change the fact that it was
accorded such opportunities. Even after confusion in schedule of
trials, had 4 hearing dates to present witnesses.
- If granted, will set a dangerous precedent. Aside from its being
non-procedural, it would open the floodgates to endless litigations
because whenever an accused is on the brink of acquittal after trial,
and realizing its inadequacy, the prosecution would insist to be
allowed to augment its evidence which should have been presented
much earlier.
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 51
Go v People - Harry and Jane Go & Tonny and Jerry Ngo charged
with other deceits (lied about chattel mortgage in
Bataan Export Processing Zone)
- Complaining witness Ping is a frail businessman
from Cambodia. Travels to the Phil to attend
hearing, but hearing is postponed. Flies back to
Cambodia.
- 1 year later, prosec files motion to take oral
deposition of Ping in Cambodia, where he was
being treated for lung infection. Could not make
travel due to ill health.
- MeTC grants motion. RTC reverses MTC order.
- Ping may be deposed overseas?
- No.
- Since the conditional examination of a prosecution witness must
take place at no other place than the court where the case is
pending, the RTC properly nullified the MeTC's orders granting
the motion to take the deposition of Li Luen Ping before the
Philippine consular official in Laos, Cambodia.
- The right of confrontation is held to apply specifically to criminal
proceedings and to have a twofold purpose: (1) to afford the accused
an opportunity to test the testimony of witnesses by
cross­examination, and (2) to allow the judge to observe the
deportment of witnesses.
- To take the deposition of the prosecution witness elsewhere and not
before the very same court where the case is pending would not only
deprive a detained accused of his right to attend the proceedings
but also deprive the trial judge of the opportunity to observe the
prosecution witness' deportment and properly assess his
credibility, which is especially intolerable when the witness' testimony is
crucial to the prosecution's case against the accused.
- There is a great deal of difference between the face­to­face
confrontation in a public criminal trial in the presence of the presiding
judge and the cross­examination of a witness in a foreign place outside
the courtroom in the absence of a trial judge.
- Criminal proceedings are primarily governed by the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure. Considering that Rule 119 adequately and squarely
covers the situation in the instant case, we find no cogent reason to
apply Rule 23 suppletorily or otherwise.
- Further, prosec had opportunity when Ping was here. Loss is
attributable to his fault.
Witness of the prosecution Witness of the
(for convenience; not bound defense
by the court’s calendar)
Grounds Sick/Frail Sick/Frail
Has to leave the country 100 km from court
with no definite return Catch-all
Before Same court Any judge
whom Notary public
Competent lawyer
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 52
Judgement
1 People v De - Joven, Armando, Domingo, and Estanislao - Being at large, Joven and Domingo have not regained their
Grano charged with murder against Mendoza. Out on bail. standing in court. Once an accused jumps bail or flees to a
- Found guilty. However, only Estanislao is foreign country, or escapes from prison or confinement, he
present during promulgation of judgement loses his standing in court; and unless he surrenders or submits to
despite due notice to the others. the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right
- Joven, Armando, Domingo, Estanislao file MR. to seek relief from the court.
MR granted and Domingo, Estanislao found - Thus, Joven, Armando, and Domingo, were not placed in
guilty of homicide, the rest acquitted. double jeopardy because, from the very beginning, the lower
- People trying to revive the case. CA dismisses tribunal had acted without jurisdiction. Verily, any ruling issued
petition for certiorari on the ground of double without jurisdiction is, in legal contemplation, necessarily null and
jeopardy. void and does not exist. In criminal cases, it cannot be the source of
an acquittal.

