Criminal Procedure:

SY 2017-2018
BASIC CONCEPTS
What is criminal procedure?
-treats of the rules and processes
by which the criminal laws are enforced
and by which the State prosecutes
those who violate such laws.
-In People v. Lacson, 400 SCRA
267, the court defined procedural law,
as applied in criminal law, as one that
“provides or regulates the steps by
which one who committed a crime is to
be punished.”
Adversarial vs. Inquisitorial system
ADVERSARIAL INQUISITORIAL
• 1.Contemplates two • 1. the court plays an
contending parties active role as it
participates in gathering
before the court. facts and evidence.
• 2.the judge cannot act • 2.the court is not limited
as an inquisitor who to the evidence
presented as it may
pursues his own utilize evidence gathered
investigation. outside the court.
• 3.the court has a • 3.the court directs and
supervises the gathering
passive role and of evidence and
relies largely on the questioning of
evidence presented by witnesses.
both sides.
What is our system of procedure?

• It is accusatorial or adversarial.
• It is a two-sided structure consisting of the
PROSECUTION & ACCUSED.
• The prosecution and accused will present evidence.
• In deciding, the court cannot consider evidence not
formally offered.
Interpretation of the Rules

• The rules on criminal procedure shall be “LIBERALLY

construed in order to promote their objective of
securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition
of every action and proceeding.”(Sec. 6, Rule 1, Rules
of Court: )
Cariaga v. People, 626 SCRA 231

• Accused’s counsel erroneously appealed her conviction to

the CA instead of to the Sandiganbayan.
• Should the rules on appeal be strictly followed, the appeal
shall be dismissed for having been filed with the wrong
court.
• How should the court rule?
Ruling:

• The SC held that since the appeal involved a

criminal case and the possibility of a person being
deprived of liberty due to a procedural lapse is
great, a relaxation of the rule was warranted.
Requisites for the Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction

• Basic requisites before a court can acquire jurisdiction

over a criminal case are:
a) Jurisdiction over the subject matter;
b) Jurisdiction over the Territory; and
c) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
(Cruz v. CA, 388 SCRA 72)
Criminal Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

• This refers to the authority of the court to hear and

determine a particular criminal case.
• In short, it is jurisdiction over the offense charged.
• In Antiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551, the court
described such jurisdiction as the authority to hear and
try a particular offense and impose the punishment
for it or that the offense is one which the court is, by
law, authoirized to take cognizance of.
How is it conferred?

Jurisdiction over the subject

matter is CONFERRED by LAW
and any judgment, order or
resolution issued without it is void
and cannot be given effect. (Magno
vs. People, 647 SCRA 362,371).
( Apo Cement Corp. vs. Mingson Minging
Industries Corp., G.R. No. 206728,
November 12, 2014.)
• Where there is a violation of basic
constitutional rights, courts are ousted
from their jurisdiction. Where the
denial of the fundamental right of due
process is apparent, a decision
rendered in disregard of that right is
void for lack of jurisdiction.
Can it be acquired or waived by omission?

• Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be

acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the
omission of the parties or conferred by the
acquiescence of the court. (Atienza v. People, G.R.
No. 188694, February 12, 2014)
What law determines it?

• Jurisdiction to try criminal cases is DETERMINED by

the law in effect at the time of the
commencement/institution/
• filing of the action/complaint or information. (People v.
Magallanes, 249 SCRA 212,227; Palana v. People,
534 SCRA 296,302; Asistio v. People, G.R. No.
200465, April 20, 2015)
Can it be presumed?

• NO. When the law confers jurisdiction, it must be

clear.
• It cannot be presumed.
• It must appear from the statute or will not be held to
exist. (De Jesus v. Garcia, 19 SCRA 554)
How is it determined?

• Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the

allegations in the complaint of information and not by
the findings based on the evidence after trial. (Mobilia
Products v. Umezawa, 452 SCRA 736).
• It is not determined by the defenses set up by the
accused. (Rapsing v. Ables, 684 SCRA 195)
What penalty determines such jurisdiction?

• It is the penalty imposable by law on the offense

charged and not by the penalty actually imposed after
trial.
• It is the penalty imposable by law on the basis of the
facts as recited in the complaint or information.
(People v. Buissan, 105 SCRA 547)
Principle of adherence of jurisdiction or continuing
jurisdiction?
• Under this principle, the jurisdiction of the court is referred
to as “continuing” since once a court acquires
jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the court
has done all that it can do in the exercise of that
jurisdiction.
• Hence, once the court acquires jurisdiction, it may be
not be ousted by subsequent events, such as a new
law placing it to another court.
• Is there any exception to the principle of
continuing jurisdiction or principle of
adherence?
Exceptions:

• 1. When there is an express provision in the new

statute, OR
• 2. The statute is clearly intended to apply to actions
pending before its enactment. (People v. Cawaling, 293
SCRA 267, Palana v. People, 534 SCRA 303)
When may objections on jurisdictional grounds be raised?

• At any stage of the proceedings.

• It may even be raised for the first time on appeal.
• The court may even consider it motu proprio at any stage
of the proceedings or on appeal. (Fukuzume v. People,
474 SCRA 570; Foz v. People, 603 SCRA 124; Atienza v.
People, February 12, 2014)
Is there any limitation to one’s right to raise the issue of
jurisdiction?
• YES. By way of EXCEPTION, In Antiporda, Jr. v.
Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551, the court held that a party
cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court to secure
affirmative relief against his opponent and after obtaining
or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that
same jurisdiction.
• This is known as BAR BY LACHES or ESTOPPEL, an
exception for reasons of public policy.(Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29; Pangilinan v. CA, 321 SCRA
51).
 Criminal Jurisdiction over the person of
the accused
• This refers to the authority of the court, not over
the subject matter of the criminal litigation, but over
the person charged. This requires that the person
charged must have been brought into the court for
trial. (Antiporda v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551)
How is it acquired?

• Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is

acquired as follows
a) upon his arrest, with or without warrant; or
b)upon his voluntary appearance/ surrender or
submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
(Valdepenas v. People, 16 SCRA 871)
Instances of voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
court:
• 1. Filing of a pleading seeking for affirmative relief
like a motion to dismiss (Jimenez v. Sorongon, 687
SCRA 151);
• 2. Filing a motion to quash or other pleadings
requiring the exercise of the court's jurisdiction
(Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633);
• 3. Appearance for arraignment
(Gimenez v. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 4)
• 4. The filing of a motion for
determination of probable cause
(David v. Agbay, G.R. No. 199113,
March 18, 2015)
• 5. Active participation in the trial and
presentation of evidence (Peope v.
Rivera, 597 SCRA 299)
Exceptions to voluntary submission:
• Not all acts seeking affirmative relief constitute
voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
court. The exceptions are:
• 1) Making a special appearance to question the
jurisdictionof the court;
• 2) Filing a motion to quash precisely assailing
the jurisdiction over his person;
• 3) Filing a motion to quash warrant of arrest
since it is the very legality of the court process
forcing submission of the person of the accused
that is the very issue. (Miranda v. Tuliao, 486
SCRA 377)
Custody of the law vs. jurisdiction over the person

Notes:
• 1) One can be under the custody of the law
but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the
court over his person.
Illustration:

• A person arrested by virtue of a warrant

who files a motion before
arraignment to quash the warrant.
2. One can be subject to the
jurisdiction of the court over his
person, and yet not be in the
custody of the law.
.
Ilustration:

• A person who was initially arrested but who

escapes custody after his trial has commenced.
 In what instance is custody of the law
required?

