crimpro midterms reviewer

7/28/2019 CrimPro Midterms Reviewer

1/48

Criminal Procedure Midterms Reviewer

UP Law Block B2015

I. Prosecution of Offenses

1. How do you initiate criminal actionsa. Definition Complaint & Information

Case Summary Doctrine

Tumang vs.

Bautista

Private respondent Emilio Javier filed a sakdal, which was

unaccompanied by an English translation, against Enrique Tumang

and his daughter Georgia Tumang para Danyos Purhisyo. The

petitioners filed a motion asking the Court to order the privaterespondent to file the sakdal in English and to attach a copy of the

acquittal of Javier in the criminal complaint filed against him for

Unjust Vexation. **Note: sakdal = complaint, according to Court.

The complaint must be written in English, which is almost

exclusively used, and not Filipino because the latter is still a

gestating language

Ebarle vs.

Sucaldito

Bienvenido Ebarle, Governor of Zamboanga del Sur, sought injunctive

relief in 2 separate petitions, to enjoin further proceedings in a series

of criminal prosecutions filed by the Anti-Graft League for allegedviolation of various provisions of the Anti-Graft Law and the RPC.Ebarle opines that the non-compliance of the procedures laid down by

E.O. 264 regarding complaints of irregularities against government

officials is fatal to the criminal actions filed. He also argues that the

Anti-Graft League has no standing in filing the complaints since it is

not the offended party.

E.O. 264 is not applicable in this case since it has exclusive

application to administrative complaints, not criminal. As a

general rule, a criminal action is commenced by complaint orinformation, both of which are filed in court. In case of acomplaint, it must be filed by the offended party; with

respect to an information, it is the fiscal who files it. But a

complaint filed with the fiscal prior to a judicial action maybe filed by any person.

2. Who must prosecutea. Criminal Actions in General

Del Rosario vs.Mercado Mercado was killed by the petitioners who are police officers. Thecomplaint of murder was filed by Mercados wife. The petitioners areasserting that the complaint should be considered void as it was

instituted not by the offended party.

The widow of a murdered person has a right to file acomplaint for murder as an offended party.

People vs.Beriales

Three men charged with murder, were arraigned, tried and convictedwithout the presence of the Fiscal or his representatives.

Though the Fiscal may turn over the active conduct of a trialto a private prosecutor, his duty to direct and control the

prosecution of criminal cases requires that he must be

present during the proceedings.

Republic vs.

Sunga

Petition for review on certiorari filed by the provincial fiscal seeking

clarification on whether or not a criminal case can be dismissed by the

trial court on the basis of an affidavit of desistance executed by the

Court held that while the trial court is the sole judge on

whether a criminal case should be dismissed, the fiscals

view on the matter should be heard by said court first before


2/48

offended party but without motion to dismiss filed by the prosecuting

fiscal. Court held that while the trial court is the sole judge on whether

a criminal case should be dismissed, the fiscals view on the mattershould be heard by said court first before making such decision ofdismissal.

making such decision of dismissal

Ingco vs.

Sandiganbayan

A man accused of graft and corruption as a Sr VP for PNB claims that

since the information alleged against him was not filed in the propercourt before the ten-year prescription period, liability for such

wrongdoing has prescribed.

Filing an information for preliminary investigation, even in a

Court or Office with no proper jurisdiction of the crimealleged, suspends the prescription period.

Domondon vs.

Sandiganbayan

Several informations were filed against the petitioner and several

others connected with a violation of the Anti-Graft Law RA 3019.Petitioner filed a motion for consolidation and reconsideration of an

order of the Ombudsman including him in the information for Crim

Case 20574, which was denied by the Ombudsman.

Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the fiscal or

Ombudsman in their investigatory and prosecutory power todetermine probable cause, unless there is a finding of grave

abuse of discretion.

Pinote vs. Ayco Judge Ayco allowed the presentation of evidence of the defense in a

criminal case without the presence of the state prosecutor, Ringcar

Pinote, who filed the present case.

As a general rule, all criminal actions shall be prosecuted

under the control and direction of the public prosecutor. This

transgression could not be rectified by subsequently givingthe prosecution a chance to cross-examine the witnesses.

b. Crimes of Adultery, Concubinage and Chastity

Tan, Jr. vs,

Gallardo

Private prosecutors take a contrary position to Solicitor Generalsstand. The Court held that private prosecutors intervention in a

criminal case is subject to the control of the SolGen, in fact, their role

in this particular case to cooperate with the SolGen, hence, they cannottake a position contrary to his.

In a criminal case, the public prosecutor represents the

Republic, due to this interest; the prosecution is placed

under his direction, control and responsibility. The private

prosecutor, on the other hand, represents the offended partywith respect to the civil action for recovery of the civil

liability arising from the offense; his intervention is always

subject to the control and direction of the prosecuting

official.

c. Revised Penal Code, Arts, 344 and 360, last paragraph

d. Cases

People vs.

Liggayu

A complaint was filed by a member of the police force charging

Liggayu for having killed one Teresita Young de Dyogi. Another

complaint was filed which charged Liggayus companion Franco of the

same crime. The fiscal, after conducting an investigation, filed a

motion to dismiss the case against Franco, citing that it was Liggayu

who was on the wheel when Teresita was run over.

All criminal actions either commenced by complaint or

information shall be prosecuted under the direction andcontrol of the fiscal. The offended party may, as of right,

intervene in the prosecution of a criminal action, but only

when from the nature of the offense, he is entitled to

indemnity and that he has not waived or expressly reserved

the action. If the criminal action is dismissed by the court, on


3/48

motion of the fiscal, on the ground of insufficiency of

evidence, the offended party cannot appeal from the order of

dismissal.

Bernabe vs.Bolinas

Wife of the deceased wanted the charge for the death of her husbandchanged from homicide to murder with aggravating circumstance of

use of motor vehicle. The Provincial Fiscal and Assistant ProvincialFiscal refused to do so claiming that there was no treachery involved

in the stabbing of the victim.

A prosecuting officer is sworn, under his oath of office, notmerely to file charges against an accused, but to file the

corresponding information in accordance with the factsand/or evidence obtaining in the case.

Bagatua vs.

Revilla

City Attorney recommended that the complaint for estafa be dismissed

for lack of merit so CFI accordingly dismissed it. Complainants

appealed to SC through a petition for mandamus to compel CityAttorneys to file the case of estafa against Pangilinan

The remedy in case city attorneys recommended dismissal is

not that of mandamus but the filing with the proper

authorities or court of criminal or administrative charges ifthe alleged offended parties believe that the former

maliciously refrained from instituting actions for the

punishment of violators of the law

Crespo vs,

Mogul

A Circuit Criminal Court Judge refused to grant a motion to dismiss (a

criminal case) filed by a Provincial Fiscal upon instructions by theSecretary of Justice.

Once a complaint or information is filed in Court, the

acquittal/dismissal/conviction rests solely on the discretionof the Court. It is within the Courts discretion to deny amotion to dismiss filed by the fiscal or the Secretary of

Justice. Even if he does not believe that there is a basis for

prosecution, the fiscal or prosecutor still has the legal duty to

continue with the presentation of evidence in order for theCourt to arrive at an objective judgment of the case.

Sta. Rosa

Mining Co. vs.Zabala

Criminal information was filed with the Court of First Instance. Upon

request of accused private respondents, the Secretary of Justicereviewed the case. The Secretary later reversed the findings of the

case and directed prosecution to move for dismissal. Such motion was

denied by the Court. Now, petitioner files for mandamus to compel

Respondent Fiscal to continue prosecuting the criminal case.

A fiscal has the power to institute a criminal action. However,

once a case has already been filed, the fiscal loses power overthe case and must continue prosecuting it, as his duty of the

Government.

Banal vs. Tadeo Atty. Bustos was not allowed by the court to appear as private

prosecutor in a criminal case for violation of BP 22 on grounds thatsuch was a crime against public order and not against property. He

filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus to compel the court to

allow him to appear in behalf of his client who was the injured party.

The court said that his intervention in the case was allowed since not

only the State but the petitioner too is entitled to relief. It could not

have been the intention of BP 22 to leave the offended partydefrauded by excluding the civil liability of the offended. Also, it will

A private prosecutor can intervene in the prosecution of a

criminal case if the same felonious act or omission results indirect damage of injury to another, giving rise to civil

liability.


4/48

facilitate the speedy and inexpensive administration of justice

eliminating the burden of having to file a separate civil case

Perez vs.Hagonoy Rural

Bank

Perez as officer in charge, cashier and teller of Hagonoy Rural Bank,Inc. was charged with estafa thru falsification of commercial

documents. Private respondent bank questions the ruling of the RTCjudge in dismissing the criminal case by a petition for certiorari. SC

held that the private respondent, as private complainant, had legalpersonality to assail the dismissal of the criminal case against the

petitioner on the ground that the order of dismissal was issued with

grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

While it is only the Solicitor General that may bring ordefend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or

represent the People or State in criminal proceedingspending in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the

private offended party retains the right to bring a specialcivil action for certiorari in his own name in criminal

proceedings before the courts of law.

Jalandoni vs.Drilon

Private respondent Ledesma filed an administrative complaint againstpetitioner for violation of the RPC and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt

Practices Act with the PCGG. A full-page advertisement was

subsequently caused to be published by private respondents in dailynewspapers. An open letter to OPMC stockholders was also issued

private respondent. Both articles were said to impute illegal and

unauthorized acts to petitioner Jalandoni, relative to the sale of OPMCshares. Because of this, two separate complaints for the crime of libelwere filed by petitioner Jalandoni against private respondents. After

the filing of affidavits, the Asst. Prosecutor issued a Memorandum,

approved by the Provincial Prosecutor, and two separate informations

for the complaints were filed in two different branches of the Makati

RTC. After the respondents appeal, Secretary Drilon issued a DOJ

Resolution ordering withdrawal of the informations

It is a well-settled rule that the Secretary of Justice has thepower to review resolutions and decisions of the city or

provincial prosecutor or the Chief State prosecutor upon

petition by a proper party. The Revised Administrative Codegives the Secretary of Justice the power of direct control and

supervision over said prosecutors. Given this, he may then

affirm, nullify, modify or reverse their rulings as he may seefit

Cerezo vs.People

Complaint for libel was filed by Cerezo. QC Prosecution Office filed bythe corresponding information. Defendants filed a motion to

reconsider the prosecutors evidence. The prosecutor filed a motion towithdraw the information so the RTC withdrew it. Upon CerezosMotion and upon review by the DOJ, the RTC revived the case.

Once the case is filed in court, the Court must make its owndetermination of whether to proceed with the case. It must

not solely rely on the prosecutors motion or orders.

3. Formal requisites of complaint & information

a. Sufficiency of Complaint or Information, Sec. 6, Rule 110

b. Constitutional Basis, Art. III, Sec. 14 (2) L987 Constitution - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall bepresumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of

the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the

attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the

accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.c. Statutory Basis, Sec. 1 (b), Rule 115


5/48

d. Name of the accused/offended party - Sec. 12

People vs.

Guevarra

Armed men robbed the Cruz family. Priscilla, the wife of Luisito Cruz,

was forcibly boarded onto her own care and driven away. Priscilla wastold that she would be held for ransom but the men changed their minds

and left her. Luisito informed the police; subsequently, VergelBustamante alias Dan Saksak was investigated and detained. Affirmed

with modification Bustamante sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua.

Amendment of Information to include a defendant cannot be

without basis. Examples: previously-issued subpoenas,return of service for subpoenas as answered by jail warden,

order of other courts, letters of transmittal of case records.

U,S. vs.

Lahoyhoy &

Madanlog

Defendants were convicted in the CFI of robbery with homicide,

however, the complaint charges that the property taken was Roman

Escribas, while the proof shows that they were Juanas. The SC acquittedthe defendants of the crime of robbery but convicted them of homicide ofall four victims.

In the crime of robbery, among others, the property taken

must be that of another, and an indictment or complaint for

such offense must name the owner. A variance in this respect

between the indictment (allegation in the complaint) and theproof (evidence) will be fatal and the accused cannot be

convicted.

e. Designation of offense Sec. 8

People vs.

Purisima

Petitioners did not allege in the informations that they filed all the

elements constituting the crime of illegal possession of deadly weaponspunished under PD9 paragraph 3.

The Information must allege all the facts(elements) which

constitute the offense for such information to constitute asufficiently valid charge. The sufficiency of an information isdetermined solely by the facts alleged therein. If the facts are

incomplete and do not convey the elements of the crime, the

quashing of the accusation is in order.

f. Duplicity of offense Sec. 13

People vs.

Fernandez

Frederico Conrado and Melquiades Fernandez were sentenced to suffer

two death penalties for the rape of Rebecca Soriano. Both appealed the

decision, alleging that the lower court erred in convicting them for the

two crimes of rape. During the pendency of the appeal, Fernandezwithdrew his appeal. Conrado alleges that the trial court erred in

allowing two offenses to be charged under a single information, contrary

to Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.

There should only one offense charged in a single

information. If multiple offenses were charged, this would be

a ground for a motion to quash the complaint. Failure to

object constitutes a waiver.

g. Act or omission complained of Sec. 9

Matilde vs.

JabsonWhile the preamble of the information contained in relation to PD 330,its body did not contain the factual allegations which would qualify the

theft as an offense under PD 330. Such failure to make the allegations falls

short of the requirement of the constitutional guarantee that the accused

be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation. Absent such

The body of the information should contain the factual

allegations that would qualify the offense. In relation to PD

330 is not enough.


6/48

allegations, the PD 330 penalties cannot be validly imposed.

Balitaan vs.

CFI

Accused was charge with the crime of estafa through misappropriation.

Accused moved to strike out the complaining witnesss testimony

because it was at variance with the allegation in the Information.

Every element of which the offense is composed must be

alleged in the complaint or information. What facts and

circumstances are necessary to be stated must bedetermined by reference to the definition and essentials of

the specific crimes.People vs.

Calayca

A sworn complaint was filed by Neddy Calayca against his father, Artemio

Calayca, for rape in the MCTC of Balingasag, Misamis Oriental. The MCTC

Judge found sufficient ground for prosecution and the Office of the

Provincial Prosecutor had the same findings. Subsequently, an

information was filed with the RTC accusing Artemio Calayca of RAPE.

Artemio Calayca was found guilty by the RTC for QUALIFIED RAPE(victim was a minor + accused was the father) and was sentenced to

death.

The 7 circumstances that raises the penalty of rape to death

are qualifying circumstances, which must be alleged in the

Information to afford the accused the right to be informed of

the charges against him and the right to due process. The

failure to allege all the qualifying circumstances is fatal but if

the circumstance is proved, it is considered as an aggravatingcircumstance.

h. Place of Commission Sec. 10

i. Time of Commission Sec. 11

U.S. vs.Javier

Dichao

An information was filed charging Dichao of the crime of rape committedduring the interval between Oct 1910 and Aug 1912. Dichao moved for

the information to be demurred on the ground, among others, that the

complaint is vague, ambiguous, and does not conform substantially to theprescribed form. The demurrer was granted by the lower court.

The allegations of an information should, if possible, besufficiently explicit and certain as to inform the defendant of

the date on which the criminal act is alleged to have been

committed. Without this information about the day, theaccused may be, to an extent, deprived of the opportunity to

defend himself. In this case, the statement of the time when

the crime is alleged to have been committed is so indefinite

an uncertain that it does not give the accused the

information required by law

People vs.

Molero

The daughter of Molero filed a rape case against him. In her first

complaint, the date was Feb. 13, 1976 when the real date was Feb. 5,1976. The first complaint was dismissed for the purpose of changing date

in the complaint.

There was no need to dismiss the case without prejudice to

the filing of the new complaint. It is not necessary to state inthe complaint or information the precise time at which the

offense was committed except when time is a material

ingredient of the offense, but the act may be alleged to havebeen committed at any time as near to the actual date at

which the offense was committed as the information or

complaint will permit.

People vs,

Lualhati

Lualhati convicted of raping the 11 year old daughter of his common-law

wife. He appeals on the grounds that the complaint was ambiguous

regarding the specific time of the offense, and the number of offenses.

It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information

the precise time at which the offense was committed, except

when time is an essential ingredient of the offense.


7/48

People vs.

Razonable

Benjamin Razonable was found guilty by the lower court of raping his

daughter 3 times. He appealed the case claiming that the information was

in violation of sec 6, rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court (requires that

the time of commission must be alleged as near to the actual date as theinformation will permit) hence defective. The information stated that the

offense was committed sometime in the year 1987. Court held that theprocedure for questioning the information was not followed by the

accused and moreover he never objected or brought this up during trial.

Section 11, rule 110 of the Rules of Court requires that the

time of the commission of the offense must be as near to the

actual date as the information or complaint will permit. But

this contention could only be brought up through a motion toquash information or a motion for bill of particulars.

However, if the defense went ahead with presenting theirevidence and the accused even gave an alibi on where he was

at that particular time, then he could not raise this defense

on appeal.

People vs,

Cristobal

A woman convicted by the RTC and CA of qualified theft appeals, on the

basis that the alleged date she committed the crime was wrong.

The date on the information need not be specific, as long as it

places the crime within reasonable time boundaries of thecritical moments the alleged crime was committed.

Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. - the

approximate time of the commission of the offense

Section 11. Time of the commission of the offense . - It is notnecessary to state in the complaint or information the

precise time at which the offense was committed except

when time is a material ingredient of the offense, but theact may be alleged to have been committed at any time

as near to the actual date at which the offense was

committed as the information or complaint will permit.

4. Amendment of complaint or information

a. Amendment or Substitution - Sec. 14; Relate to Rule 120, Section 4

b. Cases

Almeda vs.

Villaluz

Petitioner is charged with crime of qualified theft of motor vehicle. The

bond recommended was Php 15,000 which was required to paid in cash

entirely. An amended information was admitted by the court, even onthe basis of an oral motion to amend information. This imputed habitual

delinquenct and recidivism on Almeda.

Under sec 13 (presently sec 14) of rule 110 of Rules of Court,

the trial court has discretion to allow amendments to the

information on all matters of form after the defendant haspleaded and during the trial when the same can be done

without prejudice to the rights of the defendant. What are

prohibited are amendments in substance, which in a

complaint or information, is the recital of facts constituting

the offense and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court.

Under sec 2 rule 115 of Rules of Court, all motions shall be

made in writing except motions for continuance made in the


8/48

presence of the adverse party, or those made in the course of

hearing or trial.

People vs.

Casey

Joseph Casey alias Burl and Rizardo Felix alias Carding Tuwad killed

Alfredo Valdez. An information for murder against Casey was filed whileFeliz was still at-large. When Felix was already arrested, an amended

information was filed to include him as an accused. The only sentencechanged was from together with one Ricardo Felix alias Carding

Tuwad who is then armed with a firearm to together with the accused

Ricardo Felix alias Carding Tuwad who was then armed with a

firearm. They both pleaded not guilty. They were sentenced to death

and thus this automatic review.

The counsel de officio for the accused raised that the trial of Casey was

illegal since the information was amended without arraignment. The

Court held that the amendment of the information did not prejudice

Casey and is therefore not prohibited under Sec. 13, Rule 100 of the

Revised Rules of Court.

Test to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amended

information: whether a defense under the information as itoriginally stood would be available after the amendment is

made, and whether any evidence defendant might havewould be equally applicable to the information in the one

form as in the other.

People vs,Reyes

An information for qualified theft stating that it was committed in 1969is sought to be changed to 1964 by the Fiscal through a verbal motiondone on the day of the trial. The judge denied the motion and the SC

affirmed the judges decision on the ground that is it be allowed, thesubstantial rights of the accused would be prejudiced.

Sec. 113, Rule 110, Rules of Court, the complaint ofinformation in a criminal case where the accused had beenarraigned and had pleaded, may be amended only as to all

matters of form when the same can be done without

prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused.

Dionaldo vs.

Dacuycuy

Petitioner charged with homicide. After pleading not guilty, the

prosecution filed a motion for leave to amend the information, charging

the accused with murder qualified with treachery and evidentpremeditation instead. Respondent judge granted the motion.

The information or complaint may be amended, in

substance or form, without leave of court, at any time

before the defendant pleads; and thereafter and during thetrial as to all matters of form, by leave and at the discretion

of the court, when the same can be done without prejudice to

the rights of the defendant.

People vs,

Medealdea

The State Prosecutor was not allowed to amend his original

informations to allege conspiracy and include two new defendants.

An amendment to an information to include new defendants

and allege conspiracy is allowed. For as long as the proposedchanges are merely formal and do not change the theory of

the prosecution then the information can be amended.

People vs.

Montenegro

After arraignment of the accused (charged: as accessories-after-the-fact

in the robbery of a convicted minor) in which they plead not guilty, fiscal

filed a Motion to Admit Amended Information (1)changing the offense

charged from "Robbery" to "Robbery in an Uninhabited Place," (2)

alleging conspiracy among all the accused, and (3) deleting all items,articles and jewelries alleged to have been stolen in the original

The test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced

by the amendment of a complaint or information is when a

defense under the complaint or information, as it originally

stood, would no longer be available after the amendment is

made, and when any evidence the accused might have, wouldbe inapplicable to the complaint or information as amended.


9/48

Information and substituting them with a different set of items valued at

P71,336.80. CFI denied the motion because the amendments were

substantial. SC affirmed CFIs decision

5. Remeday against a defective complaint or information

a. Amendment Sec. 14, Rule 110b. Motion to Quash Sec.4, Rule 117

c. When defect becomes apparent during trial but before judgment Sec. 11, Rule 119

6. Interruption of Prescriptive Period

a. When reckoned - Sec. 1 (b), last par., Rule 110

b. Computation of Prescription, Art. 91, RPC - Computation of prescription of offenses. - The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day onwhich the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information,

and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any

reason not imputable to him.

The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.

II. PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION (Rule 111)1. Civil liabilities that may arise from a criminal act

a. Revised Penal Code Art. 100 113 Restitution, Reparation and Indemnification of Damages.

b. Damages under the civil code Arts 29, 32, 33,34 &2176

2, How civil actions are instituted in criminal casesa. Civil action deemed instituted with criminal action

Garcia vs.

Florido

The bus driven by the accused figured in an accident with the vehicle

carrying the petitioners. The accused was charged criminally by the

Chief of Police of Zamboanga del Norte with double serious and less

serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence. A civil action for

damages was subsequently filed by the petitioners against the accusedand the owner of the bus and the driver and owner of their vehicle. The

accused and the owner of the bus filed a motion to dismiss, alleging thatthe civil action could proceed only upon final adjudication of the

criminal case. No reservation was made by petitioners for the filing of a

civil action.

An offended party loses his right to intervene in the

prosecution of a criminal case, not only when he has waived

the civil action or expressly reserved his right to institute,

but also when he has actually instituted the civil action.

b. Separate institution of civil action.

1) Reservation to institute civil action separately - Sec. 1

(a) Effect of Waiver - Sec. 1, par, 3


10/48

(b) When to reserve- Sec. 1, par.4

(c) Prohibition against double recovery - Sec. 1, par. 52) Prior institution of civil action - Sec. 1

(a) When civil action is suspended, - Sec. 2 (a)

(b) When civil action may be consolidated with subsequent criminal action - Sec. 2 (a)

Naguiat vs.

IAC

There was a dispute as to whether or not full amount of price for 4 plots

of land has been paid by vendee. Vendee filed a civil complaint for

specific performance and damges fo vendor to deliver ownership of

lands. A criminal complaint for violation of PD 957 against vendor wasalso filed. Court ruled that these cases could be consolidated.

Civil actions not arising from ex delicto may still be

consolidated with criminal actions, in accordance with

Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court. They may be tried

together when they arise from the same act, event ortransaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend

largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that

the court has jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidatedand that a joint trial will not give one party an undue

advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the

parties.

c. Independent Civil Actions Sec. 2 and 3, Rule 111Corpus vs.Paje

An accident between a bus driven by the accused, and a jeepney drivenby a relative of the plaintiffs caused the latter's death. After filing a

criminal action for homicide, the heirs reserved the right to institute a

separate civil action for damages. The accused was found guilty in the

lower court. He appealed from such judgment to the CA. During the

pendency of his appeal, the heirs instituted the civil action. The CA

granted the appeal of the accused and found him innocent. The accusednow wishes to dismiss the civil action against him, on the ground of his

acquittal in the criminal case.

Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide comes under thegeneral rule that the acquittal of the accused in the criminal

action is a bar to his civil liability. It is not embraced under

the exception for cases of physical injuries, where

independent civil actions may be instituted because Reckless

Imprudence and Physical Injuries/ Homicide are two

different crimes.

Bordas vs.

Canadalla

While the criminal case against Canadalla was pending before the court,

Bordas filed a separate civil action based on quasi-delict.

Separate civil action based on quasi-delict may be filed

pending criminal action (not a violation of Rule III Section 2

of the Rules of Court)

Reyes vs. J,

Sempio, Diy

Cristina Malicsi was charged with the crime of intriguing against honor;

Zenaida Cruz Reyes (petitioner) was the aggrieved party. Malicsi

pleaded guilty to the information. Reyes, represented by a privateprosecutor, was not able to make a reservation of her right to file a

separate civil action for damages. Thereafter,, she filed a civil action

against Cristina Malicsi for damages arising from defamatory words

which were the subject of the information in the Criminal action. Theissue is whether the intervention of private prosecution and its failure to

NO, plaintiff is not barred. The mere appearance of a private

prosecutor in the criminal case does not necessarily

constitute such intervention on the part of the aggrievedparty as could only import an intention on her part to press

her claim for damages in said criminal case and a waiver of

her right to file a separate civil action for damages.


11/48

make a reservation bars plaintiff from filing a separate civil action for

damages against the accused

Aberca vs.Ver

Aberca, et al. filed a Civil action for damages based on Art. 32 againstMaj. Gen. Ver because of illegal searches conducted by military

personnel and other violations of rights and liberties guaranteed underthe Constitution.

Article 32 of the Civil Code which renders any public officeror employee or any private individual liable in damages for

violating the Constitutional rights and liberties of another, asenumerated therein, does not exempt the respondents from

responsibility. Only judges are excluded from liability underthe said article, provided their acts or omissions do not

constitute a violation of the Penal Code or other penal

statute.

Castillo vs.C.A

Petitioners and private respondents got into a vehicular accident whichcaused injuries to their persons and damage to their respective vehicles.

Petitioners filed a civil case for recovery of damages against private

respondents. Subsequently, a criminal case against respondent was alsofiled. Respondent was convicted by the trial court in the criminal case

but the CA acquitted him on the ground that his guilt has not been

proved beyond reasonable doubt. Given this acquittal (and together withevidence), the CFI, in the civil case, dismissed the complaint. The CAaffirmed this dismissal.

The judgment of acquittal does not operate to extinguish thecivil liability of the defendant based on the same incident.

The civil action is entirely independent of the criminal case.

But this rule is not without exception. Under Section 2(c) ofRule 111 of the Rules of Court, [e]xtinction of the penalaction does not carry with it extinction of the civil UNLESS

the extinction proceeds from a declaration from a finaljudgment that the fact from which the civil action might arise

did not exist.

Occena vs.

Icamina

A barangay captain filed a criminal case for Grave Oral Defamation. The

defendant therein was convicted of Slight Oral Defamation with a fine of

50 pesos

From a judgment convicting the accused, two appeals may be

taken.

1. The accused may seek a review of said judgment, asregards both civil and criminal actions

2. The complainant may appeal with respect only tothe civil action, either because the lower court has

refused to award damages or because the award

made is unsatisfactory to him.

When the complainant appeals only the civil aspect in a

criminal case where he didnt reserve his right to file aseparate civil action, only the unappealed decision becomes

final. The civil aspect, which he appealed from, may still be

adjudicated upon timely appeal.

d. Effect of Participation

Bonite vs.Zosa

Bonite hit by truck, resulting in his death. Heirs filed a criminalcomplaint against driver Abamonga. Heirs did not reserve right to file

Reservation is not a requirement for a civil action fordamages in case of an acquittal due to reasonable doubt in a


12/48

separate civil action and participated actively through private

prosecutor. TC acquitted due to reasonable doubt. Heirs filed separate

civil action for damages. TC dismissed and denied motion for recon. SC

reversed.

criminal case based on NCC 29. Active participation is also

not a bar, because civil action based on NCC 29 is different

and independent from civil action based on criminal liability.

e. CasesU.S. vs. Heery Both defendant and complainant appealed to the SC from the judgment

of the lower court - the former as regards the decision finding him guilty,

and the latter, as regards the refusal of the lower court to admit

evidence as to the damages he suffered. The SC affirmed the former

judgment and remanded the case for completion of its civil branch, and

accordingly, the lower court ordered defendant to indemnifycomplainant. The former appealed raising the question of double

jeopardy. The SC held that the finding of civil liability after the case has

been remanded did not put defendant twice in jeopardy.

Despite the fact that civil liability is determined in the

criminal action, it is not transformed into criminal liability

and made a part of the punishment of the crime. Civil

damages are no part of the punishment for the crime;

therefore, there could be no question of double jeopardy.

Parker vs.

Panlilio

Husband dies in plane bombing. Widow sues airline company for

damages. CFI judge suspends trial in civil case until resolution of the

criminal case. Widow opposes that their cause of action is based oncontract.

Failure on the part of Parker to reserve her right to institute

the civil action in the criminal case cannot be deemed a

waiver to institute a separate civil action based on contractliability or culpa aquiliana. But the court has inherent powerto grant or refuse continuances unless expressly limited by

statute and there is no abuse of discretion such as in this

case where the main issues of the civil and criminal cases are

the same.

Yakult vs. CA Roy Camaso was sideswiped by a Yamaha motorcycle driven by Larry

Salvado, an employee of Yakult. The motorcycle was also owned by

Yakult. On January 6, 1983, Salvado was charged with the crime ofreckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries in the City Court

of Manila. On October 19, 1984, Camaso filed a complaint for damages

against Yakult and Salvado.

Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure

provides that When a criminal action is instituted, the civil

action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly institutedwith the criminal action, unless the offended party waives

the civil action...The reservation of the right to institute the

separate civil action shall be made before the prosecution

starts to present its evidence... Even though this rule was

enacted after the incident, it applies retroactively.

Maniago vs.CA

A civil action is filed against the owner of a bus, the driver of which wascharged with reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and

multiple physical injuries, without reserving in the criminal case the

right to institute an independent civil action. The SC dismissed the civil

action for failing to make the reservation.

The reservation requirement does not impair substantiverights. Rather, it regulates its exercise to achieve orderly

procedure and implement the prohibition against double

recovery.

San Ildefonso

Lines, Inc. vs.

CA

A collision occurred between petitioners bus and Ms. Jaos van. Ms. Jao

filed a complaint charging the buss driver with reckless imprudenceresulting in damage to property and multiple physical injuries. Pioneer

Section 3, Rule 111 does not do away with the reservation

requirement. Prior reservation of the institution of a civil

case is a condition sine qua non before any of independent


13/48

Insurance, an insurer of the van subrogee, later filed a separate civil

action against the bus company.

civil actions can be instituted and thereafter have a

continuous determination apart from or simultaneous with

the criminal action.

3. Effect of extinction of penal action Sec. 2

Marcia vs.C.A

Victory Liner Bus, driven by Paje, collided with a jeep driven byClemente Marcia, which resulted in the death of Clemente and

physical injuries to Edgar Marcia and Renato Yap. The criminal case

filed against Paje was dismissed. The separate civil case instituted

before the criminal case was also dismissed based on Sec 3(c), Rule

111 of the New Rules of Court.

The acquittal of a person in a criminal case does not extinguish thecivil case, unless the Court declares that the fact from which the

civil liability might arise did not exist.

Bunag vs.

C.A

Zenaida filed a criminal complaint for Forcible Abduction with Rape

against Bunag Jr. but this was dismissed by the Fiscal uponresolution at the preliminary investigation stage. Zenaida then

instituted a civil case for damages for alleged breach of promise to

marry. Bunag Jr. claims that the action for damages is not proper in

light of the dismissal of the criminal complaint against him.

Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction

of civil liability unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration ina final judgment that the fact from which the civil case might arise

did not exist.

Jarantillavs, C.A

It is settled doctrine that double jeopardy cannot be invoked againstthis Court's setting aside of the trial courts' judgment of dismissal or

acquittal where the prosecution which represents the sovereign

people in criminal cases is denied due process. Furthermore, doublejeopardy attaches only if there is a valid judgment. If there is none,

or the prior judgment is void, no double jeopardy attaches.

A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminalact whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found

guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not

allowed, if he is also actually charged criminally, to recoverdamages on both scores; and would be entitled in such

eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the

awards made in the two cases vary. In other words, the extinction

of civil liability referred to in Par. (c) of Sec. 3 Rule 111, refers

exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the RevisedPenal Code; whereas the civil liability for the same act considered

as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by

a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has

not happened or has not been committed by the accused

People vs,

Paniterce

Paniterce rapes both minor daughters, incurring both civil and

criminal penalties. During the pendency of the appeal to the SC,Paniterce dies.

The death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his

criminal liability and the civil liability directly arising from andbased solely on the offense committed.

Datu vs.

People

Datu was charged with acts of lasciviousness punishable under RA

7610 because he inserted his middle finger in the 5 year-old kids

vagina. while on appeal in SC, accused died. His death extinguishedboth his criminal and civil liability

death of accused extinguishes criminal liability. His civil liability

arising from crime is likewise extinguished by death since his

appeal was still pending before this court, there was no finaljudgment of conviction upon which an award of civil indemnity

could be based


14/48

4. Judgment in civil action not a bar - Sec.4

5. Prejudicial questiona. Elements Sec. 7

Jimenez vs.Judge Averia

Two women accused of estafa claim that the civil case they filedsuspended the criminal case against them until a definitive ruling

in the civil case was granted.

A civil case regarding forged signatures and questioned receiptsdoes not preclude the filing and resolving of a criminal case against

the petitioners in the civil case. Otherwise, unscrupulousindividuals accused of estafa can file civil cases such as those

mentioned to suspend the criminal cases against them.

Rojas vs.

People

Accused is charged with 5 counts of estafa for executing a new

chattel mortgage on personal property, in violation of Art 319 of

the RPC. A separate civil suit was filed, with one of the causes of

action being the alleged chattel mortgage. Accused alleges thatsuch civil suit is a prejudicial question, which should suspend the

criminal case against him.

A prejudicial question is that which arises in a case, the resolution

of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and

the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.

Art 33 of the Civil Code provides that In cases of defamation,

frauda civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinctfrom the criminal action shall proceed independently of the

criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of

evidence.

Ras vs. Rasul A civil case on an alleged double sale was filed by Pichel againstRas. The defense of Ras was that the alleged first deed of sale was a

spurious. A criminal case for estafa was filed against Ras while the

civil case was pending, with the same subject matter as the double

sale in the civil case. The Court held that the criminal case raises a

prejudicial question and the judge was restrained from trying the

criminal case until the civil case is resolved.

There is a prejudicial question when two different cases lodged indifferent courts are based on facts and issues that are, although not

the same, so intimately connected with each other that they will

determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Librado vs.Coscolluela

Librodo, lessee of the subject land, filed a criminal case of theftagainst the Guanteros. During the pendency of the criminal case, he

also filed a civil case on damages against the same respondents. On

the other hand, the land involved in the said case is also the subject

of two other civil cases between the heirs: Ejectment Suit andIntestate Proceedings. The respondents moved for the suspensionof the criminal case on the ground that the pending civil cases raise

a prejudicial question to the criminal case. The SC ruled that the 3

civil cases are not determinative of the guilt of the party in the

criminal case and ordered to proceed with the cases.

A prejudicial question is one based on a fact distinct and separatefrom the crime but so intimately connected with it that it

determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to

suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said case

involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminalprosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of theissue or issues raised in the civil case, the or innocence of the

accused would necessarily be determined. It comes into play

generally in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action

are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which

must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action mayproceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is

resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or

innocence of the accused in the criminal case.


15/48

Balgos vs.

C.A.

Petitioners were charged with violating R.A. 3019 for unlawfully

enforcing a writ of execution over a car. The plaintiff in a civil case

which involved said car filed a complaint for the recission of the

sale of the same. Subsequently, petitioners filed a motion tosuspend proceedings in the criminal case against them on the

ground of the existence of a prejudicial question in the civil case forrecission. This was denied by the Sandiganbayan.

The doctrine of prejudicial question comes into play usually in a

situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both

pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be

pre-emptively resolved before the criminal action mayproceed, because whatsoever the issue raised in the civil action is

resolved would be determinative juris et jure of the guilt orinnocence of the accused in the criminal case.

Umali vs. IAC Petitioners are the accused in a criminal case for estafa.Subsequently, they filed a civil case for annulment of the deed of

sale for which they issued the checks that are the subject of the

criminal case for estafa. The Court ruled that the matter in the civil

case is not a prejudicial question to the issues in the criminal case.

The 2 elements for a prejudicial question to exist are: (1) the civilaction involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue

raised in the criminal action; and (2) the resolution of such issue in

the civil action determines whether or not the criminal action may

proceed.

b. Suspension of Criminal Action - Sec.6

6. Provisional remedies in criminal cases (Rule 127)a. Provisional Remedies - Sec. 1, Rule 127

b. Rules on Attachment in Criminal Cases - Sec. 2, Rule L27

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE1. Jurisdiction

a. Regional Trial Court - Sec.20 ,23,35 and 36,

Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980

(8.P. Blg. 129 as amended)

Valdepeas

vs. People

Ester Ulsano, assisted by her mother filed a criminal complaint

charging Valdepeas with forcible abduction with rape. CFIconvicted him as charge. CA modified it by convicting him of

abduction with consent. Upon motion for reconsideration, CA set

aside its prior decision and remanded the case for reception of

additional evidence. CFI reiterated CA and convict him of abductionwith consent. Valdepeas appealed again to the CA which affirmedCFI. Again, he filed a motion for reconsideration questioning the

jurisdiction of the trial court. SC held TC has jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction over the person of an accused is acquired upon either

his apprehension, with or without warrant, or his submission tothe jurisdiction of the court. Failure to raise the issue of

jurisdiction and participating on proceedings are deemed to be

waiver of whatever objection and submission to the jurisdiction of

a court.

People vs.Plateros

Accused Plateros and Lahoy were convicted of murder by CFI.Lahoy was also convicted of attempted muder. Plateros and Lahoy

appealed the murder case to SC and Lahoy appealed the attempted

murder case to CA. CA acquitted Lahoy. Sec. 17(1) provides that the

attempted murder case should have been appealed to SC, not CA. Isthe CA decision void?

Where, by allowing the Court of Appeals to decide a case involvingan offense, which is not punishable by death or reclusion perpetua

but which arose out of the same occurrence or was committed on

the same occasion, as the case involving an offense punishable by

death or reclusion perpetua pending in the SC, there will be noconflict between the decisions of SC and CA, the former case need


16/48

not be elevated to SC.

People vs.

Sandiganbay

an

Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a case against a member of the

Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City, Province of Cebu for

violation of PD 1445 with the Sandigandbayan. Accused allegesthat Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over her position.

SC rules that it does.

In the offenses involved in Section 4(a) of PD 1606 (as amended),

public office is essential as an element of the said offenses

themselves, while in those offenses and felonies involved inSection 4(b), it is enough that the said offenses and felonies were

committed in relation to the public officials or employees' office.Therefore, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over them.

Circular No. 20 (August 20, L9B7) - Designation of Certain Branches of the RTC to Handle Exclusively Certain Criminal Cases

b, Municipal Trial Court - Sec. 32, B.P. Blg . 129

Zaldavia vs.

Reyes

Petitioner Zaldivia was charged for a violation of a municipal

ordinance. Petitioner moved to quash the information filed againsther on the ground that the crime had prescribed but the MTC and

RTC denied. Petitioner now files this case against Respondent

Judge Reyes of the RTC.

For violations of municipal orders, being governed by the Rule on

Summary Procedure and not Rule 110, the prescriptive periodshall only be interrupted by the actual filing of a case in court.

c. Katarungang Pambaranggay PD 1508, Sec. 2 [3], Sec. 3d. Sandiganbayan (PD 1606 as amended by Exec. Order 164, RA 7975 [1995] and 8249 [1997])

e. Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) Sections 389-422

2. Venuea. Sec, 15, Rule 110

b. Cases

Lopez vs.City Judge

Lopez et. al., filed for recission of their contract with Lazatin and

Terra Devt. In response, Lazatin and Terra filed a criminal

complaint against Lopez et. al., resulting in the latter being charged

with falsification of a private document. After the reinvestigation

that the parties charged requested from the City Fiscal wasterminated, they moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground

that the City Court of Angeles had no jurisdiction over the case,

considering that the offense was made outside the territorial limitsof the city. After failing to act on the motion to dismiss, the

petitioners filed a motion to quash, on the basis of the City Court

having no jurisdiction. The motion was denied.

Where the act of falsification of a private document- the signing ofthe document and the coetaneous intent to cause damage- was

committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the city, its City

Court will have no jurisdiction over the offense charged.

People vs.Yabut

Cecilia YABUT was accused of ESTAFA by means of false pretensesbefore the CFI Bulacan. Instead of entering a plea, YABUT filed a

MOTION TO QUASH contending that venue was improperly laid

because the checks were issued and received by complainant in

Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check under Art. 315 par2(d) of the RPC may be a transitory or continuing offense. Its basic

elements of deceit and damage may independently arise in

separate places. In the event of such occurrence, the institution of


17/48

Caloocan, Yabuts office. Hence, the offense must be tried by the CFICaloocan.

the criminal action in either place is legally allowed.

Agbayani vs,

Sayo

Criminal action for written defamation filed in the CFI Nueva

Vizcaya when it should have been filed in the CFI Isabela becausehe was a public official stationed at Isabela.

The rules on venue in article 360 for written defamation:

1. Whether the offended party is a public official or a privateperson, the criminal action may be filed in the Court ofFirst Instance of the province or city where the libelous

article is printed and first published.

2. If the offended party is a private individual, the criminalaction may also be filed in the Court of First Instance of

the province where he actually resided at the time of thecommission of the offense.

3. If the offended party is a public officer whose office is inManila at the time of the commission of the offense, the

action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of

Manila.

4. If the offended party is a public officer holding officeoutside of Manila, the action may be filed in the Court ofFirst Instance of the province or city where he held office

at the time of the commission of the offense.

Catinguib vs.

C.A

PCSO agent in Cagayan de Oro charged with malversation for

failing to transmit money to the Manila head office. Venue of trialwas in Manila. Accused questioned jurisdiction of CFI-Manila

because crime occurred in Cagayan de Oro

Action can be instituted where any of the essential ingredients of

the crime took place. In malversation, crime is consummated inthe place where the accused is required to render an accounting

and failed to do so.

People vs.

Grospe

Two checks were issued by Parulan to San Miguel Corporation and

both bounced for insufficiency of funds. He was charged with

violation of BP 22 and Estafa under Art 315 (2d), RPC. The checkswere received by the Sales Supervisor at Guiguinto, Bulacan andforwarded to the SMC Regional Office at San Fernando, Pampanga.

The check was also deposited at BPI San Fernando, Pampanga

where the notice of dishonor was received from the drawee bank,

Planters Bank Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The cases were filed in

Pampanga but the RTC dismissed the cases for lack of jurisdiction.SC held that both crimes are continuing offenses and may be filed

in either Bulacan or Pampanga.

A person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in

any municipality or province where the offense was in part

committed. In transitory or continuing offenses in which someacts material and essential to the crime and requisite to itsconsummation occur in one province and some in another, the

Court of either province has jurisdiction to try the case, it being

understood that the first Court taking cognizance of the Case will

exclude the others. However, if an the acts material and essential

to the crime and requisite of its consummation occurred in onemunicipality or territory, the Court of that municipality or

territory has the sole jurisdiction to try the case.


18/48

Bala vs.

Martinez

Bala was convicted for falsification of a genuine public or official

document. He was granted probation on August 11, 1982.

According to the terms of the probation, it was to last for one year,

ending on August 10, 1983. Bala changed his residence, from BFHomes to Phil-Am Life Subdivision, in Las Pias. The Order of Final

Discharge was not issued because the probation officer had not yetsubmitted his Final Report. In December of 1983, the Assistant City

Fiscal filed a Motion to Revoke the probation, which was granted

by the RTC judge. Petitioner Bala opposed, but the RTC judge

denied it.

In criminal cases, venue is an element of jurisdiction. Change of

abode does not compel a change of venue, and necessarily,

control, over a person. Jurisdiction does not attach to the branch

or judge, as it is vested in the court.

People vs,

Sola

The Municipal Court of Kabankalan granted the accused right to

bail without giving the prosecution an opportunity to prove thatthe evidence against the accused was strong. Witnesses filed a

petition for change of venue and cancellation of bail bonds. SC

granted the petition.

The Supreme Court has the constitutionally mandated power to

order a change of venue to avoid any miscarriage of justice. Tocompel the prosecution to proceed to trial in a locality where its

witnesses will not be at liberty to reveal what they know is to

make a mockery of the judicial process. The effect on the

witnesses who will testify must always be considered and in case

of doubt, it should be resolved in favor of a change of venue.

People vs,Gorospe

A girl was abducted in one province and raped in another province.The complaint was filed in the Court of the place of abductionwhose jurisdiction was challenged by the accused that the Court of

the place where the rape was committed was the one with

jurisdiction. The SC held that the court of the place of abduction

had jurisdiction.

An offense may be tried in the court of the municipality orprovince wherein the offense was committed or any essentialingredients of the crime took place.

Agustin vs.

Pamintuan

Victor Agustin filed a motion to quash the Informations of libel

against him because they did not allege the residence of the

offended party, nor the place of printing and publication.

Amending an Information is not sufficient to cure defects in a

Courts jurisdiction. Failure to allege the requisite element ofvenue gives the accused the right to have the Informationquashed.

Foz Jr. vs.

People

An information for libel against a private individual failed to allege

the place where the publication was printed or first published or

the place of residence of the offended party. The SC held that suchinformation did not vest jurisdiction to the lower court.

The information for a particular crime should allege the facts

which, as provided by law, vests jurisdiction to the court.

Otherwise, the court cannot validly decide for want of suchjurisdiction.

IV. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION (Rule 112)

1. Definition. Sec, 1, Rule 112

a. Purpose - See Annotations, 121 SCRA 233

b. Cases

Hashim vs.

Boncan

Accused was caught red-handed in possession of counterfeit

treasury certificates. A preliminary investigation was conducted by

the respondent Fiscal at which evidence was adduced warranting

The right to a preliminary investigation is statutory, not

constitutional. Its oft-repeated purpose is to secure the innocent

against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecutions, and to


19/48

the filing of information against the accused. The information was

filed in Court, and the presiding judge, upon the strength of the said

preliminary investigation and sworn information, issued a warrant

for the arrest of the petitioner.

protect him from open and public accusation of crime, from the

trouble, expenses and anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect

the State from useless and expensive prosecutions.

In a preliminary investigation, the investigating judge or

prosecuting officer acts upon probable cause and reasonablebelief, not upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The occasion is

not for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence; it is

for the presentation of such evidence only as may engender well-

grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that theaccused is probably guilty thereof.

Tandoc vs,Resultan

A criminal complaint was filed with the Office of the City Fiscal bythe respondents for serious oral defamation, grave threats, and

physical injuries. The City Fiscal did not find any probable cause

and dismissed the complaint. Subsequently, the respondents filed a

criminal complaint for serious physical injuries, trespass to

dwelling, serious physical injuries, and grave threats to kill with the

City Court of San Carlos City.

