PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES [RULE 110]

People v. Batin, G.R. No. 177223, November 28, 2007

People v. Dimaano, 469 SCRA 647– Treachery was not alleged in the information to qualify
homicide to murder.
Acts and Omissions constituting the offense must be clearly
alleged. "That on or about the 21 st day of October, 1994, in Quezon
City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring
"That on or about the 1st day of January 1996, in the
together, confederating with and mutually helping each other,
Municipality of Paraaque, Metro Manila, Philippines and
did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
intent to kill, with treachery, taking advantage of superior
named accused, try and attempt to rape one Maricar Dimaano
strength, and with evident premeditation, attack, assault and
y Victoria, thus commencing the commission of the crime of
employ personal violence upon the person of one EUGENIO
Rape, directly by overt acts, but nevertheless did not perform
REFUGIO y ZOSA, by then and there shooting him with a
all the acts of execution which would produce it, as a
handgun, hitting him on the right side of his stomach, thereby
consequence by reason of cause other than his spontaneous
inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the
desistance that is due to the timely arrival of the complainant's
direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the
mother."
damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Eugenio Refugio y
In this case, the phrase "attempt to rape" does not suffice. eg. Zosa, in such amount as may be awarded under the provisions
Through force and intimidation, took off her clothes and is of the Civil Code"
about to have carnal knowledge.

The test of sufficiency of Information is whether it enables a

Sasot v. People, 462 SCRA 138 person of common understanding to know the charge against
him, and the court to render judgment properly. The rule is
A Filipino company charged of infringing foreign product, that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the
contends that the offended party is a foreign entity thereby Information in order not to violate the accused constitutional
removing the legal standing from local complainants. right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the
However, since the crime committed is a public crime, it may accusation against him. The purpose is to allow the accused to
be instituted by the law enforcement agency of the law fully prepare for his defense, precluding surprises during the
violated. trial. Significantly, the appellant never claimed that he was
"In upholding the right of the petitioner to maintain the present deprived of his right to be fully apprised of the nature of the
suit before our courts for unfair competition or infringement of charges against him because of the style or form adopted in
trademarks of a foreign corporation, we are moreover the Information.
recognizing our duties and the rights of foreign states under
the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
to which the Philippines and France are parties. We are simply People v. Cachapero, G.R. No. 153008, May 20, 2004
interpreting and enforcing a solemn international commitment
The law requires only approximate time, not exact time
of the Philippines embodied in a multilateral treaty to which
(Except when time is an essential element of the crime). In this
we are a party and which we entered into because it is in our
case, time is not an essential element of rape.
national interest to do so"

Saludaga v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 184537, April 23, 2010

Lasoy v. Zenarosa, 455 SCRA 360
This case isaboutanallegedviolationof RA3019 (anti graft and
This case was about a wrongful detail in the information, upon
corruptpractices). The remedial aspectofthe case isthat,
conviction of which, can no longer be raise for double
theinformationwhenquashedforallegedinsuffciency in
jeopardy has already set in.
substace( unabletoprovethe actual damages in this case)
"The Constitution is very explicit. Article III, Section 21, whenrefiledunder a
mandates that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of differentmannerofcomissionunderthesameoffense, constitutes
punishment for the same offense. In this case, it bears a
repeating that the accused had been arraigned and convicted. substantialammendmenttherebyentitlingtheaccusedtopleaanew
In fact, they were already in the stage where they were and preliminaryinvestigation. No.
applying for probation. It is too late in the day for the thelawprovidesfordifferentmodesofcommittingtheoffenseunder
prosecution to ask for the amendment of the information and 3019, 1. causinginjurytothegovernment 2.
seek to try again accused for the same offense without
giveunwarrantedadvantagesto a private individual.
violating their rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
Thechargeisproperundereither.
There is, therefore, no question that the amendment of an
information by motion of the prosecution and at the time when
the accused had already been convicted is contrary to
Pacoy v. Cajigal, G.R. NO. 157472, September 28, 2007
procedural rules and violative of the rights of the accused."
This case is about a 45Kg marijuana mistakenly alleged in the Judge ordered to change the caption of the crime from
information as merely 42.410 grams, thereby entitling herein homicide to murder(only on the preamble) . Defense claimed
accused to probation. When the prosecution raised the issue, it that the charge for homicide was dismissed without their
was denied for it was already filed far too late. express consent thereby invoking double jeopardy.

1
Held: allowed for it is merely formal amendment. It neither The charge of RA 3019 or Anti-Graft… had prescribed. The
changes the nature of the offense,furthermore it does not filing of the subject case is clearly beyond the 15-year
prejudice the rights of the accused. prescriptive period provided under Sec 11 of RA No. 3019.

Note: Although as a GR, the commencement of PI tolls

prescriptive period, such was not the case here because the PI
Bonifacio v. RTC of Makati, G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010 conducted (that supposedly tolled the prescriptive period) was
Venue is an element in the crime of libel, it is important to void ab initio. So it is as if there was no PI in the first place.
allege where the article was first published, or where the
offended party resides. It is fatally defective fail in such
allegations as it will not confer jurisdiction upon the court. Pinote v. Ayco, 477 SCRA 409

