part 1 jurisdiction and search rule 126
TRANSCRIPT
University Of The Philippines
COLLEGE OF LAW
CRIMINAL PROCEDURESecond Semester 2011-2012
Arno V. Sanidad
MANDATORY READINGS:
1. Jurisdiction
a. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (as amended);b. SC Administrative Circular No. 09-94;c. The 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure;d. Republic Act No. 8493 (The Speedy Trial Act of 1988); e. SC Circular No. 38-98 (Implementing Rules to RA 8493);f. Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as amended (Sandiganbayan Law);g. RA 8249 (Amendments to Sandiganbayan Law);h. Rep. Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Law);i. A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, “The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.”j. S.C. Administrative Circular No. 51-96 [Superseding Administrative Order No. 173-94
dated 28 September 1994]Special Courts for Kidnapping, Robbery, Dangerous Drugs,Carnapping and Other Heinous Crimes under R. A. NO. 7659.
2. Substantive Rights
a. Const. (1987), art. III;b. Const. (1987), art. VIII, sec. 5(5);c. Rule 115, 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure;d. Republic Act No. 7438;e. DOJ-NPS Manual, Part XI, secs. 1, 2;f. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, Secs. 60-61;
3. DOJ Inquest and Preliminary Investigation Procedure
a. DOJ Department Order No. 70 [2000 NPS Rule on Appeal];b. DOJ Circular No. 61 (1993) [New Rules on Inquest];
-1-
c. DOJ National Prosecution Service, 2008 Manual for Prosecutors (see Reserved Section);
4. Special Rules and Procedures
a. SC AM No. 00-04-07-SC [Child Witness Rule];b. SC AM No. 02-1-18-SC [Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law];c. SC AM No. 02-1-19-SC [Rule on Commitment of Children];d. SC AM No. 02-2-07-SC [Amendments to Rule 110, sec. 5];e. SC AM No. 03-1-09-SC [Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Judges and Clerks
of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures]f. Rule On DNA Evidence A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC October 2, 2007g. Rule on the Writ of Amparo [A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, 25 September 2007]h. Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data [A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC dated 22 January 2008]i. S.C., A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, “The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.”
COURSE OUTLINE
PART ONE
INTRODUCTION
I. History & Sources of Rules on Criminal ProcedureAmy Rossabi, The Colonial Roots of Crim inal Procedure in the Philippines, 11 Columbia Journal of Asian Law 175
II. Criminal Jurisdiction & Hierarchy of Courts:
A. Oscar M. Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. IV , Crim inal Procedure (Rules 110-127), pp. 1-56.
a. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (as amended);b. SC Administrative Circular No. 09-94;c. The 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure;d. Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as amended (Sandiganbayan Law);e. RA 8249 (Amendments to Sandiganbayan Law);f. Rep. Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Law);
B. Criminal Jurisdiction
1. Allegations of complaint as basisBuaya v. Polo, 169 SCRA 471 (1989)
-2-
2. Elements & Requisites of Criminal Jurisdictiona) Subject matter or offense
Revised Penal Code as amendedSpecial Penal Laws
People v. Lagon, 185 SCRA 442 (1990)
b) Venue or Territory where committed; PurposeSec. 18, B.P. 129
Uy v. C.A., 276 SCRA 367 (1997)Campanano, Jr. vs. Datuin, 536 SCRA 471(2007)]People v. Taroy, G.R. #192466, Sept. 12, 2011
Change of venue:Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (4), !987 Constitution
People v. Gutierrez, 36 SCRA 172 (1970)People v. Pilotin, 65 SCRA 635 (1975)Mondiguing v. Abaci, G.R. No. 4131 3. November 6, 1975,68 SCRA 14.People v. Sola, G.R. No. L-56158-64 March 17, 1981 (E.B)
See: [A.M. No. 10-1-06-RTC : January 12, 2010] Re: Petition for Change of Trial Venue of Crimina l Case No.Sa-198, People v. Data Andal Ampatuan, Sr., et Al. For Rebellionfrom the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City to the Regional TrialCourt of Quezon City.
