Updates in Crimpro 2018 REVISED

ORAL ADVOCACY
IN THE CRIMINAL
LITIGATION PROCESS
Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Seminar
• Laws:
• Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (A.M. No. 15-06-10-
SC)
• Precautionary Hold Departure Order (A.M. No. 18-07-05-SC)
• Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases (OCA Circular No. 90-2018)
• Rule on Cybercrime Warrants (A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC)
• Cases:
• Chain of Custody (People v. Romy Lim, 2018)
• Speedy disposition of cases (Cagang, 2018/Magante, 2018)
• Judicial Affidavit Rule (Lara’s Gift Inc., 2018)
• Hearsay as basis of probable cause (Estrada, 2015)
• Bail (Enrile, 2015, Leviste)
• Bill of Particulars (Enrile, 2015)
• Demurrer to Evidence (Arroyo v. People, 2017)
• Adjustment of penalties RPC (R.A. No. 10951/Hernan , 2017)
Outline
REVISED GUIDELINES FOR
CONTINUOUS TRIAL OF
CRIMINAL CASES
A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC
• Effectivity: September 1, 2017
• Applicability
• All newly filed criminal cases – including those governed
by Special Laws
• In the First and Second Level Courts,
• Sandiganbayan
• Court of Tax Appeals
• Pending criminal cases with respect to the remainder of
the proceedings
• Exception: cases filed under Rule on Summary Procedure
• Exception to the exception: unless otherwise provided
herein
Salient Points of the REVISED GUIDELINES FOR

CONTINUOUS TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES
• Trial shall be held from Monday to Thursday, and courts
shall call the cases at exactly 8:30 A.M. and 2:00 P.M.
• Hearing on Motions, arraignment, and pre-trial, and

promulgation of decisions shall be held in the morning of
Fridays
• All courts shall ensure the posting of their court calendars

outside their courtrooms at least one day before scheduled
hearings
Hearing Days and

Calendar Call
• Motion for Inhibition
• Based on grounds provided for under Rule 137
• Shall be resolved immediately or within two
(2) calendar days from date of their filing
Motions
Shall be denied outright before the scheduled arraignment
without need of comment/opposition
 Motion for judicial determination of probable cause

 Motion for preliminary investigation
 filed beyond the 5 day reglementary period in inquest
proceedings (Rule 112, Sec. 6,), or
 when Preliminary investigation is required (Rule 112, Sec. 8),
or
 allowed in inquest proceedings and accused failed to
participate despite due notice
Prohibited Motions
 Motion for reinvestigation of the prosecutor
recommending the filing of information once the
information has been filed before the court
1. If motion is filed without prior leave of court
2. When Preliminary Investigation is not required (Rule 112,
Sec. 8)
3. When actual P.I. has been actually conducted, and the
grounds relied upon in the motion are not meritorious
o Such as credibility, admissibility of evidence, innocence of
accused, lack of due process when accused was actually
notified
Prohibited Motions
• Motion to Quash Information when ground is not
stated in sec. 3, Rule 117
• Motion for Bill of Particulars which does not conform
to sec. 9, Rule 116
• Motion to suspend the arraignment based on grounds
not stated under sec. 11, Rule 116
• Petition to suspend the criminal action on the ground
of prejudicial question, when no civil case has been
filed, sec. 7, Rule 111
Prohibited Motions
• Motion to withdraw information, downgrade charge in
the information, exclude an accused – filed by the
prosecution as a result of a reinvestigation,
reconsideration and review
• Motion to Quash Warrant of arrest
• Motion to suspend arraignment on ground of unsound
mental condition
• Motion to suspend proceedings on ground of prejudicial
question where civil case was filed prior to criminal case
Meritorious Motions
• Motion to Quash Sec. 3, par (a), (b), (g), (i) Rule 117
• (a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
• (b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over
the offense charged
• (g) That the criminal action or liability has been
extinguished;
• (i) That the accused has been previously convicted or
acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him
was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent.
Meritorious Motions
• Motion to discharge accused as state witness, Rule 119,
Sec. 17.
• Motion to quash search warrant (sec. 17, Rule 126)/
Motion to suppress evidence
• Motion to dismiss – when the criminal case is a Strategic
Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) under
Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases
Meritorious Motions
• GR: Motion for Postponement is prohibited
• Exceptions:
• Acts of God
• Force Majeure
• Physical Inability of witness to appear or testify
Note: An oral or written motion for postponement shall be

accompanied by the Original Receipt evidencing payment
of the postponement fee (sec. 21 (b), Rule 141)
Motion for Postponement

• When a party fails to qualify for the availment of the
services of the Public Attorney’s Office
• The IBP Local Chapter shall submit to the Executive

Judges a list of IBP-local lawyers who may be
appointed as counsel de officio in such case
• The list shall be disseminated among trial courts in the

station
Free Legal Assistance

• Applies where only civil liability is being prosecuted
• The private prosecutor must submit a written authority

from the head of the prosecution office to try the case
even in the absence of the public prosecutor
• The authority must be submitted to the court prior to the

presentation of evidence
Private Prosecutor
• A) Newly filed cases
• If same facts or
• Part of a series of offenses similar in character
• Will be consolidated and raffled to only one court
B) Pending cases with multiple accused

• A subsequent information
• But the accused is involved in the same incident in a previously
filed information against other persons
• No more raffle – the subsequent case shall be assigned
directly to the court where the earlier case is pending
Consolidations
• A criminal case shall be archived only if, after issuance of
warrant of arrest, the accused remains at large for 6
months from the delivery of the warrant to the proper
peace officer
Archiving of Cases
• Accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mind
which renders him unable to plead intelligently, or go to
trial and has to be committed to a mental hospital
• A valid prejudicial question
• A higher court has issued a temporary restraining order
• Accused jumped bail before arraignment
Archiving of cases –
other grounds
• The provisional dismissal becomes permanent 1 year
after the issuance of the order
• If offense is punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 6
years
• The provisional dismissal becomes permanent 2 years

after the issuance of the order
• If offense is punishable by imprisonment exceeding 6 years
Revival of Provisionally
Dismissed Cases
• Notice shall be sent to:
• Accused
• His/her counsel
• Private complainant/complaining law officer
• Public prosecutor
• Witnesses whose names appear in the information
Note: Schedule of Arraignment and pre-trial are now set on the same day
Arraignment and Pre-Trial

• Waiver of reading of information – in multiple cases,
the court, upon personal examination of the accused, may
allow a waiver of the reading of information upon full
understanding and express consent of the accused and
his/her counsel, which consent shall be expressly stated in
both the minutes/certificate of arraignment and the order
of arraignment. The court shall explain the waiver to the
accused in the language or dialect known to him or her,
and ensure the accused’s full understanding of the
consequences of the waiver before approving the same
A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC

Plea of guilty to a lesser offense Plea bargaining proceeds
o Offended party/arresting officers
must be present
o With consent of Prosecutor
Plea of guilty Judgment shall be immediately
rendered
o Except capital punishment
No plea bargaining or plea of guilty o Court immediately proceeds with
arraignment and pre-trial
The schedule of the trial dates for both prosecution and the accused
Shall be continuous and within the periods provided in the Rules/Special Rules
Arraignment shall be simultaneously held with the Preliminary Conference
Arraignment proper
• i. Absence of parties – the Court shall proceed with the
pre-trial despite the absence of the accused and/or
private complainant, provided they were duly notified
of the same, and the counsel for the accused, as well as
the public prosecutor is present
• ii. Stipulations
• iii. Marking of evidence
• iv. Pre-trial Order
• v. Compliance with AM No. 03-1-09-SC (Guidelines to
be Observed in the Conduct of Pre-trial)
Conduct of Pre-trial
• The following shall be referred to mediation on the civil liability
unless a settlement is reached earlier in the pre-trial/ preliminary
conference
a. B.P. 22
b. SSS Law (RA no. 1161, as amended by RA 8282)
c. PAG-IBIG Law (RA no. 9679)
d. Crimes against property under Title 10 of the RPC
e. Crimes against honor under Title 13 of the RPC Libel under RA
10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012)
f. Criminal Negligence under Title 14 of the RPC
g. Intellectual property rights cases where liability is civil in nature
Note: the referral to the Philippine Mediation Center shall be made only after
the conduct of the arraignment and the pre-trial/preliminary conference
The mediation shall be terminated within 30 calendar days from referral.
Mediation
• When filed – after the filing of the information shall be
set for summary hearing after arraignment and pre-trial.
• Petition for bail shall be heard and resolved within 30

calendar days from the date of the first hearing.
• Except in drug cases 20 calendar days
• Motion for reconsideration on resolution for petition for

bail shall be resolved within 10 calendar days from
submission of Motion for reconsideration
Petition for Bail

• Resolution shall be based solely on evidence presented
during bail proceedings by the prosecution
• The accused need not present evidence to contradict or
rebut the prosecution’s evidence
• The court shall not suspend the presentation of evidence
in chief while awaiting resolution of the petition for bail
or the motion for reconsideration
Evidence in petition for bail

