Sie sind auf Seite 1von 81

LEGAL FORMS

IN CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE

Submitted by:

Marivir Abata
John Elland Gaba
Cecille Diane Mangaser
Anna Gabrielle Sunga

Block 3D
Feb. 27, 2018
Sample of Application for Search Warrant

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH ____, MANILA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


Plaintiff
SEARCH WARRANT NO._____

-versus- FOR:

x------------------------------------------x

APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

The Applicant, ____________________ of the ________________________,


____________________, after having been duly sworn, states:

That on _________., __________ personally appeared to the office of


________________ and reported that SUBJECT OF S.W, located at
__________________________________ is engaged in the illegal operation of
_______________________________; (See Photos and Sketch as Annex “A”).

That relative to the said information, at around ________, the informer and
_________ together with the undersigned conducted investigation and surveillance
operation at ___________________, located at _____________________________,
__________. The undersigned together with ____________ and _____________
inquires to the said office about _______________.

That on the said occasions, SUBJECT OF S.W, disclosed that they are (illegal
activities). (See photos & sketch and See Attached Calling Card, List of
Requirements, Studio Romano Job Order Form & MTC Job Information as
Annexes “B” - “C”)

(modus operandi).

Further, investigation conducted disclosed that _________________________.

On the ensuing investigation, SUBJECT OF SW, ________________found to be


engaged in the operation of illegal activities;

That on the said investigation and surveillance operation the undersigned


confirmed and believes that SUBJECT OF SW and/or any of its Officer, Agents,
employees of _____________________________________, __________ is indeed
engaged in ________________________despite the fact that the said office is
________________and is not licensed to __________________.

The properties, articles, objects and items which are used and/or intended to be
used in the commission of the afore-stated offense in the possession of the SUBJECT
OF S.W includes the following:

a. Leads
b. ....

The undersigned has personally verified the report thru surveillance and
investigation activities together with _________________ and _______________, to
ascertain the veracity thereof and found the same to be true and correct;
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the Undersigned respectfully prays:

a. that the Honorable Court include in the Search Warrant and express authority
to conduct the raid of the above-mentioned premises at any time of the day
or night including SATURDAYS and SUNDAYS considering that these are
the days when the customer traffic are at its peak and to break open the
premises to be searched should the owner thereof refuse entry in the
premises or is absent therein.

b. that this Honorable Court cause the immediate issuance of a Search Warrant
commanding any Peace Officer to conduct a search on the above-described
premises and to seize the above-described items to be dealt with as the law
directs;

(Date), (Place).
________________
Applicant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this _______ day of


_____________, ______

______________________
Presiding Judge

CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION

I, THE UNDERSIGNED, under oath, depose and say that:

1. I am the applicant in the above-entitled application for Search Warrant;

2. I personally caused the preparation of the foregoing application for Search


Warrant and have read its content and the allegations therein, which are
true and correct to my own personal knowledge and belief.

3. I further certify that (a) I have not therefore commenced or filed any
application for a Search Warrant involving the same issues in any court,
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and to the best of my knowledge, no such
other application for Search Warrant is pending therein; (b) If there is such
other pending Application for Search Warrant, I will therefore inform this
Honorable Court of the present status thereof; (c) If I should thereafter
learn that the same and similar application for Search Warrant has been
filed or its pending , I shall report that fact within five (5) days there from to
this Honorable Court, wherein the aforesaid application for Search
Warrant has been filed.

____________________
Applicant

Date: ___________________

Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Region III
Branch 16, City of San Fernando

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,


Plaintiff,

- versus - Criminal Case No. 02044


For: Illegal Possession of
Firearms

MUH MARIL,
Accused.
X --------------------------------------x

SEARCH WARRANT

TO ANY PEACE OFFICER:

It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned, after examining


under oath of applicant JOHN SEE and his witness JOHN LEE that there is
probable cause to believe that Illegal Possession of Firearms has been
committed or is about to be committed and that there are good and sufficient
reasons to believe that MUH MARIL has in his possession or control Beretta
92 Pistol in his residence at 4362 Camia Street, San Fernando, Pampanga,
which possession is a violation of R.A. No. 10591.

You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search at any time


of the day or night of the premises above described and forthwith seize and
take possession of the Beretta 92 Pistol and bring said property to the
undersigned to be dealt with as the law directs.

This Search Warrant is valid for ten (10) days.

Witness my hand this 24th day of February, 2018, at San Fernando,


Pampanga, Philippines.

(Sgd.)
JUSTITIA VERITAS
Judge

Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Region III
Branch 16, City of San Fernando

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,


Plaintiff,

- versus - Criminal Case No. 00044


For: Libel

HANNAH PIHN,
Accused.
X -----------------------------------------x

MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT

The ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully moves for the quashal of


Search Warrant No. 7777 issued by this Honorable Court on and dated 12
July 2013 based on the following considerations:

1. Rule 126, Sec. 10 of the Revised Rules of Court provides expressly


that a search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date
and that thereafter, it shall be void.
2. Search Warrant No. 7777 is dated 12 July 2013. It was served on the
accused on 23 July 2013, the 11th day from its date; this is certified
to by the Sworn Inventory and Return executed by Major Tuh Nga,
the leader of the searching team (a copy of which is already part of
the records). A search was made on the same day, 23 July 2013;
pursuant to said search, certain objects were seized and delivered
to the court. Under the law, the Search Warrant is void and must,
thus, be quashed.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that Search Warrant No. 7777


be QUASHED and all objects seized under its purported authority be
declared INADMISSIBLE under the exclusionary rule in Article III, Section
3(2) in relation to Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.

City of San Fernando, 25 July 2013.

(Sgd.) Atty. Vir Abata


Counsel for Accused
6236 Manalac Street, Poblacion, Makati
IBP No. 87123-7/19/12-AC
PTR No. 669913/21/12-AC
Roll No. 99999
MCLE Exempt
(Admitted to the bar: April 6, 2012)
Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Region III
Branch 16, City of San Fernando

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,


Plaintiff,

- versus - Criminal Case No. 02044


For: Murder

PUMA TAY,
Accused.
X --------------------------------------x

ORDER OF ARREST

TO ANY OFFICER OF THE LAW:

You are hereby commanded to arrest PUMA TAY with address at 6236
Manalac Street, Poblacion, Makati, who is charged before me with the crime
of MURDER as defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and to
bring him before me to be dealt with according to law.

