Sie sind auf Seite 1von 19

Criminal Procedure Notes based on Riano

Prosecution of Criminal Action:

Under the supervision of the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
1. Direct supervision
2. Control
Allowed ONLY where the civil action is INSTITUTED in the criminal action
Remember that civil actions are deemed instituted
If the offended party
1. Waives
2. Reserves
3. Institutes civil action prior to the criminal action

Exception on the involvement of the private prosecutor:

If he is authorized to do so in writing

He may prosecute up to the end of the trial

Provided, the authorization shall be given by either the Chief of the

Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor

AND, must be approved by the court

HOWEVER, it may be revoked or withdrawn by the public prosecutor any

Since prosecution is under the control and supervision of the PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, it follows that the SC CANNOT compel the former to file and
information, or prosecute a person if he believes that there is no probable cause in
doing the same!
Exception: grave abuse of discretion on the public prosecutor
DOJ ------ SEC of Justice ------- PROSECUTORS
Criminal action in MTC or MCTC prosecuted under the public prosecutor
If public prosecutor is absent or not available, may be prosecuted by:
Offended party
Any peace officer
Public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated
What are these crimes?

NOTE: these crimes shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the
offended spouse

Cannot be instituted against one party alone! AGAINST BOTH GUILTY

Cases where it cannot be prosecuted

If the offended party has consented to the offense or has pardoned the
offenders (express/implied)
Acts of lasciviousness
SAME RULE: cannot be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the:
Offended party even if minor, still has the right to initiate
Grandparents or legal guardian
6. Defamation
-- should be the imputation of the offenses of adultery, concubinage, seduction,
abduction, and acts of lasciviousness
SIMILAR RULE: filed by the offended party
Complaint, defined.

Sworn written statement

Charging a person with an offense

Subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer

Name: People of the Philippines

Private offended parties only as witnesses

Thus they may not appeal the dismissal of a criminal case or the acquittal
ONLY the civil aspect

In so doing, the private offended party who appeals must prosecute in his
own personal capacity
So how then can a dismissal or acquittal of the criminal case be appealed?


Reason: private offended party has no legal personality to do so

Chapter12, Title III, Book IV of the Admin. Code

Only the OSG can bring and/or defend actions on behalf of the
Republic or represent the people or the State in criminal proceedings pending in the
Supreme Court and the CA

Information, defined.

Accusation in writing

Not required to be sworn; because the prosecutor is under the oath

of his office

Charging a person with an offense

Subscribed by the prosecutor

And filed with the court

Name: People of the Phils

What happens if there is infirmity of the signature in the information?

The information confers jurisdiction on the court, thus if there is infirmity


An infirmity in the information, such as lack of authority of the officer signing

it, cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent
The complaint or information should include the ff (sufficiency test):
Name all of the accused
Designation of the offense given by the statute
Acts/omissions complained of - should be described with such particularity
as to appraise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the offense charged
Offense being charged
Acts or omissions complained of
Qualifying and aggravating circumstances
Name of the offended party
Approximate date of the commission unless material element/ingredient
of the crime
Place where the offense was committed
Note: sufficiency of information is not negated by an incomplete or defective
designation of the crime. Failure to specify the correct crime committed will not bar
conviction of the accused.
Question: When is the right time to question the sufficiency or validity of the
information or complaint?
Answer: before arraignment or during trial, otherwise, deemed waived.
Actions: 1) bill of particulars; 2) quashal of the information
Question: What should be given preference, the designation of the crime in the
information or the allegation of the facts?
Answer: The allegation of facts is controlling because the nature and character of
the crime charged are determined not by the designation of the specific crime, but by
the facts alleged in the information. So even if the information is defective, the

allegation of facts must be preferred over the defective information. Allegation in the
information, not the technical name given by the prosecutor.
Question: What happens if there is a mistake on the name of the accused?
Answer: A mistake in the name of the accused is not equivalent, and does not
necessarily amount to, a mistake in the identity of the accused especially when
sufficient evidence is adduced to show that the accused is pointed to as one of the
perpetrators of the crime. However, the identity must be proven.
In offenses against property it is enough that the property is described with such
particularity as to properly identify the offense charged.
Statement of the qualifying and aggravating circumstances:

Needed since without it, the accused cannot be convicted of qualifying

or aggravating circumstance even if proven in court

Even if an aggravating circumstance had been proven, but was not alleged,
courts will not award exemplary damages!

Reason: tantamount to denial of due process since the accused is deprived

to be informed of the charges against him!

How about mitigating? no need. The accused may be convicted with

mitigating circumstances, since the nature of it is in favor of the accused
Criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory:
Where the offense was committed
Where any of its essential ingredients occurred

Before plea or arraignment leave of court not required

Without leave of court

Any formal or substantial amendment may be made

After plea or arraignment

Amendment is prohibited

Except if beneficial to the accused

Before plea or arraignment leave of court required where:

The amendment downgrades the nature of the offense charged;

The amendment excludes any accused

Formal Amendment, defined.

New allegations which relate only to the range of the penalty

Which does not charge another offense different or distinct from that
charged in the original one

Additional allegations which do not alter the prosecutions theory

Does not adversely affect any substantial right

An amendment that merely adds specifications to eliminate vagueness in

the information

Not to introduce new and material facts

Merely states with additional precision something which is already contained

in the original information

Adds nothing essential for conviction

Facts of a case: prosecutor entered his amendment by crossing out the word
Homicide and instead wrote the word Murder
Issue: Is it a formal or substantial amendment?
Ruling: Only a formal amendment. The only change made was in the caption of the
case; and in the opening paragraph or preamble of the Information, with the crossing
out of word Homicide and its replacement by the Murder. There was no change in the
recital of facts constituting the offense charged or in the determination of the
jurisdiction of the court. The averments in the amended Information for murder are
exactly the same as those already alleged in the original information for homicide, as
there was not at all any change in the act imputed to the accused. In allowing
formal amendments in which the accused has already pleaded, it is necessary that
the amendments do not prejudice the rights of the accused.
Test whether the rights of the accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a
complaint or information is:
whether 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 would be inapplicable to the
complaint or information.
Since the facts alleged in the accusatory portion of the amended information are
identical with those of the original information for homicide,
there could not be any effect on the prosecutions theory of the case;
neither would there be any possible prejudice to the rights or defense
of petitioner.


if it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in
charging the proper offense

if it becomes manifest that the accused cannot be convicted of the offense

charges or of any other offense necessarily included therein, the court shall commit
the accused to answer for the proper offense by requiring the filing of the proper

Accused shall not be discharged if there appears good cause to detain him.
After the proper information is filed, it shall dismiss the original case

in such a case, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or information
once the new one charging the proper offense is filed

provided, accused will not be placed in double jeopardy

may be made before or after arraignment

Substitution, distinguished/defined

substantial change

with leave of court as the original information has to be dismissed

requires another preliminary investigation and the accused has to plead

anew to the new information filed

new information involves a different offense which does not include or is not
necessarily included in the original charge, hence, accused cannot claim double
Amended information entails:

formal or substantial amendment

before plea can be without leave of court, etc

only to form no need for preliminary investigation

amendment of the same offense charged hence, substantial

amendments to the information after the plea has been taken cannot be made over
the objection of the accused, for if the original information would be withdrawn, the
accused could invoke double jeopardy!


when criminal action is instituted, the civil action is deemed included

every person criminally liable for felony is also civilly liable

the rule on implied institution of the civil action does not apply before the
filing of the criminal action or information --- when there is no criminal case yet
against the respondents as when the Ombudsman is still in the process of finding
probable cause to prosecute the respondent
Civil liability arising from the crime the governing law is rules of Criminal
Procedure not rules of civil procedure!
Exception: civil action other than the one arising from the crime is not suspended
by the commencement of the criminal action because they may proceed
independently of the criminal proceedings.
Reservation of the civil action should be made before the prosecution starts
presenting its evidence!
Note: after the criminal action is commenced, the separate civil action arising
therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered in the
criminal action!

Preference is given to the resolution of the criminal action

If the civil action was commenced before the institution of the criminal
action, the civil action shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found
before judgment on the merits, once the criminal action is filed. The suspension shall
last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action

Exception: does not apply to independent civil action since they are distinct
and separate from the civil action arising from the offense committed

Another exception: prejudicial question

RULE on counterclaims, etc:
CASE may be filed by the accused in the criminal case but any cause of action which
could have been the subject may be litigated in a separate civil action.
Note that a criminal case is not the proper proceedings to determine the private
complainants civil liability.
A court trying a criminal case is limited to determining the guilt of the accused, and if
proper, to determine his civil liability those arising only from offense.
CAUSE OF DEATH of the accused:

If the accused dies after arraignment and during the pendency of the
criminal action
the civil liability arising from the crime extinguished (but this does not preclude the
offended party from filing a separate civil action based on other sources of obligation
may be continued)

Dies before arraignment case dismissed but the offended party may file
the proper civil action

Death prior to final judgment terminates criminal liability and only civil
liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed (again, does
not bar for filing a separate civil action on other sources of obligation)

Death during pendency of his appeal with SC totally extinguished the

criminal and civil action based solely on the crime. Reason: no final judgment of
conviction was yet rendered by the time of his death.
Novation of contract: extinguishment of criminal liability
Criminal liability is not affected by a compromise or novation of contract
It may affect the civil liability but not the criminal aspect since it is a public offense
which must be prosecuted and punished by the government.


Degree of evidence: mere preponderance of evidence
Note: extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil
action where:
Acquittal is based on reasonable doubt
Court declares that the liability is only civil
Civil liability does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which he
was acquitted
However, extinction of the civil action based on delict deemed extinguished

Provided, there is a fining in a final judgment in the criminal action that the
act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist!

Note: when the trial court acquits or dismisses the case on the ground of lack of
evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the civil action is not automatically
extinguished since liability on civil action can be determined based on mere
preponderance of evidence!
Hence, there is a requirement to state whether the prosecution absolutely failed to
prove his guilt or merely failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt in either case it
shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not
Example: may be acquitted but if his negligence is proved by mere preponderance of
evidence, he may still be civilly liable
Elementary rule: payment of civil liability does not extinguish criminal liability

Previously instituted civil action

issued involved in a civil case

which is similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal case

resolution of which

determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed

civil action instituted previously or ahead of the criminal action; must

precede the criminal action

civil action requires a decision before a final judgment can be rendered in

the criminal action

proceedings in the second case may be suspended to await the resolution of

the prejudicial question in the first case

existence of two actions civil action and criminal action

the issue in the civil case needs to be resolved first before it is determined
whether or not the criminal case should proceed or whether or not there should be, in
the criminal case, a judgment of acquittal or conviction

the issue raised in the civil action is determinative of the guilt of the accused
in the criminal aspect

the issue in the civil case is determinative of the issue in the criminal case;
the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may

it follows that if the resolution of the issue in the civil action will not determine
the criminal responsibility of the accused in the criminal action based on the same
facts, the civil case does not involve a prejudicial question. Neither is there a
prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can proceed independently of
each other, that is, the criminal action can proceed without waiting for the resolution
of the issues in the civil case
Reason: to avoid two conflicting decisions

civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based;
in the resolution of the issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or
innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined
jurisdiction to try said questions must be lodged in another tribunal
Not a prejudicial question if:
both cases are criminal
both civil
both cases are administrative
one case is administrative and other civil
one case is administrative and other criminal
criminal case was instituted prior to the civil case!
Effect of the prejudicial question:
suspension for the criminal action may be filed
the criminal case may be suspended pending the final determination of the
issues in the civil case this is the exception on the general rule that if the civil action
was commenced before the institution of the criminal action, the civil action shall be
suspended in whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the merits, once
the criminal action is commenced the suspension shall last until final judgment is
rendered in the criminal action
accords a civil case a preferential treatment and constitutes an exception to
the general rule that the civil action shall be suspended when the criminal action is
however, suspension does not include dismissal therefore, double jeopardy
cannot be invoke
Where and when to file the petition for suspension
does not need to wait for the criminal case to be filed in court, it is sufficient
that there be previously instituted civil case it may be filed in the stage of
preliminary investigation
the petition for suspension should be filed in the criminal case not in the civil
case since what is
suspended is the criminal case right?? Lol
where? in the office of the prosecutor conducting the preliminary
any time before the prosecution rests

Case illustrations:
Preliminary Investigation

Preliminary Examination

by the prosecutor

by the judge

purpose: whether the accused should be purpose: to determine probable cause for
held for trial or if he should be released the issuance of a warrant of arrest
Nature: executive, since it is part of the Nature: judicial
prosecutors job

Irregularity of arrest (not in

accordance with Rule 113,
Inquest proceeding shall not
Release of the detainee
*if the evidence warrants
preliminary investigation, the
prosecutor may serve notice
to the detainee

Proper arrest

Inquest shall proceed

Detainee may ask for bail (?)
Prosecutor should ask the detainee if he wants to avail
preliminary investigation (remember: purpose of
preliminary investigation is to determine the probability
of guilt of the accused, and whether he should be held
for trial

(People v. More than two days before the marijuana is inadmissible since it
Aminnudin) arrest, the officers received a tip was not incident to a lawful arrest.
that the accused was on board an The accused was not, at the
identified vessel and carrying moment of his arrest, committing a
the crime nor was it shown that he was
information they waited for the about to do so or that he had just
accused and approached him as he done so. He was just descending the
descended the ship and arrested ship; no outward indication that
called for his arrest. To all
appearances, he was like any other
passengers innocently disembarking
from the vessel. The officers could
have obtained a warrant since they
had reasonable time to apply
(People v. The accused were arrested while Invalid arrest made merely on the
inside a pedicab despite the basis of reliable information that the
absence of any outward indications persons arrested were carrying
of a crime being committed.
(Malacat v.
A warrantless arrest cannot be
justified where no crime is being
committed at the time of the arrest
because no crime may be inferred
from the fact that the eyes of the
person arrested were moving fast
and looking at every person passing
People v. There was a telephone call from an The requirements of a warrantless


alleged informer that suspicious arrest were not complied with. There
looking men were at a street was no offense which could have
corner. The operatives dispatched been suggested by the acts of
to the place, they saw three men Mengote of looking from side to side
who was looking from side to side while holding his abdomen. These
clutching his abdomen. The are obviously not sinister acts. He
operatives approached the men was not skulking in the shadows but
and introduce themselves as walking in the clear light of day. By
policemen. Two of them tried to run no stretch of the imagination could it
away but the attempt was foiled. have been inferred from these acts
The search yielded a revolver in the that an offense had just been
possession of Mengote and a fan committed, or was at least being
knife in the pocket of another.
attempted in their presence.
People v Two men who were arrested told the facts and circumstances did not
the officers that they knew of a manifest any suspicious behavior on
scheduled delivery of shabu by the part of WW that would
their employer WW. The police reasonably invite the attention of the
operatives proceeded to the place police. He was merely walking from
and found WW who came out of the apartment and was about to
the apartment towards a parked enter a parked car when the police
car, the officers approached him, operatives arrested him, frisked and
introduced themselves and upon searched
hearing that he was WW, commanded him to open the
immediately he frisked him and compartment of the car. He was not
asked him to open the back committing any visible offense then.
compartment of the car. When Therefore, there can be no valid
frisked, an unlicensed pistol with warrantless arrest in flagrante
live ammunitions was found inside delicto. It is settled that reliable
his pocket. The operatives information alone, absent any overt
searched the car and found shabu, act indicative of a felonious
unlicensed pistol, etc
enterprise in the presence and within
the view of the arresting officers, is
not sufficient to constitute probable
cause that would justify an in
flagrante delicto arrest.
People v. The accused was carrying a woven
buri-like plastic bag which appeared
to contain camote tops, boarded a
bus. Overt act: instead of placing

the bag by her side, which is the

usual practice of a traveler, she
placed the same on the back seat
where a trained anti-narcotics agent
was seated. Since the act of the
accused was unusual, the suspicion
of the agent was aroused. Feeling
that something was unusual, the
agent inserted his finger inside the
bag where he felt another plastic
bag in the bottom from which
emanated the smell of marijuana.
Right after she got off the bus, the
agent arrested the accused.
People v. Two police officers together with a there was a valid warrantless arrest
Tangliben. barangay tanod were conducting and a valid warrantless search,
surveillance operations in a bus since the officers were faced by an
station to check on persons who on-the-spot information which
may be engaging in the traffic of required them to act swiftly.
dangerous drugs based on
information supplied by informers.
They noticed a person carrying a red
travelling bag who was acting
suspiciously. When asked to open
the bag, the accused did so only
themselves. Found in the bag were
marijuana leaves.
People v Because of confidential reports from Again, the Court distinguish Maspil
informers that two persons would be from Aminnudin. In Aminnudin, the
transporting a large quantity of officers were aware of the identity
marijuana, officers set up a of the accused, his planned criminal
checkpoint to monitor, inspect, and enterprise and the vessel he would
scrutinize vehicles. A couple of hours be taking, and the officers had
after midnight, a jeepney was sufficient time to obtain a search
flagged down in the checkpoint. On warrant. In Maspil, the officers had
board were the persons identified by no exact description of the vehicle
the informers who were also with the of the accused, and no idea of the
policemen manning the checkpoint. definite time of its arrival. A jeepney
When the sacks and tin cans were on the road is not the same as a
opened, they contained marijuana passenger boat the route and time
of arrival of which are more or less

certain and which ordinarily cannot

deviate or alter its course or select
another destination.

People v Two robbers divested the passengers The warrantless arrest of the
of a jeepney of their belongings accused was sustained by the
including the jacket of one passenger. Court as well within the hot pursuit
The passengers immediately sought exception.
the help of police officers which formed
a team to track down the suspects.
One of the passengers, who went with
the police officers, saw one of the
robbers casually walking in the same
vicinity and wearing his jacket.
People v The police station received a report of
based on their knowledge
Gerente. a mauling incident, right away the of the circumstances of the death
officers went to the crime scene and of the victim and the report of an
found a piece of wood with blood eyewitness, in arresting the
stains, a hollow block and two pouches accused, the officers had personal
of marijuana. A witness told the police knowledge of facts leading them to
that the accused was one of those who believe that it was the accused
killed the victim. They proceeded to the who was one of the perpetrators of
house of the accused and arrested the crime.

Abelita III
v. Doria

A team was dispatched to investigate. The petitioners act of trying to get
The investigation disclosed that a away, coupled with the incident
victim was wounded and that the report which they investigated, is
witness tagged the petitioner as the enough to raise a reasonable
one involved and that he had just left suspicion on the part of the police
the scene of the crime. After tracking authorities.
down the petitioner, he was invited to
the police headquarters but the
petitioner sped off.

Conducted through submission of affidavits and supporting documents, and

through exchange of pleadings
To determine:
Whether a crime has been committed
Whether the respondent is probably guilty thereof
Prosecutors duties:
To determine the existence of probable case
To file information
What is probable cause in preliminary investigation?

Implies probability of guilt

Requires more than bare suspicion

The prosecutor does not:

determine the guilt or innocence

exercise adjudication nor rule-making functions

Ultimate purpose:

to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution

to protect him from an open and public accusation of a crime

to protect the State from useless and expensive prosecution

designed to free a respondent from the inconvenience, expense, stress of

defending himself/herself in the course of a formal trial, until the reasonable
probability of his or her guilt has been passed upon in a more or less summary
Is the prosecutor a quasi-judicial officer?
No. A preliminary investigation is not a trial of the case on the merits, and has no
purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether
there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. While the fiscal
makes that determination, he cannot be said to be acting as a quasi-court, for it is
the courts, ultimately, that pass judgment on the accused, not the fiscal.
Is the substantial right of the accused to a preliminary investigation waivable?
Yes. It is deemed waived for failure to invoke the right prior to or at the time of the

Private respondent filed an action for frustrated parricide, then several
months after, she filed another action for the declaration of the nullity of their
marriage. The petitioner filed an urgent motion to suspend the proceedings. Ruling:
no prejudicial question since the criminal action was first filed before the civil case.
For a prejudicial question to exist, the civil action must be instituted first before the
filing of the criminal action. Moreover, the issue in the annulment of marriage is not
similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal case for parricide.
Respondent contracted his first marriage. Without said marriage having
been annulled, nullified, or terminated, the same respondent contracted a second
marriage with the petitioner. Based on petitioners complaint-affidavit, information for
bigamy was filed against respondent. Sometime thereafter, respondent initiated a civil
action for the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage. Respondent
then filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the criminal case for bigamy. Issue:
whether the subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of a previous
marriage constitutes a prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy. Ruling: the
civil action for declaration of the nullity of the marriage was not determinative of the
issue in the bigamy case, the Court placed emphasis on Art40 of the Family Code
which requires a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage before a
party may remarry. Without it, the first marriage is presumed to be subsisting. Thus,
any decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that respondent
entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage. Therefore,
a decision in the civil case was not essential to the determination of the criminal
charge not a prejudicial question.
Is the respondent probably guilty and therefore, should go to trial?
Nature: INQUIRY PROCEEDING / Judicial Proceeding
Purpose: TO DETERMINE whether there is SUFFICIENT GROUND to engender a
well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably
guilty thereof, and should be held for trial
Function: executive not a judicial function

The only means of discovering the persons who may be

reasonably charged with a crime

To enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or information

Lasts for 10 days

Not a trial nor a part of it

Does not involve the examination of witnesses

The purpose is not to declare the respondent guilty beyond reasonable


Does not require confrontation between the parties


existence of facts and circumstances

as would lead a person of ordinary caution to entertain an honest and strong


that the accused is guilty of the crime subject of the investigation

based only on opinion and reasonable belief

implies probability of guilt


requires more than bare suspicion

but less evidence
elements of the crime charged should be present since every crime is
defined by its elements, without which there should be no criminal
It does not

does not import absolute certainty

need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt

does not pronounce guilt (only the probability of guilt which would lead the
accused to stand trial)

require a full and exhaustive presentation of the parties evidence


The determination lies within the discretion of the prosecuting officers after
conducting a preliminary investigation.

Merely binds over the suspects to stand trial

Kinds of determination of probable cause

Judicial made by judge
Executive made by the prosecutor during preliminary investigation
When required?
Preliminary investigation is required in a criminal offense has a penalty of at least
4yrs, 2months, and 1 day.
Procedures for cases not requiring preliminary investigation:
Directly submit with the prosecutor; or
By filing an information or complaint with the MTC conducted by the judge
Application for bail:

while a preliminary investigation is undertaken, the person arrested is still

under detention

to effect release, he may apply for bail since he is not yet charged in court
After plea has been entered/after arraignment:
-deemed to have waived the absence of preliminary investigation
Remand to the prosecutor:

if the accused wants a preliminary investigation, the court will not dismiss,
BUT remand the case to the prosecutor so that investigation may be conducted

the Sandiganbayan will hold in abeyance any further proceedings

Lack/Irregularity of Preliminary investigation will not affect:
courts jurisdiction
validity of the information or render it ineffective

What is the effect of denial of a motion for reinvestigation?

cannot invalidate the information

INQUEST PROCEEDINGS (summary investigation):

for persons detained

a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant

involving an offense which requires preliminary investigation

not a preliminary investigation; distinct

does not follow the procedure on preliminary investigation

CONDUCTED WHEN: (by the inquest officer/prosecutor)

a person has been lawfully arrested and detained

without warrant

police stations/headquarters of the PNP, unless otherwise directed (which is

why it is an informal and summary proceeding)

from the time the Inquest Officer receives the complaint and referral

detained persons should be present during inquest proceedings

Purpose: to determine whether or not the person detained should remain under
custody and then charged in court ahh ok!!! Grrrr!!
- PN NOT REQUIRED even if offense requires preliminary investigation
a person is arrested lawfully without a warrant
note: he may ask for a preliminary investigation*
note: inquest proceedings apply
in flagrante delicto
Reason: preliminary investigation is not required since the person is lawfully
Riano: if he has been arrested in a place where an inquest prosecutor is available, an
inquest will be conducted instead of a preliminary investigation.
Question: What is the use of inquest proceeding?
Question: Is an inquest a substitute of preliminary investigation?
Question: Is it needed in lieu of preliminary investigation?
Answer: an inquest proceeding shall normally apply when a person is lawfully
arrested without a warrant
*When may the person lawfully arrested without warrant ask for a preliminary
- before the complaint/information is filed but he must sign a waiver under Article 125
of the RPC (imposes a penalty on the officer)

- after filing, within 5 days from the time he learns of its filing
Duty of the Inquest Prosecutor:
to determine if the detained person has been arrested lawfully in accordance
with Rule 113, Sec 5 (a) and (b)
he may examine the arresting officers on the arrest
should it be found that it was not in accordance with Rule113, inquest
prosecutor shall not proceed with the inquest proceedings. And recommend the
release of the detainee
** see the table at the back/below
Inquest must pertain to the offense for which the arrest was made
Case: Beltran v. People
Facts: Beltran was arrested without a warrant for inciting to sedition based on a
speech he gave. Second inquest was based on rebellion.
Ruling: Inquest proceedings are proper only when the accused has been lawfully
arrested without a warrant. The officers arrested Beltran for inciting to sedition and
not for rebellion, therefore the prosecutor could only have conducted an inquest for
inciting to sedition and no other! Second inquest invalid
*initial step: filing of the complaint with the prosecutor
(an affidavit of complaint)
address of the respondent
affidavits of his witnesses
other supporting documents

the number of copies to be filed shall also the number of respondents

included plus 2 copies for official file

example: 2 respondents 2 copies + 2 official files = total4

Dismissal of the complaint: (made by the complainant)

from filing, prosecutor has 10 days to decide:

issue subpoena to the respondent
Rights of the Respondent:

right to examine the evidence submitted

right to copy the evidence at his expense

objects shall be made available for examination, copying, or photographing

at the expense of the requesting party (may be respondent or complainant)
Filing of counter-affidavit by respondent:

within 10days from receipt of subpoena, he is required to submit his counteraffidavit with other documents
*reply-affidavit from complainant; rejoinder-affidavit from respondent

Effect of no counter-affidavit: ex parte investigation

prosecutor shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented by

the complainant
Respondent may be allowed to reopen the case to submit his counter-affidavit;
should be done before the prosecutor has issued a resolution; it should contain an
explanation for the failure to timely file the counter-affidavit
Clarificatory Hearing:

set by the prosecutor

to clarify facts and issues

no right to cross-examine

if the parties have questions to ask, it should be addressed to the

prosecutor, and the latter shall be the one to ask the questions to the party concerned

lasts only for 5 days


within the discretion of the prosecutor

Resolution; final stage of preliminary investigation
If the prosecutor finds probable cause to hold the accused for trial, he shall prepare:
*information (to be filed in court)
or dismissal
*the information shall contain a certification, in which he certifies:
he personally examined the complainant and witnesses
there is reasonable ground that a crime has been committed
accused is probably guilty
accused was informed of the complaint and evidence
he was given an opportunity to submit evidence
Effect of the absence of certification:

the information is still considered valid

After resolution prosecutor shall forward the case to the provincial or city
prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or Ombudsman
Reason: there should be prior written authority or approval of the provincial, city
prosecutor, or chief state prosecutor or Ombudsman before an information or
complaint may be filed or dismissed by the prosecutor
*Resolution of the investigating prosecutor is not conclusive since it may be reversed
or affirmed by the prosecutors earlier cited
Reiteration of the rule: no complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an
investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial
or city prosecutor, or chief state prosecutor, or the Ombudsman
When recommendation for dismissal is disapproved:

the Ombudsman may file the information or he may direct another assistant

Motion for Reconsideration

aggrieved party may file within 15 days from receipt of the resolution

within 15 days from the denial of the MR

appeal to the Secretary of Justice

verified comment may be filed by the adverse party, 15 days from receipt of

if there is no verified comment, Secretary of Justice may resolve on the

basis of the petition

if there is probable cause, information may be filed in court

proceedings in court should be held in abeyance

aggrieved party may file a motion for suspension of arraignment; Rule 116,
11(c) arraignment shall be suspended if a petition for review of the resolution of the
prosecutor is pending

Secretary may dismiss outright

IF an information has been filed and accused has already been arraigned
before the filing of the appeal, the appeal shall not be given due course

IF, accused has been arraigned after the filing of the petition, any
arraignment shall not bar the Secretary of Justice to review

Secretary of Justice has the power to affirm, modify, nullify, or reverse

the resolution made by his subordinates; has the ultimate power to decide which
conflicting theories of the parties should be believed; his finding are not subject to
review, except if tainted with grave abuse of discretion (remedy of aggrieved party:
petition for certiorari); his decision is final

Courts are not empowered to substitute their own judgment, only that of the
investigating prosecutor and ultimately that of the Secretary of Justice

General rule: Principle of non-interference leaves the investigating

prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion

Exception: when there is grave abuse of discretion

Appeal to the Secretary of Justice

May be availed of despite the filing of information in court

Appeal to the Office of the President; administrative appeal
Appeal to the Court of Appeals; judicial appeal
Appeal to the Supreme Court
Duties of the Judge; upon filing of the complaint/information
Personally evaluate the resolution; look into its evidence
Judge may find that evidence:

Fails to establish probable cause
(Judge may dismiss)
Establishes probable cause
(Judge shall issue warrant of arrest)
(If lawfully arrested issue a commitment order)
Engenders a doubt as to the existence of probable cause
(Order to submit additional evidence)
When warrant of arrest is not necessary:
Accused is under detention pursuant to a lawful warrantless arrest, and a
complaint or information has already been filed
Offense is punishable by fine
Case is subject to the Rules on Summary Procedure (inquest?)
BAR Question: Whether the TRIAL COURT may refuse to grant the motion filed
by the Provincial Fiscal (upon instructions of the Sec of Justice) and insist on
the arraignment and trial on the merits.
Answer: YES, the court may deny the motion and require that the trial on the
merits proceed for the proper determination of the case. Once a criminal
complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case or dismissal or
acquittal or conviction of the accused rests within the exclusive jurisdiction of the trial
court. The fiscal or even the Secretary of Justice cannot impose his opinion on the
trial court since it is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The
judge of the trial court is not bound to rely solely on the resolution of the fiscal; he
must make a personal evaluation of the case, and satisfy himself that there is indeed
a probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest or a commitment order. Further, judge is
required to positively state that the evidence presented was insufficient for a prima
facie case. It must include the discussion of the merits and state the reasons for
granting the motion to withdraw.
How made

The taking of the person into custody

In order that he may be bound to answer for the offense

Need not be actually restrained

Sufficient: submission to the custody of the person

Control over the person

Restraint on his liberty

He is not free to leave on his own volition

Who will arrest?

Law enforcement officers are entrusted with the power to:

Conduct investigations

Make arrests
Perform searches and seizures of persons and their belongings
Must be exercised within the boundaries of the law

satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause

not required to personally examine
judges merely determine the probability, not the certainty, of guilt of an

Personal knowledge by the arresting officer
of facts and circumstances
that the arrestee is indeed the perpetrator of the criminal act
QUESTION: What if the act of the officer does not amount to an arrest; will the
requirements on probable cause and personal knowledge stay?
ANSWER: No. It will not be pre-requisites to the legality of the said arrest.
(While on preliminary investigation, it was more on the prosecutors duty)
it shall be issued upon finding of probable cause

otherwise, unreasonable, violates the constitutional right to privacy

of persons subject to such warrant

personally determined by the judge

case: AAA vs. Carbonell: judge is not required to personally

examine the complainant and her witnesses in satisfying himself of the existence of
probable cause; judge should have taken into consideration the documentary
evidence as well as the transcript of stenographic notes
Ruling: The judge committed grave abuse of discretion for dismissing the criminal
case on the ground that petitioner and her witnesses failed to comply with his orders
to take the witness stand.

Case: Soliven v. Makasiar this provision does not mandatorily require the judge to
personally examine the complainant and her witnesses. He may opt to:
personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the
prosecutor; or
disregard the prosecutors report and require the submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses
but such personal examination is not mandatory and indispensable in
the determination of probable cause; the necessity arises only when there is an
utter failure of the evidence to show the existence of probable cause;
otherwise, the judge may rely on the report of the investigating prosecutor

The Judge must:

personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor finding probable

cause to see if It is supported by substantial evidence

but such personal examination is not mandatory and indispensable in the

determination of probable cause; the necessity arises only when there is an utter
failure of the evidence to show the existence of probable cause; otherwise, the judge
may rely on the report of the investigating prosecutor


assumes the existence of facts

that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that a
crime has been committed or it was likely to be committed

by the person sought to be arrested

In determining probable cause:

average man weighs the facts and circumstances

without resorting to the standards of the rules of evidence

of which he has no technical knowledge

he relies on common sense

demands more than suspicion

requires less than evidence

Personal determination by the judge

in Carbonell case judge is not required to personally examine the

complainant and her witnesses; he may take into consideration the documentary
evidence, supporting affidavits

however, the Court found that the judges finding of lack of probable
cause was premised only on the complainants and her witnesses absence during
the hearing scheduled by the judge for the judicial determination of the probable

therefore, absence of the complainant or the witnesses, or failure or

refusal to take the witness stand would not warrant the existing of probable cause #lol

SC found that the judge committed grave abuse of discretion for

dismissing the criminal case on the ground that petitioner and her witness failed to
comply with his orders to take the witness stand
Judge may disregard the fiscals report and require the submission of supporting
affidavits of witness to aid him in determining probable cause case: Soliven v

Judges just personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor

finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidence

Personal examination not mandatory and indispensable;

When personal examination is required (literal)

Only when there is utter failure to show the existence of probable cause

Otherwise, judge may validly rely (not solely hence, evaluation of

documentary evidence) on the report of the prosecutor , provided that he likewise
evaluates the documentary evidence in support thereof