• For First Level Courts, in all criminal cases,
including those covered by the Rule on Summary
Procedure, the testimonies of witnesses shall
consist of the duly subscribed written statements
given to law enforcement officers or the affidavits or
counter-affidavits submitted before the investigating
prosecutor and if such are not available, testimonies
shall be in the form of judicial affidavits.
• The trial prosecutor may opt to dispense with the
sworn statements submitted to the law enforcement
officers and instead prepare judicial affidavits or
modify or revise the said sworn statements
Form of Testimony
• For Second Level Courts, Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax
Appeals, where the demeanor of the witnesses is not
essential, like the forensic chemist, medico-legal officers,
investigators, auditors, accountants, engineers, custodians,
expert witnesses and other similar witnesses, who will testify
on the authenticity, due execution and the contents of public
documents and reports, and in criminal cases that are
transactional in character, such as falsification, malversation,
estafa or other crimes where the culpability or innocence of the
accused can be established through documents, the
testimonies of the witnesses shall be the duly subscribed
written statements given to law enforcement officers or the
affidavits or counter-affidavits submitted before the
investigating prosecutor, and if such are not available,
testimonies shall be in the form of judicial affidavits, subject to
additional direct and cross-examination questions
Form of Testimony
• In all other cases where the culpability or the innocence
of the accused is based on the testimonies of the alleged
eyewitnesses, the testimonies of these witnesses shall be
in oral form
Form of Testimony
• During pre-trial/preliminary conference, the court shall require
the parties to enter into stipulations on the subject of both
direct and cross-examinations of witnesses who have no
personal knowledge of the material facts constituting the
crimes, such as forensic chemists, medico-legal, officers,
investigators, auditors, accountants, engineers, custodians,
expert witnesses, and other similar witnesses, who will testify
on the authenticity, due execution and the contents of public
documents and reports; corroborative witnesses, and those who
will testify on the civil liability.
• This rule is without prejudice o allowing additional direct and
cross-examination questions
Stipulations
• If stipulations cannot be had in full, where the adverse
party does not waive the right to cross-examination, the
subject of the direct testimony of these witnesses should
be stipulated upon, without prejudice to additional direct
and cross-examination questions
Stipulations
• The offer of evidence, the comment/objection thereto,
and the court ruling thereto shall be made orally. A
party is required to make his/her oral offer of
evidence on the same day after the presentation of
his/her last witness, and the opposing party is
required to immediately interpose his/her oral
comment/objection thereto. Thereafter, the court shall
make a ruling on the offer of evidence in open court.
Trial: Offer of Evidence

• In making the offer, the counsel shall cite the specific
page numbers of the court record where the exhibits
being offered are found, if attached thereto. The court
shall ensure that all exhibits offered are submitted to
it on the same day of the offer
• If the exhibits are not attached to the record, the party

making the offer must submit the same during the
offer of evidence in open court
Trial: Offer of Evidence

• After the prosecution has rested its case, the court shall inquire
from the accused if he/she desires to move for leave of court to
file a demurrer to evidence, or to proceed with the presentation
of his/her evidence
• If the accused orally moves for leave of court to file a

demurrer to evidence, the court shall orally resolve the same.
• If the motion for leave is denied, the court shall issue an order
for the accused to present and terminate his/her evidence on
the dates previously scheduled and agreed upon, and to orally
offer and rest his/her case on the day his/her last witness is
presented.
Trial: Demurrer to Evidence

• If despite the denial of the motion for leave, the accused
insists on filing the demurrer to evidence, the previously
scheduled dates for the accused to present evidence shall
be cancelled.

• Demurrer shall be filed within 10 calendar days from the
date leave of court is granted
• The corresponding comment shall be filed within 10
calendar days from date of receipt of demurrer
• The court shall resolve the demurrer within a non-
extendible period of 30 calendar days from the date of
filing the comment or lapse of the 10 day period to file
the same

• If the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to
evidence is granted, and the subsequent demurrer to
evidence is denied, the accused shall likewise present and
terminate his/her evidence (one day apart, morning and
afternoon) and shall orally offer and rest his/her case on
the day his/her last witness is presented.
• The court shall rule on the oral offer of evidence of the
accused and the comment or objection of the prosecution
in the same day of the offer. If the court denies the motion
to present rebuttal evidence because it is no longer
necessary, it shall consider the case submitted for
decision

• One day examination of witness rule – The
Court shall strictly adhere to the rule that a
witness has to be fully examined in one (1)
day.
Trial: Examination of witnesses

• The submission of memoranda is discretionary on the
part of the court, which in no case shall exceed 25 pages
in length, single-spaced, on legal size paper, using size 14
font. The period to submit memoranda shall be non-
extendible and shall not suspend the running of the period
of promulgation of the decision, thus, with or without
memoranda, the promulgation shall push through as
scheduled.
Memoranda
• Judges who conducted the trial and heard the testimonies
of some or all of the witnesses shall not defer the
submission of the case for decision on the ground of
incomplete or missing transcript of stenographic notes. If
the case was heard completely by another judge, not the
judge tasked to write the decision, the latter shall direct
the stenographers concerned to submit the complete
transcripts within a period of 30 calendar days from the
date of his/her assumption to office
Lack of Stenographic Notes

• Schedule of Promulgation
• The court shall announce in open court and include in the
order submitting the case for decision, the date of the
promulgation of its decision which shall not be more than
90 calendar days from the date the case is submitted for
decision, except when the case is covered by Special
Rules and other laws which provide for a shorter period.
Promulgation
• Resolution of motion for reconsideration of judgment of
conviction or motion for new trial
• A motion for reconsideration of judgment of conviction
or motion for new trial under Rule 121 filed within the
reglementary period of 15 days from promulgation shall
be resolved within a non-extendible period of 10 calendar
days from the submission of the comment of the
prosecution. With or without comment, the court shall
resolve the motion within the 10 day period.
Promulgation
PRECAUTIONARY HOLD
DEPARTURE ORDER
A.M. No. 18-07-05-SC
• An order in writing issued by a court commanding the
Bureau of Immigration to prevent any attempt by a
person suspected of a crime to depart from ·the
Philippines
• Issued ex-parte in cases involving crimes where the
minimum of the penalty prescribed by law is at least six (
6) years and one (I) day or when the offender is a
foreigner regardless of the imposable penalty
Precautionary Hold
Departure Order
• Filed by the prosecutor with:
a. any regional trial court within whose territorial
jurisdiction the alleged crime was committed
b. For compelling reasons, it can be filed with any regional
trial court within the judicial region where the crime was
committed if the place of the commission of the crime is
known
c. the regional trial courts in the City of Manila, Quezon
City, Cebu City, Iloilo City, Davao City, and Cagayan de
Oro City shall also have the authority to act on
applications filed by the prosecutor based on complaints
instituted by the National Bureau of Investigation,
regardless where the alleged crime was committed.
Where filed Sec. 2

• After prosecutor’s preliminary determination of probable
cause, the prosecutor may file an application in the name
of the People of the Philippines for a precautionary hold
departure order (PHDO) with the proper regional trial
court. Accompanied by the complaint-affidavit and its
attachments.
Prosecutor finding of
Probable Cause Sec. 3
• A precautionary hold departure order shall not issue
except upon determination by the judge, in whose court
the application is filed, that probable cause exists, and
there is a high probability that respondent will depart
from the Philippines to evade arrest and prosecution of
crime against him or her. The judge shall personally
examine under oath or affirmation, in the form of
searching questions and answers in writing, the applicant
and the witnesses he or she may produce on facts
personally known to them and attaching to the record
their sworn statements.
Grounds Sec. 4
• If judge finds probable cause, he/she shall issue the
PHDO and direct the Bureau of Immigration to hold and
prevent the departure of the respondent at any Philippine
airport or ports
• Otherwise, the judge shall order the dismissal of the

application
Grounds Sec. 4
• Since the finding of probable cause by the judge is solely
based on the complaint and is specifically issued for the
purpose of issuing the PHDO, the same shall be without
prejudice to the resolution of the prosecutor of the
criminal complaint considering the complaint-affidavit,
counter-affidavit, reply affidavit, and the evidence
presented by both parties during the preliminary
investigation.
Preliminary finding of
probable cause Sec. 5
• If the prosecutor after preliminary investigation dismisses
the criminal complaint for lack of probable cause then the
respondent may use the dismissal as a ground for the
lifting of the PHDO with the regional trial court that
issued the order.
• If the prosecutor finds probable cause and files the
criminal information, the case with the court that issued
the PHDO, on motion of the prosecutor shall be
consolidated with the court where the criminal
information is filed.
Preliminary finding of
probable cause Sec. 5
PHDO should indicate: What should be
• name of the appended
respondent, • copy of the
• his or her alleged application,
crime,
• the time and
• personal details,
• place of its • passport number,
commission, and the • photograph of the
• name of the respondent, if
complainant available
Form Sec. 6
Validity of the PHDO
• valid until lifted by the issuing court as may be warranted
by the result of the preliminary investigation
Duly certified copy of the PHDO should be:

• Furnished to the Bureau of Immigration
• within twenty-four (24) hours from issuance
Validity
• Respondent may file a verified motion before the issuing court for
the temporary lifting of the PHDO
• On Meritorious Grounds
• based on the complaint-affidavit and the evidence that he or she
will present, there is doubt that probable cause exists to issue the
PHDO, or
• That he or she is not a flight risk
Conditions
• respondent posts a bond (to be determined by the Court (sec. 8)
• the lifting of the PHDO is without prejudice to the resolution of
the preliminary investigation against the respondent
Lifting of the Order sec. 7

PHDO Diagram
HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER & BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION WATCHLIST
• Bondsmen can prevent accused from leaving country by
arresting him or asking for him to be re-arrested by a police
officer upon written authority. (Rule 114, Sec. 23)
• The accused may be prohibited from the leaving country
during the pendency of his case (People v. Uy Tuising, 1935;
Manotoc v. CA 1986). If the accused released on bail attempts
to depart from the Philippines without the permission of the
court where his cases is pending, he may be re-arrested
without warrant. (Rule 113, Sec. 23)
• Hold-Departure Orders: This may be issued only by the RTCs
in criminal cases within their exclusive jurisdiction. (SC
Circular No. 39-97, 19 June 1997)
• Presently, there is no law allowing the issuance of hold
departure orders in a pending preliminary investigation.
Although courts have the inherent power to issue hold
departure orders, this presupposes that a criminal case has
been filed against the accused
• The Rule amounts to judicial legislation. It arbitrarily sets

a cluster of crimes and construes, through a judicial rule,
that these are what constitute threats to "national security,
public safety, or public health."
PHDO – Leonen, J. dissent

• A “preliminary determination of probable cause”
[conducted by the prosecutor before referring the matter
to the judge] only complicates our rules on criminal
procedure.
• A preliminary determination of probable cause, though
intended to be without prejudice to the investigating
prosecutor's resolution of the criminal case, would
actually render the conduct of preliminary
investigation moot and academic

• Once the investigating prosecutor finds that there is
probable cause to support an application for a
precautionary hold departure order, the resolution of the
court to which the application is filed would necessarily
taint the prosecutor's own determination of probable
cause for purposes of filing an Information.
• the executive determination of probable cause, in the
context of a preliminary investigation, would be an idle
ceremony rendered moot by the two (2)-tier preliminary
determination of probable cause.

EFRAIM C. GENUINO et al. v. LEILA DE LIMA
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo v. De LIMA
G.R. Nos. 197930, 199034, 199046
April 17, 2018
• The Supreme Court declared that DOJ Circular No. 41 is

unconstitutional
• sec. 6, Art. III of the Constitution, provides the limits for
impairment of a person’s right to travel – namely:
national security, public safety, or public health" and "as
may be provided by law”
• DOJ Circular No. 41 is not a law.

• It is a mere administrative issuance which the DOJ
Secretary believed to carry out the provisions of an
enabling law (Administrative Code of 1987)
• The questioned circular does not come under the
inherent power of the executive department to adopt
rules and regulations as clearly the issuance of HDO and
WLO is not the DOJ's business.
• As such, it is a compulsory requirement that there be an

existing law, complete and sufficient in itself, conferring
the expressed authority to the concerned agency to
promulgate rules.
• Without a clear mandate of an existing law, an

administrative issuance is ultra vires.
EFRAIM C. GENUINO et al. v. DE LIMA,

G.R. Nos. 197930, 199034, 199046
April 17, 2018
• There is also no authority of law granting it the
power to compel the attendance of the subjects of a
preliminary investigation, pursuant to its
investigatory powers under E.O. No. 292.
• Its investigatory power is simply inquisitorial and,

unfortunately, not broad enough to embrace the
imposition of restraint on the liberty of movement.
EFRAIM C. GENUINO et al. v. DE LIMA,

G.R. Nos. 197930, 199034, 199046 April 17,
2018
LEONEN, J. separate opinion
• In my view, the phrase "as may be provided by law"
should not be literally interpreted to mean statutory law.
• The application of the clauses due process of “law” and
equal protection of the “laws” have been tested even
against executive issuances
• As in the cases of Ynot v. IAC, (1987), Corona v. United
Harbor Pilots (1997), Biraogo v. Truth Commission (2010)
• In this regard, it is inaccurate to say that the right of persons
to travel to and from the Philippines can only be impaired
by statutory law.
EFRAIM C. GENUINO et al. v. Hon. LEILA DE
LIMA Gloria Macapagal Arroyo v. De LIMA
G.R. Nos. 197930, 199034, 199046
April 17, 2018
LEONEN, J. separate opinion
• The Department of Justice is neither empowered by a specific
law nor does it possess the inherent power (unlike the Courts)
to restrict the right to travel of persons under criminal
investigation through the issuance of hold departure orders,
watchlist orders, and allow departure orders.
• [The DOJ’s] mandate under the Administrative Code of 1987

to "[i]nvestigate the commission of crimes [and] prosecute
offenders" cannot be interpreted so broadly as to include the
power to curtail a person's right to travel.
EFRAIM C. GENUINO et al. v. Hon. LEILA DE

LIMA Gloria Macapagal Arroyo v. De LIMA
G.R. Nos. 197930, 199034, 199046 April 17,
2018
IMMIGRATION LOOKOUT BULLETIN
The Bureau of Immigration may place a person

in its Immigration Lookout Bulletin (ILB) pursuant to an
order by the Department of Justice. Said order merely
directs the Bureau of Immigration to be on the “lookout”
and take prudent steps to verify on the status of the
criminal case against a person. If the concerned agency
raises no objection to the departure, then the person
will be allowed to leave.
For foreign nationals, the ILB requires subjects to

obtain the Emigration Clearance Certificate, pursuant to
Section 22-A of the Philippine Immigration Act, to
ensure that the foreign national has no pending
obligations in the Philippines.
Rule on Cybercrime
Warrants
A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC
• Effectivity: August 15, 2018
• Scope:
• procedure for the application and grant of warrants and
related orders
• involving the preservation, disclosure, interception, search,
seizure, and/or examination, as well as the custody, and
destruction of computer data, as provided under Republic
Act No. (RA) 10175 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
• An order in writing issued in the name of the People of
the Philippines, signed by a judge, upon application of
law enforcement authorities, authorizing the latter to issue
an order to disclose and accordingly, require any person
or service provider to disclose or submit subscriber's
information, traffic data, or relevant data in his/her or its
possession or control.
Warrant to Disclose
Computer Data (WDCD)
• An order in writing issued in the name of the People of
the Philippines, signed by a judge, upon application of
law enforcement authorities, authorizing the latter to
carry out any or all of the following activities: (a)
listening to, (b) recording, (c) monitoring, or (d)
surveillance of the content of communications, including
procuring of the content of computer data, either directly,
through access and use of a computer system or
indirectly, through the use of electronic eavesdropping or
tapping devices, at the same time that the communication
is occurring.
Warrant to Intercept
Computer Data (WICD)
• A Warrant to Search, Seize and Examine Computer Data
(WSSECD) is an order in writing issued in the name of
the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge, upon
application of law enforcement authorities, authorizing
the latter to search the particular place for items to be
seized and/ or examined.
Warrant to Search, Seize and

Examine Computer Data (WSSECD)
• Upon acquiring possession of a computer device or
computer system via a lawful warrantless arrest, or by
any other lawful method, law enforcement authorities
shall first apply for a warrant before searching the said
computer device or computer system for the purpose of
obtaining for forensic examination the computer data
contained therein.
Warrant to Examine
Computer Data (WECD)
• If the judge is satisfied that there is probable cause to
believe that the facts upon which the application for the
writ (WICD/WDCD/WSSECD)
Issuance of the Writs

• By law enforcement authorities
1. the designated cybercrime court of the province or city
where the offense or any of its elements is committed
2. where any part of the computer system used is situated
3. where any of the damage caused to a natural or juridical
person took place
Note: The cybercrime courts in Quezon City, the City of
Manila, Makati City, Pasig City, Cebu City, Iloilo City,
Davao City and Cagayan De Oro City shall have the special
authority to act on applications and issue warrants which
shall be enforceable nationwide and outside the Philippines
(through DOJ).
Venue – for filing application for a warrant

• Filed by Law Enforcement Authorities
1. the designated cybercrime court of the province or city
where the offense or any of its elements is committed
2. where any part of the computer system used is situated
3. where any of the damage caused to a natural or juridical
person took place
Provided, that the court where the criminal action is first

filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other
courts
Venue of Criminal Actions

• Section 8.1. Duty of Service Providers and Law Enforcement
Authorities to Destroy. -Pursuant to Section 17 of RA 10175,
upon expiration of the periods as provided in Sections 13 and
15 of the said law, service providers and law enforcement
authorities, as the case may be, shall immediately and
completely destroy the computer data subject of preservation
and examination.
• Section 8.2. Destruction and Return of Computer Data in the

Custody of the Court. -Upon motion and due hearing, the court
may, for justifiable reasons, order the complete or partial
destruction, or the return to its lawful owner or possessor, of
the computer data or any of the related items turned over to its
custody.
Destruction and Return

CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN
DRUG CASES
New Guidelines (People v. Lim, 2018)
PEOPLE V. ROMY LIM G.R. No. 231989
September 4, 2018
Facts:
• Police officers conducted a buy-bust operation at the
house of accused Romy Lim. The alleged shabu sachets
were seized from the accused and an inventory was
immediately made by the officers at Lim’s house
• However, the Inventory Report does not contain the
signatures of elected officials, or a representative of the
DOJ, or the media. It was also not signed by the accused.
Dangerous Drugs Act

(R.A. No. 9165)
• Sec. 21 (1), Article II of R.A. 9165 –amended by R.A.
10640, guidelines on immediate physical inventory
• We have held that the immediate physical inventory
and photograph of the confiscated items at the place
of arrest may be excused in instances when the safety
and security of the apprehending officers and the
witnesses required by law or of the items seized are
threatened by immediate or extreme danger such as
retaliatory action of those who have the resources to
mount a counter assault
PEOPLE V. ROMY LIM G.R. No. 231989,

September 4, 2018
Sections 1 (A.1.10) of the Chain of Custody Implementing Rules
and Regulations directs that the
1) justification or explanation in cases of noncompliance with the
requirements of Sec. 21(1) of RA 9165 shall be clearly stated in the
affidavits of the apprehending officers as well as,
2) the steps taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized/confiscated items
3) and to present a certification or record of coordination for operating
units other than the PDEA
While the above-quoted provision has been the rule, it appears that it
has not been practiced in most cases elevated before us.

September 4, 2018
• For drug cases, the Court laid out a mandatory policy:
1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the
apprehending/seizing officers must state their
compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of
R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR.
2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the

apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification
or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have
taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized/ confiscated items

September 4, 2018
3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in
the sworn statements or affidavits, the investigating fiscal must
not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she
must refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order
to determine the (non) existence of probable cause
4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence,

the court may exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a
commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case
outright for lack of probable cause in accordance with Section
5,40 Rule 112, Rules of Court.

September 4, 2018
Plea Bargaining Framework in
Drug Cases
A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC,

April 10, 2018
Acceptable Plea
Substance Offense Quantity Penalty Bargain
12 years, 1 day to 20 6 months, 1 day to 4

0.01-299.99 grams years & fine of years & fine of
P300,000 to P400,000 P10,000 to P50,000
Possession
20 years to life
imprisonment & fine 12 years, 1 day to 20
300-499 grams of P300,000 to years & fine of
Marijuana P500,000 P300,000 to P400,000
500 grams + No plea bargaining
A.M. No. 18-03-16-sc, April Life imprisonment to

allowed
10, 2018
death & fine of 6 months, 1 day to 4
0.01 -9.99 grams P500,000 to years & fine of
Sale, Trade
P10,000,000 P10,000 to P50,000

allowed
Substance Offense Quantity Penalty Acceptable Plea Bargain
12 years, 1 day to 20 6 months, 1 day to 4

Shabu,
0.01-4.99 grams years & fine of P300,000 years & fine of
opium,
to P400,000 P10,000 to P50,000
morphine, Possession
heroin.
20 years to life 12 years, 1 day to 20
Cocaine
5-9.99 grams imprisonment & fine of years & fine of
P300,000 to P500,000 P300,000 to P400,000
A.M. No. 18-03-16-sc, April allowed
10, 2018
Metampheta Sale, trade Life imprisonment to 6 months, 1 day to 4
mine 0.01-0.99 grams death & fine of P500,000 years & fine of
hydrochloride to P10,000,000 P10,000 to P50,000
or shabu only
1.00 gram + No plea bargaining
allowed
if:
a. accused admits
6 months, 1 day drug use or
Possession to 4 years & fine 6 months treatment and
of P10,000 to rehabilitation b. denies but found
P50,000 positive after drug
dependency test
Equipment, undergo counselling

If accused is found
apparatus and program at
negative for drug
other rehabilitation center
use/dependency
paraphernalia for
dangerous drugs if:
a. accused admits
Possession Maximum of drug use or
during parties, penalty in sec. 6 months treatment and
social gatherings 12 rehabilitation b. denies but found
or meetings positive after drug
dependency test
undergo counselling
program at If accused is found
rehabilitation center negative for drug
use/dependency
• In all instances, whether or not the maximum period of the penalty imposed is
already served, drug dependency test shall be required.
 If accused admits drug use, or denies it but is found positive after drug
dependency test, he/she shall undergo treatment and rehabilitation for a
period of not less than 6 months. Said period shall be credited to his/her
penalty and the period of his after-care and follow up program if penalty is
still unserved.
 If accused is found negative for drug use/dependency, he/she will be
released on time served, otherwise, he/she will serve his sentence in jail
minus the counseling period at rehabilitation center.
 However, if accused applies for probation in offenses punishable under
R.A. No. 9165, other than for illegal drug trafficking or pushing under sec. 5
in relation to Sec. 24 thereof, then the law on probation shall apply
A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, April 10, 2018

Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug cases
• If acceptable plea bargaining is 6 months, 1 day to 4
years & fine of P10,000 to P50,000:
 The Court is given the discretion to impose a
minimum period and a maximum period to be
taken from the range of penalty provided by law. A
straight penalty within the range of 6 months and
1 day to 1 year may likewise be imposed
A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, April 10, 2018

Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug
cases
SPEEDY DISPOSITION
OF CASES
CAGANG V. SANDIGANBAYAN (2018)
• The criterion to determine whether there was inordinate delay
is the "balancing test" which finds its roots in the American
case of Barker v. Wingo (1972) where the U.S. Supreme Court
explained the nature of the accused's right to speedy trial under
the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Sixth
Amendment), and set forth the four factors to be considered in
determining whether such right had been violated –
• 1. length of delay,
• 2. the reason for the delay,
• 3. the defendant's assertion of his right, and
• 4. prejudice to the defendant
Elpidio Magante v. Sandiganbayan

GR. Nos. 230950-51 , July 23, 2018
• The Court has never set a threshold period for concluding
preliminary investigation proceedings before the Office of the
Ombudsman premised on the idea that "speedy disposition" is
a relative and flexible concept.
• The Court is not unmindful of the duty of the Ombudsman

under the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770 to act
promptly on complaints brought before him. This imposition,
however, should not be mistaken with a hasty resolution of
cases at the expense of thoroughness and correctness
• More importantly, this duty does not license this Court to fix a
specific period for the office to resolve the cases and matters
before it, lest We encroach upon the constitutional prerogative
of the Ombudsman to promulgate its own rules and procedure
Length of Delay
Fact-finding investigations and
Inordinate Delay – when it starts to run
Before filing a formal Formal verified complaint
complaint filed
The case buildup will not be It is only when a formal
counted in determining the verified complaint had been
attendance of inordinate filed would the obligation on
delay the part of the Ombudsman
to resolve the same promptly
Excluded from the arise – delay starts to run.
computation as the party
involved is not yet subjected
to any adverse proceeding
A. extraordinary complications such as the degree of
difficult of the questions involved, the number of
persons charged, the various pleadings filed, and the
voluminous documentary and testimonial evidence on
record
B. acts attributable to the respondent
• Note: Re-investigations cannot generally be considered as

"vexatious, capricious, and oppressive" practices
proscribed by the constitutional guarantee since these are
performed for the benefit of the accused
Reasons for Delay

• It is the duty of the respondent to bring to the attention of
the investigating officer the perceived inordinate delay in
the proceedings of the formal preliminary investigation.
• Failure to do so may be I considered a waiver of

his/her right to speedy disposition of cases.
Assertion of right by the

accused
• Delay is a two-edge sword. It is the government that
bears the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable
doubt. The passage of time may make it difficult or
impossible for the government to carry its burden. The
Constitution and the Rules do not require impossibilities
or extraordinary efforts, diligence or exertion from courts
or the prosecutor, nor contemplate that such right shall
deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity of fairly
prosecuting criminals.
Prejudice to the Respondent

Facts:
• Accused Cagang (provincial treasurer) was among the hundred
individuals in Sarangani province investigated for Malversation of
Public Funds
• Around 61 million was allegedly embezzled from the Countrywide
Development Fund. Petitioner was among the 40 determined to have
been involved in 81 different anomalous transactions.
• It took the Ombudsman more than 7 years to study the evidence
needed to establish probable cause.
• The anonymous complaint was filed on February 10, 2003, the
preliminary investigation was concluded in 2005 and the information
was filed only on November 17, 2011.
• Petitioner claims that there was inordinate delay in the disposition
of his case
CESAR MATAS CAGANG V. SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458, 210141-42
July 31, 2018
Right to a speedy trial Right to speedy disposition of cases
Art. III, Sec. 14(2) Art. III, Sec. 16
invoked against the courts in a invoked even against quasi-judicial or
criminal prosecution administrative bodies in civil,
criminal, or administrative cases
before them
What is important is that the accused may already be prejudiced by the

proceeding for the right to speedy disposition of cases to be invoked.