City of San Fernando, this 24th day of February, 2018.

(Sgd.)
JUSTITIA VERITAS
Judge
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Makati City

BRET MONSANTO
Complainant,

-versus- I.S. No. _____________


JOHN ELLAND GABA For: Slight Physical Injuries
Respondent.
x-----------------------------x

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

I, BRET MONSANTO, Filipino, of legal age and a resident of Unit G, 6237


Manalac St., Barangay Poblacion, Makati City, after having been duly sworn
to in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:

1. That, I am filing a case of slight physical injuries against JOHN ELLAND


GABA of Unit I, 6237 Manalac St., Barangay Poblacion, Makati City.

2. That, on 14 February 2018 at around 7p.m., I went to Gaba’s unit to talk to


him about the coverage for the quiz in our Legal Forms class, when upon
seeing me, he got mad and asked me to leave.

3. That, I immediately turned around to leave Gaba’s unit but he came


running towards me and punched me 2 times on the face and 3 times on the
stomach.

4. That, according to the medical certificate issued by St. Luke’s Hospital, I


suffered contusions which would take 7 days to heal.

5. That, the incident was referred to the barangay for conciliation but no
settlement had been reached because Gaba refused to obey the summons
served upon him. Hence, a certificate to file action was issued by the
barangay.

6. In view of the foregoing, I am executing this affidavit to support the filing


of a criminal case for slight physical injuries against JOHN ELLAND GABA.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 22 February


2018, in the City of Makati, Philippines.

BRET MONSANTO
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to BEFORE ME this 22nd day of FEBRUARY
2018 in the City of Makati, Philippines. FURTHER CERTIFIES that I have
personally examined the herein affiant and was fully convinced that he
freely executed and understood the contents of this Complaint-Affidavit.

(Sgd.) Investigating Prosecutor


VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, BRET MONSANTO, Filipino, of legal age and a resident of Unit G, 6237


Manalac St., Barangay Poblacion, Makati City, after having been duly sworn
to in accordance with law, hereby state:

1. I am the affiant in the attached Complaint-Affidavit with residence at the


above-mentioned address and I have caused the preparation and filing of
the foregoing Complaint-Affidavit.

2. I have read the contents of the foregoing Complaint-Affidavit and I attest


that the contents of the same are true and correct to the best of my personal
knowledge, and are based on authentic documents/evidence in my
possession.

3. I attest that I have not commenced any other action or proceeding,


involving the same facts and issues subject of this present Complaint-
Affidavit, in the regular courts, the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency.

4. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding over the same


facts and issues is, or remains, pending in the regular courts, Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals, or the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal
or agency.

5. If I should hereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed
or is pending before the regular courts, Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, I
undertake to promptly inform this Honorable Court of that fact within five
(5) days from such notice.

BRET MONSANTO
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to BEFORE ME this 25th day of FEBRUARY


2018 in the City of Makati, Philippines. FURTHER CERTIFIES that I have
personally examined the herein affiant and was fully convinced that he
freely executed and understood the contents of this Complaint-Affidavit.

ATTY. VIR ABATA


Notary Public
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Makati City

BRET MONSANTO
Complainant,

-versus- I.S. No. _____________


JOHN ELLAND GABA For: Slight Physical Injuries
Respondent.
x-----------------------------x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, JOHN ELLAND GABA, Filipino, of legal age, residing at Unit I, 6237


Manalac St., Barangay Poblacion, Makati City, after having been duly sworn
to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the respondent in the above-captioned case for slight physical injuries


filed by one BRET MONSANTO.

2. I vehemently deny the allegations of Monsanto. I admit that Monsanto


went to my unit on 14 February 2018. At the time, he was drunk and could
barely walk. He was causing a commotion by shouting loudly looking for
me. I asked him to leave and come back the next day but he refused to do so.
Since he would not calm down, I just ignored him and went inside my unit.

3. The following day, I was informed that Monsanto fell down a flight of
stairs in the apartment as a consequence of which he sustained physical
injuries.

4. I am executing this counter-affidavit to attest to the truthfulness of the


foregoing to refute the allegations of Bret Monsanto.

TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this Statement on 26


February 2018.

JOHN ELLAND GABA


Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to BEFORE ME this 28th day of FEBRUARY


2018 in the City of Makati, Philippines. FURTHER CERTIFIES that I have
personally examined the herein affiant and was fully convinced that he
freely executed and understood the contents of this Complaint-Affidavit.

(Sgd.) Assistant City Prosecutor

Copy furnished:
BRET MONSANTO
Complainant
Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
Branch #
Makati City

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


Complainant,

-versus- I.S. No. _____________


JOHN ELLAND GABA For: Slight Physical Injuries
Respondent.
x-----------------------------x

INFORMATION

The Undersigned accuses JOHN ELLAND GABA of the crime of Slight


Physical Injuries, committed as follows:

That on or about 14 February 2018, at about 7


p.m., in the City of Makati and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the said accused, then 23
years old, and residing at Unit I, 6237 Manalac St.,
Barangay Poblacion, Makati City, willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously, and without justifiable
cause therefor, attach, assault, and beat one BRET
MONSANTO, punching him on the face and
stomach, thereby inflicting on the latter physical
injuries, which have required and will require
medical attention for a period of one to nine days,
and have incapacitated and will incapacitate him
from labor for the same period of time.

CONTRARY TO LAW.
Makati City, 3 March 2018

(Sgd.) Assistant City Prosecutor

This is to certify that the undersigned, or as shown by the record, an


authorized officer has personally examined the complainant and witnesses,
that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime charged 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.

(Sgd.) Assistant City Prosecutor

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd day of


March, 2018 at Makati City.
(Sgd.) City Prosecutor
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Fourth Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court
Branch 24, Biñan City

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,

Crim. Case No. 35565-B-2016


-versus- For: Violation of Section 5 in
relation to Section 26, Article II
of R.A. No. 9165

Crim. Case No. 35567-B-2016


For: Violation of Section 11, Art.
II of R.A. No. 9165

SOLENN ABU-HEUSAFF,
Accused.
X--------------------------------------------X

MOTION FOR BAIL


Accused, SOLENN ABU-HEUSAFF, hereinafter “ABU-
HEUSAFF”, by counsel, respectfully moves to be allowed bail on the
ground that the prosecution’s evidence of her guilt is not strong. In
support, she respectfully submits the following:

1. ABU-HEUSAFF is currently detained for her alleged


violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 (sale) and Section 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 (possession).