2 Rimando v - Rimando charged with estafa in RTC, BP 22 in - No.

Aldaba MTC.
- For allegedly convincing Aldaba spouses to invest
in his business (8% monthly interest), taking
their 500k check, and issuing them 3 checks (580k)
which later are dishonored for insufficient funds.
- Acquitted of BP 22, with declaration that act or
omission from which liability could arise did not
exist.
- Acquitted of estafa (no deceit because Aldaba
spouses fully aware that they were investing in
Multitel and not Rimando’s business) but with civil
liability (as accommodation party to checks issued
to Aldaba on behalf of Multitel).
- Did acquittal in BP22 case bar civil liability
claim in estafa case?
- acquitted.
- Essentially, while a BP 22 case and an estafa case may be rooted from
an identical set of facts, they nevertheless present different causes
of action, which, under the law, are considered "separate,
distinct, and independent" from each other.
- Therefore, both cases can proceed to their final adjudication –
both as to their criminal and civil aspects – subject to the
prohibition on double recovery. Perforce, a ruling in a BP 22 case
concerning the criminal and civil liabilities of the accused
cannot be given any bearing whatsoever in the criminal and
civil aspects of a related estafa case, as in this instance.
- * The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the
extinction of the civil liability where: (a) the acquittal is based on
reasonable doubt as only preponderance evidence is required,
(b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only
civil and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from
or is not based upon the crime of which the accused is

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 53

3 Suero v - Suero (Admin officer in DECS) charged in RTC for - No double jeopardy. Not the same elements.
People falsification of public documents (Inspection - Furthermore, from a reading of the decision, it is apparent that the
Report regarding purchase and delivery of Sandiganbayan did not in any way rule on the validity or the
furniture). falsity of the questioned documents. Nothing in the Decision
- Both he and ombudsman file motion to suspend prevents respondent judge from making his own determination on
proceedings, on the ground that charge for 3019 such matters. Nothing also bars him from ruling on the guilt or the
involving the same primordial issue is being innocence of the accused in the present case.
tried in the Sandiganbayan. Granted. - Joint Motion to Suspend filed by the accused and the
- Sandiganbayan acquits him of 3019 violation. respondent ombudsman cannot be deemed an admission on
- Ombudsman has case for falsification re-filed. the part of the latter with respect to the so­called primordial
- Double jeopardy? legal issue involved in both cases. Estoppel arising from the act
- Ombudsman barred from re-filing because of agents of the government does not operate against the latter.
participation in motion to suspend was formal
admission of identity of primordial issue?

4 Sevilla v - Sevilla is councilor of Malabon city. - Should be reckless imprudence resulting in falsification of
People - On first day on the job, has to fill out personal public document.
data sheet. Asks Mendoza, a member of his staff, to - A variance exists between the offense alleged against Sevilla
do it for him. Mendoza mistakenly answers “no” and that proved by the prosecution
to question on pending criminal cases (there was - The greater includes the lesser offense.
pending case against Sevilla for assault). Sevilla - Reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public
does not check answers and submits PDS. documents is an offense that is necessarily included in the
- Charged with falsification of public document. willful act of falsification of public documents, the latter being
“Willfully, unlawfully, feloniously…” the greater offense.
- Sandiganbayan does not convict him of
falsification of public document for lack of
malicious intent. Instead, finds him guilty of
falsification of public document through reckless
imprudence.
- Cannot convict him of reckless imprudence
when he was charged with an intentional felony?

