You are on page 1of 38

COURSE OUTLINE

PART ONE

INTRODUCTION1

History & Sources of Rules on Criminal Procedure

Amy Rossabi, The Colonial Roots of Criminal Procedure in the Philippines, 11 Columbia
Journal of Asian Law 175
Rules of Criminal Procedure 1964, 1985, 1988

The Criminal Judicial Process

Pangalanagan, Raul (Ed.): The Philippine Judicial System (IDE Asian Law
Series No. 5, March 2001)
A Synopsis Of The Criminal Litigation Process, Riano, Willard: Criminal
Procedure (Bar Lecture Series) 2011, pp. 49-54.

Rules of Criminal Procedure

Criminal Jurisdiction
Oscar M. Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. IV , Criminal Procedure
(Rules 110-127), pp. 1-56.
a. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (as amended);
b. SC Administrative Circular No. 09-942;
c. The 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure;
d. Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as amended by RA 8249 (Sandiganbayan Law);
e. Rep. Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Law);

I. Criminal Jurisdiction
A. Principles & Elements:
1. Allegations of complaint/information as basis of jurisdiction:
Buaya v. Polo, 169 SCRA 471 (1989)T
2. Real party in interest in criminal cases:
Jimenez v. Sorongon, G.R. No. 178607, Dec. 5, 2012T
3. Elements & Requisites of Criminal Jurisdiction:
Antiporda v. Gatchitorena, G.R. No. 133289 Dec. 23, 1999T

1
Revised & Updated, June. 2017.
2
Guidelines in the Implementation of Republic Act No. 7691. Entitled "An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Amending for the Purpose Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,
Otherwise Known as the 'Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980."

-4-
a) Subject matter or offense
Revised Penal Code as amended and Special Penal Laws
Law at time of institution of criminal
action not at commission:
People v. Lagon, 185 SCRA 442 (1990) T
Neither law at arraignment:
Palana v. People, 534 SCRA 296 (2007)
Exception, offenses under jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan:
Sec. 4, A, R.A. 8249
People v. Sandiganbayan & Plaza, G.R. No. 169004, Sept. 15, 2010T
b) Venue or Territory where committed; Purpose
Sec. 18, B.P. 129
Rule 110, Sec. 10 & 15
Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases; based on
allegations; burden of proof:
Treñas v. People, G. R. No. 195002, January 25, 2012T
Lopez v. City Judge, G.R. No. L-25795, [October 29, 1966], 124 PHIL
1211-1219)
Jurisdiction can be waived?:
Uy v. C.A., 276 SCRA 367 (1997) T
Venue of BP 22 & Estafa distingusihed:
People v. Grospe, G.R. Nos. L-74053-54 January 20, 1988
Venue in Perjury (Art. 183):
Union Bank v. People, G.R. No. 192565, February 28, 2012

Cybercrime - Sec. 21(R.A. No. 10175


Rule 4, Rules and Regulations Implementing
Republic Act No. 10175, Otherwise Known as the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012

Change of venue:
Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (4), 1987 Constitution
History of:
People v. Gutierrez, 36 SCRA 172 (1970)
People v. Pilotin, 65 SCRA 635 (1975)
Mondiguing v. Abad, 68 SCRA 14.
People v. Sola, G.R. No. L-56158-64 March 17, 1981**
See: [A.M. No. 10-1-06-RTC : January 12, 2010] Re: Petition for
Change of Trial Venue of Criminal Case No. Sa-198, People
v. Data Andal Ampatuan, Sr., et Al. For Rebellion from
the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City to the Regional

-5-
Trial Court of Quezon City. T
Re: Petition for Change of Venue of Crim. Case No. 15-147-W, A.M. No.
16-07-242-RTC (Notice), [August 24, 2016])

c) Person of the accused


Jurisdiction and “power to prosecute”, distinguished:
Valdepeñas v. People, 16 SCRA 871 (1966)
Must one submit to court's jurisdiction (custody?) for relief:
De Joya v. Marquez, G.R. No. 162416, Jan. 31, 2006T
Seeking affirmative relief submits to court’s jurisdiction:
Jimenez v. Sorongon, supraT
Relief but "neither jurisdiction over the person nor custody of the law";
Special Appearance:
Miranda v. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377, Mar. 31, 2006T
Motion to quash:
Alawiya v. C.A. & Datumanong, G.R. No. 164170, April 16, 2009
Custody of law not required for relief:
Jimenez v. Sorongon, G.R. No. 178607, Dec. 5, 2012
David v. Agbay, G.R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015T

B. Other principles of jurisdiction


Jurisdiction until termination; “trial in absentia”
and right to present evidence:
Gimenez v. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-37933 April 15, 1988**T
Jurisdiction not subject to waiver or agreement:
Figueroa v. People, 558 SCRA 63 (2008)T
Jurisdiction and double jeopardy:
Heirs of Honrales v. Honrales, 629 SCRA 423 (2010)
Hierarchy of Courts; Reason for C.A.:
Alonso, et al. vs. Cebu Country Club, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 188471,
April 20, 2010.

II. Remedies Before Judgment and After Judgment

A. Remedies before judgement (after parties rest, but before judgment):


1. Reopening:
Rule 119, sec. 24
Who can avail;
Requisites;
Grounds;
Motu propio by the court:
Prior to 2000; practice , procedure & not prejudicial to accused:

-6-
People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47. January 20, 2003,
443 Phil. 521-554**T
Cabarles v. Maceda, G.R. No. 161330, February 20, 2007T
Must be before judgment:
In Re: Anonymous letter against Judge Pinto, A.M. No.
RTJ-11-2289 October 2, 2012**

B. Reliefs AFTER judgment, but PRIOR to appeal:


1. Modification of Judgment of Conviction (Rule 120, Sec. 7)
Only before finality of judgment and at instance of accused only:
People v. Viernes, G.R. Nos. 136733-35, Dec. 13, 2001**T
2. Motion for New Trial (Rule 121)
By Whom and when available (Sec. 1)
Grounds (Sec. 2)
Form & procedure (Sec. 4 & 5)
Effect if granted (Sec. 6)
On appeal with Court of Appeals (Sec. 14, Rule 124)
Requisites of newly discovered evidence:
Custodio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 96027-28. March 8, 2005T
People v. Excija, G.R. No. 119069 July 5, 1996 T
Pro hac vice Granting Urgent Motion to Reopen:
People v. Licayan, G.R. Nos. 140900 & 140911. February 17, 2004T
People v. Licayan, G.R. No. 203961, [July 29, 2015]
Gross Negligence of Counsel:
Callangan v. People, G.R. No. 153414, [June 27, 2006T
Conviction & Confession by real perpetrators:
People v. Aguel, G.R. No. L-36554 Dec. 14, 1981
Confession by supposed perpetrator:
People v. Ebias, G.R. No. 127130, October 12, 2000**;
Recantation as newly discovered:
People v. Datu, G.R. No. 136796, February 19, 2003;T
Recantation of victim in rape:
People v. Del Mundo, 262 SCRA 266 (1996);T
Agulto v. CA, supra
Persons who helped the victim:
People v. Amparado, 156 SCRA 712 (1987);
Motion for New Trial Before Supreme Court:
Cuenca vs. C.A., 250 SCRA 485

3. Reopening Distinguished from Motion for New Trial:


Sec. 24, Rule 19
Ground

-7-
When available
At whose instance
After either or both parties have offered & closed their evidence, but before judgment:
Agulto v. C.A., 181 SCRA 80 (1990) T
Alegre v. Reyes, 161 SCRA 226 (1988)

4. Motion for Reconsideration (Rule 121)


By Whom and when available (Sec. 1)
Grounds (Sec. 3)
Form & procedure (Sec. 4 & 5)
Effect if granted (Sec. 6)
On appeal with Court of Appeals (Sec. 16, Rule 124)
People v. Enriquez, 90 Phil. 423 (1951)**