2. On 13 October 2016, the two (2) Informations in this case


were filed, one for sale, and the other, for possession of shabu.

2.1. In the Information for possession of shabu, bail was set at


Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 200,000).

2.2. On the other hand, no bail was recommended for the


charge of sale of shabu.

3. Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 provides that the penalty for


the sale of shabu is life imprisonment to death.

4. Sections 7 and 8 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provide


that:

“SEC. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by


reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. -No
person charged with a capital offense, or an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is
strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal
prosecution.”

“SEC. 8. Burden of proof in bail application. — At the


hearing of an application for bail filed by a person who is
in custody for the commission of an offense punishable
by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the
prosecution has the burden of showing that evidence of
guilt is strong. The evidence presented during the bail
hearing shall be considered automatically reproduced at
the trial but, upon motion of either party, the court may
recall any witness for additional examination unless the
latter is dead, outside the Philippines, or otherwise
unable to testify.”

5. The Information alleges that on 7 October 2016 ABU-


HEUSAFF sold to police poseur buyer PO2 De Leon one heat sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing shabu.

6. However, the prosecution has failed to show that the buy-


bust officers have complied with the chain of custody requirement.

7. For these reasons, evidence is not enough to conclude that


the accused possessed and sold said shabu. Verily, she is entitled to
bail as a matter of right.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the accused be


granted: (1) a bail hearing on the same date as her arraignment,
during which the prosecution should be directed to present its
evidence to show the strength of its evidence of the accused’s guilt,
and (2) thereafter, grant the accused reasonable bail.

Other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.

Makati City for Binan City, Laguna, 25 November 2016.

GASM LAW OFFICE


42nd Floor, 8Rockwell
Rockwell Center, Makati City
Tel No. (622) 8997691 loc. 2123
Fax No. (632) 8994342
gasmlaw@gmail.com
By:
ANNAH GHABBY MHAE SUNGA
Roll of Atty. No. 12345
IBP Lifetime No. 05970; 1/10/2005; RSM
PTR No. MKT5323984; 1/4/2016; Makati City
MCLE Compliance No. V – 0019318; 04/08/2016
Mobile No. +63 918 1234567
Email: build.snowman@gmailcom
And by:

MA. CECILYA DYANA MANGASER


Roll of Attorneys No. 67890
PTR No. 5339495; 01/13/16; Makati City
IBP Lifetime Member No. 09943; Makati City
MCLE Compliance No. V-0019754; 2/29/16
Mobile No. +63 917 1234567
Email: cjmangaser@gmail.com

NOTICE OF HEARING

Branch Clerk of Court


Branch 24, Regional Trial Court
Biñan City

Office of the City Prosecutor


Hall of Justice
Biñan City, Laguna

Please be notified that undersigned counsel will submit this


Motion for Bail to the Honorable Court for its consideration and
approval immediately upon receipt hereof.

ANNAH GHABBY MHAE SUNGA

COPY FURNISHED:

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR BY REG. MAIL


Hall of Justice
Biñan City, Laguna
EXPLANATION

Due to urgency, distance, and the temporary lack of


messengerial personnel to complete timely personal service and
filing, this Motion for Bail is filed with the Honorable Court by courier
and registered mail and served on the other party by registered mail.

ANNAH GHABBY MHAE SUNGA

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )


MAKATI CITY ) S.S.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, YO GABA, of legal age and an employee of the GASM Law


Office, with address at 42nd Floor, 8Rockwell, Rockwell Center,
Makati City, after being duly sworn, depose and state that:

On __ November 2016, I served by registered mail, copies of the


MOTION FOR BAIL dated 25 November 2016, upon the counsel of
adverse party, by depositing copies in the post office in sealed
envelope, and postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the
postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if
undelivered to the following:

Addressee Registry Receipt No.

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR


Hall of Justice
Golden City Subdivision
Canlalay, Biñan City
Laguna 4024

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this ___


day of November 2016 at Makati City.

YO GABA
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of


November 2016, affiant, who is personally known to me and
exhibiting to me his SSS ID No. 3301413403.

Doc. No.: ___;


Page No.: ___;
Book No.: ___;
Series of 2016.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
National Capital Judicial Region
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 09 - Makati

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


Plaintiff,

-versus- CRIM. CASE NO. 18-14343


For: Violation of BP 22

HAN SOLO,
Accused
x------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The ACCUSED, through the undersigned counsel, respectfully


states:

1. The subject matter of this motion is the DECISION dated January


15, 2017.
2. The said decision was received by the accused, through counsel,
on February 2, 2017.
3. The accused seeks a RECONSIDERATION of the decision on
the following grounds:
a. The evidence of the prosecution has failed to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
b. With all due respect, the Honorable Court has grossly
misappreciated and misinterpreted the evidence on record
resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice.
4. The grossly misappreciated and misinterpreted evidence on
record are as follows:
a. The receipt presented by the defense evidencing the
payment of the loan obligation between the accused and
the plaintiff, Jabba Desilijic Tiure.
b. The disparity between the checks allegedly issued by the
accused bearing the number 14524 and the check presented
during trial bearing the number 14554.

That when such pieces of evidence are properly considered


by the Honorable Court, an acquittal of the defendant
would be proper.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully


prayed that this Motion for Reconsideration may be granted and other
reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed
for.

Respectfully submitted.

Makati City, February 16, 2017.

SOLO SKYWALKER LAW OFFICES


Counsel for the Plaintiff
30th Floor SSL Building, Ayala
Avenue, Makati City

By:

Anakin Skywalker
Roll Number. 12345
IBP Lifetime Member No. 7742
IBP Makati Chapter
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0018154/4-16-17
PTR No. 14359/1-15-17
NOTICE OF HEARING

The Branch Clerk of Court


Metropolitan Trial Court
Branch 9

Office of the City Prosecutor


Makati City

GREETINGS:

Please be informed that undersigned counsel shall submit the


foregoing motion for the consideration and resolution of this
Honorable Court on February 23, 2016 at 10:00AM or at any date
convenient to the honorable court.