What is a preliminary investigation?a. Intended to protect the accused from the inconvenience,

expense and burden of defending himself in a formal trial unless

the reasonable probability of his guilt shall have been first

ascertained in a fairly summary proceeding by a competent

officer.

b. Intended to protect the state from having to conduct uselessand expensive trials.

2. Nature

U.S. vs. Marfori A complaint was filed against Marfori charging the latter of

Aggravated Slander. The justice of the peace discharged Marforiafter conducting the preliminary investigation and trial since the

former did not find any probable cause. However, the trial judge,

upon review of the records, did not agree with the justice of the

peace and proceeded with the trial against Marforis objections.Marfori was convicted, hence this appeal.

The right of an accused to a preliminary investigation is a

substantial one. Its denial is a prejudicial error. The discharge bythe justice of the peace did not operate as a final acquittal and was

not a bar to the rearrest and prosecution of Marfori. But

proceeding with the trial, without an order by the propermagistrate remanding the accused for trial is not in accord with

the law.

People vs.

Ovilla

The provincial fiscal filed a motion praying for the dismissal of

the criminal case herein.(no other information given) The courthaving found meritorious the reason of the provincial fiscaldismissed the case.

After a criminal case has been remanded by the justice of peace to

the CFI which has jurisdiction to try it on the merits, and beforethe provincial fiscal has filed the necessary information, the latternot only has the power but also the duty to investigate the facts

upon which the complaint filed in the justice of peace court was

based.

People vs.

Veloso

Veloso sentenced to death. He alleges CFI decision void for lack of

preliminary investigation. However he did not raise the issue in

the CFI and he expressly waived his right to present evidence

when contacted during the preliminary investigation stage.

The right to preliminary investigation is not a fundamental right

and that the same may be waived expressly or by silence. Such

waiver carries with it the waiver of any procedural error or

irregularity that may have attended the preliminary investigation.

People vs, 4 informations were filed charging the accused with Estafa thru Assuming that the informations did not contain the certificates


20/48

Gomez falsification of public document. after arraignment, accused

assails the informations for failing to state that the requisite

preliminary investigationw as conducted

that certified that a preliminary investigation was held, this

omission is not fatal. The court could always conduct an

investigation to supplant the said omission.

But the defendants did not question the validity of the said

informations before they entered the plea of not guilty. They filed

a motion to declare them null and void more than one yearthereafter.

They waived the right to a preliminary investigation when they

failed to invoke it prior to or at least at the time of the entry of

their plea in the CFI.

Placer vs. Judge

Villanueva

A judge, before issuing warrants of arrest, still required the

fiscals to submit the supporting affidavits and other supportingevidences in the criminal cases, despite the certification of the

finding of probable cause by the latter.

The judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause

before issuing a warrant of arrest. If on the face of the information,

the judge finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscalscertification and require submission of the affidavits of witnesses

to aid him in arriving at the conclusion as to existence of probable

cause.

Go vs. CA Petitioner Rolito Go was charged with the crime of murder

without preliminary investigation. He insisted on the right, eventhough trial has started and the prosecution has alreadypresented evidence in the case.

Such prelim investigation is a component part of due process in

criminal justice. It is a substantive right, since it is, in a sense, theright of the accused to an opportunity to avoid a process painful toany one, which entails anxiety, aggravation, humiliation, etc.

The rule is that the right to a preliminary investigation is waived

when the accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of

entering a plea at arraignment. Even when the trial on the merits

has started, the trial should be suspended to make way for thepreliminary investigation.

Doromal vs.

Sandiganbayan

An information for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt

Practices Act was filed against former PCGG Commissioner

Quintin Doromal by the office of the Special Prosecutor. The

information was annulled by the SC in view of the ruling inZaldivar v. Sandiganbayan. A preliminary investigation wasalready made in this case. A new information was filed, now

certified by the Ombudsman. Doromal asks the Court to quash

the information, having been filed without a preliminary

investigation conducted first. The Court held that Doromal has

the right to a preliminary investigation but the informationcannot be quashed because the Sandiganbayan now has

jurisdiction on the case. The trial by merits is suspended while a

preliminary investigation is being conducted.

The right to a preliminary investigation cannot be denied. It is a

substantial right and its denial constitutes a prejudicial error, inthat it subjects the accused to the loss of life, liberty, or property

without due process of law.


21/48

Allado vs.

Diokno

The judge issued a warrant of arrest against Allado and Mendoza

in connection with the crime of kidnapping with homicide

charged against them. The two accused petitioned for review of

the resolution of prosecutors that found probable cause againstthem. The SC found that the judge merely relied on the said

resolution in issuing a warrant of arrest notwithstanding theinsufficiency of evidence against the petitioners while the

prosecutors merely relied on the findings of PACC. The warrant

of arrest was set aside.

In both the preliminary investigation by the prosecutor, which

ascertains if the respondent should be held for trial, or a

preliminary inquiry by the trial judge which determines if an

arrest warrant should issue, the bottom line is that there is astandard in the determination of the existence of probable cause,

i.e., there should be facts and circumstances sufficiently strong inthemselves to warrant a prudent and cautious man to believe that

the accused is guilty of the crime with which he is charged.

Roberts vs. CA Petitioners are officials of Pepsi. Despite onl y having the

information, amended information, and joint resolution made by

the prosecutors, the respondent judge denied the motion to holdin abeyance the issuance of warrants of arrest and the motion to

defer the arraignment, while directing the issuance of warrants

of arrest.

Section 2, Article III of the present Constitution provides that no

search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon

probable cause to be determined personally by the judge afterexamination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the

witnesses he may produce.

The preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does not bind the

Judge. It merely assists him to make the determination of

probable cause. The Judge does not have to follow what theProsecutor presents to him.

The first kind of preliminary investigation is executive in nature. It

is part of the prosecutions job. The second kind of preliminaryinvestigation which is more properly called preliminary

examination is judicial in nature and is lodged with the judge

Republic vs. CA A judge dismissed an information filed against an accused forwant of probable cause.

The determination of probable cause during a preliminaryinvestigation is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor. It

is an executive function, the correctness of the exercise of which

the trial court may not be compelled to pass upon. The trial court

cannot determine whether the prosecutor has made a correct

ascertainment of the existence of probable cause in a case.Sistoza vs,Desierto

Siztoza and other officers of the Bureau of Correction involved inthe preparation of the purchase order for the tomato paste as

part of the food supply of the inmates were charged with the

violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It was

alleged that they give unwarranted advantage to Elias General

Merchandising causing undue burden to the government whenthe order was awarded to it when in fact it was only the second

lowest bidder. Eliseo, Co., a bidder who lose in the bidding, filed a

complaint before the Ombudsman who found probable cause

As a general rule, the Supreme Court does not interfere with theOmbudsman's determination of the existence or absence of

probable cause. A settled exception is when there is grave abuse

of discretion.

Note: For criminal cases falling within the jurisdiction of theSandiganbayan, it is the Office of the Special Prosecutor, as an

organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman, which

exercises investigatory and prosecutory powers.


22/48

after conducting preliminary investigation. The Office of the

Ombudsman filed the Information with the Sandiganbayan. Even

after reinvestigation, the proceedings were continued and so

Sistoza filed a petition with SC. SC held that there was noprobable cause in the charged against Sistoza so Sandiganbayan

was ordered to dismiss the case,Santos vs. Orda The petitioners are among those charged of Murder for having

allegedly participated in the killing of Francis Orda. Theprosecution, upon the instruction of the DOJ Secretary, filed a

motion to withdraw the Information since their witnesses had

recanted their statements. RTC dismissed the case but SC

remanded it, ordering RTC judge to make an independentassessment of probable cause. RTC found NO probable cause for

the charge. CA reversed RTCs finding of lack of probable cause.

The task of presiding judge when an Information is filed with the

court is first and foremost to determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused. The

purpose of the mandate of the judge to determine probable cause

is to insulate from the very start those falsely charged with crimes

from the tribulation, expenses and the anxiety of a public trial.

Metrobank vs.Reynaldo

Metrobank discovered that a fraud was perpetuated by itsemployees and a client, Universal Converter Phils. Inc. against

them. They entered into a Debt Settlement Agreement with

Universal, but sued their employees for estafa. The prosecutorrecommended dismissal of the case, and the DOJ rules the sameway.

