JURISDICTION
during trial. Petitioner must present evidence
Evangelista vs People
Petitioner contends that the trial court has no
jurisdiction over the case filed against him. He
claims that his alleged possession of the subject
firearms transpired while he was at the Dubai
Airport and his possession thereof has ceased
when he left for the Philippines.
Held: Since it has been shown that petitioner was
already in the Philippines when he was found in
possession of the subject firearms and determined
to be without any authority to possess them, an
essential ingredient of the offense, it is beyond
reasonable doubt that the crime was perpetrated
and completed in no other place except the
Philippines.
In order for the courts to acquire jurisdiction in
criminal cases, the offense should have been
committed or any one of its essential ingredients
should have taken place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court. If the evidence adduced
during the trial shows that the offense was
committed somewhere else, the court should
dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.
RULE 110
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Singian, Jr. vs Sandiganbayan
In fine, we hold that “the presence or absence of
the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature
and is a matter of defense that may be passed
upon after a full-blown trial on the merits,” and
“the validity and merits of a party’s defense or
accusation, as well as admissibility of testimonies
and evidence, are better ventilated during trial
proper.” Petitioner’s claims and defenses in his
Demurrer to Evidence can best be tackled during
trial. In the presentation of his defense, he shall
have the opportunity to explain or show why he
should not be made liable. For example, if there is
any truth to the allegation in his Demurrer of
Evidence that the Deed of Undertaking was
altered, or that the signature therein affixed is not
his own, such that there arise serious doubts as to
his participation in the execution of said document,
this can be resolved only upon proof presented
regarding such claim, the truth of which he can
demonstrate during trial. Since this Court is not a
trier of facts, there is no way that this issue can be
resolved by this Court at this stage of the
proceedings.
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs Reynado
It is a hornbook doctrine in our criminal law that
the criminal liability for estafa is not affected by a
compromise, for it is a public offense which must
be prosecuted and punished by the government on
its own motion, even though complete reparation
[has] been made of the damage suffered by the
private offended party. Since a criminal offense like
estafa is committed against the State, the private
offended party may not waive or extinguish the
criminal liability that the law imposes for the
commission of the crime.
Suffice it to say that it is indubitably within the
discretion of the prosecutor to determine who
must be charged with what crime or for what
offense. Public prosecutors, not the private
complainant, are the ones obliged to bring forth
before the law those who have transgressed it.
Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court mandates
that all criminal actions must be commenced either
by complaint or information in the name of the
People of the Philippines against all persons who
appear to be responsible therefor. Thus the law
makes it a legal duty for prosecuting officers to file
the charges against whomsoever the evidence may
show to be responsible for the offense. The proper
remedy under the circumstances where persons
who ought to be charged were not included in the
complaint of the private complainant is definitely
not to dismiss the complaint but to include them in
the information.
RULE 111
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
Lim vs Kou Co Ping
Is it forum shopping for a private complainant to
pursue a civil complaint for specific performance
and damages, while appealing the judgment on the
civil aspect of a criminal case for estafa?
A single act or omission that causes damage to an
offended party may give rise to two separate civil
liabilities on the part of the offender. ―(1) civil
liability ex delicto, that is, civil liability arising from
the criminal offense under Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code, and (2) independent civil
liability, that is, civil liability that may be pursued
independently of the criminal proceedings. The
independent civil liability may be based on “an
obligation not arising from the act or omission
complained of as a felony,” as provided in Article
31 of the Civil Code (such as for breach of contract
or for tort). It may also be based on an act or
omission that may constitute felony but,
nevertheless, treated independently from the
criminal action by specific provision of Article 33 of
the Civil Code (“in cases of defamation, fraud and
physical injuries”).
The civil liability arising from the offense or ex
delicto is based on the acts or omissions that
constitute the criminal offense; hence, its trial is
inherently intertwined with the criminal action. For
this reason, the civil liability ex delicto is impliedly
instituted with the criminal offense.
Because of the distinct and independent nature of
the two kinds of civil liabilities, jurisprudence holds
that the offended party may pursue the two types
of civil liabilities simultaneously or cumulatively,
without offending the rules on forum shopping,
litis pendentia, or res judicata.
