Criminal Procedure Reviewer

I. General Matters
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
The authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose the punishment for it
[People v. Mariano, G.R. No. L-40527 (1976)]

A. JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER AND JURISDICTION OVER

PERSON OF THE ACCUSED DISTINGUISHED
Jurisdiction over subject matter vs Jurisdiction over person of the accused.
Jurisdiction over subject matter:
Definition Refers to the authority of the court to hear and determine a particular criminal case
How acquired:
Conferred by law; can never be acquired solely by consent of theaccused
Waiver of objection:
Right to object is never waived; the absence of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised
at any stage of the proceeding

Jurisdiction over person of the accused:

Refers to the authority of the court over the person charged
May be acquired by the apprehension of the accused, or by consent of
the accused, or by waiver of objections as when the accused enters his plea
Right to object
may be waived;
failure of the
accused to
object in time
would
constitute
waiver
A.1 JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER
This refers to the right to act or the power and
authority to hear and determine a cause.

[Gomez v. Montalban, G.R. No. 174414

(2008)]
It is determined by the allegations in the
complaint or information. The averments in
the complaint or information characterize the
crime to be prosecuted and the court before
which it must be tried. [Buaya v. Polo, G.R. No.
L-75079 (1989)]
It cannot be fixed by the will of the parties,
the court or the accused, or by mere
administrative policy of any trial court [Riano
(2011)].
STATUTE APPLICABLE
Jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action
is determined by the law in force at the time
of the institution of the action, and not the
law in force at the time of the commission of
the crime [People v. Lagon, G.R. No. 45815
(1990)].
IMPOSABLE PENALTY
In determining whether or not the court has
jurisdiction over an offense, we consider the
penalty which may be imposed upon the
accused for the charge in the complaint and
not the actual penalty imposed after the trial
[People v. Purisima, G. R. No. L-40902 (1976)].
PRINCIPLE OF ADHERENCE OF
JURISDICTION
General rule: Under the principle of
adherence of jurisdiction or
continuing jurisdiction, once a court
acquires jurisdiction over a controversy, it
shall continue to exercise such jurisdiction
until the final determination of the case.
It is not affected by:
(1) A subsequent valid amendment of the
information [People v. Chupeco, G.R. No.
L-19568 (1964)]; or

(2) A new law vesting jurisdiction over such

proceedings in another tribunal [Palana v.
People, G. R. No. 149995 (2007)].
Exception: The succeeding statute:
(a) expressly provides, or
(b) is construed to the effect that it is
intended to operate to actions pending
before its enactment [Palana v. People,
G. R. No. 149995 (2007)].
A.2. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF
THE ACCUSED
This is acquired either by:
(a) Arrest of the accused; or
(b) Voluntary appearance or submission of
the accused to the jurisdiction of the court
[Antiporda v. Garchitorena, G.R. No.133289 (1999), citing Arula v. Espino, G.R.
No. L-28949 (1969)].
Voluntary appearance of the accused is
accomplished by:
(1) Filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief,
Except: In case of special appearance to
challenge the jurisdiction of the court over
the person [Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
Nos. 170122 & 171381 (2009)], e.g.
(a) a motion to quash a complaint on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the accused because failure
to file would be a waiver of the defense
of lack of jurisdiction over the person,
or
(b) a motion to quash the warrant of arrest
because it is the very legality of the
court process forcing the submission of
the person of the accused that is the very issue in the motion to quash a
warrant of arrest [Miranda v. Tuliao,
G.R. No. 158763 (2006)];
(2) Giving bail.

B. REQUISITES FOR EXERCISE OF

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

(1) Subject matter jurisdiction, that is,

whether or not the court has jurisdiction
over the offense by virtue of the imposable
penalty and its nature;
(2) Jurisdiction over the person of the
accused;
(3) Territorial jurisdiction, which refers to
venue or the place where the case is to be
tried.

C. JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS

MTC/MeTC/MCTC
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction
over all violations of city
or municipal ordinances
committed within their
respective territorial
jurisdiction [Sec. 32(1), BP
129]
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction
over all offenses
punishable with
imprisonment not
exceeding 6 years
irrespective of the amount of
fine, and regardless of other
imposable accessory or other
penalties, including the civil
liability arising from such
offenses or predicated
thereon, irrespective of kind,
nature, value, or amount
thereof [Sec. 32(2), BP 129];
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction

over offenses involving

damage to property
through criminal
negligence [Sec. 32(2), BP
129; RA 7691] (this rule disregarding the amount of
fine and other accessory
penalties in determining
jurisdiction does not apply
when the offense is
punishable by fine only);
For Nos. 1-3, cases falling within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the
RTC and Sandiganbayan are not
included.
(4) Cases classified under the
Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure [SC Resolution,
October 15, 1991];
(a) Violations of traffic
laws, rules, or
regulations;
(b) Violations of rental
law;
(c) Cases where the penalty
prescribed by law for
the offense charged
is imprisonment not
exceeding 6 months,
or a fine not
exceeding P1,000, or
both, irrespective of
other imposable
penalties, accessory or
otherwise, or of the civil
liability arising therefrom;
(d) Offenses involving
damage to property
through criminal
negligence (imposable
fine does not exceed
P10,000);

(5) Violations of BP 22 [AM

00-11-01-SC (2003)];
(6) Special jurisdiction to decide
on applications for bail
in criminal cases in the
absence of all RTC
judges in a province or city
[Sec. 35, BP 129].
RTC
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction
in all criminal cases not
within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal or body [Sec. 20,
BP 129];
(2) Exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over all
cases decided by the
MTC within its territorial
jurisdiction [Sec. 22, BP 129];
(3) Criminal cases where one or
more of the accused is
below 18 years of age
but not less than 15
years, or where one or
more of the victims is a
minor at the time of the
commission of the offense
[RA 9344];
(4) Cases against minors
cognizable under the
Dangerous Drugs Act, as
amended [RA 8369 (Family
Courts Act of 1997)];
(5) Violations of RA 7610
(Child Abuse Act);
(6) Cases of domestic
violence against women
and children. If an act
committed against women

and children likewise

constitute a criminal offense,
the accused or batterer shall
be subject to criminal
proceedings and the
corresponding penalties [RA
8369 (Family Courts Act of
1997)];
(7) Violations of intellectual
property rights [AM 0303-03-SC (2003); RA 8293];
(8) Money Laundering Cases
(RA 9160), except those
committed by public officers
and private persons who are
in conspiracy with such public
officers shall be under the
jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
Sandiganbayan
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction
in those cases expressly
enumerated in PD 1606,
as amended by RA 8249,
violations of RA 3019,
RA 1379, and Chapter II,
Section 2, Title VII, Book
II, RPC;
The officials enumerated are:
(a) Officials of the executive
branch occupying the
positions of regional
director and higher,
otherwise classified as
Grade 27 and higher, of
the Compensation and
Position Classification Act
of 1989 [RA 6758];
NOTE: The shift from,
PNP chief

superintendent and PNP

officers of higher rank to
Officers of the PNP while
occupying the position of
provincial director and
those holding the rank of
senior superintendent
and higher in this enumeration, as provided
by the amendment in RA
10660.
(b) Members of Congress
and officials thereof
classified as Grade 27
and up under the
Compensation and
Position Classification Act
of 1989;
(c) Members of the judiciary
without prejudice to the
provisions of the
Constitution;
(d) Chairmen and members
of Constitutional
Commissions, without
prejudice to the
provisions of the
Constitution;
(e) All other national and
local officials classified as
Grade 27
(2) Other offenses or
felonies whether simple
or complexed with other
crimes committed by
public officials and
employees in relation to
their office. The following
must concur:
(a) Accused is any one of the
public officials
enumerated in subsection

(a) of Sec. 4 of RA 8249,

Grade 27 or higher
(b) Accused commits any
other offense or felony,
than those specified in
subsec. (a), whether
simple or complexed with
other crimes
(c) The offender commits
such other offense or
felony in relation to his
office
(3) Cases filed pursuant to
and in connection with
EO 1, 2, 14, 14-A (1986).
C.2. MILITARY COURTS
General rule: Ordinary courts will have
jurisdiction over cases involving members of
the armed forces, and other persons subject
to military law, regardless of who the coaccused
or victims are.
Exception: When the offense is serviceoriented,
it will be tried by the court martial;
Provided, that the President may, in the
interest of justice, order or direct, at any time
before arraignment, that any such crimes or
offenses be tried by the proper civil courts.