• 3. Custody of the law is required before the

court can act upon the application for bail,
but is not required for adjudication of other
reliefs sought by the accused where the mere
application constitutes a waiver of the defense
of lack of jurisdiction over his person.
What does custody of law signify?

• 4. Custody of the law signifies restraint on the

person. Literally, it is custody over the body of
the accused. It includes detention. (Miranda
vs. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377)
Problem:
• Before his arrest, A filed a motion for re-
determination of probable cause. The trial
court denied the motion on the ground that
it had no jurisdiction over the person of the
accused.
• Is the court correct?
Answer:

• NO. The court is wrong in saying that it had no

jurisdiction over the accused since the filing of the
motion signified his submission to its jurisdiction.
The court obviously confused custody of the law
with jurisdiction over the person. Custody of the
law is not required for the adjudication of reliefs
EXCEPT in application for bail. (David v. Agbay,
March 18, 2015)
Can the court enjoin the criminal prosecution of an
accused?
• General rule: NO, unction will not be granted to stop a
criminal prosecution SINCE public interest requires that
criminal acts be immediately investigated and prosecuted
for the protection of the society. (Reyes v. Camilon, 192
SCRA 445)
• Are there exceptions to the above rule?
Exceptions:(10)

• 1. when the injunction is necessary to afford adequate

protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
• 2. when it is necessry for the orderly administration of
justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;
• 3. when there is a prejudicial question which is subjudice;
• 4. when the acts of the officer are without
or in excess of authority;
• 5. where the prosecution is under an
invalid law;
• 6. when double jeopardy is clearly
apparent;
• 7. where the court has no jurisdiction over
the offense;
• 8.where it is case of persecution rather
than prosecution;
• 9. where the charges are manifestly false
and motivated by the lust for vengeance;
• 10. when there is clearly no prima facie
case against the accused and a motion to
quash on that ground has been denied.
(Brocka v. Enrile, 192 SCRA 183; Samson
v. Guingona, Jr., 348 SCRA 32)

– Does mandamus lie to compel

criminal prosecution?
Answer:

• NO, in our criminal justice system, the public prosecutor

exercises a wide latitude of DISCRETION in determining
whether a criminal case shall be filed in court, and the
courts must respect that discretion.
• Mandamus therefore, will, as a rule, NOT LIE to
compel criminal prosecution.(People v. Yecyec, 739
SCRA 719)
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Reynaldo, 627
SCRA 88)
• Mandamus is a remedial measure issued when “any
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law enjoins
as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station.”
• Mandamus is not available to control discretion.
• Neither may it be issued to compel exercise of discretion.
• It is a matter of discretion for the
prosecutor to determine which persons
appear responsible for the crime.
• HOWEVER, once he finds one to be so
liable, it becomes his inescapable duty to
charge and prosecute him for the same. In
such situation, his role loses its
discretionary character and becomes
mandatory. And, if he refuses to file the
case, his acts is tantamount to a deliberate
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF MTC

• Except in cases under the exclusive original

jurisdiction of the RTC and the Sandiganbayan, the
MTC shall exercise the following criminal jurisdiction:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations ofcity or
municipal ordinances committed within their territorial
jurisdiction (Sec. 32(1),B.P 129, as amended by R.A 7691);
 2.Exclusive original jurisdiction over all
offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding 6 years irrespective of the amount
of fine, and other imposable or accessory
penalties, including the civil liability arising
from such offenses irrespective of kind,
nature, value or amount (Sec. 32(2), BP 129,
as amended by RA 7691);
3. Exclusive original jurisdiction over
offenses involving damage to property
through negligence (Sec. 32(2), BP 129, as
amended by RA 7691). (2013);
• 4. Violations of BP 22 which, as per A.M. No.
00-11-01-SC, effective April 5, 2003, shall be
under the Rules on Summary Procedure;
• 5. Summary procedure in certain cases ch
as:
– a.Violation of traffic laws;
– b.Violation of rental law;
– c.BP 22 cases;
– d.Violations of municipal or city ordinances
– e.criminal cases where the penalty prescribed is
imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or a fine
not more than 1,000, or both, irrespective of
other imposable penalties;
– f. offenses involving damage to property through
negligence where the imposable fine does not
exceed 10,000 (Sec. 1(B), 1991 Rule on
Summary Procedure)

6. Special jurisdiction to decide on

application for bail in the absence of all
RTC judges in a province. (Sec. 35, BP 129
as amended by RA 7691)
“Except in cases within the exclusive
jurisidiction of the RTC and of the
Sandiganbayan”
• Significance:
– This simply indicates that the MTC does not at all
times have jurisdiction over offenses punishable
by not more than 6 years like when jurisdiction is
vested by law either in the RTC or
Sandiganbayan.
– Ex. Libel under Art. 355 of the RPC-Penalty is
prision correccional in its min. and med. periods
BUT Art. 360 says RTC has jurisdiction over it not
MTC.
Other Illustration

• Bribery under Art. 210 of the RPC is punishable by prision

correccional in its med. period BUT within the exclusive
jurisidiction of the Sandiganbayan pursuant to Sec. 4(a) of
PD 1606, as amended.
• Indirect Bribery under Art. 211 is punishable by prision
correccional in its med. and max. periods, BUT is,
likewise, under jurisidiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Criminal Jurisidiction of the RTC
• 1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal
cases not within the exclusive jurisidiciton of
any court, or body except those now falling
under the exclusive and concurrent
jurisidiction of the Sandiganbayan. (Sec.
20,BP 129, as amended by RA 7691);
• 2. Original jurisdiction in the issuance of writs
of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus and injunction
enforceable in their regions (Sec. 21(1),BP
129, as amended)
• 3. Appellate jurisdiction over all cases
decided by the MTC within its territorial
jurisdiction(Sec. 22, BP 129, as amended);
• 4. Special jurisdiction of certain branches
to handle excusively criminal cases as
may be determined by the SC (Sec. 23,
BP 129, as amended)
• 5. Jurisidiction over criminal cases under
specific laws such as:
– a. over criminal and civil aspects of written
defamation (Art. 360, RPC);
– b. jurisdiction over designated special courts
over cases in Violation of RA 9165 as
provided in Sec. 90 thereof;
– c. Jurisdiction of designated RTC branches for
vioaltions of IP rights (AM No. 03-03-03-SC,
July 1, 2003, Implementing the IP Code of the
Philippines (RA 8293);
– d. Jurisdiction to try all cases on money
laundering. However, those committed by
public officers and private persons, who are in
conspiracy with such public officers, shall be
under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
(Sec. 5, RA 9160, Anti-Money Laundering Act
of 2001)
 Criminal Jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan (PD 1606, as amended by
RA 7975 & RA 8249)
 NOTE:In Serana v. Sandiganbayan, 542
SCRA 224, the SC held that the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is
set by P.D. 1606 as amended, and NOT
by R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, as amended.
 RA 8249: An Act defining the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan, amending PD
1606, as amended...
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise original
jurisdiction in ALL cases involving: (Sec. 4,
RA 8249,2-5-97)
• A. 1) Violations of RA 3019, as amended;
2. Violations of RA 1379, An Act Declaring
Forfeiture in Favor of the State any Property
Found To have Been Unlawfully Acquired by
Public Officer or Employee;
3. Violation of Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII,
Book II of the RPC (Bribery in all its forms
including corruption of public officials, Art.
210-212,RPC)
*PROVIDED that:
-PROVIDED one or more of the accused
are officials occupying the following
positions in the government, whether in a
permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the
time of the commission of the offense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch
occupying positions of regional director and
higher, otherwise classified as Grade “27”
and higher of the Compensation and
Position Calssification Act of 1989 (RA
6758), INCLUDING:
– a. Provincial governors, vice-governors,
members of the sangguniang panlalawigan,
and provincial treasurers, assessors,
engineers, and other provincial department
heads;
– b. City Mayors, vice-mayors, members of the
sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurer,
assessors, engineers, and other city
department heads;
– c. Officials of the diplomatic service occupying
the position of consul and higher;
– d. Philippine Army and air force colonels,
naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;
– e. officers of the PNP while 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 officials and prosecutors in the
Office of the Ombudsman and special
prosecutor;
– g. Presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of government-owned or controlled
corporations, state universities or educational
institutions or foundations (People v. Morales,
649 SCRA 182)
• (2) Members of congress and officials
thereof classified as Grade “27” and up;
(3) Members of the judiciary without
prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution;
• (4)Chairmen and members of
Constitutional Commissions, without
prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution; and
• (5) All other national and local officials
classified as Grade 27 and higher;
• B. Other offenses or felonies whether
simple or complexed with other crimes
committed by the public officials and
employees mentioned in subsection “A” in
relations to their office;
– NOTE: As a rule, to make an offense one
committed in realtion to the office, “the relation
has to be such that, in the legal sence, the
offense cannot exist without the office”
(Montilla v. Hilario, 90 Phil. 49) In other words,
the office must be a constituent element of the
crime as defined by statute. Ex. bribery,
frauds committed by public
treasury,malversation of public funds,etc.-Art.
– NOTE FURTHER:
–Even if the position is not an essential
element or ingredient of the offense
charged, if the information avers the
intimate connection between the office
and the offense, this would bring the
offense within the definition of an offense
“committed in relation to the public
office” (Sanchez v. Demetriou, 227
SCRA 627)