ANAKIN SKYWALKER
Counsel for the Accused

Copy Furnished:

LEIA ORGANA
Assistant City Prosecutor
Office of the City Prosecutor
Makati City

SALACIOUS CRUMB
Counsel for the Private Complainant

(proof of service and affidavit of service)


REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
National Capital Judicial Region
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 09 - Makati

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


Petitioner,

-versus- MeTC Makati B-62 Crim. Case


No. 18-14343

HAN SOLO,
Respondents
x------------------------------------x

NOTICE OF APPEAL

ACCUSED, HAN SOLO, by counsel, and unto this Honorable


Court, most respectfully gives notice that he is appealing to the
Regional Trial Court, both questions of fact and law, the Decision
dated January 15, 2017, which was received by the accused through
counsel on February 2, 2017, the Motion for Reconsideration filed on
February 16, 2017, and the Order denying the same was received by
the accused through counsel on August 15, 2017.

Respectfully submitted.

Makati City, August 29, 2017.

SOLO SKYWALKER LAW OFFICES


Counsel for the Plaintiff
30th Floor SSL Building, Ayala
Avenue, Makati City
By:

Anakin Skywalker
Roll Number. 12345
IBP Lifetime Member No. 7742
IBP Makati Chapter
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0018154/4-16-17
PTR No. 14359/1-15-17

Copy furnished:

LEIA ORGANA
Assistant City Prosecutor
Office of the City Prosecutor
Makati City

SALACIOUS CRUMB
Counsel for the Private Complainant

(Proof of service and affidavit of service)


REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


Complainant-appellee,

CA GR SP No. 122593
-versus- RTC Makati B-58
Appealed Crim. Case
No. 18-242-23 (04-891-111)
MeTC Makati B-62 Crim. Case
No. 18-14343

HAN SOLO
Accused-appellant
x------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR REVIEW


(Rule 42)

PETITIONER, HAN SOLO, by counsel, and unto this Honorable


Court of Appeals most respectfully alleges that:

NATURE OF THE PETITION:


1. This is a Petition for Review under Rule 42 and Section 3(B) of
Rule 122 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which is a
mode of appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court
rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
2. Final judgment or order of the Regional Trial Court in an appeal
from the final judgment or order of a Metropolitan Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court, may be appealed to the Court of Appeals
through Petition for Review under this rule, whether the appeal
involves question of fact, of law or mixed question of fact and
law.

THE PARTIES
3. Petitioner (the accused in the court a quo) is of legal age, married,
and is a resident of 4230 Dumas St., Makati City, represented in
this case by his counsel of records, Atty. Anakin Skywalker, with
office address at 30th Floor SSL Building, Ayala Avenue, Makati
City;
4. Private respondent, Jabba Desilijic Tiure (complainant in the
court a quo) is likewise of legal age, with postal and office
address at 5290 Novaliches St., Makati City, represented in this
case by Atty. Salacious Crumb, with office address at 5/F R&L
Building, Baler St., Makati City.
5. Public respondent, Office of the Solicitor General impleaded
being the government office handling appealed criminal cases at
this level, with office address at 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi
Village, Makati.

MATERIAL DATES SHOWING TIMELINESS OF PETITION


6. The Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court dated January 15,
2017, which was received by the accused through counsel on
February 2, 2017.
7. The Motion for Reconsideration filed on February 16, 2017, and
the Order denying the same was received by the accused
through counsel on August 15, 2017.
8. The Notice of Appeal was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court
filed on August 29, 2017.
9. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court affirming the MeTC
decision was rendered on November 23, 2017.
10. The Motion for Reconsideration for the affirmance of the
Regional Trial Court was filed on December 12, 2017.
11. The Order denying said motion for reconsideration received on
January 5, 2018.
12. The present petition filed within 15 days from the receipt of the
order denying the motion for reconsideration of the RTC Order
on January 14, 2018.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OF THE CASE


13. On June 1, 2012, the private respondent extended a loan of
100,000 to the accused as evidenced by a loan contract. (Exhibit
1)
14. Private respondent and the accused agreed on a 10% interest on
the proceeds of the loan and that the same be paid in 5 equal
installments.
15. The accused issued 5 post-dated checks worth 22,000 each.
a. BPI Family Savings Bank Check No. 11111 dated July 1,
2012 (Exhibit 2);
b. BPI Family Savings Bank Check No. 11112 dated
September 1, 2012 (Exhibit 3);
c. BPI Family Savings Bank Check No. 11113 dated
November 1, 2012 (Exhibit 4);
d. BPI Family Savings Bank Check No. 11114 dated January
1, 2013 (Exhibit 5); and
e. BPI Family Savings Bank Check No. 11115 dated March 1,
2013 (Exhibit 6).
16. When private respondent, on July 4, 2012 presented the check
for deposit, it was not accepted because the account was
already closed. (Exhibit 7)
17. The case for the BP 22 violation was docketed as MeTC Makati
B-62 Crim. Case No. 18-14343 in the amount of P22,000.00.

ASSIGNMENT OF ISSUE/S
ISSUE NO. 1
BOTH COURTS IGNORED THE RECEIPT PRESENTED BY THE
DEFENSE WHICH SHOWS PAYMENT OF THE LOAN
OBLIGATION AFTER THE CHECK BOUNCED.

ISSUE NO 2
THE CHECK PRESENTED DURING TRIAL DID NOT BEAR THE
SAME NUMBER AS THE ONES ALLEGEDLY ISSUED TO THE
PRIVATE RESPONDENT BY THE DEFENDANT.

DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
ISSUE NO. 1
BOTH COURTS IGNORED THE RECEIPT PRESENTED BY THE
DEFENSE WHICH SHOWS PAYMENT OF THE LOAN
OBLIGATION AFTER THE CHECK BOUNCED.
18. Attached to the Formal Offer of Exhibits (Exhibit 8) is the receipt
signed by the private respondent evidencing the payment of the
loan obligation already after it was returned to the accused after
it was refused to be deposited by the bank.
19. With the tender of payment by the accused, the checks should
not have been the basis of a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
as the same was not issued with the intent to deceive the private
respondent.

ISSUE NO 2
THE CHECK PRESENTED DURING TRIAL DID NOT BEAR THE
SAME NUMBER AS THE ONES ALLEGEDLY ISSUED TO THE
PRIVATE RESPONDENT BY THE DEFENDANT.
20. As clearly shown in the complaint of the private respondent, the
check issued to him during the perfection of the loan was 11111
but the check presented in evidence was numbered 11112.
21. Since the check itself is the best evidence to prove the worthless
check, its identity to the one which is the basis of the action
should be properly shown.
22. In other words, the action must fail for the failure to present the
actual check allegedly issued even if the defendant knew it was
worthless.