D. WHEN INJUNCTION MAY BE

ISSUED TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION

General rule: The prosecution of a criminal

case may not be enjoined by
prohibition/injunction because public interest
requires that criminal acts be immediately
investigated and prosecuted for the
protection of society [Domingo v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 109376 (2000)].
Exceptions [Brocka v. Enrile, G.R. No.
69863-65 (1990)]:

(1) When necessary in the protection of the

constitutional rights of the accused;
(2) When necessary for the orderly
administration of justice or to avoid
oppression or multiplicity of suits;
(3) Where there is a prejudicial question
which is sub judice;
(4) Where acts of the officer are without or in
excess of authority;
(5) When the prosecution is under an invalid
law or statute;
(6) When double jeopardy is apparent;
(7) When court has no jurisdiction over the
offense;
(8) When it is a case of persecution rather
than prosecution;
(9) Where the charges are manifestly false
and motivated by vengeance;
(10) Where there is no prima facie case and a
motion to quash on that ground has been
denied;
(11) Where preliminary injunction has been
issued by the SC to prevent the
threatened unlawful arrest of petitioner.

II. Prosecution of
Offenses

A. CRIMINAL ACTIONS; HOW

INSTITUTED

A.1. IN GENERAL
The institution of a criminal action generally
depends upon whether the offense is one
which requires a preliminary investigation or
not.
A criminal action is commenced by the filing
of a complaint or information. The complaint
may be filed either with the MTC, when

allowed, or with a public prosecutor for

purposes of conducting a preliminary
investigation. [Sec. 1, (Rule 110]
A.2. OFFENSES REQUIRING PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
Offenses which require preliminary
investigation are those where the penalty
prescribed by law is at least 4 years, 2
months and 1 day [Sec. 1, Rule 112].
The criminal action is instituted by filing the
complaint with the appropriate officer for
preliminary investigation [Sec. 1(a), Rule 110].
A.3. OTHER OFFENSES
For all other offenses, or in offenses
cognizable by inferior courts (MTCs or
MCTCs), the complaint or information is filed
directly with said courts or the complaint is
filed with the fiscal [Sec. 1(b), Rule 110].
A.4. IN METROPOLITAN MANILA AND
OTHER CITIES
In Metropolitan Manila and other chartered
cities, the complaint shall be filed with the
office of the public prosecutor unless
otherwise provided in their charters [Sec. 1(b),
Rule 110].
A.5. EFFECT OF INSTITUTION ON
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
The institution of a criminal action shall
interrupt the running of the period of
prescription of the offense charged unless
otherwise provided in special laws [Sec. 1,
Rule 110].
There is no more distinction between cases
under the RPC and those covered by special
laws with respect to the interruption of the

period of prescription. [People v. Pangilinan,

G.R. No. 152662 (2012)].
SUSPENSION OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIODS
IN CASES FALLING UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF THE LUPON
While the dispute is under mediation,
conciliation or arbitration, the prescriptive
periods for offenses and causes of action
under existing laws shall be interrupted upon
filing of the complaint with the
Punong Barangay. The prescriptive
periods shall resume upon receipt by the
complainant of the complaint or the
certificate of repudiation or of the certification
to file action issued by the Lupon or Pangkat
Secretary. Such interruption however shall not
exceed sixty (60) days from the filing of the
complaint with the punong barangay [Sec.
410[c], RA 7160 (The Local Government Code
of 1991)].

B. WHO MAY FILE; CRIMES THAT

CANNOT BE PROSECUTED DE
OFICIO

General rule: All criminal actions

commenced by a complaint or information
shall be prosecuted under the direction and
control of the prosecutor [Sec. 5, Rule 110].
B.1. WHO MAY FILE COMPLAINT OR
INFORMATION
For Non-Private Crimes
Persons authorized to file a complaint [Sec.
3, Rule 110]:
(1) The offended party
(2) Any peace officer
(3) Other public officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated
Persons authorized to file an information
[Sec. 4, Rule 110]:

(1) City or provincial prosecutor and their

assistants; and
(2) Duly appointed special prosecutors
For Private Crimes [Sec. 5, Rule 110]
Private crimes which may only be prosecuted
by a complaint filed by the private offended
party [Sec. 5, Rule 110]

Crime
Adultery and
concubinage.
Who May File:
Offended
spouse
Conditions:
(1) Must
include
both
guilty
parties
(2) Must not
have
consented
to the
offense
(3) Must not
have
pardoned
the
offenders

Seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness

(1) Offended

party
includes
minors,
except if
incompetent
or incapable
(2) Parents
(3) Grandparent
(4) Guardian
(5) State
The
offender
must not
have been
pardoned
by any of (1)
to (4) in the
preceding
column

Defamation,
which
consists of
imputation of
any of the
foregoing
offenses
Offended party

B.2. EVENTS SUBSEQUENT TO FILING

B.2.A. DEATH OF OFFENDED PARTY
Death after filing the complaint would not
deprive the court of jurisdiction.
The State shall initiate the action on behalf of
the offended party in case of his/her
death/incapacity and he/she has no known
parents/grandparents/guardians.
In adultery/concubinage, death does not
extinguish the criminal liability of accused.

his/her
parents, grandparents, guardian or the
offended party [Sec. 5, Rule 110]:
(a) The parents/grandparents/guardian of
the offended minor (in that order) cannot
extend a valid pardon without conformity
of the offended party, even if the latter is
a minor [US v. Luna, G.R. No. 892 (1902)];
(b) If the offended woman is of age and not
incapacitated, only she can extend a valid
pardon which would absolve the offender.
General rule: Pardon must be made before
the filing of the criminal complaint in court.
Exception: In rape, marriage between the
offender and the offended party would be
effective as pardon even when the offender
has already commenced serving his sentence.
If there is more than one accused, the pardon
must be extended to all offenders.
Pardon or desistance extinguishes civil
liability. Pardon or express condonation has
the effect of waiving the civil liability with
regard to the interest of the injured party.
Liability arising from an offense is
extinguished in the same manner as other
obligations.
Pardon:
Refers to past acts;
In order to absolve
the accused from
liability, it must be
extended to both
offenders.
Given after the
commission of the
crime.
Consent:

Refers to future acts;

In order to absolve
the accused from
liability, it is
sufficient even if
granted only to the
offending spouse.
Given before the
commission of the
crime.

C. CONTROL OF PROSECUTION
C.1. IN GENERAL
General rule: All criminal actions
commenced by a complaint or information
shall be prosecuted under the direction and
control of the prosecutor [Sec. 5, Rule 110].
Exceptions:
The private prosecutor may be authorized in
writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office
or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute
the case subject to the approval of the court.
(1) In case of heavy work schedule of the
public prosecutor or
(2) In the event of lack of public prosecutors.
However, the criminal action is still
prosecuted under the direction and control of
the public prosecutor, which requires that the
prosecutor must be present during the
proceedings. [People v. Beriales, G. R. No. L39962 (1976)].
C.2. BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS
AND THE SUPREME COURT
General rule: Only the Solicitor General
may bring or defend actions in behalf of the

Republic of the Philippines, or represent the

People of the Philippines or State in criminal
proceedings before the Supreme Court and
the Court of Appeals.
Exceptions:
(1) When there is denial of due process of law
to the prosecution and the State or its
agents refuse to act on the case to the
prejudice of the State and the private
offended party, and
(2) When the private offended party questions
the civil aspect of a decision of a lower
court.
C.3. EXTENT OF THE PROSECUTORS
CONTROL
C.3.A. PRIOR TO FILING OF THE CASE
These matters are within the control and
supervision of the prosecutor:
(1) What case to file;
(2) Whom to prosecute;
(3) Manner of prosecution;
(4) Right to withdraw information before
arraignment even without notice and
hearing.
C.3.B. AFTER FILING OF THE CASE
It is the prosecutors duty to proceed with the
presentation of his evidence.
Once a complaint or information is filed in
Court, any disposition of the case as its
dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the
accused rests on the sound discretion of the
Court. A motion to dismiss should be filed
with the Court, which has the option to grant
or deny it. [Crespo v. Mogul, GR No L-53373
(1987)]
C.3.C. LIMITATIONS OF CONTROL BY THE
COURT
(1) The prosecution is entitled to notice of
hearing;
(2) The court must await for a petition for
review (maximum of 60 days);

(3) Prosecs stand to maintain prosecution

should be respected by the court
(4) The court must make its own independent
assessment of evidence in granting or
dismissing motion to dismiss; otherwise,
the judgment is void.
C.3.D. EFFECT OF LACK OF INTERVENTION
OF FISCAL
Although the private prosecutor had
previously been authorized by the special
counsel to present the evidence for the
prosecution, in view of the absence of the City
Fiscal at the hearing, it cannot be said that
the prosecution of the case was under the
control of the City Fiscal. It follows that the
evidence presented by the private prosecutor
at said hearing could not be considered
as evidence for the plaintiff [People v.
Beriales, G.R. No. L-39962 (1976)].

D. SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR
INFORMATION
A complaint is a sworn written statement
charging a person with an offense,
subscribed by the offended party, any peace
officer or other public officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated [Sec 3, Rule
110].
An information is an accusation in writing,
charging a person with an offense,
subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with
the court [Sec. 4, Rule 110].

Complaint versus Information:

A Complaint is Subscribed by the
offended party, any
peace officer or other
officer charged with
the enforcement of

the law violated

while an information is Subscribed by the
fiscal. (Indispensable
requirement. Lack of
authority of the officer
signing it cannot be
cured by silence,
acquiescence or even
express consent.)