RULE 112
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
San Miguel Corporation vs Puzon
The determination of [the existence or absence of
probable cause] lies within the discretion of the
prosecuting officers after conducting a preliminary
investigation upon complaint of an offended party.
Thus, the decision whether to dismiss a complaint
or not is dependent upon the sound discretion of
the prosecuting fiscal. To emphasize, the
determination of probable cause for the filing of
information in court is an executive function, one
that properly pertains at the first instance to the
public prosecutor and, ultimately, to the Secretary
of Justice, who may direct the filing of the
corresponding information or move for the
dismissal of the case. Ultimately, whether or not a
complaint will be dismissed is dependent on the
sound discretion of the Secretary of Justice. And
unless made with grave abuse of discretion,
findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject
to review. For this reason, the Court considers it
sound judicial policy to refrain from interfering in
the conduct of preliminary investigations and to
leave the Department of Justice ample latitude of
discretion in the determination of what constitutes
sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for
the prosecution of supposed offenders. Consistent
with this policy, courts do not reverse the Secretary
of Justice’s findings and conclusions on the matter
of probable cause except in clear cases of grave
abuse of discretion.
Metropolitan Bank vs Reynado
Generally, a public prosecutor is afforded a wide
latitude of discretion in the conduct of a
preliminary investigation. By way of exception,
however, judicial review is allowed where
respondent has clearly established that the
prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion.
To emphasize, a preliminary investigation for the
purpose of determining the existence of probable
cause 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.” A “finding of probable cause does not
require inquiry into whether there is sufficient
evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that
it is believed that the act or omission complained
of constitutes the offense charged.”
RULE 113
ARREST
Villamor and Bonoaobra vs People
In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section
5(a), Rule 113, two elements must concur, namely
"(a) 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 (b) such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
A waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does not
carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of
evidence seized during an illegal warrantless
arrest.
People vs Collado
A common example of an arrest in flagrante delicto
is one made after conducting a buy-bust operation.
Thus, there is no other logical conclusion than that
the arrest made by the police officers was a valid
warrantless arrest since the same was made while
the appellants were actually committing the said
crimes.
Assuming that irregularities indeed attended the
arrest of appellants, they can no longer question
the validity thereof as there is no showing that they
objected to the same before their arraignment.
Neither did they take steps to quash the
Informations on such ground. They only raised this
issue upon their appeal to the appellate court. By
this omission, any objections on the legality of their
arrest are deemed to have been waived by them.
Rebelion vs People
At any rate, the illegal arrest of an accused is not
sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment
rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial
free from error. It will not even negate the validity
of the conviction of the accused.
RULE 114
BAIL
People vs Sobrepena
Thus, from the above cited provisions and in cases
involving non-bailable offenses, what is controlling
is the determination of whether the evidence of
guilt is strong which is a matter of judicial
discretion that remains with the judge. The judge
is under legal obligation to conduct a hearing
whether summary or otherwise in the discretion of
the court to determine the existence of strong
evidence or lack of it against the accused to enable
the judge to make an intelligent assessment of the
evidence presented by the parties. “The court’s
grant or refusal of bail must contain a summary of
the evidence of the prosecution on the basis of
which should be formulated the judge’s own
conclusion on whether such evidence is strong
enough to indicate the guilt of the accused.”
In People v. Plaza, 602 SCRA 457 (2009), the Court
defined a summary hearing and expounded the
court’s discretionary power to grant bail to an
accused. “A summary hearing is defined as ‘such
brief and speedy method of receiving and
considering the evidence of guilt as is practicable
and consistent with the purpose of hearing which
is merely to determine the weight of evidence for
the purposes of bail.’ On such hearing, the Court
does not sit to try the merits or to enter into any
nice inquiry as to the weight that ought to be
allowed to the evidence for or against the accused,
nor will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or
on what further evidence may be therein offered
and admitted. The course of inquiry may be left to
the discretion of the court which may confine itself
to receiving such evidence as has reference to
substantial matters, avoiding unnecessary
examination and cross-examination.”
