CRIMINAL PROCEDURERule 110 PROSECUTION of Offenses1. General Rule: MTC and RTC courts gain jurisdiction over the offense upon the filing of complaint by a complainant or an information by the prosecuting officer Court gains jurisdiction over the person of the accused upon arrest or surrender; such jurisdiction once gained cannot be lost even if accused escapes (Gimenez vs. Nazareno) Jurisdiction of the court over the offense is determined at the time of the institution of the action and is retained even if the penalty for the offense is later lowered or raised (People vs. Lagon)2. Complaint sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer or other public official charged with the enforcement of the law violatedInformation accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the fiscal and filed with the court3. Complaint and Information distinguished:ComplaintInformation

A sworn statementNeed not be sworn to

Subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer or other officer charged with the enforcement of the law violatedSubscribed to by the fiscal

May be filed either with the court or in the fiscals office generally to commence the preliminary investigation of the charges madeFiled with the court

4. Cases where civil courts of equal rank are vested with concurrent jurisdiction:1. Features stated in Art. 2, RPC Cognizable by proper court in which charge is first filed1. Continuing crimes committed in different judicial regions2. Offenses wherein any of the essential elements were committed in different territorial jurisdictions3. Offenses committed aboard a train, vehicle, aircraft or vessel (see R110, 15)i. Railroad, train, aircraft(1) Territory or municipality where vehicle passed(2) Place of departure(3) Place of arrivalii. Vessel(1) First port of entry(2) Thru which it passed during voyagee. Libel and written defamation5. Remedies of offended party when fiscal unreasonably refuses to file an information or include a person therein as an accused1. In case of grave abuse of discretion, action for mandamus2. Lodge a new complaint against the offenders3. Take up matter with the Secretary of Justice4. Institute administrative charges against the erring fiscal5. File criminal charges under Art. 208, RPC (prosecution of offenses)6. File civil action under Art. 27, NCC for damages (PO refuses or neglects to perform official duty)7. Secure appointment of another fiscal8. Institute another criminal action if no double jeopardy is involved6. Writs of injunction or prohibition to restrain a criminal prosecution are not available, EXCEPT1. To afford adequate protection to constitutional rights of accused2. Necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions3. Pre-judicial question which is sub judice4. Acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority5. Prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation6. Double jeopardy is clearly apparent7. Court has no jurisdiction over the case8. Case of persecution rather than prosecution9. Charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance10. Clearly no prima facie case against the accused and MTQ on that ground had been denied7. Institution of Criminal Actions:a. In RTC: By filing a complaint with the appropriate officer for the purpose of conducting requisite preliminary investigation therein.b. In Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts: By filing the complaint or information directly with said courts, or a complaint with the fiscals officec. In Metropolitan Trial Courts By filing the complaint ONLY with the office of the fiscal In all 3 above cases, such institution shall interrupt the period of prescription of the offense charged (Rule 110, 1)d. Offenses subject to summary procedure[i.e. (1) violation of traffic laws; (2) violation of rental laws; (3) violation of municipal or city ordinances; and (4) criminal cases where the penalty does not exceed 6 months or fine of P1000 or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties and civil liabilities] The complaint or information shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior preliminary examination or preliminary investigation. Zaldivia vs. Reyes since a criminal case covered by the Rules of Summary Procedure shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court, then the running of the prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed in court and not on any date before that. Reodica vs. CA [clarifies Zaldivia above] Under Art. 91 of the RPC, the period of prescription shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information. It does not distinguish whether the complaint is filed for preliminary examination or investigation only, or for an action on the merits. Thus, the filing of the complaint even with the fiscals office should suspend the running of the Statute of Limitations. The ruling in Zaldivia is not applicable to all cases subject to the Rules on Summary Procedure, since that particular case involved a violation of an ordinance. Therefore, the applicable law therein was not Art. 91 of the RPC, but Act No. 3326 (An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide when Prescription Shall Begin to Run), 2 of which provides that period of prescription is suspended only when judicial proceedings are instituted against the guilty party.8. Contents of informationa. Name of the accused Information may be amended as to the name of the accused, but such amendment cannot be questioned for the first time on appeal (People vs. Guevarra) Error of name of the offended party: if material to the case, it necessarily affects the identification of the act charged. Conviction for robbery cannot be sustained if there is a variance between the allegation and the proof as to the ownership of the property stolen.b. Designation of offense by statute (or of section/subsection of statute violated) Only one offense charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses. If facts do not completely allege all the elements of the crime charged, the info may be quashed; however, the prosecution is allowed to amend the info to include the necessary facts (People vs. Purisima)c. Acts or omissions complained of constituting the offense Information need only allege facts, not include all the evidence which may be used to prove such facts (Balitaan vs. CFI)d. Name of offended partye. Approximate time of commission Approximation of time is sufficient; amendment as to time is only a formal amendment; no need to dismiss case (People vs. Molero) A significant discrepancy in the time alleged cannot be sustained since such would allow the prosecution to prove an offense distantly removed from the alleged date, thus substantially impairing the rights of the accused to be informed of the charges against him (People vs. Reyes)f. Place of commission Conviction may be had even if it appears that the crime was committed not at the place alleged, provided that the place of actual commission was within the courts jurisdiction and accused was not surprised by the variance between the proof and the information Qualifying and inherent aggravating circumstances need to be alleged as they are integral parts of the crime. If proved, but not alleged, become only generic aggravating circumstances.9. Amendment of information and Substitution of information, distinguishedAmendmentSubstitution