G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458, 210141-42
July 31, 2018
• A case is deemed initiated upon the filing of a formal
complaint prior to a conduct of a preliminary
investigation
• The ruling in People v. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division,

(2013) that fact-finding investigations are included in the
period for determination of inordinate delay is abandoned

G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458, 210141-42
July 31, 2018
• The right to speedy disposition of cases is most
commonly invoked in fact-finding investigations and
preliminary investigations by the Office of the
Ombudsman since neither of these proceedings form
part of the actual criminal prosecution.

G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458, 210141-42
July 31, 2018
• The Court noted that:
• The Ombudsman is mandated to “act promptly” on
complaints filed before it (Art. XI, sec. 12, Constitution and
R.A. No. 6770 sec. 13)
• Both provisions do not provide for a specific period within
which to measure promptness. Neither do they provide for
criteria within which to determine what could already be
considered as delay in the disposition of complaints.
• The Ombudsman should set reasonable periods for

preliminary investigation, with due regard to the complexities
and nuances of each case

G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458, 210141-42
July 31, 2018
Defense has the burden to prove Prosecution has the burden of
delay when: justifying the delay if
1. the right is invoked within the o the delay occurs beyond the
given time periods contained in given time period and the right
current Supreme Court is invoked
resolutions and circulars, and
2. the time periods that will be

promulgated by the Office of
the Ombudsman

G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458, 210141-42
July 31, 2018
Defense must prove Prosecution must prove
1. whether the case is motivated 1. that it followed the prescribed
by malice or clearly only procedure in the conduct of
politically motivated (as in the preliminary investigation and
case of Tatad v. Sandiganbayan, in the prosecution of the case
1988) and is attended by utter
lack of evidence 2. complexity of the issues and
the volume of evidence made
2. that the defense did not the delay inevitable
contribute to the delay
3. no prejudice was suffered by
the accused as a result of the
delay

G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458, 210141-42
July 31, 2018
Guideline Diagram
• The determination of length of delay is not a “mere mathematical reckoning”
• Courts must consider:
• the entire context of the case,
• the amount of evidence to be weighed
• the simplicity or complexity of the issues raised
Exceptions
1. The prosecution is alleged to be solely motivated by malice – such as:
• when a case is politically motivated,
• prosecution continued despite utter lack of evidence
• If malicious prosecution is alleged and substantially proven, the case would automatically be
dismissed
2. Waiver of the accused of the right to speedy disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial
• If it can be proven that the accused acquiesced to the delay, the constitutional right
can no longer be invoked (laches)
• The causes of the delays must be properly laid out and discussed by the relevant court

G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458, 210141-42
July 31, 2018
• Right to speedy disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial
must be timely raised
• The respondent or the accused must file the appropriate motion
upon the lapse of the statutory or procedural periods
• Otherwise, they are deemed to have waived their right to
speedy disposition of cases
• "The State should not be prejudiced and deprived of its right to
prosecute the criminal cases simply because of the ineptitude
or nonchalance of the Office of the Ombudsman." (Jacob v.
Sandiganbayan, 2010)

G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458, 210141-42
July 31, 2018
Institutional Delay
• The reality is that institutional delay a reality that the court
must address. The prosecution is staffed by overworked and
underpaid gove1nment lawyers with mounting caseloads. The
courts' dockets are congested.
• This Court has already launched programs to remedy this
situation, such as:
• the Judicial Affidavit Rule,
• Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails by Enforcing the Right
of the Accused to Bail and to Speedy Trial, and the
• Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial.
• These programs, however, are mere stepping stones. The
complete eradication of institutional delay requires these
sustained actions.
G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458, 210141-42
July 31, 2018
• CAGUIOA, J. dissenting opinion
• In Philippine Context
• This "pre-accusation" period falls precisely within the scope of
the right to speedy disposition protected by the Constitution,
particularly, under Section 16, Article III.
• The right to speedy disposition covers the periods "before, during,
and after trial" (Bernas, 1974).
• This protection covers not only preliminary investigation, but
extends further, to cover the fact-finding process (People v.
Sandiganbayan, 2013).
• It even includes “fact-finding investigations conducted prior to the
preliminary investigation proper” (Torres v. Sandiganbayan,
2016).

G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458, 210141-42/July 31,
2018
• CAGUIOA, J. dissenting opinion
• Considering that the Constitution, unlike its U.S. counterpart,

imposes upon the State the positive duty to ensure the speedy
disposition of all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative
proceedings, waiver of the right to speedy disposition should
not be implied solely from the respondent's silence.
• The duty to expedite proceedings under the Constitution

does not pertain to the respondent, but to the State. To fault
the respondent for the State's inability to comply with such
positive duty on the basis of mere silence is, in my view, the
height of injustice.

G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458, 210141-42
July 31, 2018
CAGUIOA, J. dissenting opinion
On Institutional Delay
• Even as the Court may recognize institutional delay as a
reality, the result of such recognition should be a thrust
towards structural and procedural changes.
• The answer lies in reforming these institutions, but

certainly not in sanctioning a violation of an individual's
constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy disposition
of his case.

G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458, 210141-42
July 31, 2018
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
RULE
(A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
(A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)
The Judicial Affidavit Rule is applicable to all
criminal actions:
• where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed
six years;
• where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits,

irrespective of the penalty involved; or
• with respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the

penalties involved are (Judicial Affidavit Rule, Section 9).
*Note that the Judicial Affidavit Rule is deemed modified by A.M.

No.15-06-10-SC, or the “Revised Guidelines For Continuous Trial
Of Criminal Cases,” which took effect on 1 September 2017.
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)
• The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its

witnesses not later than five days before the pre-
trial, serving copies of the same upon the accused.
The complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to
the affidavits such documentary or object evidence as
he may have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so
on. No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or object
evidence shall be admitted at the trial (Judicial Affidavit
Rule, Section 9).
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)
• If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after

receipt of the judicial affidavits of the prosecution, he
shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as
well as those of his witnesses to the court within ten
days from receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of
each on the public and private prosecutor, including his
documentary and object evidence previously marked
as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on. These affidavits shall
serve as direct testimonies of the accused and his
witnesses when they appear before the court to testify
(Judicial Affidavit Rule, Section 9).
Facts:
• Lara’s Gift and Decors Inc. was claiming fire insurance
from PNB Insurers Co. However, PNB Insurers refused
because the petitioner has not submitted the required
documents and that they violated their fire insurance
policy. As a result, Lara’s Gift Inc. filed a complaint for
specific performance against PNB Insurers.
LARA'S GIFT AND DECORS, INC. v. PNB

GENERAL INSURERS CO.
G.R. No. 230429 January 24, 2018
• During the pre-trial conference, the RTC issued a Pre-Trail
Order which states that:
• "no evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during
the trial in support of a party's evidence-in-chief other than those
that had been earlier identified and pre-marked during the pre-
trial, except if allowed by the Court for good cause shown."
• “all the parties made a reservation for the presentation of

additional documentary exhibits in the course of the trial”

G.R. No. 230429 January 24, 2018
• Trial on the merits ensued.
• During the cross examination a witness for Lara’s Gift
Inc., petitioner furnished respondents with a copy of the
2nd Supplemental Judicial Affidavit
• Respondents sought to strike from the records the said
2nd Supplemental Judicial Affidavit as it violated the
Judicial Affidavit Rule, and the Guidelines on Pre-trial
(A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC)

G.R. No. 230429 January 24, 2018
• The JA Rule and the Guidelines on Pre-Trial do not totally
proscribe the submission of additional evidence even after trial
had already commenced
• The parties are mandated under Sec. 2 of the JA Rule to file and
serve the judicial affidavits of their witnesses, together with their
documentary or object evidence, not later than five days before
pre-trial or preliminary conference
• The documentary and testimonial evidence submitted will then be
specified by the trial judge in the Pre-Trial Order. Concomitant
thereto, Sec. 10 of the same Rule contains a caveat that the failure
to timely submit the affidavits and documentary evidence shall be
deemed to be a waiver of their submission

G.R. No. 230429 January 24, 2018
• Sec. 10 does not contain a blanket prohibition on the
submission of additional evidence
• However, the submission of evidence beyond the mandated

period in the JA Rule is strictly subject to the conditions that:
a) the court may allow the late submission of evidence only
once;
b) the party presenting the evidence proffers a valid reason for
the delay; and
c) the opposing party will not be prejudiced thereby

G.R. No. 230429 January 24, 2018
• Corollary thereto, the Guidelines on Pre-Trial instructs the
parties to submit their respective pre-trial briefs at least three
(3) days before the pretrial, containing, inter alia, the
documents or exhibits to be presented and to state the purposes
thereof
• I. A. 2. The parties shall submit, at least three (3) days before the
pretrial, pre-trial briefs containing the following:
• d. The documents or exhibits to be presented, stating the purpose
thereof (No evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered
during the trial in support of a party's evidence-in-chief other than
those that had been earlier identified and pre-marked during the pre-
trial, except if allowed by the court for good cause shown)

G.R. No. 230429 January 24, 2018
• In this case, the reservation of the parties as stated in the
Pre-Trial Order is tantamount to a waiver of the
application of Secs. 2 and 10 of the JA Rule
• Records do not disclose that the respondents endeavored

to amend the Pre-Trial Order to withdraw their assent to
their reservation. Consequently, they cannot now dispute
the contents of the Pre-Trial Order.

