SYLLABUS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Department Remedial Law

Course Name/Number Criminal Procedure
Course Number Law 213
Semester Offered First Semester, SY 2019-2020
Year Level Offered Second Year
Credit Units 3
Pre-requisites Criminal Law I and II, Political Law I and II
Course Description A 3-unit course designed to equip the students
with the necessary knowledge about the
interplay of substantive laws and procedural
laws;
As a whole, the course envisions to provide the
students a broad/wholistic understanding of
the different legal steps/procedure to be
followed in every stage of the criminal
prosecution of an accused, starting from his
arrest until his conviction including his post-
conviction remedies, as well as the remedies
available for the enforcement of his
constitutional rights;

COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES:

By the end of the semester, the students should be able to:

1. State the rights of the accused during custodial investigation and in every stage
of the criminal proceeding;
2. Discuss the concepts of custodial investigation, arrest and search and seizure vis-
à-vis the rights of the accused;
3. Differentiate the remedies available to the accused while under custody of law,
after arrest, during trial and after conviction;
4. Discuss the procedure in the filing of complaint before the Prosecutor’s office,
and the remedies available in case of an adverse resolution;
5. Identify cases falling under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law;
6. Identify the cases falling within the jurisdiction of the different courts;
7. Identify the cases falling under summary procedure, summary investigation or
preliminary investigation;
8. Examine the validity of a search warrant;
9. Examine the validity of a warrant of arrest;
10.Explain the flow of the criminal litigation process
11.Apply the procedural steps to be undertaken before and after the filing of a
criminal complaint or information in court, and the applicability of applying for
provisional remedies;
12.Understand and apply the proper procedure or remedy to be undertaken by the
defense in case of conviction of the accused; or by the prosecution in case of
acquittal of the accused;
 13.Demonstrate critical thinking including the ability to argue, objectively assess and
harmonize government’s function of maintaining peace and order and its
corresponding duty to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens.
14.Evaluate the strengths and flaws of the different institutions involved in our
criminal justice system

COURSE OUTLINE

PART I – GENERAL PRINCIPLES

A. Overview of the Criminal Justice System in the Philippines

 5 Pillars in the Criminal Justice System
 Philosophies underlying the criminal law system

B. CONCEPT OF REMEDIAL LAW

 Public law vs Private law
 Substantive Law vs Remedial Law
 Criminal law vs criminal procedure

C. BASIC PRINCIPLES IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

a. What is CRIMINAL PROCEDURE?

 Importance
 System of Criminal procedure/ Nature of criminal Proceeding
- Inquisitorial
- Accusatorial . adversarial
- Mixed
-
b. Sources
c. In what courts applicable (sec. 2)
d. In what cases not applicable (sec. 4)
e. Definition of criminal action (sec. 3 (b))
* basis
* parties
* how commenced

f. Construction (sec 6)
g. Rules on Retroactivity
h. Crime v Offense v Felony v Infraction

Queto vs Catolico, 31 SCRA 52

D. CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL POWER IN THE PHILIPPINES

 Definition of Judicial Power ( sec. 1, Art VIII, 1987 Phil. Constitution)
 Rule-making power of the Supreme Court
 Limitations of the rule-making power of the Supreme Court
 Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules
 Test to determine whether the rule prescribed by the Supreme Court is
procedural or substantive

Mon v CA, GR 118292, 14 April 2004

Sarmiento v Zaratan, GR 167471, 2-5-07
 Barroso v Judge Omelio, GR 1994767, 10-14-15
Estipona v Hon. Frank Lobrigo, GR 226679, 8-15-17
De Guia v De Guia, GR 135384, 4-14-01
Sanchez v Demetriou, GR 111771-77, 11-9-93
De Lima v Guerrero, GR 229781, 10-10-17
Miranda v Tuliao, GR 158763, 3-31-06
Paderanga v CA, GR 115407, 8-28-95

E. NATURE OF PHILIPPINE COURTS

 Meaning of court
 Court vs judge
 Classification of Philippine Courts

F. OTHER CONCEPTS
 Principal of Judicial hierarchy
 Doctrine of Non-interference or judicial stability
 Principle of Judicial Supremacy/Power of judicial review vs Principle of
Constitutional Supremacy

Ha Datu Tawahig v Lapinid, GE 221139, 3-20-19

G. DUE PROCESS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDING

 Meaning
 Purpose
 Requirements of Due Process
 Constitutional Safeguards of Due Process

PART II – JURISDICTION

A. JURISDICTION IN GENERAL vs CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

B. POWER OF CONGRESS TO DEFINE, PRESCRIBE AND APPORTION JURISDICTION OF
COURTS; LIMITATIONS (Art VIII, sec 2, 1987 Constitution)

C. KINDS OF JURISDICTION
1. As to cases tried:
a) General
b) Limited / Special
2. As to nature of cause:
a) Original
b) Appellate
3. As to extent of exercise:
a) Exclusive
b) Concurrent/coordinate/confluent
4. As to situs:
a) Territorial
b) Extra-territorial

D. CASES FALLING UNDER THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY LAW

 exceptions
 effect of failure to refer to barangay

E. JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS

1. MTC, MTCC, MCTC, METROPOLITAN

2. RTC
* Special jurisdiction to Try Special Cases
 3. CA
4. SANDIGANBAYAN
5. SC
6. SHAIRA COURT

F. Cases that have to be referred to the Barangay

 Effect of failure to refer

G. REQUISITES FOR THE EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

A. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

1. Concept
2. How conferred
3. How determined
4. Error of jurisdiction vs Error of judgment
5. How jurisdiction is conferred and determined
 Llamas vs The Hon CA, GR 149588, 9-29-09

6. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

 Office of Ombudsman vs Heirs of Vda de Ventura, GR 151800, 11-5-09
 Vincente Omictin v CA & Lagos, GR 148004, 1-22-07

7. Principle of adherence of jurisdiction / Doctrine of non-interference

8. Jurisdiction in complex crimes

 Dayap vs Sendiong, et al., GR 17960, 1-29-09

9. Objections to jurisdiction over subject matter

10.Effect of estoppels

 Tijams vs Sibonghanoy, GR No. 1-21450, 23 SCA 29, 4-15-68

 Figueroa va PP, GR No. 147406, 7-14-08
 Pangilinan vs CA, GR No. 117363, 12-17-1999
 Fabian vs Disierto, 9-16-98, GR 129742

B. JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTY

1. How acquired
2. Custody of law vs jurisdiction over the person
 Paderanga v CA, GR 115407, 8-28-95
 Miranda v Ocon, GR 158763, 3-31-06

C. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
1. Purpose

2. Place where action is to be instituted (sec 15)

* Unionbank of the Phils. Vs PP, GR 192565, 2-28-12
* Foz Jr., et al., vs PP, GR No. 167764, 10-9-09
* PP vs Taroy, Gr 192466, 9-7-11
3. Venue in transitory and continuing crimes
* Treas vs PP, GR 195002, 1-25-12
* Isip vs PP, Gr 170298, 6-26-07
3. Venue for crimes committed outside of the Philippines punishable under Art. 2
of the RPC

4. Venue for Libel cases under Art. 360 of the RPC

- Administrative Order No. 104-96
* Agbayani vs Sayo, Gr No. L-47990, 4-30-79, 89 SCRA 699
 * Allen Macasaet et al vs PP, GR No. 156747, 2-23-05
* Wonina M. Bonifacio et al vs RTC of Makati, Gr No. 184800, 5-5-10
5. Power of the Supreme Court to change venue (sec 5(4), Art VIII, 1987
Constitution)

PART III – POLICE INVESTIGATION

A. Agencies empowered to investigate
B. Six cardinal points of investigation
C. Limitations on State Criminal authority
1. Constitutional limitation
2. Statutory limitation
D. The Miranda Rights
E. REPUBLICT ACT NO. 7428 or An Act Defining Certain Rights of Persons Arrested,
detained or Under Custodial Investigation
1. Custodial Investigation
1.a. Definition
1.b. When commences
1.c. Rights of person under custodial investigation
1.d. When custodial rights become relevant
1.e. When the constitutional procedures on custodial investigation apply
1.f. When the constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not
apply

Cases:
1. PP vs Domingo Muleta, G.R. No. 130189, June 25, 1999
2. PP vs Pepino and Gomez, G.R. No. 174471, January 12, 2016
3. PP vs Adrian Guting, G.R. No. 205412, September 09, 2015
4. PP vs Lugnasin and Guerrero, G.R. No. 208404, February 24, 2016
5. PP vs Teves, G.R. No. 141767, April 2, 2001

PART IV – ARREST (RULE 113)

I. Concept of Arrest
A. Definition
B. Constitutional Limitations
C. How made
D. Importance
E. General Classification of Arrest
II. Kinds of arrest
A. Whether by virtue of a warrant or without a warrant
1. Arrest without a warrant
i. When lawful – sec 5, Rule – 113
a. Caught in flagrante delicto
- Requisites
b. Hot pursuit arrest
- Requisites
- Probable cause
c. Escaped prisoner
ii. Duties of arresting officer
- Miranda Doctrine
- Art. 125 RPC

B. Arrest with a warrant

1. What is a warrant of arrest
2. Who issue
= determination of probable cause
3. When issued
 4. Where served
5. Time of making arrest
6. Duties of arresting officer
7. Procedure after WA is issued

C. WHETHER BY AN OFFICER OR A PRIVATE PERSON

i. By officer
a. With warrant (sec. 7)
b. Without warrant (sec 8)
ii. CITIZEN’s arrest
III. Illegal Arrest
a. How cured / how waived
*Lapi v PP, GR 210731, 2-13-19
b. Grounds for the quashal of a warrant of arrest
c. Habeas Corpus
d. Crimes committed if there is violation of rights of the accused
IV. Persons NOT SUBJECT OF ARREST
V. PROVISIONAL ARREST
VI. HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER
VII. INSTIGATION vs ENTRAPMENT
VIII. CRIMES COMMITTED IF THERE IS VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF ACCUSED

Cases:
Luz v PP, GR 197788, 2-29-12
Pestilos v Generoso, GR 152602, 11—10-14
PP V gerente, GR 95847-48, 3-10-93
Judge Marcos v Hon Cabrera-Faller, A.M. RTJ-16-2472, 1-24-17
Judge Abelita v Doria, GR 170672, 8-14-09
Comerciante v PP, GR 205926, 7-22-15

V. SEARCH AND SEIZURE (Rule 126)

I. CONCEPT OF SEARCH WARRANT

A. Definition
B. Constitutional basis

II.RULES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SEARCH WARRANT

A. Nature of application
B. Nature of SW
C. Where the file application
- A.M. 99-20-09-SC
D. Requisites for issuance
*PP v Maderazo, GR 235348, 12-10-18
E. Personal Properties to be seized
F. CONCEPTS
i. General warrant
ii. Scatter-shot warrant
iii. One-specific offense rule
iv.John Doe warrant
v. Probable cause in SW
vi.Particularity of Place
vii. Particularity of things
G. Procedure to be adopted during implementation of SW
- Knock and Announce rule
- Witnesses
- Time of search
H. Procedure to be adopted after the search
 I. Grounds for Motion to Quash SW and/or Suppress evidence
J. Who may assail the issuance of SW
K. Lifetime of SW

Cases:
1. Worldwide Web Corpn and Yu vs PP & PLDT, GR 161106, 1-13-14
2. Retired SP04 Laud vs PP, 11-19-14, GR 199032
3. PP vs CA, 11-27-92, GR 94396
4. Ogayon v PP, GR 188794, 9-2-15
5. PP v Amador Pastrana and Rufina Abad, GR 196045, Feb. 21, 2018
6. Jorge Dabon v PP, GR 208775. 1-22-18
7. PP v Stanley Maderazo, GR 235348, 12-10-18

L. WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE

1. Search incidental to a lawful arrest
i. Purpose
ii. Parameters / allowable scope

Cases: 1. PP vs Calantiao, 6-6-14, GR 203984

2. Espano vs CA, 288 SCRA 558
3. PP vs Lua, 256 SCRA 539
4. Bersamin v PP, GR 232645, 2-18-19

2.Plain View Doctrine

i. Requisites
- Immediately apparent element
- Inadvertence element
Cases: 1. Abelita III vs Doria, 596 SCRA 220
2. PP vs Nuevas, 516 SCRA 574
3. United Laboratories vs Isip, 461 SCRA 574
4. PP v Acosta, GR 238865, 1-28-19

3.STOP and Frisk search

- Terry Doctrine
- Two parts
- When used

Cases: 1. PP vs Cogaed, 7-30-14, GR 200334

2. Rizaldy Sanchez vs PP, 11-19-14, GR 204589
3. Manalili vs CA & PP, 345 SCRA PHIL 811
4. Comeriantes vs PP, 7-22-15, GR 205926

4. Search of a moving vehicle

- Carroll Doctrine or Car Search doctrine
- parameter
- when extensive search allowed
= checkpoints
-search of buses or any public transport

Cases:
1. PP vs Libnao, 395 SCRA 407
2. PP vs Breis, 8-17-15, GR 205823
3. PP vs Tuazon, 532 SCRA 152
4. Luz vs PP, 2-29-12, GR 197788
5. Marcelo Saluday v PP, GR 215305, 4-3-18

5. Consented warrantless search

 - Requisites
- When valid and effective

Case: Valdez vs PP, 538 SCRA 611

6. Others
*Customs search
*In times of war within the area of military operation
*Exigent and emergency circumstances
*When incident to lawful inspection
*Search of vessels and aircrafts

K. Reasonable search vs warrantless search

L. Exclusionary Doctrine / Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
M. Crimes committed if there is illegal search

PART VI – PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION (RULE 112)

A. CONCEPT
1. Definition
2. Purposes
3. When required
4. Nature of RIGHT to a PI
5. Nature of PI
6. Quantum of evidence required

B. Officers authorized to conduct PI

- Ombudsman
- COMELEC
- PCGG
C. PROBABLE CAUSE
- Executive level vs judicial level
D. Procedure adopted during PI
- Prohibited pleadings
- Clarificatory hearing
- Possible outcome
E. Period to resolve
F. Records of PI
G. Remedies of aggrieved party
- Motion for Reconsideration
- Petition for review a) Regional Prosecutor b) Secretary of Justice c)
President
- Motion for Reinvestigation (court)
- Motion for suspension of Proceedings and/or issuance of WA (court)
- Verified Motion to re-open PI
H. Cases not requiring PI
i. If filed with Prosec
ii. If filed with MTC/MCTC
I. Summary investigation vs summaryprocedure
J. Cases falling under Katarungang Pambarangay law
K. INQUEST
a. Definition
b. Purpose
c. Coverage
d. Officers who conduct Inquest
e. When commenced
f. Duties of inquest Prosecutor
 g. Factors considered in determining whether Art. 125 RPC has been violated
h. Rights of Detained person
i. Waiver of Art. 125
j. Instances when presence of detained person dispensed with
k. Inquest proceedings vs PI
l. Remedies available to the arrested person
i. Before filing info in court
ii. After info. Filed in court
Cases:
1. Ladlad vs Velasco, 6-1-07, Gr 172070-72
2. Mendoza vs PP, 4-21-14, GR 197293
3. Aguilar vs DOJ, 9-11-13, GR 197522
4. Go vs CA, 2-11-92, GR 101837
5. Brocka vs Enrile, 192 SCRA 783
6. Soriano vs Marcelo, 7-13-09, GR 160772
7. PP vs CA and Cerbo, 1-21-99, GR 126005
8. Kalao vs Office of the Ombudsman, 4-23-10, GR 158189
9. Palacios v PP, GR 240676, 3-18-19
10.Tupaz v Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas, GR 212491-92, 3-6-19

PART V. – PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES

A. Purpose of Criminal Action

B. How Criminal actions are instituted
C. Public crime v Private crime
D. Effect of Institution of Criminal action on prescriptive period
E. Who Must prosecute Criminal Actions
- Exceptions
- Private crimes
F. Desistance of Offended Party
Tadena v PP, GR 2286110, 3-20-19

G. COMPLAINT vs INFORMATION
1. Test of sufficiency
a. Name of accused
b. Designation of Offense
c. Cause of accusation
- Ultimate facts vs conclusion of law
- Allegation of special qualifying and aggravating circumstances
- How nature of offense determined
- Variance between allegations over designation of offense
- Variance between allegations and evidence
- Effects fatally defective info

 PP v Pailano, GR L-43602, 1-31-89

 Maria Orosa v PP, GR 227711, 7-2-18
 Eden Etino v PP, GR 206632, 2-14-18
 Celso M.F.L. Melgar v PP, GR 223477, 2-14-18
 Reyes v PP, GR 232678, 7-3-19

d. Place where offense was committed

- Crimes where place is essential
- Venue
e. Date of commission of offense

2. DUPLICITY OF OFFENSE
- Exceptions
 H. Remedies before arraignment
I. Can Criminal action be restrained by injunction
J. Amendment of Information
a. Before plea
b. After plea
c. When amendment formal
d. When amendment substantial
e. Amendment as a result of supervening fact
K. SUBSTITUTION
a. Amendment vs substitution
b. Identity of 2 offenses
Cases:
1. PP vs Delfin, 7-9-14, GR 201572
2. PP vs Valdez, 1-18-12, GR 175602, GR 175602
3. PP and AAA vs CA, 2-15-15, GR 183652
4. Soriano and Ilagan vs PP, 6-30-09, GR 159517-18
5. SEC vs Interport Resources Corporation, 10-6-08, Gr 135808

PART VII – THE CIVIL ASPECT OF CRIMES (Rule 111)

I. Sources of obligations
II.Art 100 RPC
III.Implied institution of civil action in the criminal action
a. Exceptions
IV. Independent civil actions
V. Rules on filing fees
VI. Effect of judgment of acquittal on the civil liability
VII. Effect of death of accused
VIII. Consolidation of civil and criminal action – when allowed/not allowed
IX. Employer’s subsidiary liability
X. Prohibited pleadings
XI. BP 22 cases
XII. No Double recovery (ICA and civil action arising from crime)
XIII. Role of Private Prosecutor
XIV. Prejudicial questions

IV. Prejudicial questions (In rel. with Art. 36 of the Civil Code of the Philippines)

 Dreamwork Construction v. Janiola, G.R. No. 184861, June 30, 2009

 Pimentel v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 172060, September 13, 2010.
 Ty-De Zuzuarregui v. Hon. Villarosa, G.R. No. 183788, April 5, 2010
 Magestrado v. People, G.R. No. 148072, July 10, 2007
 Casupanan v Laroya, GR 145391, 8-26-02
 Landbank v Jacinto, GR 154622, 8-3-10
 Bobis v Bobis, GR 138509, 7-31-00

PART IX – BAIL
(Rule 114)

I. Concept

A. Definition S1

B. Constitutional basis S13, Art. III, 1987 Phil. Constitution

 People vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 158754, August 10, 2007

 C. Forms SS10 to 15

1. Bail bond

1.1. Corporate
1.2. Property
1.3. Cash
1.4. Recognize

D. Conditions of the bail (S2)

 Lavides v. CA, G.R. No. 129670, February 1, 2000

E. Who can avail (S3)

1. Constructive custody
 Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRa 633

F. Who can grant, where filed (SS17, 20)

1. Increase or reduction

G. When bail not required, reduced bail (S16)

H. Release on bail (S19)

I. Forfeiture of bail (S21)

J. When bail is deemed cancelled (S22)

1. Admin. Circular No. 2-92, January 20, 1992

K. Arrest of accused out on bail (S23)

L. No bail after final judgment (S24)

M. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest and lack of preliminary investigation
(S26)
 Okabe v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 150185, May 27, 2004
N. Bail v. hold departure order

II.Bail as a matter of right (S4); Bail as a matter of discretion (S5), bail not as a matter
of right and not as a matter of discretion

 Leviste v. CA, G.R. No. 189122, March 17, 2010

 Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 148468, 148769, & 149116, January
28, 2003
 People v. Antona, G.R. No. 137681, January 31, 2002
 Gacal v Infante, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1875, 10-5-11
 Cortes v Judge Catral, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387, 9-10-97
 Ruiz v Judge Beldia, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1731, 2-16-05
 Lavides v CA, GR 129670, 2-1-00
 Enrile v Sandiganbayan, GR 213847, 8-18-15
 PP v Plaza, GR 176933, 10-2-09
 PP v Tanes, GR 24056, 4-3-19
 Padua & Pimentel v PP, GR 20913, 2-4-19
 A. In the Municipal Trial Court

B. In the Regional Trial Court

1. In capital offenses (SS 6 & 7)

1.1. Rep. Act NO. 7659 or The Death Penalty Law

1.2. Rep. Act No. 8177 or An Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection

1.3. Rep. Act No. 9346 or An Act Prohibiting the Death Penalty
a. Act No. 4103 or the Indeterminate Service Sentence Law
2. In other non-bailable offenses (S7)

III.Bail application (SS8 & 18)

 Recto v PP, GR 236461, 12-5-18
IV. Guidelines in determining amount of bail (S9)

 Yap, Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. 141529, June 6, 2001

V. Bail in extradition proceedings

 Government of the United States of America v. Hon. Purganan, G.R. No.
1485571, September 14, 2002, 389 SCRA 623
 Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Hon. Olalia, G.R.
No. 153675, April 19, 2007

VI. Bail in deportation proceedings

 The Board of Commissioners of the BID v. Jeung Keun Park, G.R. No.
159835, January 21, 2010
 Kiani v. BID, G.R. No. 160922, February 27, 2006

VII. Bail for Juvenile in Conflict with the Law under Rep. Act 9344 or the Juvenile and
Justice Act of 2006

PART X – MOTION TO QUASAR

(Rule 117)

I. Motions in general
A. Definition (S 1, Rule 15)
B. Kinds
1. Litigated
2. Ex-parte
3. Motion of course
4. Motion not of course

C. Form (SS 2 & 10, Rule 15)

D. Contents / Substance (S3, Rule 15)
E. Hearing of motion (SS4, 5, 6, & 7, Rule 15)
F. Some Motions under the Rules of Court
1. Omnibus motion (S8, Rule 15 in rel. to S1 Rule 9)
2. Motion for leave (S9, Rule 15)
3. Motion to declare defendant in default (S3, Rule 9)
4. Bill of Particulars (Rule 12 / S9, Rule 116)
5. Motion to dismiss (Rule 16)
6. Motion to Intervene (Rule 19)
 7. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Rule 34)
8. Motion for Summary Judgments (Rule 35)
9. Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration (Rule 37 / Rule 121)

II.Motion to Quash

A. Time to move (S1)

B. Form and contents (S2)
C. Grounds (S3)
D. Effects of failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor (S9)
E. Effects on sustaining the motion to quash (SS 5 & 6)
F. Procedure
1. Filing
2. Hearing
3. Resolution

III. Double Jeopardy

IV. Provisional Dismissal and Time-bar Rule (S8)

CASES FOR STUDY

1. Antone v. Beronilla, G.R. No. 183824, December 8, 2010

2. Galzote v. Briones, G.R. No. 164682, September 14, 2011
3. Dimayacyac v. CA, G.R. No. 136264, May 28, 2004
4. Gareia v. CA, G.R. No. 119063, January 27, 1997
5. Gonzales v. Salvador, G.R. No. 168340, December 5, 2006
6. Villaflor v. Vivar, G.R. No. 134744, January 16, 2001
7. Cerezo v. People, G.R. No. 185230, June 1, 2011
8. Tiu v. CA, G.R. No. 162370, April 21, 2009
9. Summerville General Merchandising & Co., Inc. v. Eugenio, Jr., G.R. No. 163741,
August 7, 2007
10.Esmena v Pogoy, GR L-5410, 2-20-81
11.Bangayan, Jr. v. Bangayan, G.R. Nos. 172777 & 172972, October 16, 2011
12.Apolinario v. Flores, G.R. No. 152780, January 22, 2007
13.Baños v. Pedro, G.R. No. 173588, April 22, 2009.
14.People vs. Lacson, G.R. No. 149453, April 1, 2003
15.PP v Relova, GR L-45129, 3-6-87
16.PP v Odtuhan, GR 191566, 7-17-13
17.PP v Zaragosa, SB-17-CRM-0652, 8-24-17
18.Recto v PP, GR 236461, 12-5-18
19.PP v Ting & Garcia, GR 221505, 12-5-18
20.PP v Bienvenido Udang, GR 210161, 1-10-18
21.PP v Alejandro, GR No. 223099, 1-11-18
22.Sgt Jose Pacoy v Cajigal, GR 157472, 9-28-07

PART XI – ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA

(Rule 116)

I. How made, where and when (S1 of Rule 116, Cir. 1-89, S2 of Rule 116 in rel. to Cir.
38-98)

II. Prohibited Pleadings under the Continuous Trial Rule

III. Meritorious Pleadings under the Continuous Trial Rule
IV. Judicial Affidavit Rule
V. Plea of guilty

A. To a lesser offense (S2)

  Daan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 163972-77, March 28, 2008
 Pp. v. Villarama, G.R. No. 99287, June 23, 1992
1. Elements (S4 of Rule 116, Cir. 38-98)

B. To a capital offense; reception of evidence (S3)

 Pp. v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 133984, January 30, 2002
 Pp. v. Flores, G.R. No. 137491, November 23, 2000
 Pp. v. Mira, G.R. No. 175324, October 10, 2007
 Pp. v. Ventura, G.R. No. 125925, January 28, 1999

C. To non-capital offense; reception of evidence, discretionary (S4)

D. Improvident plea of guilty (S5)

 PP v Comendador, GR No. L-38000, 9-19-80PP V talusan, GR 179187, 7-14-09

 PP v Espinosa, GR 153714-20, 8-15-03
 Daan v Sandiganbayan, GR 163972-77, 3-29-08
 PP v Magat, GR 130026, 5-31-00

VI. Duties of the Court

VII. Bill of Particulars (S9) a.k.a. More Definite Statement

VIII. Production or inspection of material evidence in possession of prosecution (S10)

IX. Suspension of arraignment under the following instances (S11)

PART XII – PRC-TRIAL

(Rule 118)

I. Mandatory nature of pre-trial in criminal cases (S1)

II.Time to conduct pre-trial (S1)

III.Matters to consider during pre-trial (S1)

IV. Pre-trial agreement (S2)

V. Effects of non-appearance at pre-trial conference (S3)

VI. Pre-trial order (S4)

VII. Significance / Importance of Pre-Trial

PART XIII – TRIAL

(Rule 119)

I. Time to prepare for trial (S1 & s5)

II.Continuous trial until terminated; postponements (S2)

III.Exclusion in computing the time within which trial must commence (S3)

IV. Factors for granting continuance (S4)

V. Remedies where accused in not brought to trial within the time limit (S9)

VI. Law on speedy trial (Rep. Act No. 8493) in rel. with S16 of Rule 119 and Section 16,
Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution
  Mari v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 187728, September 12, 2011
 Olbes v. Hon. Buemio, G.R. No. 173319, December 4, 2009
 Binay v. Sandiganbayan and DILG; Magsaysay, Et.al. v. Sandiganbayan, et.al.,
G.R. Nos. 120681-83 and 128136, October 1, 1999

VII. Order of trial (S11)

VIII. Application for examination of witness for accused before trial (S12)

IX. Examination of defense witness (S13)

X. Bail to secure appearance of a material witness (S14)

XI. Examination of witness for the prosecution (S15)

XII. Trial of several accused (S16), joint trial

XIII. Discharge of accused to be state witness (S17) and (RA 6981 or the Witness
Protection, Security and Benefit Act of 1991)

 Yu v. Hon. Presiding Judge RTC Tagaytay City, G.R. No. 142848, June 30, 2006
 Soberano, et.al. v. Pp., G.R. No. 154629, October 5, 2005
 Monge v PP, GR 170308, 3-7-08
 Jimenez v PP, GR 208195, 9-17-14
 PP v Dominguez, GR 229420, 2-19-18

XIV. When mistake has been made in charging the proper offense (S19)

XV. Exclusion of the public (S21)

XVI.Consolidation of trials of related offenses (S22)

XVII. Demurrer to evidence (S23)

A. Time to file
B. Who files
C. Kinds
1. With leave
2. Without leave
D. Procedure under the Continuous Trial Rule

XVIII. Rights of accused at the trial (Rule 115)

 PP v Galit, GR L-51770, 3-20-85

 PP v Muleta, GR 130189, 6-25-99

XIX. Provisional Remedies in Criminal Cases (Rule 127 in rel. to Rules 57 to 61)

A. Definitions
B. Grounds
C. Purposes
D. Court/s which an grant
E. Bonds & counterbonds
F. When a available
G. How granted
H. Effectivity
I. How dissolved / discharged
 PART XIV – JUDGMENT
(Rule 120)

I. Judgment in general

A. Concept
1. Judgment vis-à-vis decision
2. Certain concepts
2.1. Sin perjuicio judgment
2.2. Nunc pro tunc amendment
2.3. Obiter dictum
2.4. Per curiam
2.5. Mutatis mutandi
2.6. Notatu dignum
2.7. Ratio decidendi

B. Types
1. On the merits
2. By default
3. Summary judgment (Rule 35)
4. Judgment on the pleadings (Rule 34)
5. Compromise agreement

C. Judgment, definition and form (SS1, R 120, compare with S1, Rule 36)

D. Contents (S2, R120)

1. In judgments of conviction
2. In judgments of acquittal

II. Judgment for 2 or more offense (S3, R120)

III. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof (S4, R120 in rel. with
S14 (3) R 110 and S19, Rule 119
 Pangilinan v. CA, G.R. No. 117363, December 17, 1999

V. Promulgation of Judgment (S6)

A. Promulgation in absentia

VI. Modification of judgment

VII. Entry of judgment (S2, Rule 36)

 PP v Laguio, GR 128587, 3-16-07

PART XV – REMEDIES AFTER JUDGMENT

I. Judgment of Conviction

A. Motion for Reconsideration

1. Time to file (S1, Rule 121)
2. Who files (S1, Rule 121)
3. Grounds (S2, Rule 121)
4. Form of motion (S4, Rule 121, in rel. to 2 to 6, Rule 15)
5. Hearing on the motion
6. Effect of grant or denial
 7. Vs. in civil cases (Rule 37)

B. Motion for New Trial

1. Time to file (S1, Rule 121)
2. Who files (S1, Rule 121)
3. Grounds (S3, Rule 121)
3.1. Errors of law or irregularities
3.2. Newly discovered evidence “Berry rule”
a. Elements
 Berry v. State of Georgia
 De Villa v. The Dir. Of New Bilibid Prison, 442 SCRA 706, 2004
 Dingalasa v CA, GR 145420, 9-19-06
4. Form of motion (S4, Rule 121 in rel. ot 2 to 6, Rule 15)
5. Hearing on the motion
6. Effect of grant or denial
7. Vs. in civil cases (Rule 37)

C. Motion for Reopening (S24, Rule 119)

1. Time to move
2. Grounds
3. By whom
4. Procedure
5. Vs. in civil case

 Cabarles v Judge Maceda, GR 161330, 2-20-07

 Rivac v PP, GR 224673, 1-22-18

D. Appeal
1. By whom (S1, Rule 122)
2. Period to Appeal (S6, Rule 122)
3. Where to appeal (S2, Rule 122)
4. How appeal taken (S3, Rule 122, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC Re:
Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to Govern Death
Penalty Cases Resolution effective October 15, 2004)
5. Notice (SS4 & 5, Rule 122)
6. Effect of perfection of appeal, Effect of appeal by any of several accused
(S11, Rule 122)
7. Withdrawal of appeal (S12, Rule 122)
8. Vs. in Civil Cases (Rules 40 to 45)
9. Appeal in the Sandiganbayan
10.Differences among the three (3) modes of appeal; i.e., ordinary appeal,
petition for review, and appeal by certiorari
10.1. How appeal is initiated
10.2. Where to appeal
10.3. Nature of appeal
10.4. To whom appellate docket and other lawful fees should be paid
10.5. Payment of appellate docket and other lawful as a requirement of
perfection of appeal
10.6. Name of parties
10.7. Requirement of record on appeal
10.8. Basic document to be filled in the appellate court
10.9. Perfection of appeal as to appellant
10.10. When court whose decision is being appealed loses jurisdiction
10.11. As to questions which may be raised
10.12. How parties are referred to
 CASES FOR STUDY

1. Pp. v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, 07 July 2004

2. Pp. v. Neypes, G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005
3. Yu v. Samson-Tatad, G.R. No. 170979, February 9, 2011
4. First Aqua Sugar Traders v. Bank of the Philippines Islands, G.R. No. 154034,
February 5, 2007

II. Judgment of Acquittal

A. Doctrine of finality of acquittal

 Pp V Alejandro, GR 223099, 1-11-18

B. Petition for Certiorari (R65)
1. Time to file
2. Requisites
3. Terminology
3.1. Without jurisdiction
3.2. Excess of jurisdiction
3.3. Grave abuse of discretion
4. Peculiar characteristics
4.1. Not a remedy for lost appeal, exceptions
4.2. Motion for reconsideration is sine qua non, exceptions
5. Requirements regarding the extrinsic sufficiency of the Petition
6. Vs. Prohibition and Mandamus
6.1. Purpose of the writ
6.2. Act sought to be controlled
6.3. Respondent
6.4. Nature of the remedy

PART XVI – POST-CONDUCTOR REDUCE

MATERIAL FOR READING

Habeas Corpus as a Post-Conviction Remedy by Antonio R. Bautista [75 Phil. L.J. 553
(2001)]

CASES FOR STUDY

1. Galman, et.al. v. Sandiganbayan, et.al., G.R. No. 72670, September 12, 1986,
144 SCRA 43 (1986).
2. Santiago v. Alikpala, G.R. No. 25133, September 28, 1968, 25 SCRA 356 (1968)
3. Galvez v. CA, G.R. No. 114046, October 24, 1994, 237 SCRA 685
4. Velasco v. CA, G.R. No. 118644, July 7, 1995, 245 SCRA 677
5. People v. Reynaldo de Villa, G.R. No. 124639, February 1, 2001 in rel. with In
Re: The Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo de Villa, G.R. No. 158802.
November 17, 2004
6. Barredo v. Hon. Vinarao, G.R. No. 168728, August 2, 2007
7. Go and the Pp. v. Dimagiba, G.R. No. 151876, June 21, 2005
8. Pp. v. Hon. Velasco, G.R. No. 127444, September 13, 2000

PART XVII – PROCEDURE IN THE 1ST LEVEL COURTS

(Rule 123)

I. Concept of Uniform Procedure (S1)

II. The 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure

III. Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC as amended by A.M.
No. 09-6-8-SC)

PART XVIII – PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

(Rule 124)

 Usares v PP, GR 209047, 1-7-19

PART XIX – PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME COURT

(Rule 125)