C. After Judgment - The Remedy of Appeal:

1. Who May Appeal


Rules 122, 123, 124 &125
Rule 122, Secs. 1:
Any "party":
Martinez, v. C.A., G.R. No. L-112387 October 13, 1994 T
Who may appeal; jumping bail, effect on appeal:
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. V. People, 427 SCRA 456 (2004)T
2. When appeal must be taken; exceptions:
Rule 122, Sec. 6:
Ramirez v. People, G.R. No. 197832, Oct. 2, 2013
"Fresh Period Rule" in criminal cases, applicable:
Yu v. Samson-Tatad, G.R. No. 170979, Feb. 9, 2011
3. Appeal opens the whole case for review:
People v. Torres, G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014
People v. C.A. & Almuete, G.R. No. 144332, June 10, 2004
4. Waiver of appeal
Effect of application for probation on remedy of appeal:
Dimakuta y Maruhom v. People, G.R. No. 206513, October 20, 2015T
Tan v. People, G.R. No. 148194, April 12, 2002**
Absence of accused at promulgation (Rule 120, Sec. 6),
effects on right to appeal; remedy:
Villena v. People, G.R. No. 184091, Jan. 31, 2011

III. Hierarchy of Courts & Their Criminal Jurisdiction:

-8-
A. Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTC), the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities
(MTCC), the Municipal Trial Courts (MTC), and the Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts (MCTC):
Original & Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction:

1. Summary Procedure Jurisdiction:


Revised Rules on Summary Procedure SC Resolution,
Oct. 15, 1991 (RRSP)
a. Subject matter (I, B)
b. Procedure
(1) Procedure proper (III, Sec. 11-17)
(2) Referral to Lupon (Sec. 18)
Certification to File Action, Pre-condition to filing action (Sec.
412, (a) SC CIRCULAR NO. 14-93 July 15, 1993
[Guidelines on the Katarungang Pambarangay Conciliation Procedure to
Prevent Circumvention of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law
(Sections 399-422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, R.A. 7160. Otherwise
Known as the Local Government Code of 1991)]
Uy v. Contreras, G.R. No. 111416, Sept. 26, 1994
(3) Jurisdiction of Lupong Tagapamayapa
Local Government Code of 1991, Chapter 7, Title I, Book III
Subject Matter (Sec. 408) Venue (Sec. 409)
(4) Prohibited pleadings and motions (Sec. 19, RRSP)

2. General Jurisdiction:
Sec. 32, (1) & (2), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691
Sec, 3 & 4, SC Administrative Circular No. 09-94 B.P. Blg. 22:
SC Circular No. 57-97 September 16, 1997
SC Admin. Circular No. 13-2001 February 14, 2001
Alternative Penalties for Violation of BP 22:
Tan v. Mendez, G.R. No. 138669, June 6, 2002
Lunaria v. People, G.R. No. 160127, Nov. 11, 2008

3. Appeal from MTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC to the Regional Trial


Court (RTC):
1. Who may appeal
Sec. 1, Rule 122
Sec. 39, B.P. 129
2. Where to appeal
Sec. 2 (a), Rule 122
3. How appeal taken to Regional Trial Court (RTC)
Sec. 3 (a), Rule 122
Sec. 4, Sec. 9, , Rule 122

-9-
B. Regional Trial Court (RTC):
1. Original & Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction
Sec. 20, B.P. 129 ( As amended by R.A. No. 7691)

2. Jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officials


Sec. 4(a) par. 2, Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as amended
by R.A. NO. 7975 and R.A. NO. 8249
“Committed in relation to their office”:
Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298 (1999)
Magno v. People, 647 SCRA 362 (2011)

3. Special Courts and their jurisdiction over specific offenses or special


penal laws
a. Family Courts
Sec. 3 & 5 (a), R.A. No. 8369 ("Family Courts Act of 1997")
b. Special Criminal Courts
For Kidnapping, Robbery, Dangerous Drugs, Carnapping and
Other Heinous Crimes under R. A. No. 7659.
S.C. ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 51-96
[Superseding Administrative Order No. 173-94 dated 28
September 1994]
c. Environmental Courts
(AO No. 23-2008, Re: Designation of Special Courts to
Hear, Try, and
Decide Environmental Cases, January 28, 2008)

4. Appellate jurisdiction of RTC :


Sec. 2 (a), Rule 122
Sec. 3 (a), Rule 122

IV. Modes of Appeal to the Court of Appeals from the RTC:

A. Petition for Review:


In cases decided by the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction -
Rule 122, Sec. 3 (b)
Rule 42, Sec. 1
Rule 41, Sec. 2 (b)
Tan v. People, G.R. No. 148194, April 12, 2002
SEE: SC CIRCULAR NO. 2-90* March 9, 1990 (GUIDELINES TO
BE OBSERVED IN APPEALS TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS AND TO THE SUPREME COURT)
People v. Abon, G.R. No. 169245. February 15, 2008,

-10-
569 PHIL 298-309

B. Ordinary Appeal:
In cases decided in the exercise of its original jurisdiction -
Rule 41, Sec. 2 (a)
Period of ordinary appeal, Sec. 3, Rule 41
Notice of Appeal, Sec. 5, Rule 41
Perfection of appeal, Sec. 9, Rule 41

1. Death Penalty Cases


R.A. 9346
Rule 122, secs. 3 (d), 10 (as amended by SC A.M. No. 00-5-03 [October
15, 2004]; Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
to Govern Death Penalty Cases); cf. RA 9346;
Rule 124, sec. 12, 13 (as amended by SC A.M. No.00-5-03 [October 15,
2004];
Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to Govern
Death Penalty Cases) Rule 125;

2. Penalty is re c lu s io n p e rp e tu a or life imprisonment


Rule 122, Sec. 3 (c) Rule 124, Sec. 12
A.M. No. 04-9-05-SC Re: Uniform Resolution on the Transfer of Cases to the
Court of Appeals per People vs. Mateo Intermediate Appeal
People v. Mateo, 433 SCRA 640 (2004)**
People v. Abon, 545 SCRA 606 (2007)**
Appeal to Supreme Court not mandatory:
People v. Rocha, 531 SCRA 761 (2007)
No automatic appeal:
People v. Salome, 500 SCRA 659, Aug. 31, 2006

3. Other rules and principles of appeal:


a) Rule & Exception:
Tabujara III vs. People, 570 SCRA 229 (2008)
b) Appeal and certiorari distinguished :
Magestrado vs. People, 527 SCRA 125 (2007)T
c) Appeal by any of several accused:
Rule 122, sec. 11;
Applied to accused appealing separately:
Constantino v. Sandiganbayan, 533 SCRA 205 (2007)
Lim v. C.A., G.R. No. 147524, June 20, 2006
d) Withdrawal of appeal
Rule 122, sec. 12;

-11-
PD 968 (as amended), sec. 4;
e) Effects of death of accused pending appeal
People vs. Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova, G.R. No. 102007, Sept. 2, 1994
Villegas v. CA, 271 SCRA 148 (1997);
People v. Ayochok, 629 SCRA 324 (2010)
f) Effect of failure to appeal a patently wrong judgment
People v. Barro Sr., 338 SCRA 312 (2000);

4. Appeal a Judgment of Acquittal:


Acquittal for offense charged & guilty for lesser offense:
People v. Asis, G.R. No. 173089, Aug. 25, 2010
Villareal v. Aliga, G.R. No 166995, January 13, 2014
Acquittal arising from demurrer:
Merciales v. C.A., 379 SCRA 345 (2002)**
People v. Basco, G.R. NO. 164577, July 5, 2010
Mupas v. People, G.R. No. 189365, Oct. 12, 2011
Double jeopardy has attached:
Bangayan v. Go-Bangayan, G.R. No. 172777/172792, Oct. 19, 2011
Person aggrieved:
Rodriguez v. Gadiane, G.R. No. 152903, July 17, 2006