Judge Roberto Ayco allowed the defense to present evidence

consisting of the testimony of two witnesses even in the
Cabo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. NO. 169509, June 16, 2006 absence of State Prosecutor RingcarPinote.
Jocelyn Cabo and Mayor Bonifacio C. Issue: WON the judge’s conduct was in violation of Rule 110
BalahaywaschargedofviolationofSection 3(b) of RA 3019 or Sec 5 of Revised Rules of Crim Pro.
Anti-Graft and CorruptPracticesAct.Shefiled a
motiontotravelabroad. Thiswasgrantedby SB in Exchange Held: Yes. As a GR, all criminal actions shall be presented
forher “conditionalarraignment” whichshepleadednotguilty. under the control and direction of the prosecutor. The presence
Oneoftheconditionsonherarraignmentisthatsheautomaticallywa of the prosecutor is necessary to protect the vital State interest.
ivedherrighttoobjecttoamendment and If the accused is entitled to due process, so is the State.
rightagainstdoublejeopardy. Balahay, herco-accused file a
filed a
quashalofinformationonthegroundofthatthefactsdidnotconstitut Bureau of Customs v. Whelan, G.R. No. 190487, April 13,
ethecrimecharged. Thiswasdeniedby SB 2011
butorderedamendmentoftheinformation.
The judge may dismiss the case on the withdrawal of the
Cabo filed a motionto cancel prosecutor but with the opposition of the private individual.
hersecondarraignmentcontendingthattheamenmentwas done Prosecution of crimes pertains to the executive department of
after herplea and thatdoublejeopardyhadalreadyattached. the government whose principal power and responsibility is to
Held: No, He arraignmentwasonlyconditional. And ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. In line with this,
doublejeopardydidnotattachbecausethe original the public prosecutor has control and supervision over the
informationwasnotsufficient in substance and in form, the trial case. A private complainant’s participation is limited to that of
wasnotdismissed, and thecomplaintwasmerelyamended. a witness both in the criminal and civil aspect of the case.
Theamendment in thesecondinformationwasonlyas toform and
notsubstance, thereforeitisallowedbylaw.
Flores v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 188197, August 03, 2010

Ramiscal v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 172476-99, September Once a complaint is filed in Court, any disposition of the case
15, 2010 as to its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused
rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal
Doesthemotionforreconsideration in OMB retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal
barsarraignmentoftheaccused? cases even while the case is already in Court, he cannot
impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and
Ans: No. sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The
Thefilingofmotionforreconsiderationorreinvestigationshallnot determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction
bar thefilingoftheinformation. (Rule ofprocedureofthe Office and competence. A motion (a motion to withdraw
ofthe OMB, Section 7, Rule 11) Consequently, neither can it information) to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be
bar thearraignmentoftheaccused, which in normal courseof addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the
criminal procedurelogicallyfollowsthefilingofinformation. same. It does not matter if this is done before or after the
arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a
reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice
who reviewed the records of the investigation.
Panaguiton v. DOJ, G.R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL CASES [RULE 111]
Once a complaint is filed with the justice of the peace for PI,
the prescription of the offense is halted. Yakult vs CA
Rationale: To rule otherwise would deprive the offended party WON private respondent can file independently a civil case
the right to obtain vindication on account of delays that are not from criminal action without expressly reserving the same.
under his control. Eg. Accused delaying tactics; inefficiency of
investigating agencies. Ans: Yes. In this case the offended party neither waived the
civil action nor reserved the right to institute it separately.
Neither has the offended party instituted the civil action prior
to the criminal action. (Criminal was filed Jan. 6, 1983 and
People v. Romuladez, G.R. No. 166510, April 29, 2009
civil on Oct. 19, 1984) However, the civil action was filed in
the court before the prosecution had presented their evidence
of which the presiding judge on the criminal case was duly
2
informed so that in the disposition of the criminal action no Information filed by the wrong fiscal, (jurisdiction because it
damages was awarded. happened in mabalacat, it was filed by angeles fiscal) the
proceedings is null and void.
Ching, Nicdao vs CA, April 27, 2007-
Tilendo vs Ombudsman Sept. 13, 2007
acquitted because she did not commit it, no other source of
obligation, civil liability is likewise extinguished. Requisites of unreasonable delay to invoke speedy disposition

Cheng vs Sps. Sy, July 9, 2009 Castro vs Deloria, June 27, 2009

Source of obligation contract of loan , not found beyond Petitioner contend that since her case is cognizable by RTC, it
reasonable doubt for B22. Civil liability was not extinguished. should be the prosecutors and not ombudsman who should
investigate. Held: No, the ombudsman has the power to
Bun Tiong v. Balboa, G.R. No. 158177, January 28, 2008 prosecute not only in SB, but also in RTC.
a separate proceeding for the recovery of civil liability in cases Schroeder vs Saldevar April 27, 2007
of violations of B.P. No. 22 is allowed when the civil case is
filed ahead of the criminal case.  Finding of probable cause does not lie with the judiciary , but
the prosecutors.
Simon v. Chan, G.R. No. 157547, February 23, 2011
AAA vs Carbonell, June 8, 2007
There is no independent civil action to recover the civil
liability arising from the issuance of an unfunded check The judge must base probable cause to issue warrant based on
prohibited and punished under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP his evaluation of the records, and not to personally examine
22). (Rule 111 of the Rules of Court effective December 1, the witness in the witness stand. This case, the judge dismissed
2000.) because no probable cause existed since the witness failed to
take the witness stand. (DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE
Asilo v. People, G.R. Nos. 159017-18, March 09, 2011 CAUSE TO ISSUE WA)
3 accused, 2 deceased. Tatad vs Sandiganbayan 159 SCRA 70, March 21, 1988
PaulinoAsilo (alive) – guilty; criminally and civilly liable Unreasonable delay in the resolution of the fiscal(3yrs) could
Mayor Demetrio Comendador (deceased) – guilty; his death be dismissed by right to speedy disposition(TATAD
did not extinguish his civil liability because it is based on DOCTRINE)
another source of obligation – law (Art. 31 and 32 (6) in Santiago vs Garchitorena, Dec. 2, 1993
relation to Art. 1157 of Civil Code)
Because of the complexity of the issues involved, and the
Alberto S. Angeles (deceased) – acquitted; both the criminal failure to timely invoke the right to a speedy disposition,
and civil cases against him was not appealed. His civil liability spelled defeat on her claim(speedy disposition).
was not questioned and lapsed into finality.
Pp vs SPO4 Emiliano Anonas, Jan. 31, 2007
People v. Bayot, G.R. No. 200030, April 18, 2012
Petitioner was detained for 5 years because the fiscal handling
No other source of obligation. Death on appeal extinguished his case was promoted to judge, and did not inform the fiscal
civil and criminal liability. in lieu of the latter of the case regarding herein petitioner.
People v. Tirso Velasco, G.R. No. 127444, September 13, Invoked speedy disposition, Granted.
2000 Quisay case (Sec. 4, par.3)
Acquittal is appealable if there is grave abuse of discretion or Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
violation of due process(procedural) Procedure states that the filing of a complaint or information
Omictin vs CA, Jan. 22, 2007 requires a prior written authority or approval of the named
officers therein before a complaint or information may be filed
Estafa case- absent any proof of misappropriation, it only before the courts. Otherwise, the same is defective and
involves a civil case - involves a Prejudicial question therefore subject to quashal.
Dreamwork Construction v. Janiola, G.R. No. 184861, June Tolentino vs Paqueo, June 7, 2007
30, 2009
A State Prosecutor cannot commence a prosecution without
Rescission of contract, not a prejudicial question to BP22 approval of the City Prosecutor (situs of the crime)—even if
his alleged authority was designated by the Regional State
Pimentel v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 172060, September 13, 2010
Prosecutor.
Nullity of document not pqSame with bobis v bobis- nullity of
marriage is not a pq Crespo vs Mogul, June 30, 1987

