CRIMPRO OUTLINE

Source: Escobal and Quintana's notes

RULE 110:
Preliminary Investigation -> part of criminal action for determination of probable cause

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION PROCESS

• Upon filing of complaint with the prosecutor’s office -> Offended Party’s name (Deal Cruz) vs
Offender’s name (Perez)
• If there is probable cause, an information will be filed -> People of the Philippines vs Perez

Cases:
1) [G.R. No. L-53373. June 30, 1987.] MARIO FL. CRESPO, petitioner, vs. HON. LEODEGARIO L.
MOGUL, Presiding Judge, CIRCUIT CRIMINAL COURT OF LUCENA CITY, 9th Judicial Dist., THE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the SOLICITOR GENERAL, RICARDO BAUTISTA, ET
AL., respondents.

2) [G.R. No. L-41213-14. October 5, 1976.] JORGE P. TAN, JR., CESAR TAN, LIBRADO SODE,
TEOFANIS BONJOC, OSMUNDO TOLENTINO and MARIANO BARTIDO, petitioners, vs. JUDGE
PEDRO GALLARDO , in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Circuit Criminal Court, 13th Judicial District,
Tacloban City, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

3) [G.R. No. 152644. February 10, 2006.] JOHN ERIC LONEY, STEVEN PAUL REID and PEDRO B.
HERNANDEZ, petitioners, vs . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

4) [G.R. No. 202124. April 5, 2016.] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
IRENEO JUGUETA, accused-appellant.

5) [G.R. No. 157472. September 28, 2007.] SSGT. JOSE M. PACOY, petitioner, vs . HON. AFABLE E.
CAJIGAL, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and OLYMPIO L. ESCUETA, respondents.

*Motion to Quash -> Section 3(e) of Rule 117 - accused is filing this in order for him to be aware of the
nature of the crime he is being charged with and to prepare what his defences will be

*Amendments: (a) Formal; (b) Substantial

*Controlling period: ARRAIGNMENT (Before and After) -> Where the court acquires jurisdiction over the
person of the accused

*Substitution: -> note: cannot invoke double jeopardy here

(a) information or complaint will be scrapped because of wrong information

(b) different defines for the accused

(c) a PI again will be conducted for another information



CRIMPRO OUTLINE

Source: Escobal and Quintana's notes

RULE 111:

General Rule:
• Criminal action -> guilty beyond reasonable doubt
• Civil action -> preponderance of evidence

Exceptions: waive, reserve and prior filing

When reservation shall be made:

(a) Before the prosecution starts to present its evidence
(b) Under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation

Purpose: Intended to prevent double recovery from the same act or omission

A. Independent Civil Actions:

Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of
as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the
result of the latter.

Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs,
defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another
person shall be liable to the latter for damages:

In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant’s act or omission constitutes a
criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action
for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal
prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence.

The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.

The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a
violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.

Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate
and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.

Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to
any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages,
and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action herein recognized
shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to
support such action.

Art 2176. Whoever by any act or omission causes damage or injury to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no prexisting
CRIMPRO OUTLINE

Source: Escobal and Quintana's notes

contractual relation between the parties shall be known as Quasi Delict and shall be governed by the
provisions of this chapter

B. Civil Liability

Article 100, Revised Penal Code - Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable

C. Overturning the Maria Clara Doctrine -


*new rape law - [GR nos. 225642-43. January 17, 2018] People of the Philippines vs. Juvy D. Amarela
and Junard G. Racho

*old rape law - [G.R. No. L-11991. October 31, 1960] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee, vs. ORFIRIO TAÑO, ET AL., defendants. PORFIRIO TAÑO and DIONISIO CANTONG,
defendants-appellants

D. How criminal liability is extinguished


Article 89, Revised Penal Code - How criminal liability is totally extinguished. - Criminal liability is totally
extinguished:

1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor
is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.

2. By service of the sentence;

3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;

4. By absolute pardon;

5. By prescription of the crime;

6. By prescription of the penalty;

7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of this Code.

E. Partial Execution (Pardon, Good Conduct)


Article 94, Revised Penal Code - Partial Extinction of criminal liability. - Criminal liability is extinguished
partially:

1. By conditional pardon;

2. By commutation of the sentence; and

3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving his sentence.

F. Article 1126, Civil Code - Against a title recorded in the Registry of Property, ordinary prescription of
ownership or real rights shall not take place to the prejudice of a third person, except in virtue of another
title also recorded; and the time shall begin to run from the recording of the latter.

As to lands registered under the Land Registration Act, the provisions of that special law shall govern.
(1949a)

G. Article 344, Revised Penal Code - 


Article 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of
lasciviousness. - The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended spouse.
CRIMPRO OUTLINE

Source: Escobal and Quintana's notes

The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty parties, if they
are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders.

The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon
a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the
offender has been expressly pardoned by the above named persons, as the case may be.

In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The
provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories
after the fact of the above-mentioned crimes.