5. Dismissal of appeal by C.A.


Sec. 8 Rule 124

V. Modes of Appeal to the Supreme Court:

A. "Pe titio n o n Re v ie w o n Ce rtio rari" - Directly From the


Regional Trial Court:
Rule 45, Sec. 1 in relation to Rule 41, Sec. 2
Only questions of law:

B. Petition for Certiorari


Rule 65
C. Other principles/rules:
1. Finality of acquittal doctrine & exception:
Villareal v. People, G.R. No. 151258, 154954, 155101, 178057 &
178080, [February 1, 2012], 680 PHIL 527-608) supraT
People v. Laguio, G.R. No. 128587, March 16, 2007
Galman v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 72670 Sept. 12, 1986**
People vs. Enrique Asis, G.R. No. 173089, August 25, 2010, supra
People v. Velasco, 340 SCRA 207 (2000)**
2. Improvident Plea; Remand & Re-arraignment When Proper:

-12-
People v. Molina, G.R. Nos. 141129-33, December 14, 2001;
Ong vs. Genio, 609 SCRA 188, Dec. 23, 2009
3. Even split or no majority in Supreme Court
Rule 125, sec. 3;
Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, 71 SCRA 231(1976)

VI. The Anti-Graft Court (Sandiganbayan) and the Office of the Ombudsman
A. The Office of the Ombudsman:
Article XI - 1987 Philippine Constitution - Accountability of Public Officers
Rep. Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Law);
Administrative Order No. 08, November 2, 1990 (Clarifying and Modifying
Certain Rules of Procedure)
Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 1990 (Rules of Procedure of the
Office of the Ombudsman)

1. Jurisdiction: Function, powers and duties:


Sec. 13, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution Sec. 15, R.A. No. 6770
Uy v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 105965-70. March 20, 2001
Alejandro v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 173121, April 3, 2013
Ombudsman & Department of Justice (DOJ) Memorandum of
Agreement (March 29 ,2012)

2. Appeals from the Ombudsman actions:


(a) In Administrative Cases -
(i) Appeal to C.A. not S.C.:
Perez vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 429 SCRA 357(2004)
Fabian vs. Desierto, 295 SCRA 470, September 16, 1998
(ii) Suspension for more than 1 month immediately
executory despite appeal:
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals, 640
SCRA 544(2011)
(iii) Annulment of judgment:
Macalalag vs. Ombudsman, 424 SCRA 741(2004)

(b) In Criminal Cases -


Golangco vs. Fung, 504 SCRA 321(2006)
Perez vs. Office of the Ombudsman, supra
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Heirs of Margarita Ventura,
605 SCRA 1(2009)

B. The San d ig an b ay an (The Anti-Graft Court):


Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as amended (Sandiganbayan Law)

-13-
RA 8249 (Amendments to Sandiganbayan Law)
Duncano v. Sandiganbayan (2nd Division), G.R. No. 191894, [July 15, 2015])T

1. Subject matter jurisdiction


Sec. 5, Art. XIII, 1973 Constitution
Sec. 4, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution
Sec.4 (a) of RA 8249
Revised Penal Code (Ch. II, Sec.2 Title VII, Bk. II)
Special Penal Laws

"Crim e s c o m m itte d in re latio n to th e ir o ffic e ."


Montilla and Montejo cases distinguished and applied:
Bartolome v. People, G.R. No. L-64548, July 7, 1986**
Crimes Committed in Relation to Office, General Rule &
Exception:
Rodriguez v. Sandiganbayan, 424 SCRA 236 (2004)
Law at time of commission, not at institution of criminal action (Sec. 4 A P.D. 1606, as
amended by R.A. 8249:
People v. Sandiganbayan & Plaza, G.R. No. 169004, Sept. 15, 2010
Plunder and other offenses by public officers:
Organo v. Sandiganbayan, 320 SCRA 684 (1999)
Rape and Homicide by Mayor Not in Relation To Office:
Sanchez v. Demetriou, G.R. Nos. 111771-77, Nov. 9, 1993

2. Jurisdiction Over Person - “Public Officer”:


(1) "Grade 27 and above"
Sec. 4(a), (1), (2), (3), (4) & (5) Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as
amended by R.A. NO. 7975 and R.A. NO. 8249
(2) Public officials irrespective of salary grade
Sec. 4(a), 1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) & (g)Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as
amended by R.A. NO. 7975 and R.A. NO. 8249
Member of the Sanguniang Panglunsod with SalaryGrade
below 27
People v. Sandiganbayan & Plaza, supra
Lacson v. Executive Secretary, supra
Private persons in conspiracy with the public officer In conspiracy with the
Mayor though not an accountable officer:
Barriga v. Sandiganbayan, 457 SCRA 301 (2005)

3. Appeals from offenses by public officers within RTC jurisdiction:


Sec. 4 (c) par. 3, R.A. No. 8249, amending P.D. No. 1606

-14-
Magno v. People, supra
4. Exclusive and original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of
the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
injunctions
Sec. 4 (c) par. 4, R.A. No. 8249, amending P.D. No. 1606

VII. Remedies After Final Judgment


A. Relief of Judgments:
Rule 38, Sec. 1 &2
For lack of due process or extrinsic fraud; by private complainant?:
Basco v. Court of Appeals, (Resolution) G.R. No. 125290, August 9, 2000
Palu-ay v. C.A., G.R., No. 112995, July 30, 1998T

B. Annulment of Judgments by Court of Appeals in civil actions from RTC:


Rule 47, Sec. 1 & Grounds:
People v. Bitanga, G.R. NO. 159222, June 26, 2007T
Suspension of technical rules , pro hac vice:
See Llamas v. C.A., G.R. No. 149588, August 16, 2010
Macalalag v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 147995, March 4, 2004

C. Habeas Corpus (Rule 102)


Gumabon v. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420 (1971)T
Habeas Corpus and Post conviction DNA examination;
"Newly discovered evidence" and New Trial:
In Re: Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo de Villa 442 SCRA 706 (2004)**T
Read J. Carpio’s opinion

PART II

-15-
RULE 126 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE3
Pertinent Documents & Pleadings:
(1) Search Warrant;
(2) Documents as basis for issuance:
Request for Issuance;
Affidavit/s of complainant or witnesses
Others (Photographs, sketches, etc.)
(3) Motion to Quash Search Warrant
(4) Motion to Suppress
(5) Motion for Return of Property Seized

I. Nature, scope and definition


A. Definition & Nature
Const. (1987), art. III, Secs. 2, 3;
Rule 126, Secs. 1, 13;
Moncado abandoned & “Exclusionary Rule” adopted:
Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 (1967);T
Warrantless search presumed “unreasonable”; “protects persons not places”;
“plain view”:
People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 25 (2000)**T
“People not places”; “reasonable expectation of privacy” test:
Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967);T
GPS attached to vehicle is a search; Katz not substitute for trespassory test:
U.S. v. Jones, 565 US (2012)T
Private searches:
Governmental interference:
People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991);T
Right of lawful occupant as against right of property owner to search:
Silahis International Hotel, Inc. V. Panlilio, G.R. No. 163087, 02-20-2006;
Vessel Security officer:
People v. Bongcarawan, 384 SCRA 525 (2002)
See: Is spousal or privacy of communication as exception?
Zulueta v. C.A., 253 SCRA 699 (1996)T
Search & Seizure in Civil Cases of Infringement
A.M. No. 02-1-06-SC, Jan. 30, 2002 (Rule on Search and
Seizure in Civil Actions for Infringement of Intellectual
Property Rights)
Yao v. People, G.R. No. 168306, June 19, 2007

3
Revised Feb. 2016.

-16-
B. Constitutional and statutory boundaries; limitations on State action
1. Nature of right protected; waiver of protected right
Katz v. U.S., supra
Deference to one's personality at the core of this right:
Villanueva v. Querubin, 48 SCRA 349 (1972);
Legality of "areal target zonings" or saturation drives":
Guanzon v. De Villa, 181 SCRA 623 (1990);
Governmental transgression
People v. Marti, supra

2. Scope of protection
Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 3(1);
Katz v. U.S., supra
People v. Valdez, supra