G.R. No. 230429 January 24, 2018
HEARSAY AS BASIS OF
PROBABLE CAUSE
Jinggoy Estrada v. Ombudsman (2015)
Facts:
• In 2013, the Ombudsman filed a complaint for Plunder
against Senator Jinggoy Estrada.
• Senator Estrada filed his Request to be Furnished with
Copies of Counter-Affidavits of the Other Respondents,
Affidavits of New Witnesses and Other Filings citing his
right to examine evidence from the Rules (112 sec. 3(b)),
and Ombudsman Rules (sec. 4(c), Rule II)
Jinggoy Estrada v. Ombudsman

G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015
• The DOJ denied petitioner’s request
• Preliminary investigation is not a part of trial and it is

only in a trial where an accused can demand the full
exercise of his rights, such as the right to confront and
cross-examine his accusers to establish his innocence.
• In the case at bar, the DOJ Panel adjudged that enough

evidence had been adduced to establish probable cause
and clarificatory hearing was unnecessary

G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015
• While probable cause demands more than "bare
suspicion," it requires "less than evidence which would
justify . . . conviction." A finding of probable cause
merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a
pronouncement of guilt.

G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015
• “The determination of probable cause does not depend on
the validity or merits of a party’s accusation or defense or
on the admissibility or veracity of testimonies presented"
(Unilever v. Tan, 2014)
• The doctrine in the United States that the determination

of probable cause can rest partially, or even entirely, on
hearsay evidence, as long as the person making the
hearsay statement is credible.

G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015
Citing United States v. Ventresca:
• While a warrant may issue only upon a finding of "probable cause," this Court has
long held that "the term ‘probable cause’ . . . means less than evidence which would
justify condemnation,", and that a finding of "probable cause" may rest upon evidence
which is not legally competent in a criminal trial.
• "There is a large difference between the two things to be proved (guilt and probable
cause), as well as between the tribunals which determine them, and therefore a like
difference in the quanta and modes of proof required to establish them."
• Thus, hearsay may be the basis for issuance of the warrant "so long as there . . . [is] a
substantial basis for crediting the hearsay."
• "an affidavit may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct
personal observations of the affiant," so long as the magistrate is "informed of some of
the underlying circumstances" supporting the affiant’s conclusions and his belief that
any informant involved "whose identity need not be disclosed . . ." was "credible" or
his information "reliable."

G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015
• Probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence,
as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the
hearsay.
• Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause

in a preliminary investigation because such investigation is
merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and
obligations of parties.
• However, in administrative cases, where rights and obligations

are finally adjudicated, what is required is "substantial
evidence" which cannot rest entirely or even partially on
hearsay evidence.

G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015
• Substantial basis is not the same as substantial evidence
because substantial evidence excludes hearsay evidence
while substantial basis can include hearsay evidence.
• To require the application of Ang Tibay, as amplified in

GSIS (“substantial evidence” for administrative cases), in
preliminary investigations will change the quantum of
evidence required in determining probable cause from
evidence of likelihood or probability of guilt to
substantial evidence of guilt.

G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015
BAIL
ENRILE V. SANDIGANBAYAN, 2015
LEVISTE V. CA, 2010
• Enrile was charged with plunder before the Sandiganbayan. He
filed his Omnibus motion which included among others, an
application to post bail.
• When a warrant of arrest was issued against Enrile, he
voluntarily surrendered to Director Magalong in Camp Crame
and was later on confined at the PNP General Hospital.
• He argued that he should be allowed to post bail because it was
not yet established that the evidence of his guilt was strong, the
penalty as to him would only be reclusion temporal due to
mitigating circumstances, and that his age and physical
condition does not make him a flight risk
ENRILE V. SANDIGANBAYAN,
G.R. No. 213847 August 18, 2015
• Enrile’s poor health justifies his admission to bail
• We first note that Enrile has averred in his Motion to Fix
Bail the presence of two mitigating circumstances that
should be appreciated in his favor, namely: that he was
already over 70 years at the time of the alleged
commission of the offense, and that he voluntarily
surrendered.
G.R. No. 213847 August 18, 2015
• In now granting Enrile’s petition for certiorari, the Court
is guided by the earlier mentioned principal purpose of
bail, which is to guarantee the appearance of the accused
at the trial, or whenever so required by the court. The
Court is further mindful of the Philippines’ responsibility
in the international community arising from the national
commitment under the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights:
• To uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value
the worth and dignity of every person.
• These remedies include the right to be admitted to bail
G.R. No. 213847 August 18, 2015
Accused was convicted of the lesser crime of
homicide and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of more than six (6) years. He appealed his
conviction to the Court of Appeals. Pending appeal, he
filed an urgent application for admission to bail pending
appeal, citing his advanced age and health condition,
and claiming the absence of any risk or possibility of
flight on his part, which was denied by the Court of
Appeals.
LEVISTE v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 189122, 17 March 2010
• In dismissing petitioner’s petition, the Supreme Court
held that the discretionary nature of the grant of bail
pending appeal does not mean that bail should
automatically be granted absent any of the
circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of
Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. The third
paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 applies to two
scenarios where the penalty imposed on the accused
applying for bail is imprisonment exceeding six years.
• The first scenario deals with the circumstances
enumerated in the said paragraph not present. The
second scenario contemplates the existence of at least
one of the said circumstances.

G.R. No. 189122, 17 March 2010
In the first situation, bail is a matter of sound judicial
discretion. This means that, if none of the
circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of
Section 5, Rule 114 is present, the appellate court has
the discretion to grant or deny bail. An application for
bail pending appeal may be denied even if the bail-
negating circumstances in the third paragraph of
Section 5, Rule 114 are absent. On the

G.R. No. 189122, 17 March 2010
other hand, in the second situation, the appellate court
exercises a more stringent discretion, that is, to
carefully ascertain whether any of the enumerated
circumstances in fact exists. If it so determines, it has
no other option except to deny or revoke bail pending
appeal. Thus, a finding that none of the said
circumstances is present will not automatically result in
the grant of bail. Such finding will simply authorize the
court to use the less stringent sound discretion
approach.

G.R. No. 189122, 17 March 2010
BILL OF PARTICULARS
Juan Ponce Enrile v. People
G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015 Brion, J.
• The Ombudsman filed an Information for Plunder against
Senator Enrile, his chief of staff Gigi Reyes and others
• A day before the scheduled araignment, Enrile filed a
petition for bill of particulars as “the details cannot be
found in the bundle of evidence by the prosecution”
• The Sandiganbayan denied Enrile’s petition claiming that
the details he desires are evidentiary in nature and are
best ventilated during trial

G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015
Ultimate Facts Evidentiary Facts
Essential and substantial Establishes or proves the

facts which form basis ultimate facts. They
of primary right and support the existence of
duty which directly other alleged facts
make up the wrongful
acts or omissions

G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015
• BILL OF PARTICULARS
• It is the further specification of charges or claims in an
action
• It is filed before arraignment for the accused to properly
prepare for trial and respond
• It is before arraignment because once arraigned, the
accused is presumed to understand the charge against him

G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015
• Purpose of Bill of Particulars
1. For the accused to know he theory of the government’s
case
2. To prepare his defense and avoid surprise at the trial
3. A bar to another prosecution in case of acquittal or
conviction
4. To compel the prosecution to observe certain limitations
in offering evidence

G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015
Motion to Quash Motion for Bill of
Particulars
Jurisdictional defect Presupposes a valid
information
Proper remedy when Proper remedy when
there is no offense there is a supposed
ambiguity in an
otherwise valid
information

G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015
• In this case, the Court ordered the prosecution to describe
the following with particularity:
“Series”, “combination of acts” Offense could not be plunder if

there is only a single act
“From 2004-2010” Accused should not be left guessing
which transactions involving his
PDAF are being mentioned
“NGOs of Napoles” Identify which NGO received the
funds
“Government Agencies” As indispensable parties in the
scheme, they should be properly
identified

G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo v. People, April 18, 2017
Facts:
• Arroyo was charged with plunder before the
Sandiganbayan. Before judgment, petitioner filed a
motion for leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence
• However, the court denied her motion
• She files this petition for certiorari – alleging that there
was grave abuse of discretion in Sandiganbayan’s denial
of her motion

• The State on the other hand, claims that a denial of
motion for leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence
shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before
judgment (citing Rule 119, sec. 23)
• The special civil action for certiorari is generally not

proper to assail such an interlocutory order issued by the
trial court because of the availability of another remedy in
the ordinary course of law (as stated in Section 23, Rule
119). The proper recourse was to go to trial and in case of
conviction, may then appeal the conviction.