Fiscals may not be enjoined(prevented from prosecuting by

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION [RULE 112] prohibition, or compelled by injunction)

(The case, once jurisdiction is assumed by the courts, is purely

under such courts' disposition. Even if a fiscal, or even the
Cudia vs CA 284 SCRA 173 (1998) secretary of justice, files a motion to dismiss because no
probable cause was found during re-investigation, grant or
dismissal of the same is within the court's sound discretion.

3
The fiscal must continue to appear and adduce evidence for furtherance therefore in connection therewith constitute direct
the PP) assaults against the state and are in the nature of continuing
crimes. 
Lim vs Felix, 194 SCRA 292, 1991

The records in the information and supporting documents must Pp vs Evaristo 261 S 431
be personally evaluated by the judge based on his own As for the existence of personal knowledge, the gunfire, the
independent consideration of the facts and law. In this case, bulge in Carillo’s waist, and the peace officer’s professional
the judge relied solely on the fiscal's conclusion. instinct are more than sufficient to grant him personal
knowledge of the facts of the crime that has just been
Amarga vs Abbas, 98 Phil 739 committed. Consequently, the firearm taken from Carillo can
be said to have been seized incidental to a lawful and valid
Issuance of WA is a prerogative of the judge
arrest.
Ong vs Genio, Dec. 23, 2009
Pp vs Alunday June 1, 2007
An appeal to the CA must have conformity with OSG Herein, Alunday (D) went into arraignment and entered a plea
of not guilty. Thereafter, he actively participated in his trial.
De Castro vs Fernandez, Feb. 14, 2007
He raised the additional issue of irregularity of his arrest only
Under Section 7 of Rule 112, if an information is filed in court during his appeal to this Court. He is, therefore, deemed to
without a preliminary investigation, the accused may, within have waived such alleged defect by submitting himself to the
five days from the time he learns its filing ask for a PI. The jurisdiction of the court by his counsel-assisted plea during his
accused’s failure to request for a PI within specified period is arraignment; by his actively participating in the trial and by
deemed a waiver of his right to a PI. not raising the objection before his arraignment.

Brocka vs Enrile 192 SCRA 83 Pp vs Racho 640 P 669 (2010)

(provides for exceptions which fiscals may be enjoined)
A “reliable information” alone is not sufficient to justify a
warrantless search – the accused must perform some overt act
that would indicate that he has committed is actually
ARREST [RULE 113] committing or is attempting to commit an offense. Arrest must
Pangandaman vs Casar 276 SCRA 55, July 24, 1997 precede the search.