Balanay vs Adalim-White
Bail hearing is necessary even if the prosecution
does not interpose any objection or leaves the
application for bail to the sound discretion of the
court.
Stressing the necessity of bail hearing, this Court
pronounced that: The Court has always stressed
the indispensable nature of a bail hearing in
petitions for bail. Where bail is a matter of
discretion, the grant or the denial of bail hinges on
the issue of whether or not the evidence on the
guilt of the accused is strong and the
determination of whether or not the evidence is
strong is a matter of judicial discretion which
remains with the judge. In order for the judge to
properly exercise this discretion, he must first
conduct a hearing to determine whether the
evidence of guilt is strong. This discretion lies not
in the determination of whether or not a hearing
should be held, but in the appreciation and
evaluation of the weight of the prosecution’s
evidence of guilt against the accused.
In any event, whether bail is a matter of right or
discretion, a hearing for a petition for bail is
required in order for the court to consider the
guidelines set forth in Section 9, Rule 114 of the
Rules of Court in fixing the amount of bail. This
Court has repeatedly held in past cases that even if
the prosecution fails to adduce evidence in
opposition to an application for bail of an accused,
the court may still require the prosecution to
answer questions in order to ascertain, not only
the strength of the State’s evidence, but also the
adequacy of the amount of bail.
People vs Brita
Appellant asserts that the grant of bail bolsters his
claim that the evidence of the prosecution is not
strong enough to prove his guilt. The Court is not
convinced. “[A] grant of bail does not prevent [the
trial court, as] the trier of facts, x x x from making
a final assessment of the evidence after full trial on
the merits.” As the Court ruled in People v. Baldoz,
369 SCRA 690 (2001), “[s]uch appreciation [of
evidence] is at best preliminary and should not
prevent the trial judge from making a final
assessment of the evidence before him after full
trial. It is not an uncommon occurrence that an
accused person granted bail is convicted in due
course.”
RULE 115
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
People vs Nielles
There is likewise no merit in her contention that
the prosecution is guilty of suppression of evidence
when they did not present these sub-guarantors
simply because the defense, on its own initiative,
could very well compel, thru the compulsory
processes of the court, the attendance of these
sub-guarantors as witnesses.
RULE 117
MOTION TO QUASH
People vs Cunanan
Jurisprudence is settled that “any irregularity
attending the arrest of an accused should be timely
raised in a motion to quash the Information at any
time before arraignment, failing [in] which, he is
deemed to have waived” his right to question the
regularity of his arrest. As the records show, except
during the inquest proceedings before the
prosecutor’s office, appellant never objected to
the regularity of his arrest before his arraignment.
In fact, he even actively participated in the trial of
the case. With these lapses, he is estopped from
raising any question regarding the same.
Soriano vs People
It is settled that in considering a motion to quash
on such ground, the test is “whether the facts
alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish
the essential elements of the offense charged as
defined by law. The trial court may not consider a
situation contrary to that set forth in the criminal
complaint or information. Facts that constitute the
defense of the petitioner[s] against the charge
under the information must be proved by [him]
during trial. Such facts or circumstances do not
constitute proper grounds for a motion to quash
the information on the ground that the material
averments do not constitute the offense.
RULE 119 (Sec. 23)
TRIAL
People vs Go
Demurrer to the evidence is “an objection by one
of the parties in an action, to the effect that the
evidence which his adversary produced is
insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to
make out a case or sustain the issue. The party
demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole
evidence to sustain a verdict. The court, in passing
upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a
demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether
there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain
the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.
Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a
demurrer thereto is such evidence in character,
weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial
or official action demanded according to the
circumstances. To be considered sufficient
therefore, the evidence must prove: (a) the
commission of the crime, and (b) the precise
degree of participation therein by the accused.”
Thus, when the accused files a demurrer, the court
must evaluate whether the prosecution evidence is
sufficient enough to warrant the conviction of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left
to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its
ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the
absence of a grave abuse of such discretion.” As to
effect, “the grant of a demurrer to evidence
amounts to an acquittal and cannot be appealed
because it would place the accused in double
jeopardy. The order is reviewable only by certiorari
if it was issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.” When
grave abuse of discretion is present, an order
granting a demurrer becomes null and void.