He should not rely solely on the report of the investigating prosecutor but
must also evaluate the documentary evidence and affidavits, and stenographic notes

If the report, taken together with the supporting evidence, is sufficient to

sustain a finding of probable cause, it is not compulsory that a personal examination
of the complainant and his witnesses be conducted

Never allowed to follow blindly the prosecutor

When directly filed with the MTC

Judge shall personally evaluate the evidence; or
Personally examine in writing and under oath the complainant and his
witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers
Method of Arrest with a warrant
Warrant is issued by a judge
Delivered to the proper law enforcement officer for execution
Head of the office to whom the warrant of arrest was delivered shall cause
the warrant to be executed within 10 days from its receipt
Within 10 days after the expiration of the period, the officer to whom it was
assigned for execution shall make a report to the judge who issued the warrant
In case of his failure to execute, he shall state the reasons for its nonexecution
Procedure of arrest by virtue of a warrant; the OFFICER SHALL:
Inform the person to be arrested of the cause of his arrest;
Inform him of the fact that a warrant has been issued
The information need not be made when the person to be arrested:
Forcibly resists
Giving of the information will imperil the arrest
NOTE: The officer need not have the warrant in his possession at the time of the
arrest. However, after the arrest, the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as
practicable, if the person arrested so requires.

The officer also has the duty to deliver the person arrested to the nearest police
station or jail without necessary delay.
When the person to be arrested is INSIDE a BUILDING
The officer is authorized
To break into any building or enclosure
In case he is refused admittance
After announcing his authority and purpose
If necessary, he may break out from said place to liberate himself
in flagrante delicto in his presence, the person to be arrested, is actually
committing or is attempting to commit an offense
citizens arrest is allowed
hot pursuit an offense has just been committed, and he has probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts/circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed it
escapee when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
*the exception to the general rule that a warrant of arrest is required before an arrest
is made

a private person, may without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his

presence, the person to be arrested is in flagrante
Who may make the warrantless arrest?
Peace officer
Private person
a bondsman
Requisites of in flagrante delicto
accused must perform an overt act
done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer

mere suspicion and reliable information not justification for a warrantless

CASES where warrantless arrest is upheld
The HOT PURSUIT exception
Offense has just been committed
The person making the arrest has personal knowledge of facts indicating
that the person to be arrested has committed it

Note: a warrantless arrest made, one year after the offense was allegedly committed
is an illegal arrest!
Does not require the officers to personally witness the commission of the
actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.
Reasonable ground:
Based on actual facts
Supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create
probable cause of guilt
Probable cause with good faith
Method of arrest WITHOUT a WARRANT
Arrest by an officer; he shall inform:
Of his authority
Cause of his arrest

The info need not be given if:

If the person to be arrested is engaged in the commission of an offense
In the process of being pursued immediately after its commission
Escapes or flees
Forcibly resists before the officer could inform him
The information will imperil the arrest
Officer may:

Summon assistance

Break into a building or an enclosure or break out from it

Arrest by private person; he shall inform
His intention to arrest him
Cause of his arrest
*need not be given under the same conditions above
NOTE: the right to break into a building or an enclosure does not apply to private
TIME OF ARREST: any day; any time of the day or night
Rights of a person arrested:
Assisted by counsel at all times

Counsel must be independent and competent

Remain silent
To be informed of the above rights

To be visited by the immediate members

Custodial investigation in a form of an invitation to person who is investigated in

connection with the offense he is suspected to have committed
Effect of an ILLEGAL ARREST on JURISDICTION of the court

Legality of the arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the

Waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not mean a waiver of the

inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.
Judgment, defined.

Adjudication by the court

That accused is guilty or not guilty

Imposition of the proper penalty

And civil liability

Formal Requisites of Judgment:
Written in the official language
Personally and directly prepared an signed by the judge
Must contain clearly and distinctly
Statement of facts
Jurisdictional requirements:
over the subject matter
person of the accused
Contents of a judgment of CONVICTION
legal qualification
aggravating and mitigating circumstances
participation of the accused; principal, accomplice, accessory
penalty imposed
civil liability or damages
Contents of a judgment of ACQUITTAL:
state whether the evidence of the prosecution:
absolutely failed to prove the guilt
merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt

determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did
not exist
Note: verdict of acquittal is immediately final!
Rule on duplicitous complaint or information; two or more offenses in a single
information or complaint 2-in-1

Remedy: MOTION TO QUASH (during arraignment)

Exception: when the law prescribes a single punishment for various

What happens if the accused fails to object before trial?


May be convicted for as many offenses as are charged and proved, and
impose penalty for each offense!

Note: can no longer be raised on appeal

Judgment rendered by a judge who did not hear the case


Valid even if he merely relied on the records of the case

especially where the evidence on record is sufficient to support its


Notice on the promulgation of judgment

given by the clerk of court personally to the accused or thru his bondsman or
warden and counsel

if tried in absentia served at his last known address

What if the accused fails to appear in the promulgation?
Shall be made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket
Serve him a copy at his last known address or thru his counsel
Judgment for conviction:

Accused fails to appear without just cause

He shall lose the remedies available against the judgment

Court shall order his arrest

Within 15 days from promulgation of judgment, accused may surrender and

file a motion for leave of court to avail the remedies
Modification of Judgment
Upon motion of the accused
Before the judgment becomes final or before appeal is perfected

Variance doctrine; variance between allegation and proof

offense proved is different from the offense charged
offense charged is either included in the offense proved or necessarily
includes the offense proved

When judgment becomes FINAL

After the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal; or
When the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served
When the accused has waived his right to appeal
He has applied for probation