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 54

5 Jaylo v - Jaylo, Valenzona, Habalo, and Castro (officers of - The term "may" denotes a mere possibility, an opportunity, or
Sandiganbayan PNP-Western Police District) charged with
conspiracy in murder against international drug
syndicate. (Elma committee as investigation team
created by President Cory Aquino for this case)
- Sandiganbayan convicts them of homicide (each
person killed a different victim).
- None of the accused are present in promulgation
of judgement.
- Jaylo, Valenzona, and Habalo file motion for partial
reconsideration.
- Argument – MR is substantive right given by law
(PD1606 – accused may file MR from Sandiganbayn - Said rules do not take away, repeal or alter the right to file a
decision within 15 days from promulgation or notice
of judgement). PD1606 does not provide for
manner in which right is lost, thus it is available
at all times. Cannot be taken away by Rules of
Court.
an option. Those granted this opportunity may choose to exercise it
or not. If they do, they must comply with the conditions attached
thereto. Movant must also comply with the conditions laid down in
the Rules of Court, which applies to all cases and proceedings filed
with the Sandiganbayan.
- Like an appeal, the right to file a motion for reconsideration is a
statutory grant or privilege. As a statutory right, the filing of a
motion for reconsideration is to be exercised in accordance
with and in the manner provided by law. Thus, a party filing a
motion for reconsideration must strictly comply with the requisites
laid down in the Rules of Court.
motion for reconsideration as said right still exists. Section 6,
Rule 120, of the Rules of Court, does not take away per se the
right of the convicted accused to avail of the remedies under
the Rules. It is the failure of the accused to appear without justifiable
cause on the scheduled date of promulgation of the judgment of
conviction that forfeits their right to avail themselves of the remedies
against the judgment.
- In order to regain their standing in court, the accused must do as
follows: 1) surrender and 2) file a motion for leave of court to
avail of the remedies, stating the reasons for their absence,
within 15 days from the date of the promulgation of judgment.
Clearly, the convicted accused are the ones who should show
that their reason for being absent at the promulgation of
judgment was justifiable. Unless they surrender and prove their
justifiable reason to the satisfaction of the court, their absence is
presumed to be unjustified. (In this case, they did none of these.)
- Note: Jaylo did not appear in promulgation because did not
receive notice, unlike the rest. However, still not a justifiable
reason. Did not get notice because he changed address. He
should have filed a notice of change of address before the
Sandiganbayan.
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 55
Post-Judgement Remedies
6 People v - Mateo is charged with 10 counts of rape.
Mateo - RTC finds him guilty. Sentenced to reclusion
perpetua for each count of rape.
- However, there are a lot of inconsistencies in the
testimony of the complainant (daughter of common-
law wife), and the complainant constantly changed
her accounts of the rapes. For instance: first testified
that she slept alone in the one bedroom of their
house while her siblings slept outside the room, then
later testified that her siblings slept with her in the
room and she was taken out to the living room where
the rape occurred, then testified that only her sister
slept with her in the room. All the other members of
her household testified that only their parents slept in
the room (which makes more sense), and that one of
the children actually lived with his grandparents.
- Solicitor General assails the factual findings of the
lower court and recommends acquittal.
7 Pobre v CA - Ovalles charged with parricide.
- Evidence of guilt is strong, so should not be granted
MR is a bail.
prerequisite - June 29: motion to fix bail granted.
for rule 65. - July 17: Atty Aglipay (private prosec) recives notice
of June 29 order.
- July 30: Aglipay files motion contesting June 29
order.
- Sept 28: July 30 motion denied.
- Oct 12: Aglipay recieves notice of Sept 28 order.
- Dec 11: certiorari with CA.
- Argument: since bail should not have been fixed,
grant was null and void. Cannot reach finality and
may be questioned even beyond reglamentary period.
- Up until this case, SC has assumed direct appellate review over all
criminal cases in which penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua,
or life imprisonment.
- In this case, there was marked absence of unanimity among members
of SC on guilt or innocence of accused. A lot of the issues are over
factual matters. The court observes that the CA has direct mandate
over factual issues.
- While the Constitution gives SC mandatory duty to review cases of
reclusion perpetua and above, it does not proscribe the addition of an
intermediate review (by the CA). Further, the addition of
intermediate review is a procedural matter within the rule-making
powers of the SC.
- A prior determination by the CA, particularly on factual issues, would
minimize the possibility of an error of judgement.
- The court hereby modifies relevant rules so that, instead of direct
appellate review by the SC, cases of reclusion perpetua and above
should first go to the CA for intermediate review.
- Case remanded to CA.
- Should not have fixed bail. It does not mean however that since the
accused is not entitled to bail at any stage of the trial, a grant thereof
can be questioned any time and without regard to the period of filing
provided by the Rules of Court. Rules of procedure, especially those
prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, have oft
been held as absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless
delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of business.
- An order granting bail is an interlocutory order. It does not attain
finality since there leaves something else to be done by the trial court
with respect to the merits of the case.
- Can be questioned via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court. Period for filing – 60 days.
- July 17 to 30= 13 days. Oct 12 to Dec 11= 60 days. 13 days late.
- However, during pendency of case, new rule to be applied
retroactively – period starts fresh from denial of earlier MR.
- Dec 11 was thus 60th day. Filed on time.
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 56
8 Tamayo v CA - Tamayo convicted of Arson by RTC. - The remedy of appeal may be availed of only in the manner provided
- Appeals to CA. for by law and the rules. However, while, as a general rule, a review
- June 30 1999: CA directs him to file appellant’s brief. on appeal is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion and
- Tamayo does not file brief. Nov 10 2000: appeal may be granted only when there are special and important reasons
dismissed. therefor, still it must be remembered that appeal is an essential part
- Tamayo files MR, praying for time to file brief. Avers of our judicial system. Courts should thus proceed with extreme care
that he was not aware that counsel did not file brief, so as not to deprive a party of this right.
and that counsel withdrew from case without his - Deviation from rigid enforcement of rules may be allowed to attain
knowledge and consent. justice.
- Jan 31 2000: CA again dismisses appeal because - Tamayo timely filed notice of appeal, but was late in filing brief. A
Tamayo failed to file brief since he filed MR. distinction should be made between the failure to file a notice of
appeal within the reglementary period and the failure to file a brief
within the period granted by the appellate court. The former results
in the failure of the appellate court to acquire jurisdiction over the
appealed decision resulting in its becoming final and executory upon
failure of the appellant to move for reconsideration. The latter simply
results in the abandonment of the appeal which can lead to its
dismissal upon failure to move for its reconsideration.
- Timely filed MR, and justifiable ground given. Could not be faulted
for not filing brief after MR, because he was waiting for favorable
resolution of his MR.