“Enhanced Senses” and “Reasonable expectation of privacy”:


Thermal imaging device:
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
Aerial observation“naked eye:
California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986)
Aerial search using device:
Dow Chemicals v. U.S., 476 U. S. 227 (1986)
Sniff Dog:
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005)
Curtilage as part of the home:
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___ (2013) -
Aldo’s reliability and probable cause:
Florida v. Harris, No. 11–817. Argued October 31, 2012,
Decided February 19, 2013
“Plant” as an illegal search:
Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966)
Garbage search:
California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988) -T

Washington vs. Boland, 115 Wn.2d 57 (1990); 800P.2d 1112


GPS Tracking device:
U.S. v. Jones, 565 U. S. ____; 132 S. Ct. 945 (Jan. 23, 2012)T
Airport searches:
People v. Canton, G.R. No. 148825, December 27, 2002
Porch search by “sniff-dog”:
Florida v. Jardines, No. 11–564. Argued October 31, 2012—Decided

-17-
March 26, 2013T

RA 4200 4200 (Anti-wire Tapping Law):


Extension line:
Gaanan vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-69809 October 16, 1986

RA 9272 (Human Security Act of 2007):


Exception to R.A. 4200, Interception and Recording of Communications
Sec. 7-16
Rule 126, sec. 13;

C. Types
1. With A Search Warrant
a. Generally
Rule 126, sec. 1;
People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626 (1998)T
Manalili v. CA, 280 SCRA 400 (1997)

b. Venue of application; jurisdiction of court


Rule 126, sec. 2;
BP 129 (as amended by RA 7691), sec. 21;
Interim Rules (January 11, 1983), par. A3;
Laud v. People, GR. No. 199032, Nov. 20, 2014T
Malaloan v. CA, 232 SCRA 249 (1994)**T
People v. CA, 291 SCRA 400 (1998);

c. Requisites for issuance


Rule 126, sec. 1; cf. Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 2;
Abuan v. People, G.R. No. 168773. October 27, 2006T
PICOP v. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253 (1999)

(1) Concept of probable cause in search warrants


Corro v. Lising, G.R. No. L-69899 July 15, 1985**
Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800 (1984) EB;
Stonehill v. Diokno, supra

(2) Determining probable cause:

i) Person Authorized: Who determines?


Const. (1987), Art. III, sec. 2;
Rule 126, sec. 4;
Bache v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823 (1971)T

-18-
People v. Mamaril, 420 SCRA 662 (2004)T
Kho v. Makalintal, 306 SCRA 70**
Tan v. Sy Tiong Gue, 613 SCRA 98 (2010)
Ogayon v. People, G.R. No. 188794, Sept. 2, 2015T

ii) Procedure: How is it determined?


Rule 126, sec. 5;
Pe rs o n al e xam in atio n b y s e arc h in g q u e s tio n s o f c o m p lain an t,
d e p o s itio n & w itn e s s e s :
People v. Choi, G.R. No. 152950, August 3, 2006T
Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 (1984)**
Kho vs. Makalintal, supra
Bache v. Ruiz, supra
PICOP v. Asuncion, supra
People v. Tuan, supra

iii) One specific offense:


Rule 126, Sec. 4;
Coca-Cola v. Gomez, 571 SCRA 18 (2008)

(3) Description of things to be seized


Kho v. Macalintal, supra;
Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc., 438 SCRA 224 (2004)
Bache vs. Ruiz, supra;

(4) Description of place to be searched


People v. Estrada, 296 SCRA 383 (1998)T
Esquillo vs. People, G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010
Roan vs. Gonzales, supra
PICOP v. Asuncion, supra
People v. C.A., supra

d. Things that may be seized


Rule 126, sec. 3;
Laud v. People, GR. No. 199032, Nov. 20, 2014T
Burgos vs. Chief of Staff, supra
California v. Greenwood, supra
Washington vs. Boland, supra
Rules on DNA Evidence A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC October 2, 2007
People v. Umanito, G.R. #172607 Oct. 26, 2007T
People v. Umanito, G.R. #172607, April 16, 2009T
Buccal swab after arrest:

-19-
Maryland v. King, No. 12–207. Argued February 26, 2013—Decided
June 3, 2013T
Blood Test for DUI:
Missouri v. McKeeny, U.S. No. 11–1425. Argued January 9, 2013
—Decided April 17, 2013T

e. Form and content of warrant; lifetime of warrant:


Rule 126, sec. 1, 6, 10;
Bache v. Ruiz, supra
Mustang Lumber v. CA, 257 SCRA 430 (1996)T

f. Validity of warrant
People v. Estrada, supra
People v. CA, supra

g. Scope of Search with Warrant of Arrest


Valeroso v. C.A., G.R. No. 164815, 2009-09-03T

2. Warrantless Search & Seizure:


a. Search incident to lawful arrest
Rule 126, sec. 13;
People v. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915 April 3, 1998T
“Reliabe information” insufficient:
People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, August 3, 2010T
Other cases:
People v. Molina, G.R. No. 133917, February 19, 2001**T
People v. Binad Chua, G.R. Nos. 136066-67, February 4, 2003T
People v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432 (1999)**T
U.S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
People v. Valdez, supra
People v. Padilla, 269 SCRA 402 (1997);
Cadua v. CA, 312 SCRA 703 (1999);
Office of the Court Administrator v. Barron, 297 SCRA 376 (1998);
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)T
Nolasco v. Paño, 147 SCRA 509 (1987);T
Cf. Nolasco v. Paño, 139 SCRA 152 (1985);
See Dissenting opinions of J. Teehankee, J. Abad Santos
& J. Cuevas
Posadas v. CA, 188 SCRA 288 (1990)
People vs. Cuizon, 265 SCRA 325
Malacat v. CA, 283 SCRA 159 (1997)**T
Maryland v. King, No. 12–207. Argued February 26,

-20-
2013—Decided June 3, 2013 T

Warrantless Search of Computers & Cell Phones:


Computers:
Anonymous Letter-complaint Against Atty. Miguel
Morales, Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court of
Manila, A.M. No. P-08-2519 November 19, 2008*T
Polo v. David, G.R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011** T

Cellphones:
Riley v. California, June 25, 2014 T

b. Consented search
People v. Malasigui, 63 Phil. 221 (1936);
Alvarez v. CFI, 64 Phil. 48 (1937);
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973)
People vs. Cuizon, 265 SCRA 325

(1) Peaceful submission not consent to search


Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689 (1938);
Written consent:
Roan v. Gonzales, supra

(2) Effect of voluntary surrender


People v. Agbot, 106 SCRA 325 (1981);

(3) Effect of posting bail


Rule 114, sec. 26;

c. “Stop and Frisk”, Roadblocks & Checkpoints,


and Other Less Intrusive Searches

“Sto p an d Fris k”:


It origin:
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968);T
Other cases:
People v. Binad Chua, supra
Malacat v. CA, supra
Esquillo v. People, 629 SCRA 370 (2010)T
Note - J. Bersamin dissenting
People v. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334. July 30, 2014
Airport searches:

-21-
People v. Canton, G.R. No. 148825, Dec. 27, 2002, supra

Roadblocks & Checkpoints:


Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979);
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000)
Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325
Caballes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002;
People v. Lacerna, 278 SCRA 561 (1997)
People v. Solayao, 262 SCRA 255 (1996)
People v. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401(1991)
People vs. Encinada, G.R. No. 116720. October 2, 1997

Checkpoints:
Valmonte v. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989);
Aniag vs. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 424 (1994);
People v. Vinecario, 420 SCRA 280 (2004)T

d. Moving vehicles/hot pursuit


Impracticability of a warrant:
People v. Bagista, G.R. No. 86218, September 18, 1992.T
Read: J. Padilla dissenting
People v. Mariacos, G.R. No. 188611, June 16, 2010T
Probable cause for search required:
People vs. Lapitaje, 397 SCRA 674 (2003)
People v. Balingan, 241 SCRA 277 (1995);T
People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, August 3, 2010
Caballes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002;
Asuncion v. CA, 302 SCRA 490 (1999);
Roldan v. Arca, 65 SCRA 336 (1975);
People v. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122 (1990);

e. "Plain View" & “Plain Touch” Doctrine:


People v. Cubcubin, Jr.
“PlainView”:
Moving the object is a search and not inadvertence?
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987)T
People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597 (1993);T
Peeping through a window:
People v. Bolasa, 321 SCRA 459 (1999);
People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668 (1999);
People v. Evaristo, 216 SCRA 431 (1992);

-22-
People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 24 (2000)T
Partly defective warrant; limits of “plain view”
People v. Salanguit, 356 SCRA 683 (2001)T
“Plain Touch”:
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 113 S.Ct. 2130 (1993)

f. Private Searches & "State Expansion of Private Search"


People v. Marti, supra
People v. Bongcarawan, G.R. No. 143944. July 11, 2002
State v. Von Bulow, 475 A.2d 995
See: Zulueta v. C.A., 253 SCRA 699 (1996)

g. Extraordinary circumstances:
People v. De Gracia, 233 SCRA 716 (1994);
Bringham City v. Stuart, 126 S.Ct. 1943 (2006)

h. Concepts of : "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree"; "Attenuation"; "Inevitable


Discovery"
Its origin:
Nardone v. U.S., 308 U.S. 338
Further application:
Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471
Nix vs. Williams, 467 U.S. 431

II. Procedure for service of warrant; post-service procedure


A. Service of warrant
1. Time of search
Rule 126, sec. 9;
2. Two-witness rule
Rule 126, sec. 8;
People v. Gesmundo, 219 SCRA 743 (1993);
3. Breaking of door or window to effect search
Rule 126, sec. 7;
People vs. Huang Zhen Hua, 439 SCRA 350 (2004)

B. Post-service procedure
People v. Gesmundo, supra
1. Issuance of Receipt
Rule 126, sec. 11;
People v. Lacbanes, 270 SCRA 193 (1997);
2. Delivery of property and inventory; return and proceedings on the
return:

-23-
Rule 126, sec. 12;
People v. Gesmundo, supra

III. Remedies against unreasonable search and seizure


1. “Exclusionary Rule”: Motion to quash search
warrant or suppress evidence :
Art. III, Sec. 3 (2)
Rule 126, sec. 14;
RA 8493, sec. 2(d) (cf. Rule 118, sec. 2[d];)
Candelaria v. RTC Br. 42, G.R. No. 173861. July 14, 2014T
Abuan v. People, G.R. No. 168773. October 27, 2006T
Stonehill v. Diokno, supra
Bache v. Ruiz, supra
Rakes v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978);
PICOP v. Asuncion, supra
Solid Triangle Sales Corporation v. Sheriff of RTC QC, Branch 9,
G.R. No. 144309, November 23, 2001

2. Waiver of Jurisdiction & Non Waiver of Admissibility:


People vs. Lapitaje, 397 SCRA 674 (2003);
Esquillo vs. People, G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010

3. Return of property illegally seized:


Uy Kheytin v. Villareal, 42 Phil. 892 (1920);
Magoncia v. Palacio, 80 Phil. 170 (1948);
Collector v. Villaluz, 71 SCRA 356 (1976);
Mata v. Bayona, 128 SCRA 388 (1984);

4. Criminal liability and Civil Damages:


Rev. Pen. Code, Arts. 128, 129, 130, 206;
MHP Garments v. CA, 236 SCRA 227 (1994);
Remedy against warrantless searches:
Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained (Art.
129) & Searching domicile without witnesses (Art. 130)
Galvante v. Casimiro, G.R. No. 162808, April 22, 2008
Civil Damages:
Silahis International Hotel, Inc. V. Panlilio, G.R. No. 163087, 02-20-2006

-24-
PART III

RULE 113 - ARREST4


Pertinent Pleadings & Documents:
(1) Warrant of Arrest
(2) Petition for Habeas Corpus
(3) Motion to Quash Warrant of Arrest
(4) Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause

I. Nature and Definition

A. Definition
Rule 113, Secs. 1, 2;
Sanchez v. Demetriou, 227 SCRA 627 (1993);
People v. Sequiño, 264 SCRA 79 (1996);
Defensor-Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 663 (1993);

Cf. Diplomatic and parliamentary immunities from arrest


Const. (1987), art. VI, sec. 11;
Rev. Pen. Code, art. 145;
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Arts. 31, 37;
Visiting Forces Agreement, Art. V;

B. Types
1. With a warrant
a. When and how warrant issued
Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 2;
Rule 112, sec. 5;
May dismiss instead of issue warrant
Ong vs. Genio, 609 SCRA 188, Dec. 23, 2009;

4
Updated July 2016

-25-
People v. Yadao, G.R. Nos. 162144-54, Nov. 13, 2012 (EB)T
“[O]nly when evidence plainly fails to establish probable cause.”
De los Santos-Dio v. Caguioa, G.R. No. 178947& G.R. No. 179079, June
26, 2013T
Young v. People, G.R. No. 213910, Feb. 03, 2016T
NO T E: Co m p are Yad ao to San to s -Dio & Yo u n g !

b. Requisites for issuance


Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 2;
Rule 112, Sec. 6 (a);
Rule 112, Sec. 8;

(1) By a Regional Trial Court:


Concept of probable cause in issuance of warrant:
Allado v. Diokno, 232 SCRA 192 (1994)T
Rule 112 (5); Options; Probable cause determination; Distinction
between Fiscal and Judge’s determination of probable cause:
People v. Yadao, supra
De los Santos-Dio v. Caguioa, supra
Young v. People, supra
Personal determination:
Must judge personally examine complainant & witnesses?:
Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393 (1988)T
Procedure & Options in Determination of Probable Cause:
People v. Grey, 625 SCRA 523 (2010)T
Roberts v. C.A., 254 SCRRA 307**T
Ho vs. People, 280 SCRA 285 (1997)
Okabe vs. Gutierrez, 429 SCRA 685 (2004)T
AAA vs. Carbonell, 524 SCRA 496 (2007)
DOJ-National Prosecution Service Manual for Prosecutors, Part VI, sec. 1;

(2) Inferior Courts


Rule 112, Sec. 9 (b) in relation to 6 (b):
Must examine complainant and witnesses:
Tabujara III vs. People, 570 SCRA 229 (2008)
Not mandatory to issue warrant:
Gutierrez v. Hernandez, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1628, June 8, 2007,

c. How effected or served


Rule 113, secs. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7;
People v. Lumayok, 139 SCRA 1 (1985);
People v. Albior, 163 SCRA 332 (1988);

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


Rule 113, secs. 10, 11, 12;
People vs. Huang Zhen Hua, G.R. No. 139301, September 29, 2004

2. Warrantless (In flag ran te De lic to & “Hot Pursuit”)


a. When justified:

-26-
(1) Old Rule:
Rule 113, sec. 5, !985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 (1986);T
People v. Joselito Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999 (EB)T
Cadua v. CA, 312 SCRA 703 (1999);
Padilla v. C.A., 269 SCRA 402 (1997)

U.S. Rule on Warrantless Arrests:


United States v. Watson (No. 74-538), 423 U.S. 411

(2) New Rule:


Rule 113, sec. 5
Umil v. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251 (1991)
Sec. 5 (a) (In flagrante delicto):
Personal knowledge; criminal record:
People v. De los Reyes, G.R. No. 174774, Aug. 31, 2011T
“Penal knowledge”:
Valdez v. C.A., G.R. No. 170180, Nov. 23, 2007
Intent to arrest; “jaywalking”:
Homar v. People, G.R. No. 182534, Sept. 2, 2015T
Traffic ticketing not an arrest and ground for search:
Luz v. People, G.R. No. 197788. February 29, 2012.T

