I.

-judge is NOT limited to the evidence brought before him but

could proceed with his own inquiry which is NOT
GENERAL PRINCIPLES confrontative

a. REMEDIAL LAW –prescribes the method of enforcing rights -court plays a very active role, and is NOT limited to the
or obtaining redress for their invasion evidence presented before it

SUBSTANTIVE LAW - part of the law which creates, defines, 2. ACCUSATORIAL / ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM –requires all
and regulates rights or which regulates the right and duties crimes (XPN: private crimes) to be prosecuted by a public
which give rise to a cause of action prosecutor

b. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – treats of the series of processes -contemplates of 2 contending parties before the court which
by which the criminal laws are enforced and by which the hears them impartially and renders judgment after trial
state prosecutes persons who violate the penal laws.
-Accused’s rights:
c.
 to be present at any stage of the proceedings
CRIM LAW CRIM PRO  to be heard personally or by counsel
Nature Substantive Remedial
 to a public trial
Purpose Declares what Provides how the
 against self-incrimination
acts are act is to be
punishable punished  presumption of innocence (there must be moral
Subject Defines crimes, Provides for the certainty of guilt to defeat this)
Matter treats of their method by which  to appeal
nature, and a person accused
provides for of a crime is -judgment does not require the imprimatur of a court of
their arrested, tried, last resort before it may attain finality.
punishment and punished.
Application Prospective, Retroactive in -its essence is that the burden of demonstrating guilt falls
UNLESS favour of the ends on the prosecution
favourable to of substantial
the accused who justice -court has a passive role and relies largely on the evidence
is not a habitual presented by both sides to the action in order to reach a
delinquent
verdict
Authority ONLY comes Can be
who may from the promulgated by
-the court shall consider no other evidence which has not
promulgate legislative body the Judiciary
(CONSTI been formally offered.
PROVISION)
3. MIXED SYSTEM – commixture of the inquisitorial and
accusatorial systems
d. SYSTEMS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE:
-as a GR, accusatorial prevails in the country. Thus, just as it
1. INQUISITORIAL SYSTEM – prosecution of crimes is wholly in may be said that the PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
the hands of the prosecuting officer and the court conducted by the judge before he issues a WARRANT OF
ARREST is an aspect of the inquisitorial system, so it may be
-characterized by secrecy asserted that the rights of the accused to be present at any
stage of the proceedings and defend himself in person, to
-presence of the accused before the magistrate is NOT a
be exempt from being a witness against himself during
requirement
trial, among other rights, are features of the accusatorial
-judgment does NOT become final until it has been ratified system which have since been incorporated in our rules of
and confirmed by the court of last resort crim. Procedure

-prevailing in the country

1
e. JURISDICTION – (Lt. juris and dico – I speak by the law) Reviewable only by writ Reviewable by appeal
of certiorari
-it is coram judice whenever a case is presented which
-Total want of juris.  -NOT void
brings the power into action
proceeding is an -cannot be collaterally
absolute nullity. impeached
-the power or the capacity given by the law to a court of
-confers no right and -binding on the parties
tribunal to entertain, hear, and determine certain
affords no protection UNLESS reversed or
controversies and will be pronounced annulled.
void when collaterally
-includes all such power as may be necessary for the full attacked.
exercise and enjoyment of that expressly conferred

-vested in the court, not in the judges

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION – power of the tribunal to hear
-conferred only by the Constitution or the law and try a particular offense and impose the punishment for
it
-Apportionment of jurisdiction is vested in the Legislature
1. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
-it is determined by the law in force at the time of the
institution of the action -the power to hear and determine cases of the general
class to which the proceedings in question belong, and is
-that part which creates, defines, and regulates rights, or
conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the
which regulates the rights and duties which give rise to a
court and defines its power
cause of action is substantive law; that which prescribes
the methods of enforcing rights or obtains a redress for - conferred only by the Constitution or by law
their invasion is remedial or procedural.
-cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by
-Procedure does not alter or change that power or express waiver or otherwise
authority; it simply directs the manner in which it shall be
fully and justly exercised. -determined by the allegations in the complaint of
information and NOT by the findings based on the evidence
JURISDICTION EXERCISE OF of the court after trial
JURISDICTION
The power and authority When there is -determined by the statute in force at the time of the
to hear, try, and decide a jurisdiction over the commencement of the action, and not at the time of the
case person, and subject
commission of the offense (even if penalty imposed at the
matter, the resolution of
The AUTHORITY to all other questions time of commission is less)
decide a case, and NOT arising in the case is but
the decision rendered an exercise of -lack of this entitles a dismissal by the court of a case ex
therein jurisdiction mero motu

ANTIPORDA v. GATCHITORENA -

ERROR OF JURISDICTION ERROR OF JUDGMENT
Court exercises a Presupposes that the
jurisdiction NOT court is vested with
conferred upon it by law jurisdiction x x x but it
committed mistakes in
the appreciation of the
facts and evidence
leading to an erroneous
judgment
ESTOPPEL JURISDICTION – one cannot invoke the
court’s jurisdiction to secure affirmative relief against
his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain
such relief, repudiate or question the same (Juris.
over subject matter)
2. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED
-acquired upon the accused’s:

1. arrest
2
 2. voluntary appearance not have an unrestricted right to travel. His rights are
subject to the usual constraints imposed upon the
GR: Seeking affirmative relief is deemed to be a submission to necessity of safeguarding the system of justice
the jurisdiction of the court. The voluntary submission may be
effected by: Rule 114, Sec 23, ROC – Court may suspend its own
rules (Bail here was allowed, considering other
1. filing a MTQ circumstances: his previous prompt returns upon
2. appearing for arraignment expiration of allowed travel period, his appointment
3. participating in trial as CEO)
4. giving bail

XPN: in pleadings whose prayer is precisely for the avoidance

of the jurisdiction of the court, which only leads to a SPECIAL
APPERANCE.
OVER THE SUBJECT OVER THE PERSON
1. MTQ on the ground of LOJ over the person of the MATTER OF THE ACCUSED
accused Nature Authority of the Requires that the
2. MTQ warrant of arrest court to hear and person charged
determine a must have been
particular criminal brought in to its
case forum for trial
ANTIPORDA v. GARCHITORENA – (filed MTQ and 1.Forcibly by arrest
2.Upon his
MFReinvesitgation)
voluntary
submission to the
Filing of MTQ is tantamount to voluntary submission
court
to the court’s jurisdiction (Juris. over person of the
How Derived from law; May be acquired
accused) Acquire NEVER acquired by
d solely by consent 1.express or
COJUANCO, JR. v SANDIGANBAYAN – of the accused implied consent of
the accused
SANDIGANBAYAN COULD STILL EXERCISE JURIS. 2.waiver of
DESPITE THE NULLITY OF THE WARRANT OF ARREST - objections
If he gives bail, demures to the Objectio Any stage of the Must be made in
information/complaint, file any dilatory plea or pleads n proceeding; time, otherwise, he
to the merits, he gives the court jurisdiction over his Right to such is is deemed to have
person NEVER waived waived it.

Where appearance is by motion for the purpose of

MANDAMUS – issued when any tribunal, corpo., board,
objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the
officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an
person, it must be for the sole and separate purpose
act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting
of objecting to said jurisdiction
from an office, trust or station.
SPEEDY TRIAL - There is a violation of speedy trial
CUSTODY OF LAW – signifies restraint on the person
when the proceeding is attended by vexatious,
capricious and oppressive delays -custody over the body of the accused; includes but is not
limited to detention
Consider the ff. factors:
MIRANDA v TULIAO –
1. Length of delay 2. Reason of delay 3. Accused’s
assertion of his right 4. Prejudice caused by the delay In motion to post for bail, the accused must be under
the custody of the law
ON RIGHT TO BAIL - A person facing criminal
indictment and provisionally released on bail does

3
 Pleading submits the person to the court’s jurisdiction,
and the court may act even hen person is not under
the custody of the law
CUSTODY OF LAW JURIS. OVER THE
PERSON
Required before a GR: Deemed waived
court may act on bail when he files any
pleading seeking
affirmative relief
Not required for the XPN: he invokes the
adjudication of other special juris. of the court
reliefs sought—where by impugning such juris.
the mere application over his person. (special
constitutes waiver of appearance)
the defense of LOJ
DAVID c. AGBAY –
Custody of law is NOT required for the adjudication of
relief other than an application for bail
ALVA v. CA –
RTC acquired juris. over his person when he appeared
at the arraignment pleaded, notwithstanding he
jumped bail
CUSTODY OF LAW JURIS. OVER THE
PERSON
Accomplished by arrest / Acquired upon his arrest
voluntary surrender / voluntary appearance
He can be under custody He can be subject of the
but not yet subject to juris of the court over his
the court’s juris –ex: person and yet not be in
when arrested, he files custody of law, such as
MTQ Warrant BEFORE WHEN ACCUSED
arraignment ESCAPES CUSTOY AFTER
HIS TRIAL HAS
COMMENCED
Includes but is not Once acquired,
limited to detention continues; NOT lost at
the instance of parties
until the case is
terminated.
3. JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY WHERE THE CRIME
WAS COMMITTED:
-offense should have been committed, or any of its
essential ingredients took place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court
-the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take
cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed by the
accused
VENUE – the particular country, or geographical area, in
which a court with jurisdiction may hear and determine a
case
- Venue in crim. cases is jurisdictional
VENUE JURISDICTION
Place of trial Power of the court to
decide the case on the
merits
Procedural Substantive
CRIMINAL – not waivable
CIVIL – waivable; may be
the subject of an
agreement
-Purposes:
1. Preclude harassment of the defendant
2. Save him from the inconvenience and expense of
depending himself somewhere else; not to compel
him to move to and appear in a court different
from that of the province where the crime was
committed
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION VS. VENUE IN CIVIL PROCEDURE
The laying of venue is procedural rather than substantive,
relating as it does to jurisdiction of the court over the person
rather than the subject matter. Venue relates to trial not to
jurisdiction. The rule, therefore, is that objections to
improper venue must be made in a Motion to Dismiss before
any responsive pleading is filed (Sec. 1 Rule 16). Otherwise, it
may be deemed waived.
COMPLEX CRIMES – juris. over the whole is lodged with the
court having jurisdiction to impose the MAXIMUM and
MOST SERIOUS penalty imposable.
4
-prosecuted integrally; not divided into component offenses c. Committed while vessel is on INTERNATIONAL
which may be subject of multiple information WATERS

CONTINUING CRIMES – a single crime which consists of series
of act arising from the same cause of action x x x
-courts of the territories where the essential ingredients of
the offense took place have CONCURRENT jurisdiction
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of
the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by
the Government of the Philippine Islands;
Ex: lotto tickets

-ex: estafa, libel, rebellion
PUNISHABLE BY DESTIERRO – exclusive jurisdiction of MTC
(Art. 71, RPC – destierro follows a. mayor)
TERRIROTIAL JURISDICTION:
Obligations and securities issued by GSIS, SSS and
Land Bank are NOT included
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction
into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned
in the presiding number;

Art. 14, NCC – Penal laws and those of public security shall be 4. While being public officers or employees, should commit
obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Ph territory, an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
subject to the principles of public international law and to
treaty stipulations. CRIMES OF PUBLIC OFFICER/EMPLOYEES

FRENCH RULE ENGLISH RULE 1. MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE : Dereliction

Crimes committed Crimes committed of duty
aboard a vessel within aboard a vessel within  Knowingly rendering unjust judgment
the territorial waters of the territorial waters of  Judgment rendered through negligence
another country are NOT another country are  Unjust interlocutory order
triable in the courts of TRIABLE in that country  Malicious delay in the administration of justice.
that country  Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance
XPN: When their XPN: when the crimes  Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor. — Revelation of
commission affects the merely affect things secrets.
peace and security of the within the vessel or  Direct bribery
territory or when the when they only refer to  Indirect bribery.
safety of the state is the internal
endangered management 2. FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL EXACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS:

 Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses.

-Ph adheres to the ENGLISH RULE.  Other frauds
 Prohibited transactions
EXTRATERRITORIALITY –  Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer

1. Art. 2. Application of its provisions. (RPC) — Except as
provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application,
the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within
the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its
interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its
jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or
airship
a. Crime must be committed on board a private or
merchant ship
3. MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY
 Failure of accountable officer to render accounts
 Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts
before leaving the Country
 Illegal use of public funds or property
 Failure to make delivery of public funds or property
4. INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
 Infidelity in the custody of prisoners
 Conniving with or consenting to evasion
 Evasion through negligence

b. Vessel is registered in the Ph under Ph laws

5
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security
and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of
this Code.
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY:
1. Treason
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason
3. Misprision of treason.
4. Espionage
5. Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war
6. Violation of neutrality.
7. Correspondence with hostile country
8. Flight to enemy country.
9. Piracy and mutiny on the high seas (RPC)
10. Genocide
CRIMES AGAINST LAW OF NATIONS:
1. Terrorism (Human Security Act f 2007)\
a. Conspire
b. While on board a PH vessel
c. Within the embassy, consulate or diplomatic
premises of the PH
d. Commit said crimes against Ph citizens or of PH
descent where citizenship or ethnicity was a
factor
e. Commit such directly against the PH govt.
2. Piracy (special law)
a. Necessary that the vessel is on the Philippine
waters. If on the high seas, not applicable
b. Reconciled with Article 122, offenders of Piracy
under PD 332 can be any person. He may be a
passenger or a member of the complement.
c. Piracy in internal waters – jurisdiction of
Philippine courts.
2. PIRACY – pirates are in law hostes humani generis (enemy
of mankind)
-no territorial limits
- Piracy in high seas – jurisdiction of any court where
offenders are found or arrested (extra-territorial jurisdiction)
LAWS OF PREFERENTIAL APPLICATION – RA 75 – penalizes
acts which would impair the proper observance by the
Republic and its inhabitants of the immunities, rights, and
privileges of duly-accredited foreign diplomatic
representatives in the Ph.
GR: Persons who are exempt from arrest, and imprisonment
and whose properties are exempt from distraint, seizure and
attachment are the ff.:
i. Public ministers
ii. Ambassadors
iii. Domestic servants of the abovementioned (XPN:
person is a citizen or inhabitant of the Ph; the writ
issued against him if founded upon a debt contracted
BEFORE he entered upon such service or the domestic
servant is NOT registered with the DFA)
WARSHIP RULE – Warships are always reputed to be the
territory of the country to which they belong
Embassy grounds – extensions of the sovereignty of the
country occupying them
EXTERRITORIALITY – immunity of certain persons, who,
although in the state, are not amenable to its laws
(ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, etc.)
PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW:
The ff. are exempted:
1. Sovereigns and other heads of state
2. Chargesd’affaires
3. Ambassadors
4. Ministers plenipotentiary
5. Ministers resident
3. COMMITTED ON A RAILROAD TRAIN, IN AN AIRCRAFT, IN
ANY OTHER PUBLIC/PRIVATE VEHICLE WHILE IN THE COURSE
OF ITS TRIP – filed in the court where the vehicle passed
during its trip, including departure and arrival place.
4. COMMITTED ON BOARD A VESSEL IN THE COURSE OF ITS
VOYAGE – filed in the court of first port of entry, or where the
vessel passed during such voyage, subject to the generally
accepted principles of international law
5. WHERE THE SC, IN THE INTEREST OF TRUTH AND
IMPARTIAL JUSTICE, TRANSFERS THE PLACE OF TRIAL FROM
ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER – among the incidental and
inherent judicial powers of courts, when the imperatives of
securing a fair and impartial trial, or of preventing a
miscarriage of justice, so demand
-Art. 8, Sec 5(4) – SC has the power to order a change of
venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice
6
CRUZ v. CA –
WHERE COURT HAS JURISIDCTION OVER THE CIVIL
ASPECT OF THE CASE EVEN IF OUTSIDE TERRITOTIAL
JURISDCITION - 3 requisites before a court acquires
juris: 1. Juris. over subject matter 2. Over the person
of the accused 3. Over the territory
Where the trial court has jurisdiction over the subject
matter and over the person of the accused, and the
crime was committed within its territorial juris.(in
Manila), it necessarily exercises juris. over all matters
that the law requires the court to resolve—including
the restitution of the property (found in Bulacan) in
question.
PEOPLE v. SOLA –
CHANGE OF VENUE – granted to avoid miscarriage of
justice – the court was 10km away from their homes;
feared jeopardy especially because some of the
accused were released on bail without hearing
6. WRITTEN DEFAMATION – RA 4363 -
Offended party is a public officer – filed where the libelous
article is printed and first published; or where he held office
Offended party is a private individual – filed where he
resides; or where the libelous matter is printed and first
published
SANDIGANBAYAN JURISDICTION, RTC, MTC
BP 129
PD1606 a.a.b. RA 8249 and 10660
(refer to next topic)
CARIAGE v PEOPLE –
EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE JURIS. OF SB - The
Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders
of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their
own original jurisdiction or of their appellate
jurisdiction as herein provided (Section 4 of
Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by
Republic Act No. 8249)
RELAXATION OF RULES – since it is a criminal case, it
involves a possibility of deprivation of liberty due to a
procedural lapse which militates against the court’s
dispensation of justice
Rules of Procedure are mere tools to facilitate the
attainment of justice. Rigid and strict application
tending to frustrate admin. of justice shall be avoided
PEOPLE v. GO –
Death of the public officer (Sec. Enrile) did not
remove the basis for the charge against the private
individual (Go) because of the alleged conspiracy of
the two- a private individual and a public officer.
For the court to acquire jurisdiction over the private
person, information must alleged that he acted in
conspiracy with a public officer.
l. CLASSIFICATION OF JURISDICTION:
1. AS TO CASES TRIED:
a. GENERAL – to decide on their own jurisdiction and to take
cognizance of all cases EXCEPT those expressly withheld from
them either by the Rules of by Law.
-competence to exercise juris. over cases not falling within
the juris. of any court, tribunal etc.
b. SPECIAL –extends only to particular or specified cases; only
for a particular purpose or are clothed with special powers
for the performance of specified duties beyond which they
have no authority of any kind
2. AS TO THE NATURE OF THE CASE:
a. ORIGINAL – power to take judicial cognizance of a
case instituted for the first itme under the conditions
set by la; where a case is commenced
b. APPELLATE – power to review on appeal the
decisions or orders of a lower court
3. AS TO NATURE AND EXTEND OF EXERCISE
a. EXCLUSIVE – confined to a particular court to the
exclusion of other courts
b. CONCURRENT (CONFLUENT/ COORDINATE) –
possessed by the court together with another over
the same subject matter; the court which first obtains
7
 jurisdiction retains it to the exclusion of the others
(EXCLUSIONARY PRINCIPLE)
4. AS TO SITUS
a. TERRITORIAL – within the limits of the place where
the court is located
b. EXTRATERRITORIAL – beyond the confines of the
territory where the court is located
g. POLICY OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY – ordered sequence of
recourse to the courts vested with concurrent juris. beginning
from the lowest, on to the next higher, and ultimately to the
highest.
1st LEVEL – MTC, MTCC, MeTC, MCTC
nd
2 LEVEL – RTC, FC
rd
3 LEVEL – CA, CTA, SANDIGANBAYAN
th
4 LEVEL - SC
h. DOCTRINE OF ADHERENCE OF JURIS. (CONTINUITY OF
JURIS.) – the court, once juris. has been acquired, retains that
juris. until it finally disposes of the case
-cannot be withdrawn of defeated by:
1. subsequent valid amendment of the info.
2. new law amending the rules
XPNs:
1. When the statute expressly so provides for retroactivity
2. When the change of juris. is curative in character
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURIS. – if a remedy within the
administrative machinery can still be resorted to, such should
be exhausted first before the court’s judicial power can be
sought. Presumption – the admin. Agency, if afforded a
complete chance to pass upon the matter, will decide the
same correctly.
ANCILLARY JURIS. – power of the court to adjudicate and
determine matters incidental to the exercise of its primary
jurisdiction
RESIDUAL JURIS. – If juris. left ot be exercised by the trial
court after the case has been appealed to a higher court
i. DUE PROCESS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – mandatory and
indispensable; cannot possibly be met without a law which
hears before it condemns and proceeds upon inquiry and
renders judgment only after trial.
i. SOURCE:
1. Rule 110-127 RRoC a.a.b. AM No. 00-5-03-SC
2. 1987 Constitution (Bill of Rights)
3. Legislative Acts – BP 129 AAB RA 7691, 8493
4. NCC – Arts. 32-34
5. PDs
6. Eos
7. SC Decisions
ii. REQS. OF CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS:
1. The court/tribunal is properly clothed with judicial power
to hear and determine the matter before it
2. Juris. is lawfully acquired by it over the person of the
accused
3. The accused is given opportunity to be heard
4. Judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing
PEOPLE v. SOLA –
CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS – Prosecution must be given
an opportunity to present, within a reasonable period
of time, all the evidence that it may desire to
introduce  procedural due process
PEOPLE v. DAPITAN
ALONTE v. SAVELLANO –
4 indispensable requisites of criminal due process
Due process is an enshrined right which cannot be
denied even to the most undeserving
The existence of the waiver must be positively
demonstrated. The standard of waiver requires that it
"not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing,
intelligent, and done with sufficient awareness of the
relevant circumstances and likely consequences."
Mere silence of the holder of the right should not be
8
 so construed as a waiver of right, and the courts must
indulge EVERY reasonable presumption against
waiver.