• it is doctrinal that the situations in which the writ
of certiorari may issue should not be limited, because to
do so x x x would be to destroy its comprehensiveness
and usefulness. So wide is the discretion of the com1 that
authority is not wanting to show that certiorari is more
discretionary than either prohibition or mandamus.
• In the exercise of our superintending control over other
courts, we are to be guided by all the circumstances of
each particular case 'as the ends of justice may require.'
So it is that the writ will be granted where necessary to
prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice.

• Notwithstanding the interlocutory character and
effect of the denial of the demurrers to evidence, the
petitioners as the accused could avail themselves of
the remedy of certiorari when the denial was tainted
with grave abuse of discretion.
• The Sandiganbayan and the trial court was guilty of
grave abuse of discretion when it capriciously denied
the demurrers to evidence despite the absence of
competent and sufficient evidence to sustain the
indictment for plunder, and despite the absence of the
factual bases to expect a guilty verdict

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10951
AN ACT ADJUSTING THE AMOUNT OR THE VALUE OF PROPERTY
AND DAMAGE ON WHICH A PENALTY IS BASED AND THE FINES
IMPOSED UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE AMENDING FOR THE
PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “THE REVISED
PENAL CODE,” AS AMENDED
• Light felonies as defined under Article 9 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) are:
(a) infractions of law or the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor;
or (b) fine not exceeding Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000) or both is provided.
• Schedule of penalties under Article 26 of the RPC was revised as follows:
Penalty Under old RPC Under R.A. No. 10951
Afflictive If it exceeds If it exceeds

Php6,000.00 Php1,200,000.00
Correctional Php200.00 to Php40,000.00 to

Php6,000.00 Php1,200,000.00
Light Less than Php200.00 Less than Php40,000.00
Pertinent amendments to the

Revised Penal Code
• PENALTIES FOR ROBBERY UNDER ARTICLES
299 AND 302 OF THE RPC
Article Felony Under old RPC Under R.A. No. 10951
299 Robbery in an Any armed person Any armed person who

inhabited house who shall commit shall commit robbery in an
or public robbery in an inhabited house or public
building or inhabited house or building or edifice devoted
edifice devoted public building or to religious worship, shall
to worship. edifice devoted to be punished by reclusion
religious worship, temporal, if the value of the
shall be punished by property taken shall exceed
reclusion temporal, if Php50,000.00 x x x
the value of the
property taken shall
exceed Php250.00 x x
x
299 Robbery in an When the offenders do When the offenders do

inhabited house not carry arms, and the not carry arms, and the
or public value of the property value of the property
building or taken exceeds Php250.00, taken exceeds
edifice devoted the penalty next lower in Php50,000.00, the
to worship. degree shall be imposed. penalty next lower in
degree shall be imposed.
The same rule shall be The same rule shall be

applied when the applied when the
offenders are armed, but offenders are armed, but
the value of the property the value of the property
taken does not exceed taken does not exceed
Php250.00. Php50,000.00.
When said offenders do When said offenders do
not carry arms and the not carry arms and the
value of the property value of the property
taken does not exceed taken does not exceed
Php250.00, they shall Php50,000.00, they shall
suffer the penalty suffer the penalty
prescribed in the two prescribed in the two (2)
next preceding next preceding
paragraphs, in its paragraphs, in its
minimum period. minimum period.
302 Robbery in an Any robbery committed Any robbery committed in an

uninhabited place in an uninhabited place uninhabited place or in a
or in a private or in a building other building other than those
building. than those mentioned in mentioned in the first
the first paragraph of paragraph of Article 299, if the
Article 299, if the value of value of the property taken
the property taken exceeds Php50,000.00 shall be
exceeds 250 pesos, shall punished by prisión
be punished by prision correccional in its medium and
correccional if any of the maximum periods x x x
following circumstances
is present x x x
When the value of the When the value of the property

property takes does not taken does not exceed
exceed Php250.00, the Php50,000.00, the penalty next
penalty next lower in lower in degree shall be
degree shall be imposed. imposed.
• PENALTIES FOR THEFT UNDER ARTICLE 309
OF THE RPC
Penalty Value of Property under Value of Property under

Old RPC R.A. No. 10951
Prision mayor in its More than Php12,000.00 but More than Php1,200,000.00
minimum and medium does not exceed but does not exceed
periods Php22,000.00 Php2,200,000.00
If the value of the thing If the value of the thing

stolen exceeds Php22,000.00 stolen exceeds
amount the penalty shall be Php2,200,000.00, the
the maximum period of penalty shall be the
prision mayor, and one maximum period of prision
year for each additional mayor, and one (1) year for
Php10,000.00, but the total each additional
of the penalty which may Php1,000,000.00, but the
be imposed shall not total of the penalty which
exceed 20 years. may be imposed shall not
exceed 20 years
Prision correccional in its More than Php6,000.00 but More than Php600,000.00
medium and maximum does not exceed but does not exceed
periods Php12,000.00. Php1,200,00.00
Prision correccional in its More than Php200.00 but More than Php20,000.00 but
minimum and medium does not exceed does not exceed
periods Php6,000.00. Php600,000.00
Arresto mayor in its Over Php50.00 but does not over Php5,000.00 but does
medium period to prision exceed Php200.00. not exceed Php20,000.00
correccional in its
minimum period
Arresto mayor to its full Over Php5.00 but does not Over Php500.00 but does
extent exceed Php50.00 not exceed Php5,000.00
Arresto mayor in its Does not exceed Php5.00 Does not exceed Php500.00
minimum and medium
periods
PENALTIES FOR THEFT UNDER

ARTICLE 309 OF THE RPC
Penalty Value of Property under Old Value of Property under R.A.
RPC No. 10951
Arresto menor or a fine not If the theft is committed under

exceeding 200 pesos the circumstances enumerated in
paragraph 3 of the next
preceding article and the value
of the thing stolen does not
exceed Php5.00. If such value
exceeds said amount, the
provision of any of the five
preceding subdivisions shall be
made applicable.
Arresto menor or a fine not If the theft is committed under

exceeding Php20,000.00 the circumstances enumerated in
paragraph 3 of the next
preceding article and the value
of the thing stolen does not
exceed Php500.00. If such value
exceeds said amount, the
provisions of any of the five
preceding subdivisions shall be
made applicable.
PENALTIES FOR THEFT UNDER

Penalty Value of Property under Old Value of Property under R.A.
RPC No. 10951
Arresto menor in its When the value of the thing

minimum period or a fine stolen is not over Php5.00,
not exceeding Php50.00 and the offender shall have
acted under the impulse of
hunger, poverty, or the
difficulty of earning a
livelihood for the support of
himself or his family.
Arresto menor in its When the value of the thing

minimum period or a fine of stolen is not over Php500.00,
not exceeding Php5,000.00 and the offender shall have
acted under the impulse of
hunger, poverty, or the
difficulty of earning a
livelihood for the support of
himself or his family.
PENALTIES FOR THEFT UNDER ARTICLE

309 OF THE RPC
Prisión correccional in its does not exceed Php200.00 does not exceed
medium and maximum Php40,000.00
periods
Prisión mayor in its more than Php200.00 but more than Php40,000.00
minimum and medium does not exceed but does not exceed
periods Php6,000.00. Php1,200,000.00
Prision mayor in its more than Php6,000.00 but more than Php1,200,000.00
maximum period to is less than Php12,000.00 but does not exceed
reclusion temporal in its Php2,400,000.00
minimum period
PENALTIES FOR MALVERSATION

UNDER ARTICLE 217 OF THE RPC
Reclusion temporal in its more than Php12,000.00 more than Php2,400,000.00

medium and maximum but is less than but does not exceed
periods Php20,000.00 Php4,400,000.00
Reclusion temporal in its more than Php4,400,000.00

maximum period but does not exceed Eight
million Php8,800,000.00.
Reclusion perpetua exceeds Php20,000.00 exceeds Php8,800,000.00
PENALTIES FOR MALVERSATION UNDER

Penalty Amount of the Fraud under Old Amount of the Fraud under R.A.
RPC No. 10951
Prision correccional in its Over Php12,000.00 but does not over Php2,400,000.00 but does
maximum period to prision exceed Php22,000.00 not exceed Four million
mayor in its minimum period Php4,400,000.00
If such amount exceeds If such amount exceeds

Php22,000.00, the penalty Php4,400,000.00, the penalty
provided in this paragraph shall provided in this paragraph shall
be imposed in its maximum be imposed in its maximum
period, adding one year for each period, adding one year for each
additional 10,000 pesos; but the additional Php2,000,000.00; but
total penalty which may be the total penalty which may be
imposed shall not exceed 20 imposed shall not exceed 20
years. years.
PENALTIES FOR ESTAFA UNDER

Penalty Amount of the Fraud under Amount of the Fraud under
Prision correccional in Over Php6,000.00 but Over Php1,200,000.00 but

its minimum and does not exceed does not exceed
medium periods Php12,000.00 Php2,400,000.00
Arresto mayor in its Over Php200.00 but does Over Php40,000.00 but
maximum period to not exceed Php6,000.00 does not exceed
prision correccional in Php1,200,000.00
its minimum period
Arresto mayor in its Does not exceed Does not exceed
maximum period Php200.00 Php40,000.00
PENALTIES FOR ESTAFA UNDER