c) Person of the accusedValdepeñas v. People, 16 SCRA 871 (1966)Miranda v. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377
3. a) Jurisdiction not subject to waiver or agreementFigueroa v. People, G.R. No. 147406, July 14, 2008
b) Jurisdiction and double jeopardy
Heirs of Honrales v. Honrales, 629 SCRA 423 (2010)
III. Hierarchy of Courts and the Remedy of Appeal
A. Generally
Rule 122, secs. 1, 2, 3, 6, 9;
Section 9. Appeal to the Regional Trial Courts. —
Rules 123, 124, 125;
Alonso, et al. vs. Cebu Country Club, Inc., et al., G.R. No.
188471, April 20, 2010.
-3-
B. MTC: (Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal
Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts)
1. Original & Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction:
Sec. 32, (1) & (2), B.P. 129
Sec, 3 & 4, SC Administrative Circular No. 09-94
2. Appeal
Sec. 1, Rule 122
Sec. 39, B.P. 129
Sec. 2 (a), Rule 122
3. How appeal taken
Sec. 3, (a), Rule 122
C. Regional Trial Court:
1. Original & Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction
Sec. 20, B.P. 129 ( As amended by R.A. No. 7691)
a. Family Courts
Sec. 3 & 5 (a), R.A. No. 8369 ("Family Courts Act of 1997")
b. Special Courts
Kidnapping, Robbery, Dangerous Drugs, Carnapping and Other Heinous
Crimes under R. A. No. 7659.
S.C. ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 51-96 [Superseding Administrative
Order No. 173-94 dated 28 September 1994]
Environmental Courts
(AO No. 23-2008, Re: Designation of Special Courts to Hear, Try, and
Decide Environmental Cases, January 28, 2008)
c. Offenses committed by public officials
Sec. 4(a) par. 2, Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. NO. 7975 and
R.A. NO. 8249
Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298 (1999)
Magno v. People, 647 SCRA 362 (2011)
2. Appellate jurisdiction
-4-
Sec. 1, Rule 122
Sec. 2 (a), Rule 122
3. Appeals from RTC, how appeal taken
a. In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
Sec. 2 (b), Rule 122
b. In the exercise of its original jurisdiction
(1) Death Penalty Cases
R.A. 9346
Rule 122, secs. 3 (d), 10 (as amended by SC A.M. No. 00-5-03
[October 15, 2004]; Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure to Govern Death Penalty Cases); cf. RA 9346;
Rule 124, sec. 12, 13 (as amended by SC A.M. No. 00-5-03 [October
15, 2004]; Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure to Govern Death Penalty Cases)
Rule 125;
(2) Penalty is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
Rule 122, Sec. 3 (c)
People v. Mateo, 433 SCRA 640 (2004)
People v. Salome, G.R. No. 169077, Aug. 31, 2006
(3) Other cases
Rule 122, Sec. 2 (c)
To the Court of Appeals
Rule 41, Sec. 2
c) Appeal by any of several accused
Rule 122, sec. 11;
d) Withdrawal of appeal
Rule 122, sec. 12;
PD 968 (as amended), sec. 4;
e) Effects of death of accused pending appeal
-5-
Villegas v. CA, 271 SCRA 148 (1997);
People v. Ayochok, 629 SCRA 324 (2010)
f) Effect of failure to appeal a patently wrong judgment
People v. Barro Sr., 338 SCRA 312 (2000);
g) Appeal a Judgment of Acquittal:
People v. Asis, 629 SCRA 250 (2010)
4. Ombudsman & Sandiganbayan:
Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as amended (Sandiganbayan Law);
RA 8249 (Amendments to Sandiganbayan Law);
Rep. Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Law);
a) Ombudsman:
Uy v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 105965-70. March 20, 2001
Appeals from the Ombudsman:
(i) In administrative cases & annulment of judgment
Fabian vs. Desierto, 295 SCRA 470, September 16, 1998
Macalalag vs. Ombudsman, 424 SCRA 741(2004)
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals, 640 SCRA 544(2011)
(ii) In criminal cases
Golangco vs. Fung, 504 SCRA 321(2006)
Perez vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 429 SCRA 357(2004)
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Heirs of Margarita Ventura , 605 SCRA
1(2009)
b) Sandiganbayan - “. . . in relation to office”
(i) “Grade 27 and above”
Sec. 4(a), (1), (2), (3), (4) & (5) Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as amended by