Involves either formal or substantial changesNecessarily involves a substantial change

Without leave of court if before pleaNeeds leave of court as original information has to be dismissed

Where only as to form, there is no need for another preliminary investigation and retaking of plea of accusedAnother preliminary investigation is entailed and accused has to plead anew

Refers to the same offense charged or which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in original charges, hence, substantial amendments to info after plea taken cannot be made over objections of accused for if original info is withdrawn, accused could invoke double jeopardyRequires or presupposes that new info involves a different offense which does not include or is not included in the original charge, hence, accused cannot claim double jeopardy

10. After plea, amendment only as to matters of form, provided1. Leave of court is obtained; and2. Amendment is not prejudicial to rights of accused11. When amendment is only as to form1. Neither affects or alters nature of offense charged2. Charge does not deprive accused of a fair opportunity to present his defense3. Does not involve a change in basic theory of prosecution12. Exceptions to rule on venue1. Felonies in Art. 2, RPC (cognizable by proper court in which charge is first filed)2. Continuing offenses3. Piracy which is triable anywhere4. Libel (residence; or where first published)5. In exceptional cases, to ensure fair trial and impartial inquiry13. Special cases (who may prosecute)a. Adultery and concubinage Only offended spouse can be complainant Both guilty parties must be included in complaintb. Crimes against chastity With consent of the offended party, offended spouse, grandparents, guardian, or state as parens patriae, in that order Offended party, even if minor, has right to initiate the prosecution of the case independently of parents, grandparents or guardian, unless she is incompetent/incapable on grounds other than minority. If offended party who is a minor fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents or guardian may do so. In crimes against chastity, the consent of the victim is a jurisdictional requirementretraction renders the information void (People vs. Ocapan) If complexed with a public crime, the provincial fiscal may sign the complaint on his ownc. Defamation (consisting of imputation of offenses in [a] or [b]) Complainant must be offended party The offended party may intervene in the prosecution of the criminal case because of her interest in it (Banal vs. Tadeo)14. Procedure1. Complaint filed in MTC or info filed in RTC where an essential ingredient of the crime took place (territorial jurisdiction) 1. Amendment as a matter of right before plea2. Amendment upon discretion of the court after plea Inclusion of other accused is only a formal amendment which would not be prejudicial to the accused and should be allowed (People vs. CA)d. After plea and before judgment, if it appears there was a mistake in charging proper offense, court shall dismiss original info upon the filing of a corrected one, provided that the accused will not be placed in double jeopardy (substitution) Fiscal determines direction of prosecution; complainant must ask fiscal if he wants to dismiss the case; the motion to dismiss must be addressed to the court which has discretion over the disposition of the case (Republic vs. Sunga) Objection to the amendment of an information or complaint must be raised at the time the amendment is made; otherwise, deemed to have consented thereto.15. Remediesa. Motion to quash May be filed after arraignment but before plea on the grounds provided by the rules (generally, a flaw in the info) If duplicity of offense charged is not raised in trial through a motion to quash info, the right to question it is waived (People vs. Ocapan)b. Motion to dismiss May be filed after plea but before judgment on most of grounds for motion to quash16. Duplicity of Offense (in information or complaint) Defined as the joinder of separate and distinct offenses in one and the same information/complaint Remedy: file a motion to quash; failure is equivalent to a waiver Exception: when existing laws prescribe a single punishment (complex crimes)Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Action1. General Rule: The injured party may file a civil action independent of the criminal proceeding to recover damages from the