The granting of a demurrer to evidence should be
exercised with caution, taking into consideration
not only the rights of the accused, but also the right
of the private offended party to be vindicated of
the wrongdoing done against him, for if it is
granted, the accused is acquitted and the private
complainant is generally left with no more remedy.
Singian, Jr. vs Sandiganbayan
A demurrer to the evidence is an objection by one
of the parties in an action, to the effect that the
evidence which his adversary produced is
insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to
make out a case or sustain the issue. The party
demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole
evidence to sustain a verdict. The court, in passing
upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a
demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether
there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain
the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.”
“Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a
demurrer thereto is such evidence in character,
weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial
or official action demanded according to the
circumstances. To be considered sufficient
therefore, the evidence must prove: (a) the
commission of the crime, and (b) the precise
degree of participation therein by the accused.
At the outset, we emphasize that “[t]he resolution
of a demurrer to evidence should be left to the
exercise of sound judicial discretion. A lower
court’s order of denial shall not be disturbed, that
is, the appellate courts will not review the
prosecution’s evidence and precipitately decide
whether such evidence has established the guilt of
the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, unless
accused has established that such judicial
discretion has been gravely abused, thereby
amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. Mere
allegations of such abuse will not suffice.
People vs Sandiganbayan
In criminal cases, the grant of a demurrer is
tantamount to an acquittal and the dismissal order
may not be appealed because this would place the
accused in double jeopardy. Although the dismissal
order is not subject to appeal, it is still reviewable
but only through certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court. For the writ to issue, the trial court
must be shown to have acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction such as where the prosecution was
denied the opportunity to present its case or
where the trial was a sham thus rendering the
assailed judgment void. The burden is on the
petitioner to clearly demonstrate that the trial
court blatantly abused its authority to a point so
grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense
justice.
RULE 120 JUDGMENT
Almuerte vs People
The practice of requiring the convict to appear
before the trial court for “promulgation” of the
judgment of the appellate court should, therefore,
be immediately discontinued. It is not only an
unauthorized surplusage entailing unnecessary
expense, but it could also create security problems
where the convict was already under detention
during the pendency of the appeal, and the place
of confinement is at some distance from the
station of the court. Upon receipt of the certified
copy of the judgment of the appellate court if the
convict is under detention, the trial court should
issue forthwith the corresponding mittimus or
commitment order so that the prisoner may be
considered remitted or may be transferred to the
corresponding prison facility for confinement and
service of sentence.
When the convict is out on bail, the trial court shall
immediately order the bondsman to surrender the
convict to it within ten (10) days from notice and
thereafter issue the corresponding mittimus. In
both cases, the trial court shall submit to this Court
proof of the execution of judgment within fifteen
(15) days from date of such execution. (Emphasis
supplied) x x x x It is clear from the foregoing that
the practice of requiring convicts to appear before
the trial courts for promulgation of the affirmance
or modification by this Court or the CA of
judgments of conviction in criminal cases is no
longer allowed.
A final judgment may no longer be altered,
amended or modified, even if the alteration,
amendment or modification is meant to correct
what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of
fact or law and regardless of what court, be it the
highest court of the land, rendered it.
However, this Court has suspended the application
of this rule based on certain recognized exceptions,
viz.: Aside from matters of life, liberty, honor or
property which would warrant the suspension of
the Rules of the most mandatory character and an
examination and review by the appellate court of
the lower court’s findings of fact, the other
elements that should be considered are the
following: (a) the existence of special or compelling
circumstances, (b) the merits of the case, (c) a
cause not entirely attributable to the fault or
negligence of the party favored by the suspension
of the rules, (d) a lack of any showing that the
review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and
(e) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced
thereby.
In People v. Gatward the Court explicitly stated
that by merely modifying the penalty imposed, it is
not reopening the case; neither is it saying that
there was error in judgment. Thus, the correction
to be made by this Court is meant only for the
penalty imposed against petitioner to be in
accordance with the law and nothing else. It is not
tantamount to a reduction in order to be favorable
to the petitioner nor an increase so as to be
prejudicial to him.