SEÑGA NOTES

Case involves illegal possession of drugs. Parties agreed to go

straight to Sandiganbayan. –Case must be with the RTC as it is
within its exlcusive original juris.

Sumakay sa LRT. Crime was committed between the stations

of Legarda and Recto. Which court has jurisdiction?

Murder was committed at the boundary of Makati. The info

alleged that crime was committed in Manila. Case was filed
with the RTC of Manila. After presentation of evidences,
Prosecution said: Ay, Makati pala dapat to! Was the
proceeding void? No. the allegations in the complaint
determine the court which has jurisdiction. Do not apply
Adherence of jurisdiction principle

Special Juris. BP 129 – In the absence of all the Regional Trial

Judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge,
Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear
and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or
applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or city
where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit.

Reason for the hierarcy of courts – to prevent clogging of

dockets. Cases filed straight to the SC – of transcendental
importance

Territorial Jurisidiction: CRIM – not waivable; CIVIL – yes (rule

4 x x x , ROC)

Bail- dapat physically andun ka; no proxies.

Assail juris. over the person:

1. MTQ information for LOJ over the person (Rule 117)

BEFORE arraignment

2. MTQ warrant

3. CIVIL – MTD – pwede mo ring iinvoke other grounds

under Rule 16

9
 JURISDICTION
a. Lupon Tagapagbarangay
GR: no confrontation bet the parties before the lupon
chairman or pangkat tagapagasundo is needed before a
complaint/petition/ action/ proceeding may be filed or
instituted directly in court or any other gov’t office for
adjudication unless there has been a confrontation between
the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat, and
that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as
certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat secretary as
attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman or unless the
settlement has been repudiated by the parties.
Exceptions:
 Where the accused is under detention
 Person has been deprived of personal liberty calling
for habeas corpus proceedings
 Actions are coupled w provisional remedies or
 Action may be barred by statutes of limitations
NOTE: Non-compliance w the conciliation process at the brgy
level is a condition precedent to the filing of action in those
instances where said law applies and that failure to avail of
the conciliation process does not warrant jurisdictional
objections for it merely renders the complaint vulnerable to
a timely motion to dismiss on the ground of prematurity.
- May be waived by failing to assert the failure to
conduct such.
LUPON TAGAPAGBARANGAY
Who may Parties actually residing in the same city or
file: municipality for amicable settlement
Subject GR: All disputes;
matter:
Exceptions:
(a) Where one party is the government, or any
subdivision or instrumentality thereof;
(b) Where one party is a public officer or
employee, and the dispute relates to the
performance of his official functions;
(c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment
exceeding one (1) year or a fine exceeding Five
thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
(d) Offenses where there is no private offended
party;
(e) Where the dispute involves real properties
located in different cities or municipalities unless
the parties thereto agree to submit their
differences to amicable settlement by an
appropriate lupon;
(f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside
in barangays of different cities or municipalities,
except where such barangay units adjoin each
other and the parties thereto agree to submit
their differences to amicable settlement by an
appropriate lupon;
(g) Such other classes of disputes which the
President may determine in the interest of
justice or upon the recommendation of the
Secretary of Justice.
Venue: (a) Disputes between persons actually residing
in the same barangay shall be brought for
amicable settlement before the lupon of said
barangay.
(b) Those involving actual residents of different
barangays within the same city or municipality
shall be brought in the barangay where the
respondent or any of the respondents actually
resides, at the election of the complainant.
(c) All disputes involving real property or any
interest therein shall be brought in the barangay
where the real property or the larger portion
thereof is situated.
(d) Those arising at the workplace where the
contending parties are employed or at the
institution where such parties are enrolled for
study, shall be brought in the barangay where
such workplace or institution is located.
Objections to venue shall be raised in the
mediation proceedings before the punong
barangay; otherwise, the same shall be deemed
waived.
Procedure for Amicable Settlement
1st
Complaint (in writing/ orally) to be instituted by any
indv who has a cause of action against another involving
any matter within the authority of the lupon
2nd Mediation by lupon chairman. He shall summon the
respondent(s), & their witnesses to appear before him
for mediation of conflicting interests.
If he fails in his mediation effort within fifteen (15) days
from the first meeting of the parties before him, he
shall set a date for the constitution of the pangkat
3rd During mediation, conciliation, or arbitration, the
prescriptive periods for offenses and cause of action
under existing laws shall be interrupted upon filing of
the complaint with the punong barangay. The
prescriptive periods shall resume upon receipt by the
complainant of the complaint or the certificate of
repudiation or of the certification to file action issued by
the lupon or pangkat secretary *interruption shall not
exceed sixty (60) days from the filing of the complaint.
4th Pangkat shall convene not later than (3) days from its
constitution to hear both parties and their witnesses,
10
 simplify issues, and explore all possibilities for amicable - Gov’t officials and employees;
settlement. - Where the imposable penalty
5th Pangkat shall arrive at a settlement or resolution of the is imprisonment of 6 yrs or
dispute within fifteen (15) days from the day it less or a fine of 4000 and
convenes. This period shall be extendible, at the - Officer charged does not fall
discretion of the pangkat, for another period, which under the jurisdiction of SB or
shall not exceed fifteen (15) days, except in clearly whose SG is below grade 27
meritorious cases. and not among those
Arbitration: Parties may, at any stage of the proceedings, enumerated under Sec 4
agree in writing that they shall abide by the arbitration award PD1606 as amended.
of the lupon chairman or the pangkat. Such agreement to e.) Summary procedure in the certain
arbitrate may be repudiated within five (5) days from the cases;
date
Summary (BO²RAT)
Effect of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration Award: The procedure a. BP 22 cases
amicable settlement and arbitration award shall have the b. Violation of municipal or city
force and effect of a final judgment of a court upon the Ordinances
expiration of ten (10) days from the date unless repudiation c. Offenses involving damage to
of the settlement has been made or a petition to nullify the property through criminal
award has been filed before the proper city or municipal negligence where the imposable
court. fine does not exceed 10 000 php.
d. Violation of Rental law
Repudiation: Any party to the dispute may, within ten (10) e. All other criminal cases where the
days from the date of the settlement, repudiate the same by penalty prescribed by law for the
filing with the lupon chairman a statement to that effect offense charged is imprisonment
sworn to before him, where the consent is vitiated by fraud, of not exceeding 6 months or a
violence, or intimidation. Such repudiation shall be sufficient fine not exceeding 1000 php or
basis for the issuance of the certification for filing a complaint both, irrespective of other
imposable penalties
Execution of judgement: The amicable settlement or f. Violation of Traffic laws, rules,
arbitration award may be enforced by execution by the and regulations.
lupon within six (6) months from the date of the settlement. Special f.) Decide on applications for Bail in
After the lapse of such time, the settlement may be enforced jurisdiction criminal cases in the absence of all
by action in the appropriate city or municipal court. the RTC judges in a province or
city;
g.) In the absence of all RTC judges,
any MTC judge in the province or
b. Municipal Trial Court/Metropolitan Trial Court city where the absent RTC judge
- Except in cases falling within the exclusive sit may hear and decide petitions
jurisdiction of the RTC and of the Sandiganbayan, the for writ of habeas corpus
MTC shall exercise the ff criminal jurisdiction

Exclusive
original a.) Offenses punishable with
jurisdiction Imprisonment not exceeding 6 c. Rule on Summary procedure:
(IF-DPS) years irrespective of the fine and
other imposable accessory or STEPS (SUMMARY PROCEDURE)
other penalties; 1st File a complaint or information sa MTC
b.) Where the only penalty provided Note: if within metro manila or chartered city the filing
for by law is a Fine, over offenses shall be by information only except when the offense is
punishable with a fine of not more one which cannot be prosecuted de officio
than 4000 php; 2nd There is ground to hold No ground to hold for
c.) Offenses involving Damage to the accused for trial: trial:
property through criminal Arraignment and trial Dismiss the case. –END
negligence;
d.) Under PD 1606 as amended by RA
8249 over criminal cases of: 3rd Arraignment
11
 Accused is already in If the accused Imprisonment of 6 years irrespective
custody for the crime subsequently entered a of the fine and other imposable
charged: plea of guilty accessory or other penalties;
Arraign immediately Give sentence. -END c.) Where the only penalty provided for
-
Preliminary conference by law is a Fine, over offenses
- Before conducting trial, the court shall call punishable with a fine of more than
the parties to a Preliminary conference 4000 php;
- Enter stipulation of facts d.) Criminal cases under Specific laws;
- Propriety to allow the accused to enter a (WCIM)
plea of guilt for a lesser offense - Written defamation
- Other matters to clarify the issue and - Violation of the Comprehensive
ensure speedy disposition of cases Dangerous Drug Act of 2002
- Violation of the Intellectual
Note: the accused should not be prejudiced if he fails/ Property rights
refuse to do the abovementioned acts - All cases of Money laundering
- The admission must be in writing and except those falling under the
signed by the counsel jurisdiction of the
5th Trial Sandiganbayan
GR: The accused need not be arrested e.) Under PD 1606 as amended by RA
E; if he fails to appear whenever he is being asked to by 8249 over criminal cases of:
the court - Gov’t officials and employees;
- Where the imposable penalty is
- Actual direct examination of the witnesses imprisonment of more than 6
is not required bec the affidavits yrs or a fine of 4000 and
submitted by the parties shall constitute - Officer charged does not fall
their direct testimonies. under the jurisdiction of SB or
- Atty senga: Ia-attach na lang yung whose SG is below grade 27 and
position paper not among those enumerated
under Sec 4, PD 1606 as
6th Promulgation of judgement amended.
Shall promulgate judgement not later than 30 days f.) Election offenses and
after the termination of the trial g.) Court martial proceedings except
when the offense is service oriented,
it will be tried by the court martial.
d. Summary procedure v summary proceeding Provided: the president may, in the
interest of justice order/ direct at
Summary procedure Summary procedure any time before arraignment that
Set of rules observed in Proceedings observed so any such crimes be tried by the
cases where the law that there be due process proper civil courts.
designates them to be but it does not have its own Atty senga: service related crimes? Art 54-70,
governed by the rules on set of rules. 72-92, 95-97 (Gonzales v Abaya)
summary h.) Cases cognizable by the
Examples Examples Sandiganbayan
Contempt, usually - Where the information failed to
procedures under the allege the damage or bribery on
family code the part of the government;
- Where the information alleged
the damage or bribery in
e. RTC (NIF-SPECS) connection with the act thereto
but the amount does not exceed
Exclusive a.) Criminal cases Not within the
1M
original exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
Concurrent w/ Supreme Court
jurisdiction tribunal, or body; except those
and - Actions affecting ambassadors,
falling under the exclusive and
original other public ministers and
concurrent jurisdiction of the
jurisdiction consuls
Sandiganbayan;
w/ SC and CA
b.) Offenses punishable with
12
 - Petitions for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus
against lower courts and bodies
in petitions for quo warranto,
habeas corpus, and writ of
continuing mandamus
environmental cases
w/ SC, CA and Sandigabayan
- Petitions for writs of habeas
data and amparo
Appellate Over cases decided by lower courts in their
jurisdiction respective territorial jurisdictions
Special SC designates certain branches to handle
jurisdiction exclusively, a)criminal cases, agrarian cases,
etc
f. Family Court
Criminal cases where:
1. One or more of the accused is/ are below 18 yrs of
age but not less than 9 years of age; or
2. Where one or more of the victims is a minor at the
time of the commission of the offense;
3. Cases against minors cognizable under the
Dangerous Drug Act;
4. Violation of RA 7610, also known as the Special
Protection of Children Against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act as amended by
RA 7658; and
5. Cases of Domestic violence against women and
children
g. Sandiganbayan (ADR-E(PCDAP)-JC²O- RECAP)
Exclusive The Sandiganbayan shall exercise original
original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
jurisdiction
a. Violations of
- RA 3019 (Anti-graft and corrupt
practices act
- RA 1379 (An Act Declaring
Forfeiture in Favor of the State
of any property found to have
been unlawfully acquired by any
public overofficer or employee)
- Chapter II. Sec 2, Title VII, Book
II, of the RPC
Atty Senga: Examples? Bribery,
direct bribery. Indirect bribery,
corruption of public officer
Where one or more of the accused are
officials occupying the ff. positions in the
govt, whether in a permanent, acting, or
interim capacity, at the time of the
commission of the offense;
1. Officials of the Executive branch
occupying SG 27 and higher,
specifically including:
a. Provincial governors, vice-
governors, members of
on sangguiniang panlalawigan, and
provincial treasurers, assessors,
engineers, and other provincial
department heads;
b. City mayors, vice-mayors, mems
of sangguniang panlungsod, city
treasurers, assessors, engineers,
and other city department
heads;
c. Officials of the Diplomat service
occupying the position of consul
or higher;
d. Philippine Army and air force
colonels, naval captains and all
officers of higher rank;
e. Officers of the PNP, occupying
the position of Provincial
director and those holding the
rank of senior superintendent
or higher;
f. City and Provincial prosecutors
and their assistants, and the
officials and prosecutors in the
office of the ombudsman and
special prosecutors; and
g. Presidents, directors, trustees,
managers of GOCCs, state
universities or educational
institutions/ foundations.
2. Members of the Judiciary, w/o
prejudice to the constitutional
provisions;
3. Members of Congress and officials
therof classified as grade 27 and up;
4. Chairmen and members of the
Constitutional commissions, w/o
prejudice to the constitutional
provisions;
5. All Other national and local officials
classified as grade 27 and higher
under the Compensation and
Position Classification of 1989;
b. Other offenses or felonies whether
simple or complexed w other crimes
committed by the public officials
and employees mentioned in Sec.
4(a) of PD 1606 as amended in
Relation to their office;
c. Violation of RA 6713 (Code of
13
 Conduct and Ethical Standards) executory assessments for taxes, fees,
d. Civil and criminal cases filed charges and penalties where the
pursuant to and in connection w principal amount of taxes and fees,
Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and exclusive of charges and penalties
14-A issued in 1986. claimed is less than P1M tried by the
e. Violation of RA 9160 (Anti-Money proper MTC, MeTC and RTC
Laundering Law) when committed Exclusive In criminal offenses
by the officers or private persons Appellate (1) over appeals from the judgment,
who are in conspiracy with public Jurisdiction resolutions or orders of the RTC in tax
officers; and cases originally decided by them, in
f. Violation of RA 7080 (The Plunder their respective territorial jurisdiction,
Law) and
(2) over petitions for review of the
Appellate Over final judgements, resolutions, and judgments, resolutions or orders of
Jurisdiction orders of RTC whether in the exercise of their the RTC in the exercise of their
own original or appellate jurisdiction appellate jurisdiction over tax cases
Ancillary Issuance of the writs of mandamus, originally decided by the MeTCs,
writs and prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, MTCs, and MCTCs in their respective
processes injunctions, and other ancillary writs and jurisdiction
in aid of processes in aid of appellate jurisdiction
appellate including quo warranto, arising or that may
jurisdiction arise in cases filed or w/c may be filed under i. Court of Appeals
EO 1,2, 14 and 14-A.
Exclusive Actions for the annulment of the judgments of
Original the RTC
When offense is deemed committed in relation to public Jurisdiction
office: Concurrent W/ SC
and - Issue writs of certiorari,
GR: Original prohibition and mandamus
Jurisdiction against the RTC, CSC, CBAA, other
1. It cannot exist without the office; quasi-judicial agencies mentioned
2. The office is a constituent element of the crime as in Rule 43, and the NLRC, and writ
defined by the statute; of kalikasan.
W/ SC and RTC
E: even if the office is not a constituent of the crime, it - Issue writs of certiorari,
may still fall under in relation to his office if: prohibition and mandamus
against lower courts and bodies
3. The offense is intimately connected with the office
and writs of quo warranto, habeas
of the offender; and
corpus, whether or not in aid of
4. The fact that the offense was committed in relation
its appellate jurisdiction, and writ
to his office must be alleged in the information
of continuing mandamus on
environmental cases.
h. CTA
W/ SC, RTC and Sandiganbayan
Exclusive a. Over all criminal cases arising from - Petitions for writs of amparo and
Original violation of the NIRC of the TCC and habeas data
Jurisdiction other laws, part of laws, or special Appellate a. Ordinary appeal from the RTC and the
laws administered by the BIR or the Jurisdiction Family Courts.
BOC where the principal amount of b. Petition for review from the RTC
taxes and fees, exclusive of charges rendered by the RTC in the exercise of
and penalties claimed is less that P1M its appellate jurisdiction.
or where there is no specified amount c. Petition for review from the decisions,
claimed (the offenses or penalties resolutions, orders or awards of the
shall be tried by the regular courts and CSC, CBAA and other bodies
the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be mentioned in Rule 43 and of the Office
appellate); of the Ombudsman in administrative
b. Tax collection cases involving final and disciplinary cases.
d. Decisions of MTCs in cadastral or land
14
 registration cases pursuant to its a. Complex crime: jurisdiction over the whole complex
delegated jurisdiction; this is because crime is lodged with RTC having jurisdiction to
decisions of MTCs in these cases are impose the maximum and most serious penalty
appealable in the same manner as imposable of an offense forming part of the complex
decisions of RTCs. crim.
b. Continuing crime: it is consummated in one place,
yet by the nature of the offense, the violation of the
e. Supreme Court law is deemed continuing (estafa, libel). Hence,
courts of the territories where the essential
Exclusive Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and ingredients of the crime took place have concurrent
Original mandamus against the CA, COMELEC, COA, jurisdiction. However, the court, which first
Jurisdiction CTA, Sandiganbayan. acquires jurisdiction, excludes other courts.
c. Destierro: falls w/n the exclusive jurisdiction of MTC
Concurrent W/ Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction - petitions for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus
against the RTC, CSC, Central CASE DOCTRINES:
Board of Assessment Appeals,
NLRC, Quasi-judicial agencies, 1. People v Ocaya
and writ of kalikasan, all subject - Jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases shall be
to the doctrine of hierarchy of determined by the allegations in the
courts. information and not by the result of evidence
W/ CA and RTC presented at trial, much less a trial judge’s
- petitions for certiorari, personal appraisal of affidavits and exhibits
prohibition and mandamus without hearing nor receiving evidence.
against lower courts and bodies 2. Guevarra v Almodivar
and in petitions for quo - Jurisdiction of court over criminal cases may be
warranto, and writs of habeas determined by the penalty impossible under the
corpus, all subject to the doctrine law for the offense and not the penalty
of hierarchy of courts. ultimately imposed. Hence any circumstances,
W/ CA, RTC and Sandiganbayan which may affect criminal liability, shall not be
- petitions for writs of amparo and considered.
habeas data 3. Gonzales v Abaya
W/ RTC - Sec 1 RA 7055:
- cases affecting ambassadors, o GR: mems of the AFP shall be tried in
public ministers and consuls civil courts
Appellate by way of petition for review on certiorari o E: if service related
Jurisdiction (appeal by certiorari under Rule 45) o E to the E: When the president, before
- Against CA, CTA en banc, arraignment, directed that it be tried in
Sandiganbayan, RTC on pure civil courts
questions of law; - Service-connected crimes: Art 54-70, 72-92, 95-
- Cases involving the 97 of the Articles of War
constitutionality or validity of a 4. People v Ocaya
law or treaty, international or - ART 360, RPC as amended by RA 4363 explicitly
executive agreement, law, confers to the RTC jurisdiction over the offense
presidential decree, of written defamation
proclamation, order, instruction, - Jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide a
ordinance or regulation, legality case is conferred by the law in force at the time
of a tax, impost, assessment, toll of the institution of the action unless a latter
or penalty, jurisdiction of a lower stature provides a retroactive effect.
court; 5. Samson v Daway
- CTA in its decisions rendered en - RA 7691: general law granting MTC jurisdiction
banc over violation of intellectual property rights
- Sec 27, RA166 of the Trademark Law: provides
that jurisdiction for such violation shall be
Other offenses: lodged w the RTC