offender. Article 32 is a valid cause of a civil action for damages against public officers who impair the Constitutional rights of citizens (Aberca vs. Ver) Even if the private prosecutor participates in the prosecution, if he is not given the chance to prove damages, the offended party is not barred from filing a separate civil action2. Civil action for recovery of civil liability impliedly instituted, EXCEPT1. Waiver2. Reservation of right to institute separate action3. Institution of civil action prior to criminal action NOTE: Under SC Circular 57-97, all criminal actions for violations of BP Blg. 22 shall be deemed to necessarily include the corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed or recognized. San Ildefonso Lines vs. CA past pronouncements of the SC that the requirement in Rule 111 that a reservation be made prior to the institution of an independent civil action is an unauthorized amendment to substantive law is now no longer controlling. Far from altering substantive rights, the primary purpose of the reservation requirement is to avoid multiplicity of suits, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, to simplify the work of the trial court, and in short, the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to parties-litigants.3. Civil action suspended when criminal action filed, EXCEPT1. Independent civil action (Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of NCC)2. Prejudicial civil action3. Civil case consolidated with criminal action4. Civil action not one intended to enforce civil liability arising from the offense (e.g., action for legal separation against a spouse who committed concubinage)4. Prejudicial question arises when1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action2. The resolution of such issue will determine whether the criminal action will proceed or not Requisites for a prejudicial question:1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action: and2. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed Petition for suspension of criminal action is to be filed at any time before prosecution rests.5. Remediesa. Reservation of right to institute separate civil proceedings to recover civil liability arising from crime Must be made before prosecution presents evidence Action instituted only after final judgment in criminal actionb. Petition to suspend the criminal action May be filed upon existence of a prejudicial question in a pending civil action Filed at any time before the prosecution rests6. Extinction of penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist. Final judgment in civil absolving defendant from civil liability not a bar to criminal action7. Filing fees:1. Actual or compensatory damages filing fees not required2. Moral, temperate and exemplary filing fees required1. If alleged, fees must be paid by offended party upon filing of complaint or information 1. If not alleged, filing fees considered a first lien on the judgmentRule 112 Preliminary Investigation1. Preliminary investigation inquiry or proceeding to determine if there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime cognizable by the RTC has been committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial A preliminary investigation is only necessary for an information to be filed with the RTC; complaints may be filed with the MTC without need of an information, which is merely recommendatory (Tandoc vs. Resultan) Absence of a preliminary investigation is NOT a ground for a motion to quash the information; an information filed without a preliminary investigation is defective but not fatal; in its absence, the accused may ask for one; it is the fiscals refusal to conduct a preliminary investigation when the accused demands one which is a violation of the rights of the accused (Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan). Court should not dismiss the info, but hold the case in abeyance and either: (1) conduct its own investigation; or (2) require the fiscal to hold a reinvestigation.2. GENERAL RULE: The fiscal conducts the preliminary investigation before filing an information with the RTC, EXCEPT where the accused is lawfully arrested without a warrant and an inquest is conducted.3. Right to Preliminary Investigation A personal right and may be waived Waived by failure to invoke the right prior to or at least at the time of the plea4. Who conducts Preliminary Investigation1. Provincial or