A complaint May be filed either in

court or in the
prosecutors office while an information is Filed with the court.
A complaint Must be sworn
hence, under oath.
an information Requires no oath.
The fiscal filing the
information is acting
under the oath of his
office.
A complaint Usually refers to
felonies which
cannot be
prosecuted de officio.
An information Usually refers to
public crimes.

TEST OF SUFFICIENCY
A complaint or information is sufficient if it
states:
(1) The name of the accused;
(2) The designation of the offense given by
the statute;
(3) The acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense;
(4) The name of the offended party;
(5) The approximate date of the commission

of the offense; and

(6) The place where the offense was
committed [Sec. 6, Rule 110].
The test for sufficiency of the complaint or
information is whether the crime is described
in intelligible terms with such particularity as
to apprise the accused with reasonable
certainty of the offense charged [Lazarte v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180122 (2009)].
An accused is deemed to have waived his
right to assail the sufficiency of the
information when he voluntarily entered a
plea when arraigned and participated in the
trial [Frias v. People, G.R. No. 171437 (2007)].
Consequently, objections as to form cannot
be made for the first time on appeal. The
accused should have moved for a bill of
particulars or for quashal of information
before arraignment, otherwise he is deemed
to have waived his objections to such a defect
[People v. Teodoro (2009)].
D.1 NAME OF THE ACCUSED
The complaint or information must state the
name and surname of the accused or any
appellation or nickname by which he has
been or is known. If his name cannot be
ascertained, he must be described under a
fictitious name with a statement that his true
name is unknown.
If the true name of the accused is thereafter
disclosed by him or appears in some other
manner to the court, such name shall be
inserted in the complaint or information and
record [Sec. 7, Rule 110].
D.2 DESIGNATION OF OFFENSE
The complaint or information shall:
(1) State the designation of the offense given
by the statute;

(2) Aver the acts and omissions constituting

the offense; and
(3) Specify the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances.
If there is no designation of the offense,
reference shall be made to the section or
subsection of the statute punishing it [Sec. 8,
Rule 110].
This is a procedural requirement to safeguard
the right of the accused to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against
him.
Specific acts of accused do not have to be
described in detail in the information, as it is
enough that the offense be described with
sufficient particularity to make sure the
accused fully understands what he is being
charged with [Guy v. People, G.R. No. 16679496 (2009)].
D.3 CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION
The acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense and the qualifying
and aggravating circumstances must be
stated:
(1) In ordinary and concise language; and
(2) Not necessarily in the language used in
the statute; but
(3) In terms sufficient to enable a person of
common understanding to know what
offense is being charged as well as its
qualifying and aggravating circumstances
and for the court to pronounce judgment
[Sec. 9, Rule 110].
Qualifying and aggravating circumstances
must be alleged. Otherwise, they are not to
be considered even if proven during the trial.
The failure to allege such cannot be cured by
an amendment of the information after the
accused entered his plea. [People v. Antonio
(2002)]
Although aggravating circumstances cannot

be appreciated for the purpose of fixing a

heavier penalty, they should, however, be
considered as bases for the award of
exemplary damages [People v. Evina, G.R.
Nos. 124830-31 (2003)].
WHERE THE LAW PRESCRIBES
EXCEPTIONS:
RULE ON NEGATIVE AVERMENTS
General rule: Where the law alleged to
have been violated prohibits generally acts
therein defined and is intended to apply to all
persons indiscriminately, but prescribes
certain limitations/exceptions from its
violation, the indictment/information is
sufficient if it alleges facts which the offender
did as constituting a violation of law, without
explicitly negating the exception, as the
exception is a matter of defense which the
accused has to prove.
Exception: Where the statute alleged to
have been violated applies only to specific
classes of persons and special conditions and
the exemptions from its violation are so
incorporated in the language defining the
crime that the ingredients of the offense
cannot be accurately and clearly set forth if
the exemption is omitted, then the
indictment must show that the accused does
not fall within the exemptions.
Simply put, if the exception is needed for
defining the offense, then the information
should negate the exception [US v. Chan Toco,
G.R. No. L-3851 (1908)]
WHERE COMPLEX CRIME IS CHARGED
Where what is alleged in the information is a
complex crime and the evidence fails to
support the charge as to one of the
component offenses, the defendant can only
be convicted of the offense proven.
D.4 PLACE OF COMMISSION OF THE

OFFENSE
General rule: It is sufficient if it can be
understood from its allegations that the
offense was committed or some of its
essential ingredients occurred at some place
within the jurisdiction of the court.
Exception: The particular place where it
was committed constitutes an essential
element of the offense charged or is
necessary for its identification [Sec 10, Rule
110]
D.5 DATE OF COMMISSION OF THE
OFFENSE
General Rule: It is not necessary to state in
the complaint or information the precise
date the offense was committed. The offense
may be alleged to have been committed on a
date as near as possible to the actual date of
the commission.
Exception: When it is a material ingredient
of the offense [Sec. 11, Rule 110]
D.6 NAME OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
The complaint or information must state the
name and surname of the person against
whom or against whose property the offense
was committed, or any appellation or
nickname by which such person has been or
is known. If there is no better way of
identifying him, he must be described under a
fictitious name.
OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY
If the name of the offended party is unknown,
the property must be described with such
particularity as to properly identify the
offense charged. [Sec. 12(a), Rule 110]
If the true name of the person against whom
or against whose property the offense was
committed is thereafter disclosed or
ascertained, the court must cause such true
name to be inserted in the complaint or
information and the record. [Sec. 12(b), Rule

110]
OFFENDED PARTY IS A JURIDICAL PERSON
Sufficient to state its name, or any name or
designation by which it is known or by which
it may be identified, without need of averring
that it is a juridical person or that it is
organized in accordance with law [Sec. 12(c),
Rule 110]

E. DUPLICITY OF THE OFFENSE;

EXCEPTION
Duplicity of the offense in an information or
complaint means the joinder of two or more
separate and distinct offenses in one and the
same information or complaint.
General rule: The information must charge
only one offense [Sec. 13, Rule 110].
Exception: Multiple offenses may be
charged when the law prescribes a single
punishment for various offenses.
REMEDY
The filing of a motion to quash is the remedy
in case of duplicity of offense in an
information.
Objection to a complaint or information
which charges more than one offense must
be timely interposed before trial [Sec. 3,
Rule 120].
Failure to do so constitutes a waiver [People v.
Tabio, G.R. No. 179477 (2008)] and the court
may convict the accused of as many offenses
as are charged and proved, and impose on
him the penalty for each offense [Sec. 3, Rule
120].
MODES OF COMMITTING OFFENSE NOT
DUPLICITOUS
General rule: In case of crimes susceptible
of being committed in various modes, the
allegations in the information of the various
ways of committing the offense would be

regarded as a description of only one offense

and information is not rendered defective.
Exceptions:
(1) Complex crimes;
(2) Special complex crimes;
(3) Continuous crimes;
(4) Crimes susceptible of being committed in
various modes;
(5) Crimes which another offense is an
ingredient [People v. Camerino, G.R. No. L13484 (1960)].

F. AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTION
OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
KINDS OF AMENDMENT:
(1) Formal Amendment merely states
with additional precision something
which is already contained in the original
information, and which, therefore adds
nothing essential for conviction for the
crime charged [Gabionza v. CA, G.R. No.
140311 (2001)]
Examples of Formal Amendment:
(a) New allegations which relate only to
the range of penalty that the court
might impose in the event of
conviction;
(b) One which does not charge another
offense distinct from that already
charged;
(c) Additional allegation which do not
alter the prosecutions theory of the
case so as to surprise the accused or
affect the form of defense he has or will
assume;
(d) One which does not adversely affect
any substantial right of the accused,
such as his right to invoke prescription.
(2) Substantial amendment consists of
the recital of facts constituting the
offense charged and determinative of the

jurisdiction of the court. All other matters

are merely of form [Teehankee v. Madayag,
G.R. No. 103102 (1992)]
TEST AS TO WHETHER FORMAL OR
SUBSTANTIAL
The test as to whether the amendment is
merely formal is whether or not a defense
under the original information would be
equally available after the amendment and
whether or not any evidence the accused
might have would be equally applicable in
one form as in the other [People v. Degamo,
G.R. No. 121211 (2003), citing Teehankee v.
Madayag, G.R. No. 103102 (1992)].
F.1. AMENDMENT BEFORE PLEA IN FORM
AND SUBSTANCE
General rule: Amendment, formal or
substantial, made before the accused
enters his plea may be done without leave
of court. [Sec. 14, Rule 110]
Exception: If the amendment downgrades
the nature of the offense charged in, or
excludes any accused from, the
complaint/information, it can be made only:
(1) Upon motion of the prosecutor
(2) With notice to the offended party and
(3) With leave of court. [Sec. 14, Rule 110]
The court is mandated to state its reasons in
resolving the motion of the prosecutor and to furnish all parties, especially the offended
party, of copies of its order [Sec. 14, Rule 110].
F.2. AMENDMENT AFTER PLEA AND
DURING TRIAL
F.2.A. AS TO FORM
Amendment as to form can only be made
under two conditions:
(1) With leave of court;
(2) It does not cause prejudice to the rights of
the accused [Sec 14, Rule 110].
F.2.B. AS TO SUBSTANCE
Substantial matter in a complaint is the
recital of facts constituting the offense

