RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

2nd Semester 2017-2018

AVL
Discussions or chikka in class
Study, research, chismis ni bes. charot

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

A. Criminal Jurisdiction

i. Definition; Requisites

Criminal Jurisdiction –

Antiporda, et al v. Hon. Garchitorena, et al, G.R. No. 133289, December 23, 1999
Charge was for kidnapping, victim – elmer ramos
SB have jd over the charge.
Although SB had no jd, accused can’t assail validity bec they were estopped. They already filed mq.

In delos Reyes case,

In Layosa case,

Court had to reconcile both cases

REQUISITES FOR A COURT TO ACQUIRE JD TO TRY A CRIMINAL CASE:

a. Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter – conferred by law
b. Territorial Jurisdiction – something to do with physical __ of court

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION – authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose punishment for it.

Arula v. Espino, G.R. No. L-28949, June 23, 1969

Involved in the case: General Court Martial & Court of First Instance-Cavite
Complainant first filed in the prosec, filed in CFI
Situation where two courts may have concurrent jurisdiction
 The court who first acquires jd over the person of the accused by the filing of charges and having him in custody
has preferential right to proceed w trial.

Rule 117, Section 3 of Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure

People of the Phil. v. Umbrero, G.R. No. 93021, May 8, 1991

Legal ground of Umbrero – no PI, was not given right to be heard. (Municipal Court can still conduct PI)
JD was acquired by the court bec the accused appeared during arraignment.
Court- since he appeared for arraignment and pleaded, the court acquired jd.

Valdepeñas v. People, G.R. No. L-20687, April 30, 1966

Arrest wo warrant
Submission of valepenas to the jd of the court.
Did the accused submit himself to court? No. But why did the court acquire jd? For 6 years, he failed to assail jd.

Art 344 RPC – offenses of SAActsL ….

So long as there is a complaint for abduction, it will satisfy A344. As to the ultimate charge, 344 is not the provision
to look at, but the judiciary acts.

Gimenez v. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-37933, April 15, 1988

David v. Agbay, G.R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015

There was a motion for determination of pc. But, there was still no ____
MTC can only rule for redetermination of PC if the court has acquired jd over the person of the accused.

How to voluntary release yourself? Voluntary surrender.

1
 Custody is only acquired when you want to post bail.
ii. Determination of PC

Pilipinas Shell v. Romars International, G.R. No. 189669, February 16, 2015
What is the Omnibus Motion?
Include all the grounds to OM. Failure to include a ground constitutes a waiver to include such ground.

A search warrant is a special criminal process. The validity of a warrant shall be questioned before ano daw? Damn.
HAHAHAHAHAHA tengene

Buaya v. Hon. Polo, G.R. No. L-75079, January 26, 1989

How does the jd of court in criminal cases?

Estafa is a transitory offense.

People of the Phil. v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 154473, April 24, 2009
Benipayo former chairman of COMELEC

W/n acts of benipayo committed in relation to his office.

Yes.

People of the Phil. v. Lagon, G.R. No. 45815, May 18, 1990
Read info, check charge, check penalty (for court to determine jd without considering imposable penalty)

Jd is acquired whether penalty is changed. Even if lesser penalty imposed, court retains its jd even if such penalty is
under the jd of inferior courts.

RAISING JD OVER SUBJECT MATTER:

Exc:
 ESTOPPEL
 See Tijam vs Sibonghanoy: speaking about LACHES (read)

B. Jurisdiction of Different Courts

i. Supreme Court

a. Art. VIII, Sec. 5, par. 1, 1987 Constitution

SC has original jd…..

Certioari, prohibition, mandamus

CA & SB

b. Art. VIII, Sec. 5., par. 2, 1987 Constitution

Review, revise…

c. Rule 45, Sec. 1, 1997 Rules of Court (“Rules of Court”)

Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or
final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts
whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The
petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.

2
ii. Court of Appeals

a. Sec. 3, (a), Rule 122 of Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure

Section 3. How appeal taken. —

(a) The appeal to the Regional Trial Court, or to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial
Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which
rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and by serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.

3 students shall get a notice of appeal, complaint and information

Notice Of Appeal – notice notifying you that there is an appeal…

RTC decides case in its original jd, appeal to CA

RTC in the exercise of his appellate jd, review under Rule42
(Petition for certiorari – not an appellate remedy. )

b. Sec. 3, (b), Rule 122 of Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure

(b) The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review under Rule 42.

c. Sec. 9 (3) of B.P. 129

Section 9. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall Exercise:

1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo
warranto,and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgements of Regional Trial Courts; and
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgements, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial
Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commission, including the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the
Civil Service Commission, Except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in
accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as
amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4 of
the fourth paragraph od Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
The court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any
and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate
jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or Appeals must be continuous and must be
completed within three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice. (as amended by R.A. No. 7902.)

People of the Phils. v. Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 130714 & 139634, October 16, 2012
Automatic review by CA if RTC decides rp, life

iii. Sandiganbayan

a. Sec. 4, R.A. 8249 as amended by R.A. 10660

(exclusive – concurrent; original – appellate)

 Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act

o One or more occupies that enumerated
o Whether permanent or interim
 No. 5 is a catch-all provision. Even if not incl in the list, if SG27 or higher, under SB)
 If felony is in rel to office, SG has orig excl jd. Provided, RTC shall have eojd to blab la bla
 Go to RTC:
o if does not allege damage to govt
o Alleges bribery, less than 1M. (more than- sb)
o
 Private individuals accessories, accomplices, etc with public officers, SB.

3
 Metropolitan Bank v. Hon. Sandoval, G.R. No. 169677, February 18, 2013
SB shall not have jd bec ??
Why was Asian Bank impleded? Not a public official, but the claim is incidental to marcos’ ill-gotten wealth

Villanueva v. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 188630, February 23, 2011
Clarifies that if the case is decided by the MTC, you may appeal the decision in the SB. Q is: Which cases?
If it is a 3019 case, not automatic that you go to SB.

iv. Court of Tax Appeals

a. Sec. 7, R.A. 9282

Criminal offenses – violations of National Internal Revenue Code, Bureau of Tariff blab la
(If less than 1M or without mention- regular courts or appeal to ca)

b. Sec. 2, Rule IV of A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA

v. Regional Trial Court – court of General Juridiction

a. Sec. 20, B.P. 129

b. Sec. 2, R.A. 7691

(amends sec 32 of BP129)
c. Sec. 2, R.A. 10660

 If it does not allege damage to the govt, bribery, blabla - RTC

vi. Metropolitan/Municipal/Municipal Circuit Trial Court

 City/ municipal ordinance

 Offenses not exceeding 6 yrs (regardless of fine) (more than 6 yrs, RTC)

a. R.A. 7691
b. Sec. 32, B.P. 129
c. Sec. 1, par. B, 1991 Rules on Summary Procedure
Automatic
A. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations
B. Violations of rental law and BP22
C. Violations of municipal and city ordinances
D. All other criminal cases where penalty does not exceed 6 months, or a fine not exceeding P1,000, or both,
irrespective of other imposable penalties
E. Damage to property through criminal negligence where the imposable fine does not exceed P10,000

vii. Shari’ah Courts

a. Art. 155 of P.D. 1083

All offenses involving shari’ah court cases

II. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

RULE 110- PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES

Sec. 1. Institution of Criminal Actions

(Insert prov)

If it needs PI, filing a complaint w proper officer (now prosecution office).

Cases needs PI: at least 4y2m1d
“For all other offenses” – those that does need PI. File w MTC or Prosec Office
What is a Chartered City? There is a law passed by Congress creating you as a city
RTC – file in prosec
4
MTC but no direct filing – Manila and other chartered cities

Borlongan v. Peña, G.R. No. 143591, November 23, 2007

You can restrain prosecution…
GR: You cannot restraint Crim prosec
EXC: You can if:
>
Counter-affidavit, not part of due process.
Affidavits, complaint and supporting documents may be used

Jadewell Parking Systems v. Hon. Lidua, Sr., G.R. No. 169588, October 7, 2013
Violation of city ordinance – filing complaint or information filed in the MTC for purposes of criminal action
that interrupts the prescriptive period

Disini v SG: Filing a complaint in the office of the prosecution that interrupts the prescriptive period.

Sec. 2. Act No. 3326

People of the Phil. v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012
In special law and RPC, Act 3326, filing in
For BP 22 – for purposes of prescription, what applies is Act 3326

Romualdez v. Marcelo, G.R. Nos. 165510-13, July 28, 2006

Art 91 – absence tolls prescriptive period running
In special laws, absence does not toll running of the prescriptive period

Sec. 2.The Complaint or information

Complaint or info for instituting criminal action
Can the complaint be under the name of the offended party? No.
Subscribed and sworn to by offended party but in the name of PP

Sec. 3. Complaint defined

Information is always filed in court.

Sec. 4.Information defined

Santos-Concio v. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 175057, January 29, 2008

For PI, we may mention complaint.
For criminal institution, we may also file complaint.

Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz, G.R. No. 134504, March 17, 2000

In crimes against chastity, complaint prevails over information

See Flores v. Jover, G.R. No. 129874, December 27, 2002

People v. Oso., G.R. No. 42571, October 10, 1035

Vari

People of the Phil. v. Bangalao, G.R. No. L-5610, February 17, 1954
Variance in the complaint and information is not

Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 101689, March 17, 1993

If certification for conduct of Personal Examination, still ok.
If no cert and no examination, not allowed.

Rule 117, Sec. 3, (e)

5
Sec. 5.Who must prosecute criminal actions

Chua v. Padillo, G.R. No. 163797, April 24, 2007

1. Determine if prima facie case exists..
2.
3.

Gonzales v. HSBC, G.R. No. 164904, October 19, 2007

Ok

Pinote v. Ayco, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1944, December 13, 2005

Ok

OCA Circular No. 39-2002, August 21, 2002

People v. Piccio, G.R. No. 193681, August 6, 2014

Ok
Private complainant can appeal in a case but only limited to the civil aspects of the case.

Bautista v. Cuneta-Pangilinan, G.R. No. 192799, October 24, 2012

Ok

Neplum v. Orbeso, G.R. No. 141986, July 11, 2001

skipped

A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC, May 1, 2002

People of the Phil. v. Ilarde, G.R. No. L-60577, October 11, 1983
Ok

Busuego v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 196842, October 9, 2013

No condonation.
Wife thought that husband stopped womanizing.
No showing that wife had knowledge of specific acts of his husband acts with Sia and de Leon

Apuya v. Judge Ramos, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1353, December 13, 2001

Sec. 6.Sufficiency of complaint or information

Cristobal v. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 184274, February 23, 2011
RA 8484 – possession of counterfeit access devices

People of the Phil. v. Feliciano, G.R. No. 196735, May 5, 2014

“Some were wearing masks”
Test of sufficiency of complain/information:
If it enables a person of common understanding of the nature and cause of the charge against him to allow
accused prepare for his trial.
It was incumbent to incl wearing mask; aggravating circumstance of disguise

People of the Phil.v. Mamaruncas, G.R. No. 179497, January 25, 2012
Failure to question defects b

People of the Phil. v. Dela Cruz, G.R. Nos. 135554-56, June 21, 2002
Ok

Lazarte v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180122, March 13, 2009

Ok
People of the Phil. v. Posada, G.R. No. 194445, March 12, 2012
Ok
6
 People of the Phil. v. Morilla, G.R. No. 189833, February 5, 2014
Ok

Sec. 7.Name of the accused

The complaint or info must state: name & surname.
Absence, state appellation or nickname.
If cannot be known, be stated under a fictitious name.

Name shall be ascertained as it is used to identify the accused.

People of the Phil. v. Cagadas, G.R. No. 88044, January 23, 1991
The erroneous designation of his name in the information will not vitiate it, as it was clearly proven that
the accused, Roberto Cultura, was part of the group that arrested, hogtied and killed the victim. Besides,
Cultura did not raise this question of his identity during the arraignment. His acquiescence to be tried
under the name "Jose" at that stage of the case is deemed to be a waiver on his part to raise the question of
his identity as one of the accused for the first time on appeal.

People of the Phil. v. Padica, G.R. No. 102645, April 7, 1993

Subsequent amendment to insert in the information involved merely a matter form as it did not, in any
way, deprive appellant of a fair opportunity to present his defense.

Remedy if name is incorrectly added, remedy:

> motion to quash
> demurrer to evidence

Failure to assert is a waiver to right question the erroneous identification of your person

People of the Phil. v. Amodia, G.R. No. 173791, April 7, 2009

To convict the accused, req:
 Positive identification (if proven, erroneous identification is not necessary. Error in the name
of the accused will not nullify the information if it contains sufficient description of the person
of the accused.)

People of the Phil. v. Pondivida, G.R. No. 188969, February 27, 2013
ok

Sec. 8.Designation of the Offense

It is not enough to state the designation of the offense. You should also aver the particular acts or omissions
constituting the offense.

Recitals of the commission of the offense, and not the designation of the offense that will describe or determine
the crime being charged in the information.

People of the Phil. v. Vidana, G.R. No. 199210, October 23, 2013
What is controlling is the allegations not the designation of the offense.

People of the Phil. v. Soriano, G.R. No. 135027, July 3, 2002

Minority may be alleged as aggravating, need not be alleged as qualifying

Malto v. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007
Facts of the commission of the offense, not the nomenclature of that offense, that determines the crime
being charged in the information.

Licyayo v. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 169425, March 4, 2008

Does not need to allege the specific number of the offense. So long you can make out the particular
offense. Because what is really controlling is the acts or omissions constituting the offense.

People of the Phil. v. Nocum, G.R. No. 179041, April 1, 2013

ok

People of the Phil. v. Valdez, G.R. No. 175602, February 13, 2013
No treachery. Absent any allegations that would constitute treachery, the qualification cannot be appreciated.

7
 People of the Phil. v. Feliciano, G.R. No. 196735, May 5, 2014
Wearing masks, some weren’t wearing.
Prosecution is obliged to state aggravating circumstances, and wearing mask is aggravating circumstance for
disguise.

People of the Phil. v. Ubiña, G.R. No. 176349, July 10, 2007
Relationship cannot be used because it wasn’t alleged in the information.

People of the Phil. v. Nuyok, G.R. No. 195424, June 15, 2015
ok

Sec. 9.Cause of the accusation

Act and accusations must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used by
the statute.

Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148468, January 28, 2003

Plunder – done by commission of “combination or series of acts”
In the case, against jinggoy stated “consecutive” and “combination”

The use of derivatives or synonyms of the act is allowed, so long as it enables a man of common
understanding to understand the case being charged and for the court to know what would be the judgment.

People of the Phil. v. Aure, G.R. No. 180451, October 17, 2008
Can’t appreciate aggravating or qualifying circumstance if not alleged in the complaint/information.

People of the Phil. v. Tampus, G.R. No. 181084, June 16, 2009
Revised rules require the inclusion of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance. It must be alleged and if
proven, will be used in the imposition of the penalty.

Dr. Mendez v. People of the Phil. G.R. No. 179962, June 11, 2014
(discuss in amendment part)

Sec. 10.Place of the commission of the offense

Entire offense or some of its essential ingredients occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court.
EXC – if place is an essential element of the offense or is necessary for its identification

U.S. v. Chua Mo, G.R. No. 7969, October 5, 1912

So long you can state a particular place where the crime was committed, the judge may take judicial notice
that where the crime was committed is within the jurisdiction of his court.

Union Bank v. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 192565, February 28, 2012 (impt case)
Pasay – where she used the certificate
Makati – where she swore oath

Venue is – determined …

Was the case was properly filed? Yes.

How to determine if the case is properly filed, instituted in the proper court? See elements of the crime.
In this case, three of the elements of perjury were conducted in the jurisdiction of the court in Makati City.

Ilusorio and Sy Tiong Cases:

In perjury, the crime is complete when a witness’ statement has once been made.

Parulan v. Director of Prisons, G.R. L-28519, February 17,1968

When it comes to transitory crimes or continuing offenses, some acts material and essential to the crime
occur in one province in another, in which case the court of either province where any of the essential
ingredients of the crime took place has jurisdiction to try the case.

8
 People of the Phil. v. Mercado, G.R. Nos. L-45471 & L-45472, June 15, 1938
In theft, place where you were arrested while in possession of an item cannot be considered a place where
sec10 may apply because place where you’re in possession of the item is not an essential ingredient of the
offense.

Duran v. Tan, G.R. No. L-2760, February 11, 1950

Place where thing stolen was found is just a circumstance that does not give value to the crime. Where you
had found the vehicle is not an option.

People of the Phil. v. Puedan, G.R. No. 92586, April 26, 1991
Under the rules, it must be committed in a place within the jurisdiction of the court. The purpose is not for the
essential elements of the crime.

Sec. 11.Date of the commission of the offense

Not necessary to state the precise date, exc when date is a material ingredient.
May be alleged to be committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of commission.

People of the Phil. v. Delfin, G.R. No. 201572, July 9, 2014

Date of commission be approximated – “as near as possible”
Exc – date is a material ingredient of the offense.

“supplanted” by evidence in trial or formal amendment of the information.

People of the Phil. v. Bernabe, G.R. No. 202122, January 15, 2014
Discrepancy may be fatal.
Date of commission is relevant only when accuracy and truthfulness practically hinges on the date of
commission.

People of the Phil. v. Noel Dion, G.R. No. 181135, July 4, 2011
Date of commission in rape is irrelevant. It is only relevant if there is doubt.
Gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge.

People of the Phil. v. Canares, G.R. No. 174065, February 18, 2009
Although evidence that she was raped 10 times, what was complained of was the rape committed sometime
1992-1995, only one among the 10.

Erroneous inclusion of date is cured by the evidence presented in trial, and failure to question before
arraignment.

People of the Phil. v. Balino, G.R. No. 194833, July 2, 2014

Date of commission is not essential in the crime of rape.
But, in statutory rape (involving victim below 12 yo), date of commission is essential.

People of the Phil. v. Alvero, G.R. Nos. 134536-38, April 5, 2000

Ok

Gabionza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140311, March 30, 2001

Violation of RA 1161 (SS Law)
Why is date crucial in this case?
There is really offended party.

If offended party will fall under sec12, contemplates a private offended party if committed against his person
or his property

Sayson v. People of the Phil., G.R. No. L-51745, October 28, 1988
Breakthrough – if you look into the info, …
Accused is not correct.

“In case of offenses against property, the designation of the name of the offended party is not absolutely
indispensable for as long as the criminal act charged in the complaint or information can be properly
identified.”

9
 Senador v. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 201620, March 6, 2013
If the subject matter of the offense is generic and not identifiable, an error in the designation of the offended
party is fatal and would result in the acquittal of the accused.
However, if the subject matter of the offense is specific and identifiable, an error in the designation of the
offended party is immaterial.

In this case, if you check the property involved is specific. So identity of accused is no longer necessary.

Sales v. Adapon, G.R. No. 171420, October 5, 2016

The offense of falsification complained of was a public offense the charges for which could be initiated by
anyone, as opposed to a private crime whose institution could be made only by particular individuals.

Sec. 13.Duplicity of the Offense

One complaint/information, one offense.
If defective, quashal. (file before arraignment otherwise deemed waive)
EXC – complex crimes, etc.

People of the Phil. v. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-8957, April 29, 1957
If it can be proven that the other offense is a necessary means to commit the other and one case may be
penalized under one penalty, may be charged under one comp/infor.

Two sections violated here are not means essential to either. Buenviaje not applicable.

People of the Phil. v. De los Santos, G.R. No. 131588, March 27, 2001
Multiple murder, multiple frus murder, but only one charge (not allowed. Each murder must be charged in a
single info.

Failure to question deems waiver and you may be charged as many offenses in a single information.

People of the Phil. v. Chingh, G.R. No. 178323, March 16, 2011
Failure to question deems waiver and you may be charged as many offenses in a single information.

People of the Phil. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 183652, February 25, 2015
Ok

Loney v. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 152644, February 10, 2006
?

People of the Phil. v. Lucena, G.R. No. 190632, February 26, 2014
*remembering Soleng ^_^ (pump and pump, don’t rest)

People of the Phil. v. Tabio, G.R. No. 179477, February 6, 2008

Failure to interpose objection.

Fajardo v. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 190889, January 10, 2011
One caliber, one penalty, one information.

Sec. 14.Amendment or Substitution

Importance of determining formal or substantial amendment –

Dabalos v. Regional Trial Court, G.R. No. 193960, January 7, 2013

An information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the
accused enters his plea.

Ricarze v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160451, February 9, 2007

Substantial amendment may be allowed if such amendment is beneficial to the accused.

Formal amendments:
New allegations
Amendment does not charge a new offense
Theories of parties don’t change
Does not affect substantial rights of accused
Add details to clarify vagueness and adds nothing to change the charge

10
 Test if substantial or formal – whether change is still applicable…. -_-
If same theory, same defense, same evidence, even if info amended and no prejude, formal.

Kummer v. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 174461, September 11, 2013
Change of date or time of offense is _

Pacoy v. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472, September 28, 2007

Distinctions b/w amendment and substitution
>averments
>before plea, amendment wo loc, subs w loc
>amendment no need new pi, subs need new pi
>amendment same offense or diff but necessarily includes or included, subs possible dj
>subs diff offense, but if necess incls or incldd amendment, no dj. (double jeopardy (?)does not(?) apply to
subs)

Buhat v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119601, December 17, 1996

Exc is to be invoked when amendment does not change the theory of the prosec. So the defenses may still be
available to the accuded

People of the Phil. v. Delfin, G.R. No. 201572, July 9, 2014

Variance in the commission of the offense as alleged in the information and as established in evidence
becomes fatal when such discrepancy is so great.

Ocampo v. Hon. Abando, G.R. No. 176830, February 11, 2014

Case of substitution

Teehankee v. Madayag, G.R. No. 103102, March 6, 1992

(see this case from difference of amendment and substitution)

From frus murd to murder

Frust to cons is only formal amendment

Gabionza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140311, 30 March 2001

ok

Sec. 15. Place where action is to be instituted

Transitory vs Continuing Offense
C – various instances but traverses diff territorial
T – more than one ??

People of the Phil. v. Hon. Gutierrez, G.R. No. L-32282-83, November 26, 1970
Since req has been satisfied, …

Treñas v. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 195002, January 25, 2012
Filed in the wrong venue

Santiago v. Hon. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266, December 2, 1993

“delito continuado”
In Calon – when dc exists
In Guevarra - defines

Agustin v. Pamintuan, G.R. No. 164938, August 22, 2005

Libel case

Amendment – libel should be charged in the place of first publication (the place of business of the newspaper)
Residence, now an option for filing libel cases

Agbayani v. Sayo, G.R. No. L-47880, April 30, 1979

Written defamation

11
 Bonifacio et al v. RTC Makati, G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010
Online libel
First access, not considered in libel. Rather, first publication.
Exc – if priv offendant, residence. If officer, place of office

Union Bank v. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 192565, February 28, 2012
(supra.)
Residence of priv offended party may be used

David v. Marquez, G.R. No. 209859, June 5, 2017

Not discussed

Sec. 16. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action

Lee Pue Liong v. Chua Pue Chin Lee, G.R. No. 181658, August 7, 2013 (supra.)
ok

Ramiscal v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 140576-99, December 13, 2004

Priv complainants can’t be ??
You can be a priv if your property has been actually or directly injured.

Mobilia Products v. Umezawa, G.R. Nos. 149403 & 149403, March 4, 2005
Motion for certiorari(?)
Even if public prosec failed to file petition for being time barred, priv prosec may still intervene

Villalon v. Chan, G.R. No. 196508, September 24, 2014

Espionage no private offended party

Sales v. Adapon, G.R. No. 171420, October 5, 2016 (supra.)

Private offended party in falsification – if property is prejudiced by the commission of the crime, may
intervene in the civil aspect.

12