city fiscals and their assistants2. Judges of MTC and MCTC3. National and regional state prosecutors4. Such other officers as may be authorized by law5. Duly authorized legal officers of COMELEC 1. The Ombudsman2. The PCGG, in cases of ill-gotten wealth5. Procedurea. If conducted prior to arresti. Complainant files complaint with(a) Provincial or city fiscal(b) Regional or state prosecutor(c) MTC or MCTC judge, excluding MTC judge of Metro Manila or chartered cities(d) Other offices authorized by law1. Investigating officer either dismisses complaint or asks by subpoena complainant and respondent to submit affidavits and counter-affidavits 1. If the investigating officer finds prima facie evidence, he prepares an information and a resolution i.e., if fiscal finds reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and accused is probably guilty thereof Prima facie evidence is that evidence which, standing alone, unexplained and uncontradicted, would be enough to merit a conviction of the accusediv. Otherwise, he recommends the dismissal of the complaint If the investigating officer is an MTC judge, and he finds that probable cause exists and that there is a need to place the accused under custody, then he may issue a warrant of arrest Flores vs. Sumaling What differentiates the present rule from the previous one is that while before, it was mandatory for the investigating judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused if he found probable cause, the rule now is that the investigating judges power to order the arrest of the accused is limited to instances in which there is a necessity for placing him in custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. It is therefore error for the investigating judge to order the issuance of a warrant of arrest solely on his finding of probable cause, without making any finding of a necessity to place the accused in immediate custody to prevent a frustration of justice.1. Investigating officer forwards records to the city fiscal or chief state prosecutor 1. City fiscal or state prosecutor either dismisses the complaint or files the information in court Decision prevails over decision of the MTC judgevii. Records will not form records of the case proper Court on its own or on motion may order production of recordb. If conducted after warrantless arrest1. If accused waives Art. 125, RPC and asks for a preliminary investigation, with the assistance of counsel, then the procedure for one prior to arrest is followed 1. Inquest conducted as follows(a) Fiscal determines the validity of the arrest(b) Fiscal determines existence of prima facie evidence based on the statements of the complainant, arresting officer and witnesses(c) Fiscal either dismisses the complaint and orders the immediate release of the accused, OR prepares and files an information While fiscal has quasi-judicial discretion whether or not to file an information, once it is filed with the court, the court acquires jurisdiction giving it discretion over the disposition of the case and the Sec. of Justice should refrain from entertaining petitions for review or appeals from the decision of fiscal (Crespo vs. Mogul; Velasquez vs. Undersecretary of Justice)NOTE: Information may be filed by offended party, peace officer or fiscal without preliminary investigation.6. Remediesa. Motion for preliminary investigation Filed when accused is arrested without warrant Must be with assistance of counsel and after waiving Art. 125, RPCb. Motion for preliminary investigation Filed within 5 days after accused learns an information against him has been filed without a preliminary investigationc. Motion for re-investigationd. Appeal to DOJ Filed upon denial of his motion for a preliminary investigation, on the ground that his rights to due process of law were violated, ousting the court of jurisdictione. Petition for prohibition Filed with appellate court to stop the criminal proceedings Ordinarily, injunction will not lie but may be granted in certain cases When prohibition proper to restrain criminal proceedings:1. When strong-arm tactics are used for vindictive purposes (Salonga vs. Cruz-Pano)2. When the accused is deprived of his rights3. When the statute on which the charge is based is null and void4. When it will aid the administration of justice (Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan)5. When multiplicity of suits will be avoided (Guingona vs. City Fiscal)