The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to determine ifprobable cause exists. Probable cause is defined as a reasonableground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well-founded,

such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead aperson of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertainan honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so. The term doesnot mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute

certainty. While probable cause demands more than "bare

suspicion," it requires "less than evidence which would justify

conviction."

3, Who are authorized Sec. 2

Castillo vs.

Villaluz

Hon. Villaluz directed Castillo, Provincial Fiscal, to explain why

he should not be punished for contempt of court for not filing an

information, pursuant to Hon. Villaluzs preliminary investigation

of an estafa case.

The conclusions derived by a judge from his own investigation

cannot be superior to and conclusively binding on the fiscal or

public prosecutor, in whom that function is principally and more

logically lodged.Balgos vs.

Sandiganbayan

Petitioners were charged with violating R.A. 3019 for unlawfully

enforcing a writ of execution over a car. The plaintiff in a civilcase which involved said car filed a complaint for the rescission

of the sale of the same. Subsequently, petitioners filed a motion

to suspend proceedings in the criminal case against them on the

ground of the existence of a prejudicial question in the civil case

for rescission. This was denied by the Sandiganbayan.

Before a re-investigation of the case may be conducted by the

public prosecutor, after the case was already filed in court, thepermission or consent of the court must be secured. And if after

such reinvestigation, the prosecution finds a cogent basis to

withdraw the information or otherwise cause the dismissal of the

case, such proposed course of action must be addressed to the

discretion of the court.

- Sec. 37, Rule on Summary Procedure - Pres. Dec, No. 1630 (Tanodbayan)


23/48

- Sec. 265, Omnibus Election Code (COMELEC)

4. Cases Cognizable by RTC

a. Procedure

1) When conducted by a prosecutorFiling of Complaint affidavit/s

Investigation Proper

Sec. 3

Rodil vs. Garcia During the preliminary investigation of a murder case,respondent judge denied petitioner and accused Reynaldo

Rodil's application for bail and request to cross-examine the

witnesses of the prosecution.

The procedure to be followed in the hearing on an application forbail, while summary in character, is not to be a mere sham or

pretense. If the Constitution requires the court to determine for

itself whether or not the proof is evident or presumption great ina given case, all considerations of expediency or convenience,

however potent they might be at the common law, must give

way. Hence, a hearing on the application for bail must be

conducted.

During the preliminary investigation, the accused is not entitled

to cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecution, this being a

matter that depends on the sound discretion of the Judge or

investigating officer concerned.

Post Investigation, duties of prosecutor - Secs. 4, 82) When conducted by a judge, Sec. 5

b. Distinguished from Preliminary Examination

1) Sec.6

2) Cases

Pangandaman

vs. Casar

An ambush happened and MTC Judge Casar conducted the

preliminary investigation and issued the warrant of arrest beingquestioned. Petitioners contend that the Judge failed to conduct

the investigation in accordance with the procedure prescribed inSection 3 (now section 6), Rule 112 of the Rule of Court. SC

upheld the validity of the warrant of arrest

There is no requirement that the entire procedure for

preliminary investigation must be completed before a warrant ofarrest may be issued. The present Section 6 of the same Rule 112

clearly authorizes the municipal trial court to order therespondent's arrest even before opening the second phase of the

investigation if said court is satisfied that a probable cause exists

and there is a necessity to place the respondent under immediate

custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.

Samulde vs.

Salvani

There was a disagreement between investigating judge Samulde

and provincial fiscal Salvani on whether it is mandatory for the

former to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused in view of

Under the 1985 ROC, it is not obligatory, but merely

discretionary, upon the investigating judge to issue a warrant for

the arrest of the accused, even after having personally examined


24/48

his finding, after conducting a preliminary investigation, that

there exists prima facie evidence that the accused committed the

crime charged. Samulde did not issue the arrest warrant, while

Salvani wanted him to do so. The RTC Judge in the mandamusaction ordered Samulde to issue the warrant. The SC set aside

this decision

the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching

questions and answers, for the determination of whether a

probable cause exists.

Tandoc vs,

Resultas

A criminal complaint was filed with the Office of the City Fiscal

by the respondents for serious oral defamation, grave threats,and physical injuries. The City Fiscal did not find any probable

cause and dismissed the complaint. Subsequently, the

respondents filed a criminal complaint for serious physical

injuries, trespass to dwelling, serious physical injuries, and gravethreats to kill with the City Court of San Carlos City

If the complaints could be filed directly with a Court empowered

to conduct a preliminary examination for purposes of issuance ofwarrants of arrest, the preliminary investigation proper

conducted by the Fiscal can be dispensed with. The earlier order

of dismissal by the investigating fiscal cannot bar the filing of the

complaints with the city court on the ground of double jeopardybecause preliminary investigation is not a trial. It is merely

intended to determine, before the presentation of evidence,

whether or not there are reasonable grounds for proceeding

formally against him.

As long as the offense charged has not prescribed, the city courthas the power and authority to conduct a preliminary

examination and proceed with the trial of the case properly

within its jurisdiction.

Lim vs. Felix Makati RTC judge issued a warrant of arrest for a case from

Masbate transferred to him by the SC. Judge relied only upon

Fiscals certification and recommendation that probable cause

exists.

Preliminary Investigation determines whether there is sufficient

ground for the filing of a criminal complaint or information;

Preliminary Examination determines whether there is probable

cause justifying the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

Preliminary Investigation -> By Prosecution (i.e. Executive). For

filing of complaint/information.

Preliminary Examination -> By Judge. For issuance of warrant of

arrest.c. Preliminary Investigation in Cases of Arrests without warrant and "Inquests"1) Without waiver

Sec. 7, pars. 1 and 3

Art. 125, Rev. Penal Code

DOJ Circ, No. 5, s. March 1, 1989,

re Uniform Procedure for Disposition of Inquest Cases2) With waiver, Sec, 7, par.2

5. Cases Cognizable by MTC, Sec. 9


25/48

V. ARREST, SEARCH AND SEIZURE (Rules 113 and 126)1. Phil. Const., Art. IIL Secs. 2 and 3

2. Statutesa. Rep, Act No. 7438 (1992)

b. B.P. t29, Sec, 37, pars, 2 & 3, (1980)

c. Rev, Penal Code, Art, 129-130,269

d. Rules of Court, Rules 113 & 126; Rule 112, Secs.5, 6, 7& 9(b); Appendix of Forms, Forms 25 to 27

e. Rev, Rules on Summary Procedure, Sec, 16

3. Cases on Arrest

Luna vs.

Plaza

The accused filed a petition for habeas corpus alleging that the judge,

in issuing a warrant for his arrest, violated RA 3828 because he did

not personally examine the complainant and his witnesses with

searching questions and answers and such examination by the judge

was not in included in the records. He only adopted the questionspropounded by the investigating officer. The SC affirmed the CFI

which held that the judge fully complied with said law.

Before a municipal judge issues a warrant of arrest, he must first

satisfy himself that there is probably cause by examining the

witnesses personally, and that the examination must be under

oath and reduced to writing in the form of searching questions

and answers. This is to prevent the issuance of a warrant against aperson based simply upon affidavits of witnesses who made and

swore to their statements before a person/s other than the judge

before whom the complaint is filed. Strict compliance is required

to avoid malicious and/or unfounded criminal prosecution of

persons.

Callanta vs.Villanueva

City judge conducted preliminary investigation and issued a warrantof arrest against Callanta. Callanta posted a bail bond and then

assailed the validity of the issuance of the warrant arguing that it is

only the Fiscal that can conduct preliminary investigation. The court

held the a City Judge can also conduct a preliminary investigation.

Where petitioner has filed an application for bail and waived thepreliminary investigation proper, he waived his objection to

whatever defect, if any, in the preliminary investigation conduct

prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest. Whether or not a

judge can conduct preliminary investigation depends on the

charter of the city where such court has jurisdiction.

People vs,

Burgos

Ruben Burgos was convicted of Illegal Possession of Firearms in

Fu

crimpro midterms reviewer

Documents