General rule: convicted only of the offense charged

Exception: variance doctrine; may be convicted of the:

offense proved which is included in the offense charged or of the offense

charged which is included in the offense proved

Entry of judgment

After judgment has become final, it shall be entered in accordance with

Section 8, Rule 120, Rules of Court

When an offense includes or is included in another

essential elements or ingredients of the offense charged constitute or
form part the offense proved


Who may file? Accused
When filed? any time before the judgment of conviction becomes final

Promulgation of Judgment
by reading in the presence of the accused and any judge
for light offense in the presence of counsel or representative
may be promulgated by the clerk of court if the judge is absent or outside the
province or city
if the accused is confined or detained in another province or city, may be
promulgated by the executive judge of the RTC having jurisdiction over the place of
confinement or detention

The court may:

Grant a new trial or reconsideration
With the consent of the accused
Without waiting for the motion of the accused
Grounds for new trial
Errors of law
Irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights


New and material evidence has been discovered*

Discovered after trial
accused could not have discovered and produced
Even with the exercise of reasonable diligence
And which if introduced would probably change the judgment
It must be material
Must affect the merits and produce a different result if admitted
must concur

Grounds for reconsideration

errors of law
errors of fact
in writing
state the grounds
if based on new and material evidence it should be supported by affidavits
Notice of the motion

given to the prosecutor

When hearing on the motion is required

when it calls for a resolution of a question of fact

based on errors of law or irregularities

all the proceedings and evidence affected shall be

set aside; and
taken anew

the court may allow additional evidence

newly-discovered evidence

evidence already adduced shall stand

the newly-discovered evidence shall be taken together with the

evidence already in record
in all cases where it is granted

original judgment shall be set aside or vacated

new judgment shall be rendered


Not a natural right

Merely a statutory privilege

May be exercised in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of


Once granted by law, its suppression is tantamount to a violation of due


Subject: judgment or final order

Who may appeal?

Any party

Exception: accused will be placed in double jeopardy

What if the accused appeals?

Waives his right against double jeopardy

Runs the risk of being sentenced to a penalty higher than that imposed by
the trial court
Who may institute proceedings before the CA or SC?

Only the OSG or Solicitor General (as appellate counsel)

He should be given the opportunity to be heard in behalf of the

Case: appellate court failed to notify the Solicitor General of its resolution on a
petition filed by the accused and failed to require to file its comment effect:
deprivation of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case
Rule: a petition for review should be filed by the Solicitor General who is solely
vested with the authority to represent the people

Opens the entire case for review

Appellate court may correct errors; or

reverse the trial courts decision on grounds other than those that the parties
raised as errors
EFFECT of appeal on civil case:

in contrast with the criminal case

no error will be considered by the appellate court unless stated in the

assignment of errors, except when:
error affects the jurisdiction
affects the validity of the judgment appealed
closely related or dependent on an assigned error
plain error or a clerical error
Change of theory on appeal not allowed!
change his theory on appeal

nor raise in the appellate court any question of law or of fact that was not
raised in the court below
or which was not within the issue raised in their pleading
WHERE and HOW to appeal?
RTC cases decided by MTC
Notice of appeal served to the RTC
filed with the court which rendered the judgment
serve a copy upon the adverse party (personal service)

No notice of appeal RTC imposed the reclusion perpetua; the CA will

automatically review the judgment
CA or SC cases decided by RTC
Judgment by the RTC in its original jurisdiction
Notice of appeal
Judgment by the RTC in its appellate jurisdiction
File a petition for review
SC cases decided by CA
Petition for review on certiorari
When appeal is to be taken
Within 15 days from promulgation of judgment
The period shall be suspended from the time a motion for new trial or
reconsideration is filed until overruled
May an appeal be withdrawn?
Yes. As long as the record has not been transmitted or forwarded to the appellate
court. When it is withdrawn judgment becomes final!
Motion to withdraw is filed
Filed before the RTC
EFFECT of appeal by any of several accused

Only binds those who appealed

Will not affect those who did not appeal

Except: judgment is favorable to others; this time it will bind the others who
did not appeal

Except: procedural consequences; the stay of execution will not benefit

those accused who failed to file on time
Appeal from the civil aspect

Shall not affect the criminal aspect

Within 15 days from promulgation of judgment

Period to apply for probation

Within 15 days from promulgation

Stay of execution

Upon perfection of the appeal

procedural consequences; the stay of execution will not benefit those

accused who failed to file on time
COURT OF APPEALS may dismiss:
if the appellant fails to file within the time prescribed
except: appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio
if the appellant escapes
Ground for reversal of judgment or its modification
Rule: CA is mandated not to reverse or modify a judgment
Except: After examination of the record and evidence, it finds that there is an error
which injuriously affects the substantial rights of appellant

Rule if the opinion of the Supreme Court en banc is equally divided

It shall again be deliberated (re-deliberation)
If no decision is reached, judgment of conviction of the lower court shall be
reversed and the accused acquitted!

Remedies available in a civil action; since a civil action is deemed instituted

in the criminal case, it follows that provisional remedies are also available, save in
cases where the civil action is reserved, or waived, or separately filed
To avail:

the criminal action must be one with a corresponding civil liability

the civil action must be one arising from the offense charged and which is
instituted in the said criminal action

IF, civil action has been waived, reserved, or instituted separately the
provisional remedy may not be availed of. Instead, it may be applied for in the
separate civil action
Who may avail? offended party
What are these provisional remedies?
Preliminary attachment
Preliminary injunction
Support pendente lite
When preliminary attachment is available

when the civil action is properly instituted in the criminal action

when the accused is about to abscond

when criminal action is based on claim for money or embezzlement or


when accused has concealed, removed, or disposed of his property, or is

about to do so

when the accused resides outside the Phils.

May be availed of without the need for a showing that the accused has
concealed, removed, or disposed of his property or is about to do so.