charged and determinative of the jurisdiction

of the court. [Almeda v. Villaluz, G.R. No. L31665 (1975)].
General rule: Amendment as to substance
at this state of the case is proscribed [People v.
Zulueta, G.R. No. L-4017 (1951)].
Exception: Amendment may be allowed if it
is beneficial to the accused [People v. Janairo,
G.R. No. 129254 (2007)].
F.3. SUBSTITUTION
A complaint or information may be
substituted if it appears at any time before
judgment that a mistake has been made in
charging the proper offense. The court shall
dismiss the original complaint or information
upon the filing of a new one charging the
proper offense, provided the accused would
not be placed in double jeopardy [Sec. 14,
Rule 110].
Subject to Sec. 19, Rule 119, when it becomes
manifest at any time before judgment that a
mistake has been made in charging the
proper offense and the accused cannot be
convicted of the offense charged or any other
offense necessarily included therein, the
accused shall not be discharged if there
appears good cause to detain him. The court
shall commit the accused to answer the
proper offense and dismiss the original case
upon the filing of the proper information.
Limitations:
(1) No judgment has yet been rendered;
(2) The accused cannot be convicted of the
offense charged or of any other offense
necessarily included therein;
(3) The accused would not be placed in
double jeopardy.

II. Prosecution of
Offenses

A. CRIMINAL ACTIONS; HOW

INSTITUTED

A.1. IN GENERAL
The institution of a criminal action generally
depends upon whether the offense is one
which requires a preliminary investigation or
not.
A criminal action is commenced by the filing
of a complaint or information. The complaint
may be filed either with the MTC, when
allowed, or with a public prosecutor for
purposes of conducting a preliminary
investigation. [Sec. 1, (Rule 110]
A.2. OFFENSES REQUIRING PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
Offenses which require preliminary
investigation are those where the penalty
prescribed by law is at least 4 years, 2
months and 1 day [Sec. 1, Rule 112].
The criminal action is instituted by filing the
complaint with the appropriate officer for
preliminary investigation [Sec. 1(a), Rule 110].
A.3. OTHER OFFENSES
For all other offenses, or in offenses
cognizable by inferior courts (MTCs or
MCTCs), the complaint or information is filed
directly with said courts or the complaint is
filed with the fiscal [Sec. 1(b), Rule 110].
A.4. IN METROPOLITAN MANILA AND
OTHER CITIES
In Metropolitan Manila and other chartered
cities, the complaint shall be filed with the
office of the public prosecutor unless
otherwise provided in their charters [Sec. 1(b),
Rule 110].
A.5. EFFECT OF INSTITUTION ON

PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
The institution of a criminal action shall
interrupt the running of the period of
prescription of the offense charged unless
otherwise provided in special laws [Sec. 1,
Rule 110].
There is no more distinction between cases
under the RPC and those covered by special
laws with respect to the interruption of the
period of prescription. [People v. Pangilinan,
G.R. No. 152662 (2012)]
SUSPENSION OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIODS
IN CASES FALLING UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF THE LUPON
While the dispute is under mediation,
conciliation or arbitration, the prescriptive
periods for offenses and causes of action
under existing laws shall be interrupted upon
filing of the complaint with the
Punong Barangay. The prescriptive
periods shall resume upon receipt by the
complainant of the complaint or the
certificate of repudiation or of the certification
to file action issued by the Lupon or Pangkat
Secretary. Such interruption however shall not
exceed sixty (60) days from the filing of the
complaint with the punong barangay [Sec.
410[c], RA 7160 (The Local Government Code
of 1991)].

B. WHO MAY FILE; CRIMES THAT

CANNOT BE PROSECUTED DE
OFICIO

General rule: All criminal actions

commenced by a complaint or information
shall be prosecuted under the direction and
control of the prosecutor [Sec. 5, Rule 110].
B.1. WHO MAY FILE COMPLAINT OR
INFORMATION
For Non-Private Crimes

Persons authorized to file a complaint [Sec.

3, Rule 110]:
(1) The offended party
(2) Any peace officer
(3) Other public officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated
Persons authorized to file an information
[Sec. 4, Rule 110]:
(1) City or provincial prosecutor and their
assistants; and
(2) Duly appointed special prosecutors.

For Private Crimes [Sec. 5, Rule 110]

Private crimes which may only be prosecuted
by a complaint filed by the private offended
party [Sec. 5, Rule 110].

B.2. EVENTS SUBSEQUENT TO FILING

B.2.A. DEATH OF OFFENDED PARTY
Death after filing the complaint would not
deprive the court of jurisdiction.
The State shall initiate the action on behalf of
the offended party in case of his/her
death/incapacity and he/she has no known
parents/grandparents/guardians.
In adultery/concubinage, death does not
extinguish the criminal liability of accused.
B.2.B. DESISTANCE BY OFFENDED PARTY
Desistance does not bar the People of the
Philippines from prosecuting the criminal
action, but it operates as a waiver of the right
to pursue civil indemnity.
B.2.C. PARDON BY OFFENDED PARTY
In adultery and concubinage, the crime shall
not be prosecuted if the offended party has
consented to the offense or pardoned the
offenders. [Sec. 5, Rule 110]
In seduction, abduction and acts of

lasciviousness of a minor, the pardon will

be effective if given expressly by his/her
parents, grandparents, guardian or the
offended party [Sec. 5, Rule 110]:
(a) The parents/grandparents/guardian of
the offended minor (in that order) cannot
extend a valid pardon without conformity
of the offended party, even if the latter is
a minor [US v. Luna, G.R. No. 892 (1902)];
(b) If the offended woman is of age and not
incapacitated, only she can extend a valid
pardon which would absolve the offender.
General rule: Pardon must be made before
the filing of the criminal complaint in court.
Exception: In rape, marriage between the
offender and the offended party would be
effective as pardon even when the offender
has already commenced serving his sentence.
If there is more than one accused, the pardon
must be extended to all offenders.
Pardon or desistance extinguishes civil
liability. Pardon or express condonation has
the effect of waiving the civil liability with
regard to the interest of the injured party.
Liability arising from an offense is
extinguished in the same manner as other
obligations.
Pardon Consent
Refers to past acts Refers to future acts
In order to absolve
the accused from
liability, it must be
extended to both
offenders
In order to absolve
the accused from
liability, it is
sufficient even if
granted only to the
offending spouse

SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE
The marriage of the offender with the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action or remit the penalty already imposed
upon him, together with the co-principals,
accomplices and accessories after the fact of
the above-mentioned crimes. [Art. 344, RPC]
Except:
(1) In adultery and concubinage
(2) Marriage was invalid or contracted in bad
faith to escape criminal liability [People v.
Santiago, G.R. No. L-27972 (1927)]
(3) In private libel, or the libelous
imputation to the complainant of the
commission of the crimes of concubinage,
adultery, seduction, abduction, or acts of
lasciviousness, and in slander by deed
[People v. Orzame (39 O.G. 1168)]
(4) In multiple rape, insofar as the other
accused in the other acts of rape
respectively committed by them are
concerned [People v. Bernardo (38 O.G.
3479)].

C. CONTROL OF PROSECUTION

C.1. IN GENERAL
General rule: All criminal actions
commenced by a complaint or information
shall be prosecuted under the direction and
control of the prosecutor [Sec. 5, Rule 110].
Exceptions:
The private prosecutor may be authorized in
writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office
or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute
the case subject to the approval of the court.
(1) In case of heavy work schedule of the
public prosecutor or
(2) In the event of lack of public prosecutors.
However, the criminal action is still
prosecuted under the direction and control of
the public prosecutor, which requires that the

prosecutor must be present during the

proceedings. [People v. Beriales, G. R. No. L39962 (1976)].