Cases:

1) [G.R. No. L-28232 February 6, 1971] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
JAIME JOSE Y GOMEZ, ET AL., defendants. JAIME JOSE Y GOMEZ, BASILIO PINEDA, JR., alias
"BOY," EDGARDO AQUINO Y PAYUMO and ROGELIO CAÑAL Y SEVILLA, defendants-appellants.

2) [G.R. No. 122150. March 17, 2003] George (Culhi) Hambon, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and
Valentino U. Carantes, respondents.

3) [G.R. No. 102007 September 2, 1994] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
ROGELIO BAYOTAS y CORDOVA

4) [G.R. No. 182210, October 05, 2015] PAZ T. BERNARDO, SUBSTITUTED BY HEIRS, MAPALAD G.
BERNARDO, EMILIE B. KO, MARILOU B. VALDEZ, EDWIN T. BERNARDO AND GERVY B. SANTOS,
Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

5) [G.R. No. 163879 July 30, 2014] DR. ANTONIO P. CABUGAO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES and SPOUSES RODOLFO M. PALMA and ROSARIO F. PALMA, Respondents. And [G.R.
No. 165805] DR. CLENIO YNZON, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and SPOUSES
RODOLFO M. PALMA AND ROSARIO F. PALMA, Respondents

*about prejudicial question:

6) [G.R. No. L-53642 April 15, 1988] LEONILO C. DONATO, petitioners, vs. HON. ARTEMON D. LUNA,
PRESIDING JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANIIA, BRANCH XXXII HON. JOSE
FLAMINIANO, CITY FISCAL OF MANILA; PAZ B. ABAYAN, respondents.

7) [G.R. No. 138509. July 31, 2000] IMELDA MARBELLA-BOBIS, petitioner, vs. ISAGANI D. BOBIS,
respondent.

8) [G.R. No. 126746. November 29, 2000] ARTHUR TE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and
LILIANA CHOA, respondents.

9) [G.R. No. 159186. June 5, 2009] JESSE Y. YAP, Petitioner, vs HON. MONICO G. CABALES, Presiding
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, General Santos City; MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, Branch 1,
General Santos City; COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, JOVITA DIMALANTA and
MERGYL MIRABUENO, Respondents.
CRIMPRO OUTLINE

Source: Escobal and Quintana's notes

10) [G.R. No. 186597. June 17, 2015] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. VICTORIA R.
ARAMBULO and MIGUELARAMBULO, JR., Respondents.

RULE 112:

*Preliminary Investigation

(1) Determine - sufficient ground

(2) Engender - well-founded belief

(3) Commission of a crime - respondent’s guilty

(4) Should be held for trial

*Inquest -> a summary procedure establishing the probable cause of a lawfully arrested person without a
warrant (valid warrantless arrest)

According to Rule 113 Section 5 of the Rules of Court:

(a) When, in the presence of the policemen, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offence.

(b) When an offence has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe, based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it.

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment.

• Can a person be charged and be convicted of estate and BP 22 simultaneously? YES, because
the offenses are different in terms of how it is committed. BP 22- Issuing of a bouncing check
Estafa - mere act of inducing the seller to part with her wares for the belief of well-funded check.

Warrantless arrest may be effected:


From Rules of Court -
CRIMPRO OUTLINE

Source: Escobal and Quintana's notes

Section 5, Rule 113 - Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. — All criminal actions commenced
by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor.
However, in Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts when the prosecutor assigned thereto
or to the case is not available, the offended party, any peace officer, or public officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated may prosecute the case. This authority cease upon actual intervention of
the prosecutor or upon elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court. (This Section was repealed by
A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC effective May 1, 2002)

The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the
offended spouse. The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including the guilty
parties, if both alive, nor, in any case, if the offended party has consented to the offense or pardoned the
offenders.

The offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness shall not be prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents or guardian, nor, in any case, if the
offender has been expressly pardoned by any of them. If the offended party dies or becomes
incapacitated before she can file the complaint, and she has no known parents, grandparents or
guardian, the State shall initiate the criminal action in her behalf.

The offended party, even if a minor, has the right to initiate the prosecution of the offenses of seduction,
abduction and acts of lasciviousness independently of her parents, grandparents, or guardian, unless she
is incompetent or incapable of doing so. Where the offended party, who is a minor, fails to file the
complaint, her parents, grandparents, or guardian may file the same. The right to file the action granted to
parents, grandparents or guardian shall be exclusive of all other persons and shall be exercised
successively in the order herein provided, except as stated in the preceding paragraph.

No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of the offenses mentioned above shall
be brought except at the instance of and upon complaint filed by the offended party. (5a)

The prosecution for violation of special laws shall be governed by the provisions thereof. (n)

Section 13, Rule 113 - Section 13. Duplicity of the offense. — A complaint or information must charge but
one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses. (13a)

Section 23, Rule 114 - Sec. 23. Arrest of accused out on bail. – For the purpose of surrendering the
accused, the bondsmen may arrest him or, upon written authority endorsed on a certified copy of the
undertaking, cause him to be arrested by a police officer or any other person of suitable age and
discretion.