The penalties and/or fines for the following crimes have been amended by R.A. No.
10951:
• Treason (Art. 114);

• Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115);
• Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally
obtained (Art. 129);
• Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or insurrection (Art. 136);
• Sedition (Art. 140);
• Conspiracy to commit sedition (Art. 141);
• Inciting to sedition (Art. 142)
• Acts tending to prevent the meeting of Congress and similar bodies (Art. 143);
• Disturbance of proceedings (Art. 144);
• Illegal associations (Art. 147);
Felonies with revised penalties under

R.A. No. 10951
• Direct assaults (Art. 148);
• Indirect assaults (Art. 149);
• Disobedience to summons issued by Congress, its committees or subcommittees, by
the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions (Art.
150);
• Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person
(Art. 151);
• Tumults and other disturbances of public order; tumultuous disturbance or
interruption liable to cause disturbance (Art. 153);
• Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful detainer (Art 154);
• Alarms and scandals (Art. 155);
• Making and importing and uttering false coins (Art. 163);
• Mutilation of coins; importation and utterance of mutilated coins (art. 164);
• Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer; importing and
uttering such false or forged notes and documents (Art. 166);
• Counterfeiting, importing and uttering instruments not payable to bearer (Art. 167);
• Falsification of legislative documents (Art. 170);
• Falsification by public officer or employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister (Art.171);
• Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents (Art. 172);
Felonies with revised penalties

under R.A. No. 10951
• False medical certificates, false certificates of merits or service, etc. (Art. 174);
• Manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for falsification (Art. 176);
• Using fictitious name and concealing true name (Art. 178);
• False testimony against a defendant (Art. 180);
• False testimony favorable to the defendant (Art. 181);
• False testimony in civil cases (Art. 182);
• Importation and disposition of falsely marked articles or merchandise made of gold,
silver, or other precious metals or their alloys (Art. 187);
• Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows (Art. 201);
• Prostitutes (Art. 202);
• Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor (Art. 209);
• Frauds against the public treasury (Art. 213);
• Prohibited transactions (Art. 215);
• Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer (Art. 216);
• Malversation of public funds or property (Art. 217);
• Failure of accountable officer to render accounts (Art. 218);
• Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts before leaving the country (Art.
219);

R.A. No. 10951
• Failure to make delivery of public funds or property (Art. 221);
• Removal, concealment, or destruction of documents (Art. 226);
• Officer breaking seal (Art. 227);
• Opening of closed documents (Art. 228);
• Revelation of secrets by an officer (Art. 229);
• Public officer revealing secrets of private individuals (Art. 230);
• Open disobedience (Art. 231);
• Refusal of assistance (Art. 233);
• Refusal to discharge elective office (Art. 234);
• Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235);
• Anticipation of duties of a public office (Art. 236);
• Prolonging performance of duties and powers (Art. 237);
• Usurpation of legislative powers (Art. 239);
• Disobeying request for disqualification (Art. 242);
• Orders or requests by executive officers to any judicial authority (Art. 243);
• Unlawful appointments (Art. 244);

R.A. No. 10951
• Abortion practiced by a physician (Art. 259);
• Less serious physical injuries (Art. 265);
• Slight physical injuries and maltreatment (Art. 266);
• Slight illegal detention (Art. 268);
• Unlawful arrest (Art. 269);
• Inducing a minor to abandon his home (Art. 271);
• Abandoning a minor (Art. 276);
• Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody: indifference of
parents (Art. 277);
• Exploitation of minors (Art. 278);
• Qualified trespass to dwelling (Art. 280);
• Other forms of trespass (Art. 281);
• Grave threats (Art. 282);
• Other light threats (Art. 285);
• Grave coercions (Art. 286);
• Light coercions (Art. 287);
• Other similar coercions (Art. 288);
• Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of capital or labor through
violence or threats (Art. 289);

R.A. No. 10951
• Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence (Art. 290);
• Revealing secrets with abuse of office (Art. 291);
• Revelation of industrial secrets (Art. 292);
• Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice
devoted to worship (Art. 299);
• Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building (Art.
302);
• Theft (Art. 309);
• Theft of the property of the National Library and National
Museum (Art. 311);
• Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in
property (Art. 312);
• Altering boundaries or landmarks (Art. 313);
• Swindling (Art. 315);
• Other deceits (Art. 318);
Felonies with revised penalties under R.A.

No. 10951
• Special cases of malicious mischief (Art. 328);
• Other mischiefs (Art. 329);
• Destroying or damaging statues (Art. 331);
• Simulation of births, substitution of one child for another and
concealment or abandonment of a legitimate child (Art. 347);
• Libel by means of writing or similar means (Art. 355);
• Threatening to public and offer to prevent such publication for
a compensation (Art. 356);
• Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of
official proceedings (Art. 357);
• Slander (Art. 358);
• Slander by deed (Art. 359);
• Intriguing against honor (Art. 364); and
• Imprudence and negligence (Art. 365).
Felonies with revised penalties

under R.A. No. 10951
• On a final note, judges, public prosecutors, public attorneys,
private counsels, and such other officers of the law are
hereby advised to similarly apply the provisions of RA No.
10951 whenever it is, by reason of justice and equity, called
for by the facts of each case. Hence, said recent legislation
shall find application in cases where the imposable penalties of
the affected crimes such as theft, qualified theft, estafa,
robbery with force upon things, malicious mischief,
malversation, and such other crimes, the penalty of which is
dependent upon the value of the object in consideration
thereof, have been reduced, as in the case at hand, taking into
consideration the presence of existing circumstances attending
its commission.
OPHELIA HERNAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. 217874 December 5, 2017
• For as long as it is favorable to the accused, said recent
legislation shall find application regardless of whether its
effectivity comes after the time when the judgment of
conviction is rendered and even if service of sentence has
already begun. The accused, in these applicable instances,
shall be entitled to the benefits of the new law warranting him
to serve a lesser sentence, or to his release, if he has already
begun serving his previous sentence, and said service already
accomplishes the term of the modified sentence. In the latter
case, moreover, the Court, in the interest of justice and
expediency, further directs the appropriate filing of an action
before the Court that seeks the reopening of the case rather
than an original petition filed for a similar purpose.
OPHELIA HERNAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. 217874 December 5, 2017

Updates in Crimpro 2018 REVISED

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Updates in Crimpro 2018 REVISED

Uploaded by

Copyright:

ORAL ADVOCACY

Salient Points of the REVISED GUIDELINES FOR

• Hearing on Motions, arraignment, and pre-trial, and

• All courts shall ensure the posting of their court calendars

Hearing Days and

 Motion for judicial determination of probable cause

Note: An oral or written motion for postponement shall be

Motion for Postponement

• The IBP Local Chapter shall submit to the Executive

• The list shall be disseminated among trial courts in the

Free Legal Assistance

• The private prosecutor must submit a written authority

• The authority must be submitted to the court prior to the

B) Pending cases with multiple accused

• The provisional dismissal becomes permanent 2 years

Arraignment and Pre-Trial

A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC

• Petition for bail shall be heard and resolved within 30

• Motion for reconsideration on resolution for petition for

Petition for Bail

Evidence in petition for bail

Trial: Offer of Evidence

• If the exhibits are not attached to the record, the party

Trial: Offer of Evidence

• If the accused orally moves for leave of court to file a

Trial: Demurrer to Evidence

Trial: Demurrer to Evidence

Trial: Demurrer to Evidence

Trial: Demurrer to Evidence

Trial: Examination of witnesses

Lack of Stenographic Notes

Where filed Sec. 2

• Otherwise, the judge shall order the dismissal of the

Duly certified copy of the PHDO should be:

Lifting of the Order sec. 7

• The Rule amounts to judicial legislation. It arbitrarily sets

PHDO – Leonen, J. dissent

PHDO – Leonen, J. dissent

PHDO – Leonen, J. dissent

• The Supreme Court declared that DOJ Circular No. 41 is

• DOJ Circular No. 41 is not a law.

• As such, it is a compulsory requirement that there be an

• Without a clear mandate of an existing law, an

EFRAIM C. GENUINO et al. v. DE LIMA,

• Its investigatory power is simply inquisitorial and,

EFRAIM C. GENUINO et al. v. DE LIMA,

• [The DOJ’s] mandate under the Administrative Code of 1987

EFRAIM C. GENUINO et al. v. Hon. LEILA DE

The Bureau of Immigration may place a person

For foreign nationals, the ILB requires subjects to

Warrant to Search, Seize and

Issuance of the Writs

Venue – for filing application for a warrant

Provided, that the court where the criminal action is first

Venue of Criminal Actions

• Section 8.2. Destruction and Return of Computer Data in the

Destruction and Return

Dangerous Drugs Act

PEOPLE V. ROMY LIM G.R. No. 231989,

PEOPLE V. ROMY LIM G.R. No. 231989,

2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the

PEOPLE V. ROMY LIM G.R. No. 231989,

4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence,

PEOPLE V. ROMY LIM G.R. No. 231989,

A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC,