CRIMPRO

Syllabus

V. Custodial Investigation and Arrest

Art. III, Sec. 12, 1987 Constitution

Section 12.
1. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably
of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
2. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will
shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention are prohibited.
3. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
4. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this Section as well as
compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

Rule 112 & 113

RULE 112
Preliminary Investigation
Section 1. Preliminary investigation defined; when required. Preliminary investigation is an
inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a wellfounded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof,
and should be held for trial.
Except as provided in section 7 of this Rule, a preliminary investigation is required to be
conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty
prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to the
fine. (1a)
Section 2. Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations.
The following may conduct preliminary investigations:
(a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;
(b) Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
(c) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and
(d) Other officers as may be authorized by law.
Their authority to conduct preliminary investigations shall include all crimes cognizable by the
proper court in their respective territorial jurisdictions. (2a)
Section 3. Procedure. The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following
manner:
(a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be accompanied by
the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other supporting
documents to establish probable cause. They shall be in such number of copies as
there are respondents, plus two (2) copies for the official file. The affidavits shall be
subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to
administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before a notary public, each of

who must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that
they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.
(b) Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the investigating officer shall either
dismiss it if he finds no ground to continue with the investigation, or issue a subpoena
to the respondent attaching to it a copy of the complaint and its supporting affidavits
and documents.
The respondent shall have the right to examine the evidence submitted by the
complainant which he may not have been furnished and to copy them at his expense. If
the evidence is voluminous, the complainant may be required to specify those which he
intends to present against the respondent, and these shall be made available for
examination or copying by the respondent at his expense.
Objects as evidence need not be furnished a party but shall be made available for
examination, copying, or photographing at the expense of the requesting party.
(c) Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with the complaint and supporting
affidavits and documents, the respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit and that of
his witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his defense. The
counter-affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to and certified as provided in
paragraph (a) of this section, with copies thereof furnished by him to the complainant.
The respondent shall not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of a counteraffidavit.
(d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not submit counteraffidavits within the ten (10) day period, the investigating officer shall resolve the
complaint based on the evidence presented by the complainant.
(e) The investigating officer may set a hearing if there are facts and issues to be clarified
from a party or a witness. The parties can be present at the hearing but without the
right to examine or cross-examine. They may, however, submit to the investigating
officer questions which may be asked to the party or witness concerned.
The hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from submission of the counter-affidavits and
other documents or from the expiration of the period for their submission. It shall be
terminated within five (5) days.
(f) Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the investigating officer shall determine
whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial. (3a)
Section 4. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review. If the investigating
prosecutor finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and
information. He shall certify under oath in the information that he, or as shown by the record, an
authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses; that there is
reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably
guilty thereof; that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted
against him; and that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Otherwise,
he shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint.
Within five (5) days from his resolution, he shall forward the record of the case to the provincial
or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of
offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. They shall
act on the resolution within ten (10) days from their receipt thereof and shall immediately inform
AL+AF+NV Notes l

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

the parties of such action.

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 or his deputy.
Where the investigating prosecutor recommends the dismissal of the complaint but his
recommendation is disapproved by the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or
the Ombudsman or his deputy on the ground that a probable cause exists, the latter may, by
himself, file the information against the respondent, or direct any other assistant prosecutor or
state prosecutor to do so without conducting another preliminary investigation.
If upon petition by a proper party under such rules as the Department of Justice may prescribe
or motu proprio, the Secretary of Justice reverses or modifies the resolution of the provincial or
city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, he shall direct the prosecutor concerned either to file
the corresponding information without conducting another preliminary investigation, or to
dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or information with notice to the parties. The
same rule shall apply in preliminary investigations conducted by the officers of the Office of the
Ombudsman. (4a)
Section 5. Resolution of investigating judge and its review. Within ten (10) days after the
preliminary investigation, the investigating judge shall transmit the resolution of the case to the
provincial or city prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses cognizable
by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, for appropriate action. The
resolution shall state the findings of facts and the law supporting his action, together with the
record of the case which shall include: (a) the warrant, if the arrest is by virtue of a warrant; (b)
the affidavits, counter-affidavits and other supporting evidence of the parties; (c) the undertaking
or bail of the accused and the order for his release; (d) the transcripts of the proceedings during
the preliminary investigation; and (e) the order of cancellation of his bail bond, if the resolution is
for the dismissal of the complaint.
Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the records, the provincial or city prosecutor, or the
Ombudsman or his deputy, as the case may be, shall review the resolution of the investigating
judge on the existence of probable cause. Their ruling shall expressly and clearly state the facts
and the law on which it is based and the parties shall be furnished with copies thereof. They
shall order the release of an accused who is detained if no probable cause is found against him.
(5a)
Section 6. When warrant of arrest may issue.
(a) By the Regional Trial Court. Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or
information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its
supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record
clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant
of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has already been arrested pursuant to a
warrant issued by the judge who conducted the preliminary investigation or when the
complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the
existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional
evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within

thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint of information.

(b) By the Municipal Trial Court. When required pursuant to the second paragraph of section
1 of this Rule, the preliminary investigation of cases falling under the original jurisdiction of
the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or
Municipal Circuit Trial Court may be conducted by either the judge or the prosecutor. When
conducted by the prosecutor, the procedure for the issuance of a warrant or arrest by the
judge shall be governed by paragraph (a) of this section. When the investigation is
conducted by the judge himself, he shall follow the procedure provided in section 3 of this
Rule. If the findings and recommendations are affirmed by the provincial or city prosecutor,
or by the Ombudsman or his deputy, and the corresponding information is filed, he shall
issue a warrant of arrest. However, without waiting for the conclusion of the investigation,
the judge may issue a warrant of arrest if he finds after an examination in writing and under
oath of the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching question and answers,
that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under
immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
(c) When warrant of arrest not necessary. A warrant of arrest shall not issue if the accused is
already under detention pursuant to a warrant issued by the municipal trial court in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, or if the complaint or information was filed
pursuant to section 7 of this Rule or is for an offense penalized by fine only. The court shall
then proceed in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. (6a)
Section 7. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. When a person is lawfully
arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the
complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such investigation
provided an inquest has been conducted in accordance with existing rules. In the absence or
unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended party or a
peace office directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or
arresting officer or person.
Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary
investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding
the waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15)
days from its inception.
After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary investigation, the
accused may, within five (5) days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary
investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his defense as provided in this Rule.
(7a; sec. 2, R.A. No. 7438)
Section 8. Records.
(a) Records supporting the information or complaint. An information or complaint filed in court
shall be supported by the affidavits and counter-affidavits of the parties and their witnesses,
together with the other supporting evidence and the resolution on the case.
(b) Record of preliminary investigation. The record of the preliminary investigation, whether
conducted by a judge or a fiscal, shall not form part of the record of the case. However, the
court, on its own initiative or on motion of any party, may order the production of the record
or any its part when necessary in the resolution of the case or any incident therein, or when
it is to be introduced as an evidence in the case by the requesting party. (8a)
AL+AF+NV Notes l

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

Section 9. Cases not requiring a preliminary investigation nor covered by the Rule on Summary
Procedure.
(a) If filed with the prosecutor. If the complaint is filed directly with the prosecutor involving an
offense punishable by imprisonment of less four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day,
the procedure outlined in section 3(a) of this Rule shall be observed. The prosecutor shall
act on the complaint based on the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by
the complainant within ten (10) days from its filing.
(b) If filed with the Municipal Trial Court. If the complaint or information is filed directly with
the Municipal Trial Court or Municipal Circuit Trial Court for an offense covered by this
section, the procedure in section 3(a) of this Rule shall be observed. If within ten (10) days
after the filing of the complaint or information, the judge finds no probable cause after
personally evaluating the evidence, or after personally examining in writing and under oath
the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching question and answers, he shall
dismiss the same. He may, however, require the submission of additional evidence, within
ten (10) days from notice, to determine further the existence of probable cause. If the judge
still finds no probable cause despite the additional evidence, he shall, within ten (10) days
from its submission or expiration of said period, dismiss the case. When he finds probable
cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused had already
been arrested, and hold him for trial. However, if the judge is satisfied that there is no
necessity for placing the accused under custody, he may issue summons instead of a
warrant of arrest. (9a)
RULE 113
Arrest
Section 1. Definition of arrest. Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he
may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. (1)
Section 2. Arrest; how made. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of a person to be
arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.
No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest. The person arrested shall
not be subject to a greater restraint than is necessary for his detention. (2a)
Section 3. Duty of arresting officer. It shall be the duty of the officer executing the warrant to
arrest the accused and to deliver him to the nearest police station or jail without unnecessary
delay. (3a)
Section 4. Execution of warrant. The head of the office to whom the warrant of arrest was
delivered for execution shall cause the warrant to be executed within ten (10) days from its
receipt. Within ten (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 the warrant, he shall state the reasons therefor. (4a)
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed
it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment
or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall
be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. (5a)
Section 6. Time of making arrest. An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the
day or night. (6)
Section 7. Method of arrest by officer by virtue of warrant. When making an arrest by virtue
of a warrant, the officer shall inform the person to be arrested of the cause of the arrest and of
the fact that a warrant has been issued for his arrest, except when he flees or forcibly resists
before the officer has opportunity to so inform him, or when the giving of such information will
imperil the arrest. The officer need not have the warrant in his possession at the time of the
arrest but after the arrest, if the person arrested so requires, the warrant shall be shown to him
as soon as practicable. (7a)
Section 8. Method of arrest by officer without warrant. When making an arrest without a
warrant, the officer shall inform the person to be arrested of his authority and the cause of the
arrest, unless the latter is either engaged in the commission of an offense, is pursued
immediately after its commission, has escaped, flees or forcibly resists before the officer has
opportunity so to inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest. (8a)
Section 9. Method of arrest by private person. When making an arrest, a private person shall
inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him and cause of the arrest, unless
the latter is either engaged in the commission of an offense, is pursued immediately after its
commission, or has escaped, flees, or forcibly resists before the person making the arrest has
opportunity to so inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest. (9a)
Section 10. Officer may summon assistance. An officer making a lawful arrest may orally
summon as many persons as he deems necessary to assist him in effecting the arrest. Every
person so summoned by an officer shall assist him in effecting the arrest when he can render
such assistance without detriment to himself. (10a)
Section 11. Right of officer to break into building or enclosure. An officer, in order to make an
arrest either by virtue of a warrant, or without a warrant as provided in section 5, may break into
any building or enclosure where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if
he is refused admittance thereto, after announcing his authority and purpose. (11a)
Section 12. Right to break out from building or enclosure. Whenever an officer has entered
the building or enclosure in accordance with the preceding section, he may break out therefrom
when necessary to liberate himself. (12a)
AL+AF+NV Notes l

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

Section 13. Arrest after escape or rescue. If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is
rescued, any person may immediately pursue or retake him without a warrant at any time and in
any place within the Philippines. (13)
Section 14. Right of attorney or relative to visit person arrested. Any member of the
Philippine Bar shall, at the request of the person arrested or of another acting in his behalf, have
the right to visit and confer privately with such person in the jail or any other place of custody at
any hour of the day or night. Subject to reasonable regulations, a relative of the person arrested
can also exercise the same right. (14a)

RA 7438 (1992)
AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING
AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS
THEREOF

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress

assembled::
Section 1. Statement of Policy. It is the policy of the Senate to value the dignity of every
human being and guarantee full respect for human rights.
Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties
of Public Officers.
(a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted
by counsel.
(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who arrests,
detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter,
in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be
allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be
provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer.lawphi1
(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer,
provided that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or
detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately explained to
him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the
language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such
investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or
in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder
brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school
supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such
extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.
(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such
person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no

effect.
(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by or
conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or
religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his
counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the
Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-governmental organization duly
accredited by the Office of the President. The person's "immediate family" shall include his
or her spouse, fianc or fiance, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or
grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.
As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to
a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed,
without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.
Section 3. Assisting Counsel. Assisting counsel is any lawyer, except those directly affected
by the case, those charged with conducting preliminary investigation or those charged with the
prosecution of crimes.
The assisting counsel other than the government lawyers shall be entitled to the following fees;
(a) The amount of One hundred fifty pesos (P150.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with
light felonies;lawphi1alf
(b) The amount of Two hundred fifty pesos (P250.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with
less grave or grave felonies;
(c) The amount of Three hundred fifty pesos (P350.00) if the suspected person is chargeable
with a capital offense.
The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the city or municipality where the custodial
investigation is conducted, provided that if the municipality of city cannot pay such fee, the
province comprising such municipality or city shall pay the fee: Provided, That the Municipal or
City Treasurer must certify that no funds are available to pay the fees of assisting counsel
before the province pays said fees.
In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be conducted and the suspected
person can only be detained by the investigating officer in accordance with the provisions of
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
Section 4. Penalty Clause.
(a) Any arresting public officer or employee, or any investigating officer, who fails to inform any
person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of his right to remain silent and to
have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice, shall suffer a fine of Six
thousand pesos (P6,000.00) or a penalty of imprisonment of not less than eight (8) years but
not more than ten (10) years, or both. The penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification shall
also be imposed upon the investigating officer who has been previously convicted of a similar
offense.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee, or anyone acting upon
orders of such investigating officer or in his place, who fails to provide a competent and
independent counsel to a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation for the
AL+AF+NV Notes l

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

commission of an offense if the latter cannot afford the services of his own counsel.
(b) Any person who obstructs, prevents or prohibits any lawyer, any member of the immediate
family of a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation, or any medical doctor or
priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his
counsel, from visiting and conferring privately with him, or from examining and treating him, or
from ministering to his spiritual needs, at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of the night
shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four (4) years nor more than six (6)
years, and a fine of four thousand pesos (P4,000.00).lawphi1
The provisions of the above Section notwithstanding, any security officer with custodial
responsibility over any detainee or prisoner may undertake such reasonable measures as may
be necessary to secure his safety and prevent his escape.
Section 5. Repealing Clause. Republic Act No. No. 857, as amended, is hereby repealed.
Other laws, presidential decrees, executive orders or rules and regulations, or parts thereof
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are repealed or modified accordingly.
Section 6. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in
the Official Gazette or in any daily newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
Approved: April 27, 1992.

Secs. 20-21 RA 9344 (2006)

Republic Act No. 9344

AN ACT ESTABLISHING A COMPREHENSIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE SYSTEM,

CREATING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE COUNCIL UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
TITLE IV
TREATMENT OF CHILDREN BELOW THE AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
SEC. 20. Children Below the Age of Criminal Responsibility. - If it has been determined that the child
taken into custody is fifteen (15) years old or below, the authority which will have an initial contact with
the child has the duty to immediately release the child to the custody of his/her parents or guardian, or in
the absence thereof, the child's nearest relative. Said authority shall give notice to the local social
welfare and development officer who will determine the appropriate programs in consultation with the
child and to the person having custody over the child. If the parents, guardians or nearest relatives
cannot be located, or if they refuse to take custody, the child may be released to any of the following: a
duly registered nongovernmental or religious organization; a barangay official or a member of the
Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC); a local social welfare and development officer;
or when and where appropriate, the DSWD. If the child referred to herein has been found by the Local
Social Welfare and Development Office to be abandoned, neglected or abused by his parents, or in the
event that the parents will not comply with the prevention program, the proper petition for involuntary
commitment shall be filed by the DSWD or the Local Social Welfare and Development Office pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise ,known as "The Child and Youth Welfare Code".

TITLE V
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE SYSTEM
CHAPTER I
INITIAL CONTACT WITH THE CHILD
SEC. 21. Procedure for Taking the Child into Custody. - From the moment a child is taken into
custody, the law enforcement officer shall:
(a) Explain to the child in simple language and in a dialect that he/she can understand why he/she is
being placed under custody and the offense that he/she allegedly committed;
(b) Inform the child of the reason for such custody and advise the child of his/her constitutional rights in a
language or dialect understood by him/her;
(e) Properly identify himself/herself and present proper identification to the child;
(d) Refrain from using vulgar or profane words and from sexually harassing or abusing, or making sexual
advances on the child in conflict with the law;
(e) Avoid displaying or using any firearm, weapon, handcuffs or other instruments of force or restraint,
unless absolutely necessary and only after all other methods of control have been exhausted and
have failed;
(f) Refrain from subjecting the child in conflict with the law to greater restraint than is necessary for
his/her apprehension;
(g) Avoid violence or unnecessary force;
(h) Determine the age of the child pursuant to Section 7 of this Act;
(i) Immediately but not later than eight (8) hours after apprehension, turn over custody of the child to the
Social Welfare and Development Office or other accredited NGOs, and notify the child's
apprehension. The social welfare and development officer shall explain to the child and the child's
parents/guardians the consequences of the child's act with a view towards counseling and
rehabilitation, diversion from the criminal justice system, and reparation, if appropriate;
(j) Take the child immediately to the proper medical and health officer for a thorough physical and mental
examination. The examination results shall be kept confidential unless otherwise ordered by the
Family Court. Whenever the medical treatment is required, steps shall be immediately undertaken
to provide the same;
(k) Ensure that should detention of the child in conflict with the law be necessary, the child shall be
secured in quarters separate from that of the opposite sex and adult offenders;
(l) Record the following in the initial investigation:
1. Whether handcuffs or other instruments of restraint were used, and if so, the reason for such;
2. That the parents or guardian of a child, the DSWD, and the PA0 have been informed of the
apprehension and the details thereof; and
3. The exhaustion of measures to determine the age of a child and the precise details of the
physical and medical examination or the failure to submit a child to such examination; and
(m) Ensure that all statements signed by the child during investigation shall be witnessed by the child's
parents or guardian, social worker, or legal counsel in attendance who shall affix his/her signature to
the said statement.
A child in conflict with the law shall only be searched by a law enforcement officer of the same gender
and shall not be locked up in a detention cell.

Art. 269, RPC

Art. 269. Unlawful arrest. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who, in any case other than those authorized by law, or
AL+AF+NV Notes l

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

without reasonable ground therefor, shall arrest or detain another for the purpose of delivering
him to the proper authorities.chanrobles virtual law library

Sec.16, Revised Rules on Summary Proceeding

Sec. 16. Arrest of accused. The court shall nto order the arrest of the accused except for
failure to appear whenever required. Release of the person arrested shall either be on bail or
on recognizance by a responsible citizen acceptable to the court.

A. Miranda Rights
Cases
85. Ppl v. Alicando
Same; Custodial Investigation; Evidence; Exclusionary Rule; Evidence gathered by the police as a result
of custodial interrogation where the accused verbally confessed to the crime without the benefit of
counsel is inadmissible.
Evidence gathered by the police as a result of custodial interrogation where the accused verbally
confessed to the crime without the benefit of counsel is inadmissible.
86. Ppl v. Malngan
Same; Rights of Suspects; Miranda Doctrine; Extrajudicial Confessions; Requisites for Admissibility.
We have held that the abovequoted provision applies to the stage of custodial investigationwhen the
investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a particular
person as a suspect. Said constitutional guarantee has also been extended to situations in which an
individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been invited for questioning. To be admissible
in evidence against an accused, the extrajudicial confessions made must satisfy the following
requirements: (1) it must be voluntary; (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and
independent counsel; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must be in writing.
Same; Same; Same; Same; It should well be recalled that the constitutional safeguards during custodial
investigations do not apply to those not elicited through questioning by the police or their agents but
given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused verbally admits to having committed the offense as
what happenedthe Bill of Rights solely governs the relationship between the individual on one hand
and the State (and its agents) on the other, and it does not concern itself with the relation between a
private individual and another private individual.
87. Ppl v. Lagua
Barangay-based volunteer organizations in the nature of watch groups, as in the case of the bantay
bayan, are recognized by the local government unit to perform functions relating to the preservation of
peace and order at the barangay level. Thus, any inquiry a bantay bayan makes has the color of a staterelated function and objective insofar as the entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights provided
for under Art. III, Sec. 12 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is concerned.
88. Ppl. Hon. Ayson
Same; Same; Same; Same; Right in custodial investigation; Miranda rule summarized the procedural
safeguards laid down for a person in custody interrogation, Objectives of.In Miranda, Chief Justice

Warren summarized the procedural safeguards laid down for a person in police custody, in custody
interrogation being regarded as the commencement of an adversary proceeding against the suspect.
He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says
can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if
he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.
Opportunity to exercise those rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such
warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and
intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or make a statement. But unless and until such
warnings and waivers are demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial, no evidence obtained as a result
of interrogation can be used against him. The objective is to prohibit incommunicado interrogation of
individuals in a police dominated atmosphere, resulting in self incriminating statements without full
warnings of constitutional rights.
by custodial interrogation is meant questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has
been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
a defendant on trial or under preliminary investigation is not under custodial interrogation. His
interrogation by the police, if any there had been, would already have been ended at the time of the filing
of the criminal case in court (or the public prosecutors office). Hence, with respect to a defendant in a
criminal case already pending in court (or the public prosecutors office), there is no occasion to speak of
his rights while under custodial interrogation laid down by the second and subsequent sentences of
Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, for the obvious reason that he is no longer under
custodial interrogation.
the accused in court (or undergoing preliminary investigation before the public prosecutor), in common
with all other persons, possesses the right against self incrimination set out in the first sentence of
Section 20 Article IV of the 1973 Constitution.

89. Ppl v. Amestuzo

The alleged infringement of the constitutional rights of the accused while under custodial investigation is
relevant and material only to cases in which an extrajudicial admission or confession extracted from the
accused becomes the basis of his conviction.Herein accused-appellant could not yet invoke his right
to counsel when he was presented for identification by the complainants because the same was not yet
part of the investigation process. Moreover, there was no showing that during his identification by the
complainants, the police investigators sought to elicit any admission or confession from accusedappellant. In fact, records show that the police did not at all talk to accused-appellant when he was
presented before the complainants.
90. Alih v. Gen. Castro
B. Right to counsel while in custody
Cases
AL+AF+NV Notes l

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

91. Ppl. v. Continente

Rights to remain silent and to counsel may be waived by the accused provided that the constitutional
requirements are complied with; Waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel.

Right to Counsel; The right to counsel is present when one is under custodial investigation for the
commission of an offense; It does not apply to a person who is entering into a private or civil contract or
agreement.

Confession; The advice or Paliwanag found at the beginning of extrajudicial confessions that merely
enumerate to the accused his custodial rights does not meet the standard provided by law; The right of a
person under investigation to be informed implies a correlative obligation on the part of the police
investigator to explain, and contemplates an effective communication that results in understanding of
what is conveyed.

C. Determination of Probable Cause prior to Issuance of Warrant of Arrest

92. Ppl. Mojello

The Miranda doctrine requires that: (a) any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain
silent; (b) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law; (c) he has the right to talk
to an attorney before being questioned and to have his counsel present when being questioned; and (d)
if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any questioning if he so desires.

97. Allado v. Diokno

A warrant of arrest shall issue only upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses.

A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused when he does not raise any
objection against the counsels appointment during the course of the investigation, and the accused
thereafter subscribed to the veracity of the statement before the swearing officer.
93. Ppl. v. Fabro
A confession is defined in jurisprudence as a declaration made voluntarily and without compulsion or
inducement by a person, stating or acknowledging that he has committed or participated in the
commission of a crime. But before it can be admitted in evidence, several requirements have to be
satisfied.
In jurisprudence, no confession can be admitted in evidence unless it is given: 1. Freely and voluntarily,
without compulsion, inducement or trickery; 2. Knowingly based on an effective communication to the
individual under custodial investigation of his constitutional rights; and 3. Intelligently with full
appreciation of its importance and comprehension of its consequences. Once admitted, the confession
must inspire credibility or be one which the normal experience of mankind can accept as being within the
realm of probability.
94. Lumanog v. Ppl
Same; Right to Counsel; Custodial Investigations; Custodial investigation refers to the critical pretrial
stage when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, but has begun to
focus on a particular person as a suspect.
Extrajudicial Confession; Settled is the rule that the moment a police officer tries to elicit admissions, or
confessions or even plain information from a suspect, the latter should, at that juncture, be assisted by
counsel, unless he waives this right in writing and in the presence of counsel.
95. Uy v. Phela Trading

Cases
96. Salonga v. Hon. Cruz Pano

probable cause for an arrest or for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has been defined as such facts
and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. And as a protection against false prosecution
and arrest, it is the knowledge of facts, actual or apparent, strong enough to justify a reasonable man in
the belief that he has lawful grounds for arresting the accused.
Before issuing a warrant of arrest, the judge must satisfy himself that there is sufficient proof that a crime
has been committed and that the person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof.
Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant for the arrest of petitioners it appearing
that he did not personally examine the evidence nor did he call for the complainant and his witnesses in
the face of their incredible accounts. Instead, he merely relied on the certification of the prosecutors that
probable cause existed.
98. AAA v. Carbonell
Searches and Seizures; Warrants of Arrest; Section 2, Article III of the Constitution does not mandatorily
require the judge to personally examine the complainant and her witnessesinstead, he may opt to
personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor or he may
disregard the prosecutors report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses.
Preliminary Investigation; There is a distinction between the preliminary inquiry which determines
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest and the preliminary investigation proper which
ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or be releasedthe former is made by the judge
while the latter is the function of the investigating prosecutor.
While there are cases where the circumstances may call for the judges personal examination of the
complainant and his witnesses, it must be emphasized that such personal examination is not mandatory
and indispensable in the determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrestthe
necessity arises only when there is an utter failure of the evidence to show the existence of probable
cause.
AL+AF+NV Notes l

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

Where there is ample evidence and sufficient basis on record to support a finding of probable cause, it is
unnecessary for a judge to take the further step of examining the complainant and her witnesses, and if
he dismisses the criminal case for alleged lack of probable cause on the ground that complainant and
her witnesses failed to take the witness stand, he gravely abuses his discretion.

In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be
forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with
section 7 of Rule 112. (5a)

99. De Joya v. Judge Marquez

Judges; Judges do not conduct a de novo hearing to determine the existence of probable causethey
just personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is
supported by substantial evidence.

102. Ppl. v. Montilla

Same; Same; Same; Same; A legitimate warrantless arrest necessarily cloaks the arresting officer with
authority to validly search and seize from the offender (1) dangerous weapons, and (2) those that may
be used as proof of the commission of an offense.

100. Torres v. Perez

Cases

When an individual voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have the same conducted upon his
person or premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof.

101. Ppl v. Hon. Yadao

Warrants of Arrest; The general rule is that the judge is not required, when determining probable cause
for the issuance of warrants of arrests, to conduct a de novo hearing.The general rule of course is that
the judge is not required, when determining probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrests, to
conduct a de novo hearing. The judge only needs to personally review the initial determination of the
prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidence.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The right to be secure from unreasonable search may, like other rights, be
waived either expressly or impliedly. While it has been held that the silence of the accused during a
warrantless search should not be taken to mean consent to the search but as a demonstration of that
persons regard for the supremacy of the law, the case of herein appellant is evidently different for, here,
he spontaneously performed affirmative acts of volition by himself opening the bag without being forced
or intimidated to do so, which acts should properly be construed as a clear waiver of his right.

Same; Same; Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court gives the trial court three options upon the filing
of the criminal information.Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court gives the trial court three options
upon the filing of the criminal information: (1) dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly failed to
establish probable cause; (2) issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause; and (3) order the
prosecutor to present additional evidence within five days from notice in case of doubt as to the
existence of probable cause.

103. Ppl v. Mengote

Criminal Procedure; Firearms; Evidence; Warrantless search in broad daylight of a person merely
looking from side to side and holding his stomach is illegal. These requirements have not been
established in the case at bar. At the time of the arrest in question, the accused appellant was merely
looking from side to side and holding his abdomen, according to the arresting officers themselves.
There was apparently no offense that had just been committed or was being actually committed or at
least being attempted by Mengote in their presence. The Solicitor General submits that the actual
existence of an offense was not necessary as long as Mengotes acts created a reasonable suspicion
on the part of the arresting officers and induced in them the belief that an offense had been committed
and that the accusedappellant had committed it. The question is, What offense? What offense could
possibly have been suggested by a person looking from side to side and holding his abdomen and in
a place not exactly forsaken?
Same; Same; Same; A person may not be stopped and frisked in broad daylight on a busy street on
mere unexplained suspicion.On the other hand, therecould have been a number of reasons, all of
them innocent, why his eyes were darting from side to side and he was holding his abdomen. If they
excited suspicion in the minds of the arresting officers, as the prosecution suggests, it has nevertheless
not been shown what their suspicion was all about. In fact, the policemen themselves testified that they
were dispatched to that place only because of the telephone call from the informer that there were
suspiciouslooking persons in that vicinity who were about to commit a robbery at North Bay Boulevard.
The caller did not explain why he thought the men looked suspicious nor did he elaborate on the
impending crime.

Same; Same; The courts first option under Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court is for it to
immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause; It is
only in case of doubt on the existence of probable cause that the judge may order the prosecutor to
present additional evidence within five days from notice.
D. Warrantless Arrests

Sec. 5, Rule 113

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

AL+AF+NV Notes l

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

Same; Same; Same; Same.The truth is that they did not know then what offense, if at all, had been
committed and neither were they aware of the participation therein of the accusedappellant. It was only
later, after Danganan had appeared at the police headquarters, that they learned of the robbery in his
house and of Mengotes supposed involvement therein. As for the illegal possession of the firearm found
on Mengotes person, the policemen discovered this only after he had been searched and the
investigation conducted later revealed that he was not its owners nor was he licensed to possess it.
104. Alih v. Gen. Castro
105. Garcia Padilla v. Enrile
A prior judicial warrant is not necessary for arrest of persons involved in the continuing offense of
rebellion.The arrest of persons involved in the rebellion whether as its fighting armed elements, or for
committing nonviolent acts but in furtherance of the rebellion, is more an act of capturing them in the
course of an armed conflict, to quell the rebellion, than for the purpose of immediately prosecuting them
in court for a statutory offense. The arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual procedure in the
prosecution of offenses which requires the determination by a judge of the existence of probable cause
before the issuance of a judicial warrant of arrest and the granting of bail if the offense is bailable.
Obviously, the absence of a judicial warrant is no legal impediment to arresting or capturing persons
committing overt acts of violence against government forces, or any other milder acts but equally in
pursuance of the rebellious movement. The arrest or capture is thus impelled by the exigencies of the
situation that involves the very survival of society and its government and duly constituted authorities. If
killing and other acts of violence against the rebels find justification in the exigencies of armed hostilities
which is of the essence of waging a rebellion or insurrection, most assuredly so in case of invasion,
merely seizing their persons and detaining them while any of these contingencies continues cannot be
less justified.
106. Umil v. Ramos
Rebellion is a continuing crime. If youre accused of a continuing crime, you can get arrested anytime,
anywhere.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Arrests; Arrest of a person without a warrant of arrest or previous
complaint is recognized in law. The arrest of a person without a warrant of arrest or previous complaint
is recognized in law. The occasions or instances when such an arrest may be effected are clearly spelled
out in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
Same; Same; Same; Arrest without a warrant is justified when the person arrested is caught in flagranti
delicto.An arrest without a warrant of arrest, under Section 5 paragraphs (a) and (b) of Rule 113 of the
Rules of Court, as amended, is justified when the person arrested is caught in flagranti delicto, viz., in
the act of committing an offense; or when an offense has just been committed and the person making
the arrest has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person arrested has committed it.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Rationale behind lawful arrests without warrant stated in the case of People
vs. Kagui Malasugui.The rationale behind lawful arrests, without warrant, was stated by this Court in
the case of People vs. Kagui Malasugui thus: To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested and
searched for the evidence and tokens of his crime without a warrant, would be to leave society, to a large

extent, at the mercy of the shrewdest, the most expert, and the most depraved of criminals, facilitating
their escape in many instances.

107. Posadas v. Ombudsman

Arrests; The rule is that no arrest may be made except by virtue of a warrant issued by a judge after
examining the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and after finding probable cause to
believe that the person to be arrested has committed the crime.In view of Art. III, 2 of the
Constitution, the rule is that no arrest may be made except by virtue of a warrant issued by a judge after
examining the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and after finding probable cause to
believe that the person to be arrested has committed the crime. The exceptions when an arrest may be
made even without a warrant are provided in Rule 113, 5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure which
reads: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; (c) When the
person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while; his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
Same; Warrantless Arrests; Where the NBI agents only had the supposed positive identification of two
alleged eyewitnesses, the same is insufficient to justify an arrest without a warrant.In contrast, the NBI
agents in the case at bar tried to arrest Narag and Taparan four days after the commission of the crime.
They had no personal knowledge of any fact which might indicate that the two students were probably
guilty of the crime. What they had were the supposed positive identification of two alleged eyewitnesses,
which is insufficient to justify the arrest without a warrant by the NBI.
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Personal Knowledge, Explained. We have already explained
what constitutes personal knowledge on the part of the arresting officers: Personal knowledge of facts
in arrests without a warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 must be based upon probable cause which
means an actual belief or reasonable

108. Ppl. v. Alunday

Arrests; Section 5(a) refers to arrest in flagrante delicto.
In flagrante delicto means caught in the act of committing a crime. This rule, which warrants the arrest of
a person without warrant, requires that the person arrested has just committed a crime, or is committing
it, or is about to commit an offense, in the presence or within view of the arresting officer.
In People vs. Sucro (195 SCRA 388 [1991]), we held that when a police officer sees the offense,
although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby, and proceeds at once to the scene
thereof, he may effect an arrest without a warrant on the basis of Section 5, par. (a), Rule 113 of the
Rules of Court as the offense is deemed committed in his presence or within his view.

AL+AF+NV Notes l

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

The Court has consistently ruled that any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure for the
acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his
plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. - We have also held in a number of cases that the
illegal arrest of an accused is not a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a
sufficient complaint after a trial free from error; such arrest does not negate the validity of the conviction
of the accused.
Accusedappellant was not even denied due process by virtue of his alleged illegal arrest, because of his
voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court, as manifested by the voluntary and counsel assisted plea he entered during arraignment and by his active participation in the trial thereafter.
109. Luz v. Ppl
Custodial Interrogation; The roadside questioning of a motorist does not fall under custodial
interrogation, nor can it be considered a formal arrest.
At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform the latter of the
reason for the arrest and must show that person the warrant of arrest, if any.
Miranda Doctrine; In Berkemer vs. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), the U.S. Court noted that the Miranda
warnings must also be given to a person apprehended due to a traffic violation.
110. Ppl v. Belocura
Constitutional Law; Searches and Seizures; Exclusionary Rules; The consequence of a violation of the
guarantees against a violation of personal security and privacy and against unreasonable searches and
seizures is the exclusion of the evidence thereby obtained.No arrest, search and seizure can be made
without a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial authority. So sacred are the right of personal
security and privacy and the right from unreasonable searches and seizures that no less than the
Constitution ordains in Section 2 of its Article III, viz.: Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose, shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Warrantless Arrests; There are circumstances in which the arrest, or search and seizure, although
warrantless, are nonetheless valid or reasonable. Among the circumstances are those mentioned in
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The right against warrantless arrest, and the right against
warrantless search and seizure are not absolute. There are circumstances in which the arrest, or search
and seizure, although warrantless, are nonetheless valid or reasonable. Among the circumstances are
those mentioned in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which lists down when a warrantless arrest
may be lawfully made by a peace officer or a private person, namely: (a) When, in his presence, the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b)
When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that
the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily

confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another.
111. Ppl v. Villareal
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Warrantless Arrests; Elements that must concur for warrantless
arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5 to operate; Paragraph (b) of Section 5 requires for its application
that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact been committed and the arresting officer had
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the appellant had committed it.For the warrantless arrest
under paragraph (a) of Section 5 to operate, two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested
must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting
officer. On the other hand, paragraph (b) of Section 5 requires for its application that at the time of the
arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the appellant had committed it.
Same; Same; Same; A previous arrest or existing criminal record, even for the same offense, will not
suffice to satisfy the exacting requirements provided under Section 5, Rule 113 in order to justify a lawful
warrantless arrest.A previous arrest or existing criminal record, even for the same offense, will not
suffice to satisfy the exacting requirements provided under Section 5, Rule 113 in order to justify a lawful
warrantless arrest. Personal knowledge of the arresting officer that a crime had in fact just been
committed is required. To interpret personal knowledge as referring to a persons reputation or past
criminal citations would create a dangerous precedent and unnecessarily stretch the authority and power
of police officers to effect warrantless arrests based solely on knowledge of a persons previous criminal
infractions, rendering nugatory the rigorous requisites laid out under Section 5. It was therefore error on
the part of the CA to rule on the validity of appellants arrest based on personal knowledge of facts
regarding appellants person and past criminal record, as this is unquestionably not what personal
knowledge under the law contemplates, which must be strictly construed.

VI.

Preliminary Investigation

Rule 112

Sec. 11, Revised Rules on Summary Procedure

Sec. 11. How Commenced - The filing of criminal cases falling within the scope of this Rule
shall be either by complaint or by information: Provided, however, That in Metropolitan Manila
and in Chartered Cities, such cases shall be commenced only by information, except when the
offense cannot be prosecuted de oficio.
The complaint or information shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and of
his witnesses in such number of copies as there are accused plus two (2) copies for the courts
files. If this requirement is not complied with within five (5) days from date of filing, the case may
be dismissed.

AM No. 05-8-26-SC Rep. Act. No. 6770

Ombudsman Admin. Order No. 07 (10 April 1990)
Secs. 32-33, RA No. 9344
AL+AF+NV Notes l

10

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

A.

DOJ Circular no. 70 (3, July 2000)

When accused lawfully arrested without warrant

Sec. 6, Rule 112

DOJ Circular No. 61 (21 Sept. 1993)

112. Leviste v. Hon. Almeda

Same; Preliminary Investigation; Inquest; Words and Phrases; Inquest is defined as 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 said persons should remain under custody and correspondingly be charged in court.A
preliminary investigation is required before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where
the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two months and one day without regard to fine. As an
exception, the rules provide that there is no need for a preliminary investigation in cases of a lawful
arrest without a warrant involving such type of offense, so long as an inquest, where available, has been
conducted. Inquest is defined as 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 said persons should remain under
custody and correspondingly be charged in court.
Same; Same; Same; Before the filing of complaint or information in court, the private complainant may
proceed in coordinating with the arresting officer and the inquest officer during the latters conduct of
inquest, while the arrested person has the option to avail of a 15day preliminary investigation, provided
he duly signs a waiver of any objection against delay in his delivery to the proper judicial authorities
under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code; The accelerated process of inquest, owing to its summary
nature and the attendant risk of running against Article 125, ends with either the prompt filing of an
information in court or the immediate release of the arrested personthe rules on inquest do not provide
for a motion for reconsideration.
Same; Same; Same; In cases subject of inquest, the private party should first avail of a preliminary
investigation or reinvestigation, if any, before elevating the matter to the Department of Justice (DOJ)
Secretary.
Same; Same; Reinvestigation; Once a complaint or information is filed in court, the accused is provided
with another opportunity to ask for a preliminary investigation within five days from the time he learns of
its filing, while a private complainant can move for reinvestigation in cases he is allowed to intervene by
counsel in the criminal action and is granted the authority to prosecute, with the conformity of the public
prosecutor.
113. Ladlad v. Velasco
Criminal Procedure; Inquests; Arrests; Inquest proceedings are proper only when the accused has been
lawfully arrested without warrant.
Same; Same; Same; Where the joint affidavit of the arresting officers states that a person was arrested
without warrant for Inciting to Sedition, the inquest prosecutor could only conduct an inquest for said

crime and no otherwhen another group of prosecutors subject the same arrested person to a second
inquest proceeding for Rebellion, they overstep their authority rendering the second inquest void.

B.

Procedure in Preliminary Investigation

114. Villaflor v. Villar
The absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the information or otherwise
render it defective, and the trial court, instead of dismissing the information, should hold in abeyance the
proceedings and order the public prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation.
115. Arroyo v. DOJ
Election Law; Preliminary Investigations; Preliminary investigation is considered as a judicial
proceeding wherein the prosecutor or investigating officer, by the nature of his functions, acts as
a quasijudicial officer.It is settled that the conduct of preliminary investigation is, like court
proceedings, subject to the requirements of both substantive and procedural due process. Preliminary
investigation is considered as a judicial proceeding wherein the prosecutor or investigating officer, by the
nature of his functions, acts as a quasijudicial officer. The authority of a prosecutor or investigating officer
duly empowered to preside over or to conduct a preliminary investigation is no less than that of a
municipal judge or even an RTC Judge.
Same; Same; Preliminary Investigations; The Department of Justice (DOJ) now conducts
preliminary investigation of election offenses concurrently with the Comelec and no longer as
mere deputies.The grant of exclusive power to investigate and prosecute cases of election offenses
to the Comelec was not by virtue of the Constitution but by the Omnibus Election Code which was
eventually amended by Section 43 of R.A. 9369. Thus, the DOJ now conducts preliminary investigation
of election offenses concurrently with the Comelec and no longer as mere deputies. If the prosecutors
had been allowed to conduct preliminary investigation and file the necessary information by virtue only of
a delegated authority, they now have better grounds to perform such function by virtue of the statutory
grant of authority. If deputation was justified because of lack of funds and legal officers to ensure prompt
and fair investigation and prosecution of election offenses, the same justification should be cited to justify
the grant to the other prosecuting arms of the government of such concurrent jurisdiction.
Election Law; Commission on Elections (COMELEC); Preliminary Investigations; It is wellsettled that
the absence [or irregularity] of preliminary investigation does not affect the courts jurisdiction
over the case; Neither is it a ground to quash the information or nullify the order of arrest issued
against the accused or justify the release of the accused from detention.It is wellsettled that the
absence [or irregularity] of preliminary investigation does not affect the courts jurisdiction over the case.
Nor does it impair the validity of the criminal information or render it defective. Dismissal is not the
remedy. Neither is it a ground to quash the information or nullify the order of arrest issued against the
accused or justify the release of the accused from detention. The proper course of action that should be
taken is to hold in abeyance the proceedings upon such information and to remand the case for the
conduct of preliminary investigation.
116. Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman
AL+AF+NV Notes l

11

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

Same; Same; Preliminary Investigation; A preliminary investigation is not a part of the trial and it is only
in a trial where an accused can demand the full exercise of his rights, such as the right to confront and
cross examine his accusers to establish his innocence.It should be underscored that the conduct of a
preliminary investigation is only for the determination of probable cause, and probable cause merely
implies probability of guilt and should be determined in a summary manner. A preliminary investigation is
not a part of the trial and it is only in a trial where an accused can demand the full exercise of his rights,
such as the right to confront and cross examine his accusers to establish his innocence. Thus, the rights
of a respondent in a preliminary investigation are limited to those granted by procedural law. A
preliminary investigation is defined as an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose of determining whether
there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial
Court has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
The quantum of evidence now required in preliminary investigation is such evidence sufficient to
engender a well-founded belief as to the fact of the commission of a crime and the respondents
probable guilt thereof. A preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of
the parties evidence; it is for the presentation of such evidence only as may engender a well grounded
belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. We are in
accord with the state prosecutors findings in the case at bar that there exists prima facie evidence of
petitioners involvement in the commission of the crime, it being sufficiently supported by the evidence
presented and the facts obtaining therein.

prosecution; to protect him from an open and public accusation of a crime, as well as from the trouble,
expenses, and anxiety of a public trial. It is also intended to protect the state from having to conduct
useless and expensive trials. While the right is statutory rather than constitutional, it is a component of
due process in administering criminaal justice. The right to have a preliminary investigation conducted
before being bound for trial and before being exposed to the risk of incarceration and penalty is not a
mere formal or technical right; it is a substantive right. To deny the accuseds claim to a preliminary
investigation is to deprive him of the full measure of his right to due process.
Same; Same; Same; View that a preliminary investigation is not a one sided affair; it takes on adversarial
quality where the due process rights of both the state and the respondents must be considered.A
preliminary investigation is not a onesided affair; it takes on adversarial quality where the due process
rights of both the state and the respondents must be considered. It is not merely intended to serve the
purpose of the prosecution. Rather, its purpose is 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, expenses and anxiety of public trial. At the same time, it is designed to protect the state from
having to conduct useless and expensive trials.

Same; Same; Same; Due Process; A preliminary investigation may be done away with entirely without
infringing the constitutional right of an accused under the due process clause to a fair trial.The rights to
due process in administrative cases as prescribed in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil.
635 (1940), as amplified in GSIS v. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 514 (1998), are granted by the
Constitution; hence, these rights cannot be taken away by mere legislation. On the other hand, as
repeatedly reiterated by this Court, the right to a preliminary investigation is merely a statutory right, not
part of the fundamental and essential requirements of due process as prescribed in Ang Tibay and
amplified in GSIS. Thus, a preliminary investigation can be taken away by legislation. The constitutional
right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him does not apply in preliminary investigations;
nor will the absence of a preliminary investigation be an infringement of his right to confront the
witnesses against him. A preliminary investigation may be done away with entirely without infringing the
constitutional right of an accused under the due process clause to a fair trial.

Criminal Procedure; Preliminary Investigation; The provision of the Rules does not require a
confrontation between the parties; Preliminary investigation is ordinarily conducted through submission
of affidavits and supporting documents, through the exchange of pleadings.This provision of the Rules
does not require a confrontation between the parties. Preliminary investigation is ordinarily conducted
through submission of affidavits and supporting documents, through the exchange of pleadings. In
Rodis, Sr. v. Sandiganbayan, 166 SCRA 618 (1988), we ruled that(the New Rules on Criminal
Procedure) do not require as a condition sine qua non to the validity of the proceedings (in the
preliminary investigation) the presence of the accused for as long as efforts to reach him were made,
and an opportunity to controvert evidence of the complainant is accorded him. The obvious purpose of
the rule is to block attempts of unscrupulous respondents to thwart the prosecution of offenses by hiding
themselves or by employing dilatory tactics.

Same; Same; Preliminary Investigation; CounterAffidavits; Both the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
and the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman require the investigating officer to furnish
the respondent with copies of the affidavits of the complainant and affidavits of his supporting witnesses.
Neither of these Rules require the investigating officer to furnish the respondent with copies of the
affidavits of his correspondents.
Same; Same; Preliminary Investigation; View that a preliminary investigation is a safeguard
intended to protect individuals from an abuse of the overwhelming prosecutorial power of the
state.A preliminary investigation is a safeguard intended to protect individuals from an abuse of the
overwhelming prosecutorial power of the state. It spells for a citizen the difference between months, if
not years, of agonizing trial and jail term, on one hand, and peace of mind and liberty on the other hand.
In Uy v. Office of the Ombudsman, 556 SCRA 73 (2008), We ruled: A preliminary investigation is held
before an accused is placed on trial to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive

117. Lim v. Ang

118. Sierra v. Lopez

Same; Same; Since confrontation between the parties is not imperative, it follows that it is not necessary
that the counteraffidavit of respondent be sworn to before the investigating prosecutor himself.Since
confrontation between the parties is not imperative, it follows that it is not necessary that the counteraffidavit of respondent be sworn to before the investigating prosecutor himself. It can be sworn to before
another prosecutor. In fact, this is specifically provided in paragraph (c) of Sec. 3, which states that the
counteraffidavit shall be subscribed and sworn to and certified as provided in paragraph (a) of this
section x x x; and paragraph (a), provides: the affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to before any
prosecutor or government official or in their absence or unavailability, before a notary public x x x.
119. Supt. Guitierrez v. Judge Hernandez
Preliminary Investigations; Searches and Seizures; Arrests; Due Process; Inordinate haste attending
the issuance of the warrants of arrest belies the conduct of preliminary examination and personal
determination of probable cause, in contravention of the provisions of the Rules of Court, and
constituting a denial of due process. Indubitably, there was no preliminary investigation conducted
AL+AF+NV Notes l

12

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

as required by the rules since no subpoena was issued to herein complainants for them to file counteraffidavits. Furthermore, the inordinate haste attending the issuance of the warrants of arrest against
complainants belies the conduct of preliminary examination and personal determination of probable
cause, in contravention of the provisions of the Rules of Court, and constituting a denial of due process.
There are three (3) conditions that must concur for the issuance of the warrant of arrest by the
municipal judge during a preliminary investigation. The investigating judge must:
1. Have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses by searching
questions and answers;
2. Be satisfied that a probable cause exists; and
3. That there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate
the ends of justice. The issuance of the warrants of arrest in this case was clearly irregular since,
not only did it lack a preliminary investigation, but the order granting such issuance did not show
any finding of a need to place complainants under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the
ends of justice.
120. Uy v. Sandiganbayan
121. Pangandaman v. Casar
In conducting a preliminary investigation of any crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Courts, a judge of
an inferior court (other than in MetroManila or the chartered cities, where no authority to conduct
preliminary investigation is vested in such officials) must observe the procedure prescribed in Section 3
of Rule 112, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. And although not specifically so declared, the procedure
mandated by the Rule actually consists of two phases or stages.
The first phase consists of an ex-parte inquiry into the sufficiency of the complaint and the affidavits and
other documents offered in support thereof. And it ends with the determination by the Judge either: (1)
that there is no ground to continue with the inquiry, in which case he dismisses the complaint and
transmits the order of dismissal, together with the records of the case, to the provincial fiscal; or (2) that
the complaint and the supporting documents show sufficient cause to continue with the inquiry and this
ushers in the second phase.
Second phase is designed to give the respondent notice of the complaint, access to the complainants
evidence and an opportunity to submit counter-affidavits and supporting documents. At this stage also,
the Judge may conduct a hearing and propound to the parties and their witnesses questions on matters
that, in his view, need to be clarified. The second phase concludes with the Judge rendering his
resolution, either for dismissal of the complaint or holding the respondent for trial, which shall be
transmitted, together with the record, to the provincial fiscal or appropriate action.

C.

Procedure in Preliminary Investigation

DOJ Circular No. 70 (3 July 2000)

122. Crespo v. Mogul

The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of determining whether a prima
facie case exists warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon the filing of the

information in the proper court. In turn, as above stated, the filing of said information sets in motion the
criminal action against the accused in Court. Should the fiscal find it proper to conduct a reinvestigation
of the case, at such stage, the permission of the Court must be secured. After such reinvestigation the
finding and recommendations of the fiscal should be submitted to the Court for appropriate action. While
it is true that the fiscal has the quasi judicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case
should be filed in court or not, once the case had already been brought to Court whatever disposition the
fiscal may feel should be proper in the case thereafter should be addressed for the consideration of the
Court, The only qualification is that the action of the Court must not impair the substantial rights of the
accused, or the right of the People to due process of law.
123. Dee v. CA
In the case at bench, appeal of the assailed resolutions of the Department of Justice to the Office of the
President cannot be had because of Memorandum Circular No. 1266, in relation to Memorandum No.
1294 dated November 4, 1993. Said memorandum circular provides:
In the interest of the speedy administration of justice and in order to avoid undue and unnecessary
involvement of the Presidency in adversary suits before the courts, the following guidelines are hereby
prescribed in appeals/reviews of resolutions in preliminary investigations of criminal cases.
When complainants and/or respondents petition for an appeal/review by the President of
investigations conducted by Provincial/City Fiscals and resolved on appeal by the Ministry of Justice, the
petition shall not be given due course and shall be forthwith denied, except that in offenses punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death wherein new and material issues are raised which were not previously
presented before the Ministry of Justice and were not ruled upon in the subject resolution by the Minister
of Justice, the President may order the Minister of Justice to reopen/review the case provided that the
prescription of the offense is not due to lapse within six (6) months from notice of the questioned
resolution, and provided further that the petition for appeal/review is filed within thirty (30) days from
such notice.
124. Roberts v. CA
Same; Same; Warrants of Arrest; Probable Cause; The determination of probable cause may either be
an executive or a judicial prerogative.In criminal prosecutions, the determination of probable cause
may either be an executive or a judicial prerogative. In People v. Inting, this Court aptly stated: We
reiterate that preliminary investigation should be distinguished as to whether it is an investigation for the
determination of a sufficient ground for the filing of the information or it is an investigation for the
determination of a probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The first kind of preliminary
investigation is executive in nature. It is part of the prosecutions job. The second kind of preliminary
investigation which is more properly called preliminary examination is judicial in nature and is lodged
with the judge.
125. Fuentes v. Sandiganbayan
The rule is that as far as crimes cognizable by the Sandiganbayan are concerned, the determination of
probable cause during the preliminary investigation, or reinvestigation for that matter, is a function that
belongs to the Special Prosecutor, an integral part of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is
empowered to determine, in the exercise of his discretion, whether probable cause exists, and to charge
AL+AF+NV Notes l

13

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

the person believed to have committed the crime as defined by law. Whether or not the Ombudsman has
correctly discharged his function, i.e., whether or not he has made a correct assessment of the evidence
of probable cause in a case, is a matter that the trial court may not be compelled to pass upon.
126. Ledesma v. CA
The determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is judicially recognized as an
executive function and is made by the prosecutor. The primary objective of a preliminary investigation is
to free a respondent from the inconvenience, expense, ignominy and 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 proceeding by a competent officer designated by law for that purpose.
Secondarily, such summary proceeding also protects the state from the burden of unnecessary expense
and effort in prosecuting alleged offenses and in holding trials arising from false, frivolous or groundless
charges.
Such investigation is not a part of the trial. A full and exhaustive presentation of the parties evidence is
not required, but only such as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed
and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. By reason of the abbreviated nature of preliminary
investigations, a dismissal of the charges as a result thereof is not equivalent to a judicial
pronouncement of acquittal. Hence, no double jeopardy attaches.
127. Ladlad v. Velasco
Criminal Procedure; Inquests; Arrests; Inquest proceedings are proper only when the accused has been
lawfully arrested without warrant.
Same; Same; Same; Where the joint affidavit of the arresting officers states that a person was arrested
without warrant for Inciting to Sedition, the inquest prosecutor could only conduct an inquest for said
crime and no otherwhen another group of prosecutors subject the same arrested person to a second
inquest proceeding for Rebellion, they overstep their authority rendering the second inquest void.
128. Placer v. Villanueva
P.D. No. 911 authorizes the fiscal or state prosecutor to determine the existence of probable cause.
Thus,
"If on the basis of complainant's sworn statements and documents submitted, the investigating fiscal or
state prosecutor finds no probable cause to conduct a preliminary investigation, he shall dismiss the
case. If probable cause is established by complainant's evidence, he shall notify the respondent by
issuing a subpoena x x x. (Sec. 1 [b], RA 5180, as amended by P.D. Nos. 77 and 911).
"The fiscal or state prosecutor shall certify under oath in the information to be filed by him that he has
examined the complainant and his witnesses; that on the basis of the sworn statements and other
evidence submitted before him there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed
and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, x x x" (Sec. 1 [d], id.).
VII.

Complaint and Information

Rule 110

Art. 91, RPC

Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. The period of prescription shall commence to run
from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and
shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when
such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably
stopped for any reason not imputable to him.
The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine
Archipelago.chanrobles virtual law

A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC (25 March 2003)

EN BANC
A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC
RE: ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR RE PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF B.P. BLG. 22
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 13 2001.
A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC (Re: Administrative Circular re Penalty for Violation of B.P. Blg. 22.)
The Court Resolved to APPROVE the draft administrative circular prepared by Chief Justice Hilario G.
Davide, Jr., clarifying the provisions of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, to wit:
SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 12-2000 ON THE PENALTY FOR
VIOLATION OF BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE BOUNCING CHECKS
LAW.
Clarification has been sought by concerned Judges and other parties regarding the operation of
Administrative Circular 12-2000 issued on 21 November 2000. In particular, queries have been made
regarding the authority of Judges to:
1. Impose the penalty of imprisonment for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22; and
2. Impose subsidiary imprisonment in the event that the accused, who is found guilty of violating the
provisions of B.P. Blg. 22, is unable to pay the fine which he is sentenced to pay considering that
Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 adopted the rulings in Eduardo Vaca v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.
131714, 16 November 1998, 298 SCRA 656) and Rosa Lim v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No.
130038, 18 September 2000) as a policy of the Supreme Court on the matter of the imposition of
penalties for violations of B.P. Blg. 22, without mentioning whether subsidiary imprisonment could be
resorted to in case of the accuseds inability to pay the fine.
The clear tenor and intention of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 is not to remove imprisonment as an
AL+AF+NV Notes l

14

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

alternative penalty, but to lay down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in
B.P. Blg. 22.
The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not foreclose the possibility of imprisonment for violators of B.P.
Blg. 22. Neither does it defeat the legislative intent behind the law.
Thus, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 establishes a rule of preference in the application of the penal
provisions of B.P. Blg. 22 such that where the circumstances of both the offense and the offender clearly
indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine along
should be considered as the more appropriate penalty. Needless to say, the determination of whether
the circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the Judge. Should the Judge
decided the imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 ought not
be deemed a hindrance.
It is, therefore, understood that
1. Administrative Circular 12-2000 does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for violations
of B.P. Blg. 22;
2. The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and taking into consideration the
peculiar circumstances of each case, determine whether the imposition of a fine alone would best serve
the interests of justice or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate the seriousness
of the offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice;
3. Should only a fine be imposed and the accused be unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to
the application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment.
The issuance of this Administrative Circular was authorized by the Court En Banc in A.M. No. 00-11-01SC at its session of 13 February 2001.
The Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court and the Court Administrator shall immediately cause the
implementation of this Administrative Circular.
This Administrative Circular shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation not later than 20
February 2001.
Issued this 14th day of February 2001.
A.

As to Parties/Prosecution

129. Ppl v. Liggayu

The right to appeal from an order of dismissal granted by the court on motion of the fiscal may new be
challenged under the theory that the right of an offended party to intervene in a criminal action is subject
to the fiscal's right of control. To permit an offended party to appeal from an order dismissing a criminal
case upon petition of the fiscal would be tantamount to giving said party as much right to the direction
and control of a criminal proceeding as that of the fiscal. Granting that the right of appeal is recognized
under the old law (Sec. 107, Gen. Orders No. 68), it would seem that under the new law. especially

section 4 of Rule 106 which provides that the prosecution shall be "under the direction and control of the
fiscal," without the limitation imposed by section 107 of General Orders No. 58 subjecting the direction of
the prosecution to the right "of the person injured to appeal from any decision of the court denying him a
legal right," said right to appeal by an offended party from an order of dismissal should no longer be
recognized in the offended party. Under General Orders No. 58, the fiscal was merely to direct the
prosecution and this direction is subject to the right of the offended party; under the new Rules of Court,
the fiscal has the direction and control of the prosecution, without being subject to the right of
intervention on the part of the offended party. Even under the old Code of Criminal Procedure (Gen.
Orders No. 58) this Court has held that if the criminal action is dismissed by the court on motion of the
provincial fiscal upon the ground of insufficiency of evidence, the offended party has no right to appeal,
his remedy being a separate civil action if the proper reservation is made therefor. (People vs. Joaquin
Lipana, 72 Phil., 166 and People vs. Florendo, 73 Phil., 679.)
130. Bernabe v. Bolinas
Mandamus; Fiscals; When mandamus lies to compel fiscal to amend information.The writ of
mandamus was issued in a case to compel the provincial fiscal to amend an information for homicide, by
charging murder, where it appears that the killing was attended with treachery and that the fiscal
neglected to perform the legal duty to charge the accused with murder.
131. Sta. Rosa Mining v. Zabala
There is no question that the institution of a criminal action is addressed to the sound discretion of the
investigating fiscal. He may or he may not file the information according to whether the evidence is in his
opinion sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (Gonzales vs. Court of
First Instance, 63 Phil. 846) and when he decides not to file the information, in the exercise of his
discretion, he may not be compelled to do so (People vs. Pineda, 20 SCRA 748). However, after the
case had already been filed in court, "fiscals are not clothed with power, without the consent of the court,
to dismiss or nolle prosequi criminal actions actually instituted and pending further proceedings. The
power to dismiss criminal actions is vested solely in the court" (U.S. vs. Barredo, 32 Phil. 444, 450;
Gonzales vs. Court of First Instance, supra).
The fiscal should not shirk from his responsibility much less leave the prosecution of the case at the
hands of a private prosecutor. At all times, the criminal action shall be prosecuted under his direction and
control (Sec. 4, Rule 110, Rules of Court). Otherwise, the entire proceedings will be null and void.
If the fiscal is not convinced that a prima facie case exists, he cannot move for the dismissal of the case
and, when denied, refuse to prosecute the same. Where there is no other prosecutor available, he
should proceed to discharge his duty and present the evidence to the best of his ability and let the court
decide the merits of the case on the basis of the evidence adduced by both parties.
132. Crespo v. Mogul
133. Tan v. Gallardo
Since a criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereignty of the State, it is but natural that the
representatives of the State should direct and control the prosecution. The prosecuting officer is the
representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern
AL+AF+NV Notes l

15

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal
prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and
very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or
innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigorindeed, he should do so. But, while he
may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from
improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to
bring about a just one.
There is an absolute necessity for prosecuting attorneys to lay before the court the pertinent facts at
their disposal with methodical and meticulous attention, clarifying contradictions and filling up gaps and
loopholes in their evidence, to the end that courts mind may not be tortured by doubts, that the innocent
may not suffer and the guilty not escape unpunished. Obvious to all, this is the prosecutions prime duty
to the court, to the accused, and to the state. It is for the purpose of realizing these objectives that the
prosecution of offenses is placed under the direction, control, and responsibility of the prosecuting
officer.
The role of the private prosecutors is to represent the offended party with respect to the civil action for
the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense. This civil action is deemed instituted with the
criminal action, unless the offended party either expressly waives the civil action or reserves to institute it
separately. Thus, an offended party may intervene in the proceedings, personally or by attorney,
specially in case of offenses which cannot be prosecuted except at the instance of the offended party.
The only exceptions to this are when the offended party waives his right to civil action or expressly
reserves his right to institute it after the termination of the case, in which case he loses his right to
intervene upon the theory that he is deemed to have lost his interest in its prosecution.
134. Ppl v. Nicolas
Same; Same; Same; Any issue on the validity and sufficiency of the complaint should be raised in a
motion to quash the information pursuant to Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.In any event, we
have previously ruled in the case of People vs. Barrientos that any issue on the validity and sufficiency of
the complaint should be raised in a motion to quash the information pursuant to Section 3, Rule 117 of
the Rules of Court. As in the cited case of Barrientos, this Court considers any attack on the validity and
efficacy of the affidavit-complaint at this time rather belated.
B.

As to Form

135. US v. Lim San

136. Ppl v. Teves
It is settled that the precise time of the commission of rape is not an essential element of the crime; The
natural vacillation of a daughter to publicly denounce her father and to testify in an unfamiliar and
unfriendly environment on such a delicate matter very well explain the minor lapses in her testimony;
Settled is the rule that discrepancies and inconsistencies on minor matters do not impair the essential
integrity of the prosecutions evidence as a whole nor reflect on the witness honesty.
He cannot be convicted of qualified rape because he was not properly informed that he is being accused
of qualified rape.

What strikes us about the informations is that, as phrased, they unduly lay stress on the generic
aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength.34 Be it in terms of syntax or
composition, the wording of the informations is unable to sufficiently notify the accused, a person of
common understanding or ordinary intelligence, of the gravity or nature of the crime he had been
charged with, especially considering that the generic aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of
superior strength is not even an element of the attendant circumstances treated under number 1 of the
last paragraph of Article 335. The aforequoted clauses in the informations can thus not be read nor
understood as constituting a specific allegation of the special circumstances of relationship of father and
daughter and that the daughter was less than 18 years of age at the time the crime of rape was
committed.
137. U.S. v. Dichao
As before intimated, we are not to be understood as saying that a variance between the date of the
commission of the crime as alleged in the information and that as proved on the trial warrants
necessarily the acquittal of the accused. The result of what we intend to say is that, if such a variance
occurs and it is shown to the trial court that the defendant is surprised thereby, and that, by reason of
that surprise, he is unable to defend himself properly, the court may, in the exercise of sound discretion
based n all the circumstances, order the information amended so as to set forth the correct date and
may grant an adjournment for such length of time as will enable the defendant to prepare himself to
meet the variance in the date which was the cause of surprise.
138. Ppl v. Dion
Criminal Law; Rape; The exact date of the commission of a crime is not an essential element of itin a
prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape,
not the time of its commission.
Same; Same; The date of the commission of the rape becomes relevant only when the accuracy and
truthfulness of the complainants narration practically hinge on the date of the commission of the crime.

139. Ppl v. Bali-balita

It has been held that the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or the
preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been
violated . . . . But from the actual recital of the facts as alleged in the body of the information. In this
case the information upon which the appellant was arraigned does not state in the specification of the
acts constitutive of the offense that he is charged as the livein partner of the mother of the alleged victim.
This insufficiency prevents a judgment of conviction for qualified rape and thus, the death penalty cannot
be imposed. The victim being under 12 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, the crime
committed is statutory rape and the proper penalty under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by RA. 7659, is reclusion perpetua.a
140. Ricarez v. CA
Under Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, all criminal actions covered by a
complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direct supervision and control of the public
AL+AF+NV Notes l

16

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

prosecutor. Thus, even if the felonies or delictual acts of the accused result in damage or injury to
another, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability based on the said criminal acts is impliedly
instituted, and the offended party has not waived the civil action, reserved the right to institute it
separately or instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action, the prosecution of the action (including
the civil) remains under the control and supervision of the public prosecutor. The prosecution of offenses
is a public function. Under Section 16, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the offended party
may intervene in the criminal action personally or by counsel, who will act as private prosecutor for the
protection of his interests and in the interest of the speedy and inexpensive administration of justice. A
separate action for the purpose would only prove to be costly, burdensome and timeconsuming for both
parties and further delay the final disposition of the case. The multiplicity of suits must be avoided. With
the implied institution of the civil action in the criminal action, the two actions are merged into one
composite proceeding, with the criminal action predominating the civil. The prime purpose of the criminal
action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others from committing the same or similar
offense, to isolate him from society, reform and rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social order.

one form as in the other. An amendment to an information which does not change the nature of the crime
alleged therein does not affect the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an
opportunity to meet the new averment had each been held to be one of form and not of substance.
142. Leviste v. Hon. Almeda
143. Ppl v. Galvez
By entering a plea of not guilty and participating actively in the trial, however, accusedappellant Galvez
waived his right to raise the issue of the illegality of his arrest. It is now settled that objection to a warrant
of arrest or the procedure by which a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be
made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived. The fact that the arrest was
illegal does not render the subsequent proceedings void and deprive the State of its right to convict the
guilty when all the facts point to the culpability of the accused.
IX. Civil Aspect of the Criminal Case (September 5)

Before the accused enters his plea, a formal or substantial amendment of the complaint or information
may be made without leave of courtafter the entry of plea, only a formal amendment may be made but
with leave of court and if it does not prejudice the rights of the accused. After arraignment, a substantial
amendment is proscribed except if the same is beneficial to the accused.
A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and
determinative of the jurisdiction of the courtall other matters are merely of form
The sole purpose of the civil action is for the resolution, reparation or indemnification of the private
offended party for the damage or injury he sustained by reason of the delictual or felonious act of the
accused.

C.

Sec. 16, Rule 110

Arts. 29 to 36, Civil Code
Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97, 16 September 1997
D

CIRCULAR NO. 57-97 September 16, 1997

TO: COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS,

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, ALL MEMBERS OF THE
GOVERNMENT PROSECUTION SERVICE AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED
BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUBJECT: RULES AND GUIDELINES IN THE FILING AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL

CASES UNDER BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22.

Any provision of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the following rules and
guidelines shall henceforth be observed in the filing and prosecution of all criminal cases
under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 which penalizes the making or drawing and issuance of a
check without funds or credit:

1. The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to necessarily
include the corresponding civil, and no reservation to file such civil action separately shall be
allowed or recognized.

2. Upon the filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay
in full the filing fees based upon the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered

As to Form

Sec. 4, R. 110
Sec. 7, R. 117
Sec. 19, R. 119

141. Matalam v. Sandiganbayan

Before the accused enters his plea, a formal or substantial amendment of the complaint or information
may be made without leave of court. After the entry of a plea, only a formal amendment may be made
but with leave of court and if it does not prejudice the rights of the accused. After arraignment, a
substantial amendment is proscribed except if the same is beneficial to the accused. A 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.
The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment has been said to be whether a
defense under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is made,
and whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the information in the

AL+AF+NV Notes l

17

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

as the actual damages claimed, in accordance with the schedule of filing fees based upon the
amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed, in
accordance with the schedule of filing fees in Section 7 (a) and Section 8 (a), Rule 141 of the
Rules of Court, as last amended by Administrative Circular No. 11-94 effective August 1,
1994. Where the offended party further seeks to enforce against the accused civil liability by
way of liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, he shall pay the
corresponding filing fees therefore based on the amounts any of these damages are
subsequently awarded by the court, the amount of such fees shall constitute a first lien on the
judgment.
W

3. Where the civil action has heretofore been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet
commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court
trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in
accordance with the pertinent procedure outlined in Section 2(a) of Rule 111 governing the
proceedings in the actions as thus consolidated.

4. This Circular shall be published in two (2) newspapers of general circulation and shall take
effect on November 1, 1997.

September 16, 1997.

W
W

CIRCULAR NO. 70-97 October 21, 1997

TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, SHARIA CIRCUIT COURTS, THE MEMBERS
OF THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE AND THE MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL
PROSECUTION SERVICE AND THE MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
W

SUBJECT: PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES IN THE COLLECTION OF THE FILING FEES

SUBJECT OF SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR NO. 57-97 DATED 16 SEPTEMBER 1997
AND OTHER LEGAL FEES INVOLVED; AND THE DOCKETING OF THE CRIMINAL CASE/S
ON THE VIOLATION OF BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22
In implementation of the provisions of Circular No. 57-97 dated 16 September 1997
prescribing rules and guidelines in the filing and prosecution of criminal cases under Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 ("An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check
Without Sufficient Funds of Credit and For Other Purposes"), the following procedures shall
be followed in (a) the collection of the filing fees subject of said Circular No. 57-97 and other

legal fees involved; and (b) the docketing of the criminal case or cases on the violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22:
W

1. The Office of the Clerk of Court shall receive the information filed by the Office of the Chief
State Prosecutor or the Provincial/City Prosecutor Office. Upon receipt, the information shall
be entered in a separate record book and assigned an undocketed number (UDK No.)
consisting of (a) the Investigation Slip No. ("I.S. No.") appearing on the said information for
easy identification; and (b) a number, starting with No. 1 (Example: UDK No. 6789-1);

2. Thereafter, the Clerk of Court shall, by form letter (Annex "A"), notify and advise the
complainant of (a) the filing of the information; and (b) the requirement as to the payment in
full of the filing fees under Circular No. 57-97 based upon the computation stated therein. The
State Prosecutor, the Provincial/Assistant Provincial Prosecutor or the City/Assistant City
Prosecutor who filed the information and the respondent shall be furnished with copies of the
accomplished form letter sent by the Clerk of Court;

3. The complainant shall have a period of ten (10) days from receipt of the letter within which
to pay the filing fees. Should the complainant fail to pay the filing fees within the ten (10)-day
period stated herein, the case folder shall be archived. After the lapse of two (2) months, the
records may be disposed of

4. Upon receipt of the filing fees under Circular No. 57-97, the information shall be entered in
the court's general docket book and assigned the court case number. Thereafter, the Clerk of
Court shall cause the inclusion of the case in the raffle of cases.

The filing fees and other legal fees shall be processed in accordance with the flowchart
attached herewith as Annex "B."

5. In the event that the amount of the actual damages claimed exceeds the maximum amount
of P200,000.00, the filing fees to be collected in excess of the aforementioned amount shall
be in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 (a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.

6. This Circular shall take effect on 1 November 1997 and shall remain in force until further
orders.
A.

Prosecution of civil liability ex delicto

U.S. v. Heery, G.R. No. 8634, 22 October 1913

Elcano v. Hill, G.R. No. 24803, 26 May 1977
AL+AF+NV Notes l

18

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

Yakult v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91856, 5

Remedial Law; Separate Civil Action; QuasiDelict; The rule requiring prior reservation of the
right to institute a separate civil action also covers quasidelict as defined under Art. 2127 of the Civil
Code.Under the aforecited provisions of the rule, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is
impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his
right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. Such civil action
includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34
and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused. It is
also provided that the reservation of the right to institute the separate civil action shall be made before
the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a
reasonable opportunity to make such reservation. x x x The civil liability sought arising from the act or
omission of the accused in this case is a quasi delict as defined under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. x x
x The aforecited revised rule requiring such previous reservation also covers quasi delict as defined
under Article 2176 of the Civil Code arising from the same act or omission of the accused.
Same; Same; Same; Institution of a separate civil action prior to the presentation of prosecution
evidence in the criminal case, with the judge handling the criminal case duly informed of such institution,
is even better than compliance with the requirement of express reservation.Although the separate civil
action filed in this case was without previous reservation in the criminal case, nevertheless since it was
instituted before the prosecution presented evidence in the criminal action, and the judge handling the
criminal case was informed thereof, then the actual filing of the civil action is even far better than a
compliance with the requirement of an express reservation that should be made by the offended party
before the prosecution presents its evidence. The purpose of this rule requiring reservation is to prevent
the offended party from recovering damages twice for the same act or omission.

October 1990Casupanan v. Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, 26 August 2002

Remedial Law; Actions; Dismissals; Under Administrative Circular No. 0494 the order of dismissal is
without prejudice to refiling the complaint, unless the order of dismissal expressly states it is with
prejudice. The MCTC dismissed the civil action for quasidelict on the ground of forumshopping under
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 0494. The MCTC did not state in its order of dismissal that
the dismissal was with prejudice. Under the Administrative Circular, the order of dismissal is without
prejudice to refiling the complaint, unless the order of dismissal expressly states it is with prejudice.
Absent a declaration that the dismissal is with prejudice, the same is deemed without prejudice. Thus,
the MCTCs dismissal, being silent on the matter, is a dismissal without prejudice.
Same; Same; Same; Since the present Rules require the accused in a criminal action to file his
counterclaim in a separate civil action, there can be no forumshopping if the accused files such separate
civil action. Moreover, paragraph 6, Section 1, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure

(2000 Rules for brevity) expressly requires the accused to litigate his counterclaim in a separate civil
action, to wit: SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.(a) x x x. No counterclaim,
crossclaim or thirdparty 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. (Emphasis
supplied) Since the present Rules require the accused in a criminal action to file his counterclaim in a
separate civil action, there can be no forumshopping if the accused files such separate civil action.
Same; Same; Independent Civil Actions; To file a separate and independent civil action for quasidelict
under the 1985 Rules, the offended party had to reserve in the criminal action the right to bring such
action. Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure (1985 Rules for brevity), as
amended in 1988, allowed the filing of a separate civil action independently of the criminal action
provided the offended party reserved the right to file such civil action. Unless the offended party reserved
the civil action before the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution, all civil actions arising from
the same act or omission were deemed impliedly instituted in the criminal case. These civil actions
referred to the recovery of civil liability exdelicto, the recovery of damages for quasidelict, and the
recovery of damages for violation of Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code on Human Relations. Thus,
to file a separate and independent civil action for quasidelict under the 1985 Rules, the offended party
had to reserve in the criminal action the right to bring such action.
Otherwise, such civil action was deemed impliedly instituted in the criminal action.
Same; Same; Same; Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111 what is deemed instituted with the
criminal action is only the action to recover civil liability arising from the crime or ex delicto.Under
Section 1 of the present Rule 111, what is deemed instituted with the criminal action is only the action
to recover civil liability arising from the crime or exdelicto. All the other civil actions under Articles 32, 33,
34 and 2176 of the Civil Code are no longer deemed instituted, and may be filed separately and
prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the criminal action. The failure to make a
reservation in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file a separate and independent civil action
based on these articles of the Civil Code.
Same; Same; Same; Section 3 of Rule 111 refers to the offended party in the criminal action, not to the
accused.Section 3 of the present Rule 111, like its counterpart in the amended 1985 Rules, expressly
allows the offended party to bring an independent civil action under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the
Civil Code. As stated in Section 3 of the present Rule 111, this civil action shall proceed independently of
the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the
offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action.
There is no question that the offended party in the criminal action can file an independent civil action for
quasidelict against the accused. Section 3 of the present Rule 111 expressly states that the offended
party may bring such an action but the offended party may not recover damages twice for the same
act or omission charged in the criminal action. Clearly, Section 3 of Rule 111 refers to the offended party
in the criminal action, not to the accused.
AL+AF+NV Notes l

19

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

People v. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, 2 September 1994 (see also Art. 89, Revised Penal
Code)

The person or persons who actually sign the check in behalf of a corporation, company or entity is liable
under BP 22.
Rodriguez v. Ponferrada, G.R. Nos. 155531-34, 29 July 2005

Criminal Law; Actions; Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal
liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon.Death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by
Justice Regalado, in this regard, the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal
liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil
liability ex delicto in senso strictiore.
Same; Same; The claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may
also be predicated on a source of survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also
be obligation other than delict.
Rodriguez v. Gadiane. G.R. No. 152903, 17 July 2006
Same; The capability of the private complainant to question such dismissal or acquittal is limited only to
the civil aspect of the case.The Court has nonetheless recognized that if the criminal case is
dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, the appeal on the criminal aspect of the case must
be instituted by the Solicitor General in behalf of the State. The capability of the private complainant to
question such dismissal or acquittal is limited only to the civil aspect of the case. This rule is reiterated in
the Metrobank case cited by respondent. However, it should be remembered that the order which herein
petitioner seeks to assail is not one dismissing the case or acquitting respondents. Hence, there is no
limitation to the capacity of the private complainant to seek judicial review of the assailed order.
Same; The suspension of the criminal action in cases of violation of B.P. 22 which petitioner decries
would necessarily cause delay in the resolution of the civil aspect of the said case which precisely is the
interest of petitioner, which interest warrants the protection from courts.

Actions; Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Parties; An offended party may intervene in the prosecution
of a crime; Exceptions.Based on the foregoing rules, an offended party may intervene in the
prosecution of a crime, except in the following instances: (1) when, from the nature of the crime and the
law defining and punishing it, no civil liability arises in favor of a private offended party; and (2) when,
from the nature of the offense, the offended parties are entitled to civil indemnity, but (a) they waive the
right to institute a civil action, (b) expressly reserve the right to do so, or (c) the suit has already been
instituted. In any of these instances, the private complainants interest in the case disappears and
criminal prosecution becomes the sole function of the public prosecutor. None of these exceptions apply
to the instant case. Hence, the private prosecutor cannot be barred from intervening in the estafa suit.
Gosiaco v. Ching, G.R. No. 173807, 16 April 2009
Same; Same; Same; The civil action impliedly instituted in the Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 action is only the
civil liability of the signatory and not that of the corporation.If we conclude, as we should, that under
the current Rules of Criminal Procedure, the civil action that is impliedly instituted in the B.P. Blg. 22
action is only the civil liability of the signatory, and not that of the corporation itself, the distinctness of the
cause of action against the signatory and that against the corporation is rendered beyond dispute. It
follows that the actions involving these liabilities should be adjudged according to their respective
standards and merits. In the B.P. Blg. 22 case, what the trial court should determine whether or not the
signatory had signed the check with knowledge of the insufficiency of funds or credit in the bank account,
while in the civil case the trial court should ascertain whether or not the obligation itself is valid and
demandable. The litigation of both questions could, in theory, proceed independently and simultaneously
without being ultimately conclusive on one or the other.

Heirs of Simon v. Chan, G.R. No. 157547, 23 February 2011

Civil liability (Bouncing Checks)
Sec. 1(b), Rule 111 Sec. 1, B.P. Blg. 22
Cases:
Llamado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 99032, 26 March 1997

Criminal Procedure; Batas Pambansa Blg. 22; Civil Liability; Civil liability to the offended party cannot be
denied; the payee of the check is entitled to receive the payment of money for which the worthless check
was issued.The Supreme Court has settled the issue of whether or not a violation of BP 22 can give
rise to civil liability in Banal v. Judge Tadeo, Jr., 156 SCRA 325 (1987), holding: x x x Civil liability to the
offended party cannot thus be denied. The payee of the check is entitled to receive the payment of
money for which the worthless check was issued. Having been caused the damage, she is entitled to
recompense.
AL+AF+NV Notes l

20

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

Same; Same; Same; There is no independent civil action to recover the value of a bouncing check
issued in contravention of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22; The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action; No reservation to file such civil action
separately shall be allowed.There is no independent civil action to recover the value of a bouncing
check issued in contravention of BP 22. This is clear from Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, effective
December 1, 2000, which relevantly provides: x x x (b) The criminal action for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such
civil action separately shall be allowed.

instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent
criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed.
Ty-De Zuzuarregui v. Villarosa, G.R. No. 183799, 5 April 2010
1

Same; Same; Same; It is axiomatic that the retroactive application of procedural laws does not violate
any right of a person who may feel adversely affected, nor is it constitutionally objectionable; The reason
is simply that, as a general rule, no vested right may attach to, or arise from, procedural laws; except that
in criminal cases, the changes do not retroactively apply if they permit or require a lesser quantum of
evidence to convict than what is required at the time of the commission of the offenses.
Pre-judicial question
Sec. 7, Rule 111
Sec. 11(b), Rule 116
Art. 36, Civil Code
Cases:

Same; Civil Law; Prejudicial Questions; The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to
avoid two (2) conflicting decisions. For a prejudicial question in a civil case to suspend a criminal
action, it must appear not only that said civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which
the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in
the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. The rationale
behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two (2) conflicting decisions.
Yap v. Hon. Caballes, G.R. No. 159186, 5 June 2009

Criminal Procedure; Bail; Imposing bail in an excessive amount could render meaningless the right to
bail.The prohibition against requiring excessive bail is enshrined in the Constitution. The obvious
rationale, as declared in the leading case of De la Camara vs. Enage, is that imposing bail in an
excessive amount could render meaningless the right to bail. Thus, in Villaseor vs. Abano, this Court
made the pronouncement that it will not hesitate to exercise its supervisory powers over lower courts
should the latter, after holding the accused entitled to bail, effectively deny the same by imposing a
prohibitory sum or exacting unreasonable conditions.

Torres v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 153666, 27 December 2002

Reyes v. Rossi, G.R. No. 159823, 18 February 2013
Remedial Law; Appeal; Certiorari; A resolution of the Sandiganbayan denying a motion to quash the
information is an interlocutory order and hence, not appealable.Case law has it that a resolution of the
Sandiganbayan denying a motion to quash the information is an interlocutory order and hence, not
appealable. Nor can it be the subject of certiorari. The remedy available to petitioners after their motion
to quash was denied by the Sandiganbayan was to proceed with the trial of the case, without prejudice
to their right to raise the question on appeal if final judgment is rendered against them. Moreover, the
petitioners failed to prove that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion to quash.

W
Same; Actions; Prejudicial Question; A prejudicial question is understood in law as that which must
precede the criminal action and which requires a decision before a final judgment can be rendered in the
criminal action with which said question is closely connected.
Dreamwork Construction v. Janiola, G.R. No. 184861, 30 June 2009
Criminal Procedure; Actions; Prejudicial Questions; Elements of a Prejudicial Question.SEC. 7.
Elements of prejudicial question.The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Prejudicial Questions; A prejudicial question generally

comes into play in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending, and there
exists in the former an issue that must first be determined before the latter may proceed, because
howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the
guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.A prejudicial question generally comes into play
in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the former
an issue that must first be determined before the latter may proceed, because howsoever the issue
raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the
accused in the criminal case. The rationale for the suspension on the ground of a prejudicial question is
to avoid conflicting decisions. Two elements that must concur in order for a civil case to be considered a
prejudicial question are expressly stated in Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure,
to wit: Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question.The elements of a prejudicial ques tion are: (a) the
previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal
action may proceed.
San Miguel Properties v. Sec. Perez, G.R. No. 166836, 4 September 2013
AL+AF+NV Notes l

21

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

Remedial Law; Prejudicial Questions; Words and Phrases; A prejudicial question is understood in law to
be that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in the
criminal case, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.
W
Same; Same; The determination of whether the proceedings ought to be suspended because of a
prejudicial question rested on whether the facts and issues raised in the pleadings in the specific
performance case were so related with the issues raised in the criminal complaint for the violation of
Presidential Decree No. 957, such that the resolution of the issues in the former would be determinative
of the question of guilt in the criminal case.
X. Bail
Art. III, Sec. 13, Constitution
Rule 114
Administrative Circular No. 2-92 (20 January 1992)
TO: ALL REGIONAL TRIAL COURT PRESIDING JUDGES, THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES, THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
RE: CANCELLATION OF BAIL BOND OF ACCUSED CONVICTED OF CAPITAL OFFENSE IN THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Strict observance by all concerned is enjoined with the following policies and guidelines laid down in the
Resolution of the Court promulgated on October 15, 1991 in G.R. No. 92560 entitled "People v. Ricardo
C. Cortez," relative to the application of Section 3, Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, to
wit:
The basic governing principle on the right of the accused to bail is laid down in Section 3 of Rule 114 of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal procedure, as amended, which provides.
Sec. 3. Bail, a matter of right; exception. All persons in custody, shall before
final conviction, be entitled to bail as a matter of right, except those charged with a
capital offense or an offense which, under the law at the time of commission and at
the time of application for bail punishable by reclusion perpetua, when evidence of
guilt is strong.
Pursuant to the aforecited provision, an accused who is charged with a capital offense or an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua, shall no longer be entitled to bail as a matter of right even if he
appeals the case to this Court since his conviction clearly imports that the evidence of his guilt of the
offense charged is strong.

Hence, for the guidance of the bench and bar with respect to future as well as pending cases before the
trial courts, this Court en banc lays down the following policies concerning the effectivity of the bail of the
accused, to wit:
1) When an accused is charged with an offense which under the law existing at
the time of its commission and at the time of the application for bail is punishable
by a penalty lower than reclusion perpetua and is out on bail, and after trial is
convicted by the trial court of the offense charged or of a lesser offense than that
charged in the complaint or information, he may be allowed to remain free on his
original bail pending the resolution of his appeal, unless the proper court directs
otherwise pursuant to Rule 114, Sec. 2(a) of the Rules of Court, as amended;
2) When an accused is charged with a capital offense or an offense which under
the law at the time of its commission and at the time of the application for bail is
punishable by reclusion perpetua and is out on bail, and after trial is convicted by
the trial court of a lesser offense than that charged in the complaint or information,
the same rule set forth in the preceding paragraph shall be applied;
3) When an accused is charged with a capital offense or an offense which under
the law at the time of its commission and at the time of the application for bail is
punishable by reclusion perpetua and is out on bail and after trial is convicted by
the trial court of the offense charged, his bond shall be cancelled and the accused
shall be placed in confinement pending resolution of his appeal.
As to criminal cases covered under the third rule abovecited, which are now pending appeal before this
Court where the accused is still on provisional liberty, the following rules are laid down:
1) This Court shall order the bondsman to surrender the accused within ten (10)
days from notice to the court of origin. The bondsman thereupon, shall inform this
Court of the fact of surrender, after which, the cancellation of the bond shall be
ordered by this Court;
2) The RTC shall order the transmittal of the accused to the National Bureau of
Prison thru the Philippine National Police as the accused shall remain under
confinement pending resolution of his appeal;
3) If the accused-appellant is not surrendered within the aforesaid period of ten
(10) days, his bond shall be forfeited and an order of arrest shall be issued by this
Court. The appeal taken by the accused shall also be dismissed under Section 8,
AL+AF+NV Notes l

22

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Court as he shall be deemed to have jumped his
bail.
A.M. No. 05-8-26 (30 August 2005)
Rep. Act No. 6036 (1969)
AN ACT PROVIDING THAT BAIL SHALL NOT, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, BE REQUIRED IN
CASES OF VIOLATIONS OF MUNICIPAL OR CITY ORDINANCES AND IN CRIMINAL OFFENSES
WHEN THE PRESCRIBED PENALTY FOR SUCH OFFENSES IS NOT HIGHER THAN ARRESTO
MAYOR AND/OR A FINE OF TWO THOUSAND PESOS OR BOTH.

responsible citizen in the community who may be willing to accept the responsibility. In such a case the
affidavit herein mentioned shall include a statement of the person charged that he binds himself to
accept the authority of the citizen so appointed by the Court. The Clerk of Court shall immediately report
the presence of the accused person to the Court. Except when his failure to report is for justifiable
reasons including circumstances beyond his control to be determined by the Court, any violation of this
sworn statement shall justify the Court to order his immediate arrest unless he files bail in the amount
forthwith fixed by the Court.
Section 3. This Act shall apply to all person who, at the time of its approval, are under temporary
detention for inability to post bail for charges contemplated by Section 1 above.
Section 4. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Section 1. Any provision of existing law to the contrary notwithstanding, bail shall not be required of a
person charged with violation of a municipal or city ordinance, a light felony and/or a criminal offense the
prescribed penalty for which is not higher than six months imprisonment and/or a fine of two thousand
pesos, or both, where said person has established to the satisfaction of the court or any other
appropriate authority hearing his case that he is unable to post the required cash or bail bond, except in
the following cases:
(a) When he is caught committing the offense in flagranti;
(b) When he confesses to the commission of the offense unless the confession is later
repudiated by him in a sworn statement or in open court as having been extracted through
force or intimidation;
(c) When he is found to have previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence,
or jumped bail;
(d) When he is found to have previously violated the provisions of Section 2 hereof;
(e) When he is found to be a recidivist or a habitual delinquent or has been previously
convicted for an offense to which the law or ordinance attaches an equal or greater penalty or
for two or more offenses to which it attaches a lighter penalty;
(f) When he commits the offense while on parole or under conditional pardon; and
(g) When the accused has previously been pardoned by the municipal or city mayor for
violation of municipal or city ordinance for at least two times.
Section 2. Instead of bail, the person charged with any offense contemplated by Section 1 hereof shall
be required to sign in the presence of two witnesses of good standing in the community a sworn
statement binding himself, pending final decision of his case, to report to the Clerk of the Court hearing
his case periodically every two weeks. The Court may, in its discretion and with the consent of the
person charged, require further that he be placed under the custody and subject to the authority of a

Secs. 34-36, Rep. Act No. 9344

CHAPTER 4
COURT PROCEEDINGS
SEC. 34. Bail. - For purposes of recommending the amount of bail, the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority shall be considered.
SEC. 35. Release on Recognizance. - Where a child is detained, the court shall order:
(a) the release of the minor on recognizance to his/her parents and other suitable person;
(b) the release of the child in conflict with the law on bail; or
(c) the transfer of the minor to a youth detention home/youth rehabilitation center.
The court shall not order the detention of a child in a jail pending trial or hearing of his/her case.

A. When mandatory, and when discretionary Cases:

Feliciano v. Pasicolan, G.R. No. 14567, 31 July 1967
Bail; Who may appeal for bail.The constitutional mandate that all persons shall before
conviction be bailable except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong, is
subject to the limitation that the person applying for bail should be in the custody of the law, or otherwise
deprived of his liberty. The purpose of bail is to secure ones release and it would be incongruous to
grant bail to one who is free.
Grageda v.Judge Tresvalles, A.M. MTJ No. 04-1526, 2 February 2004
AL+AF+NV Notes l

23

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Admission to bail presupposes the exercise thereof in
accordance with law and guided by the applicable legal principles.
1
2

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; When a judge grants bail to a person charged with a capital offense
or by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment without conducting the required bail hearing, he is
considered guilty of ignorance or incompetence.

Chua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140842, 12 April 2007

1

People v. Fitzgerald, G.R. No. 149723, 27 October 2006

1

2
3

Criminal Procedure; Bail; The right to bail emanates from the right to be presumed innocent. It is
accorded to a person in the custody of the law who may, by reason of the presumption of innocence he
enjoys, be allowed provisional liberty upon filing of a security to guarantee his appearance before any
court, as required under specified conditions.The right to bail emanates from the right to be presumed
innocent. It is accorded to a person in the custody of the law who may, by reason of the presumption of
innocence he enjoys, be allowed provisional liberty upon filing of a security to guarantee his appearance
before any court, as required under specified conditions.
Same; Same; If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the
accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with
notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstances: (a) That he is a recidivist,
quasirecidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of
reiteration; (b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the
conditions of his bail without valid justification; (c) That he committed the offense while under probation,
parole, or conditional pardon; (d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if
released on bail; or (e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency
of the appeal.
W
Same; Same; Bail is not a sick pass for an ailing or aged detainee or prisoner needing medical care
outside the prison facility. A mere claim of illness is not a ground for bail. It may be that the trend now is
for courts to permit bail for prisoners who are seriously sick.

Leviste v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 189122, 17 March 2010

1
2
3

Criminal Procedure; Bail; Bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accuseds
interest in pretrial liberty and societys interest in assuring the accuseds presence at trial.
Same; Same; An erroneously convicted accused who is denied bail loses his liberty to pay a debt to
society he has never owed; Under what circumstances an accused may obtain bail pending appeal is a
delicate balance between the interests of society and those of the accused; In the exercise of discretion
in the grant of bail pending appeal, the proper courts are to be guided by the fundamental principle that
the allowance of bail pending appeal should be exercised not with laxity but with grave caution and only
for strong reasons, considering that the accused has been in fact convicted by the trial court.
W
B. Cancellation of bail
Cases:

2
3

Criminal Procedure; Bail; Appeals; Certiorari; After a judgment of conviction has been rendered by the
trial court and cancellation of the bail bond of the accused, his appropriate remedy against the courts
order cancelling his bond is by filing with the Court of Appeals a motion to review the said order in the
same regular appeal proceedings, as an incident of his appealthe filing of a separate petition via a
special civil action or special proceeding questioning such adverse order before the appellate court is
proscribed.
Same; Same; Same; Where an accused has been sentenced to imprisonment exceeding 6 years, the
same justifies the cancellation of his bail pursuant to the third paragraph of Section 5 (b), (d) and (e) of
Rule 114.
San Miguel v. Judge Maceda, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1749

1
2
3

Criminal Procedure; Bail; The grant of bail to an accused charged with an offense that carries with it the
penalty of reclusion perpetua x x x is discretionary on the part of the trial court.
Same; Same; The existence of a high degree of probability that the defendant will abscond confers upon
the court no greater discretion than to increase the bond to such an amount as would reasonably tend to
assure the presence of the defendant when it is wanted, such amount to be subject, of course, to the
other provision that excessive bail shall not be required.
Esteban v. Alhambra, G.R. No. 135012, 7 September 2004

1
2
3

Criminal Procedure; Bails; Cancellation; The first paragraph of Section 22 contemplates of a situation
where, among others, the surety or bondsman surrenders the accused to the court that ordered the
latters arrest; thereafter, the court, upon application by the surety or bondsman, cancels the bail bond.
Same; Same; Bond; Cash Bond; It can be applied in payment of any fine and costs that may be imposed
by the court..
C. Right to travel while out on bail
Cases:
Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-62100, 30 May 1986
Same; Same; Same; Same; An accused person desiring to leave the Philippines must show
to the courts satisfaction that the same is justified, including the conformity of his sureties.Petitioner
has not specified the duration of the proposed travel or shown that his surety has agreed to it. Petitioner
merely alleges that his surety has agreed to his plans as he had posted cash indemnities. The court
cannot allow the accused to leave the country without the assent of the surety because in accepting a
bail bond or recognizance, the government impliedly agrees that it will not take any proceedings with
the principal that will increase the risks of the sureties or affect their remedies against him. Under this
rule, the surety on a bail bond or recognizance may be discharged by a stipulation inconsistent with the
AL+AF+NV Notes l

24

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

conditions thereof, which is made without his assent. This result has been reached as to a stipulation or
agreement to postpone the trial until after the final disposition of other cases, or to permit the principal to
leave the state or country. Thus, although the order of March 26, 1982 issued by Judge Pronove has
been rendered moot and academic by the dismissal as to petitioner of the criminal cases pending before
said judge, We see the rationale behind said order.
D

Same; Same; The only grounds which the court may consider in resolving a motion to quash
an information or complaint are (1) those grounds stated in the motion and (2) the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the offense charged, whether or not mentioned in the motion.
People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 183652, 25 February 2015

Yap v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141529, 6 June 2011

1

Tanchanco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 141675-96, 25 November 2005

Criminal Procedure; Bail; Imposing bail in an excessive amount could render meaningless the right to
bail.The prohibition against requiring excessive bail is enshrined in the Constitution. The obvious
rationale, as declared in the leading case of De la Camara vs. Enage, is that imposing bail in an
excessive amount could render meaningless the right to bail. Thus, in Villaseor vs. Abano, this Court
made the pronouncement that it will not hesitate to exercise its supervisory powers over lower courts
should the latter, after holding the accused entitled to bail, effectively deny the same by imposing a
prohibitory sum or exacting unreasonable conditions.

Immunity Statutes; Criminal Procedure; Motions to Quash; Jurisdictions; Section 9 of Rule 117 of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly qualifies that the failure to timely raise the objection of lack of
jurisdiction over the offense charged cannot be waived, and may be raised or considered motu proprio
by the court at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal; A claim of immunity from prosecution arising
from an immunity statute or agreement is a jurisdictional questiona statutory grant of immunity enjoins
the prosecution of a criminal action and thus deprives the court of jurisdiction to proceed.

XI. Quashal of Complaint or Information

Form, contents, and grounds

Rule 117
A.

Sec. 2-3, Rule 117

When filed

See also Sec. 9, Rule 116

Cases:

Cases:
People v. Hon. Nitafan, G.R. No. 107964-66, 1 February 1999

Criminal Procedure; Motion; The accused may file a motion to quash an information at any
time before entering a plea or before arraignment. Section 1, Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure provides: Time to move to quash.At any time before entering his plea, the accused may
move to quash the complaint or information. (emphasis supplied). It is clear from the above rule that the
accused may file a motion to quash an information at any time before entering a plea or before
arraignment. Thereafter, no motion to quash can be entertained by the court except under the
circumstances mentioned in Section 8 of Rule 117 which adopts the omnibus motion rule. In the case at
bench, private respondent pleaded to the charges without filing any motion to quash. As such, she is
deemed to have waived and abandoned her right to avail of any legal ground which she may have
properly and timely invoked to challenge the complaint or information pursuant to Section 8 of Rule 117.
Same; Same; There is nothing in the rules which authorizes the court or judge to motu proprio
initiate a motion to quash if no such motion was filed by the accused.
Same; Same; The filing of a motion to quash is a right that belongs to the accused who may
waive it by inaction and not an authority for the court to assume.

Lopez v. City Judge, G.R. No. L-25795, 29 October 1966

1

Criminal procedure; Motion to quash distinguished from demurrer. The contention that the motion to
quash filed by the defendants necessarily assumes the truth of the allegations of the information to the
effect that the offense charged was committed within the jurisdiction of Angeles City is applicable only to
a demurrernow obsoleteto an inf ormation and certainly not to a motion to quash under the Rules of
Court. The motion to quash now provided for in Rule 117 is manifestly broader in scope than the
demurrer, as it is not limited to defects apparent upon the face of the complaint or information but
extends to issues arising out of extraneous matters which necessarily involve questions of fact in the
determination of which a preliminary trial is required.
W
Alawiya v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164170, 16 April 2009

Criminal Procedure; Ombudsman; The power of the Ombudsman to investigate offenses involving public
officers or employees is not exclusive but is concurrent with other similarly authorized agencies of the
government such as the provincial, city and state prosecutors.
Soriano v. People, G.R. No. 159517-18, 30 June 2009
AL+AF+NV Notes l

25

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

Criminal Procedure; Information; Duplicity of Offenses; Duplicity of offenses in a single information is a

ground to quash the Information under Section 3(e), Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure;
Duplicity of charges is meant a single complaint or information that charges more than one offense.
W
Same; Same; Same; Motion to Quash; The fundamental test in considering a motion to quash anchored
on Section 3(a), Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, is the sufficiency of the averments
in the information; that is, whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the
essential elements of the offense charged as defined by law.

Double jeopardy
Art. III, Sec. 21, Constitution
Cases:
People v. Pineda, G.R. No. 44205, 16 February 1993
1

State Prosecutor v. Hon. Paqueo, G.R. No. 150606, 7 June 2007

1

Criminal Procedure; State Prosecutors; An examination of the functions of the Regional State Prosecutor
under Sec. 8 of Presidential Decree No. 1275 showed that they do not include that of approving the
Information filed or dismissed by the investigating prosecutor.

Poblete v. Hon. Justices, G.R. No. 150610, 25 March 2004

Gonzales v. Hon. Salvador, G.R. No. 168340, 5 December 2006

1

Same; Same; Same; Same; The order to file another information if the trial court finds that
circumstances warrant its issuance, must be included in the order granting the motion to quash.
W

Criminal Procedure; Motions; No substantial distinction between a motion to quash and a motion to
dismiss.There is no substantial distinction between a motion to quash and a motion to dismiss.
Both pray for an identical relief, which is the dismissal of the case. Such motions are employed to raise
preliminary objections, so as to avoid the necessity of proceeding to trial. A motion to quash is generally
used in criminal proceedings to annul a defective indictment. A motion to dismiss, the nomenclature
ordinarily used in civil proceedings, is aimed at summarily defeating a complaint. Thus, our Rules of
Court use the term motion to quash in criminal, and motion to dismiss in civil, proceedings.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The mere filing of two informations charging the same offense is not an
appropriate basis for the invocation of double jeopardy.
Same; Same; Same; Same; In order for the first jeopardy to attach, the plea of the accused to
the charge must be coupled with either conviction, acquittal or termination of the previous case without
his express consent thereafter.

Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Pleadings and Practice; Information; The amendment of an
information under Section 4 of Rule 117 applies if the trial court finds that there is a defect in the
information and the defect can be cured by amendment, in which case the court shall order the
prosecution to amend the information.
W
Same; Same; Same; Same; In cases falling under Section 5 of Rule 117, where the motion to quash is
sustained on grounds other than those stated in Section 6 of the same Rule, the trial court has the
discretion to order the filing of another information within a specified period which is extendible to such
further time as the court may allow for good cause.

Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152259, 29 July 2004

1

2
3

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Double Jeopardy; Essential requisites before the defense of double
jeopardy can be invoked.". . . according to a long line of cases, in order that a defendant may
successfully allege former jeopardy, it is necessary that he had previously been (1) convicted or (2)
acquitted, or (3) in jeopardy of being convicted of the offense charged, that is, that the former case
against him for the same offense has been dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent, by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information, and after the
defendant had pleaded to the charge."

Same; Same; Same; Same; The ambiguity stirred by the imprecise observance in People vs.
City Court of Manila, can now be considered modified in that a prior conviction or acquittal or termination
of the case without the express acquiescence of the accused is still required before the first jeopardy can
be pleaded to abate a second prosecution.
People v. Relova, G.R. No. L-45129, 6 March 1987
1

W
1

Same; Same; Claim of double jeopardy is available even if prior offense charged under an ordinance is
different from subsequent offense charged in a statute where both offenses spring from the same set of
acts.
Same; Same; Where an offense is punished by different sections of a statute or different statutes, the
inquiry, for purposes of double jeopardy, is on identity of offenses charged. In contrast, where an offense
is penalized by an ordinance and a statute, the inquiry is on the identity of acts.

Same; Same; The question of identity of offenses must be addressed by examining the elements of the
two offenses, while the question of identity of acts punished by an ordinance and a statute must be
addressed by examining the locus of such acts in time and space.

Same; Same; For double jeopardy to be available, not all 'the technical elements of the first offense need
AL+AF+NV Notes l

26

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

be present in the definition of the second offense.

D

offense before a civilian court. In ruling that the criminal case should be dismissed, the Court ruled that
the criminal trial was barred by double jeopardy. The Court pronounced: So here there is but one
offense, that against the United States, and when the Government chooses the tribunal in which to try an
offender, when the trial takes place in that tribunal, and when the accused is convicted and sentenced,
he can not again be put in jeopardy in another court of the same sovereignty. x x x It follows that the
defendant having been once in jeopardy can not be tried again for the offense of which he was formerly
convicted. A similar situation obtained in U.S. v. Tubig, 3 Phil. 244 (1904), decided some months later,
and a similar judgment of acquittal was mandated by the Court on the ground of double jeopardy. The
doctrine has survived past the American occupation. In 1954, the Court was again confronted with the
issue whether a sentence passed by a military court barred further prosecution of the same offense in a
civilian court. The Court, in Crisologo v. People, 94 Phil. 477 (1954), squarely ruled that double jeopardy
indeed barred such prosecution.

Loney v. People, G.R. No. 152644, 10 February 2006

1

2
3

4
W

Criminal Procedure; Pleadings and Practice; Duplicity of Charges; Words and Phrases; There is duplicity
(or multiplicity) of charges when a single Information carries more than one offense; The Rules of
Criminal Procedure prohibit the filing of such Information to avoid confusing the accused in preparing his
defense.Duplicity of charges simply means a single complaint or information charges more than one
offense, as Section 13 of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure clearly states: Duplicity of
offense.A complaint or information must charge but one offense, except only in those cases in which
existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various offenses. In short, there is duplicity (or
multiplicity) of charges when a single Information charges more than one offense. Under Section 3(e),
Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, duplicity of offenses in a single information is a
ground to quash the Information. The Rules prohibit the filing of such Information to avoid confusing the
accused in preparing his defense.
Same; Same; Same; Double Jeopardy; A single act or incident might offend against two or more entirely
distinct and unrelated provisions of law justifying the prosecution of the accused for more than one
offense.As early as the start of the last century, this Court had ruled that a single act or incident might
offend against two or more entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law thus justifying the prosecution
of the accused for more than one offense. The only limit to this rule is the Constitutional prohibition that
no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. In People v. Doriquez, we
held that two (or more) offenses arising from the same act are not the samex x x if one provision [of
law] requires proof of an additional fact or element which the other does not, x x x. Phrased elsewise,
where two different laws (or articles of the same code) define two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one of
them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other, although both offenses arise from the same facts, if
each crime involves some important act which is not an essential element of the other. (Emphasis
supplied)

SSgt. Pacoy v. Hon. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472, 28 September 2007

1

3
4

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; There is no double jeopardy when the accused are being prosecuted
for an act or incident punished by four national statutes and not by an ordinance and a national statute.

Double Jeopardy; Requisites; There is double jeopardy when the following requisites are present: (1) a
first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a
second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first.There is double jeopardy when the following
requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been
validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first.
Same; It is the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal or termination of the case that bars
further prosecution for the same offense or any attempt to commit the same or the frustration thereof.It
is the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal or termination of the case that bars further
prosecution for the same offense or any attempt to commit the same or the frustration thereof; or
prosecution for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged
in the former complaint or information.
Same; The requisite of double jeopardy that the first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second is
not present, considering that petitioner was neither convicted nor acquitted; nor was the case against
him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Cerezo v. People, G.R. No. 185230, 1 June 2011

Lt. Gonzales v. Gen. Abaya, G.R. No. 164007, 10 August 2006

1
Same; Double Jeopardy; It is very wellsettled that double jeopardy attaches if one is tried by
both a military court and a civilian court over the same act, notwithstanding the differing natures of both
tribunals.It is very wellsettled that double jeopardy attaches if one is tried by both a military court and a
civilian court over the same act, notwithstanding the differing natures of both tribunals. The rule was
pronounced by the Philippine Supreme Court as far back as 1903, in U.S. v. Colley, 3 Phil. 58 (1903).
Therein, the defendant was sentenced to death by a courtmartial after murdering a fellow soldier, but the
sentence could not be carried out after the reviewing authority of the Army concluded that the military
authorities were without power to carry into execution the sentence. He then was charged with the same

2
3

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Once a case is filed with the court, any disposition of it rests on the
sound discretion of the court; In resolving a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw an Information, the
trial court should not rely solely and merely on the findings of the public prosecutor or the Secretary of
Justice.
Same; Same; Double Jeopardy; Requisites for Double Jeopardy to Exist.Double jeopardy exists when
the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy
has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. A first
jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d)
AL+AF+NV Notes l

27

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the
case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

misunderstanding of the significance, effects, and consequences of their guilty plea.

People v. Tagud, G.R. No. 140733, 30 January 2002

XII. Arraignment and Plea

1
Rule 116
Cases:
D

People v. Mira, G.R. No. 175324, 10 October 2007

People v. Alborida, G.R. No. 136382, 25 June 2001

Criminal Procedure; Plea of Guilty; Section 3, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure mandates three things upon the trial court in cases where a positive plea is entered by the
accused.The aforecited rule specifically mandates three things upon the trial court in cases where a
positive plea is entered by the accused; to wit: (1) conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness of
the plea and the accuseds comprehension of the consequences thereof; (2) require the prosecution to
prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and (3) ask the accused if he
desires to present evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.
1

D
1

Same; Same; Same; It is essential that a searching inquiry is conducted after the accused pleads guilty
to a capital offense, and it must focus on: (1) the voluntariness of the plea and (2) a complete
comprehension of the legal effects of the plea so that the plea of guilt can be truly said as being based
on a free and informed judgment.
People v. Baharan, G.R. No. 188314, 10 January 2011

2
3

Same; Same; Rationale behind the rule is that the courts must proceed with more care where the
possible punishment, is in its severest form, namely death, for the reason that the execution of such a
sentence is irrevocable and experience has shown that innocent persons have at times pleaded guilty.
People v. Durango, G.R. No. 135438-39, 5 April 2000

Criminal Procedure; Plea of Guilty; All trial judges must refrain from accepting with alacrity an accuseds
plea of guilty, for while justice demands a speedy administration, judges are duty bound to be extra
solicitous in seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty, he understands fully the meaning of his plea
and the import of an inevitable conviction; The requirement for a judge to conduct a searching inquiry
applies more so in cases of rearraignment.
Same; Same; The requirement to conduct a searching inquiry should not be deemed satisfied in cases in
which it was the defense counsel who explained the consequences of a guilty plea to the accusedthe
conduct of a searching inquiry remains the duty of judges, as they are mandated by the rules to satisfy
themselves that the accused had not been under coercion or duress; mistaken impressions; or a

Criminal Law; Rape; Evidence; Plea of Guilty; When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the
judge must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension by the accused of
his plea of guilt; A mitigating circumstance like a plea of guilt does not operate to lower the death penalty
which is a single indivisible penalty.

Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the
judgment.Notwithstanding the incautiousness that attended appellants guilty plea, we are not inclined
to remand the case to the trial court as suggested by appellant. Convictions based on an improvident
plea of guilt are set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on
sufficient and credible evidence in finding the accused guilty, the judgment must be sustained, because
then it is predicated not merely on the guilty plea of the accused but also on evidence proving his
commission of the offense charged.
Samson v. Daway, G.R. No. 160054-55, 21 July 2004
Dio v. Olivarez, G.R. No. 170447, 23 June 2009

Same; Arraignment; Instances that can Suspend the Arraignment of the Accused.Arraignment shall
follow as a matter of course. Section 11, Rule 116 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, enumerates the
instances that can suspend the arraignment of the accused: Section 11. Suspension of arraignment.
Upon motion of the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases: x x x x (c) A
petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice, or
the Office of the President; Provided, That the period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days
counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office.
People v. Mala, G.R. No. 152351, 18 September 2003
Criminal Procedure; Arraignment; Trial court mandated to order the confinement of an accused who is
mentally unsound at the time of the trial in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus
afflicted. Section 11, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for the suspension
of the arraignment of an accused who appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition. It also
imposes a duty upon the court to order his mental examination and, if called for, his confinement for such
purpose. x x x This provision reinforces Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, which
mandates the trial court to order the confinement of an accused who is mentally unsound at the time of
the trial in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted.
AL+AF+NV Notes l

28

CRIMPRO
Syllabus

AL+AF+NV Notes l

29