Example:
 Examples:”offense committed in relation to
the public office”:
• Consigna v. People, G.R. No. 175750, April 2, 2014
• *The SC held that when it is alleged and subsequently
proven that a municipal treasurer capitalized on the functions
of the office to commit estafa, the crime is said to have been
perpetrated in relation to one's official functions even if
public office is not an element of estafa.
• Esteban v. Sandiganbayan, 453 SCRA 236.
• Accused moved to quash 2 informations for acts of lasciviousness
committed against a casual employee in his office, saying the
Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction
• Motion DENIED. Certiorari under Rule 65 to the SC.
• Ruling: Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction since the information alleged
with clarity that the accused used his official position to commit the acts
charged.
• People v. Montejo, 108 Phil. 613.
– Accused city mayor was charged of murder.
– The court ruled that the information
sufficiently indicated the existence of acts and
events intimately connected to the public
office of the acused. It alleged that the murder
was a consequence of his act as a mayor;
that he organized armed patrols and civilian
commandos and provided them with arms;
that he ordered the arrest and maltreatment of
the victim. While office is not an element of
murder, the offense was committed while the
accused was in the performance of his
functions.
• NOTE: In all the cited cases, it is required that the
information must contain the specific FACTUAL
allegations that would indicate the close intimacy
between the discharge of official functions by the
accused and the commission of the offense
charged, in order to qualify the crime as having
been committed in relation to public office.

• *Would a mere allegation that the offense was

committed “in relation to the discharge of one's
official functions” sufficient to comply with the
above requirement?
Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298.
• NO. While the amended information for murder
was alleged to have been committed “IN
RELATION TO THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES AS
POLICE OFFICERS”, it contained no specific
allegations of facts that the shooting of the victim
was intimately related to the discharge of the
official functions of the accused.
**The mere allegation that the offense was
committedxxx in relation to his office is not
sufficient. The phrase is merely a conclusion of
law, not a factual averment that would show
close intimacy between the offense charged
and the discharge of accused's duties.
• C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant
to and in connection with EO Nos. 1,2,14
and 14-A, issued in 1986. Note: Civil
jurisdiction is also exercised by the
Sandiganbayan (Antiporda v.
Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551)

• Note: OTHER cases falling under

jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan:
• A. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final
judgments, resolutions or orders of RTCs
whether in the exercise of their original
jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction;
• B. Exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions
for issuance of the writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
injunctions, and other ancillary writs and
processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and
over petitions of similar nature, including quo
warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed
under EO Nos. 1,2,14 and 14-A:provided, that
the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be
exclusive of the SC.
• EO No. 1-Creating the PCGG, Feb. 1, 1986
(recovery of ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos
Family,relatives,dummies, subordinates,agents,
w/o distinction as to their private or public status
& investigation of graft cases as the President
may assign)
• EO No. 2- Freeze order against all assets and
properties in the Philippines in which the Marcos
family, their relatives, dummies, subordinates,
agents, etc., have any interest or participation.
• EO Nos. 14 & 14-A-vesting in the Sandiganbayn
original and exclusive JURISDICTION over
criminal & civil suits filed by the PCGG/Granting
the PCGG authority to grant immunity from
criminal prosecution.
Example of case covered by EO No. 1

• PCGG v. Dumayas, G.R. No. 209447,

August 11, 2015.
–The SC held that the RTC has no
jurisdiction over suits involving the
sequestered coco levy assets and
coco levy funds. It is within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
• C. Violation of RA 9160, Anti-Money
Laundering Act of 2001;
• D. Violation of RA 7080, An Act
Defining and Penalizing the Crime of
Plunder;
Does salary grade alone determine
jurisidiction of the Sandiganbayan?
• NO. While the first part of Sec. 4(a) of PD
1606, as amended, covers only officials
with salary grade 27 and higher, the
second part thereof specifically includes
other executive officials whose positions
may not be with salary grade 27 and
higher but who are by EXPRESS provision
of the law under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.(Geduspan v. People,51
SCRA 187)
Effect of death of a public officer charged in
conspiracy with a private person.

**The controlling doctrine is that private persons

may be charged in conspiracy with public officers.
Hence, it is a settled rule that private persons,
when acting in conspiracy with public officers. may
be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for
violations of the anti-graft law.(Uyboco v. People,
G.R. No. 211703, December 10, 2014)
**The death of the public officer will not extinguish
the crime nor will it remove the basis of the charge
of conspiracy between him and the private
person.(People v. Go,G.R. No. 168359, March 25
2014)
 Rule 110

• I. PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Who are the parties in a criminal action?

• The parties are the People of the Philippines and

the accused. The offended party is regarded merely as a
witness for the state.

– Why is the offended party regarded as a mere witness?

• Reason:
– The purpose of criminal action is to determine the penal
liability of the accused for having outraged the state
with his crime. (Heirs of Sarah Marie Palma Burgos v.
CA, 169711, February 8, 2010)
 How are criminal actions instituted?

• It generally depends on whether or not the

offense is one which requires preliminary
investigation (Sec. 1, Rule 110)
• 1) Where PI is required- instituted by filing
the complaint with the proper officer for the
requisite PI.

• 2) Where PI is NOT required- instituted in

either 2 ways:
• a) by filing directly with the MTC
and MCTC; or
• b) by filing with the prosecutor's
office (Sec. 1, Rule 110)
How about in Manila & other
chartered cities?

• *Special rule: by filing with the

prosecutor's office unless otherwise
provided in the charter (Sec. 1, Rule
110)
 Is there direct filing with the RTC? Why?