15
 - The latter shall prevail over the former since it is
a special law
- Jurisdiction conferred by the special law to the
RTC must prevail over that granted by the
general law to the MTC.
6. Garcia v Sandiganbayan
- Contention: walang juris daw ang SB kasi
petition for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired
property meron lang daw ang SB as against ill-
gotten wealth under E0 1, 2, 14, 14-A
- Ruling: Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction because
of RA 8249. In addition, this is in line with the
purpose of the Sandiganbayan as an anti-graft
court in order to address the problem of
dishonesty in the govt.
7. Barriaga v Sandiganbayan
- A public officer not in charge of public funds, or
even private individuals, may be liable for
malversation and illegal use of public funds if
such conspires with an accountable public
officer to commit the felonies.
- SB has jurisdiction bec
o The office of the mayor is a constituent
element of the crime and since the
amended info alleged that, the parties
conspired. Hence, the fact that the
other party’s position is only a
MUNICIPAL ACCONTANT, classified at
SG 24, is of no moment.
8. People v Montejo
- A public officer commits an offense in relation
to his office if he perpetrates such while
performing an official function and that he could
not have done it w/o holding such office.
- But, even if Public Office is not element of the
offense, it could still be considered an offense in
relation to his office, so long as the offense
alleged in the information included averments
which would show that the offense is intimately
connected w/ his office.
9. Soller v CA
- Failure to show in the information that the
charges were intimately connected with the
discharge of his official functions
sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction.
10. Serena v Sandiganbayan
- A UP Student Regent is considered as a public
officer under Sec 4(1)(a) of PD 1606 as amened
by RA 7975.
11. Duncano v Sandiganbayan
- Regional Director of BIR is not under the
jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan because he is not
o An official of the executive branch w SG
27 and up;
o An official specifically enumerated in
Sec 4(a) (regardless of the SG)
12. Honasan v DOJ Panel
- Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction because coup
de tat is a crime committed a public official but
not in relation to his office. Presiding the
meeting of the NRP and planning ways to
overthrow the govt is not related to his duties as
a senator.
13. Cosigna v People
- The relation between the crime and the office
contemplated by the Constitution is direct and
not accidental and such that, in the legal sense,
the offense cannot exist without the office.
- In this case, it was not only alleged in the
Information, but was proved with certainty
during trial that the manner by which petitioner
perpetrated the crime necessarily relates to her
official function as a municipal treasurer.
14. Lacson v Executive Secretary
- The amended information for murder was found
wanting od specific factual averments to show
the intimate relation between the offense
charged and the discharge of official functions
of the offender.
- While the information stated that they
committed the crime in relation to their office, it
did not contain specific allegation of facts which
would intimately relate it to his public function
o The phrase in relation to their office is
merely a conclusion of law. What is
controlling is the factual averment
that would show intimacy bet. Offense
committed and discharge of function.
15. Rodriguez v Sandiganbayan
- RA 8249 w/c amended PD 1606 provided that as
long as one or more of the accused is an official
of the executive branch w/ SG 27, SB has
exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses/
felonies committed by officials whether simple
or complexed with other crimes in relation to
their office.
16. Crisostomo v Sandiganbayan
- Even if murder does not include public office as
an element, it may still be commited by a public
officer in relation to his office if such there was
an intimate connection between the offense
and the office as stated in the averment of facts
17. Sanchez v Demetriou
- The crime of rape w homicide does not fall
under par 1 of Sec 4(a) not an offense
committed in relation to his office because they
failed to show that the there is a direct relation
between the crime and the office of the mayor.
- It was not alleged in the info through the
averment of facts that the crime was intimately
16
 connected with the performance of his function. committed in relation to the performance
Hence, RTC has jurisdiction. of his office/ intimately connected kasi by
its nature all of these 3 crimes involves
SEÑGA NOTES
public officers.
Q: Pano kung yung amount of damage to prop is 1M? Encompassing provision na:
A. Hindi na summary procedure. Kapag exceeding 10k,
- SG 27
MTC na.
- The crime committed is intimately connected
Q: Imprisonment, or fine or both? Sinong court ang may with the office
jurisdiction? Anong titignan sa tatlo?
Note:
A. Yung imprisonment titignan.
- Not to be confused with Artc 2 of the RPC kasi
*There are cases na kahit na less than 6 years ang sa Art 2 IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS
imprisonment, RTC pa rin may jurisdiction bec. MAY LAW. FUNCTION LANG YUN.
Q: Kunwari yung period pasok siya sa jurisdiction ng MTC - SB, even if it is an improper performance or
tsaka RTC sino may jurisdiction? (ex. Prison correctional to function it will fall under its jurisdiction although
prison mayor) hindi siya nagfalfall under yung tatlo na crimes
sa taas, SB pa rin may jurisdiction kasi nga
* The court who has the authority to impose the maximum intimately connected with his office.
imposable penalty has jurisdiction. o Is it enough to say that it is intimately
connected? NO
Q: Piracy sino may jurisdiction?
 You have to allege the facts
A. RTC to the exclusion of other courts constituting the allegations
that he could not have
Discussion nya about Sandiganbayan: may recording si ben committed the crime without
neto. HUEHUE. being a public officer
If the crime committed is Test:

- 3019 1. Look at the crime

- Direct bribery (yung nasa RPC) - If it is 3019, RPC, 1379
- 1379 o Do they fall under the list of persons?
 SG 27 above or those
Automatic ba na SB ang may Juris? NO.
enumerated
Tignan mo sino nagcommit. Kailangan: 2. If it is not 3019 etc, is it automatic that jurisdiction is
not with SB?
1.) SG 27 or above or - No look at if it is a crime that could be
2.) Any of those enumerated kasali lahat nung nasa committed intimately in connection with his
section 4(a) di lang yung under sa executive branch, office
pati judiciary etc - Another instance: malversation kahit na private
a. Executive (requisite) individual ka pa, pwede kai try sa sandiganbayan
- Dapat SG 27 or above or if in conspiracy with a public officer.
- Any of those enumerated under (gov, mayors 3. If it does not fall under 3019, not intimately
etc) connected, what would you do?
b. Congress o Look at the imposable penalty
- SG 27  If the imposable penalty is
c. Judiciary more than 6 yrs of
d. CONCOM etc imprisonment? RTC
 Kung any of those three crimes tapos committed siya  < 6 yrs of imprisonment? MTC
by these persons= SB may jurisdiction
***always start with the Sandiganbayan if nagfafall ba siya
o If yung crime na nacommit ay either sa tatlo
under nun.
na to, di na kailangan i-allege na it is
17
 RULE 110 - PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Section 1. INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS
How criminal actions are instituted:
(1) For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required:
By filing the complaint with the proper officer for the purpose
of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation
(2) Where a preliminary investigation is NOT required, a
criminal action is instituted in either two ways:
(a) By filing the complaint or information directly with
the MTC or MCTC; or
(b) By filing the complaint with the office of the
prosecutor
NOTA BENE: In Manila and other chartered cities, the
Complaint shall be filed with the Prosecutor unless
otherwise provided in their charters
When is preliminary investigation required?
It is required for offenses where the penalty prescribed by
law is at least 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day without regard to
the fine
What is the effect of the institution of the criminal action?
It interrupts the period of prescription of the offense charged
UNLESS otherwise provided by special laws
PEOPLE VS. GALANO
Under Art. 91 of the RPC, the period of prescription shall
commence to run from the day of the discovery of the
offense by the offended party, the authorities or by their
agents and shall be interrupted by the filing of the
complaint or information and shall commence to run
again when the proceedings terminate without the
accused being convicted or acquitted or are unjustifiably
stopped for any reason not imputable to him.
RULES ON PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLATION OF SPECIAL LAWS
AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES
ZALDIVIA VS. REYES
A case involving an offense punishable by MUNICIPAL
ORDINANCE, held that when Act 3326 says that ‘the
period of prescription shall be suspended when
proceedings are instituted against the guilty person’, the
proceedings referred to are ‘JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
AND NOT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS’.
However, in SANRIO COMPANY LIMITED VS. LIM a case
involving a violation of Intellectual Property Code, a specia
llaw, ruled differently from Zaldivia.
“Sec. 2 of Act 3326 provides that the prescriptive period
for violation of SPECIAL LAWS starts on the day such
offense was committed and is interrupted by the
institution of proceedings against respondent.”
PANAGUITON VS. DOJ
Filing of complaint for violation of B.P. 22 before the
Office of the Prosecutor interrupts the running of the
prescriptive period for the offense.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION VS. INTERPORT
RESOURCES CORPORATION
Investigations conducted by the SEC for violations of the
Revised Securities Act and the Securities Regulations
Code effectively interrupts the prescriptive period
because it is EQUIVALENT to the preliminary
investigation conducted by the DOJ in criminal cases
PREVAILING RULE ON PRESCRIPTION
Irrespective of whether the offense charged is punishable by
RPC or by a special law, it is the filing of the complaint or
information in the office of the public prosecutor for
purposes of preliminary investigation that interrupts the
period of prescription.
What happens when the court which the action was first
filed was without jurisdiction?
The running of the prescriptive period is still interrupted even
the court is without jurisdiction
PEOPLE VS. OLARTE
Info was filed with the Batangas RTC but evidence of the
prosecution subsequently showed that the crime was
committed in Manila
18
 It was only when the trial court dismissed the case due Persons who can file complaint:
to lack of jurisdiction that the proceedings therein
terminated without conviction and acquittal and it was (1) Offended party
only then that the prescriptive period, which was
(2) Any peace officer
interrupted during the pendency of the case in
Batangas, commenced to run again. (3) Other public officer charged with the enforcement of the
law violated

Section 4. INFORMATION DEFINED

Section 2. FORM OF THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION

The complaint or information shall be:

(1) In writing; An information is an accusation in writing charging a person
with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with
(2) In the name of the People of the Philippines;
the court.
(3) Against all persons who appear to be responsible for the
REQUISITES OF INFORMATION:
offense involved
(1) It must be in writing;
What happens when the info is instituted in the name of the
offended party? (2) It must charge a person with an offense;

The defect is merely of form and may be cured (3) It must be subscribed by the Prosecutor;

(4) It must be filed in court

Section 3. COMPLAINT DEFINED COMPLAINT VS. INFORMATION

A complaint is a sworn written statement charging a person As to subscription:

with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace
officer, or other public officer charged with the enforcement A complaint is subscribed by the offended party, any peace
of the law violated. officer, or other public officer charged with the enforcement
of the law violated
REQUISITES OF COMPLAINT:
An information is subscribed by the prosecutor
(1) Must be subscribed by the offended party, by any peace
officer or public officer charged with the enforcement of the As to the necessity of oath:
law violated;
A complaint must be sworn, hence under oath.
(2) It must charge a person with an offense;
An information requires no oath.
(3) It must be under oath and writing;
As to where it is filed:
(4) It must be in the name of the People of the Philippines A complaint is filed either in court or the prosecutor’s office

What happens when the complaint is not sworn to by him? An information is filed with the court

The want of oath is a mere defect of form which does not As to its scope:
affect the substantial rights of the defendant on the merits.
Hence, it is not permissible to set aside judgment by the mere A complaint refers to felonies which cannot be prosecuted de
defect that the complaint is not sworn to by him. officio

An information usually refers to public crimes

19
Section 5. WHO MUST PROSECUTE CRIMINAL ACTIONS
A criminal action is prosecuted under the direction and
control of the public prosecutor
Rationale for the rule: Since a criminal offense is an outrage
against the State, it necessarily follows that a representative
of the State shall direct and control the prosecution thereof.
(Baviera vs. Paglinawan)
INSTANCES WHEN PRIVATE PROSECUTOR MAY PROSECUTE
A CASE EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:
(1) When he is authorized to do do in writing;
(2) Written authorization shall be given either by the Chief of
the Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor;
(3) Said authorization must be approved by the court
(4) Said private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the
case up to the end of the trial UNLESS the authority is
withdrawn or otherwise revoked
(AM No. 02-2-07-SC, effective May 1,2002)
NOTA BENE: Private prosecutor, CANNOT, for just any
reason, be authorized to prosecute the criminal case. The
written authorization to the private prosecutor shall be given
because of either: the public prosecutor has a heavy work
schedule or there is a lack of public prosecutors
Who must prosecute on appeal?
GR: Only the OSG may bring or defend the actions in behalf of
the Republic of the Philippines in criminal proceedings before
the Supreme Court and CA
EXCEPT when:
(1) There is a denial of due process of law to the Prosecution
and the State or its agents refuse to act on the case to the
prejudice of the State and the offended party;
(2) When the private party questions the civil aspect of the
decision of the lower court
PROSECUTION OF PRIVATE CRIMES:
(1) Adultery and Concubinage shall not be prosecuted
EXCEPT upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse
PILAPIL VS. IBAY-SOMERA
The crime of adultery as well as other crimes against
chastity cannot be prosecuted except upon a sworn
written complaint filed by the offended spouse. This
means that the offended spouse must have the status,
capacity or legal representation to do so at the time of
the filing of the criminal action.
In this case, respondent obtained a valid divorce in his
country. As such, said divorce and its legal effects may
be recognized in the Philippines. Private respondent, no
longer the husband of petitioner, had no legal standing
to commence the adultery case under the imposture
that he was the offended spouses at the time he filed
the suit.
(2) 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.
PEOPLE VS. MARIANO
Appellant contends that the victim’s mother had NO
RIGHT OR AUTHORITY to file a complaint for rape
inasmuch as the father was still living
The Court ruled that Rule 110 nor Art. 344 of the RPC do
not categorically specify that the father has the
preferential right to file the complaint for seduction,
abduction, rape. It is noteworthy that the father and
mother jointly exercise parental authority over their
legitimate children. It is their duty to represent their
children ‘IN ALL ACTIONS WHICH MAY REDOUND TO
THEIR BENEFIT’.
NOTA BENE: Rape is now classified as a crime against
persons. Hence, it may now be prosecuted de officio.
(3) Criminal action for defamation provides that ONLY the
offended party can initiate the criminal action
20