People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668 (1999)T


See J. Panganiban, concurring.**
People v. Molina, G.R. No. 133917, Feb. 19, 2001**
People v. Binad Chua, 396 SCRA 657 (2003);
People v. Jayson, 282 SCRA 166 (1997)

Sec. 5 (b) (Hot Pursuit):


Pestilos v. Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, Nov. 10, 2014 T
Read J. Leonen Dissent
Go vs. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 138(1992)
Cadua v. CA, 312 SCRA 703 (1999);
People v. Doria, supra
Larranaga v. C A, 287 SCRA 581 (1998);
People v. Tudtud, 412 SCRA 142 (2003);T
People vs. Racho, 626 SCRA 633 (2010)
People v. Mendez, G.R. No. 147671, Nov. 21, 2002 (EB);
Cadua v. CA, 312 SCRA 703 (1999);
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968);
People v. Escordial, G.R. Nos. 138934-35, Jan. 16, 2002 (EB)T

b. Method of arrest by officer


Rule 113, sec. 8;
People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455 (1999)

R.A. 7438 [Gu id e lin e s , p ro c e d u re s an d d u tie s o f o ffic e rs arre s tin g , d e tain in g , in v itin g o r
in v e s tig atin g at th e tim e o f arre s t o r at c u s to d ial in te rro g atio n ];

-27-
c. Method of arrest by private person
Rule 113, sec. 9;

d. Post-arrest procedure
Rule 112, sec. 7;

e. Exceptions construed strictly


People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 140 (1999);
People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 (1985);

f. Special Rule for Juveniles in Conflict with Law


Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with Law (RJCL), secs. 6, 7;
Rep. Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006; JJWA), secs. 21, 22;

3. John Doe warrants:


People v. Veloso, 48 Phil. 169;
Pangandaman v. Casar, 159 SCRA 599 (1988);
DOJ Circular No. 50, October 29, 1990;

4. “DNA” Warrants:
DNA warrants: A panacea for old, cold rape cases?
Georgetown Law Journal, Apr 2002 by Valdivieso, Veronica
Se e : Denver District Attorney’s Office:
http://www.denverda.org/DNA/John_Doe_DNA_Warrants.htm]
PDF Samples of :
1. The John Doe Arrest Warrant.
2. The John Doe Complaint With Genetic Profile.
3. The John Doe Arrest Warrant With Alles
4. The John Doe Amended Complaint After Cold Hit
5. The brief in support of John Doe Warrants

5. Invitations:
Babst, et al. v. NIB, 132 SCRA 316 (1984);
People v. Sequino, 264 SCRA 79 (1996);
People v. Del Rosario, 305 SCRA 740 (1999)
R.A. No. 7438
People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755 April 14, 1999;
305 SCRA 740 (1999)**
People v. Olivarez, Jr., G.R. No. 77865 | 1998-12-04

II. Custodial Investigation

A. Source, Definition, Scope and Procedure

1. Definition
People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755 April 14, 1999;
305 SCRA 740 (1999)**T
People v. Guting, G.R. No. 205412, Sept. 9, 2015T
Navallo v. Sanidaganbayan, G.R. No. 97214, July 16, 1994**

-28-
People v. Pasudag, G.R. No. 128822, May 4, 2001;
People v. Abe Valdez, G.R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000, 341 SCRA 25;
People v. Rodriguez, 341 SCRA 645 (2000);
Republic Act No. 7438, sec. 2(f), par. 2;
Cf. Babst v. NIB, 132 SCRA 31 (1984);
People v. Muleta, 309 SCRA 148 (1999);
People v. Tan, 286 SCRA 207 (1998);
Confession and Admission Distinguished:
People v. Zuela, 323 SCRA 589 (2000);

2. Duty of police during custodial investigation; procedure

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


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

Cf. People v. Ordono, 334 SCRA 673 (2000);

B. Rights Involved and consequences of violation

1. Rights involved
Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 12 (1), (2);
Republic Act No. 7438, sec. 2(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f);
People v. Obrero, 332 SCRA 190 (2000);
People v. Mojello, G.R. No. 145566, March 9, 2004**

2. Consequences of violation
Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 12 (3)
Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971);
New York v. Quarles, 104 S. Ct. 2626 (1984);
People v. Duero, 104 SCRA 379 (1981);
People v. Figueroa, 335 SCRA 299 (2000);
Gumabon v. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 429 (1971);
Republic Act No. 7438, sec. 4:

C. Specific requirements in case law:

1. Waiver of right to counsel


People v. Caguioa, 141 SCRA 289 (1980);
People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985);
People v. Continente, 339 SCRA 1 (2000);

Cf. People v. Bacor, 306 SCRA 522 (1999);


People v. Quidato Jr., 297 SCRA 1 (1998);

2. Counsel of choice during custodial investigation


People v. Obrero, 332 SCRA 190 (2000);
People v. Labtan, 320 SCRA 140 (1999);

-29-
People v. Samulde, 336 SCRA 632 (2000);
People v. Gallardo, 323 SCRA 218 (2000);

3. Compliance with requirement to inform person detained of rights


People v. Canoy, 328 SCRA 385 (2000);
People v. Sapal, 328 SCRA 417 (2000);
People v. Jara, 144 SCRA 517 (1986);
People v. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289 (1986);
People v. Continente, 339 SCRA 1 (2000);

4. Police line-up, show-up


People v. Amestuzo, G.R. No. 104383, July 12, 2001; 413 Phil. 500 (2001)
Gamboa v. Cruz, June 27, 1988;
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967);
People v. Pavillare, 329 SCRA 684 (2000);
People v. Escordial, G.R. Nos. 138934-35, Jan. 16, 2002 (EB)T

5. Proof of voluntariness of confession; burden on prosecution


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

6. Exceptional cases of uncounseled confessions not held to be excluded


People v. Andan, 269 SCRA 95 (1997);
People v. Domantay, 307 SCRA 1 (1999);

But cf. People v. Morada, 307 SCRA 362 (1999);

III. Rights and Remedies

A. Rights of persons under arrest


Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 12;
Rule 113, sec. 14;
RA No. 7438, sec. 2;
People v. Suela, 373 SCRA 163 (2002)**
People v. Ramos, 186 SCRA 184 (1990);
People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985);
People v. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289 (1986);
People v. Decierdo, 149 SCRA 496 (1987);

Cf. V.V. Mendoza, The Right to Counsel in Custodial Interrogations, 61 PHIL. L. J. 409 (1986);

B. Remedies

1. Motion to Quash Warrant


Miranda vs. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377 (2006)
Cf. - Talag vs. Reyes, 430 SCRA 428 (2004)
De Joya vs. Marquez, 481 SCRA 376 (2006)

2. Motion to quash information; Preliminary investigation/Reinvestigation


Rule 117, secs. 1, 3;

-30-
Luna v. Plaza, 26 SCRA 310 (1968);
Alimpoos v. CA, 106 SCRA 159 (1981);

3. Motion for determination of probable cause


Rule 112, Sec. 5:
People v. Yadao, G.R. Nos. 162144-54, Nov. 13, 2012 (EB)T
De los Santos-Dio v. Caguioa, G.R. No. 178947& G.R. No. 179079, June 26, 2013T

4. Bail
Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 14;
RJCL, secs. 15, 16, 17;
JJWA, secs. 34, 35, 36 cf. sec. 4(p);
Rule 114, sec. 26;
Panada v. Veneracion, 269 SCRA 371 (1997);

5. (a) Habeas Corpus


Rule 102
Sec. of National Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, Oct. 7, 2008
Ilagan v. Enrile, 139 SCRA 349 (1985);
Velasco v. CA, 245 SCRA 677 (1995);
Moncupa v. Enrile, 141 SCRA 233 (1986);

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


Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
V.V. Mendoza, A Note On The Writ Of Amparo, PLJ 82 No. 4 (2008)
State participation, indispensable:
Navia v. Pardico, G.R. No. 184467, June 19, 2012**
Rubrico vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, 613 SCRA 233 (2010)
Yano vs. Sanchez, 612 SCRA 347 (2010)
Razon, Jr. Vs. Tagitis, 612 SCRA 685 (2010)