C.2. BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS

AND THE SUPREME COURT
General rule: Only the Solicitor General
may bring or defend actions in behalf of the
Republic of the Philippines, or represent the
People of the Philippines or State in criminal
proceedings before the Supreme Court and
the Court of Appeals.
Exceptions:
(1) When there is denial of due process of law
to the prosecution and the State or its
agents refuse to act on the case to the
prejudice of the State and the private
offended party, and
(2) When the private offended party questions
the civil aspect of a decision of a lower
court.
C.3. EXTENT OF THE PROSECUTORS
CONTROL
C.3.A. PRIOR TO FILING OF THE CASE
These matters are within the control and
supervision of the prosecutor:
(1) What case to file;
(2) Whom to prosecute;
(3) Manner of prosecution;
(4) Right to withdraw information before
arraignment even without notice and
hearing.
C.3.B. AFTER FILING OF THE CASE
It is the prosecutors duty to proceed with the
presentation of his evidence.
Once a complaint or information is filed in
Court, any disposition of the case as its
dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the
accused rests on the sound discretion of the
Court. A motion to dismiss should be filed

with the Court, which has the option to grant

or deny it. [Crespo v. Mogul, GR No L-53373
(1987)]
C.3.C. LIMITATIONS OF CONTROL BY THE
COURT
(1) The prosecution is entitled to notice of
hearing;
(2) The court must await for a petition for
review (maximum of 60 days);
(3) Prosecs stand to maintain prosecution
should be respected by the court
(4) The court must make its own independent
assessment of evidence in granting or dismissing motion to dismiss; otherwise,
the judgment is void.
C.3.D. EFFECT OF LACK OF INTERVENTION
OF FISCAL
Although the private prosecutor had
previously been authorized by the special
counsel to present the evidence for the
prosecution, in view of the absence of the City
Fiscal at the hearing, it cannot be said that
the prosecution of the case was under the
control of the City Fiscal. It follows that the
evidence presented by the private prosecutor
at said hearing could not be considered
as evidence for the plaintiff [People v.
Beriales, G.R. No. L-39962 (1976)].

D. SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR
INFORMATION
A complaint is a sworn written statement
charging a person with an offense,
subscribed by the offended party, any peace
officer or other public officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated [Sec 3, Rule
110].
An information is an accusation in writing,
charging a person with an offense,
subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with
the court [Sec. 4, Rule 110].

Complaint and Information

A Complaint is
Subscribed by the
offended party, any
peace officer or other
officer charged with
the enforcement of
the law violated.
A Complaint
May be filed either in
court or in the
prosecutors office.
A Complaint
Must be sworn
hence, under oath.
A Complaint Usually refers to
felonies which
cannot be
prosecuted de officio.

An Information is
Subscribed by the
fiscal. (Indispensable
requirement. Lack of
authority of the officer
signing it cannot be
cured by silence,
acquiescence or even
express consent.)
An Information is Filed with the court.
An Information Requires no oath.
The fiscal filing the
information is acting
under the oath of his
office.
An Information Usually refers to

public crimes.

constituting the offense;

(4) The name of the offended party;
(5) The approximate date of the commission
of the offense; and
(6) The place where the offense was
committed [Sec. 6, Rule 110].
The test for sufficiency of the complaint or
information is whether the crime is described
in intelligible terms with such particularity as
to apprise the accused with reasonable
certainty of the offense charged [Lazarte v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180122 (2009)].
An accused is deemed to have waived his
right to assail the sufficiency of the
information when he voluntarily entered a
plea when arraigned and participated in the
trial [Frias v. People, G.R. No. 171437 (2007)].
Consequently, objections as to form cannot
be made for the first time on appeal. The
accused should have moved for a bill of
particulars or for quashal of information
before arraignment, otherwise he is deemed
to have waived his objections to such a defect
[People v. Teodoro (2009)].
D.1 NAME OF THE ACCUSED
The complaint or information must state the
name and surname of the accused or any
appellation or nickname by which he has
been or is known. If his name cannot be
ascertained, he must be described under a
fictitious name with a statement that his true
name is unknown.
If the true name of the accused is thereafter
disclosed by him or appears in some other
manner to the court, such name shall be
inserted in the complaint or information and
record [Sec. 7, Rule 110].
D.2 DESIGNATION OF OFFENSE

The complaint or information shall:

(1) State the designation of the offense given
by the statute;
(2) Aver the acts and omissions constituting
the offense; and
(3) Specify the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances.
If there is no designation of the offense,
reference shall be made to the section or
subsection of the statute punishing it [Sec. 8,
Rule 110].
This is a procedural requirement to safeguard
the right of the accused to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against
him.
Specific acts of accused do not have to be
described in detail in the information, as it is
enough that the offense be described with
sufficient particularity to make sure the
accused fully understands what he is being
charged with [Guy v. People, G.R. No. 16679496 (2009)].
D.3 CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION
The acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense and the qualifying
and aggravating circumstances must be
stated:
(1) In ordinary and concise language; and
(2) Not necessarily in the language used in
the statute; but
(3) In terms sufficient to enable a person of
common understanding to know what
offense is being charged as well as its
qualifying and aggravating circumstances
and for the court to pronounce judgment
[Sec. 9, Rule 110].
Qualifying and aggravating circumstances
must be alleged. Otherwise, they are not to
be considered even if proven during the trial.
The failure to allege such cannot be cured by

an amendment of the information after the

accused entered his plea. [People v. Antonio
(2002)]
Although aggravating circumstances cannot
be appreciated for the purpose of fixing a
heavier penalty, they should, however, be
considered as bases for the award of
exemplary damages [People v. Evina, G.R.
Nos. 124830-31 (2003)].
WHERE THE LAW PRESCRIBES
EXCEPTIONS:
RULE ON NEGATIVE AVERMENTS
General rule: Where the law alleged to
have been violated prohibits generally acts
therein defined and is intended to apply to all
persons indiscriminately, but prescribes
certain limitations/exceptions from its
violation, the indictment/information is
sufficient if it alleges facts which the offender
did as constituting a violation of law, without
explicitly negating the exception, as the
exception is a matter of defense which the
accused has to prove.
Exception: Where the statute alleged to
have been violated applies only to specific
classes of persons and special conditions and
the exemptions from its violation are so
incorporated in the language defining the
crime that the ingredients of the offense
cannot be accurately and clearly set forth if
the exemption is omitted, then the
indictment must show that the accused does
not fall within the exemptions.
Simply put, if the exception is needed for
defining the offense, then the information
should negate the exception [US v. Chan Toco,
G.R. No. L-3851 (1908)]
WHERE COMPLEX CRIME IS CHARGED
Where what is alleged in the information is a
complex crime and the evidence fails to

support the charge as to one of the

component offenses, the defendant can only
be convicted of the offense proven.
D.4 PLACE OF COMMISSION OF THE
OFFENSE
General rule: It is sufficient if it can be
understood from its allegations that the
offense was committed or some of its
essential ingredients occurred at some place
within the jurisdiction of the court.
Exception: The particular place where it
was committed constitutes an essential
element of the offense charged or is
necessary for its identification [Sec 10, Rule
110]
D.5 DATE OF COMMISSION OF THE
OFFENSE
General Rule: It is not necessary to state in
the complaint or information the precise
date the offense was committed. The offense
may be alleged to have been committed on a
date as near as possible to the actual date of
the commission.
Exception: When it is a material ingredient
of the offense [Sec. 11, Rule 110]
D.6 NAME OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
The complaint or information must state the
name and surname of the person against
whom or against whose property the offense
was committed, or any appellation or
nickname by which such person has been or
is known. If there is no better way of
identifying him, he must be described under a
fictitious name.
OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY
If the name of the offended party is unknown,
the property must be described with such
particularity as to properly identify the
offense charged. [Sec. 12(a), Rule 110]
If the true name of the person against whom
or against whose property the offense was

committed is thereafter disclosed or

ascertained, the court must cause such true
name to be inserted in the complaint or
information and the record. [Sec. 12(b), Rule
110]
OFFENDED PARTY IS A JURIDICAL PERSON
Sufficient to state its name, or any name or
designation by which it is known or by which
it may be identified, without need of averring
that it is a juridical person or that it is
organized in accordance with law [Sec. 12(c),
Rule 110]

E. DUPLICITY OF THE OFFENSE;

EXCEPTION
Duplicity of the offense in an information or
complaint means the joinder of two or more
separate and distinct offenses in one and the
same information or complaint.
General rule: The information must charge
only one offense [Sec. 13, Rule 110].
Exception: Multiple offenses may be
charged when the law prescribes a single
punishment for various offenses.
REMEDY
The filing of a motion to quash is the remedy
in case of duplicity of offense in an
information.
Objection to a complaint or information
which charges more than one offense must
be timely interposed before trial [Sec. 3,
Rule 120].
Failure to do so constitutes a waiver [People v.
Tabio, G.R. No. 179477 (2008)] and the court
may convict the accused of as many offenses
as are charged and proved, and impose on
him the penalty for each offense [Sec. 3, Rule
120].
MODES OF COMMITTING OFFENSE NOT
DUPLICITOUS

General rule: In case of crimes susceptible

of being committed in various modes, the
allegations in the information of the various
ways of committing the offense would be
regarded as a description of only one offense
and information is not rendered defective.
Exceptions:
(1) Complex crimes;
(2) Special complex crimes;
(3) Continuous crimes;
(4) Crimes susceptible of being committed in
various modes;
(5) Crimes which another offense is an
ingredient [People v. Camerino, G.R. No. L13484 (1960)].

F. AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTION
OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
KINDS OF AMENDMENT:
(1) Formal Amendment merely states
with additional precision something
which is already contained in the original
information, and which, therefore adds
nothing essential for conviction for the
crime charged [Gabionza v. CA, G.R. No.
140311 (2001)]
Examples of Formal Amendment:
(a) New allegations which relate only to
the range of penalty that the court
might impose in the event of
conviction;
(b) One which does not charge another
offense distinct from that already
charged;
(c) Additional allegation which do not
alter the prosecutions theory of the
case so as to surprise the accused or
affect the form of defense he has or will
assume;
(d) One which does not adversely affect
any substantial right of the accused,

such as his right to invoke prescription.

(2) Substantial amendment consists of
the recital of facts constituting the
offense charged and determinative of the
jurisdiction of the court. All other matters
are merely of form [Teehankee v. Madayag,
G.R. No. 103102 (1992)]
TEST AS TO WHETHER FORMAL OR
SUBSTANTIAL
The test as to whether the amendment is
merely formal is whether or not a defense
under the original information would be
equally available after the amendment and
whether or not any evidence the accused
might have would be equally applicable in
one form as in the other [People v. Degamo,
G.R. No. 121211 (2003), citing Teehankee v.
Madayag, G.R. No. 103102 (1992)].
F.1. AMENDMENT BEFORE PLEA IN FORM
AND SUBSTANCE
General rule: Amendment, formal or
substantial, made before the accused
enters his plea may be done without leave
of court. [Sec. 14, Rule 110]
Exception: If the amendment downgrades
the nature of the offense charged in, or
excludes any accused from, the
complaint/information, it can be made only:
(1) Upon motion of the prosecutor
(2) With notice to the offended party and
(3) With leave of court. [Sec. 14, Rule 110]
The court is mandated to state its reasons in
resolving the motion of the prosecutor and to furnish all parties, especially the offended
party, of copies of its order [Sec. 14, Rule 110].
F.2. AMENDMENT AFTER PLEA AND
DURING TRIAL
F.2.A. AS TO FORM
Amendment as to form can only be made
under two conditions:
(1) With leave of court;
(2) It does not cause prejudice to the rights of

the accused [Sec 14, Rule 110].

F.2.B. AS TO SUBSTANCE
Substantial matter in a complaint is the
recital of facts constituting the offense
charged and determinative of the jurisdiction
of the court. [Almeda v. Villaluz, G.R. No. L31665 (1975)].
General rule: Amendment as to substance
at this state of the case is proscribed [People v.
Zulueta, G.R. No. L-4017 (1951)].
Exception: Amendment may be allowed if it
is beneficial to the accused [People v. Janairo,
G.R. No. 129254 (2007)].
F.3. SUBSTITUTION
A complaint or information may be
substituted if it appears at any time before
judgment that a mistake has been made in
charging the proper offense. The court shall
dismiss the original complaint or information
upon the filing of a new one charging the
proper offense, provided the accused would
not be placed in double jeopardy [Sec. 14,
Rule 110].
Subject to Sec. 19, Rule 119, when it becomes
manifest at any time before judgment that a
mistake has been made in charging the
proper offense and the accused cannot be
convicted of the offense charged or any other
offense necessarily included therein, the
accused shall not be discharged if there
appears good cause to detain him. The court
shall commit the accused to answer the
proper offense and dismiss the original case
upon the filing of the proper information.
Limitations:
(1) No judgment has yet been rendered;
(2) The accused cannot be convicted of the
offense charged or of any other offense
necessarily included therein;
(3) The accused would not be placed in
double jeopardy.

F.4. AMENDMENT AND SUBSTITUTION

DISTINGUISHED.
Amendment or Substitution
Scope:
Amendment has Formal or
substantial
changes.
Substitution has
Substantial
changes.

Necessity
of leave of court:
Amendment
Can be effected
without leave of
court.
Substitution
Must be with
leave of court
Necessity
of new PI
and plea:
Amendment is
Only as to form,
no need for
another PI and
retaking of plea
In Substitution,
Another PI is
entailed and
accused has to

plead anew
Offense
involved:
In an Amendment
The amended
information
refers to the
same offense
charged in the
original
information or
to an offense
which is
included in the
original charge;
can invoke
double
jeopardy
Substitution
Involves a
different
offense which
does not
include those
provided in the
original charge;
cannot invoke
double
jeopardy
[Teehankee v.
Madayag, G.R.
No. 103102
(1992)].

G. VENUE OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS

General rule: In all criminal prosecutions,

the action must be instituted and tried in the

courts of the municipality or territory where:
(1) The offense was committed; or
(2) Any of its essential ingredients occurred
[Sec. 15(a), Rule 110]
This is the principle of territoriality.
Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional. The
court has no jurisdiction to try an offense
committed outside its territorial jurisdiction.
It cannot be waived, or changed by
agreement of the parties, or by the consent of
the defendant.
Thus, where an offense is wholly committed
outside the territorial limits wherein the court
operates, said court is powerless to try the
case. For the rule is that one cannot be held
to answer for any crime committed by him
except in the jurisdiction where it was
committed [Hernandez v. Albano, G.R. No. L19272 (1967)].

Crime Venue
1. Felonies under Art. 2,
RPC:
Proper court where
criminal action was
first filed,,
2. Those committed on
a railroad train,
aircraft, or any other
public or private
vehicle in the court of
its trip:
May be instituted
and tried in the court
of any municipality or
territory where such
train, aircraft, or
other vehicle passed
during such trip,

including place of
departure and arrival.
3. Those committed on
board a vessel in the
course of its voyage:
May be instituted
and tried in the
proper court of the
first port of entry or
of any municipality or
territory through
which vessel passed,
subject to the
generally accepted
principles of
international law.
4. Piracy, which has no
territorial limits:
May be instituted
anywhere [People v.
Lol-lo and Saraw,
G.R. No. 17958
(1922)].
5. Libel: May be instituted at
the election of the
offended party or
suing party in the
province or city,
subject to Art. 360,
RPC.
6. Cases filed under BP
22:
May be filed in the
place where the
check was
dishonored or issued,
or in case of a crosscheck,
in the place of
the depositary or
collecting bank
7. Violations of RA

10175 (Cybercrime
Prevention Act of
2012):
RTCs have
jurisdiction over any
violation of the
provisions of the Act,
including any
violation committed
by a Filipino national
regardless of the
place of
commission [Sec.
21]
8.In exceptional
circumstances to
ensure a fair trial and
impartial inquiry:
SC has the power to
order a change of
venue or place of trial
to avoid miscarriage
of justice [Sec. 5(4),
Art. VII, Constitution].

For transitory/continuing offenses, the courts

of the territories where the essential
ingredients of the crime took place have
concurrent jurisdiction. The first court taking
cognizance of the case will exclude the others
[People v. Grospe, G.R. No. L-74053-54
(1988)].

H. INTERVENTION OF OFFENDED
PARTY

General rule: An offended party has the

right to intervene in the prosecution of a
crime, where the civil action for recovery of
civil liability is instituted in the criminal action
[Sec. 16, Rule 110].

NOTE: This is still subject to the control of

the prosecutor [Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines v.
People, G.R. No. 147703 (2004)]
Exceptions:
(1) Where, from the nature of the crime and
the law defining and punishing it, no civil
liability arises in favor of a private
offended party (e.g. treason, rebellion,
espionage and contempt);
(2) Where, from the nature of the offense, the
private offended party is entitled to civil
indemnity arising therefrom but he has
waived the same or has expressly
reserved his right to institute a separate
civil action or he has already instituted
such action.

III. Prosecution of Civil

Action
A. RULE ON IMPLIED INSTITUTION
OF CIVIL ACTION WITH CRIMINAL
ACTION

General rule: The civil action for the

recovery of civil liability arising from
the offense charged is deemed instituted
with the criminal action.
Exception: The civil action is not deemed so
instituted if the offended party:
(1) Waives the civil action;
(2) Institutes the civil action prior to the
criminal action; or
(3) Reserves the right to institute it separately
[Sec. 1, Rule 111].

B. WHEN CIVIL ACTION MAY

PROCEED INDEPENDENTLY
B.1. INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS
Under the Rules, only civil liability arising
from the crime charged is deemed instituted.
Hence, the civil actions under the Civil Code,
specifically Art. 32, 33, 34, and 2176, remain
separate, distinct, and independent of any
criminal prosecution although based on the
same act [Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines v. People, G.R.
No. 147703 (2004)].
B.2. RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO FILE
CIVIL ACTION
The civil action may also proceed
independently of the criminal action when
reservation to institute the civil action
separately is made. The reservation shall be
made before the prosecution starts
presenting its evidence and under
circumstances affording the offended party a
reasonable opportunity to make such
reservation [Sec. 1, Rule 111].
Instances where reservation to file the civil
action separately shall not be allowed:
(1) B.P. 22 cases [Sec. 1(b), Rule 111]
(2) Cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
[PD 1606, as amended by Sec. 4, R.A.
8249]
(3) Tax cases [Sec. 7(b)(1), RA 9282]
B.3. SEPARATE ACTION FILED BY THE
ACCUSED
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party
complaint may be filed by the accused in the
criminal case, but any cause of action which
could have been the subject thereof may be
litigated in a separate civil action [Sec. 1, Rule
111].