Section 6. SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
TEST OF SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION:
A complaint or information is sufficient if it contains:
(1) The name of the accused, if committed by more than one
person, all of them shall be included;
(2) The designation of the offense given by the statute;
(3) The acts or omissions constituting the offense;
(4) The name of the offended party;
(5) The approximate date of the commission of the offense;
and
(6) The place where the offense was committed.
Section 7. NAME OF THE ACCUSED
Rules:
(1) The complaint or information must state the name and
surname of the accused or any appellation or nickname by
which he has been or is known;
(2) If his name cannot be ascertained, he must be described
under a fictitious name with a statement that his true name is
unknown;
(3) If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed by
him or appears in some other manner to the court, such true
name shall be inserted in the complaint or information and
record.
NOTA BENE: If ALL ACCUSED are described as John Does, the
said Information is void and an arrest warrant against them is
also void.
If offended party is a juridical person, it is sufficient to state
its name without need of averring that it is a juridical person
or that it is organized in accordance with law
If offended party is unknown in offenses against property, the
property must be described with such particularity as to
properly identify the offense charged.
TWO FOLD TASK OF THE PROSECUTION IN EVERY CRIMINAL
CASE:
(1) To prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the
crime charged;
(2) To prove with the same quantum of proof the identity of
the person or persons responsible therefor.
What happens when the information provides an erroneous
name of the accused?
What is material is the positive identification of the accused
as the author of the crime. A mistake in the name of the
accused is not equivalent and does not necessarily amount to
a mistake in the identity of the accused especially when
sufficient evidence is adduced to show that the accused is
pointed as one of the perpetrators of the crime. (People vs.
Amodia)
Section 8. DESIGNATION OF THE OFFENSE
The complaint or information must state or designate the
following:
(1) The name given to the offense by the statute shall be
stated in the complaint or information; if there is no
designation to the offense, reference shall be made to the
section or subsection punishing it;
(2) The statement of acts or omissions constituting the
offense in clear and concise language;
(3) The specific qualifying and aggravating circumstances
must be stated in clear and concise language.
What is the effect of the failure to designate the offense
given by the statute? What if the information fails to
mention the provision violated?
What is controlling is NOT the tile of the information or the
designation of the offense but the actual facts recited in the
information.
Section 9. CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION
GR: An accused cannot be convicted of an offense UNLESS it
is clearly charged in the complaint or information.
RATIONALE: Constitutionally, he has the right to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
21
What is the rule on qualifying and aggravating
circumstances?
In order to consider said circumstances, the same should be
specified in the complaint or information for such to be
considered in the imposition of the penalty.
While it is necessary to aver the facts constituting the
qualifying and aggravating circumstances, it is not sufficient
to merely state that the offense was committed with
treachery WITHOUT ALLEGING THE FACTS that gave rise to
treachery.
Section 10. PLACE OF COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE
GR: The complaint or information is sufficient if it can be
understood from its allegations that the offense was
committed or some of the essential ingredients occurred at
some place within the jurisdiction of the court
EXCEPTION: Unless the particular place where it was
committed constitutes an essential element of the offense or
is necessary for its identification
Section 11. DATE OF COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE
GR: It is not necessary to state in the complaint or
information the precise date the offense was committed. The
offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as
near as possible to the actual date of its commission.
EXCEPTION: When the date is a material ingredient of the
offense
Section 13. DUPLICITY OF OFFENSE
GR: A complaint or information must charge only one offense
EXCEPTIONS:
(1) Complex Crimes
( 2 ) Special Complex Crimes
(3 ) Continuing Crimes
(4) Crimes susceptible of being committed in various modes
(5) Crimes of which another offense is an ingredient
(6) When a single act violates different statutes
What do you mean by Duplicity of Offense?
It presupposes that there is a joinder of distinct offenses in
one complaint or information
RATIONALE OF THE RULE: The State should not heap upon
the accused two or more charges which might confuse him in
his defense.
PEOPLE VS. JUGUETA – (Information charged the accused
with DOUBLE MURDER, Trial court convicted him of the
same)
ISSUE: Whether the trial court violated the doctrine of
duplicity of offense
Yes. A complaint or information must charge only one
offense, except when the law prescribes a single
punishment for various offense.
Non-compliance with this rule is a ground for quashing
the duplicitous complaint or information under Rule 117
of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and the accused may
raise the same in a motion to quash BEFORE he enters
his plea, otherwise, the defect is deemed waived.
In this case, although the information is duplicitous,
accused entered a plea of not guilty and he failed to
move for the quashal of the information. He is deemed
to have waived his right to question the same.
Because of his failure, he shall be held liable for all the
crimes proved during the trial.
Section 14. AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTION
What is an amendment?
An amendment refers to a change in either the form or
substance of the same offense in the Information
What is the nature of an amended information?
It is not a new Information because it does not charge
22
another offense different or distinct from that charged in the
original one
KINDS OF AMENDMENT:
(1) Formal Amendment - amendment that does not charge
another offense different from that charged in the original
one or do not alter the prosecution’s theory of the case so as
to cause the surprise to the accused and affect the form of his
defense he has or will assume
(2 ) Substantial Amendment - amendment that consists of
changing the recital of facts constituting the offense charged
RULES ON AMENDMENT
(1) Before the Plea - If the amendment is made before the
accused enters his plea, the complaint or information may be
amended in form or in substance, without the need for leave
of court.
INSTANCES WHERE LEAVE OF COURT IS REQUIRED EVEN IF
AMENDMENT IS MADE BEFORE THE PLEA
(a) Amendment which downgrades the nature of the
offense charged
(b) Amendment excludes any accused from the
complaint or information
NOTA BENE: Aside from leave of court, the above
amendments can be made only:
(a) Upon motion by the Prosecutor;
(b) With notice to the Offended party.
(2) After the Plea - After the plea and during the trial, a
formal amendment may only be made provided that:
(a) leave of court is obtained and;
(b) when it can be done without causing prejudice to the
rights of the accused.
Is the change from Homicide to Murder a substantial one?
PACOY VS. CAJIGAL:
The change of the offense charged from homicide to
murder is merely a formal amendment and not a
substantial amendment or substitution. There was no
change in the recital of facts constituting the offense
charged or in the determination of the court. The
averments in the amended information for murder are
exactly the same as those alleged in the original
information for homicide. Thus, the amendment is
purely formal.
What is the remedy when a mistake has been made in
charging the proper offense?
A complaint or information may be substituted at any time
before judgment. In such case, the court shall dismiss the
original complaint or information once the new one charging
the proper offense is filed provided the accused will not be
placed in double jeopardy.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBSTITUTION AND AMENDMENT:
As to applicability:
Amendment involves the same attempted, frustrated,
necessarily includes or necessarily included offense
Substitution involves different offenses
As to its scope,
Amendment may involve either formal or substantial changes
Substitution involves substantial changes from the original
charge.
As to the necessity of leave of court,
Amendment before the plea can be effected without leave of
court. Amendment after the plea can be effected only when
there is a leave of court.
Substitution of Information must be with leave of court as the
original information has to be dismissed.
As to the necessity of another preliminary investigation,
Amendment is only as to form, hence, no need for another PI
In Substitution, another PI is entailed and accused has to
plead anew to the new information
23
As to the applicability of Rule of Double Jeopardy,
In Amendment, an information which refers to the same
offense charged in the original information or an offense
which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the
original charge, hence substantial amendments to the
information after the plea has been taken cannot be made
over the objection of the accused, for if the original
Information would be withdrawn, THE ACCUSED COULD
INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
In Substitution, since it presupposes that the new information
involves a different offense, the accused cannot claim double
jeopardy.
CASE DOCTRINES:
METROPOLITAN BANK VS. REYNALDO
It is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to implead ALL
persons who appear criminally liable for the offense
charged. While it is a matter of discretion on the part of
the prosecutor to determine which persons appear
responsible for the commission of a crime, THE
MOMENT HE FINDS ONE TO BE SO LIABLE becomes his
inescapable duty to charge him therewith and to
prosecute him for the same.
In this case, despite the sufficiency of the evidence
before the prosecutor, he refuses to file the
corresponding information against the person
responsible, he abuses his discretion. His act is
tantamount to a deliberate refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law.
CHIOK VS. PEOPLE
PEOPLE VS. VALDEZ
The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not
from the caption or preamble of the information or from
the specification of law alleged to have been violated,
which are mere conclusions of law, but by the actual
recital of facts in the complaint or information.
To discharge the burden of informing the accused of the
charge, the State must specify in the information the
details of the crime and any circumstance that
aggravates the liability of the crime.
ESTRADA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
The words of the Amended Information is NOT CERTAIN
whether the accused conspired with each other to
enable Pres. Estrada to amass ill-gotten wealth.
The mere statement of the name of an accused, without
specifying his degree of participation in the act, is not a
sufficient ground to indict him for the crime.
ENRILE VS. PEOPLE
To be considered as sufficient and valid, an
information must state the name of the accused; the
designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or
omissions constituting the offense; the name of the offended
party; the approximate date of the commission of the
offense; and the place where the offense was committed.
If there is no designation of the offense, reference
shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute
penalizing it. The acts or omissions constituting the offense
and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances alleged
must be stated in ordinary and concise language; they do not
necessarily need to be in the language of the statute, and
should be in terms sufficient to enable a person of common
understanding to know what offense is charged and what
qualifying and aggravating circumstances are alleged, so that
the court can pronounce judgment. The Rules do not require
the Information to exactly allege the date and place of the
commission of the offense, unless the date and the place are
material ingredients or essential elements of the offense, or
are necessary for its identification.
PEOPLE VS. TORRECAMPO
Solicitor General contends that while treachery was not
alleged in the information, when it is proved during the
trial can be considered as a generic aggravating
circumstance.
The Court did not agree. The same shall be stated in the
Information in order for the said circumstance to be
appreciated.
FRONDA-BAGGAO VS. PEOPLE
4 Informations for illegal recruitment are amended and
lumped into 1 Information. Can this be allowed?
Yes. A careful scrutiny of the above Rule shows that
although it uses the singular
24
 word complaint or information, it does not mean that
two or more complaints or Informations cannot be
amended into only one Information. Otherwise, there
can be an absurd situation whereby two or more
complaints or Informations could no longer be amended
into one or more Informations. The Court cites Sec. 6,
Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides that
these Rules shall be liberally construed in order to
promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
MATALAM VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
Accused was originally charged with violation of RA
3019. Amended Info excluded other accused. The corpus
delicti of the amended information is no longer his
alleged refusal to pay the backwages ordered by the
Civil Service Commission, but the alleged willful,
unlawful, and illegal dismissal from the service of the
complaining witnesses.
ISSUE: Whether there is a need for a new PI
RULING: Yes. Since the amendment in this case was
substantial as the recital of facts constituting the offense
was altered. The rule is that a new PI is needed if there
is a substantial amendment.
PEOPLE VS. TUBONGBANUA
The Supreme Court held that the insertion of the
aggravating circumstances of dwelling and insult or
disregard of the respect due to rank, age, or sex of the
victim is clearly a formal, not a substantial, amendment.
These amendments do not have the effect of charging
another offense different or distinct from the charge of
murder as contained in the original information. They
relate only to the range of the penalty that the court
might impose in the event of conviction. The
amendment did not adversely affect any substantial
right of appellant. Besides, appellant never objected to
the presentation of evidence to prove the aggravating
circumstances of dwelling and insult or in disregard of
the respect due to the offended party on account of
rank, age or sex. Without any objection by the defense,
the defect is deemed waived.
RICARZE VS. COURT OF APPEALS
Whether the substitution of Caltex by PCIB as private
complainant was tantamount to a substantial
amendment of informations prohibited under Rule 110
Sec. 14.
RULING: No. The substitution of Caltex by PCIB as
private complaint is not a substantial amendment. The
substitution did not alter the basis of the charge in both
Informations, nor did it result in any prejudice to
petitioner. The documentary evidence in the form of the
forged checks remained the same, and all such evidence
was available to petitioner well before the trial. Thus, he
cannot claim any surprise by virtue of the substitution.
CRESPO VS. MOGUL
The action of the fiscal or prosecutor is not without any
limitation or control. The same is subject to the approval
of the provincial or city fiscal or the chief state
prosecutor as the case maybe and it maybe elevated for
review to the Secretary of Justice who has the power to
affirm, modify or reverse the action or opinion of the
fiscal. Consequently the Secretary of Justice may direct
that a motion to dismiss the case be filed in Court or
otherwise, that an information be filed in Court.
In order therefor to avoid such a situation whereby the
opinion of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the
action of the fiscal may be disregarded by the trial court,
the Secretary of Justice should, as far as practicable,
refrain from entertaining a petition for review or appeal
from the action of the fiscal, when the complaint or
information has already been filed in Court. The matter
should be left entirely for the determination of the
Court.
SOBERANO VS. PEOPLE
Accused Diloy and Lopez brothers were discharged in
the Amended Information. Is this allowed?
Yes. An amendment of the information made before
plea which excludes some or one of the accused must
be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with
notice to the offended party and with leave of court in
compliance with Section 14, Rule 110. Section 14, Rule
110 does not qualify the grounds for the exclusion of the
accused. Thus, said provision applies in equal force
when the exclusion is sought on the usual ground of lack
of probable cause, or when it is for utilization of the
accused as state witness, as in this case, or on some
other ground.
25
PEOPLE VS. CAOILE

The Amended Informations stated that he was being

charged with the crime of rape of a demented
person under paragraph 1(d), (WHEN THE PROPER
CHARGE SHOULD BE RAPE WHEN THE OFFENDED
PARTY IS DEPRIVED OF REASON) it also stated that
his victim was "a person with a mental age of seven
(7) years old.

What is controlling is not the title of the complaint,

nor the designation of the offense charged or the
particular law or part thereof allegedly violated,
these being mere conclusions of law made by the
prosecutor, but the description of the crime
charged and the particular facts therein recited. The
acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in
such form as is sufficient to enable a person of
common understanding to know what offense is
intended to be charged, and enable the court to
pronounce proper judgment. No information for a
crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and
clearly allege the elements of the crime charged.
Every element of the offense must be stated in the
information. What facts and circumstances are
necessary to be included therein must be
determined by reference to the definitions and
essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement
of alleging the elements of a crime in the
information is to inform the accused of the nature of
the accusation against him so as to enable him to
suitably prepare his defense. The presumption is
that the accused has no independent knowledge of
the facts that constitute the offense.

26
 RULE 111 - PROSECUTION ON CIVIL ACTION
GENERAL RULE: When a criminal action is instituted, the civil
action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the
offense shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action
(Section 1a, Rule 111)
EXCEPTIONS:
When the offended party:
1. WAIVES the civil action;
2. RESERVES his right to institute a separate civil action; or
3. INSTITUTES A CIVIL ACTION PRIOR to the criminal action
(Sec. 1, Rule 111).
Note: In all of these instances, the dual character of a
criminal suit ceases.
The primary governing law on the recovery of civil liability
arising from the commission of an offense is the RPC. To be
sure, under Art. 100 of the Code, it is expressly declared that
“every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
liable”. The civil liability may consist of restitution, reparation
of damage caused, and indemnification for consequential
damages.
CIVIL ACTIONS NOT DEEMED INSTITUTED:
1. Arising from breach of contract
2. Independent civil actions or those based on Arts. 31, 32,
and 33 of the New Civil Code
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People-
-What is deemed instituted in every criminal
prosecution is the civil liability arising from the crime
or delict per se (civil liability ex delicto), but not
those liabilities arising from quasi-delicts, contracts
or quasi-contracts. Thus, the civil actions referred to
in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code shall
remain “separate, distinct and independent” of any
criminal prosecution based on the same act.
The only limitation is that the offended party cannot recover
more than once for the same act or omission.
3. Based on Art. 2176 of the New Civil Code or quasi-
delict(Herrera, Vol. IV, p. 216, 2007 ed.)
RESERVATION TO FILE A SEPARATE ACTION MUST BE DONE:
1. Before the prosecution starts to present its evidence; and
2. Under circumstances affording the offended party a
reasonable opportunity to make such reservation
The reservation may not be necessarily express but may be
implied, which may be inferred not only from the acts of the
offended party but also from acts other than those of the
latter.
INSTANCES WHEN RESERVATION TO FILE A SEPARATE
ACTION IS NOT ALLOWED.
1. Violation of B.P. 22
Nuguid vs. Nicdao –
As regards the criminal aspect of a violation of BP 22,
suffice it to say that: [t]he gravamen of BP 22 is the
act of making and issuing a worthless check or one
that is dishonored upon its presentment for
payment [and] the accused failed to satisfy the
amount of the check or make arrangement for its
payment. The act is malum prohibitum, pernicious
and inimical to public welfare. Why and to whom the
check was issued is irrelevant in determining
culpability. The terms and conditions surrounding
the issuance of the checks are also irrelevant.
2. A claim arising from an offense which is cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan; and
3. Tax cases.
EFFECTS OF ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL OFFENSE
A person acquitted of a criminal charge, however, is not
necessarily civilly free because the quantum of proof required
in criminal prosecution (proof beyond reasonable doubt) is
27
greater than that required for civil liability (mere
preponderance of evidence).
To be completely free from civil liability, a person’s acquittal
must be based on the fact that he did not commit the
offense. If the acquittal is based merely on reasonable doubt,
the accused may still be held civilly liable since this does not
mean he did not commit the act complained of. The
judgement of acquittal extinguishes the the liability of the
accused for damages only when it includes a declaration
that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.
Acquittal will not bar a civil action in the following cases:
1 where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt;
2 where the court declared the accused’s liability is not
criminal but only civil in nature; and
3 where the civil liability does not arise from or is not based
upon the criminal act of which the accused was acquitted.
*Dismissal of the criminal case at the instance of the fiscal is
not a bar to the institution of a civil case based upon the
same act or transaction. The offended party is entitled to
demand enforcement of the civil liability of the accused in a
separate case.
SECTION 2. WHEN SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION IS SUSPENDED
Civil Action is suspended:
1. After the filing of the criminal action, the civil action
which has been reserved cannot be instituted until final
judgment has been rendered in the criminal action (Sec. 2).;
2. If the civil action is instituted before the filing of the
criminal action and the criminal action is subsequently
commenced, the pending civil action shall be suspended
until final judgment in the criminal action has been
rendered.
The general rule is that where both and criminal cases arising
from the same facts are filed in different courts, the criminal
takes precedence and the civil is thus suspended in whatever
stage it may be found.
Exceptions:
★ In cases of independent civil actions based upon Art.
32,33,34 and 2176 of the NCC
★ Where civil action presents a prejudicial question
★ Where the civil action is consolidated with the criminal
action
★ Where the civil action is not one intended to enforce the
civil liability arising from the offense.
CONSOLIDATION NOT MANDATORY
It is by no means a ministerial duty on the part of the criminal
court to grant the application for consolidation. If it finds that
the fusion of cases applied for would unnecessarily delay the
disposition of the criminal case, and thus negate the right of
the accused to a speedy trial, it is well within the power of
the trial court to deny application.
Note: A separate civil action for collection of sum of money
cannot be consolidated with cases pending before the
Sandiganbayan for the latter has no jurisdiction over
collection cases (Herrera, Vol. IV, p. 231, 2007 ed.).
Republic vs. Court of Appeals –
An essential requisite of consolidation is that the
court must have jurisdiction over all the cases
consolidated before it. Since the Sandiganbayan does
not have jurisdiction over the collection case, the
same cannot An essential requisite of consolidation is
that the court must have jurisdiction over all the
cases consolidated before it. Since the
Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over the
collection case, the same cannot
SUBSIDIARY CIVIL LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER:
Pursuant to Article 103, in relation to Art. 102 of RPC, an
employer may be held subsidiarily liable for the employee’s
civil liability in a criminal action when:
a. The employer is engaged in any kind of industry
b. The employee committed the offense in the
discharge of his duties
c. Employee is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil
liability.
28
The civil liability if the employer arises only after conviction of
the employee of the criminal offense charged. It is his
concerns to see to it that his interest be protected in the
criminal case by taking virtual participation in the defense of
his employee. To allow an employer to dispute the civil
liability fixed in the criminal case would be to amend, nullify,
or defeat a final judgement rendered by a competent court.
SEC. 3. WHEN CIVIL ACTION MAY PROCEED INDEPENDENTLY
Santos vs. Pizarro –
In this case, the offended party can file two separate
suits for the same act or omission. The first, a
criminal case where the civil action to recover civil
liability ex delicto (Art. 100, RPC) is deemed
instituted, and the other a civil case for quasi delict-
without violating the rule on non-forum shopping.
The two cases can proceed simultaneously and
independently of each other. The only limitation is
the the offended party cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
At the time of the filing of the complaint for
damages in this case, the cause of action ex quasi
delicto had already prescribed. The trial court should
not have dismissed the complaint on the ground of
prescription, but instead allowed the complaint for
damages ex delicto to be prosecuted on the merits.
This does not offend the policy that the reservation
or institution of a separate civil action waives the
other civil actions. The rationale behind this rule is
the avoidance of multiple suits between the same
litigants arising out of the same act or omission of
the offender. However, since the stale action for
damages based on quasi delict should be considered
waived, there is no more occasion for petitioners to
file multiple suits against private respondents as the
only recourse available to them is to pursue
damages ex delicto.
Manliclic vs. Calaunan –
The extinction of civil liability referred to Section 2(b)
of Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil liability
founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code,
whereas the civil liability for the same act considered
as a quasi delict only and not as a crime is not
extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal
case that the criminal act charged has not happened
or has not been committed by the accused.
SEC. 4. EFFECT OF DEATH ON CIVIL ACTIONS
1. After arraignment and during the pendency of the
criminal action
GR: The civil liability of the accused based on the crime is
extinguished.
Bernardo vs. People-
As a general rule, the death of an accused pending
appeal extinguishes her criminal liability and the
corresponding civil liability based solely on the
offense (delict). The death amounts to an acquittal
of the accused based on the constitutionally
mandated presumption of innocence in her favor,
which can be overcome only by a finding of guilt —
something that death prevents the court from
making.
For conduct constituting defamation, fraud, and
physical injuries, the Civil Code likewise grants the
offended party the right to institute a civil action
independently of the criminal action under Article 33
of the Civil Code.
EXC:
a. Independent civil action based on Arts. 32 33, 34 and 2176
of the Civil Code
The independent civil liabilities, however, survive
death and an action for recovery therefore may be generally
pursued but only by filing a separate civil action and subject
to Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure as
amended. This separate civil action may be enforced against
the estate of the accused (Bernardo vs. People)
29
b. Civil liability predicated on other sources of obligations, i.e.
law, contract, and quasi-contract, which is subsequently
instituted;
2. Before arraignment – the offended party may file the civil
action against the estate of the deceased (Sec. 4).
3. Pending appeal
a. Civil liability arising from the crime is extinguished
b. Civil liability predicated from another source survives i.e.
civil liability arising from law, contracts, quasi-contract and
quasi-delict.
SEC. 7 PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
Prejudicial question is one which arises in a case, the
resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue
involved therein and the cognizance of which pertains to
another tribunal.
People vs. Consing, Jr. –
The prejudicial question must be determinative of
the case before the court but the jurisdiction to try
and resolve the question must be lodged in another
court or tribunal. It is a question based on a fact
distinct and separate from the crime but so
intimately connected with it that it determines the
guilt or innocence of the accused. The rationale
behind the principle of prejudicial question is to
avoid conflicting decisions.
Neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and
the criminal action can, according to law, proceed
independently of each other.
Elements of Prejudicial Question
1. The civil action must be instituted prior to the criminal
action;
2. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately
related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action;
and
3. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the
criminal action may proceed (Sec. 7).
Note: For the principle of prejudicial question to apply, it is
essential that there be two cases involved, invariably a civil
case and a criminal case. If the two cases are both civil or if
they are both criminal, the principle does not apply.
The law limits a prejudicial question to a previously instituted
civil action not to a subsequent one.
When can a prejudicial question be raised?
1. The prejudicial question may be raised during the
preliminary investigation of the offense or in court before the
prosecution rests its case.
2. The suspension of the criminal case due to a prejudicial
question is only a procedural matter, and is subject to a
waiver by virtue of prior acts of the accused.
3. There is no prejudicial question where one case is
administrative and the other is civil.
Petition for suspension by reason of prejudicial question can
be filed in:
1. Office of the prosecutor; or
2. Court where the criminal action has been filed for trial at
any time before the prosecution rests (Sec. 6).
When, in the course of the actions taken by those to whom
the complaint is endorsed or forwarded, a prejudicial
question is found to be pending, Section 6, Rule 111 of the
Rules of Court should be applied in a suppletory character. As
laid down in Yap v. Paras, 205 SCRA 625 (1992), said rule
directs that the proceedings may only be suspended, not
30
dismissed, and that it may be made only upon petition, and EXC: B.P. 22 cases, wherein the amount of the filing
not at the instance of the judge alone or as in this case, the fees shall be equivalent to the amount of the check involved.
investigating officer. (Philippine Agila Satellite, Inc. vs.
Lichauco)

2. Liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary

damages – The filing fee shall be based on the amount
Bigamy Case alleged in the complaint or information (Sec. 1).