Respondent judge issued WA against 50 john does, W/N this Pp vs Cogaed 740 P 212 (2014)
is allowed: A basic criterion of a “stop and frisk” would be that the police
officer with his or her personal knowledge, must observe the
Insofar as said warrant is issued against fifty (50) “John Does” facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act. (In this case,
not one of whom the witnesses to the complaint could or there was nothing suspicious about riding a jeep and the
would identify, it is of the nature of a general warrant, one assessment of suspicion was not made by the police officer
of a class of writs long proscribed as unconstitutional and once himself but by the jeepney driver. It was the driver who
anathematized as “totally subversive of the liberty of the signaled to the police that Cogaed was suspiciously carrying
subject.” Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction marijuana.)
that warrants of arrest should particularly describe the
person or persons to be seized,[31] the warrant must, as Pp vs dela Cruz Nov. 20, 2008
regards its unidentified subjects, be voided Same with the doctrine laid in Alunday. (Deemed to have
Pp vs Zaspa Sept. 21, 2000- Marijuana leaves/ confidential tip waived such alleged defect of the arrest by submitting himself
to the jurisdiction of the court)
consti - An arrest based on a confidential information is The illegal drug was not under his control and possession and
sufficient to make an arrest, and convict upon the evidence cannot be used as an evidence against him.
procured as an incident to a lawful arrest.
Pp vs Gerente GR 95847-48
crim pro - Defects to the regularity of the arrest is deemed
There is a 3-hour lapse of time from the commission of the
cured by failure to raise the same prior to arraignment.
crime to the arrest. SC sustained that such was still a valid
Malaloan vs CA 234 SCRA 249 warrant of arrest because the policemen had personal
knowledge of facts indicating that Gerente and others had
Whether or not the issuance of search warrants and/or killed Blace. Policemen saw Blace in the hospital and Edwina
warrants of arrest is subject to jurisdictional restrictions. No. Reyes (witness) pinpointed Gerente as one of the killers.
Consequently, the seized marijuana leaves in Gerente’s person
Enforceability of WA is indefinite until executed, recalled, is admissible as such was a search incident to lawful arrest.
quashed. It is still enforceable even if returned unserved.
Pp vs Doria GR 125299
Umil vs Ramos GR 81567 The marijuana inside the box was not in plain view. Hence,
inadmissible.
Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA,
an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being a Pestilos, et al vs Generoso, Pp GR 182601
continuing offense, the arrest without warrant is justified as it The arrest took place less than an hour from the commission
can be said that he was committing as offense when arrested. of the crime. SC held the validity of such warrantless arrest.
The crimes rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to There was also personal knowledge.
commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in
4
Pp vs Briones 202 S 708 26, 1999. His inexcusable non-appearance not only violated
A robbery with homicide happened which was witnessed by the condition of his bail that he "shall appear" before the court
Pantaleon Francisco at night 11pm. The next morning he went "whenever required" by the latter or the Rules, but also
to the house of the victims and found the dead bodies. He showed the probability that he might flee or commit another
reported the crime and the perpetrators of the crime to the crime while released on bail.
police at 9am. Thereafter the police arrested Briones and
Javier.
OCA vs Lorenzo A.M. No. RTJ-05-1911 December 23, 2008
Held: SC held there was no valid warrantless arrest. The Judge dismissed hearing to establish strong evidence for
officers effected the arrest had no personal knowledge of facts purposes of bail because the prosecution failed to present the
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed the witnesses
crime. It is Francisco who had such knowledge. Held: The judge erred, respondent judge's decision "would
have been correct, if only [he] paid enough attention to the
Pp vs Madriaga 211 S 698 factors why the prosecution had not yet established that the
Facts: Madriaga was arrested in an entrapment for selling evidence of guilt is strong," referring to the non-appearance
marijuana. He pointed Pangilinan – a man standing some 7 to during the April 4, 5, and 11, 2002 bail hearings of two key
10 meters away from where Madriaga was apprehended, as the prosecution witnesses
source of such marijuana.
Leviste vs CA March 17, 2010
Held: There is a valid warrantless arrest to the both of them.
Madriaga was caught in flagrante delicto. Pangilinan’s arrest Leviste was convicted of Homicide in the RTC, Posted bail on
was based on personal knowledge of the arresting police appeal but denied.
officers. Held: Bail is discretionary upon conviction in the RTC with an
Sanchez vs Demetriou 227 S 1993 (1993) offense punishable by 6-20 years imprisonment. Furthermore,
A forty six days from the commission of the crime to the date it should be denied if any of the circumstances mentioned in
of the arrest cannot be said that the offense had “in fact just Sec 5 paragraph 3 of Rule 114.
been committed”. Nevertheless, the invalid detention was
cured by virtue of the warrant of arrest issued thereafter. Narciso vs Sta. Romana-Cruz March 17, 2000
Judge granted bail without objection from the
Pp vs Mahinay Feb. 1, 1999 prosecution(parricide) , held: invalid for no summary hearing
for the determination of the strength of evidence of guilt was
SC discussed the Miranda Rights in this case. conducted. Absence of objection from prosecutor is never a
basis of determination of quantum of evidence.
BAIL [RULE 114]
Locus standi of the sister of the complainant. (w/n sister of the
Mabutas v. Perello, A.M.-RTJ No. 03-1817, June 8, 2005. offended party has locus standi to assail the order granting bail
A Hearingmust be to herein accused in the CA), furthermore, she has been
conductedforthedeterminationwhetherornottheevidenceofguilti assisted by private counsel(NOT SOLGEN) in this action.
sstrong. Thedeterminationisdiscretionarybasedonthe personal (Stupid contention of the accused is that the sister is not the
evaluationoftheevidencebythejudge, and offended party in parricide for obvious reasons)
notbythemereperusaloftheprosecutor'sconclusions.
It is settled that while actions in the CA must be brought by
Note: Procedural DueProcesshereisviolated. Thejudgemust SolGen, in this peculiar case, the sister has locus standi for she
determine uponhis personal evaluationofthefacts and is likewise an offended party. For the ends of justice to be met,
applicablelawtheproperjudgment and notbasedsolelyon a she must not be denied due legal recourse.
subordinateoranother'sappreciationofthesame.
Basco vs Rapatalo March 5, 1997
Paderanga vs CA 247 S 741
Confinement in a hospital is constructive custody of law, Summary hearing is a condition sine qua non for the
therefore bail must be granted. determination of the strength of evidence. In this case, no
hearing was conducted, but judge granted bail.
Hilario vs Ocampo A.M. MTJ-00-1305 Dec. 3, 2001
No Warrant of Arrest, yet posted bail. Bravo, Jr. vs Borjay GR L-65228 Feb. 18, 1985
Accused posted bail bond in advance, not allowed because he
is not yet under custody of law. (The judge lying about WA is Accused committed murder(punishable by death since it
immaterial, it was the accused who voluntarily posted advance happened 1985) and the evidence of guilt is very strong thus
bail.) denied bail by respondent judge. However, accused was only
16 when he committed it, and even if proven, the imposable
Chua vs CA April 12, 2007 penalty is one degree lower.
Respondent has no right to be freed on bail pending his appeal
from the trial court’s judgment. His conviction carries a Held: Bail should be granted
penalty of imprisonment exceeding 6 years (to be exact, 12 "The Constitution withholds the guaranty of bail from one
years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion who is accused of a capital offense where the evidence of guilt
temporal, as maximum) which justifies the cancellation of his is strong.  The obvious reason is that one who faces a probable
bail pursuant to the third paragraph of Section 5 (b), (d) and death sentence has a particularly strong temptation to
(e) of Rule 114, quoted above. Moreover, he failed to appear flee.  This reason does not hold where the accused has been
despite notice during the promulgation of judgment on January established without objection to be a minor who by law cannot

5
be sentenced to death. "(so according to the court, since he against them for the amount of their bail. Within the said
will not be put to death, his chance of fleeing upon bail is period, the bondsmen must:
nigh)
(a) produce the body of their principal or give the reason for
Espiritu vs Jovellanos A.M. MTJ-97-1139 Oct. 16, 1997 his non-production; and

Dumlao(accused) posted bail while released under custody of (b) explain why the accused did not appear before the court
the Assistant State Prosector(recognizance). Allowed !! when first required to do so.
(PADERANGA VS CA). In this case, accused subsequently
brought himself under custody of the courts which cured the Failing in these two requisites, a judgment shall be rendered
defect if any ever existed. against the bondsmen, jointly and severally, for the amount of
the bail. The court shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the
NOTE: this is the case that cited when recognizance may be liability of the bondsmen, unless the accused has been
allowed. surrendered or is acquitted.

Simbulan vs Bartolome A.M. MTJ-05-1588 June 5, 2009

NOTE!!! : The execution of the property was void because no
Simbulan is a judge in whose sala the accused case was judgement was ever rendered against the bondsman and the
pending. Accused surrendered before the sala of Judge latter was denied procedural due process. Thus property was
Bartolome whom granted the bail and accepted the surety reconveyed.
bond by an insurance company.
Bongcac vs Sandiganbayan GR 156687-88
Bartolome is found guilty of gross neglect of duty.
Cancellation of bail is automatic upon execution of the
"In approving the surety bond of the accused, respondent judgment of conviction. The Sandiganbayan did not err in
Judge violated Section 17, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. In
the instant case, the accused Rosalina Mercado was not cancelling petitioners cash bailbond after the judgment of
arrested. That being the case, she should have filed her bail
conviction became final and executory and its
bond with the court where her case was pending, i.e., the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, San Fernando City, execution became ministerial.
Pampanga. In the absence of the judge thereof, it could be
done at another branch of the same court within SEC. 22. Cancellation of bail. - Upon
the province of Pampanga or City of San Fernando. Instead, application of the bondsmen, with due notice
accused Mercado filed her bond in the Municipal Trial Court to the prosecutor, the bail may be cancelled
of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, where respondent Judge presides, who upon surrender of the accused or proof of his
approved the same and ordered her release from custody" death.
The bail shall be deemed automatically
cancelled upon acquittal of the accused,
Lim vs Dumlao A.M. MTJ-04-1556 March 31, 2005
dismissal of the case, or execution of the
judgment of conviction.
Judge Dumlao granted bail to detained persons outside of his  
jurisdiction. Held: Not allowed. In all instances, the cancellation shall be
without prejudice to any liability on the bail.
NOTE: Memorize Section 17, Rule 114 (emphasis supplied).

Savellana vs Ines A.M. MTJ-0701673 April 19, 2007  

Respondent Judge granted bail to an accused with a pending Pp vs Cawaling GR 157147
case in another court.
Held: Guilty of gross ignorance. Can a bondsperson (Cruz) withdraw property bond and post
Assuming arguendo that the bail was proper, her failure to cash bond in lieu thereof?
transmit the order of release and
other supporting papers to the court No, Section 22 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court is explicit:
where the case is pending
constitutes violation of sec 19 of SEC. 22. Cancellation of bail.— Upon application of
rule 114. the bondsmen with due notice to the prosecutor, the
bail may be cancelled upon surrender of the accused
Mendoza vs Alarma GR 151970 or proof of his death.

For failure to appear when called on trial, the property bond is The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled
forfeited in view of : upon acquittal of the accused, dismissal of the case,
or execution of the judgment of conviction.
SEC. 21. — Forfeiture of bail. When the presence of the
In all instances, the cancellation shall be without
accused is required by the court or these Rules, his bondsmen
prejudice to any liability on the bail.
shall be notified to produce him before the court on a given
date and time. If the accused fails to appear in person as
required, his bail shall be declared forfeited and the bondsmen With the conviction of Cawaling for murder, and the Court’s
given thirty (30) days within which to produce their principal consequent failure to execute the judgment of conviction
and to show cause why no judgment should be rendered because of Cawaling’s flight, the posted property bond cannot
be cancelled, much less withdrawn and replaced with a cash
6
bond by movant Cruz, unless Cawaling is surrendered to the Convicted of qualified rape, charged only with simple rape.
Court, or adequate proof of his death is presented. Held: Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him is violated.
Under Section 1 of Rule 114, Cruz, as a bondsman, guarantees
the appearance of the accused before any court as required Pp vs Bermas GR 120420
under specified conditions.
Accused had no counsel. Held: Right to counsel is a
It is beyond cavil that, with the property bond posted by Cruz, constitutional right. " Even the most intelligent or uneducated
Cawaling was allowed temporary liberty, which made it man may have no skill in the science of law, particularly in the
possible, quite easily, to flee and evade punishment. As it rules of procedure and without counsel, he may be convicted
stands now, Cawaling, a convicted felon, is beyond reach of not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to
the law, and the property bond cannot be released. establish his innocence."