Abelana vs People
It is an established rule in criminal procedure that
a judgment of acquittal shall state whether the
evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to
prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either
case, the judgment shall determine if the act or
omission from which the civil liability might arise
did not exist. When the exoneration is merely due
to the failure to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt, the court should award
the civil liability in favor of the offended party in
the same criminal action. In other words, the
“extinction of the penal action does not carry with
it the extinction of civil liability unless the
extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final
judgment that the fact from which the civil
[liability] might arise did not exist.
RULE 122
APPEAL
Olarte vs People
Pursuant to Section 3, Rule 122, and Section 9, Rule
45, of the Rules of Court, the review on appeal of a
decision in a criminal case, wherein the CA imposes
a penalty other than death, reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment, is by petition for review on
certiorari. A petition for review on certiorari raises
only questions of law.
Tanenggee vs People
A rule of long standing in this jurisdiction is that
findings of a trial court, when affirmed by the CA,
are accorded great weight and respect. Absent any
reason to deviate from the said findings, as in this
case, the same should be deemed conclusive and
binding to this Court.
People vs Banig
A judgment of acquittal is final and is no longer
reviewable. As we have previously held in People
v. Court of Appeals, 516 SCRA 383 (2007), “[a]
verdict of acquittal is immediately final and a
reexamination of the merits of such acquittal, even
in the appellate courts, will put the accused in
jeopardy for the same offense.” True, the finality
of acquittal rule is not one without exception as
when the trial court commits grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. In such a case, the judgment of
acquittal may be questioned through the
extraordinary writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court.
RULE 126
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Petron Gasul LPG Dealers Association vs Lao
A search warrant (SW) is defined as a written order
issued in the name of the People of the Philippines,
signed by a judge, and directed to a peace officer
commanding him to search for the personal
property described therein and bring it to the
court.
SW shall be issued only upon probable cause
personally determined 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. In
turn, probable cause for SW refers to such “facts
and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed and that the objects
sought in connection with the offense are in the
place to be searched.
Generally, the SW application must be filed with
the court which has territorial jurisdiction over the
place where the offense was alleged to be
committed. This, however, is not an iron-clad rule.
For compelling reasons, which must be expressly
stated in the application, an SW application may be
filed in a court other than the one having
jurisdiction over the place where the purported
offense was committed and where the SW shall be
enforced.
People vs Collado
Anent their claim of unreasonable search and
seizure, it is true that under the Constitution, “a
search and consequent seizure must be carried out
with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes
unreasonable and any evidence obtained
therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceeding.” This proscription, however,
admits of exceptions, one of which is a warrantless
search incidental to a lawful arrest. The arrest of
the appellants was lawful. Under Section 13, Rule
126 of the Rules of Court, “[a] person lawfully
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons
or anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense
without a search warrant.” The factual milieu of
this case clearly shows that the search was made
after appellants were lawfully arrested. Pursuant
to the above-mentioned rule, the subsequent
search and seizure made by the police officers
were likewise valid. Hence, appellants’ claim of
unreasonable search and seizure must fail.
NON-JDMC CASES:
Crespo vs Mogul
Thus, a fiscal who asks for the dismissal of the case
for insufficiency of evidence has authority to do so,
and Courts that grant the same commit no error.
The fiscal may re-investigate a case and
subsequently move for the dismissal should the re-
investigation show either that the defendant is
innocent or that his guilt may not be established
beyond reasonable doubt. In a clash of views
between the judge who did not investigate and the
fiscal who did, or between the fiscal and the
offended party or the defendant, those of the
fiscal’s should normally prevail. On the other hand,
neither an injunction, preliminary or final nor a writ
of prohibition may be issued by the Courts to
restrain a criminal prosecution except in the
extreme case where it is necessary for the Courts
to do so for the orderly administration of justice or
to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in
an oppressive and vindictive manner.
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.