An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to
depart from the Philippines without permission of the court where the case is pending.

(cases):

1) People vs Molina (GR no. 133917. Feb 19 2001)

CRIMPRO OUTLINE

Source: Escobal and Quintana's notes

2) People vs Aruta (GR no. 120915. Apr 31 1998)

3) People vs Aminnudin (GR no. 74869. Jul 6 1998)

4) Posadas vs CA (GR no. 89139. Aug 2 1990)

5) People vs Megote (GR no. 87059. Jun 22 1992)

Rule 113:

Difference between custody and jurisdiction:

> Custody - thru arrest or voluntary surrender

• No jurisdiction yet, person is restrained physically of liberty

> Jurisdiction - acquired

• legal concept when the person of the accused is submitted

*Rule 112 Section 6 -> Section 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. — (a) By the Regional Trial
Court. — Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally
evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the
case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he
shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has already been arrested pursuant
to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the preliminary investigation or when the complaint or
information was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable
cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice
and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint of
information.

(b) By the Municipal Trial Court. — When required pursuant to the second paragraph of section 1 of
this Rule, the preliminary investigation of cases falling under the original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan
Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court may be
conducted by either the judge or the prosecutor. When conducted by the prosecutor, the procedure for the
issuance of a warrant or arrest by the judge shall be governed by paragraph (a) of this section. When the
investigation is conducted by the judge himself, he shall follow the procedure provided in section 3 of this
Rule. If the findings and recommendations are affirmed by the provincial or city prosecutor, or by the
Ombudsman or his deputy, and the corresponding information is filed, he shall issue a warrant of arrest.
However, without waiting for the conclusion of the investigation, the judge may issue a warrant of arrest if
he finds after an examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and his witnesses in the form
of searching question and answers, that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing
the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
CRIMPRO OUTLINE

Source: Escobal and Quintana's notes

(c) When warrant of arrest not necessary. — A warrant of arrest shall not issue if the accused is
already under detention pursuant to a warrant issued by the municipal trial court in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section, or if the complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule
or is for an offense penalized by fine only. The court shall then proceed in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction. (6a)

*Section 2 Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution -> Section 2. The right of the pepole to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation
of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.

-> reason why there should be a judicial determination for the issuance of warrant of arrest

*Where a warrantless arrest may be effected:

• Section 5, Rule 113 -> (a) When, in the presence of the policemen, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offence.(b) When an offence has
just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it.

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment.


• Section 13, Rule 113 -> Section 13. Arrest after escape or rescue. — If a person lawfully arrested
escapes or is rescued, any person may immediately pursue or retake him without a warrant at
any time and in any place within the Philippines. (13)

• Section 23, Rule 114 -> Section 23. Arrest of accused out on bail. — For the purpose of
surrendering the accused, the bondsmen may arrest him or, upon written authority endorsed on a
certified copy of the undertaking, cause him to be arrested by a police officer or any other person
of suitable age and discretion.An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the
necessity of a warrant if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without permission of the court
where the case is pending. (23a)
CRIMPRO OUTLINE

Source: Escobal and Quintana's notes

Rule 113 and 114:

Arrest

Some principles of Bail

People vs. Aruta

People vs. Aminnudin

Posadas vs. CA

People vs. Mengote

Regarding the 4 Cases: 


-Differences and Similarities

-From “not suspicious to suspicious looking”

-Why there’s no valid warrantless arrest

Note: MERE SUSPICION AND RELIABLE INFORMATION ARE NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR A
WARRANTLESS ARREST

==========

For In flagrante delicto


1. Accused must perform an overt act

3. Done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer

REMEMBER: 1&2 must be simultaneous

==========

Coverage of Midterm 

Rule 110-115

Regarding Rule 114 


(Give more attention to Sections 1-5 & 9)

He also mentioned Bond, Sureties and Recognizance

Regarding Rule 115


(Per Justices Trespeses, kahit di natin nadiscuss, it will be included since we studied it sa Bill of Rights)

==========

STUDY People vs. Molina 352 SCRA 174


(will be included in our midterm exam)

Additional Cases:

Alejano vs. Cabuay GR No. 160792, Aug. 25, 2005

People vs. Amara 236 SCRA 174

Read:

RA 7438, Sec 2(b) - Custodial Investigation



CRIMPRO OUTLINE

Source: Escobal and Quintana's notes

Rule 115: Rights of Accused

Section 1. Rights of accused at the trial. — In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled
to the following rights:

(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

(c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from
arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial
pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for
purposes of identification. The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which he
had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. When an accused under
custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on all subsequent trial dates
until custody over him is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person
when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his right without the assistance of
counsel.

(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by
direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.

(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.

(f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Either party may utilize as
part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be
found in the Philippines, unavailable or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding,
judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, the adverse party having the
opportunity to cross-examine him.

(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of
other evidence in his behalf.

(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.

(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.