There can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given an

Manotoc vs CA GR L-62100 opportunity to be heard by counsel.
An accused out on bail may not leave the counrty.
Principle: The court has the power to prohibit a person Carredo vs People GR 77542
admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a
necessary consequence of the nature and function of bail bond. Non appearance of the accused during trial(Trial in absentia)
If allowed otherwise, then he may be placed beyond the reach is tantamount to waiver of his right to meet the witness face to
of the courts. face. Note: This right may be waived by non appearance,
although his bail will still be forfeited. Thus, his appearance
Silverio vs CA GR 94284 cannot be compelled.
Out on bail, Silverio sought to leave the country but is
prevented by the court. Silverio invoked the constitutional Additional: Can he be arrested when his presence is required?
guarantee of freedom to travel. yes for purposes of identification.
Held: Such constitutional provision did not limit the inherent
power of the courts. Gimenez vs People GR L-37933
5 accused, 1 escaped; 4 of them were dismissed, conviction of
Santiago vs Garchitorena GR L-109266 the escaped one was held in abeyance for his absence in the
Santiago has a pending case. In a TV interview, she trial.
announced that she is leaving the country for academic
purposes. The court then, motupropio issued a hold departure Accused escaped after arraignment, now the question w/n the
issue against her. court lost its jurisdiction and thus hold in abeyance the trial
W/N the court may motupropio issue a hold departure order with respect to the one who escaped?
without the filing or motion of the prosecution?
Held: Yes, the court can perform acts motupropio to protect its No, the court do not lose jurisdiction over an escaped person
jurisdiction. after arraignment. The trial must proceed in absentia. The
judge must render a judgement, along with his other co-
Gov’t of HK vs Olalia, Jr, Munoz GR 153675 accused already acquitted, notwithstanding his absence and
Govt of Hongkong Filed an Extradition against Olalia. During waiver to produce evidence in his behalf.
the pendency of the same, Olalia filed a petition for bail which
the court Granted. Pp vs Agbulos GR 73875
Held:Bail applies in cases of extradition. While extradition is
an administrative proceedings, it bears all earmarks of Same: Trial in absentia
criminal process. The extraditee may be subjected to arrest to
a prolonged restraint of liberty.
"Under the old doctrine, trial in absentia of the escapee could
not be held because he could not be duly notified thereof.
Borlongan vs Pena GR 143591 Under the present rule, the fugitive is deemed to have waived
Accused posted bail immediately after a warrant of arrest is such notice precisely because he has escaped, and it is also this
issued. At arraignment , the accused refused to enter a plea escape that makes his failure to appear at his trial unjustified.
questioning the validity of the arrest. The court replied that Escape can never be a legal justification.
since he posted bail, he waived any action against the validity
of his arrest. In the past, his escape "rewarded" him by postponing all
further proceedings against him and in effect ultimately
Held: Bail is not a waiver of the irregularities of the arrest absolving him of the charge he was facing. Under the present
rule, his escape will, legally speaking, operate to his
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED [RULE 115] disadvantage as he will be unable to attend his trial, which will
continue even in his absence and most likely result in his
Pp vs Sequerra GR L-58574 conviction."
Reason for the presumption of innocence "Confronted by the
full panoply of state authority, the accused is accorded the Pp vs Delmendo GR 123300
presumption of innocence to lighten and even reverse the
heavy odds against him. Accused refused to take the witness stand, Held: Silence
cannot be taken against him, but it should advance his defense,
Pp vs Calayca GR 121212 failure to do so would give rise to a presumption that he did
not want to testify because he did not want to betray himself.

7
 failure of said office to resolve a complaint that has been
Very good excerpt: pending for six years is clearly violative of this mandate and
the public officials rights. In such event, the aggrieved party is
"While his failure to testify cannot be considered against
entitled to the dismissal of the complaint."
him, it may however help in determining his guilt. The
Case was dismissed due to the unreasonable/unjustified delay.
unexplained failure of the accused to testify, under a
circumstance where the crime imputed to him is so serious that NOTE: REMEMBER TATAD
places in the balance his very life and that his testimony might DOCTRINE
at least help in advancing his defense, gives rise to an
inference that he did not want to testify because he did not
want to betray himself. ARRAIGNMENT & PLEA [RULE 116]
An innocent person will at once naturally and
Pp vs De Asis GR 105581 Dec. 7, 1993
emphatically repel an accusation of crime, as a matter of self-
preservation, and as a precaution against prejudicing
himself. A person's silence, therefore, particularly when it is Convicted of robbery, now assails the validity of their
persistent, may justify an inference that he is not conviction for lack of preliminary investigation.
innocent. Thus, we have the general principle that when an Held: They are in estoppel for making a plea of not guilty
accused is silent when he should speak, in circumstances during arraignment without raising the issue thereby
where an innocent person so situated would have spoken, on effectively waiving it.
being accused of a crime, his silence and omission are
admissible in evidence against him. Accordingly, it has been Pp vs Pangilinan GR 171020
aptly said that silence may be assent as well as consent, and
may, where a direct and specific accusation of crime is made, Accused was arraigned after the presentation of evidence.
be regarded under some circumstances as a quasi-
confession." Held: Allowed because such defect was cured when counsel
for the defense failed to raise it, thereby waiving it.
Pp vs Crispin GR 128360
"His counsel’s active participation in the hearings is a clear
RTC found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and raised indication that he was fully aware of the charges against him;
the irregularity of such conviction that Cesar Delima, a otherwise, his counsel would have objected and informed the
witness, filed a witness affidavit, but was not presented for court of this blunder. Moreover, no protest was made when
cross examination although subpoenaed. appellant was subsequently arraigned. The parties did not
question the procedure undertaken by the trial court. It is only
An affidavit is hearsay and weak probative value, by failure to now, after being convicted and sentenced to two death
be present at the witness stand, herein accused was deprived of sentences, that appellant cries that his constitutional right has
his right to cross examine the witness face to face. been violated. It is already too late to raise this procedural
defect"
Pp vs Gallarde GR 133025
Ampatan vs Aujerio AM RTJ-93-956

W/N Taking picture of the accused violates his right against Committed homicide, plea bargained to attempted homicide
self incrimination. No, it is purely mechanical. (can be taken
even when he is asleep) Held: Denied for obvious reasons

Alviza vs Sandiganbayan GR 101689 " The fact of death of the victim for which the accused
Rodrigo Umpad was criminally liable, cannot by simple logic
Accused raised right to speedy trial because it took 11 years to and plain common sense be reconciled with the plea of guilty
file his case in court. (preliminary investigation 11yrs) to the lower offense of attempted homicide."