(c) Effects of plea on objections to legality of arrest


People v. Alojado, 305 SCRA 236 (1999);
People v. Rondero, 320 SCRA 383 (1999);
See cited case in Esquillo vs. People, J. Bersamin Dissenting Aug. 25, 2010
People vs. Racho, 626 SCRA 633 (2010)

Cf. also Non-curability of illegal nature of arrest

Umil v. Ramos, 187 SCRA 311 (1990);


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

6. Criminal liability for unlawful arrest


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

7. Suppression of evidence obtained


Const. (1987), art. III, secs. 3(2), 12(3), 12(4);
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975);

-31-
Sayo v. Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 859 (1948);
Cf. Rule 126, sec. 14;

-32-
RULE 114 - BAIL

Pertinent pleadings:
(1) Motion to set bail/Petition for bail
(2) Motion to reduce bail
Pertinent Rules and Laws:
1) Rule 114, 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure
2) Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails By Enforcing the Rights of Accused Persons to Bail and to
Speedy Trial (A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC [March 18, 2014])
3) Bail Not Required In Certain Offenses (R.A. No. 6036)
4) Recognizance Act of 2012" (R.A. No. 10389)
PPA-DOJ Internal Guidelines for the Implementation of Republic Act No. 10389
5) Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC)

I. Nature and Definition

A. Definition; persons covered or required to post bail

- Rule 114, secs. 1, 3;


Feliciano v. Pasicolan, 2 SCRA 888 (1961) (EB)
Villaseñor v. Abaño, G.R. No. L-23599, September 29, 1967 (EB)
Defensor-Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 663 (1993);
Miranda v. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377 (2006)
Cortes v. Catral, 279 SCRA 1 (1997);
People v. Manallo, 400 SCRA 129 (2003);
People v. Nitcha, 240 SCRA 283 (1995)
SC-Admin. Circ. No. 2-92 Jan. 20, 1992 Cancellation of Bail Bond of Accused Convicted
of Capital Offense by the Regional Trial Court

B. Nature

1. Matter of right
- Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 13;
- Rule 114, sec. 4;
- JJWA, secs.34-37;
- RJCL, sec. 15, 16;
- People v. Donato, 198 SCRA 130 (1991);
- San Miguel v. Judge Maceda, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1749, April 4, 2007

Cf. Arraignment not pre-requisite to bail


- Lavides v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129670, February 1, 2000;
- Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, 396 SCRA 443 (2003);

Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847. August 18, 2015**


Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, July 12, 2016 (Resolution)**

2. Discretionary

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

-33-
- Rule 114, secs. 5, 6, 7, 8, 24;
- RJCL, sec. 17;
- Teehankee v. Director of Prisons, 76 Phil. 756 (1946);
- People v. San Diego, 26 SCRA 522 (1988);
- Ocampo v. Bernabe, 77 Phil. 55 (1946);
- Siazon v. Judge, 4 SCRA 184 (1971);
- Mamolo v. Narisima, 252 SCRA 613 (1995);

Cf. Duties of Judge


- Cortes v. Catral, 279 SCRA 1 (1997);
- People v. Tuppal, 395 SCRA 72 (2003);

See also Interim bail


- Enrile v. Perez, G.R. No. 147785 (resolution of the Supreme Court En banc dated May 5,
2001);

II. Procedure
10, III, Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (A.M.
No. 15-06-10-SC)
1. Petition for Bail
2. Evidence in Petition for Bail
3. Non-suspension of the presentation of evidence

III. Types and conditions of bail

A. Corporate surety
- Rule 114, secs. 1. 2, 10, 13, 21, 22;

B. Cash deposit
- Rule 114, secs. 1, 2, 14, 21;

C. Property
- Rule 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22;

D. Recognizance
- Bail Not Required In Certain Offenses (R.A. No. 6036)
Tubao v. Judge Barataman, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1384, April 11, 2002
- “Recognizance Act of 2012" (R.A. No. 10389)
PPA-DOJ Internal Guidelines for the Implementation of Republic Act No. 10389
- Rule 114, secs. 1, 2, 15, 16;
- RJCL, secs. 6(i), 15;
- JJWA, secs. 4(p), 35;

IV. Amount of bail; when not required

A. Guidelines
- Rule 114, sec. 9;
- Dela Camara v. Enage, 41 SCRA 1 (1971);
- Villasenor v. Abano, 21 SCRA 321 (1967);

-34-
B. When not required or reduced
- Rule 114, secs. 16, 20;
- Rep. Act No. 6036;

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


- Rule 114, secs. 21, 22, 23;Bail

VI. Bail filed with other courts:


- Rule 114, Sec. 17
- Re: Anonymous Letter-complaint against Hon. Tamang, 617 SCRA 428 (2010)

VII. Bail on Appeal:


- Sec. 5
Consent of bondsman necessary:
Maguddatu v. C.A., G.R. No. 139599, February 23, 2000
Leviste vs. C.A., G.R. No. 189122. March 17, 2010T

-35-
PART IV
RULE 110
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
&
RULE 127
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN
CRIMINAL CASES*****

Pertinent Forms:
(1) Complaint
(2) Information
(3) Authority to Appear as Private Prosecutor

Pertinent Pleadings:
(1) Motion for Suspension of Criminal Action
(2) Reservation of Civil Action
(3) Entry of Appearance as Private Prosecutor

I. Nature of liability arising from criminal act

A. Criminal
Revised Penal Code
Special Penal Laws

B. Civil
Rev. Pen. Code, arts. 100-113;
Civil Code, arts. 29, 32, 33, 34, 2176;
Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 322 SCRA 160 (2000)

II. Institution of actions arising from crime

A. Criminal aspect
1. Generally

Sec. 1;
RJCL, sec. 11;
People v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 102955, March 22, 1993.
Rule 110, Sec. 16;
Tolling of prescriptive period:
People v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012
Executive power to prosecute violators:
Ampatuan v. De Lima, G.R. No. 197291, April 3, 2013

*****
Revised & Updated June 2017

-36-
2. Venue and Jurisdiction
BP 129 (as amended), secs. 20, 32;
Rule 110, sec. 15;
RJCL, sec. 14;

a) MTC: (Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the
Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts)
Sec. 32 (2), B.P. 129. (As amended by Sec. 2, R.A.
No. 7691)
Sec. 3 & 4, S.C. ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 9-94

b) RTC
CASES:
People v. Lagon, 185 SCRA 442 (1990)
Malaloan v. CA, 232 SCRA 249 (1994)

3. The complaint/information; test of sufficiency


Art. III, Sec. 14 (1) & (2), 1987 Constitution
Purpose of Information:
Enrile v. People, G.R. No. 213455. August 11, 2015**T
Rule 110, Sec. 6
The Information as one whole:
People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 138364, October 15, 2003**T
Malto v. People, 533 SCRA 643, September 21, 2007

Ultimate facts as distinguished from evidentiary facts, only need be alleged:


Enrile v. People, supra
Lazarte, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 581 SCRA 431 (2009)**T
People v. Sandiganbayan & Castillo, G.R. NO. 160619, Sept. 9, 2015T

Allege elements of the offense & effect of failure


People v. Valdez, 663 SCRA 272 (Jan. 2012)

a) MTC:
(Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the
Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts)
Sec. 11 & 12, 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure

b) RTC:
Rule 110, secs. 2, 3, 4;
DOJ-NPS Manual, Part III, sec. 8;

4. Person prosecuting criminal action; intervention of offended party


Rule 110, secs. 5, 16 (as amended by SC AM No. 02-2-07-SC, April 10,
2002),
No. 4, III (Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal

-37-
Cases [Sept.2017])
Who must prosecute:
Pinote v. Ayco, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1944, [December 13, 2005]
Intervention of offended party through private prosecutor:
Rodriguez v. Ponferrada, G.R. Nos. 155531-34. July 29, 2005.T
Goan v. Yatco, G.R. No. L-6286, December 29, 1953
Physical presence of fiscal or proceedings are void:
People v. Beriales, G.R. No. L-39962, April 7, 1976T
Private complainant’s standing to appeal acquittal:
Delgado v. Gonzalez, GR No. 184337, 07 August 2009T
Merciales v. C.A., G.R. No. 124171, March 18, 2002**T
Fiscal’s consent to dismiss:
Republic v. Sunga, 162 SCRA 191 (1988)T
People v. Ilarde, G.R. No. 58595, October 10, 1983
People v. Tañada, G.R. No. L-32215, October 17, 1988
Role of private complainant:
People v. Madali, 349 SCRA 104 (2001)

Cf. Crespo v. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462 (1987)T


Roberts v. CA, 254 SCRA 307 (1996)

5. Form & Substance: Requirements of Complaint or Information

1) Procedural
a. Name of accused and offended party
(i) Name of the accused:
Secs. 7, Rule 110
“John Doe” Informations
DOJ Department Circular No. 50, Oct. 29,1990
Substitution of private offended party:
Ricarze v. C.A., G.R. No. 160451, February 9, 2007 supra
(ii) Name of offended party in crimes against property:
Sec. 12, Rule 110
(1) When offended party unknown
(2) When true name disclosed
(3) Offended party is a juridical person
Effect of wrong designation of offended party in an information:
Senador v. People, G.R. No. 201620. March 6, 2013T

b. Designation of offense
Rule 110, secs. 8;
DOJ-NPS Manual, Part III, sec. 40;
People v. Purisima, 86 SCRA 542 (1978)
“Sexual Abuse” not element of Rape:
People v. Flores, G.R. No. 128823-24. December 27, 2002
Generic & Qualifying Circumstances must be alleged:

-38-
People v. Pardilla, 92 SCRA 591(1979)**
People v. Buayaban, 400 SCRA 48 (2003)
People v. Delim, G.R. No. 142773, January 28, 2003**
People v. Fernandez, 414 SCRA 84 (2003)
People v. Masapol, 417 SCRA 371 (2003)
Estafa includes falsification as means?:
Patula v. People, G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012
Consequence of failure to allege
People v. Valdez, 663 SCRA 272 (Jan. 2012) supraT

c. Formal amendment
Effect of failure to object:
People v. Degamo, 402 SCRA 133 (2003);
Villaflor v. Viver, 349 SCRA 194 (2001);
Albert v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164015, February 26, 2009

2) Substantive
a. Single offense
Rule 110, sec. 13; Rule 117, Sec. 3 (f): Rule 120, Sec. 3
People v. Fernandez, 183 SCRA 511 (1990);
People v. Lopez, 312 SCRA 684 (1999);

b. Cause of accusation
Rule 110, sec. 9;
Must contain all essential elements of crime charged:
Balitaan v. CFI-Batangas, 115 SCRA 729 (1982);
“Simple theft in relation to P.D. 133" insufficient:
Matilde v. Jabson, 68 SCRA 456 (1975);
Libel information must state defamatory words verbatim and as published:
Vasquez v. CA, G.R. 314 SCRA 460 (1999);
Qualifying circumstance of relationship must be alleged specifically:
People v. Llanto, G.R. No. 146458, January 20, 2003;
Exceptions in statute need not be alleged:
People v. Chan Toco, 12 Phil. 262 (1908)

Evidentiary Facts & Ultimate Facts


Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, supra;
Enrile v. People, G.R. No. 213455, supra

c. Date, place and time of commission


Rule 110, secs. 10, 11;
Precise date only when element of offense:
People v. Buca, G.R. No. 209587, Sept. 23, 2015T
Remedy when time of commission not
definite - “from 1977 to December 1983":
Rocaberte v. People, 193 SCRA 152 (1991);T

-39-
Variance not invalidate information; Supplanted by evidence during trial:
People v. Delfin, G.R. No. 201572, July 9, 2014T
Timely object and show prejudice; remedy of prosecution:
People v. Rivera, G.R. No. L-27825, June 30, 1970**T
U.S. v. Bungaoil, G.R. No. L-11505, August 25, 1916
“On or about . . .”:
People v. Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003T
“On or about the year 1982":
People v. Ladrillo, 320 SCRA 61 (1999);
Other cases:
People v. Losano, G.R. No. 127122, July 20, 1999;
U.S. v. Javier Dichao, 27 Phil. 421 (1914);
People v. Molero, 144 SCRA 397 (1986);
People v. Lualhati, 171 SCRA 277 (1989);

Bill of Particulars purpose and availability:


Enrile v. People, G.R. No. 213455, supraT
Under old criminal procedure:
People v. Abad Santos, G.R. No. L-447, June 17, 1946**
As remedy when time of commission not definite:
Rocaberte v. People, 193 SCRA 152 (1991);T

Cf. Need not be alleged


People v. Perez, 417 SCRA 449 (2003);

6. Suspension of criminal action by reason of prejudicial question


Rule 111, secs. 6, 7;
DOJ-NPS Manual, Part III, secs. 23-24;
SEC nullification case prejudicial to estafa:
People v. Arambulo, G.R. No. 186597, June 17, 2015T
Gaditano v. San Miguel Corp., G.R. No. 188767, July 24, 2013
Annulment not prejudicial to parricide:
Pimentel v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 172060, September 13, 2010
People v. Consing Jr., 395 SCRA 366 (2003);
Magestrado vs. People, 527 SCRA 125 (2007)
Trinidad v. Office of the Ombudsman, 539 SCRA 415 (2007)**
Administrative case as prejudicial issue:
San Miguel Properties, Inc. v., Perez, G.R. No. 166836, Sept. 4, 2013
Independent action for fraud, not prejudicial:
Consing, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 161075, July 15, 2013

III. Remedies available


A. Amendment/Downgrading & Substitution of Information
Rule 110, sec. 14;
DOJ-NPS Manual, Part III, sec. 4;

-40-
i. (c) Meritorious Motions, II, (Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal
Cases [Sept. 2017])
Teehankee v. Madayag, 140 SCRA 425 (1985)**T
Matalam v. Sandiganbayan, 455 SCRA 736 (2005)T
Draculan v. Donato, 140 SCRA 425 (1985);
Almeda v. Villaluz, 66 SCRA 38 (1975);
People v. CA, 121 SCRA 733 (1983)
Galvez v. C.A., G.R. No. 114046, Oct. 24, 1994
People v. Tubongbanua, 500 SCRA 727 (2006)
Excluding an accused by amendment:
Soberano v. People, G.R. No. 154629, [October 5, 2005], 509 PHIL 118-136)T
Substitution:
Pacoy v. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472, Sept. 28, 2007
People v. Mogol, G.R. No. L-37837, Aug. 24, 1984T
Substitution of a private complainant:
Ricarze v. C.A., G.R. No. 160451, February 9, 2007T
When another preliminary investigation is required:
Matalam v. Sandiganbayan, supraT
Amendment as to date:
People v. Rivera, G.R. No. L-27825, June 30, 1970** supra
B. Motion to Withdraw & Motion to Dismiss:
Distinguished:
Torres, Jr. v. Spouses Torres-Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 164268,
[ June 28, 2005]
C. Motion to Quash
Rule 117; Cf. Rule 119, sec. 19;
Cruz v. CA, 194 SCRA 145 (1991);
D. Bill of Particulars
Rule 116, sec. 9;
See: B ill o f Partic u lars in Crim in al Cas e s by Ambrosio R. Blanco,
202 SCRA 739
Enrile v. People, G.R. No. 213455. August 11, 2015**T
Rocaberte v. People, 193 SCRA 152 (1991)

D. Provisional Remedies in Criminal Cases


a) Available provisional remedies
Sec. 1, Rule 127
Rules 57, 58, 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure;
b) Attachment:
Sec. 2, Rule 127
1) Civil action instituted with criminal action;
2) Property attached as security for judgement;
3) Grounds for attachment

-41-

You might also like