Where the court refuses to grant the fiscal’s
motion to dismiss, including a case where the
Secretary of Justice ordered the fiscal to move to
dismiss the case, the fiscal should continue to
appear in the case although he may turn over the
presentation of evidence to the private prosecutor.
People vs Tionloc
The character of the crime is not determined by the
caption or preamble of the Information nor from
the specification of the provision of law alleged to
have been violated, but by the recital of the
ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint
or information.
DOJ Circular 70-A
All petitions for review of resolutions of
Provincial/City Prosecutors in cases cognizable by
the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, except in
the National Capital Region, shall be filed with the
Regional State Prosecutor
People vs Arrojado
An information is defined as an accusation in
writing charging a person with an offense,
subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the
court. In accordance with the above definitions, it
is clear that an information is a pleading since the
allegations therein, which charge a person with an
offense, is basically the same as a complaint in a
civil action which alleges a plaintiff’s cause or cause
of action.
In other words, it is the plain and concise
statement of the facts constituting the cause of
action. It bears the same relation to a criminal
action that a complaint does to a civil action; and,
when verified, its object is not to satisfy the court
or jury that the defendant is guilty, nor is it for the
purpose of evidence which is to be weighed and
passed upon, but is only to inform the defendant
of the precise acts or omissions with which he is
accused, the truth of which is to be determined
thereafter by direct and positive evidence upon a
trial, where the defendant is brought face to face
with the witnesses.
The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction
of the court over the person of the accused—a
waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does not
carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of
evidence seized during an illegal warrantless
arrest.
The long standing rule in this jurisdiction is that
“reliable information” alone is not sufficient to
justify a warrantless arrest—the rule requires, in
addition, that the accused perform some overt act
that would indicate that he has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense.
Recent jurisprudence holds that in searches
incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest must precede
the search; generally, the process cannot be
reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially
contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the
arrest if the police have probable cause to make
the arrest at the outset of the search.
What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable
warrantless search or seizure is purely a judicial
question, determinable from the uniqueness of the
circumstances involved, including the purpose of
the search or seizure, the presence or absence of
probable cause, the manner in which the search
and seizure was made, the place or thing searched,
and the character of the articles procured.
People vs Plaza
[W]hen bail is discretionary, a hearing, whether
summary or otherwise in the discretion of the
court, should first be conducted to determine the
existence of strong evidence or lack of it, against
the accused to enable the judge to make an
intelligent assessment of the evidence presented
by the parties. A summary hearing is defined as
“such brief and speedy method of receiving and
considering the evidence of guilt as is practicable
and consistent with the purpose of hearing which
is merely to determine the weight of evidence for
the purposes of bail.” On such hearing, the court
does not sit to try the merits or to enter into any
nice inquiry as to the weight that ought to be
allowed to the evidence for or against the accused,
nor will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or
on what further evidence may be therein offered
and admitted. The course of inquiry may be left to
the discretion of the court which may confine itself
to receiving such evidence as has reference to
substantial matters, avoiding unnecessary
examination and cross examination.”
Where the judge who took over the case concurred
with the assessment of the previous judge when he
denied the Demurrer to Evidence, and the latter’s
statement that the evidence was sufficient to
convict the accused of Homicide, holding a
summary hearing merely to determine whether
the accused was entitled to bail would have been
unnecessary as the evidence in chief was already
presented by the prosecution.
Atty. White vs. Judge Bugtas
It is patently erroneous for a judge to release a
convict on recognizance. A convict’s release from
prison before he serves the full term of his
sentence is either due to good conduct allowances,
or through the approval of the convict’s application
for parole, or in cases where he is granted pardon
by the President.
Section 24, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court is plain
and clear in prohibiting the grant of bail after
conviction by final judgment and after the convict
has started to serve sentence, the only exception
being when the convict has applied for probation
before he commences to serve sentence, provided
the penalty and the offense are within the purview
of the Probation Law.
Sections 5 and 16, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court
apply only to an accused undergoing preventive
imprisonment during trial or on appeal. They do
not apply to a person convicted by final judgment
and already serving sentence.