Montañez vs. Cipriano –

At the time respondent contracted the second Note: If the amount of the damages claimed is not specifically
marriage, the first marriage was still subsisting as it alleged in the complaint or information, but the court
had not yet been legally dissolved. As ruled similar subsequently awards such, the filing fees based on the
cases, the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment
of the first marriage would not change the fact that (Sec. 1Rule 111).
she contracted the second marriage during the
subsistence of the first marriage. Thus, respondent
was properly charged of the crime of bigamy, since
What is the extent of damages that may be awarded in civil
the essential elements of the offense charged were
liability arising from a crime?
sufficiently alleged. What makes a person criminally
liable for bigamy is when he contracts a second or
subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a
valid marriage. 1. Actual damages e.g. loss of earning capacity;

2. Moral damages;

Also, the contention of Montañez that since her two 3. Exemplary damages
marriages were contracted prior to the effectivity of
4. Life expectancy
the Family Code, Article 40 of the Family Code
cannot be given retroactive effect because this will
impair her right to remarry without need of securing
a judicial declaration of nullity of a completely void Note: Attorney’s fees may be awarded if:
marriage HAS NO MERIT.
1. Exemplary damages is awarded; or
- The fact that procedural statutes may
somehow affect the litigants’ rights may not 2. Civil action is separately instituted from the criminal action
preclude their retroactive application to
pending actions. The retroactive application
of procedural laws is not violative of any What is the effect of the failure to plead damages in the
right of a person who may feel that he is complaint or information?
adversely affected. The reason is that as a
general rule, no vested right may attach to, The offender is still liable and the offended party has the
nor arise from, procedural laws. right to prove and claim for them in the criminal case, unless
a waiver or reservation of the

What are the rules regarding filing fees of civil action civil action is made
deemed instituted with the criminal action?

1. Actual damages
Note: In an appeal of a criminal case the appellate court may
GR: No filing fee is required. impose additional damages or increase or decrease the

31
amount of damages upon the accused- appellant. HOWEVER,
additional penalties CANNOT be imposed upon a co- accused
who DID NOT APPEAL, BUT modifications of the judgment
BENEFICIAL to him are considered in his favor.

What is the effect of the failure to plead damages in the

complaint or information?
The offender is still liable and the offended party has the right
to prove and claim for them in the criminal case, unless a
waiver or reservation of the civil action is made

May the accused file counterclaims, cross-claims or third

party complaints in a criminal proceeding?
No. Counterclaims, cross claims, third party complaints are
no longer allowed in a criminal proceeding. Any claim which
could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a
separate civil action.
Reasons:

1. The counterclaim of the accused will unnecessarily

complicate and confuse the criminal proceedings;
2. The trial court should confine itself to the criminal aspect
and the possible civil liability of the accused arising out of the
crime.

32
 RULE 112
Sec. 1
Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to
determine whether there exists sufficient ground to
engender well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and that the respondent is probably guilty
thereof, and should be held for trial.
The presence of the accused or the offended party is NOT
MANDATORY in the investigation
PI is required to be conducted before the filing of a complaint
or information for an offense where the penalty PRESCRIBED
by law is at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day WITHOUT
regard to the fine
XPN: There is no right of PI when a person is lawfully arrested
without a warrant.
De Lima v Reyes
Sec De Lima issued Dept Order no. 091 creating a special
panel of prosecutors (1st PANEL) to conduct preliminary
investigation of Recamata for the killing of Dr. Ortega. An
affidavit complaint was filed by the victim’s. The first panel
dismissed the affidavit complaint. While the motion to re-
open was still pending, she filed a motion to re-open PI and
sought for the admission of mobile phone communications
between former gov reyes and edrad. – DENIED.
Sec of justice issued dept order no. 710 creating a
new panel of investigators (SECOND PANEL) to conduct a
reinvestigation of the case. It was to address the offer of
additional evidence denied by the first panel. Gov Reyes
asserts that Sec of Justice abused its discretion when she
constituted a new panel. SECOND panel issued a resolution
finding probable cause and recommending the filing of
information on all accused and warrant of arrest were issued
The Sec. of justice has the discretion to act on any matter that
may cause a probable miscarriage of justice in the conduct of
a PI including the reinvestigation.
Making of a new panel of prosec to reinvestigate a case to
prevent a miscarriage of justice is in accordance with RA
10071 and 2000 NPS rule on appeal and w/in the power of
sec of justice.
A preliminary investigation is MERELY INQUISITORIAL and is
only conducted to aid the prosecutor in preparing the
information. It is merely preparatory to a trial. It is not a trial
on the merits. An accused's right to a preliminary
investigation is merely statutory; it is not a right guaranteed
by the Constitution.
TWO- FOLD PURPOSE of Preliminary Investigation:
1. To protect the innocent against wrongful
prosecutions;
2. To spare the state from using its funds and
resources in useless prosecutions.
Q: if the trial court refuses to grant the motion to
dismiss filed by the fiscal upon the directive of the Secretary
of Justice will there not be a vacuum in the prosecution?
A: it is the duty of the fiscal to proceed with the
presentation of evidence of the prosecution to the Court to
enable the Court to arrive at its own independent judgment
as to whether the accused should be convicted or acquitted.
The fiscal should not shirk from the responsibility of
appearing for the People of the Philippines even under such
circumstances much less should he abandon the prosecution
of the case leaving it to the hands of a private prosecutor for
then the entire proceedings will be null and void. The least
that the fiscal should do is to continue to appear for the
prosecution although he may turn over the presentation of
the evidence to the private prosecutor but still under his
direction and control.
The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a
complaint or information is filed in Court any
disposition of the case as to its dismissal or the
conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the
sound discretion of the Court. A motion to dismiss
the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the
Court who has the option to grant or deny the same.
It does not matter if this is done before or after the
arraignment of the accused or that the motion was
filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of
the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of
the investigation.
Mendoza v. People
The trial court may dismiss an information filed by
the prosecutor on the basis of its own independent
finding of lack of probable cause. While the
determination of probable cause to charge a person
of a crime is the sole function of the prosecutor, the
TC may in the protection of one’s fundamental right
to liberty, dismiss the case if, upon a personal
assessment of the evidence, it finds that the
evidence doesn’t established probable cause.
NOTE: Although jurisprudence and procedural rules
allow it, a judge must always proceed with caution in
dismissing cases due to lack of probable cause,
considering the preliminary nature of the evidence
33
 before it. It is only when he or she finds that the (3) order the prosecutor to present additional evidence
evidence on hand ABSOLUTELY FAILS to support a within five days from notice in case of doubt as to the
finding of probable cause that he or she can dismiss existence of probable cause.
the case.
But the option to order the prosecutor to present additional
evidence is not mandatory.
EXECUTIVE JUDICIAL
DETERMIANTION OF PC DETERMINATION OF PC
one made during one made by the judge to People v. Villanueva
preliminary investigation ascertain whether a
warrant of arrest should In this case, accused-appellant failed to invoke such right to
be issued against the preliminary investigation before or at the time he entered his
accused plea at arraignment. He can no longer invoke that right at this
Function of public prosec The judge must satisfy late stage of the proceedings.
who is given a broad himself that based on the
discretion to determine evidence submitted, there Absence of a preliminary investigation DOES NOT:
whether probable cause is necessity for placing the 1. impair the validity of the information or otherwise
exists and to charge accused under custody in render the same defective;
those whom he believes order not to frustrate the 2. neither does it affect the jurisdiction of the court
to have committed the ends of justice. If the judge over the case
crime as defined by law finds no probable cause, 3. nor does it constitute a ground for quashing the
and should be held for the judge cannot be information.
trial forced to issue the arrest
warrant If no preliminary investigation has been held, or if it is flawed,
The official has the the trial court may, on motion of the accused, order an
quasi-judicial authority investigation or reinvestigation and hold the proceedings on
to determine WON a the criminal case in abeyance.
crim case must be filed
in court
whether or not he has Sec 2
made a correct The court can compel the Prosec by MANDAMUS to conduct
ascertainment of the a preliminary investigation as it his ministerial duty. However,
existence of probable the Court cannot compel the Prosec by mandamus in the
cause in a case, is a determination of probable cause during a PI as that it is his
matter that the trial discretionary duty.
court itself does not and
may not be compelled to BIRAOGO v. PTC
pass upon. PTC is a mere ad hoc body formed under the Office of the
President with the primary task to investigate reports of graft
Art III, sec 2, consti: The Constitution prohibits the issuance of
and corruption committed by third-level public officers and
search warrants or warrants of arrest where the judge has
not personally determined the existence of probable cause. employees, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories
The phrase “upon probable cause to be determined during the previous administration.
personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce” allows a determination of probable cause by the DOJ and OMBUDSMAN have concurrent juris w/ other
judge ex parte. prosecuting arm of gov’t regarding preliminary investigation.

Sec 5 (a) rule 112: mandates the judge to “immediately
dismiss the case if the evidence on record fails to establish
probable cause
THREE OPTIONS upon filing of crim info:
(1) dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly failed to
establish probable cause;
(2) issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause;
The PTC will not supplant the Ombudsman or the DOJ or
erode their respective powers. The function of determining
probable cause for the filing of the appropriate complaints
before the courts remains to be with the DOJ and the
Ombudsman. At any rate, the Ombudsman's power to
investigate under R.A. No. 6770 is not exclusive but is shared
with other similarly authorized government agencies.

34

“This power of investigation granted to the
Ombudsman by the 1987 Constitution and The
Ombudsman Act is not exclusive but is shared with
other similarly authorized government agencies such
as the PCGG and judges of municipal trial courts and
municipal circuit trial courts. The power to conduct
preliminary investigation on charges against public
employees and officials is likewise concurrently
shared with the Department of Justice.
Baseugo v Office of the Ombudsman
The Ombudsman’s primary jurisdiction, albeit
concurrent with the DOJ, to conduct preliminary
investigation of crimes involving public officers,
without regard to its commission in relation to
office.
However, the Ombudsman, in the exercise of its
primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan, may take over, at any stage, from
any investigating agency of the government, the
investigation of such cases.
Quarto v Marcelo
Ombudsman is generally no different from an
ordinary prosecutor in determining who must be
charged. He also enjoys the same latitude of
discretion in determining what constitutes sufficient
evidence to support a finding of probable cause
The Ombudsman may grant immunity from criminal
prosecution to any person whose testimony or
whose possession and production of documents or
other evidence may be necessary to determine the
truth in any hearing, inquiry or proceeding being
conducted by the Ombudsman or under its
authority, in the performance or in the furtherance
of its constitutional functions and statutory
objectives.
The power to prosecute includes the right to
determine who shall be prosecuted and the corollary
right to decide whom not to prosecute.
REMEDY when he arbitrarily excludes from
indictment some individuals: MANDAMUS
(mandamus lies to compel a prosecutor who refuses
(i) to include in the information certain persons,
whose participation in the commission of a crime
clearly appears, and (ii) to follow the proper
procedure for the discharge of these persons in
order that they may be utilized as prosecution
witnesses)
Cojuangco v PCGG
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) has
the power to conduct a preliminary investigation of the anti-
graft and corruption cases filed by the Solicitor General
against Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. and other respondents for the
alleged misuse of coconut levy funds
Sections 2(b) and 3(a) of Executive Order No. 1 and Sections 1
and 2 of Executive Order No. 14, it is clear that the PCGG has
the power to investigate and prosecute such ill-gotten
wealth cases of the former President, his relatives and
associates, and graft and corrupt practices cases that may be
assigned by the President to the PCGG to be filed with the
Sandiganbayan.
No doubt, the authority to investigate extended to the PCGG
includes the authority to conduct a preliminary investigation
PCGG was vested concurrent jurisdiction with the
Tanodbayan.
The general power of investigation vested in the PCGG may
be divided into two stages.
1.) criminal investigation stage is the fact-finding
inquiring which is usually conducted by the law
enforcement agents whereby they gather evidence
and interview witnesses after which they assess the
evidence and if they find sufficient basis, file the
complaint for the purpose of preliminary
investigation.
2.) preliminary investigation stage. it is ascertained if
there is sufficient evidence to bring a person to trial.
Arroyo v DOJ
SEC. 265. Prosecution. – The Commission shall,
through its duly authorized legal officers, have the
power, concurrent with the other prosecuting arms
of the government, to conduct preliminary
investigation of all election offenses punishable
under this Code, and to prosecute the same.
As clearly set forth above, instead of a mere
delegated authority, the other prosecuting arms of
the government, such as the DOJ, now exercise
concurrent jurisdiction with the Comelec to conduct
35
 preliminary investigation of all election offenses and
to prosecute the same.
Although DOJ belongs to the executive department,
the DOJ is likewise not barred from acting jointly
with the Comelec. It must be emphasized that the
DOJ and the Comelec exercise concurrent
jurisdiction in conducting preliminary investigation
of election offenses.
What is prohibited is the situation where one files a
complaint against a respondent initially with one
office (such as the Comelec) for preliminary
investigation which was immediately acted upon by
said office and the re-filing of substantially the same
complaint with another office (such as the DOJ).
Indeed, it is a settled rule that the body or agency
that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall
exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others.
To allow the same complaint to be filed successively
before two or more investigative bodies would
promote multiplicity of proceedings.
During the preliminary investigation, the complainants are
not obliged to prove their cause beyond reasonable doubt.
A preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full
and exhaustive display of the parties’ respective evidence but
the presentation only of such evidence as may engender a
well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and
that the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held
for trial.
In a preliminary investigation, the Rules of Court guarantee
the petitioners basic due process rights such as the right to be
furnished a copy of the complaint, the affidavits, and other
supporting documents, and the right to submit counter-
affidavits, and other supporting documents in her defense.
Raro v Sandiganbayan
The referral of the complaint to the NBI does not
mean that the Ombudsman abdicated its
constitutional and statutory duty to conduct
preliminary investigations. Under the circumstances
of this case, the Ombudsman’s failure to personally
administer oath to the complainant does not mean
that the Ombudsman did not personally determine
the existence of probable cause to warrant the
filing of an information. Neither did the SB violate
petitioner’s right to due process of law by its failure
to personally examine the complainant before it
issued the warrant of arrest.
An incomplete preliminary investigation or the
absence thereof may not warrant the quashal of an
information. In such cases, the proper procedure is
for the SB to hold in abeyance any further
proceedings conducted and to remand the case to
the Ombudsman for preliminary investigation or
completion thereof
NOTE: In a preliminary examination for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest, a court is not required to review in detail
the evidence submitted during the preliminary investigation.
What is required is that the judge personally evaluates the
report and supporting documents submitted by the
prosecution in determining probable cause.
4-year delay in the completion of the preliminary
investigation does not affect the validity of the
Information. The record clearly shows that the
Ombudsman exerted utmost effort to determine the
veracity of Abaos allegations against petitioner. That
it took the NBI almost two years to complete its
report on the matter does not mean that petitioner’s
right to speedy disposition of the charge was
brushed aside. The length of time it took before the
conclusion of the preliminary investigation may only
be attributed to the adherence of the Ombudsman
and the NBI to the rules of procedure and the
rudiments of fair play.
Carpio- Morales v CA
Ombudsman was tasked to principally investigate on
complaint or motu proprio, any administration, act
of any admin. agency including any GOCCs.
Tanodbayan was given the exclusive authority to
conduct prelim investigation of all cases cognizable
by Sandiganbayan filed the corresponding info and
control the prosecution of these cases. The 1987
Consti. Expressly and constitutionally guaranteed its
independence.
Sec 3.
Callo-Claridad v Esteban
Some of the affidavits were unsworn. The statements
subscribed and sworn to before the officers of the Philippine
National Police (PNP) having the authority to administer
oaths upon matters connected with the performance of their
official duties undeniably lacked the requisite certifications to
the effect that such administering officers had personally
examined the affiants, and that such administering officers
were satisfied that the affiants had voluntarily executed and
understood their affidavits.
36
The lack of the requisite certifications from the affidavits of
most of the other witnesses was in violation of Section 3, Rule
112 of the Rules of Court.
The requirement set forth under Section 3 is MANDATORY.
This is so because the rules on preliminary investigation does
not require a confrontation between the parties. Preliminary
investigation is ordinarily conducted through submission of
affidavits and supporting documents, through submission of
affidavits and supporting documents, through the exchange
of pleadings.
De ocampo v Sec. of Justice
A clarificatory hearing is NOT INDISPENSABLE during
preliminary investigation, it is optional on the part of
the investigating officer as evidenced by the use of
the term may in Section 3(e) of Rule 112.
Sec 4
Contents of Certification of Preliminary Investigation:
The investigating officer shall certify under oath:
1.) he or an authorized officer, as shown by the record,
personally examined the complainant and his
witnesses
2.) there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime
has been committed and the accused is probably
guilty thereof
3.) the accused was informed of the Complaint and of
the evidence against him
4.) he was given an opportunity to submit controverting
evidence
NOTE: Judges of first level courts are no longer allowed to
conduct PI
NOTE: A Motion for judicial determination of probable cause
is now PROHIBITED motion which must be denied outright
without need of comment/opposition
Quisay v People
In the case, all it contained was a Certification from ACP De La
Cruz which stated that the filing of the Information is with the
prior authority and approval of the City Prosecutor. Aside
from the bare and self-serving Certification, there was no
proof that ACP De La Cruz was authorized to file the
Information before the RTC by himself. Records are bereft of
any showing that the City Prosecutor of Makati had
authorized ACP De La Cruz to do so by giving him prior
written authority or by designating him as a division chief or
review prosecutor of OCP-Makati.
Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure states that the filing of a complaint or information
REQUIRES a prior written authority or approval of the named
officers therein before a complaint or information may be
filed before the courts
No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by
an investigating prosecutor without the prior written
authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor
or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his
deputy.
Thus, as a general rule, complaints or informations filed
before the courts without the prior written authority or
approval of the foregoing authorized officers renders the
same defective and, therefore, subject to quashal
pursuant to Section 3 (d), Rule 117 of the same Rules, to
wit:
SECTION 3. Grounds. - The accused may move to
quash the complaint or information on any of the
following grounds:
xxxx
(d) That the officer who filed the information had
no authority to do so;
NOTE: The filing of an Information by an officer without the
requisite authority to file the same constitutes a jurisdictional
infirmity which cannot be cured by silence, waiver,
acquiescence, or even by express consent. Hence, such ground
may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
Sec. 5
Probable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances
which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed by the person
sought to be arrested.
Note: PC can be established with hearsay evidence provided
that there is SUBSTANTIAL BASIS for crediting the hearsay.
Okabe v Gutierrez
Before the RTC judge issues a warrant of arrest under Section
6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 2,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution, the judge must make a
personal determination of the existence or non-existence of
probable cause for the arrest of the accused.
The duty to make such determination is personal and
exclusive to the issuing judge. He cannot abdicate his duty
and rely on the certification of the investigating prosecutor
that he had conducted a preliminary investigation in
accordance with law and the Rules of Court, as amended, and
found probable cause for the filing of the Information.
In determining the existence or non-existence of probable
cause for the arrest of the accused, the judge should not
rely SOLELY on the said report.
The judge should consider not only the report of the
investigating prosecutor but also the affidavit/affidavits and
37
the documentary evidence of the parties, the counter-
affidavit of the accused and his witnesses, as well as the
transcript of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary
investigation, if any, submitted to the court by the
investigating prosecutor upon the filing of the Information
People v Dela Torre-Yadao
The trial court has three options upon the filing of
the criminal information:
(1) dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly
failed to establish probable cause;
(2) issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable
cause;
(3) order the prosecutor to present additional
evidence within five days from notice in case of
doubt as to the existence of probable cause.24
But the option to order the prosecutor to present
additional evidence is not mandatory. The court’s
first option under the above is for it to "immediately
dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly
fails to establish probable cause."
It is only "in case of doubt on the existence of
probable cause" that the judge may order the
prosecutor to present additional evidence within five
days from notice.
Sec 6
Inquest is an informal and summary investigation conducted
by a public prosecutor in criminal cases involving persons
arrested and detained without the benefit of a warrant of
arrest issued by the court for the purpose of determining
whether or not said persons should remain under custody
and correspondingly be charged in court.
NOTE: Inquest proceedings must be terminated within the
period prescribed under the provisions of Art. 125 of the RPC:
a. Crimes punishable by light penalties- within 12 hours
b. Crimes punishable by correctional penalties- within
18 hrs
c. Crimes punishable by afflictive or capital
punishment- within 36 hrs
Two situations contemplated under this Section:
1) When a persons is LAWFULLY ARRESTED WITHOUT A
WARRANT for an offense requiring prelim inve and
NO COMPLAINT/INFO has yet been filed, he may ask
for a PI by signing a waiver of the provisions of Art.
125 in the presence of his counsel
2) When the Complaint/Info was filed W/O prelim
investigation, the accused may within FIVE DAYS
from the time he learns of the filing of the Info, ask
for a PI with the same right to adduce evidence in his
favor in the manner prescribed in this Rule
NOTE: Failure to file the motion within 5 day period amounts
to waiver of the right to ask for PI
Go v CA
However, the warrantless arrest of herein petitioner Rolito
Go does not fall within the terms of said rule. The police were
not present at the time of the commission of the offense,
neither do they have personal knowledge on the crime to be
committed or has been committed not to mention the fact
that petitioner was not a prisoner who has escaped from the
penal institution.
The general rule on arrest provides that the same is
legitimate if effected with a valid warrant. However, there are
instances specifically enumerated under the law when a
warrantless arrest may be considered lawful.
A person who was arrested without warrant still has the right
to ask for a preliminary investigation to determine whether is
probable cause that a crime has been committed and that
petitioner is probably guilty thereof as well as to prevent him
from the hassles, anxiety and aggravation brought by a
criminal proceeding.
On the other hand, the right to preliminary investigation is
deemed waived when the accused fails to invoke it BEFORE
OR AT THE TIME OF ENTERING A PLEA AT ARRAIGNMENT.
Doromal v Sandiganbayan
A new prelim investigation of the charge against petitioner is
in order not only because the first was a nullity but also
because the accused demands it as his right. Moreover, the
charge against him had been changed, as directed by the
Ombudsman.
As the absence of prelim inve. Is not a ground to quash the
complaint or info, the proceedings upon such info in the
Sandiganbayan should be held in abeyance and the case
should be remanded to the Office of the Ombudsman or the
Special Prosec to conduct PI.
Villarin v People
Although a complaint does not state the known
addresses of the accused neither was there
38
 notarized joint-affidavit of the complainants of offense, so long as an inquest, where available,
attached thereto and the subpoena issued to the has been conducted.
accused and the copy of their counter-affidavits
were not part of the record and the complaint does
not include an accused as respondent, such
BEFORE THE FILING OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IN
infirmities DO NOT CONSTITUTE DENIAL OF DUE
COURT:
PROCESS particularly on the part of person who was
not named as respondent in the complaint. As longs 1) The private complainant may proceed in
as all the accused participated in the scheduled coordinating with the arresting officer and the
preliminary investigation that was conducted prior inquest officer during the latter’s conduct of inquest.
to the filing of the criminal case, there is no 2) Meanwhile, the arrested person has the option to
deprivation of due process as they will be given the avail of a FIFTEEN (15) day preliminary investigation,
opportunity to submit countervailing evidence to provided he duly signs a waiver of any objection
convince the investigating prosecutor of their against delay in his delivery to the proper judicial
authorities under Article 125 of the Revised Penal
innocence.
Code.