PRAYERS

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed


that the MeTC decision dated January 15, 2017 and the RTC decision
dated November 23, 2017 as well as the RTC order dated January 5,
2018 be reversed and set aside and the case be DISMISSED.

Other reliefs are prayed for.

Makati City, January 14, 2018.

SOLO SKYWALKER LAW OFFICES


Counsel for the Plaintiff
30th Floor SSL Building, Ayala
Avenue, Makati City

By:

Anakin Skywalker
Roll Number. 12345
IBP Lifetime Member No. 7742
IBP Makati Chapter
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0018154/4-16-17
PTR No. 14359/1-15-17

Copy furnished:

SALACIOUS CRUMB
Counsel for the Private Complainant

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL


Legaspi Village, Makati

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT


MeTC Branch 9
Makati City

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


RTC Branch 15
Makati City

(proof of service and affidavit of service)


VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM
SHOPPING

I, HAN SOLO, of legal age, after having been duly sworn in


accordance with law, depose and state that:

1. I am the petitioner in the above-stated case;


2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing petition for review;
3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are
true and correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis
of copies of documents and records in my possession;
4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving
the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
any other tribunal or agency;
5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;
6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report
that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

HAN SOLO
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 12th day of


January 2018 at Makati City affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s
License No. NP-014334-53 issued on December 15, 2015 at Makati City.

LUKE SKYWALKER
Notary Public

Doc. No. 24;


Page No. 11;
Book No. 04;
Series of 2018.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
Manila

Second Division

HAN SOLO
Petitioner,

G.R. NO. 480245


-versus- (CA GR SP No. 122593)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,


JABBA TIURE
Respondents
x------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI


(Rule 45)

PETITIONER, HAN SOLO, by counsel, and unto this Honorable


Court most respectfully state:

NATURE OF THE PETITION:


1. This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 from the Decision of
the Court of Appeals (Second Division) dated July 23, 2018 in CA
GR SP No. 122593.

THE PARTIES
2. Petitioner (the accused in the court a quo) is of legal age, married,
and is a resident of 4230 Dumas St., Makati City, represented in
this case by his counsel of records, Atty. Anakin Skywalker, with
office address at 30th Floor SSL Building, Ayala Avenue, Makati
City;
3. Private respondent, Jabba Desilijic Tiure (complainant in the
court a quo) is likewise of legal age, with postal and office
address at 5290 Novaliches St., Makati City, represented in this
case by Atty. Salacious Crumb, with office address at 5/F R&L
Building, Baler St., Makati City.
4. Public respondent, Office of the Solicitor General impleaded
being the government office handling appealed criminal cases at
this level, with office address at 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi
Village, Makati.

MATERIAL DATES SHOWING TIMELINESS OF PETITION


5. The Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court dated January 15,
2017, which was received by the accused through counsel on
February 2, 2017.
6. The Motion for Reconsideration filed on February 16, 2017, and
the Order denying the same was received by the accused
through counsel on August 15, 2017.
7. The Notice of Appeal was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court
filed on August 29, 2017.
8. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court affirming the MeTC
decision was rendered on November 23, 2017.
9. The Motion for Reconsideration for the affirmance of the
Regional Trial Court was filed on December 12, 2017.
10. The Order denying said motion for reconsideration received on
January 5, 2018.
11. The petition for review under Rule 42 was filed before the Court
of Appeals on January 14, 2018.
12. The order dismissing the petition was rendered on July 23, 2018
and was received by the counsel of the accused on August 1,
2018.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OF THE CASE


13. On June 1, 2012, the private respondent extended a loan of
100,000 to the accused as evidenced by a loan contract. (Exhibit
1)
14. Private respondent and the accused agreed on a 10% interest on
the proceeds of the loan and that the same be paid in 5 equal
installments.
15. The accused issued 5 post-dated checks worth 22,000 each.
a. BPI Family Savings Bank Check No. 11111 dated July 1,
2012 (Exhibit 2);
b. BPI Family Savings Bank Check No. 11112 dated
September 1, 2012 (Exhibit 3);
c. BPI Family Savings Bank Check No. 11113 dated
November 1, 2012 (Exhibit 4);
d. BPI Family Savings Bank Check No. 11114 dated January
1, 2013 (Exhibit 5); and
e. BPI Family Savings Bank Check No. 11115 dated March 1,
2013 (Exhibit 6).
16. When private respondent, on July 4, 2012 presented the check
for deposit, it was not accepted because the account was
already closed. (Exhibit 7)
17. The case for the BP 22 violation was docketed as MeTC Makati
B-62 Crim. Case No. 18-14343 in the amount of P22,000.00.

ASSIGNMENT OF ISSUE/S
ISSUE NO. 1
BOTH COURTS IGNORED THE RECEIPT PRESENTED BY THE
DEFENSE WHICH SHOWS PAYMENT OF THE LOAN
OBLIGATION AFTER THE CHECK BOUNCED.

ISSUE NO 2
THE CHECK PRESENTED DURING TRIAL DID NOT BEAR THE
SAME NUMBER AS THE ONES ALLEGEDLY ISSUED TO THE
PRIVATE RESPONDENT BY THE DEFENDANT.

DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
ISSUE NO. 1
BOTH COURTS IGNORED THE RECEIPT PRESENTED BY THE
DEFENSE WHICH SHOWS PAYMENT OF THE LOAN
OBLIGATION AFTER THE CHECK BOUNCED.
18. Attached to the Formal Offer of Exhibits (Exhibit 8) is the receipt
signed by the private respondent evidencing the payment of the
loan obligation already after it was returned to the accused after
it was refused to be deposited by the bank.
19. With the tender of payment by the accused, the checks should
not have been the basis of a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
as the same was not issued with the intent to deceive the private
respondent.

ISSUE NO 2
THE CHECK PRESENTED DURING TRIAL DID NOT BEAR THE
SAME NUMBER AS THE ONES ALLEGEDLY ISSUED TO THE
PRIVATE RESPONDENT BY THE DEFENDANT.
20. As clearly shown in the complaint of the private respondent, the
check issued to him during the perfection of the loan was 11111
but the check presented in evidence was numbered 11112.
21. Since the check itself is the best evidence to prove the worthless
check, its identity to the one which is the basis of the action
should be properly shown.
22. In other words, the action must fail for the failure to present the
actual check allegedly issued even if the defendant knew it was
worthless.

PRAYERS

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that


the MeTC decision dated January 15, 2017, the RTC decision dated
November 23, 2017, and the decision of the Court of Appeals dated
July 23, 2018 be reversed and set aside and the case be DISMISSED.

Other reliefs are prayed for.

Makati City, August 14, 2018.

SOLO SKYWALKER LAW OFFICES


Counsel for the Plaintiff
30th Floor SSL Building, Ayala
Avenue, Makati City

By:

Anakin Skywalker
Roll Number. 12345
IBP Lifetime Member No. 7742
IBP Makati Chapter
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0018154/4-16-17
PTR No. 14359/1-15-17

Copy furnished:
SALACIOUS CRUMB
Counsel for the Private Complainant

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL


Legaspi Village, Makati

COURT OF APPEALS
(thru the Presiding Justice)
Manila

(proof of service and affidavit of service)

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM


SHOPPING
I, HAN SOLO, of legal age, after having been duly sworn in
accordance with law, depose and state that:

1. I am the petitioner in the above-stated case;


2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing petition for review;
3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are
true and correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis
of copies of documents and records in my possession;
4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving
the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
any other tribunal or agency;
5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;
6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report
that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

HAN SOLO
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 10th day of


August 2018 at Makati City affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s
License No. NP-014334-53 issued on December 15, 2015 at Makati City.

LUKE SKYWALKER
Notary Public

Doc. No. 64;


Page No. 15;
Book No. 04;
Series of 2018.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
MANILA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,


Plaintiff-Respondent,

- versus - G.R. No. 123456


(CA-G.R. CR No. 45667,
People of the Philippines v.
Juan A. Dela Cruz)

FOR: Petition for Review


on Certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court
JUAN A. DELA CRUZ,
Accused- Petitioner.
x ------------------------------------ x

SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME


TO FILE PETITION FOR REVIEW

ACCUSED-PETITIONER JUAN A. DELA CRUZ, by counsel, to the


Honorable Court, respectfully states:

1. On 10 February 2017, accused-appellant, filed a timely


motion for extension of time to file his petition for review asking for
fifteen (15) days or until 26 February 2017 within which to file his
petition for review.

2. Unfortunately, such period proved to be insufficient for the


undersigned new counsel to review and study the entire records of the
case from the trial court up to the appeal to the Court of Appeals.

3. Thus, undersigned counsel, begs the kindest indulgence of


the Honorable Court to grant her another fifteen (15) days or until 13
March 2017 to file the required petition pursuant to Section 2, Rule 45
of the Rules of Court.

4. This motion is not intended to delay the proceedings of the


instant case but is being filed in good faith solely for the afore-stated
reasons.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that petitioner be granted


an another extension of fifteen (15) days from 26 February 2017, or
until 13 March 2017, within which to file the intended petition.

Quezon City for the City of Manila, 26 February 2017.


SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION
People v. Juan dela Cruz
G.R. No. 123456
x ----------------------------------------------------------------- x

THE LAW OFFICE OF


ATTY. JOSE A. DELA CRUZ
5555555 Kamuning Road,
1103 Quezon City

By:

JOSE A. DELA CRUZ


Roll No. 00000
IBP O.R. No. 00000001, 1.26.2017, Q. C.
PTR No. 00000011, 1.25.2017, Q.C.
MCLE Compliance No. IV – 0000002

JUAN B. DELA CRUZ


Roll No. 00001
IBP NO. 0000002, Jan. 14, 2017, Manila
PTR NO. 0000002, Feb. 13, 2017, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. V-0000003

Copy furnished:
COURT OF APPEALS (by personal service)
(16th Division), City of Manila

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (by reg.mail)


134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village,
1229 Makati City

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Copies of this Second Motion for Extension of Time to File


Petition for Review were furnished the foregoing recipients by
registered mail due to distance and the limited messengerial facility to
effect personal service.

CRISTINA B. BUENDIA
SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION
People v. Juan dela Cruz
G.R. No. 123456
x ----------------------------------------------------------------- x

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )


CITY OF MANILA ____________ ) S.S.
x --------------------x

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, JUAN A. TAMAD, of legal age, Filipino, married, and postal


address at 12345 Alcalde Street, Gagalangin, Tondo, Manila, state
under oath:

On 27 February 2017, I served the foregoing Second Motion for


Extension in G.R. No. 123456 entitled “People of the Philippines v.
Juan A. Dela Cruz” pursuant to Sections 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 13, Rule
13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure by registered mail to the
following:

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL


134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village,
Makati City

by depositing copies with the ____________ Post Office as evidenced


by Registry Receipt No. ________________ attached hereto, and with
instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after
ten (10) days if undelivered.

27 February 2017 at City of Manila.

JUAN A. TAMAD
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on ______________


at ___________________, affiant exhibiting to me his SSS I.D. No.
01-23456781-9 valid permanently.

Doc. No. _____


Page No. _____
Book No. _____
Series of 2017
LEGAL FORMS IN
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Abata | Gaba | Mangaser | Sunga
OVERVIEW
■ Application for Search Warrant
■ Search Warrant
■ Motion to Quash Search Warrant
■ Order of Arrest
■ Complaint-Affidavit
■ Counter-Affidavit
■ Information
■ Petition for Bail
■ Post-Judgment Remedies
SEARCH WARRANT AND
WARRANT OF ARREST
Requisites of a Valid Warrant
1. Probable cause
2. Personally determined by the judge
3. Judge must examine under oath the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce
4. Particularly describe
Test of Particularity: 1. As specific as circumstances will
ordinarily allow
2. Bear direct relation to the offense for
which the warrant is being issued
3. Conclusion of fact
SEARCH WARRANT
Application for a Search Warrant
■ Applicant has been informed
■ Name(s) of the person(s) to be searched
■ Property
■ Complete and detailed description of the property