Trillanes vs Pimentel
The Rules of Court state that 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,
and within the class of offenses covered by the
stated range of imposable penalties, there is
clearly no distinction as to the political complexion
of or moral turpitude involved in the crime charged
(i.e. apply equally to rape and coup d’ etat).
Moreover, circumstances indicating probability of
flight find relevance as a factor in ascertaining the
reasonable amount of bail and in canceling a
discretionary grant of bail. In cases involving non-
bailable offenses, what is controlling is the
determination of whether the evidence of guilt is
strong. Once it is established that it is so, bail shall
be denied as it is neither a matter of right nor of
discretion.
Sanchez vs Demetriou
At any rate, it is settled that the absence of a
preliminary investigation does not impair the
validity of the information or otherwise render the
same defective and neither does it affect the
jurisdiction of the court over the case or constitute
a ground for quashing the information. If no
preliminary investigation has been held, or if it is
flawed, the trial court may, on motion of the
accused, order an investigation or reinvestigation
and hold the proceedings in the criminal cases in
abeyance.
Application of actual force, manual touching of the
body, physical restraint or a formal declaration of
arrest is not required. It is enough that there be an
intent on the part of one of the parties to arrest the
other and an intent on the part of the other to
submit, under the belief and impression that
submission is necessary.
Ordinarily, an invitation to attend a hearing and
answer some questions, which the person invited
may heed or refuse at his pleasure, is not illegal or
constitutionally objectionable. It may not be amiss
to observe that under R.A. No. 7438, the requisites
of a “custodial investigation” are applicable even
to a person not formally arrested but merely
“invited” for questioning.
The rule is that if the accused objects to the
jurisdiction of the court over his person, he may
move to quash the information, but only on that
ground. If, as in this case, the accused raises other
grounds in the motion to quash, he is deemed to
have waived that objection and to have submitted
his person to the jurisdiction of the court.
Malaloan vs CA
The basic flaw in this reasoning is in erroneously
equating the application for and the obtention of a
search warrant with the institution and
prosecution of a criminal action in a trial court. It
would thus categorize what is only a special
criminal process, the power to issue which is
inherent in all courts, as equivalent to a criminal
action, jurisdiction over which is reposed in specific
courts of indicated competence. It ignores the fact
that the requisites, procedure and purpose for the
issuance of a search warrant are completely
different from those for the institution of a criminal
action.
A warrant, such as a warrant of arrest or a search
warrant, merely constitutes process. A search
warrant is in the nature of a criminal process akin
to a writ of discovery. It is a special and peculiar
remedy, drastic in its nature, and made necessary
because of a public necessity.
Invariably, a judicial process is defined as a writ,
warrant, subpoena, or other formal writing issued
by authority of law; also the means of
accomplishing an end, including judicial
proceedings, or all writs, warrants, summonses,
and orders of courts of justice or judicial officers. It
is likewise held to include a writ, summons, or
order issued in a judicial proceeding to acquire
jurisdiction of a person or his property, to expedite
the cause or enforce the judgment, or a writ,
warrant, mandate, or other process issuing from a
court of justice.
It is clear, therefore, that a search warrant is
merely a judicial process designed by the Rules to
respond only to an incident in the main case, if one
has already been instituted, or in anticipation
thereof.
It is incorrect to say that only the court which has
jurisdiction over the criminal case can issue the
search warrant. It does not mean that a court
whose territorial jurisdiction does not embrace the
place to be searched cannot issue a search warrant
therefor where the obtention of that search
warrant is necessitated and justified by compelling
considerations of urgency, subject, time and place.
In our jurisdiction, no period is provided for the
enforceability of warrants of arrest, and although
within ten days from the delivery of the warrant of
arrest for execution a return thereon must be
made to the issuing judge, said warrant does not
become functus officio but is enforceable
indefinitely until the same is enforced or recalled.
On the other hand, the lifetime of a search warrant
has been expressly set in our Rules at ten days but
there is no provision as to the extent of the
territory wherein it may be enforced, provided it is
implemented on and within the premises
specifically described therein which may or may
not be within the territorial jurisdiction of the
issuing court.