R.A. NO. 7975 and R.A. NO. 8249
(ii) Public officials irrespective of salary grade
Sec. 4(a), 1(a), (b), ©, (d), (e), (f) & (g)Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as amended
by R.A. NO. 7975 and R.A. NO. 8249
Rodriguez v. Sandiganbayan, 424 SCRA 236 (2004)
-6-
Bariaga v. Sandiganbayan, 457 SCRA 301 (2005)
Organo v. Sandiganbayan, 320 SCRA 684 (1999)
Inding v. Sandiganbayan, 434 SCRA 388 (2004)
Lacson v. Executive Secretary, supra
(iii) Appeals from RTC
Magno v. People, supra
5. Court of Appeals:
a) Rule 41
Ordinary Appeal (Appeal By Writ of Error)
b) Rule 42
Petition fo Review
c) Rule 124
6. Supreme Court:
a) Generally
Rule 65
People vs. Asis, 629 SCRA 250 (2010)
b) Improvident Plea; Remand & Re-arraignment When Proper:
People v. Molina, G.R. Nos. 141129-33, December 14, 2001;
Ong vs. Genio, 609 SCRA 188, Dec. 23, 2009
c) Even split or no majority in Supreme Court
Rule 125, sec. 3;
Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, 71 SCRA 231(1976)
-7-
PART TWO
RULE 126 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Pertinent Documents & Pleadings:
(1) Search Warrant;
(2) Documents as basis for issuance:
Request for Issuance;
Affidavit/s of complainant or witnesses
Others (Photographs, sketches, etc.)
(3) Motion to Quash Search Warrant
(4) Motion to Suppress
(5) Motion for Return of Property Seized
I. Nature, scope and definition
A. Definition & Nature
Const. (1987), art. III, Secs. 2, 3;
Rule 126, Secs. 1, 13;
“Exclusionary Rule”
Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 (1967);
People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 25 (2000) EB
“People not places.”
Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967);
Private searches
People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991);
B. Constitutional and statutory boundaries; limitations on State action
1. Nature of right protected; waiver of protected right
Villanueva v. Querubin, 48 SCRA 349 (1972);
Guanzon v. De Villa, 181 SCRA 623 (1990);
People v. Marti, supra
2. Scope of protection
Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 3(1);
Katz v. U.S., supra
Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800 (1984) EB;
People v. Valdez, supra
-8-
- “Enhanced Senses” and “Reasonable expectation of privacy”:
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) - Thermal imaging device
California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) - Aerial “naked eye” observation
Dow Chemicals v. U.S., 476 U. S. 227 (1986) - Aerial search using device
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) - Sniff Dog
Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966) - “Plant”
California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988); - Garbage search
Washington vs. Boland, 115 Wn.2d 57 (1990); 800P.2d 1112
RA 4200 4200 (Anti-wire Tapping Law):
Gaanan vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-69809 October 16, 1986
RA 9272 (Human Security Act of 2007):
Sec. 7-16
Rule 126, sec. 13;
C. Types
1. With A Search Warrant
a. Generally
Rule 126, sec. 1;
People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626 (1998);
Manalili v. CA, 280 SCRA 400 (1997);
b. Venue of application; jurisdiction of court
Rule 126, sec. 2;
BP 129 (as amended by RA 7691), sec. 21;
Interim Rules (January 11, 1983), par. A3;
Malaloan v. CA, 232 SCRA 249 (1994);
People v. CA, 291 SCRA 400 (1998);
c. Requisites for issuance
Rule 126, sec. 1; cf. Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 2;
PICOP v. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253 (1999);
(1) Concept of probable cause in search warrants
People v. Estrada, 296 SCRA 383 (1998);
-9-
Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc., 438 SCRA 224 (2004)
People v. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915 April 3, 1998
Burgos v. Chief of Staff, supra
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 613 (1983)
Stonehill v. Diokno, supra
(2) Determining probable cause:
i) Person Authorized: Who determines?