■ Where to file:
– GR: Territorial jurisdiction where the crime was committed
■ Validity of Warrant
– 10 days
■ Time of Making Search
– GR: Daytime
WARRANT OF ARREST
Search Warrant v. Warrant of Arrest
Search Warrant Warrant of Arrest
Probable Cause That an offense had been That an offense had been
committed and that the committed by the person
objects sought in connection sought to be arrested
with the offense are in the
place sought to be searched
Personal Determination of Necessary Not necessary (Soliven v.
Complainant and Witnesses by Makasiar)
the Judge
Validity 10 days ONLY Does not become stale
Time of Service of Warrant GR: Daytime Any day; Any time of day or
EX: Positively alleged in the night
affidavit that the property is on
the person or in the place to be
searched
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
Complaint
■ Complaint is a “sworn written statement charging a person with an
offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer or other
public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated.” (Rule
110, Section 3)
■ When required:
– Offense is one which cannot be prosecuted de officio, or is private in
nature, or where it pertains to those cases which need to be endorsed
by specific public officers.
– Adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness,
defamation consisting in the imputation of any of the previous crimes.
Complaint: Where to File
■ Where preliminary investigation is required:
– Penalty is at least 4 years, 2 months, 1 day without regard to fine
(Rule 112, Section 1)
■ Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigation:
– Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants
– National and Regional State Prosecutors
– Other officers as may be authorized by law
■ All other offenses:
– MTC, MTCC, Office of the Prosecutor
– Manila and Other Chartered Cities: Office of the Prosecutor unless
otherwise provided in their charters
Place where Action is to be Instituted
■ Court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed
or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.
■ On Train, Aircraft, or Other Vehicle
– Court of any municipality or territory where said train, aircraft, or
other vehicle passed during its trip, including the place of departure
and arrival
■ On Board a Vessel in the course of its Voyage
– Court of the first port of entry or of any municipality or territory where
the vessel passed during such voyage, subject to the general
principles of international law
■ Outside the Philippines but punishable under Article 2 of the RPC
– Court where the criminal action is first filed
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
Counter-Affidavit
■ Filed within 10 days from receipt of the subpoena with the
complaint and supporting affidavits and documents
■ Subscribed and sworn to
■ Certified
■ Copies furnished to the complainant
Counter-Affidavit
1. Identity of affiant and other personal circumstances
2. Statement of venue
3. Factual allegations to show violation or defense
4. Signature of affiant
5. Verification
6. Certification as to Personal Examination of Affiant
7. Supporting Documents/Affidavits
INFORMATION
Information
■ An accusation in writing charging a person with an offense subscribed
by the prosecutor and filed with the court (Rule 110, Section 4)
■ States the following:
1. Parties
2. Designation of offense by statute
3. Acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense
4. Approximate time of the commission of the offense
5. Place of commission
6. Signature of prosecutor
7. Verification
8. Certification of PI or Inquest
Information
Sufficiency (Rule 110, Section 6; People v. Canares)
1. Name of all the accused
2. Designation of the offense given by the statute
3. Acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense
4. Name of the offended party
5. Approximate date of the commission of the offense
6. Place where the offense was committed

■ Test for Sufficiency: Whether the crime is described in intelligible terms with such
particularity as to apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the offense
charged (Lazarte Jr. v. Sandiganbayan)
■ Basis: To enable the accused to suitably prepare for his defense (People v. Cinco)
Information
Name of all the accused
■ If known: Name and Surname OR any appellation or nickname – has been or is known
■ If unknown: Described under a fictitious name with statement that the true name is
unknown
Designation of the offense given by the statute
■ Designation given by the statute (not mandatory)
■ Sufficient if describes the crime defined by law
Acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense
■ Acts or omissions complained of
■ Qualifying and aggravating circumstances
■ Ordinary and concise
■ Enable the person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as
well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce a
judgment
Information
Name of the offended party
■ If known: Name and Surname OR any appellation or nickname – has been or is known
■ If unknown: Described under a fictitious name; Offenses against property – property must be
identified with such particularity as to the identify the offense charged
■ Juridical Person: Name/any name or designation by which it is known or may be identified
Approximate date of the commission of the offense
■ Precise date not necessary. Except when it is a material ingredient of the offense (i.e. Infanticide –
killing of a child less than 3 days old)
■ Approximate date is sufficient (i.e. on or about Feb. 2018)
Place where the offense was committed
■ Allegation of specific place not required. Requirement is satisfied if it is alleged that the offense
was committed, or some of the essential ingredients occurred at some place within the jurisdiction
of the court
■ EX: If the place of the commission constitutes an essential element of the offense (i.e. carrying a
deadly weapon within 30-m range of a polling place or a violation of a zoning ordinance)
PETITION FOR BAIL
Bail
■ No person under detention by legal process shall be released or
transferred except upon order of the court or when he is admitted to
bail.
■ A security given for the release of a person in custody of the law,
furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before
any court
■ It may be a corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or
recognizance
Bail: Where to File
■ The court where the case is pending, or
■ In the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with any RTC, or MTC judge in
the province, city, or municipality.
■ If the accused is arrested in a province, city or municipality other than where the
case is pending:
– Any RTC of said place, or if no judge thereof is available, with any MTC judge
therein.
■ Where the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the accused seeks to be
released on recognizance:
– Only in the court where the case is pending, whether on preliminary investigation,
trial, or on appeal.
■ Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court:
– Any court in the province, city, or municipality where he is held.
Bail: Conditions of the Bail
All kinds of bail are subject to the following conditions:
(a) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and unless
cancelled, shall remain in force at all stages of the case until
promulgation of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, irrespective of
whether the case was originally filed in or appealed to it;
(b) The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever required
by the court of these Rules;
(c) The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification
and despite due notice shall be deemed a waiver of his right to be
present thereat. In such case, the trial may proceed in absentia; and
(d) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution
of the final judgment
Bail
■ When bail is a matter of right: All persons in custody shall be admitted
to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or released on
recognize as prescribed by law or this Rule: (a) before or after
conviction by the MTC, (b) before conviction by the RTC of an offense
not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment
■ When bail is discretionary: Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court
of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary.
Bail
■ 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, quasi-recidivist, 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
Bail
■ When bail is not available: Person charged with a capital offense, or
an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the
criminal prosecution.
■ When bail is not required: When the law or these Rules so provide OR
When a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than
the possible maximum imprisonment prescribe for the offense
charged without application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any
modifying circumstance shall be released on a reduced bail or on his
own recognizance, at the discretion of the court.
Guidelines for Amount of Bail
■ REASONABLE AMOUNT of bail considering primarily, but not limited to, the following
factors:
(a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;
(b) Nature and circumstances of the offense;
(c) Penalty for the offense charged;
(d) Character and reputation of the accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;
(f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;
(g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bail;
(i) The fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
(j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.
■ Excessive bail shall not be required
Bail
■ No bail shall be allowed after the judgment of conviction has become final.
■ Except: If before such finality, accused applied for probation, he may be allowed
temporary liberty under his bail.
■ When no bail was filed or the accused is incapable of filing one, the court may allow
his release on recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of the
community.
■ In no case shall bail be allowed after the accused has commenced to serve
sentence.
■ An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging:
the validity of his arrest; or the legality of the warrant issued therefor; or the
regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation, provided that
he raises them before entering his plea.
■ The court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable but not later than the start
of the trial of the case.
Bail: Contents
1. Full name and address of the accused
2. Amount of the undertaking
3. Conditions required
4. Photographs – passport size, taken within the last six (6) months,
showing the face, left and right profiles of the accused.
POST-JUDGMENT
REMEDIES
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION/
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Motion for Reconsideration/Motion for New Trial
■ Before the judgment of conviction becomes final:
Ø MR
■ Errors of law in the judgment which requires no further proceedings
■ Errors of fact in the judgment which requires no further proceedings
Ø MNT
■ Errors of law have been committed during the trial
■ Irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused have been committed
■ New and material evidence has been discovered