" the doctrinal rule is that in the determination of whether or Pp vs Villarama GR 99287 210 S 226
not that right has been violated, the factors that may be
considered and balanced are the length of delay, the reasons IMPORTANT CASE
for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right As a general rule, Plea bargain takes place at the time of
by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay." arraignment or after arraignment but before trial( Rule 116 Sec
2)
In this particular case, " frequent amendments of procedural
laws by presidential decrees, the structural reorganizations in In this case, plea bargaining was filed by the counsel AFTER
existing prosecutorial agencies and the creation of new ones THE PROSECUTION HAS RESTED ITS CASE.
by executive fiat, 20 resulting in changes of personnel, Since the purpose of the plea bargaining is for the speedy
preliminary jurisdiction, functions and powers of prosecuting disposition of the case. Plea Bargaining is not a matter of
agencies." Delay was thus justified. right, but upon the sound discretion of the court. In this case,
the court GRANTED it without the consent of the prosecutor.
Roque vs Ombudsman GR 129978
Held: Allowed, but double jeopardy cannot attach because
Right to speedy disposition " Consistent with the rights of all "Sec. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. —
persons to due process of law and to speedy trial, the
Constitution commands the Office of the Ombudsman to act xxx xxxxxx
promptly on complaints filed against public officials.Thus, the
8
However, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to 2. The court must require the prosecution to present evidence
another prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes to prove the guilt of the accused and precise degree of his
the offense charged in the former complaint or information culpability; and
under any of the following instances:
3. The court must ask the accused whether he desires to
(a) . . . ; present evidence in his behalf, and allow him to do so if he so
desires." (SO DEEMED COMPLIED WITH)
(b) . . . ;
accused contention: Besonia claims
(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without that 1.his arraignment was notoriously flawed in that despite
the consent of the Fiscal and of the offended party;" his endeavor to plead guilty to the lesser crime of homicide,
the trial court paid no attention to it, thus depriving him of the
In sum: plea bargaining may be allowed after the prosecution opportunity to make such plea ( no merit because plea
bargaining is discretionary)
has rested its case at the sound discretion of the court, even
without the consent of the prosecutor. But without the consent
2. His plea was a
of the prosecutor, there is prejudice of refiling, thus the first
violation of his right against self incrimination, ANS of the SC
jeopardy does not attach.
to this issue "It does not apply where, as in these cases, the
testimony was freely and voluntarily given by the accused
Pp vs Albert 251 S 136 himself without any compulsion from the agents of the
State. There is nothing in the records that would indicate that
MOST CASES ARE FOR IMPROVIDENT PLEA (FOCUS) Besonia was forced, intimidated, or compelled by the trial
court or by anybody into admitting the crimes. (No merit
Improvident plea : Plead guilty to a capital offense, assisted by because it was voluntary and made in open court)
counsel. The court was convinced of the accused guilt.
At any rate, his plea of guilty and confession or
Pp vs Cruz GR 127789 admissions during the searching inquiry cannot be the sole
basis for his conviction." (CANNOT BE THE SOLE BASIS,
Improvident plea : Convicted for his plea of guilt for a capital meaning it is only supporting evidence or secondary
offense. Held: " Time and again, we have stated that a plea of evidence, thus conviction was also based on the evidence
guilty is improvidently accepted where no effort was even produced by the prosecution) emphasis supplied.
made to explain to the accused that a plea of guilty to an
information for a capital offense, attended by an aggravating
circumstance, may result in the imposition of the death
penalty. We have scrupulously gone over the record of the However, another issue was raised, his right
proceedings at the trial court level and nowhere is it shown to counsel was violated because during the trial, "we observe
that the court a quo administered a searching inquiry as to the that Besonias defense counsel Atty. Perez merely performed a
voluntariness of appellants plea and his full knowledge of the lackadaisical and perfunctory representation of the appellant
consequences and meaning of the same. Not having been before and during the trial. First,he failed to question before
properly made, we cannot now admit appellants plea of the arraignment the legality of Besonias arrest, which
failure is deemed as a waiver of the right to raise that question
guilty as a basis for his conviction"
once an accused enters a plea. Second, he failed to object to
the admissibility of the firearm seized after Besonias
NOTE: improvident plea(PLEA OF GUILT UPON A arrest. Third, there is no showing that he advised Besonia of
CAPITAL OFFENSE) cannot be the basis of conviction if the consequences of his plea of guilty to the crimes of
there is no inquiry into the voluntariness and full murder. Fourth, he remained silent throughout the
comprehension of the consequences of his plea. The court searching inquiry. Fifth, he did not cross-examine the
shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt. (RULE 116 police officers, and his cross-examination of the two doctors
SEC 3) was limited to only two questions each. Lastly, he did not
present any evidence on behalf of Besonia. These are all
Pp vs Besonia GR 151284-85 indicative of his failure to effectively provide Besonia with
qualified and competent representation. His behavior
Charged for 2 counts murder, Plead guilty and immediately irrefutably falls short of the demanding mandate required of
thereafter ensued an inquiry to the voluntariness and full a lawyer to defend an accused no matter how guilty the
latter may seem to be. In short, his deportment evinces an
knowledge of the consequences of his plea. The prosecution
apparent disregard of his fidelity to his oath as a lawyer and
presented evidence, and he(accused) did not adduce evidence responsibility as an officer of the court to aid in the
in his favor. Thus, conviction followed. administration and dispensation of justice." THE CASES (2
counts murder) WAS SET ASIDE AND REMANDED.
The SC cited the requisites for compliance under rule 116 sec
3 as follows: Pp vs Mendoza GR 80845

"We have already outlined, as early as in the case Accused(magalop) for robbery plead guilty, but then
of People v. Camay,how compliance with the said rule could acquitted.
be attained by the trial court, thus: Prosecution(petitioner) seeks the reversal of the acquittal and
contends that the accused be convicted upon his plea of guilt.
1. The court must conduct a searching inquiry into the (note that in the CA, the republic must be represented by OSG,
voluntariness and full comprehension [by the accused] of the in this case, this lapse was overlooked by the SC to gave
consequences of his plea; credence to the novelty of this case)