Notably, the rules on inquest DO NOT provide for a motion

for reconsideration. Appealing to DOJ Sec is not a remedy in
Larranaga v CA
cases subject of inquest. The private party should first avail of
A waiver, whether express or implied, must be made a preliminary investigation or reinvestigation, if any, before
in CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL manner. Mere failure
elevating the matter to the DOJ Secretary.
of petitioner and his counsel to appear before the
City Prosecutor cannot be construed as a waiver of
his right to preliminary investigation, considering
that petitioner has been vigorously invoking his right In case the inquest proceedings yield no probable cause, the
to a regular preliminary investigation since the start
private complainant may pursue the case through the regular
of the proceedings before the City Prosecutor.
course of a preliminary investigation.
Although petitioner has been arraigned, the rule is
that the right to preliminary investigation is waived
when the accused fails to invoke it before or at the
time of entering a plea at arraignment cannot ONCE A COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IS FILED IN COURT:
apply. Petitioner, has been ACTIVELY and
CONSISTENTLY DEMANDING a regular preliminary 1) The rules yet provide the accused with another
investigation even before he was charged in opportunity to ask for a preliminary investigation
court. Also, petitioner refused to enter a plea during within FIVE (5) DAYS from the time he learns of its
the arraignment because there was a pending case filing.
in this Court regarding his right to avail of a regular
preliminary investigation. Clearly, the acts of
petitioner and his counsel are inconsistent with a
waiver. Preliminary investigation is part of All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or
procedural due process. It cannot be waived unless information shall be prosecuted under the direction and
the waiver appears to be clear and informed. control of the public prosecutor. The private complainant in a
criminal case is merely a witness and not a party to the case
Leviste v Alameda and CANNOT, BY HIMSELF, ASK FOR THE REINVESTIGATION
OF THE CASE after the information had been filed in court, the
A preliminary investigation is required before the proper party for that being the public prosecutor who has the
filing of a complaint or information for an offense control of the prosecution of the case.
where the PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW is at least
four years, two months and one day without regard
to fine. As an exception, the rules provide that there
Trial court may, where the interest of justice so requires,
is no need for a preliminary investigation in cases of
grant a motion for reinvestigation of a criminal case pending
a lawful arrest without a warrant involving such type
39
before it. Once the trial court grants the prosecution's motion CITY PROSECUTOR.
for reinvestigation, the former is deemed to have deferred to
the authority of the prosecutorial arm of the Government.
Having brought the case back to the drawing board, the
Ampatuan v Macaraig
prosecution is thus equipped with discretion wide and far
reaching regarding the disposition thereof, subject to the trial In a petition for habeas corpus the judge must
court’ s approval of the resulting proposed course of action. inquire whether the person is being restrained of his
liberty first. If this is absent, the writ cannot be
issued. If the reason is unlawful, then the court will
Sec 7. grant the petition.

General Rule: Records of the preliminary investigation DO

NOT FORM part of the record of the case.
XPN: The court, upon its own initiative or on motion of any
party, may order its production in the ff instances:
a.) When it is necessary in the resolution of the case
incident therein
b.) When it is to be introduced as an evidence in the
case by the requesting partyvb
The Objective of the Writ is to determine whether
the confinement or detention is valid or lawful. Even
if a detention was illegal, it may be possible that
because of some SUPERVENING EVENT, it be no
longer such and the habeas corpus may be granted
anymore. To issue the writ, the individual seeking
relief must be deprived of his freedom of movement
or placed under some form of illegal restraint

RULE 102
Restrictive custody is, at best, nominal restraint
Mangila v Pangilinan which is beyond the ambit of habeas corpus. It is
neither actual nor effective restraint that would call
for the grant of the remedy prayed for. It is a
permissible precautionary measure to assure the
The object of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire PNP authorities that the police officers concerned
into the LEGALITY OF THE DETENTION, and, if the are always accounted for.
detention is found to be illegal, to require the
release of the detainee. Equally well-settled
however, is that the writ will not issue where the
person in whose behalf the writ is sought is out on
bail, or is in the custody of an officer under process
issued by a court or judge with jurisdiction or by
virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record.

If accused’s detention was by virtue of the order

lawfully issued, the writ of habeas corpus was not
an appropriate remedy to relieve her from the
restraint on her liberty. This is because the restraint,
being lawful and pursuant to a court process, could
not be inquired into through habeas corpus. Her
proper recourse was to BRING THE SUPPOSED
IRREGULARITIES attending the conduct of the
preliminary investigation and the issuance of the
warrant for her arrest to the ATTENTION OF THE
40
 NOTE:

 Is Rule 65 an appeal? No, it is an original action

 If the penalty is light which the suspension does not
exceed 30 days or fine, it is immediately executory
and unappealable

SENGA NOTES

NOTE:

 In MR, you cannot suspend the arraignment

while the filing of Petition for review suspends
arraignment not more than 60 days.
 If Sec. of Justice reverses the finding of probable
cause, does it mean the Information will be
withdrawn automatically?
 No, because it still subject to the discretion of
the court.
 You cannot file Certiorari to the CA without
filing the MR as Rule 65 for Certiorari requires:
o there must be no appeal and/or any speedy,
adequate remedy
 B.) grave abuse of discretion amounting to
excess or lack of discretion
 Rule 65 should be the last resort
 Is MR a speedy and adequate remedy? Yes

41
 RULE 113 -ARREST
SECTION 1: DEFINITION OF ARREST
“The taking of a person into custody in order that he may be
bound to answer for the commission of an offense.”
Arrest signifies restraint on a person, depriving one of his will
and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will of
law. There must be an actual or, at least, constructive seizure
of the person arrested. It is sufficient if the person arrested
understands that he is in the power of the person making the
arrest, and submits in consequence.
BABST VS NBI:
Invitations are not arrests and are usually not
unconstitutional, but in some cases may be taken as
commands.
However, the practice of issuing an “invitation” to a
person who is investigated in connection with an
offense he is suspected to have committed is
considered as placing him under “custodial
investigation” (RA No. 7438, Sec. 2.)
Modes of Arrest:
1. Arrest by virtue of a valid warrant;
2. Arrest without a warrant under exceptional
circumstances as may be provided by statute (ROC, Rule 113,
Sec. 5)
Since arrest involves a curtailment of a basic natural right, it is
generally necessary that a warrant for the seizure of an
individual be issued by the proper authority. Thus, the 1987
Constitution provides:
Article III, Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and
for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
HO VS PEOPLE:
Pursuant to the aforequoted constitutional
provision, it was ruled that a warrant of arrest issued
based only on the prosecution’s finding and
recommendation like the information and resolution
finding a probable cause, without the court
determining on its own the issue of probable cause
based on evidence like the complaints, affidavits,
counter-affidavits, sworn statements of witnesses or
transcripts of stenographic notes, if any, is null and
void.
Who may issue a Warrant of Arrest:
No 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
persons to be seized (Cons., Art. III, Sec. 2).
MENDOZA VS PEOPLE:
The constitution prohibits the issuance of search
warrants or warrants of arrest where the judge has
not personally determined the existence of probable
cause. The phrase “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”
allows a determination of probable cause by the
judge ex parte.
HARVEY VS SANTIAGO:
The Bureau of Immigration and Deportation
Commission may issue warrant of arrest of an
undesirable alien sought to be deported because it is
not criminal in nature and the act of deportation is
an act of State.
Probable Cause:
OCAMPO VS ABANDO:
Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of
arrest has been defined as “such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
42
 has been committed by the person sought to be
arrested.”
Meaning of “Personal Determination by the Judge of the
Existence of Probable Cause”:
It means the exclusive and personal responsibility of the
issuing judge to satisfy himself as to the existence of probable
cause. The term “personal determination” does not mean
that judges are obliged to conduct the personal examination
of the complainant and his witnesses themselves. To this end,
he may either:
a. personally evaluate the report and the supporting
documents submitted by the prosecutor regarding the
existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a
warrant of arrest; or
b. if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause,
disregard the prosecutor’s report and require the submission
of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in determining
its existence.
BORLONGAN VS PEA:
What the judge is never allowed to do is to follow
blindly the prosecutor’s bare certification as to the
existence of probable case. Judges have to go over
the report, the affidavits, the transcript of
stenographic notes if any, and other documents
supporting the prosecutor’s certification. He cannot
just rely on the bare certification alone but must go
beyond it. This is because the warrant of arrest
issues not on the strength of the certification
standing alone but because of the records which
sustain it.
Kinds of Determination of Probable Cause:
Executive Determination of Probable Cause - One made by
the prosecutor during the preliminary investigation.
It is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor
who is given a broad discretion to determine whether
probable cause exists and to charge those whom he believes
to have committed the crime as defined by law and thus
should be held for trial.
Such official has the quasi-judicial authority to determine
whether or not a criminal case must be filed in court.
Whether or not that function has been correctly discharged
by the public prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he has made a
correct ascertainment of the existence of probable cause in a
case, is a matter that the trial court itself does not and may
not be compelled to pass upon.
Judicial Determination of Probable Cause - One made by the
judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be
issued against the accused
The judge must satisfy himself that based on the evidence
submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused under
custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If the
judge finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be forced to
issue the arrest warrant.
PEOPLE VS ANDRADE:
The executive determination of probable cause
concerns itself with whether there is enough
evidence to support an information being filed. The
judicial information of probable cause, on the other
hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest
should be issued.
Necessity of a hearing in determining the existence of
probable cause:
OCAMPO VS ABANDO:
Although the Constitution provides that probable
cause shall be determined by the judge after an
examination under oath or an affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses, the SC has ruled that
a hearing is not necessary for the determination
thereof. In fact, the judge’s personal examination of
the complainant and the witnesses is not mandatory
and indispensable for determining the aptness of
issuing a warrant of arrest.
It is enough that the judge personally evaluates the
prosecutor’s report and supporting documents
showing the existence of probable cause for the
indictment and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant
of arrest; or if, on the basis of his evaluation, he finds
no probable cause, to disregard the prosecutor’s
resolution and require the submission of additional
43
 affidavits of witnesses to aid him in determining its
existence.
Judgment and discretion of the judge issuing the
warrant
The question of whether probable cause exists or
not depends upon the judgment and discretion of
the judge or magistrate issuing the warrant. It does
not mean that particular facts must exist in each
particular case. It simply means that sufficient facts
must be presented to the judge or magistrate issuing
the warrant to convince him, not that the particular
person has committed the crime, but that there is
probable cause for believing that the person whose
arrest is sought committed the charged.
PEOPLE VS. OCAMPO:
If the judge or magistrate decides, upon the proff
presented, that probable cause exists, no objection
can be made upon constitutional grounds against
the issuance of the warrant. His conclusion as to
whether probable cause exists or not is final and
conclusive.
Diplomatic and Parliamentary Immunity from arrests:
It is a well-recognized principle of international law that
diplomatic representatives (e.g. public ministers and
ambassadors) are exempt from the criminal and civil
jurisdiction of foreign courts. This exemption includes the
freedom from arrest, prosecution, and punishment for
violation of penal laws.
SEC. 4, RA NO. 75: Any writ or process sued out or prosecuted
by any person in any court of the Republic of the Philippines,
or by any judge or justice, whereby the person of any
ambassador or public minister of any foreign state,
authorized and received as such by the President, or of any
domestic servant of any such ambassador or minister is
arrested or imprisoned, or his goods or chattels are
distrained, seized or attached shall be deemed void, and
every person by whom the same is obtained or prosecuted,
whether as party or attorney, and every officer concerned in
executing it, are penalized.
SCHNECKENBURGER VS. MORAN:
Under the generally accepted principles of
international law, consuls, vice-consuls and other
commercial representatives of foreign nations do
not possess the status and cannot claim the
privileges and immunities accorded to ambassador
and minister. Hence, a consul is not exempt from
criminal prosecution for violation of the laws of the
country where he resides.
SECTION 11, ART VI: Under the 1987 Constitution, a senator
or member of the HOR shall in all offenses punishable by not
more than 6 year imprisonment, be privileged from arrest
while the Congress is in session. Violation of this
parliamentary immunity is penalized under Art. 145, RPC.
Remedy for warrants improperly issued:
ALIMPOOS VS. CA:
Where a warrant of arrest was improperly issued,
the proper remedy is a petition to quash it, not a
petition for habeas corpus, since the court in the
latter case may only order his release but not enjoin
the further prosecution or the preliminary
examination of the accused.
ILAGAN VS ENRILE:
The function of the special proceeding of habeas
corpus is to inquire into the legality of one’s
detention. So, if while under detention an
information was filed against the detainee and a
warrant of arrest was issued, the remedy of habeas
corpus no longer lies. The writ had served its
purpose. His remedy is quashal of warrant or
information.
DE ASIS VS ROMERO; PEOPLE VS MARQUEZ:
Objection to the regularity of the issuance of a
warrant of arrest must be made right after the arrest
because if no opportune to demurrer thereto was
made before the accused enters his plea, the
objection is deemed waived.
PEOPLE VS BONGO; PEOPLE VS LEGASPI:
By way of recapitulation, when a defendant in a
criminal case is brought before a competent court by
virtue of a warrant of arrest or otherwise, in order to
44
 avoid the submission of his body to the jurisdiction
of the court, he must raise the question of the
court’s jurisdiction over his person at the earliest
opportunity. If he demurs to the complaint, or files
any dilatory plea, or pleads to the merits without
questioning the regularity of the warrant of arrest,
he is considered to have waived the court’s
jurisdiction over his person.
Note: Posting of bail does not bar one from questioning illegal
arrest (ROC, Rule 114, Sec. 26)
When arrest is NOT necessary:
PEOPLE VS JOSON:
When the accused voluntarily appears after a
complaint in a criminal action is filed against him,
and gives bond for his appearance at any time he
may called, no arrest is necessary. Voluntary
appearance relieves the necessity for an actual
arrest.
SECTION 2: ARREST; HOW MADE
“Modes of effecting arrest:
1. by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested,
or
2. by his submission to the custody of the person
making the arrest.
No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an
arrest. The person arrested shall not be subjected to a
greater restraint than is necessary for his detention.”
STATE VS DUNNING:
An officer, having the right to arrest an offender,
may use such force as is necessary to effect his
purpose, and to a great extent he is made the judge
of the degree of force that may be properly exerted.
Called on to deal with violators of the law, and not
infrequently to act in the presence of conditions
importing serious menace, his conduct in such
circumstances is not to be harshly judged, and if he
is withstood, his authority and purpose being made
known, he may use the force necessary to overcome
resistance, and o the extent of taking life, if that is
required for the proper and efficient performance of
his duty.
PEOPLE VS DELIMA:
An officer in making a lawful arrest is justified in
using such force as is reasonably necessary to secure
and detain the offender, overcome his resistance,
prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes, and
protect himself from bodily harm. This case involved
where the policeman was justified in killing the
escaped prisoner after said person answered the
policeman with a stroke of a lance when asked by
the officer to surrender.
PEOPLE VS MOJICA; VALCORZA VS PEOPLE:
It may thus be stated that a police officer, in the
performance of his duty, must stand his ground and
cannot, like a private individual, take refuge in flight;
his duty requires him to overcome his opponent. The
force which he may exert therefor differs somewhat
from that which may ordinarily be offered in self-
defense. If he is attacked with a deadly weapon,
such as a knife, he may use his firearm against his
assailant and if he does so, he cannot be said to have
employed unnecessary force. The same principle
applies even if he could have used his billy club,
because a policeman’s club is not a very effective
weapon against a drawn knife and a police officer is
not required to afford a person attacking him the
opportunity for a fair and equal struggle.
Reasonableness of force employed by the officer:
It may be stated that hat is reasonable force on the part of
the arresting officer usually depends on the facts of the
particular case. The reasonableness of the force employed
must be adjudged in the light of the circumstances as they
appeared to the officer at the time he acted, and the means
is generally considered to be that which an ordinarily prudent
and intelligent person with the knowledge and in the
situation of the arresting officer would have deemed
necessary under the circumstances.
Although an officer making lawful arrest may use such fore as
is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the offender,
overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if
he escapes and protect himself from bodily harm, yet he is
45
never justified in using unnecessary force or in treating him
with wanton violence, or in resorting to dangerous means
when the arrest could be effected otherwise.
PEOPLE VS OANIS:
But the offices is never justified in using unnecessary
force or in treating the offender with wanton
violence, or in resorting to dangerous means when
the arrest could be effected otherwise. The principle
holds even if the person to be arrested is a notorious
criminal, a life-termer, a fugitive from justice and a
menace to the peace of the community, for these
facts alone constitute no justification for killing him
when, in effecting his arrest, he offered no
resistance, or in fact no resistance can be offered as
when he is asleep.
TORRES VS SANDIGANBAYAN:
Where the person to be arrested lunged at the
peace officer for the second time, but he stumbled,
the officer is not justified in killing him, for the latter
could have just struck at the deceased with his gun,
or at worse aimed his gun at a non-vital part of his
body to overcome resistance to the arrest.
PEOPLE VS LAGATA:
While custodians of prisoners should take all care to
avoid the latter’s escape, only absolute necessity
would authorize them to fire against them. Theirs is
the burden of proof as to such necessity.
PEOPLE VS VELOSO:
Upon arrest, the following may be confiscated from
the person arrested:
1. Objects subject of the offense or used or
intended to be used in the commission of the crime;
2. Objects which are the fruits of the crime;
3. Those which might be used by the arrested
person to commit violence or to escape;
4. Dangerous weapons and those which may
be used as evidence in the case; and;
5. Objects, the possession of which is illegal
per se.
Note: Arrest must precede the search. 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.
Basic criterion for Stop and Frisk:
PEOPLE VS COGAED:
The police officer, with his or her personal
knowledge, must observe the facts leading to the
suspicion of an illicit act.
PEOPLE VS RACHO:
Reliable information alone is not sufficient to justify
a warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule 144. 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 and offense.
SECTION 3: DUTY OF ARRESTING OFFICER
“A duly issued warrant authorizes the proper officer:
1. To make an arrest thereunder but also makes it his
duty to carry out without delay the commands thereof; and
2. To deliver the person arrested to the nearest police
station or jail without unnecessary delay.”
A warrant of arrest is designed to meet the dangers of
unlimited and unreasonable arrest of persons who are not at
the moment committing any crime, and its historic purpose in
the criminal law context was to interpose between the
government and the citizen a neutral official charged with
protecting basic rights.
It is the duty of the officer to execute a warrant which is valid
in form and issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, and
where a warrant is valid on its face, the officer is under no
duty to inquire further into its basis or alleged invalidity
before making the arrest.
46