C. WHEN SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION

IS SUSPENDED
After the criminal action has been

commenced, the separate civil action arising

therefrom cannot be instituted until final
judgment has been entered in the criminal
action [Sec. 2, Rule 111].

D. EFFECT OF DEATH OF THE

ACCUSED OR CONVICT ON CIVIL
ACTION

Upon the death of the accused or convict,

criminal liability is extinguished [Art. 89,
RPC].
As regards civil liability:
(1) When death occurs before the
arraignment, the case shall be
dismissed without prejudice to any civil
action against the estate of the deceased
[Sec. 4, Rule 111];
(2) When death occurs after arraignment
and during pendency of criminal
action, it extinguishes civil liability arising
from the delict;
(3) When death occurs during pendency
of appeal, it extinguishes criminal
liability and the civil liability based
thereon [People v. Ayochok, G.R. No.
175784 (2010)].
Independent civil actions instituted under
Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176, Civil Code, or those
instituted to enforce liability arising from
other sources of obligation may be continued
against the estate or legal representative of
the accused after proper substitution or
against his estate.
As regards the parties in the civil
action, the heirs of the accused may be
substituted without requiring the
appointment of an executor/administrator.
The court may appoint guardian ad litem for
the minors.
The court shall order the legal

representatives to appear and be substituted

within 30 days from notice.

E. PREJUDICIAL QUESTION

E.1. ELEMENTS
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. [People v. Consing, G.R.
No. 148193 (2003)]
Elements of a prejudicial question:
(1) The previously instituted civil action
involves an issue similar or intimately
related to the issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action; and
(2) The resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may
proceed [Sec. 7, Rule 111].
A civil action may be considered prejudicial
when the following concur:
(1) The civil case involves facts intimately
related to those on which the criminal
prosecution would be based;
(2) In the resolution of the issue/s raised in
the civil action, the guilt/innocence of the
accused would necessarily be determined;
(3) Jurisdiction to try the action is lodged in
another tribunal [Prado v. People, G.R. No.
L-37652 (1984)];
(4) The action is instituted prior to the
institution of the criminal action [Pimentel
v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 172060 (2010)].
Ratio: The rule seeks to avoid two conflicting
decisions in the civil case and in the criminal
case [Sy Thiong Shiou vs Sy Chim, G.R. No.
174168 (2009)].
E.2. EFFECT
General rule: Where both a civil and a
criminal case arising from the same facts are
filed in court, the criminal case takes

precedence [Sec. 2, Rule 111].

Exception: If there exists a prejudicial
question which should be resolved first
before an action could be taken in the
criminal case.
E.3. WHERE TO FILE PETITION FOR
SUSPENSION
(1) Office of the prosecutor (in the PI stage);
(2) Court conducting the PI; or
(3) Court where criminal action has been filed
for trial, at any time before the
prosecution rests [Sec. 6, Rule 111].
NOTE: The Rules preclude a motu proprio
suspension by the judge of the civil action, it
must be by petition of the defendant. [Yap v.
Paras, G.R. No. 101236 (1992)].

F. RULE ON FILING FEES IN CIVIL

ACTION DEEMED INSTITUTED WITH
THE CRIMINAL ACTION
Filing fees apply when damages are being
claimed by the offended party, to be paid
upon filing of the criminal action.
General rule: The actual damages claimed
or recovered by the offended party are not
included in the computation of the filing fees
[Sec. 1, Rule 111].
When the amount of damages, other than
actual, is specified in the complaint or
information filed in court, then the
corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the
offended party upon the filing thereof in court
for trial.
In any other case (i.e., when the amount of
damages is not so alleged in the complaint or
information filed in court), the corresponding
filing fees need not be paid and shall simply
constitute a first lien on the judgment, except
on an award for actual damages [General v.
Claravall, G.R. No. 96724 (1991)].
Exceptions: In criminal actions for

violation of BP 22, the amount of the

check involved shall be considered as the
actual damages for which no separate civil
action is allowed. In estafa cases, the filing
fees shall be paid based on the amount
involved (AM 04-2-04).

IV. Preliminary
Investigation
A. NATURE OF RIGHT

A.1. DEFINITION
It is an inquiry or proceeding 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 [Sec. 1, Rule 112].
Preliminary Investigation is merely
inquisitorial, and it is often the only means of
discovering the persons who may reasonably
be charged with a crime, to enable the
prosecutor to prepare his complaint or
information. It is not a trial of the case on the
merits and does not place the persons
against whom it is taken in jeopardy.
[Paderanga v. Drilon, G.R. No. 96080 (1991)]
It is an executive, not a judicial function
[Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v.
Tonda, G.R. No. 134436 (2000)].
A.2. RIGHT TO PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
The right to preliminary investigation is a
statutory right in those instances where it is
required, and to withhold it would violate the
constitutional right to due process [People v.
Oandasa, G.R. No. L-29532 (1968)].
It is not a mere formal or technical right but a
substantial right.

A.3. WAIVER OF RIGHT

The right to preliminary investigation is a
personal right which the accused may waive
either expressly or by implication.
When the accused waives his right to
preliminary investigation, the fiscal may
forthwith file the corresponding information
with the proper court [People v. Perez, G.R. No.
L-15231 (1960)].
An application for or admission to bail shall
not bar the accused from assailing the
regularity or questioning the absence of a
preliminary investigation of the charge
against him provided that he raises the
challenge before entering his plea [Sec. 26,
Rule 114].
A.4. WHEN RIGHT DEEMED WAIVED
(1) Express waiver or by silence [Pilapil v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 101978 (1993)];
(2) Failure to invoke it during arraignment
[People v. De Asis, G.R. No. 105581 (1993)];
and
(3) Consenting to be arraigned and entering a
plea of not guilty without invoking the
right to PI [People v. Bulosan, G.R. No. L58404 (1988)].
The waiver, whether express or implied, must
be in a clear and unequivocal manner
[Herrera (2007)].
The right cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal [Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
101978 (1993)].
A.5. WHEN RIGHT NOT DEEMED WAIVED
(1) Failure to appear before the prosecutor
during the clarificatory hearing or when
summoned, when the right was invoked
at the start of the proceeding [Larranaga
v. CA, G.R. No. 130644 (1998)]; or
(2) When the accused filed an application for
bail and was arraigned over his objection
and the accused demand that preliminary

investigation be conducted [Go v. CA, G.R.

No. 101837 (1992)].

B. PURPOSES OF PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
(1) To determine whether or not a crime has
been committed and whether or not there
is probable cause to believe that the
accused is guilty [Raro v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 108431 (2000)];
(2) To secure the innocent against hasty,
malicious and oppressive prosecution,
and to protect him from an open and
public accusation of a crime, from the
trouble, expense, anxiety of a public trial,
and also protect the state from useless
and expensive trials [Tandoc v. Resultan,
G.R. No. 59241-44 (1989)].

C. WHO MAY CONDUCT

DETERMINATION OF EXISTENCE OF
PROBABLE CAUSE
Probable cause means the existence of such
facts and circumstances as would excite the
belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the
facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor,
that the person charged was guilty of the
crime for which he was prosecuted.
In general, the following may conduct the
determination of existence of probable cause:
(1) Provincial/city prosecutors and their
assistants;
(2) National and regional state prosecutors;
(3) Other officers as may be authorized by law
[Sec. 2, Rule 112, as amended by AM 05-826-SC].
C.1. PROSECUTOR
The executive determination of probable
cause is one made during the PI. It is a
function that properly pertains to the public
prosecutor who is given a broad range of

discretion to determine whether probable

cause exists for purposes of indictment.
Such finding will not be disturbed by the
court unless there is finding of grave abuse
of discretion. [Mendoza v. People, G.R. No.
197293 (2014)]
C.2. COURT
The judicial determination of probable cause
is one made by the judge to ascertain
whether a warrant of arrest should be
issued against the accused.
NOTE: RTC judges have no power to
conduct PI; and MTC judges cannot conduct
PI anymore after AM 05-8-26-SC eliminated
judges of the MTC and MCTC from those
authorized to conduct a PI effective October 3,
2005.
C.3. COMELEC
The COMELEC may conduct investigation as
regards election offenses [Sec. 2(6), Art. IX-C,
Constitution; Sec. 265, Omnibus Election
Code].
C.4. OMBUDSMAN
The Ombudsman and his deputies, as
protectors of the people, shall act promptly
on complaints filed in any form or manner
against public officials or employees of the
Government, or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including GOCCs and
shall, in appropriate cases, notify the
complainants of the action taken and the
result thereof [Sec. 12, Art. XI, Constitution].
The Ombudsman is authorized to conduct
preliminary investigation and to prosecute all
criminal cases involving public officers and
employees, not only those within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but also
those within the jurisdiction of regular courts
as well. [Uy v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
105965-70 (2001)]
C.5. PROCEDURE FOR PRELIMINARY

INVESTIGATION

Filing of the complaint

(1) Stating the respondents name and
address
(2) Include the affidavits of
complainant and the witnesses, and
other documents to establish
probable cause, which must be
subscribed and sworn to before a
prosecutor or government official
authorized to administer oath or
notary public
(3) In such number of copies as there
are respondents, plus 2 copies for
the official file [Sec. 3(a), Rule 112].