Const. (1987), Art. III, sec. 2;
Rule 126, sec. 4;
People v. Tuan, G.R. No. 176066. August 11, 2010
Kho vs. Makalintal, 306 SCRA 70
Bache vs. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823 (1971)
People vs. Mamaril, 420 SCRA 662 (2004)
Tan vs. Sy Tiong Gue, 613 SCRA 98 (2010)
ii) Procedure: How is it determined?
Rule 126, sec. 5;
Personal examination by searching questions of
complainant & witnesses:
Bache v. Ruiz, supra
Kho vs. Makalintal, supra
PICOP v. Asuncion, supra
People v. Tuan, G.R. No. 176066. August 11, 2010
Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 (1984);
Coca-Cola v. Gomez, 571 SCRA 18 (2008)
(3) Description of things to be seized
Kho v. Macalintal, supra;
Bache vs. Ruiz, supra;
(4) Description of place to be searched
People v. Estrada, supra
Roan vs. Gonzales, supra
PICOP v. Asuncion, supra
People vs. C.A., supra
-10-
d. Things that may be seized
Rule 126, sec. 3;
Burgos vs. Chief of Staff, supra
California v. Greenwood, supra
Washington vs. Boland, supra
Rules on DNA Evidence A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC October 2, 2007
People v. Umanito, G.R. #172607 Oct. 26, 2007
e. Form and content of warrant; lifetime
Rule 126, sec. 1, 6, 10;
Bache v. Ruiz, supra
Mustang Lumber v. CA, 257 SCRA 430 (1996);
f. Validity of warrant
People v. Estrada, supra
People v. CA, supra
2. Warrantless Search & Seizure:
a. Search incident to lawful arrest
Rule 126, sec. 13;
People v. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915 April 3, 1998
People v. Valdez, supra
People v. Padilla, 269 SCRA 402 (1997);
People v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432 (1999);
People v. Binad Chua, G.R. Nos. 136066-67, February 4, 2003
Office of the Court Administrator v. Barron, 297 SCRA 376 (1998);
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969);
Nolasco v. Pano, 147 SCRA 509 (1987);
Cf. Nolasco v. Pano, 139 SCRA 152 (1985);
Posadas v. CA, 188 SCRA 288 (1990)
People vs. Cuizon, 265 SCRA 325
Malacat v. CA, 283 SCRA 159 (1997) EB;
Warrantless Search of Computers & Cell Phones:
Computers:
U.S. vs. Hill, 459 F.3d 966 (2006)
U.S. vs. Ziegler, 474 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir., January 30, 2007)
-11-
Journal Articles:
Edward T.M. Garland and Donald F. Samuel, Fourth
Amendment and Computers, Georgia Bar
Journal, Vol. 44, Feb. 2009
Cellphones:
U.S. vs. Finley, 477 F.3d 250
State vs. Smith, 124 Ohio St.3d 163 (2009)
Journal Articles:
Adam M. Gershowitz, The IPhone Meets the Fourth
Amendment, UCLA Law Review, October, 2008.
Bryan Andrew Stillwagon, Bringing an End to Warrantless
Cell Phone Searches, Summer 2008 Georgia Law Review.