•
• NONE because its jurisdiction covers offenses
which require Preliminary Investigation.
Is there direct filing in Manila/other
chartered cities?

• NONE because as a rule, the

complaint shall be filed with the
prosecutor's office.

• Exception:
– If the charter provides otherwise.(Sec. 1,
Rule 110)
In what offenses is PI require/not
required?

• *Preliminary investigation is
required for offenses where the
penalty is at least 4 years, 2 months
and 1 day(Sec. 1, Rule 112)
Is it correct to say that ALL offenses under the
jurisdiction of the MTC do not require Preliminary
Investigation? Why?
• NO. Take note of the following:
– RTC jurisdiction: over offenses punishable
by imprisonment of more than 6 years, way
above the minimum penalty for offenses that
require PI.
– MTC jurisdiction: over offenses punishable
by not more than 6 years. (Sec. 32(2), BP
129, Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980).
– P.I. is required in offenses punishable by 4
years, 2 months and 1 day, which is well
within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
What is the effect of the filing of the
criminal action on the prescriptive
period?

*Sec. 1 categorically says that it shall

interrupt the period of prescription of
the offense charged UNLESS
otherwise provided in special laws.
• NOTE: Since Rule 110 provides that one of the
ways of instituting the criminal action is by filing
with the proper officer for the conduct of PI for
offenses that require it, such filing with the
proper officer for the requisite PI shall interrupt
the prescriptive period.
• NOTES:
• *For offenses where PI is not required, the filing
with the MTC or with the prosecutor's office shall
interrupt the period.
• *In Manila and other chartered cities, the filing
with the prosecutor interrupts the period.
Until when is the prescriptive period
suspended?

• *Until such time that the accused is either

convicted or acquitted by the proper court.
(People v. Bautista, GR No. 168641, April
27, 2007)
Rule on prescription for violations of
special laws and municipal ordinances:

• Act 3326, as amended, governs

the period for prescription for
violations of special laws and
municipal ordinances.
• Section 1. Violations penalized by special Acts shall,
unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in
accordance with the following rules:
– (a) after a year for offenses punished only by a fine or
by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both;
– b) after four years for those punished by
imprisonment for more than one month, but
less than two years;
– (c) after eight years for those punished by
imprisonment for two years or more, but less
than six years; and
– (d) after twelve years for any other offense
punished by imprisonment for six years or
more, except the crime of treason, which shall
prescribe after twenty years.
– (e)Violations penalized by municipal
ordinances shall prescribe after two months.
• Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from
the day of the commission of the violation
of the law, and if the same be not known at
the time, from the discovery thereof and
the institution of judicial proceeding for its
investigation and punishment.

• The prescription shall be interrupted when

proceedings are instituted against the
guilty person, and shall begin to run again
if the proceedings are dismissed for
reasons not constituting jeopardy.
• Sec. 3. For the purposes of this Act, special acts
shall be acts defining and penalizing violations of
the law not included in the Penal Code.
Notable cases re Act 3326:

• 1) Zaldivia v. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277, a case involving an

offense punishable by a municipal ordinance.
– It held that Act 3326 says that the period of prescription
shall be suspended when proceedings are instituted
against the guilty person, the proceedings being
“judicial proceedings and not administrative.”
Recent cases seemingly abandoned
the Zaldivia ruling:
• 1) Sanrio Company Limited v. Lim, GR No.
168662, February 19, 2008-Violation of
Intellectual property Code.
– A complaint was filed with the Task force on
Anti-Intellectual Property Piracy (TAPP) of the
DOJ.
– The complaint was dismissed by TAPP for
insufficiency of evidence. It was appealed up
to the CA which affirmed the dismissal on the
ground of prescription since no complaint was
filed in court pursuant to Act 3326.
• Ruling:
– 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 THE
RESPONDENT. The prescriptive period
for the prosecution of violation of the
IPC was tolled by the petitioner's timely
filing of the complaint before the TAPP.
• 2) Panaguiton Jr v. DOJ, GR. No.-
167571, 11-25-08-Violation of BP 22.
– QC Prosecutor dismissed the complaint
on the ground of prescription (4 years).
The DOJ affirmed the dismissal. The CA
dismissed certiorari petition on technical
grounds.
– Before the SC, the respondent invoked
the Zaldivia ruling to support the
dismissal of the complaint.
• Ruling:
– The filing of the complaint with the prosecutor
signified the commencement of the
proceedings for the prosecution of the
accused and thus, EFFECTIVELY
INTERRUPTED THE PRESCRIPTIVE
PERIOD.
– The court explained that when Act 3326 was
passed, PI could be conducted by justices of
the peace, thus, the phraseology in the law,
“INSTITUTION OF JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS FOR ITS INVESTIGATION
AND PUNISHMENT xxx”.
• 3) SEC v. Interport Resources Corp., GR
No. 135808, 10-6-08-Violation of
Revised Securities Act.
• Ruling:
– It is established doctrine that a
preliminary investigation interrupts the
prescriptive period. The investigation
commenced by SEC, pursuant to its
powers under the securities Act,
effectively interrupted the prescriptive
period.
• NOTE:

Sanrio, Panaguiton and SEC cases cited

above uniformly held that the filing of the
affidavit complaint for PI interrupted the
running of the prescriptive period for
violations of special laws.
People v. Pangilinan, 672 SCRA 105, June 13,
2012.
• In this more recent case where the issue of
whether or not the filing of the criminal action for
violation of BP 22 has already prescribed, the
court held:
– “There is no more distinction between cases
under the RPC and those under special laws
with respect to the interruption of the period of
prescription. The ruling in Zaldivia v. Reyes,
Jr. is not controlling in special laws. In Llenes
v. Dicdican, Ingco,et.al., v. Sandiganbayan,
Brillante v. CA, and Sanrio Company Ltd. v.
Lim, cases involving special laws, this court
held that the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation
against the accused interrupts the period of prescription. In SEC v.
Interport Resources Corp, et.al., the court even ruled that
investigations conducted by the SEC for violations of the Revised
Security Act and the Securities Regulation Code effectively
interrupts the prescriptive period because it is equivalent to the
preliminary investigation conducted by the DOC in criminal cases.
How about filing of a case with the
Ombudsman?
• This also effectively interrupts the prescriptive
period.
• In Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24,
9-11-13, it was held that:
– “The prevailing rule is, therefore, that
irrespective of whether the offense charged is
punishable by the 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”.
How about crimes required to be referred to
the barangay?
• Sec. 410, RA 7160, Local Government Code of
1991, provides the Procedure for Amicable
Settlement. Under par. (c) on suspension of
prescriptive period of offenses, the prescriptive
period is suspended temporarily once the
complaint is filed with the Punong Barangay,
but such suspension shall last for 60 days
only from the filing of the complaint.
The prescriptive period shall resume upon
receipt by the complainant of the certificate of
repudiation or certificate to file action.
Does the rule on interruption of prescription still
apply if the court is without jurisdiction?