Action of the investigating officer

(1) Within 10 days after the filing of the
complaint, the investigating officer
will either:
(a) Dismiss, if he finds no ground to
continue; or
(b) Issue a subpoena to the
respondent, attaching the
complaint and other
documents. If subpoena is not
possible, the investigating
officer shall decide based on
what complainant presented;
(2) Respondent has the right to
examine the evidence submitted by
complainant, and copy evidence at
his expense [Sec. 3(b), Rule 112].

Defendants counter-affidavit
It must be made within 10 days from
receipt of complaint, and must comply

with the same requirements as a

complaint [Sec. 3(c), Rule 112].
If not made within 10 days, the
investigating officer shall resolve the
complaint based on the evidence
presented by the complainant [Sec.
3(d), Rule 112].

Clarificatory hearing
Hearing is conducted only if there are
such facts and issues to be clarified
from a party or a witness.
The investigator must conduct a
hearing within 10 days from receipt of
the counter-affidavit. The hearing must
be finished in 5 days.
Parties may be present evidence, but
they have no right to examine or crossexamine.
Questions of parties shall be
submitted to the investigating officer.
Within 10 day after the investigation,
the officer shall determine whether or
not there is sufficient ground to hold
respondent for trial [Sec. 3(e), Rule 112].

D. RESOLUTION OF THE
INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR
If he finds probable cause to hold
respondent for trial, he shall prepare a
resolution and certify under oath in the
information that:
(1) He or an authorized officer has personally
examined the complainant and his
witnesses;
(2) That there is reasonable ground to
believe that a crime has been committed
and that the accused is probably guilty
thereof;
(3) That the accused was informed of the
complaint and evidences against him;

(4) That he was given opportunity to submit

controverting evidence
If he finds no probable cause, he shall
recommend the dismissal of the complaint
[Sec. 4, Rule 112].

E. REVIEW

1
Within 5 days from resolution, the
investigating officer will forward the
case to the prosecutor or to the
Ombudsman in cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction.

2
Within 10 days from receipt of the
resolution, the Prosecutor/Ombudsman
will act on the case.

No complaint/information may be filed

or dismissed by an investigating
prosecutor without the prior written
authority or approval of the prosecutor
or ombudsman.
In case the investigating officer
recommends the dismissal of the
complaint but the prosecutor or
Ombudsman disagrees, the latter may
file the information himself or any
deputy or order any prosecutor to do so,
without conducting a new PI.

The DOJ Secretary may file the

information without conducting another
PI or dismiss the information filed by
the prosecutor. The DOJ Secretary may
review resolutions, via petition for
review to the Secretary of Justice, of his
subordinates in criminal cases despite

the information being filed in court

[Sec. 4, Rule 112; Community Rural Bank
of Guimba v. Talavera, RTJ-05-1909
(2005)]; see also DOJ Circ. No. 70].
The resolution of the Secretary of Justice may
be nullified in a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 on grounds of grave abuse of
discretion resulting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction [Ching v. Sec. of Justice, G.R. No.
164317 (2006)].
The DOJ resolution is appealable
administratively before the Office of the
President and the decision of the latter may
be appealed before the CA pursuant to Rule
43 [De Ocampo v. Sec. of Justice, G.R. No.
147932 (2006)].

F. WHEN WARRANT OF ARREST

MAY ISSUE

If the judge finds probable cause, he

shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a
commitment order if the accused has already
been arrested, and hold him for trial.
The PI conducted by the prosecutor is
executive in nature. It is for the purpose of
determining whether or not there exists
sufficient ground for the filing of information.
The PI conducted by the judge which is
properly called preliminary examination
is for the determination of probable cause for
the issuance of warrant of arrest [P/Supt.
Cruz v. Judge Areola, AM No. RTJ-01-1642
(2002)].

G. CASES NOT REQUIRING

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION NOR
COVERED BY THE RULE ON
SUMMARY PROCEDURE
These are cases punishable by imprisonment
of less than 4 years, 2 months and 1 day, and
filed with the prosecutor or MTC/MCTC.

If filed directly with the prosecutor, Sec. 3(a),

Rule 112 applies. Thus, the complaint must be
filed:
(1) Stating the respondents name and
address;
(2) Include the affidavits of complainant and
the witnesses, and other documents to
establish probable cause, which must be
subscribed and sworn to before a
prosecutor or government official
authorized to administer oath or notary
public; and
(3) In such number of copies as there are
respondents, plus 2 copies for the official
file.
The prosecutor shall act on the complaint
based on the affidavits and other supporting
documents submitted by the complainant
within 10 days from its filing.

1 A complaint, which complies with Sec.

3(a), Rule 112, is filed.

2
Within 10 days after the filing of the
complaint/information, if the judge
finds no PC after personally evaluating
the evidence or after personally
examining in writing and under oath the
complainant and his witnesses in the
form of searching questions and
answers, he shall dismiss the same.

3
The judge may require submission of
additional evidence within 10 days from
notice, to determine the existence of
PC.

4
If the judge still
finds no PC

despite the
additional
evidence, he shall
dismiss the case
within 10 days
from its
submission or
expiration of said
period.
If the judge finds
PC, he shall issue
a warrant of arrest
or a commitment
order (if already
arrested) and hold
him for trial.

5
If the judge is
satisfied that
there is no need to
place the accused
under custody, he
may issue
summons instead.

H. REMEDIES OF ACCUSED IF
THERE WAS NO PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
H.1. EFFECT OF DENIAL OF RIGHT
The absence of PI [Villaflor v. Vivar, G.R. No.
134744 (2001)]:
(1) Does not impair the validity of the
information or otherwise render it
defective;
(2) Does not affect the jurisdiction of the
court;
(3) Does not constitute a ground for quashing
the information.
REMEDIES OF THE ACCUSED IF THERE

WAS NO PI:
(1) Refuse to enter a plea upon arraignment
and object to further proceedings upon
such ground;
(2) Insist on a preliminary investigation;
(3) File a certiorari, if refused;
(4) Raise lack of PI as error on appeal [United
States v. Banzuela, G.R. No. L-10172 (1915)]
The trial court, instead of dismissing the
information, should hold in abeyance the
proceedings and order the public prosecutor
to conduct a PI [Villaflor v. Vivar, G.R. No.
134744 (2001)].
After the filing of the complaint/information
in court without a PI, the accused may within
5 days from the time he learns of its filing,
ask for a PI with the same right to adduce
evidence in his defense as provided in Rule
112 [Sec. 6, Rule 112].
H.2. RESTRAINING PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
General rule: The power of the Fiscal to
investigate crimes committed within his
jurisdiction will, ordinarily, not be restrained.
Exceptions: Extreme cases may exist where
relief in equity may be availed of to stop a
purported enforcement of a criminal law
where it is necessary:
(1) For the orderly administration of justice;
(2) To prevent the use of the strong arm of
the law in an oppressive and vindictive
manner;
(3) To avoid multiplicity of actions;
(4) To afford adequate protection to
constitutional rights; and
(5) In proper cases, because the statute
relied upon is unconstitutional, or was
held invalid [Ladlad v. Velasco, G.R. No.
172070-72 (2007)].

I. INQUEST

An inquest is an informal and summary

investigation conducted by a public
prosecutor in criminal cases involving
persons arrested and detained without the
benefit of a warrant of arrest issued by the
court for the purpose of determining whether
or not said persons should remain under
custody and correspondingly be charged in
court [DOJ-NPS Manual].
General rule: PI is required to be
conducted before a complaint/information is
filed for an offense where the penalty
prescribed by law is at least 4 years, 2
months and 1 day, without regard to the fine
[Sec. 1, Rule 112]
Exception: When a person is lawfully
arrested without a warrant involving an
offense that requires a PI, a
complaint/information may be filed without
conducting the PI if the necessary inquest is
conducted.
However, before the complaint or information
is filed, the person arrested may ask for a PI,
but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of
Art. 125, RPC in the presence of his counsel.
Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for
bail and the investigation must be terminated
within 15 days from its inception [Sec. 6, Rule
112].
PROCEDURE
An inquest is considered commenced upon
receipt by the Inquest Officer from the law
enforcement authorities of the
complaint/referral documents which should
include:
(1) Affidavit of arrest, investigation report,
statement of the complainant and
witnesses, all of which must be subscribed
and sworn to before him;
(2) Other supporting evidence gathered by
the police in the course of the latter's

investigation of the criminal incident

involving the arrested or detained person.
It must be terminated within the period
prescribed under the provisions of Art. 125,
RPC. Thus, if after the inquest proceedings:
(1) There is no probable cause, the case
is dismissed;
(2) The accused wants a PI and is
willing to waive Art. 125, a
preliminary investigation conducted;
(3) The arrest was without warrant, but
there possibly is PC, the accused is
released for regular PI;
(4) There is PC and the arrest was
valid, an information is filed.