b. Consented search
People v. Malasigui, 63 Phil. 221 (1936);
Alvarez v. CFI, 64 Phil. 48 (1937);
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973)
People vs. Cuizon, 265 SCRA 325
(1) Peaceful submission not consent to search
Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689 (1938);
Written consent:
Roan v. Gonzales, supra
(2) Effect of voluntary surrender
People v. Agbot, 106 SCRA 325 (1981);
(3) Effect of posting bail
Rule 114, sec. 26;
c. “Stop and Frisk”, Roadblocks & Checkpoints,
and Other Less Intrusive Searches
“Stop and Frisk”:
-12-
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968);
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)
Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)
People v. Binad Chua, supra
Malacat v. CA, supra
Esquillo v. People, 629 SCRA 370 (2010)
Roadblocks & Checkpoints:
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979);
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444
Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325
Caballes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002;
People v. Lacerna, 278 SCRA 561 (1997)
People v. Solayao, 262 SCRA 255 (1996)
People v. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401(1991)
People vs. Encinada, G.R. No. 116720. October 2, 1997
Checkpoints:
Valmonte v. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989);
People vs. Vinecario, 420 SCRA 280 (2004);
Aniag vs. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 424 (1994);
People vs. Escano, 323 SCRA 754 (2000)
d. Moving vehicles/hot pursuit
Caroll v. US, 267 U.S. 132 (1925);
California V. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985)
Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857 (1968);
Caballes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002;
Asuncion v. CA, 302 SCRA 490 (1999);
Roldan v. Arca, 65 SCRA 336 (1975);
People v. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122 (1990);
People v. Balingan, 241 SCRA 277 (1995);
Obra v. CA, 317 SCRA 594 (1999);
e. "Plain View" Doctrine:
Harris v. US, 390 U.S. 234 (1966);
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 472 (1971);
-13-
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990)
People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597 (1993);
People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668 (1999);
People v. Bolasa, 321 SCRA 459 (1999);
People v. Evaristo, 216 SCRA 431 (1992);
People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 24 (2000);
People v. Salanguit, 356 SCRA 683 (2001)
f. Private Searches & "State Expansion of Private Search"
People v. Marti, supra
People v. Bongcarawan, G.R. No. 143944. July 11, 2002
State v. Von Bulow, 475 A.2d 995
g. Extraordinary circumstances:
People v. De Gracia, 233 SCRA 716 (1994);
Bringham City v. Stuart, 126 S.Ct. 1943 (2006)
h. Concepts of : "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree"; "Attenuation"; "Inevitable
Discovery"
Nardone v. U.S., 308 U.S. 338
Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471
Nix vs. Williams, 467 U.S. 431
II. Procedure for service of warrant; post-service procedure
A. Service of warrant
1. Time of search
Rule 126, sec. 9;
2. Two-witness rule
Rule 126, sec. 8;
People v. Gesmundo, 219 SCRA 743 (1993);
3. Breaking of door or window to effect search
Rule 126, sec. 7;
People vs. Huang Zhen Hua, 439 SCRA 350 (2004)
-14-
B. Post-service procedure
People v. Gesmundo, supra
1. Issuance of Receipt
Rule 126, sec. 11;
People v. Lacbanes, 270 SCRA 193 (1997);
2. Delivery of property and inventory; return and proceedings on the return:
Rule 126, sec. 12;
People v. Gesmundo, supra
III. Remedies against unreasonable search and seizure
1. “Exclusionary Rule”: Motion to quash search
warrant or suppress evidence :
Art. III, Sec. 3 (2)
Rule 126, sec. 14;
RA 8493, sec. 2(d) (cf. Rule 118, sec. 2[d];)
Stonehill v. Diokno, supra
Bache v. Ruiz, supra
Rakes v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978);
PICOP v. Asuncion, supra
2. Waiver of Jurisdiction & Non Waiver of Admissibility:
People vs. Lapitaje, 397 SCRA 674 (2003);
Esquillo vs. People, G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010
3. Return of property illegally seized:
Uy Kheytin v. Villareal, 42 Phil. 892 (1920);
Magoncia v. Palacio, 80 Phil. 170 (1948);
Collector v. Villaluz, 71 SCRA 356 (1976);
Mata v. Bayona, 128 SCRA 388 (1984);
4. Criminal liability and Civil Damages:
Rev. Pen. Code, Arts. 128, 129, 130, 206;
MHP Garments v. CA, 236 SCRA 227 (1994);
-15-