Once the arrest is made, the officer executing the warrant is
directed to deliver the peson arrested to the nearest police
station or jail (Sec 3) and to make a return to the judge who
issued the warrant (Sec 4)
SECTION 4: EXECUTION OF WARRANT
“The head of the office to whom the warrant of arrest was
delivered for execution shall cause the warrant to be
executed within ten (10) days from its receipt. Within ten (10)
days after the expiration of the period, the officer to whom it
was assigned for execution shall make a report to the judge
who issued the warrant. In case of his failure to execute the
warrant, he shall state the reasons therefor.”
The judge issues a warrant of arrest in two instances:
Upon the filing of the information by the prosecutor Upon
application of a peace officer
In issuing this kind of warrant, the judge does not personally
examine the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
but he merely evaluates personally the report and supporting
documents and other evidence adduced during the
preliminary investigation and submitted to him by the
prosecutor, and if he finds probable cause on the basis
thereof, he issues the warrant for the arrest of the accused.
In this kind of warrant, the judge must personally examine
the applicant and the witnesses he may produce, to find out
whether there exists probable cause, otherwise, the warrant
issued is null and void. He must subject he complainant and
the witnesses to searching questions. The reason for this is
there is no evidence yet on record upon which he may
determine the existence of probable cause.
Period of Effectivity of a Warrant of Arrest:
Unlike a search warrant, the validity of which is limited to 10
days, after which it becomes void, no time limit is fixed for
the validity of a warrant of arrest.
The arrest warrant continue o be in force even though it was
not served within the time-span provided for in Rule 113, Sec.
4.
So long as the warrant has not been recalled, or the person
named therein arrested, or had otherwise submitted himself
to the jurisdiction of the court, the warrant remains good and
can still be executed even if a previous negative return was
made to the issuing court.
PEOPLE VS GIVERA:
The return mentioned in Sec. 4, Rule 113 refers not
to the physical delivery of the very sae copy of the
process to the issuing court, but the report of the
officer charged with its execution on the action
taken by him thereon. In short, the 10-day period is
only a directive to the officer executing the warrant
o make a return to the court.
SECTION 5: ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT; WHEN LAWFUL
GENERAL RULE; UMIL VS RAMOS:
No peace officer or person has the power or
authority to arrest anyone without a warrant except
in those cases expressly authorized by law.
EXCEPTIONS: lawful warrantless arrest
1. in flagrante delicto arrests
“when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense.”
Requisites: AMBRE VS PEOPLE
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.
47
In arrest in flagrante delicto, the accused is apprehended at
the very moment he is committing or attempting to commit
or has just committed an offense in the presence of the
arresting officer.
PEOPLE VS EVARISTO:
An offense is committed in the presence or within
the view of the person making the arrest when he
sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the
disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once
to the scene thereof; or the offense is continuing, or
has been consummated, at the time the arrest is
made.
IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF UMIL,
ET AL:
SC held that subversion being a continuing offense,
the arrest of the accused who is a member of the
New People’s Army without warrant, is justified as it
can then be said that he was committing an offense
when arrested.
2. Doctrine of Hot Pursuit
“When an offense has in fact 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.
Elements:
a. offense has just been committed - the time interval
between the actual commission of the crime and the arrival
of the arresting officer must be brief (UMIL VS RAMOS)
b. probable cause based on personal knowledge - mere
intelligence information that the suspect committed the
crime will not suffice (PEOPLE VS DORIA)
Absent a showing that the person who effect the warrantless
arrest had, in his own right, knowledge of facts or
circumstances implicating the person arrested to the
perpetration of a criminal offense, the arrest is legally
objectionable.
PEOPLE VS VILLAREAL:
Personal knowledge of the arresting officer that a
crime had in fact just been committed is required.
A previous arrest or existing criminal record, even
for the same offense, will not suffice to satisfy the
exacting requirements provided under Section 5,
Rule 113 in order to justify a lawful warrantless
arrest. To interpret “personal knowledge” as
referring to a person’s reputation or past criminal
citations would create a dangerous precedent and
unnecessarily stretch the authority and power of
police officers to effect warrantless arrest based
solely on knowledge of a person’s previous criminal
infractions, rendering nugatory the rigorous
requisites laid out under Sec. 5
POSADAS VS OMBUDMAN; PEOPLE VS DORIA:
“Personal knowledge” on the part of the arresting
officer must be based upon probable cause which
means an actual belief or reasonable ground of
suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable
when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting
officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested
is probably guilty of committing the offense is based
on actual fact, i.e., supported by circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to create the
probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.
Test of immediacy: GO VS CA:
There must be a large measure of immediacy
between the time the offense was committed and
the time of arrest.
PEOPLE VS DEL ROSARIO:
If there be an appreciable time lapse between the
arrest and the commission of the crime, a warrant of
arrest must be secured.
3. Evasion of the service of the sentence
48
“When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.”
The same is founded on the principle that at the time of the
arrest, the escapee is in the continuous act of committing a
crime.
4. Where a person who has been lawfully arrested
escapes or is rescued (ROC, Rule 113, Sec. 13)
5. By the bondsman for the purpose of surrendering
the accused (ROC, Rule 114, Sec. 23); and
6. Where the accused attempts to leave the country
without permission of the court (ROC, Rule 114, Sec. 23)
In cases falling under nos. 1 and 2, the person arrested shall
be delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be
proceeded against in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 112.
In any case, the corresponding complaint must be filed
against the person arrested without warrant within the
periods provided for in Article 125 of RPC, as amended.
Rationale behind valid warrantless arrests: PEOPLE VS
MALASUGUI:
To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested
and searched without a warrant, would be to leave
society, to a large extent, at the mercy of the
shrewdest, the most expert, and the most depraved
of criminals facilitating their escape in many
instances.
If the arrest was effected without warrant, the arresting
officer must comply with the provisions of Article 125 with
the RPC.
In the arrest of a person without a warrant, the burden of
proof is with the person arresting or causing the arrest to
show that the arrest was lawful.
POSADAS VS OMBUDSMAN:
The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in
the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers,
the suspicion that the person to be arrested is
probably guilty of committing the offense is based
on actual facts. A reasonable suspicion therefore
must be founded on probable cause coupled with
food faith on the part of the peace officers making
the arrest.
US VS SANCHEZ:
It is not correct to say that the legality of the arrest
depends upon the indubitable existence of a crime.
PEOPLE VS MOLLEDO; PEOPLE VS ANCHETA:
It is not necessary that the crime should have been
established as a fact in order to regard the detention
as legal. The legality of the detention does not
depend upon the actual commission of the crime but
upon the nature of the deed, where from such
characterization may reasonable be inferred by the
officer or functionary to whom the law at the
moment leaves the decision for the urgent purpose
of suspending the liberty of citizen.
Persons authorized to make warrantless arrest:
Peace officers and private citizens may make arrest without
the necessity of securing a priori warrant of arrest.
Peace officers duly authorized to make arrests are the
following:
1. Police Officers (RA 6945 - establishing the National
Police Force)
2. agents of the NBI (RA 157)
3. officers and members of the Philippine Constabulary
(Section 848, Administrative Code)
4. municipal mayors (US vs Vicentillo)
49
5. barangay captains (US vs Fortaleza)
SUAREZ VS PLATON:
Where the arrest without a warrant was effected by
a peace officer, the consistent ruling is that the
validity of the arrest and detention is not dependent
upon the actual commission of a crime, so that,
unless he acts in bad faith, he is not criminally liable
even if in the process he committed a mistake.
US VS SANTOS:
One should not expect too much of an ordinary
policeman. He is not presumed to exercise the subtle
reasoning of a judicial officer. Often he has no
opportunity to make proper investigation but must
act in haste on his own belief to prevent the escape
of the criminal. To err is human. Even the most
conscientious officer must at time be misled. If,
therefore, under trying circumstances and in a
zealous effort to obey the order of his superior
officer and to enforce the law a peace officer makes
a mere mistake in good faith, he should be
exculpated.
Buy-bust Operations
PEOPLE VS SALES:
A form of entrapment which has been repeatedly
accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of
the Dangerous Drugs Law. The violator is caught in
flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting
the operation are not only authorized but duty-
bound to apprehend the violator and to search him
for anything that may have been part of or used in
the commission of the crime.
PEOPLE VS ABEDIN:
Coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable
requirement before police authorities may carry out
a buy-bust operation.
PEOPLE VS AGULAY:
In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime
originates from the offender, without anybody
inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. If
carried out with due regard for constitutional and
legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves
judicial sanction.
PEOPLE VS ZAPANTA:
The buy-bust operation and the search and seizure
pursuant to the buy-bust operation must be
continuous in order to be valid.
Rule on illegality of arrest
1. PEOPLE VS MACAM: Objection to the illegality must
be raised before arraignment, otherwise it is deemed waived,
as the accused, in this case, has voluntarily submitted himself
to the jurisdiction of the court; or
2. ENRILE VS SALAZAR: Once a person has been duly
charged in court, he may no longer question his detention by
petition for habeas corpus; his remedy is to quash the
information and/or the warrant of arrest.
PEOPLE VS EDANO:
Trying to run away when no crime has been overtly
committed, and without more, cannot be evidence
of guilt. Considering that the appellant’s warrantless
arrest was unlawful, the search and seizure that
resulted from it was likewise illegal.
SECTION 6: TIME OF MAKING ARREST
“An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the
day or night.”
Unlike a search warrant which must be served only in
daytime (ROC, Rule 126, Sec. 9), an arrest may be made on
any day and at any time of the day, even on a Sunday. This is
justified by the necessity of preserving the public peace.
This rule covers only instances of warrantless arrest. It does
not cover arrest by virtue of a warrant.
SECTION 7: METHOD OF ARREST OF OFFICER BY VIRUTE OF
WARRANT
50
“When making an arrest by virtue of a warrant, the officer
shall inform the person to be arrested of the (1) cause of the
arrest and (2) of the fact that a warrant has been issued for
his arrest, except when (1) he flees or forcibly resists before
the officer has opportunity to so inform him, (2) or when the
giving of such information will imperil the arrest. The officer
need not have the warrant in his possession at the time of
the arrest but after the arrest, if the person arrested so
requires, the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as
practicable.”
The evident purpose of the provision (the “inform” part) is to
eliminate any excuse for resistance on the part of the person
to be arrested and thus facilitate the arrest.
FORD VS STATE:
The view has been expressed that the officer’s
failure to comply with the section requiring that he,
in making the arrest, must inform the defendant that
he acts under the authority of a warrant and must
show the warrant if required, does not diminish the
officer’s authority or render the arrest illegal.
SECTION 8: METHOD OF ARREST BY OFFICER WITHOUT
WARRANT
“When making an arrest without a warrant, the officer shall
inform the person to be arrested of (1) his authority and (2)
the cause of the arrest, unless the latter is either (1) engaged
in the commission of an offense, (2) is pursued immediately
after its commission, (3) has escaped, flees or forcibly resists
before the officer has opportunity so to inform him, (4) or
when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.”
An arrest is not rendered unlawful by the fact that an officer
who has authority to make an arrest for a particular offense
erroneously states that he is making an arrest for some other
offense or even for a cause which is not in act an offense, or
states the offense inaccurately.
SECTION 9: METHOD OF ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSON
“When making an arrest, a private person shall inform the
person to be arrested of the (1) intention to arrest him and
(2) cause of the arrest, unless the latter is either (1) engaged
in the commission of an offense, (2) is pursued immediately
after its commission, (3) or has escaped, flees, or forcibly
resists before the person making the arrest has opportunity
to so inform him, (4) or when the giving of such information
will imperil the arrest.”
Citizen’s arrest: refers to arrest effected by a private person.
Note: The private person must deliver the arrested person to
the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded
against in accordance with Rule 112, Sec. 7. Otherwise, the
private person may be held liable for illegal detention.
SECTION 10: OFFICER MAY SUMMON ASSISTANCE
Only an officer making the arrest is governed by the Rule. It
does not cover a private individual making an arrest.
SECTION 11: RIGHT OF OFFICER TO BREAK INTO BUILDING
OR ENCLOSURE
Only an officer making the arrest is governed by the Rule. It
does not cover a private individual making an arrest.
SECTION 12: RIGHT TO BREAK OUT OF THE BUILDING OR
ENCLOSURE TO EFFECT RELEASE
Only an officer making the arrest is governed by the Rule. It
does not cover a private individual making an arrest.
RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTING OFFICER: (SEC 10-13 + OTHERS)
1. To summon assistance (ROC, Rule 113, Sec. 10);
He may orally summon as many persons as he deems
necessary to assist him in effecting the arrest.
Rationale: The preservation of the peace of the society and
the maintenance of public order are not hte functions of
peace officers alone; it is the duty of the component
members of the community, as well.
51

No form is required; he may call on the assistance of any
person orally and the summon would be as legally effective
as when he does it in writing.
Citizens coming to the aid of an agent of authority themselves
become agents of authority for purposes of the law on
indirect assault set forth in the RPC. In short, a person called
on to assist an officer in making an arrest may do whatever
the officer himself might lawfully do, and he acts with all the
authority of a formally deputized officer.
Must not be detrimental to the person giving assistance/aid
It ought to be pointed out, however, that while the rule
states that every person so summoned by an officer must aid
him in the making of the arrest, the same is subject to the
proviso that the person whose aid was sought can render it
without detriment to himself.
No punishment for refusal to aid
There appears to be no sanction provided for against a
private citizen who shall refuse to render assistance to the
officer even when requested to do so.
2. To break into building or enclosure (ROC, Rule 113,
Sec. 11);
Requisites:
a. the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed
to be in said building;
b. he has announced his authority and purpose of
entering therein; and
c. he has requested and been denied admittance
Note: This is also applicable where there is a valid arrest
without a warrant.
The officer breaking into the building will not be liable for
damages he caused as the arrest is in the performance of his
duty and under RPC, Art. 11, it is considered as a justifying
circumstance.
US VS DELOS REYES:
The house cannot be guaranteed as a shelter of
crime and bad faith and, for that reason, authorities
may enter the house of any citizen to arrest any
person against whom a warrant of arrest has been
issued or to capture he person of any criminal
because of his having been caught in flagrante
delicto or because there is reasonable ground to
believe that he is guilty although no warrant for his
arrest has been actually issued, inter alia.
From this follows the proposition that an officer who
has a warrant for the arrest of a person or one who
is authorized to make such an arrest without a
warrant and who on being refused admittance
thereto breaks into the building, cannot be treated
as a trespasser, although on search the person
sought to be arrested is not found or shown to be in
the dwelling at the time.
3. To break out from the building or enclosure when
necessary to liberate himself (ROC, Rule 113, Sec. 12); and
4. To search the person arrested for dangerous
weapons or anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a
warrant (ROC, Rule 126, Sec. 13)
Note: These rules cover only an officer effecting the arrest. It
does not cover a private individual making an arrest.
RPC, ART. 280, PAR. 3: Nevertheless, a private individual may
be exempted from criminal liability on trespass to dwelling
whenever he has done so for the purpose of rendering some
service to humanity or justice.
SECTION 13: ARREST AFTER ESCAPE OR RESCUE
52
“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.”

SALONGA VS. HOLLAND:

The fugitive may be retaken by any person who may

not necessarily be the same person from whose
custody he escaped or was rescued. Even a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a convicted
felon who has escaped and is at large, since he might
also, before conviction, have arrested the felon.

SECTION 14: RIGHT OF ATTORNEY OR RELATIVE TO VISIT

PERSON ARRESTED

“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.”

RA No. 7438 defined certain rights of persons arrested,

detained, or under custodial investigation, with the penalties
for violations thereof.

53
 RULE 114 - BAIL
Sec. 1- Bail Defined
Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody
of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guaranty his
appearance in court in accordance with the hereinafter
specified (Sec. 1, Rule 114)
Forms of Bail; How Bail May Be Posted (Co-P-Ca-R)
Bail may be in the form of:
1) Corporate surety
Any domestic or foreign corporation, licensed as a surety in
accordance with law and authorized to act as such, may
provide bail by a bond subscribed jointly by the accused and
an officer of the corporation duly authorized by its board of
directors (Sec. 10, Rule 114).
2) Property bond
A property bond is an undertaking constituted as a lien on the
real property given as a security of the amount of the bail.
Property bond must be registered in the certificate of title
and tax declarations within 10 days after the approval of the
bond. The accused shall submit his compliance and failure to
do so shall be sufficient cause for cancellation of the property
bond and his re-arrest and detention (Sec. 11, Rule 114).
3) Cash deposit; or
4) Recognizance
It refers to an obligation of record, entered into before some
court or officer authorized to take it with a condition to do
some particular act, the most usual condition in criminal
cases being the appearance of the accused for trial.
The person released in recognizance would be in custody of
himself or a responsible member of the community.
Instances when one can post bail in recognizance
1) Offense charged is violation of an ordinance, light
felony or a criminal offense, the imposable penalty
wherefore does not exceed 6 months of
imprisonment and/or fine of P2,000 (RA 6036)
2) Child arrested as a combatant, spy, carrier or guide
in an armed conflict (RA 7610)
3) Youthful offender held for physical or mental
examination, trial or appeal, if unable to furnish bail
(PD 603)
4) A person who has been in custody for a period equal
to or more than the possible maximum
imprisonment prescribed for the offense charged,
without prejudice to the continuation of the trial or
the proceedings on appeal (Sec. 16, Rule 114);
5) Where accused has applied for probation and the
same has been resolved but no bail was filed or the
accused is incapable of filing one (Sec. 24, Rule 114)
6) Accused was arrested for failure to appear when
required by court in a proceeding under the Rules of
Summary Procedure. He may be released on bail or
recognizance of a responsible person (Sec. 16 of
Rules on Summary Procedure)
7) Person accused of an offense punishable by
destierro shall be released after 30 days of
preventive imprisonment (Sec. 16 or Rule 114)
8) A person in custody for a period equal to or more
than the minimum of the principal penalty
prescribed for the offense charged, without applying
ISLAW r any modifying circumstances shall be
released in reduced bail or on his own recognizance
(Sec. 16 of Rule 114).
Exceptions to Release in Recognizance under RA 6036 (FCEVi-
ReCP2)
1) In flagrante delicto;
2) Confesses to the commission of the crime unless
later repudiated by him;
3) previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded
sentence or jumped bail;
4) previously violated provisions of Sec. 2 hereof;
5) recidivist or habitual delinquent;
6) reitaracion;
7) commits an offense while on parole or under
conditional pardon;
8) previously pardoned by mayor for violation of
ordinance for at least two times
Note: List of forms of bail is exclusive. For instance, credit
card bond is not allowed.
Government of Hongkong vs. Olalia -
Bail is generally used in criminal proceedings only.
Extradition is not a criminal proceeding but bail is
allowed in light of various international treaties
giving recognition and protection to human rights
like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
54
 An extradition proceeding, while ostensibly
administrative, bears all earmarks of a criminal
process.
Matters to be taken into consideration whenever an
application for bail is filed before an extradition
court
1) That once granted bail, the applicant will
not be a flight risk or a danger to the
community
2) That there exist a humanitarian, special and
compelling circumstances including as a
matter of reciprocity those cited by the
highest court in the requesting state which
grants provisional liberty in extradition
cases therein.
Commendador vs. De Villa -
Persons under custody of military courts are NOT
entitled to bail. The right to bail is not available in
the military as an EXCEPTION to the general rule
embodied in the Bill of Rights.
Reasons:
1) Unique structure of the military;
2) Danger to security as they are allowed by
the government to the fiduciary use of
firearms; and
3) Contrary ruling would result to a damaging
precedent.
Sec. 2 Conditions of the Bail; Requirements (EAFS)
All kinds of bail are subject to the following conditions:
1) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval,
and unless cancelled, shall remain in force at all
stages of the case until promulgation of the
judgement of the RTC, irrespective of whether the
case was originally filed in or appealed to it;
2) The accused shall appear before the proper court
whenever required by the court or these Rules;
3) The failure of the accused to appear at the trial
without justification and despite due notice shall be
deemed a waiver of the right to present thereat. In
such case, the trial may proceed in absentia; and
4) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the
court for execution of the final judgment.
Requirements to be submitted when posting bail: The original
papers shall state the full name and address of the accused,
the amount of the undertaking and the conditions required.
Photographs (passport size) taken within the last 6 months
showing the face, left and right profiles of the accused must
be attached (Last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 114).
Note: Bail cannot be posted by proxy. The Rule requires that
the accused should personally appear to post bail so that he
will be in the custody of the law.
Lavides vs. CA -
Requiring arraignment before grant of bail is NOT
valid. Arraignment is NOT a requisite of bail.
Reasons:
1) The trial court could ensure the presence of
the accused at the arraignment precisely by
granting bail and ordering his presence at
any stage of the proceedings such as
arraignment.
2) Bail should be granted before arraignment,
otherwise the accused may be precluded
from filing a motion to quash. The accused
would be placed in a position where he has
to choose between (a) filing a motion to
quash and thus delay his release on bail,
and (b) foregoing the filing of a motion to
quash so that he can be arraigned at once
and thereafter be released on bail.
Note: The judge was confused between jurisdiction
over the person of the accused and custody of law
which is required for the purposes of bail.
DEFENSOR V VASQUEZ:
An accused who is confined in a hospital may be
deemed to be in custody of the law if he clearly
communicates his submission to the court while
confined in the hospital
FACTS: the accused was confined in the hospital
because of a vehicular mishap. He filed through
counsel an urgent ex-parte motion for acceptance of
cash bail bond. Accused expressly sought leave ‘that
she be considered as having placed herself under the
55
 juris. of the SB for purposes of the required trial and
other proceedings” on the basis of said ex-parte
motion and the peculiar circumstances obtaining,
the SB authorized pet to post a cash bail bond for
her provisional liberty w/o need of her personal
appearance in view of her physical incapacity and as
a matter of human consideration
Instances when the accused must be present in trial (Article
III, Sec. 14(2)):
1) At arraignment and plea
2) During trial whenever necessary for identification
purposes; and
3) At the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a
light offense, in which case the accused may appear
by counsel or representative.
Sec. 4 Bail, A Matter of Right; Exception
Bail is a matter of right:
1) Before conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities;
2) After conviction by Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities;
3) Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment; and
4) Before conviction by the RTC when the imposable
penalty is death, reclusion perpetua and life
imprisonment and the evidence of guilt is not strong.
When hearing is not necessary:
In instances where bail is a matter of right and the bail to be
granted is based on the recommendation of the prosecution
as stated in the Complaint or Information, hearing is NOT
necessary (Basco vs. Rapatalo - From Mem Aid).
Note: the next paragraph contains a different view than
what was presented above. Editor did not see such doctrine
in the case.
The grant of bail is a matter of right except in cases involving
capital offenses when the matter is left to the sound
discretion of the court. That discretion lies, not in the
determination whether or not a hearing should be held but in
the appreciation and evaluation of the prosecution's evidence
of guilt against the accused. A hearing is plainly
indispensable before a judge can aptly be said to be in a
position to determine whether the evidence for the
prosecution is weak or strong."
People vs. Valdez -
The term “punishable” in Sec. 13 of the Bill of Rights
and Sections 4 and 7 of Rule 114 should refer to
prescribed, not imposable, penalty.
For purposes of bail proceedings, it would be
premature to rule that the supposed crime
committed is a complex crime since it is only when
the trial has terminated that falsification could be
appreciated as a means of committing malversation.
Sec. 5 Bail, When Discretionary
Bail is discretionary:
1) Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary
(First paragraph of Sec. 5, Rule 114);
2) Before conviction by the RTC for an offense
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, in order to determine whether or not
the evidence of guilt is strong
3) After conviction by the RTC wherein a penalty of
imprisonment exceeding 6 years but not more than
20 years is imposed, and not one of the
circumstances below is present and proved, bail is a
matter of discretion (RECFU):
a) Recidivism, quasi-recidivism, habitual
delinquency or commission of a crime
aggravated by the circumstances of
reiteration;
b) Previous Escape from legal confinement,
evasion of sentence or violation of the
conditions of bail without valid justification;
c) Commission of an offense while on
probation, parole or conditional pardon;
d) Circumstance of the accused or his case
indicates the probability of Flight if released
on bail;
56
 e)
Undue risk of commission of another crime
by the accused during the pendency of
appeal
Note: Before bail can be posted, if it is discretionary, the
accused needs to file a motion to be allowed to be admitted
to bail.
Note: It is mandatory to have notice and hearing to the
prosecution in order to give the prosecution an opportunity
to be heard (due process) and for the court to exercise its
sound discretion. If the penalty is punishable by less than
reclusion perpetua, notice and hearing are still mandatory in
order to determine the amount of bail (Sec. 18 of Rule 114)
Leviste vs. CA -
If the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment
exceeding 6 years then bail is a matter of discretion,
except when any of the enumerated circumstances
under par. 3 of Sec. 5, Rule 114 is present then bail
shall be denied.
In the first situation, bail is a matter of sound judicial
discretion. If none of the circumstances mentioned
in Sec. 5, Rule 114 is present, the appellate court
may consider all relevant circumstances, other than
those mentioned, including the demands of equity
and justice in allowing or disallowing bail.
If any of the circumstances mentioned in Sec. 5, Rule
114 is present, the appellate court has no other
option except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal.
Alva vs. CA -
The right to bail can only be availed of by a person
who is in custody of the law or otherwise deprived of
liberty and it would be premature to file a petition
for bail for someone whose freedom has yet to be
curtailed.
Approval of an application for bail on appeal, absent
the knowledge of the prosecution of such
application or, at the very least, failing to allow it to
object, is not the product of sound judicial discretion
but of impulse and arbitrariness, not to mention
violative of respondent People’s right of procedural
due process.
Santos vs. Lorenzo -
The drastic reduction of the amount of bail from
P130,000 to P30,000 for illegal possession of
firearms was called for because there was a
considerable reduction in the penalty attached to
the crime involved.
Note: A person granted bail when it is discretionary
should not be acquitted because what is determined
in the hearing for application of bail is whether the
evidence of guilt is strong and not proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
People vs. Fitzgerald -
Bail is not a matter of right but a mere privilege
subject to the discretion of the CA to be exercised in
accordance with the stringent requirements of Sec.
5, Rule 114. Appreciated in this case is the fact that
Fitzgerald is a flight-risk and that there is undue risk
that he will commit another crime during the
pendency of the appeal.
Bail is not a sick pass for an ailing or aged detainee
or prisoner needing medical care outside the prison
facility. A mere claim of illness is not a ground for
bail.
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan -
Plunder is a non-bailable offense hence bail here is
not even discretionary. The purpose of bail here is to
ensure the presence of the accused during trial so
they should release him to get proper treatment and
that he will be healthy and able to participate in the
proceedings. It is actually more of the right to due
process.
Difference of Fitzgerald and Enrile
Both are old and sick. The SC did not allow
Fitzgerald’s bail because he did not show that his
sickness will be affected by his detention. In the
Enrile case, the SC considered his stature, and that
he is not a flight risk, and his sickness. The ruling in
Enrile will only apply when the facts are exactly the
same.
Trillanes IV vs. Pimentel, Sr. -
57
 Bail was denied because evidence of guilt is strong.
Trillanes was also considered to be a flight risk
because he did not go straight in prison and even
eluded the security and he was able to go to Manila
Peninsula to have an interview.
When Bail will not be granted (GC2EF)
1) Before conviction by the RTC when the accused is
charge with an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua, life imprisonment or death and the
evidence of Guilt is strong (Sec. 7 of Rule 114);
2) After Conviction by the RTC when penalty imposed is
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
3) Court Martial Cases (Commendador vs. De Villa)
4) After conviction by the RTC imposing a penalty of
imprisonment Exceeding 6 years but not more than
20 years and any of the circumstances and other
similar circumstance is present and proved (Sec. 5,
Rule 114)
5) Judgment is Final and executory unless accused
applied for probation before commencing to serve
sentence of penalty and offense within the purview
of probation law (Sec. 24, Rule 114)
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.
Sec. 9 Amount of Bail; Guidelines
Factors to be considered in fixing the reasonable amount of
bail (FNP-CAPE-OFP):
1) Financial ability of the accused to give bail
2) Nature and circumstances of the offense
3) Penalty of the offense charged
4) Character and reputation of the accused
5) Age and health of the accused
6) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial
7) Weight of the evidence against the accused
8) Forfeiture of other bail
9) The fact that the accused was a Fugitive from justice
when arrested; and
10) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on
bail.
Sec. 12 Qualifications of Sureties in Property Bond
The qualifications of sureties in a property bond shall be as
follows:
1) Each must be a resident owner of real estate within
the Philippines;
2) Where there is only one surety his real estate must
be worth at least the amount of the undertaking;
and
3) If there are two or more sureties, each may justify in
an amount less than that expressed in the
undertaking but the aggregate of the justified sums
must be equivalent to the whole amount of the bail
demanded.
Sec 13: Req. before Accepting a Surety/Bail Bond:
1. PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ACCUSED: surety and bonding
companies must attach photographs (face, left and right
profiles), passport size, recently taken of the accused on all
copies of the corresponding personal bail bond to be issued
or posted
2. AFFIDAVIT OF JUSTIFICATION: to include a statement to the
effect that the company has no pending obligation
demandable and outstanding in any amount to the gov’t or
any of its agencies as the last day of the month preceding the
date of the bond is issued or posted
3. CLEARANCE FROM THE SC: showing that the company
concerned is qualified to transact business which is valid only
for 30 days from the date of its issuance
4. CERT OF COMPLIANCE WITH CIRC. NO 66 (Sept 19, 1996):
The bond shall be accompanied by a verified certification to
the effect that the bond form used has been duly registered
with the Insurance Commission; that the same has been
entered and recorded in the Bond Registry Book of the
company concerned in compliance with Circular No. 66,
dated 19 September 1966, of the OIC and that said bond has
not been cancelled.
58
5. AUTHORITY OF THE AGENT: In case the bond is issued thru
a branch or thru an agent, a copy of the authority or power of
attorney shall be submitted to the Clerk of Court for filing,
together with the schedule of limits of its authority.
(6) CURRENT CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY: The bond shall be
accompanied by a current certificate of authority issued by
the Insurance Commission with the financial statement (OIC
Form No. 1) showing the maximum underwriting capacity of
the surety company.
Sec. 17 Bail, Where Filed
1) May be filed with the court where the case is
pending, or in the absence of unavailability of the
judge thereof, with any RTC judge, or any inferior
court judge in the province, city or municipality
a) Despite the filing of a notice of appeal, it
may still be filed before the trial court,
provided it has not transmitted the original
record to the appellate court (Sec. 5, Rule
114)
2) If the accused is arrested in a province, city or
municipality other than where the case is pending,
bail may also be filed with any RTC of the said place,
or if no judge thereof is available, with any inferior
court judge therein;
3) Whenever the grant of bail is a matter of discretion,
or the accused seeks to be released in recognizance,
the application may be filed only in the particular
court where the case is pending, whether on trial or
appeal
4) Any person in custody who is not yet charged in
court may apply for bail with any court in the
province, city or municipality where he is held;
5) If the decision of the trial court convicting the
accused changed the nature of the offense from
non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can
only be filed with the resolved by the appellate
court.
Panganiban vs. Cupin-Tesorero -
Applying Rule 114, 17 (a) to the foregoing
circumstances, the accused could file a petition for
bail only in the court where his case is pending or
with another branch of the same court within the
province or city, that is, with any other branch of the
RTC of Cavite. The said provision does not allow the
accused to apply for bail before a municipal circuit
trial court judge. Hence, respondent judge did not
have authority to issue an order approving the bail
bond of the accused.
Sec. 18 Notice of Application to Prosecutor
Floresta vs. Ubiadas -
Whether bail is matter of right or discretion, and
even if no charge has yet been filed in court,
reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given
to the prosecutor, or at least his recommendation
must be sought.
Reasonable notice depends upon the circumstances
of each particular case, taking into account, inter
alia, the offense committed and the imposable
penalties, and the evidence of guilt in the hands of
the prosecution.
Villanueva vs. Buaya -
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 se
forth in Sec. 9, Rule 114 in fixing the amount of bail.
Docena-Caspe vs. Bugtas -
The grant or the denial of bail in cases where bail is a
matter of discretion hinges on the issue of whether
or not the evidence of the guilt of the accused is
strong. The judge must conduct a hearing to
determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong.
Sec. 21. Forfeiture of Bail
When the appearance of th accused out on bail is specifically
required by the court and he failed to appear, the court shall
issue an order of forfeiture wherein:
1) The provisional liberty of the accused due to the bail
bond shall be revoked; and
2) It shall require the bondsman to produce the
principal
Within 30 days from the failure of the accused to appear in
person as required, the bondsmen must:
59
 1) Produce the body of their principal or give the
reason for his non-appearance; and
2) Explain why the accused did not appear before the
court when first required to do so.
Failing these requisites, an order of confiscation shall be
rendered against the bondsmen, jointly and severally for the
amount of bail. The court may mitigate the liability of the
bondsman if the accused has been surrendered or is
acquitted.
BENCH WARRANT (sec 9, rule 71, ROC) : a writ issued directly
by a judge to a law enforcement officer, for the arrest of a
person who has been held in contempt, has disobeyed a
subpoena, or has to appear at a hearing or trial
-when accused fails to appear, court may forfeit, order his
arrest, or both
Sec. 22 Cancellation of Bail
Bail is cancelled (A-ADE):
1) Upon Application of the bondsmen, which must be:
a) With due notice to the prosecutor; and
b) Upon surrender of the accused or proof of
his death; or
2) Automatically:
a) Upon Acquittal of the accused;
b) Upon Dismissal of the case; or
c) Execution of judgment of conviction
Esteban vs. Alhambra -
The cash bail cannot be cancelled because the
petitioner did not surrender the accused. The
accused was arrested and detained because he was
charged in a subsequent criminal case.
The bail bond in the form of a cash deposit, as
mandated by Sec. 14 of Rule 114, shall be applied to
the payment of fine and costs, and the excess if any
shall be returned to the accused or to any person
who made the deposit. The right of the government
is in the nature of a lien on the money deposited.
Sec. 24 No Bail After Final Judgment; Exception
General Rule: No bail shall be allowed after the judgment has
become final, as what is left is for him to serve the sentence.
Exception: When he has applied for probation before
commencing to serve sentence, the penalty and the offense
being within the purview of the Probation Law. The
application for probation must be filed within the period of
perfecting an appeal. Such filing operates as a waiver of the
right to appeal.
Sec. 26 Bail Not a Bar to Objections on Illegal Arrest, Lack of
or Irregular Preliminary Investigation
An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the
accused from challenging:
1) The validity of his arrest;
2) The legality of the warrant issued therefore; or
3) The regularity or questioning the absence of
preliminary investigation of the charge against him.
SEÑGA NOTES
Atty: Let us say that you committed a crime of adultery and
then you said to yourself one is not enough. So you
committed 5 more separate crimes of adultery, so there are 5
different informations of adultery against you pending before
the MTC. For the first count, can you post bail before
conviction in the MTC after the information is filed?
S: Yes
Atty: For the four other counts, can you post bail also as a
matter of right?
S: Yes because it is a matter of right.
Atty: Let us say that after you posted bail you said to yourself,
I Want to commit more crimes. But you said to yourself
“Before I commit crimes let me violate the conditions of my
bail” so you left the country without informing the court and
all of the bail for the 5 cases were cancelled. Can you post bail
again for the same offenses when the bail was cancelled?
S: Yes because jurisprudence provides that even if a person
jumps bail, he can still post bail if it is a matter of right.
60
Atty: Considering that you wanted to commit more crimes
and she has posted bail and was cancelled provided that it is
a matter of right, what can the court do?
S: The remedy of the court is to increase the amount of bail.
Atty: Let us say the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua
(20 years and 1 day to 40 years) and the case has been
pending in court and you have not posted bail because you
do not have money. What will happen to you? You've been
there for 15 years na. What should take place if you have
been in prison for more than the maximum penalty? S: Shall
be released immediately.
Atty: What if you have already been in detention for the
minimum period, does it mean that you would be
automatically released just like in the case of being in
detention for more than the maximum?
Suppose there is judgment of conviction in the RtC and you
did not know. Can you appeal the case?
Yes for 15 days.
From the time that you file your notice of appeal, should you
post bail already in the CA?
The answer is no. It will depend on where the records of the
case is.so it means even if you already filed your notice of
appeal it is possible for you to still post bail in the RTC
provided that the record of the case are still in the RTC. But
once the records of case has been forwarded to the CA then
you need to post bail to the CA. We call that residual
jurisdiction when you appealed the case already but the
lower court still has jurisdiction because the records of the
case are still with the lower court.

S: No. The person shall be released on a reduced bail or his

own recognizance at the discretion of the court.

Atty: This time it is not an automatic release, you still need to

apply for reduced bail or recognizance. Note the difference.

Atty: Let us say that you are being charged with VaWC and
the court promulgated the ruling and yes you are guilty
beyond reasonable doubt. In open court upon receiving the
conviction and the court who has jurisdiction is the RTC, can
move to be allowed bail?

S: Yes

Atty: Let us assume the court grants it said “may I be allowed

to continue in my bail’ and the court says in the exercise of its
discretion ‘prosecutor do you have any comment?’ ‘No
objections your honor, he is not a flight risk etc.’ granted.
Subsequently, you appealed your conviction in the CA. During
the pendency of appeal with the CA, do you have to apply for
bail again?

Atty: No. Because that is the same bail already. That is after
conviction. That is the bail that is discretionary. So it means
after your conviction with the RTC, you can apply for bail
either with the RTC or the CA. When do you know where to
apply for bail? It depends. If the records of the case are still
with the RTC,then post bail in the RTC. But once the records
are transferred in the CA, you must post bail in the CA.

61