• YES. The running of the period of prescription is

interrupted with the filing of the action even if the
court in which the action was first filed is without
jurisdiction.
• Notable cases:
1)In People v. Galano, an information was
filed with the Batangas RTC even though the
evidence of both parties shows that the crime
was committed in Manila.
Ruling: Applying People v. Olarte, the court
held that it was only when the trial court
dismissed the case due to lack of jurisdiction
• that “the proceedings therein terminated without
conviction and acquittal and it was only then that
the prescriptive period (which was interrupted
during the pendency of the case in the Batangay
RTC) commenced to run again.”
• 2) In People v. Enrile, where informations were
filed against civilians with the military tribunal
which had no jurisdiction over them, the court,
applying the Olarte case, threw out the defense
of prescription when the cases were filed before
the civil courts. At the very least, the filing of the
first charges interrupted the prescriptive period
notwithstanding the lack of jurisdiction of the
military tribunal.
• 3) Reodica v. CA, an information for reckless
imprudence resulting in damage to property was
filed with the RTC.
Ruling: The court, citing Olarte and other
subsequent cases, ruled that “the prescriptive
period for the quasi-offenses in question was
interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the
fiscal's office 3 days after the accident and
remained tolled pending termination of the
case.”
NOTE: All the above cases were cited in
Arambulo v. Laqui, Sr., 342 SCRA 740)
 II. PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION

WHO must prosecute the criminal

action?
-All criminal actions shall be
prosecuted under the direct
supervision and control of the public
prosecutor.
- Even if there is a private prosecutor,
the criminal action is still under the
direction and control of the public
prosecutor.
Can a private prosecutor appear?

• YES. The appearance of a private prosecutor is allowed

ONLY when the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is filed
with the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111 (Sec. 16, Rule 110).
The engagement or appointment of a private prosecutor is
done by the offended party and it is the mode by which he
intervenes in the prosecution of the offense.
When is a private prosecutor NOT
allowed?

• When the offended party:

1) WAIVES the civil action;

2) RESERVES the right to file the civil
action; and
3) institutes the civil action PRIOR to
the criminal action.
What is the effect of an independent civil
action on the right of the offended party
to intervene through a private
prosecutor?
The filing of an independent civil action does
not deprive the offended party the right to
intervene through a private prosecutor.
NOTE that under Sec. 1, Rule 111, what is
deemed instituted with the criminal action is
the civil action to recover civil liability arising
from the offense charged.
• Take Note: Those not arising from the
offense charged like independent civil
actions under Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of
the Civil Code are not deemed instituted
with the criminal action.
• These independent civil actions,
according to Sec. 3, Rule 111, shall
proceed independently of the criminal
action. No need for reservation under the
2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure
because they can proceed separately from
the criminal action.
• THUS, as a consequence of the
independent character of actions brought
under Arts. 32(civil & political rights), 33
(defamation/fraud/physical injuries), 34
(failure to render aid by peace officer) and
2176 (quasi-delict caused by
fault/negligence) of the Civil Code, even if
a civil action based on these is filed, the
ex-delicto civil liability in the criminal
prosecution remains. Hence, the offended
party may still intervene through a private
prosecutor.
 WHO must prosecute criminal actions in
the MTC or MCTC?

• The public prosecutor MUST prosecute criminal

actions in the MTC.

• Is there any exemption to this rule?

• EXCEPTION:
• When the public prosecutor is NOT
available, the following may be allowed to
prosecute:(Sec. 5, Rule 110, as amended
by AM 02-2-7-SC & clarified in OCA
Circular No. 39, August 21, 2002)
• a. Private prosecutor
• b. offended
• c. peace officer
• d. public officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated.
A.M. No. 02-2-7-SC, May 1, 2002, amending
Sec. 5, Rule 110)
"Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal action. -
All criminal actions either commenced by
complaint or by information shall be prosecuted
under the direction and control of a public
prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of the
public prosecutor or in the event of lack of public
prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be
authorized in writing by the Chief of the
Prosecution Office or the Regional State
Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the
approval of the court.
• Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the
private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up
to end of the trial even in the absence of a public
prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise
withdrawn. x x x ."
 OCA CIRCULAR 39-2002, AUGUST 21,
2002
• The Supreme Court En Banc in its Resolution dated 10
April 2002, in A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC, RE: Proposed
Amendments to Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure, Resolved to approve the
amendment to Sec. 5, Rule 110 to read as follows:
• "Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. — (as
quoted above)
• Take Note:
• The aforequoted resolution did not state the
entire first (1st) paragraph of Section 5, Rule 110
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
resulting to confusion on the right of the
offended party, any peace officer or public officer
to prosecute the criminal cases before the
Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts when the public prosecutor is not
available. Despite such omission, such right
on the part of the offended party, peace
officer or public officer to prosecute the
criminal case in the aforementioned courts is
still in effect and not withdrawn.
• It is therefore necessary to state in toto the
first (1st) paragraph of Section 5, Rule
110, as amended by the Supreme Court
Resolution dated 10 April 2002 in A.M. No.
02-2-07-SC as follows:
– "Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal
actions. — All criminal actions either
commenced by complaint or by information
shall be prosecuted under the direction and
control of a public prosecutor.In case of heavy
work schedule of the public prosecutor, or in
the event of lack of public prosecutors,
• the private prosecutor may be authorized in
writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office
or the Regional State Prosecutor to
prosecute the case subject to the approval of
the court. Once so authorized to prosecute
the criminal action, the private prosecutor
shall continue to prosecute the case up to
the end of the trial even in the absence of a
public prosecutor, unless the authority is
revoked or otherwise withdrawn.
• However, in Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts when the prosecutor assigned thereto or
to the case is not available, the offended party, any
peace officer, or public officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated may prosecute the case.
This authority shall cease upon actual intervention of the
prosecutor or upon elevation of the case to the Regional
Trial Court.
• How are offenses in violation of special laws
prosecuted?

• -They shall be prosecuted pursuant to the provisions

of said (special) law (Sec. 5, Rule 110)
 III. PROSECUTION OF PRIVATE
CRIMES
How are private crimes prosecuted?

1) Adultery & concubinage:

- ONLY upon the complaint of offended
spouse (Sec. 5, Rule 110).
-MUST be filed against BOTH guilty
parties, unless one is dead (Sec. 5,
Rule 110)
•
 -may not be filed if the offended spouse has
consented to the offense or has pardoned the
offenders.- express or implied (Sec. 5, Rule 110)
-Prosecutor cannot prosecute where no complaint
is filed by the offended spouse.
• 2) Seduction, abduction & acts of
lasciviousness:
– ONLY upon complaint by the offended party
OR her parents, grandparents or guardian.
– Effect of EXPRESS pardon by any of the
above: serves as a BAR to criminal
prosecution for any of these crimes.
– a minor offended party can file the complaint
independently of her parents, grandparents or
guardian. (Sec. 5, Rule 110)
– if minor dies or is incapacitated before she
can file and no known parents, grandparents
or guardian, the State may file (Sec. 5, Rule
110).
• 3) Defamation for imputing the offenses of adultery,
concubinage, seduction, or acts of lasciviousness:

– ONLY upon the complaint of the offended party.

 IV. THE COMPLAINT AND INFORMATION
• What is a Complaint?

– It is a sworn written statement charging a person with

an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any
peace officer, or other public officer charged with the
enforcement of law violated. (Sec. 3, Rule 110)
 Complaint:

1) It is filed in the name of the PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES and against all who appear
responsible for the offense.
2) The private offended parties are only witnesses for
the prosecution.
3) They cannot appeal the criminal aspect BUT only as
to the civil aspect.
 Information:

• What is an Information?
– It is an accusation in writing charging a person with an
offense subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the
court. (Sec. 4, Rule 110)
– It is filed in the name of the PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES and against all who appear responsible.
Complaint vs. Information

It must be It requires NO OATH

sworn,hence, under (since the pros. is
OATH acting under the oath
of his office)
Subscribed by the (a) Subscribed by the
offended party (b) any prosecutor
peace officer (c) or
other public officer
charged with the
enforcement of the law
violated
What is the effect of infirmity in the
signature in the information?

An infirmity, such as lack of authority of

the officer signing it cannot be cured by
silence, acquiescence, or even by
express consent.
Sufficiency of the complaint/information
• It is deemed sufficient if it contains the
followings:
a) name of the accused;
b)designation of the offense given by statute;
c) acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense;
d) name of the offended party;
e) approximate date of commission; and
f) place of commission (Sec. 6, Rule 110; Enrile
v. Manalastas, 739 SCRA 49)
What is the test for sufficiency of the
complaint or information?
•
The test is whether the crime is
described in intelligible terms with such
particularity as to apprise the accused
with reasonable certainty, of the offense
charged to enable him to suitably prepare
for his defense (Lazarte, Jr. v.
Sandiganbayan, 581 SCRA 431).
• NOTE:
• 1) Whether an information charges an
offense depends on whether the material
facts alleged shall establish the essential
elements of the offense charged. Thus, for an
information to be sufficient, it must validly
charge an offense. (Miguel v.
Sandiganbayan, 675 SCRA 560)
• 2)An Information is fatally defective when it is
clear that it does not charge an offense or
when an essential element of the crime has
not been sufficiently alleged(People v.
Posada, 667 SCRA 790).
• When can one raise any question as to the
sufficiency of the complaint or information?
• -Upon arraignment or during trial. Failure to do
so is deemed a waiver, such as when accused
voluntarily entered a plea and participated in the
trial. (Frias v. People, G.R. No. 171437, 10-4-
07).
• How about as to form?
• -objections as to form, such as when the
information does not conform to prescribed form,
must likewise be made before arraignment and
cannot be made for the first time on appeal (People
v. Teodoro,607 SCRA 307; People v. runcas, 664
SCRA 182).
• NOTE:
– However, where the objection is based on lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the same may be
raised or considered motu proprio by the court at any
stage of the proceedings or on appeal (Fuluzume v.
People, 474 SCRA 570)
What determines the nature and character of
the offense charged?
**It is determined not from the caption or
preamble of the information, or from the
specification of the provision of law violated,
which are mere conclusions of law, but by the
recitals of the ultimate facts and circumstances in
the information (People v. Valdez, 663 SCRA
272).
**Even if the designation of the crime is
defective, what is controlling is the allegation of
the facts in the information that comprises a
crime and adequately describes the nature and
cause of the accusation(People v. Anguac, 588
SCRA 716).
Date of commission of the offense
• Is it necessary to state the precise date
of commission?
– NO. Sec. 11, Rule 110 provides that it is not
necessary EXCEPT when the date of
commission is a material element of the
offense. Thus, the offense may be alleged to
have been committed on a date as near as
possible to the actual date of commission
(People v. Canares, 579 SCRA 588).
• In crimes where the date of commission is not a
material element, like murder, rape, or qualified
theft, it is not necessary to allege such date with
absolute certainty in the information. The Rules
of Court merely requires, for the sake of properly
informing an accused, that the date of
commission be approximated (People v.
Teodoro, 607 SCRA 307; People v. Zapanta,
694 SCRA 25; People v. Delfin, G.R. No.
201572,July 9,2014). In these cases, the terms
used were: “in the first week of July 1995”;
“sometime in the month of October 2001”;
“on or about the 27th day of November
2000”.
People v. Pareja, G.R. No. 202122, 01-15-14
• The phrase “on or about the year 1992” was
held to encompass not only the twelve months of
1992 but includes the years prior and
subsequent to 1992, e.g., 1991 and 1993, for
which accused has to virtually account for his
whereabouts. Hence, the failure of the
prosecution to allege with particularity the date
of commission of the offense and, worse, its
failure to prove during the trial the date of
commission as alleged in the information,
deprived accused of his right to intelligently
prepare for his defense.
How to state Name of the accused:
• Section 7, Rule 110 gives the rules:
a) state the name and surname of the
accused, or any appellation or nickname by
which he has been or is known;
b) if first name cannot be ascertained,
describe him under a fictitious name, BUT such
description must be accompanied by a
statement that his true name is unknown;
c) Once his name is diclosed by him or
becomes known, his true name shall be
inserted in the information and in the records of
the case.
• NOTES:
• 1)Positive identification pertains essentially to
the proof of identity. A mistake in the name is not
equivalent to mistake in the identity of the
accused especially when sufficient evidence is
adduced to show that the accused is pointed to
as one of the perpetrators (People v. Amodia,
584 SCRA 518);
• 2)What matters in convicting an accused is his
identification as the person who committed the
crime, not the name under which he was
arrested or charged(People v. Bonito, 342 SCRA
405)
• 3)The identity of the accused must, however, be proven.
Where in identifying the accused who allegedly raped her,
the victim showed reluctance in identifying the accused
then eventually pointed to the accused that “it might be
him,” the identification is uncertain (People v. Tumambing,
644 SCRA 482)
How to state Name of the offended party:
• Who is the offended party?
*The person against whom or whose
property the offense was committed.(Sec. 12,
Rule 110)
How to state his name?
a) State the name and surname, or any
appellation or nickname by which he is known;
b)If not known, describe him under a
fictitious name;
c)If true name is later known, cause it to be
inserted. (Sec. 12, Rule 110)
 How to state a Juridical person as offended
party:

• It is sufficient to state its name, or any name or

designation by which it is known or by which it may be
identified, WITHOUT need of averring that it is a juridical
person or that it is organized in accordance with law (Sec.
12(c), Rule 110)
Rule if name of offended party is unknown in
crimes against property:
In offenses against property, if the name of
the offended party is not known, the property
MUST be described with such particularity as to
properly identify the offense charged (Sec.
12(a), Rule 110)
NOTE: If the subject matter of the offense is
generic and not identifiable, such as xxx money
unlawfully takenxxx, an error in the designation
of the offended party is FATAL and would result
to the acquittal of the accused.
 However, if the subject matter of the offense is specific
and identifiable, such as a jewelry with a specific
designation, an error in the designation of the offended
party is immaterial and is not violative of the
constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the
nature and cause of accusation against her (Seandor v.
People, 692 SCRA 669)
How to state Designation of the offense:

• Sec. 8, Rule 110 gives the rules:

a) the name given to the offense by statute
shall be stated in the information or complaint.
If the statute gives no designation, then
reference shall be made to the section or
subsection punishing it;
b) Include in the complete designation of the
offense an averment of the acts or omissions
constituting the offense;
c) the information shall specify the qualifying
and aggravating circumstances.
• What is the effect of failure to designate the
offense given by statute or to mention the
provision violated?
**It does not vitiate the information if the facts
alleged clearly recite the facts constituting the
crime charged. What determines the crime
charged in the information is the recital of facts of
the commission of the offense, not the
nomenclature of the offense.(Malto v. People, 533
SCRA 642)
**There is no rule which requires that the
information must state the particular law under
which the accused is charged in order for it to be
sufficient and valid (Licyayo v. People, 547 SCRA
598).
• NOTE:
• All qualifying or aggravating circumstances
must be alleged IN THE INFORMATION.
• If NOT, the court cannot take them into
consideration in the imposition of the
penalty even if proven during the trial.
(Sec. 8,9, Rule 110; People v. Tampus,
G.R. No. 181084, June 16, 2009)
How to state Cause of the accusation:
The information must allege clearly and
accurately the elements of the crime charged.
What facts and circumstances are necessary to
be included therein must be determined by
reference to the definition and elements of the
specific crimes.
The purpose is to inform an accused of the
nature of the accusation against him to suitably
prepare for his defense. Another purpose is to
enable him, if found guilty, to plead his
conviction in a subsequent prosecution for the
same offense (Serapio v. Sandiganbayan,396
SCRA 443)
• Sec. 9, Rule 110 provides the rules:
– It is sufficient for the information to use ordinary and concise
language to enable a person of common understanding to
know the following:
• a)the offense being charged;
• b)the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense; and
• c)the qualifying and aggravating circumstances.
What is the rule on duplicity of offense as
charged in the information?

• General rule:the complaint or information

must charge only one offense. EXCEPT
that more than one offense may be
charged when the law prescribes a single
punishment for various offenses. (Sec. 13,
Rule 110)
• NOTE: Objections on the ground of
duplicity must be raised before trial,
otherwise it is deemed waived.(Sec. 3,
Rule 120)
• Purpose of the rule:
– The purpose of the rule prohibiting duplicitous complaints
is to give the accused the necessary knowledge of the
charge against him and enable him to sufficiently prepare
for his defense. (People v. CA, G.R. no. 183652, 02-25-15)
• Exception to the rule:
(1) when the law prescribes a single penalty for
various offenses as in complex and compound
crimes under Art. 48, RPC;
Ex. a) When a single bullet killed 2 persons,
there is complex crime since there was only
a single act which produced 2 crimes
(People v. Tabaco, 270 SCRA 32)
b) A single act of throwing a grenade
resulting to the killing of one and injuring
others, a single information under Art. 48
may be charged (People v. Guillen, 85 Phil.
307)
c) When a single shot killed one and
seriously injured another, is a complex crime
chargeable under one information (People v.
Madali, 188 SCRA 69);
d) Malversation of public funds through
falsification of public documents may be
contained under a single information under
Art. 48. The falsification was done to
misappropriate the funds (People v.
Sivallana, 61 Phil. 636)
e)Falsification of a cedula to commit
malversation is a complex crime (People v.
Barbas, 60 Phil. 241)
(2) in special complex crimes where a single penalty is
also imposed.

Ex. a) Art. 266-B, RPC=Rape with homicide

b) Art. 267,RPC=Kidnapping with homicide/rape
c) Art. 294=Robbery with homicide
(3) In continued or continuous crimes as when the offense is a
series of acts committed on the same period and impelled by a
single intent or resolution (delito continuado)
– Ex: Santiago v. Garchitorena, 288 SCRA 214, where the act of
approving the application for legalization of the stay of 32 aliens
despite their allegedly being disqualified is but a single offense
to be charged under one information only.
• The Santiago case further explained:
• **Applying the concept of delito continuado, we
treated as constituting only one offense the
following cases:
– (1) The theft of 13 cows belonging to 2 different
owners committed by the accused at the same
time and at the same period of time (People v.
Tumlos, 67 Phil. 320);
– (2) The theft of 6 roosters belonging to 2 different
owners from the same coop and at the same
eriod of time (People v. Jaranillo, 55 SCRA 563);
– (3) The theft 2 roosters in the same place and on
the same occasion (People v. De Leon, 49 Phil.
437);
(4) The collection of legal fees by a lawyer
everytime he collects veteran's benefits on
behalf of a client, who agreed that the legal fees
shall be paid out of said benefits (People v.
Sabbun, 10 SCRA 156);
NOTE HOWEVER:
1) People v. Tabaco, 270 SCRA 32, citing
People v. Desierto, C.A. 45 O.G. 4542)
**When several people are killed by separate
bullets from a single automatic weapon, Art. 48
is not applicable because the death of each of
the persons who were killed were NOT caused
by the performance by the accused of one
simple act. death caused is a distinct and
separate shot fired by the accused. Although
the burst of shots was caused by one single
act of pressing the trigger of the automatic
weapon, the person firing it has only to keep
pressing the trigger with his finger and it
would fire continually. Hence, it is not the
single act of pressing the trigger which
produced the several felonies, but the
number of bullets which were discharged.
2) People v. Lucena, G.R. No. 190632,
February 26, 2014.
**The appellant should be convicted of 3
counts of rape because he succeeded in
inserting his penis into the private part of the
victim.The 3 consecutive penetrations occurred
one after the other at an interval of 5 minutes.
Hence, it can be clearly be inferred that when
he decided to commit those separate and
distinct acts of sexual assault, he was not
motivated by a single impulse, but rather by
several criminal intents.
The Aaron case invoked by the accused
cannot apply. In the said case, the accused
inserted his penis into the victim's vagina thrice
after directing the latter twice to change position
each time he inserted his penis. The court
viewed the 3 penetrations as having occurred
during one continuing act of rape motivated by
a single criminal intent.
 V. VENUE OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS
• NOTES:
• Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional
and a court is without jurisdiction to try an
offense committed outside its limited
jurisdiction.
• Thus, it has been ruled that the place
where the crime was committed
determines not only the venue of the
action but is an essential element of
jurisdiction.(Trenas v People, 664 SCRA
355)
• The rule states that the criminal action
shall be instituted and tried in the court of
the municipality or territory: (a) where the
offense was committed, or (b) where any
of its elements occurred. (Sec. 15(a), Rule
110, Union Bank of the Philippines v.
People, 667 SCRA 113)
VENUE: Element of criminal jurisdiction
• To reiterate, venue in criminal actions is
jurisdictional. Hence, the court cannot
exercise jurisdiction over a person
charged with an offense committed
outside its limited territory. This is because
venue is an element of jurisdiction.
• Thus, Sec. 6, Rule 110 requires that the
complaint, to be deemed sufficient, should
state the place where the offense was
committed.
• In Union Bank of the Philippines v. People, 667
SCRA 113, the court elucidated on the rule by
saying that “Venue is an essential element of
jurisdiction in criminal cases. It determines not
only the place where the action is to be filed, but
also the court which has jurisdiction to try and
hear the case. The reason is two-fold:
– 1st: the jurisdiction is limited to well-defined
territories such that a court can only hear and try
cases involving crimes committed within its territorial
jurisdiction.
– 2nd: laying the venue in the locus criminis is
grounded on the necessity and justice of having an
accused on trial in the place where the witnesses
and other facilities for his defense are available.
• Finally, the court said, a finding of improper
venue in criminal cases carries jurisdictional
consequences.

• What is the consequence?

– Improper venue in criminal cases means
lack of jurisdiciton. Thus, it is ground to
dismiss or quash under Sec. 3, Rule 117, the
ground being “the court trying the case has no
jurisdiction over the offense charged.
 EXCEPTIONS: to the rule that the offense must be
filed and tried in the place of commission:

• 1. Where the offense was committed under circumstances

enumerated in Art. 2, RPC, the offense is cognizable in Philippine
courts even if committed outside the territory. The offense shall be
cognizable by the court where the action is first filed. (Sec. 15(d),
Rule 110);
• 2. Where the SC orders change of venue or place of trial to avoid
miscarriage of justice (Sec. 5(4), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution);
• 3. Offense committed in a train, aircraft, or other public or private
vehicle in the course of its trip,
• the action need not be filed in the actual place
of commission. It may be filed and tried in the
court of any municipality or territory where said
train, aircraft, or vehicle passed during its trip. It
may also be filed and tried in the place of
departure and arrival (Sec. 15(b), Rule 110)
• 4) offense committed on board a vessel in the
course of its voyage. It can be filed in the place
of commission, in the court of first port of
entry, or in the court of the place where the
vessel passed during the voyage. (Sec. 15(c),
Rule 110)
• Take Note: In crimes committed on board a
vessel, departure and arrival are not included as
venue.
• 5) Where the offense is cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan, the action need not be filed and
tried in the place of commission but generally,
where the court actually sits in Quezon City.
NOTE: Under Sec. 2 of RA 8249, An Act Further
Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, when
the greater convenience of the accused and of the
witnesses, or other compelling considerations so
require, a case originating from one geographical
region may be heard in another region. For this
purpose, the presiding justice shall authorize any
divisions of the court to hold sessions at any time and
place outside Metro Manila and, where the interest of
justice so requires, outside the territorial boundaries
of the Philippines.
• 6) In Written defamation, the criminal action may
be filed:
• (a) RTC of the province where the libelous article
was printed and first published whether the
offended party is a public official or private
person;
• (b) RTC of the province or city where the
offended party held office at the time of the
commission of the offense if he is a public
officer whose office at the time of
commission is outside Manila;
• (c) RTC of Manila where offended party is a
public official whose office at the time of
commission is in Manila;
 (d) RTC of the province or city where he actually
resided at the time of the commission of the offense
if he is a private individual.(Agbayani v. Sayo, 89
SCRA 699)
NOTES/CASES:
• 1) If the complainant used the circumstances as to
where the libel was printed and first published as
basis for the venue, the information must specifically
allege where the defamatory article was printed and
first published, as shown by, for instance, the
address of their editorial or business offices in the
case of newspapers, magazines or serial
publications. (Bonifacio,et.al., v. RTC of Makati Br.
149, 629 SCRA 268)
2) As to a defamatory material appearing on a
website on the internet, the place where the material
was first accessed cannot be equated with “printing
and first publication. To hold so would open the
floodgates to the libel suit being filed in all other
locations where the website is likewise accessed or
capable of being accessed(Ibid);
3) Merely alleging “that the newspaper is a daily
publication with considerable circulation in the City of
Iloilo and throughout the region” does not establish
that the said publication was printed and first
published in Iloilo City (Foz, Jr. v. People, 603 SCRA
124)
4) Merely alleging that the offended party is a
physician in a particular place does not clearly
indicate
that said person is residing in such place at the time
of the commission of the crime (Ibid).
5) Merely alleging that the defamatory article was
published in “Smart File”, a magazine of general
circulation in Manila, did not establish the printing of
the magazine in Manila where the action was filed
(Chavez v. CA, 514 SCRA 279)
6) Merely alleging that the libelous article “was
published in the PDI,” a newspaper of general
circulation in Baguio City, did not clearly establish
Baguio City to be the proper venue of the printing and
first publication of the newspaper (Agustin v.
Pamintuan, 467 SCRA 601)
7) Venue of civil actions for damages in cases of
written defamation (Art. 360, RPC):
RTC whether filed simultaneously with
the criminal action or separately, no need to
compute the jurisdictional amount under BP
129 since the law says the RTC has
jurisdiction.
Venue is, as a rule, the place where the
libelous article was printed and first published
or where any of the PRIVATE offended parties
actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense OR where he held
office if he is a public officer.
Venue of SELECTED offenses:
• 1) Perjury:
• (a) Perjury committed thru the making of a false
affidavit under Art. 183 of the RPC is committed
at the time the affiant subscribes and swears to
his or her affidavit since it is at the time that all
the elements of the crime of perjury are
executed;
• (b) Perjury committed thru false testimony under
oath in a proceeding which is neither criminal nor
civil, venue is at the place where the testimony
under oath is given;
• (c) Perjury committed thru a written sworn
statement submitted in lieu of or as supplement
 • to the actual testimony in a proceeding that is
neither criminal nor civil, venue is either at the
place where the sworn statement is submitted or
where the oath was taken as the taking of the
oath and submission are both material
ingredients of the crime committed;
• (d) In all cases, determination of venue shall be
based on the acts alleged in the information to
be constitutive of the crime committed (Union
Bank of the Phil. Islands v. People, 667 SCRA
113)
• 2) Illegal Recruitment under RA 8042
(Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino
Act of 1995:
 • (a) RTC of the province or city where the offense
was committed;
• (b) RTC of the province or city where the
offended party actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense.
• (c) The court where the criminal action is first
filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of
other courts (Sto. Tomas v. Salac, 685 SCRA
245).
• 3) Violation of BP 22: categorized as
transitory or continuing crimes:
• (a) It being a transitory crime, suit can be filed in
any of the places where any of the elements
occured, that is, where the check is (a) DRAWN,
 • (b) ISSUED, (c) DELIVERED or (d)
DISHONORED (Rigor v. People, 442 SCRA
450; Yalong v. People, 704 SCRA 195)
• 4) Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad
check under Art. 315(2d), RPC: May be a
transitory or continuing crime:
• (a) It being a transitory crime, its basic
elements of DECEIT and DAMAGE may arise
independently in separate places.
• Ex. Deceit took place in Pampanga, while
damage was inflicted in Bulacan where the
check was dishonored by the drawee bank,
venue may either lie in either Bulacan or
Pampanga (People v. Grospe, 157 SCRA 154)
How to state place of commission
• It is sufficient if it can be understood from the allegations in the
information that the offense was committed or some of its
essential elements occured at some place within the jurisdiction of
the court (Sec. 10, Rule 110)

• However, where the place of commission is an essential element

of the offense or is necessary for its identification, it is implied
from the rule that the place of commission must be specific.
 VI. AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTION OF
COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
• A. Amendment before PLEA:
(a) No LEAVE OF COURT is required.
(b) Allowed as to both form and
substance WITHOUT leave of court.
(Sec. 14)
Is there any instance where Leave of
Court is required even if the amendment
is before plea?
• YES, under the following:
a) the amendment downgrades the nature of the
offense charged; or
b) excludes any accused from the complaint or
information.(Sec. 14)

• Is there any requirement to be followed

under the above instances?
• YES: Under any of the above,the
following are required:
(a) LEAVE of court;
(b) MOTION by prosecutor;
(c) with NOTICE to offended party:
• NOTE:The court is ALSO mandated by the
rules to state its reasons in resolving the
motion and furnish all parties.
• B. Amendment AFTER plea:
1. As to Form:
(a) with LEAVE
(b) it does not prejudice the rights of the
accused.
2. As to substance:
(a) NOT allowed by the rules;
(b) EXCEPTION: If beneficial to the accused.
• What is the test whether the
amendment will prejudice the rights of
the accused?
• *The test of whether the righs of an
accused are prejudiced by the amendment
of the complaint or information is whether
a defense under the original complaint or
information, would no longer be available
after the amendment is made; and when
any evidence the accused might have
would be inapplicable to the complaint or
information.
• C. SUBSTITUTION OF COMPLAINT OR
INFORMATION:
If it becomes manifest at any time
before judgment that there is a mistake in
charging the proper offense, the court
shall require the filing of the proper
information, but shall still commit the
accused to answer the proper charge if
there appears good reason to detain him.
After the proper information is filed, it shall
dismiss the original case provided the
accused will not be placed in double
jeopardy
 AMENDMENT VS. SUBSTITUTION
1. before or after plea 1. before or after plea (anytime
before judgment)

2.form or substance 2. substance-change from

original charge

3. before plea- w/o leave 3. before or after plea-WITH

leave

4. As to form-no NEED for PI & 4.another PI and re-

retaking of plea arraignment required

5. refers to the same offense 5.presupposes that new

or one that necessarily charge is different from
includes or is included in the original, hence accused
original charge cannot claim double jeopardy.