9 People v - Latayada is found guilty of carnapping with - Guilty of homicide only and not carnapping with homicide.
Latayada homicide. Sentenced to death. Carnapping not sufficiently proved. Sentenced to 14y imprisonment.
- After prosecution rested its case, Latayada escaped - When an appellant escapes detention pending appeal, the appeal is
from prison and remained at large. normally dismissed, and the lower court’s judgment thus becomes
- Automatic review. final and executory. However, this rule does not apply to death cases,
in which an automatic review is mandated by law even if appellant
has absconded.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 57

10 Vitto v CA - Vitto charged with homicide. Found guilty. - An appeal by the accused is considered abandoned where he fails to
- Files appeal. However, fails to post bail and remains properly prosecute his appeal or does some act inconsistent with its
at large. prosecution, such as when he refuses to submit himself to the
- Nov 13: CA resolution requiring him to explain why jurisdiction of the authorities.
appeal should not be dismissed in view of his - Vitto failed to comply with his own commitment to surrender and
absence. file brief by Dec 20. Fatal to his case.
- Dec 1: explains that he was not aware that he should - Considering that he was facing a serious charge, it was incumbent
have surrendered. Counsel asks to have until Dec 20 upon him to inform his lawyer of his whereabouts and to inquire
to contact accused and advise him to submit himself about the status of his case from time to time. In the same manner,
to CA and file brief. his counsel should have exercised the required diligence incumbent
- Vitto does not surrender to CA within the time asked upon him to acquaint his client regarding the proceedings in the
for. Excuse: no money to travel to Manila from appellate court.
Mindoro.

11 Quesada v - Quesada charged with estafa.
DOJ - Defense: failed to deliver telecommunication device
offered to complainant because FOM Phil ran out.
Only acted as sales agent of FOM, and not as
president of own corporation.
- Estafa information filed anyway by prosec.
- Quesada files petition for review with DOJ (ground:
lack of deceit). Denied.
- Quesada files petition for certiorari with SC.
- A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must be filed with the CA
whose decision may then be appealed to this Court by way of a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. A direct recourse to
this Court is warranted only where there are special and compelling
reasons specifically alleged in the petition to justify such action.
- Here, we cannot discern any special and compelling reason to justify
the direct filing with this Court of the present petition. Clearly, it
should be dismissed outright.
- Present petition was directly filed with this Court, in utter violation of
the rule on hierarchy of courts.

Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 58

12 Yu v Samson- - May 26: Yu convicted of estafa.
Tatad - June 9 (14 days later): motion for new trial (ground –
newly discovered evidence)
- Oct 17: denied. Yu receives copy of order Nov 3.
- Nov 16 (13 days later): files notice of appeal.
- Prosec – Notice of appeal too late. Neypes ruling
applies only to civil cases and not criminal cases.
13 Macapagal v - Macapagal is found guilty of estafa.
People - Files MR. Denied. Filed notice of appeal. Denied for - (1) Availed of wrong mode of appeal. Rule 45 is for decisions or final
being filed out of time.
- Filed review on certiorari under Rule 45 with SC,
assailing conviction for estafa, denial of MR, denial
of notice of appeal.
- In Neypes, the Court categorically set a fresh period of 15 days from a
denial of a motion for reconsideration within which to appeal.
- The raison d’être for the "fresh period rule" is to standardize the appeal
period provided in the Rules and do away with the confusion as to when
the 15­day appeal period should be counted.
- Should equally apply to criminal cases for the following reasons:
- (1) BP 129, as amended, the substantive law on which the Rules of Court
is based, makes no distinction between the periods to appeal in a civil
case and in a criminal case. Says that period to appeal is 15 days in all
cases.
- (2) Provisions governing civil and criminal appeal in ROC mean exactly
the same. No reason exists why this situation in criminal cases cannot be
similarly addressed.
- (3) Neypes ruling included Rule 42 (petitions for review from RTC
appellate to CA) and Rule 45 (appeal by certiorari to SC), which also
cover criminal cases. No reason not to apply it to other criminal cases.
- Were we to strictly interpret the "fresh period rule" in Neypes and make
it applicable only to the period to appeal in civil cases, we shall
effectively foster and encourage an absurd situation where a litigant in a
civil case will have a better right to appeal than an accused in a criminal
case. We must emphatically reject this double and unequal standard for
being contrary to reason.
- Petition dismissed for complete disregard of procedural rules.
orders. Order denying notice of appeal is not decision or final order,
and ROC provide that it cannot be appealed. Instead, special civil
action under Rule 65.
- (2) Violated hierarchy of courts. Direct resort to this Court is allowed
only if there are special, important and compelling reasons clearly and
specifically spelled out in the petition, which are not present in this
case.
- (3) Failed to attach clearly legible duplicate original/certified true
copy of order convicting her of estafa and denial of MR.
- (4) Several times ordered by court to comply with rules, but
constantly gave excuses. Even when counsel withdrew from case
after efforts to contact client proved futile and Macapagal contacted
directly by SC, still did not comply with rules.
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 59
14 People v - Libel case against PEPCI coalition.
Piccio - Dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction.
- People, through private prosec and with conformity - In view of the corollary principle that every action must be
of public prosec, file notice of appeal with CA.
- Private complainants file required brief, but without
OSG (who first seeks advise from DOJ w/n it
should file brief, and then refrains from filing when
DOJ says it has no info on case).
15 Cajipe v - Highway Patrol Group and Special Action Force - Wrong mode of appeal. Should have filed ordinary appeal from final
People members of PNP charged with multiple murder
(killed daughter and father in shootout).
- RTC finds that HPG officers not involved in
shootout. No probable cause to try them.
- Private complainant files MR. Denied. OSG files
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with CA (RTC
failed to evaluate sworn statement of witnesses).
- Authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before
the Court and the CA is vested solely in the OSG
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party­in­interest who
stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or by
the party entitled to the avails of the suit, an appeal of the criminal
case not filed by the People as represented by the OSG is perforce
dismissible. The private complainant or the offended party may,
however, file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG but only
insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned.
order dismissing case against HPG officers. Certiorari only when
there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.
- Even if proper, filed too late. 112 days after receipt of dismissal
order. (The OSG contends, however, that the reckoning point should
be from the date the Department of Justice or the court gave it notice
of the order of dismissal. There is no reason for the RTC to serve
copy of its judgments or final orders upon the OSG since it does not
enter its appearance in criminal cases before it. n case of permissible
appeals from a final order in a criminal action, the public prosecutor
who appears as counsel for the People in such an action and on
whom a copy of the final order is thus served, may file a notice of
appeal within the appropriate time since it is a notice addressed to the
RTC and not to the CA. Only the Office of the Solicitor General,
however, may pursue the appeal before the CA. In special civil
actions such as that taken by the OSG before the CA, the public
prosecutor's duty, if he believes that a matter should be brought by
special civil action before an appellate court, is to promptly
communicate the facts and his recommendation to the OSG,
advising it of the last day for filing such an action.)
- Anyway, only SAF officers involved in shootout.
Criminal Procedure Case Notes | VaMitch | 60