■ Notice of the MNT/MR shall be given to the prosecutor


■ Hearing on the motion shall be conducted with the MR/MNT calls for a resolution of
a fact
■ Filed with Court who rendered decision appealed from
Requisites under the Rules of Court:
1. Must be in writing
2. State the grounds on which it is based
3. Material date (date when the decision was received and date of filing;
for the reckoning of the 15 day reglementary period)
4. If basis is newly discovered evidence à include affidavits of
witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given or by duly
authenticated copies thereof
5. Notice of MR/MNT shall be given to the prosecutor
APPEALS
Where to Appeal
WHERE TO APPEAL JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM HOW TO APPEAL
RENDERED BY
RTC MTC, MeTC. MCTC Notice of appeal filed with
Court which rendered the
judgment appealed from and
serving a copy thereof upon
the adverse party
CA RTC in the exercise of its Filing a petition for review with
appellate jurisdiction (so from said court under Rule 42
MTC, MeTC, MCTC or 2nd
appeal already)
CA RTC in the exercise of its Notice of appeal filed with
original jurisdiction (case Court which rendered the
originated in the RTC, 4-2-1 judgment appealed from and
rule) serving a copy thereof upon
the adverse party
Where to Appeal
WHERE TO APPEAL JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM HOW TO APPEAL
RENDERED BY
CA RTC imposes death penalty Automatic review of the CA
SC RTC in the exercise of original Filing a petition for review on
jurisdiction on pure question of certiorari under Rule 45 on
law pure questions of law
SC CA Filing a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 on
pure questions of law
Appeals
■ Must be taken within 15 days from
– Promulgation of the judgment or
– From notice of final order appealed from
■ 15- day period is suspended by a timely filing of a MR/MNT
– Upon denial of MR/MNT – fresh 15 day period under the Neypes Rule
Notice of Appeal
■ Indicate material dates
■ That the party is intended to appeal
■ Send to the court which rendered decision to be appealed from
Petition for Review under Rule 42
■ To the CA
■ 7 legible copies
– Full names of parties to the case without impleading the lower courts
– Specific material dates showing it was filed on time
– Statement of the matters involved, issues raised, specifications of
errors of fact or law
■ Reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of appeal
– Clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of judgment or final
order of BOTH COURTS (first level and RTC)
– Plain copies of material portions of record
– CNFS
– Verified
Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 45 (to the SC)
■ To the SC
■ 18 copies
– state the full name of the appealing party as the petitioner and the adverse party as
respondent, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners
or respondents
– indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or
resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration,
if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received
– set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, and the reasons or arguments
relied on for the allowance of the petition
– be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a certified true copy of the
judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of the court a quo and
the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions of the record as
would support the petition; and
■ contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of
section 2, Rule 42
Appellants Brief
■ A subject index of the matter in the brief with a digest of the arguments and page references, and a
table of cases alphabetically arranged, textbooks and statutes cited with references to the pages
where they are cited;
■ An assignment of errors intended to be urged, which errors shall be separately, distinctly and
concisely stated without repetition and numbered consecutively;
■ Under the heading "Statement of the Case," a clear and concise statement of the nature of the
action, a summary of the proceedings, the appealed rulings and orders of the court, the nature of
the judgment and any other matters necessary to an understanding of the nature of the
controversy with page references to the record;
■ Under the heading "Statement of Facts," a clear and concise statement in a narrative form of the
facts admitted by both parties and of those in controversy, together with the substance of the proof
relating thereto in sufficient detail to make it clearly intelligible, with page references to the record;
■ A clear and concise statement of the issues of fact or law to be submitted, to the court for its
judgment;
■ Under the heading "Argument," the appellant's arguments on each assignment of error with page
references to the record. The authorities relied upon shall be cited by the page of the report at
which the case begins and the page of the report on which the citation is found;
■ Under the heading "Relief," a specification of the order or judgment which the appellant seeks; and
■ In cases not brought up by record on appeal, the appellant's brief shall contain, as an appendix, a
copy of the judgment or final order appealed from
Appellees Brief
■ A subject index of the matter in the brief with a digest of the arguments and page
references, and a table of cases alphabetically arranged, textbooks and statutes
cited with references to the pages where they are cited;
■ (b) Under the heading "Statement of Facts," the appellee shall state that he accepts
the statement of facts in the appellant's brief, or under the heading "Counter-
Statement of Facts," he shall point out such insufficiencies or inaccuracies as he
believes exist in the appellant's statement of facts with references to the pages of
the record in support thereof, but without repetition of matters in the appellant's
statement of facts; and
■ (c) Under the heading "Argument," the appellee shall set forth his arguments in the
case on each assignment of error with page references to the record. The
authorities relied on shall be cited by the page of the report at which the case
begins and the page of the report on which the citation is found. (17a, R46)