9
" There is no rule which provides that simply because the c) That the officer who filed the information had no authority
accused pleaded guilty to the charge that his conviction to do so;
automatically follows. Additional evidence independent of the d) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed
plea may be considered to convince the judge that it was form;
intelligently made." e) That more than one offense is charged except in those cases
in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment
for various offenses;
In this case, the stolen articles were found in possession of
f) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
Babie Tan, but the prosecution did not even call to take the
g) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a
witness stand said Babie Tan. legal excuse or justification; and
h) That the accused has been previously convicted or in
Respondent judge found that the plea was not made jeopardy of being convicted, or acquitted of the
intelligently. (NOTE: What the judge could have done, since offense charged.
the plea was not made intelligently, is to consider the plea of Section 8. The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a
guilt withdrawn and enter a plea of not guilty, instead of motion to quash before he pleads"
acquitting herein accused upon a plea of guilt. PP v Padernal).
No motion to quash was ever filed by accused, nor the grounds
Hence, acquittal is sustained. for quashal exist. On the ground that it is ex post facto law, a
constitutionality of a law cannot be attacked collaterally, and
Webb vs de Leon GR 121234 on the ground of double jeopardy, the first jeopardy has not
yet attached. Important Principle: The action to QUASH is
Record is voluminous, thus the case related to the topic is the EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE ACCUSED.
only issue tackled.
Note: The judge here acted like the counsel for the defense.
When is the proper time for a bill of particulars and production
or inspection of material evidence in possession of Lopez vs Sandiganbayan Oct. 13, 1995
prosecution? Mayor Lopez of Mati(CITY) was a donee of an
What is the remedy to prevent surprise, suppression, or ambulance, but he allowed the DavOr(Province) to utilize or
alteration of material evidence in possession of the appropriate as their own. Now charged for RA3019 for anti
prosecution, police, or investigating agencies? graft and corrupt practices. Accused filed a motion to quash on
the ground that the acts complained of in the information do
Answered by Reading rule 116 sec 9 and 10. not constitute an offense because he was but an SB member
when the alleged crime took place, and that Mati had no use
Dino vs Olivarez GR 170447 for such ambulance for there was no hospital at that time in
said place.
An appeal for the resolution of the prosecutor may suspend
arraignment, only for a period not exceeding 60 days.(Rule W/N: Courts should take judicial notice of facts
116 sec 11) alleged(THAT HE WAS NOT YET THE MAYOR AT THAT
TIME/ Which was not alleged) in the motion to quash.
Read further Rule 116 Sec 11 for other circumstances that (WHETHER FACTS NOT ALLEGED IN THE
suspension of arraignment may be suspended. INFORMATION COULD BE THE BASIS OF QUASHAL)
a. unsound mind
b. prejudicial question Held: Motion to quash is a hypothetical admission of
c. appeal to review resolution of facts, matters of defense cannot be raised in such action.
prosecutor (should not exceed 60 days).
However, in this case:" Since the prosecution has
admitted the fact that petitioner was not yet the Municipal
MOTION TO QUASH [RULE 117] Mayor on or about December 10, 1987 and that Petitioner
Mayor Lopez became the Municipal Mayor only after the date
Pp vs Nitafan Feb. 1, 1999 of the commission of the offense charged, such an admission
constitutes as a judicial admission which is binding upon the
Imelda marcos was charged with 3 informations for violations prosecution"
of Central Bank Circular. The judge, without participation by
herein accused, dismissed the first case for being "ex post Note: Although not alleged in the information, the
facto law" being enacted later than the date the crime was prosecutor's admission of such fact had the effect of judicial
allegedly committed, and the 2 other charges dismissed on the admission that the court took cognizance of.
ground of double jeopardy.(hence, the judge acted
independently without participation of accused) State Pros vs Paquero June 7, 2007
Prosecutor Tolentino charges Ticklo for violations of SSS
Not allowed because: "Section 2. The motion to quash shall be LAW(Failure to remit). In the information, Tolentino, the
in writing signed by the accused or his counsel. It shall specify investigating prosecutor, stated that he was authorized by the
distinctly the factual and legal grounds therefor and the Court REGIONAL STATE PROSECUTOR. Herein accused
shall consider no grounds other than those stated therein, moved to quash the information on the ground that among the
except lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. grounds for quashal Rule 117 Sec 3: (c) that the officer who
Section 3. Grounds. The accused may move to quash the filed the information had no authority to do so,in relation to
complaint or information on any of the following grounds: Rule 112. Sec 4. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its
a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense; review. 
b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the "No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an
offense charged or the person of the accused; investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority
10
or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief Accused was charged with 2 counts estafa before
state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy" different courts. She sought quashal of the second invoking
double jeopardy in which the judge granted.
Note: No regional state prosecutor is mentioned, Held: The act was premature, the first double
expressiounius et exclusioalterius. jeopardy has not yet attached. (Review the requisites of double
jeopardy "validly terminated")In this case, accused invoked
Held: Motion to quash should be granted based on the
the second jeopardy even before the proper disposition of the
abovementioned ground.
first case. Remember, termination must either be for acquittal,
Quisay vs Pp GR 216920 conviction, or dismissal without the express consent of the
accused.
Quisay was charged for RA7610, signed by the investigating
prosecutor stating that he was authorized by the City
Prosecutor. Pp vs Vergara 221 S 960
A case for two counts of frustrated murder was filed
Accused moved to quash on the ground that against the accused (Arraigned). The accused sought re-
(d) That the officer who filed the information had investigation and the prosecution resolved the case stating that
no authority to do so; the real aggressors were the offended party, thus moved to
dismiss the first case and re-filed a new information. The
Held: Granted because there is no showing that said accused pleaded not guilty to the new charge and invoked
investigating prosecutor had prior authority by the City double jeopardy which the court granted.
Prosecutor. There is but a certification that states"and that the Was the court correct in granting the dismissal on the
filing of the Information is with the prior authority and ground of double jeopardy? Yes because the first charged was
approval of the City Prosecutor"without the actual signature dismissed without the EXPRESS CONSENT of the accused,
of said City Prosecutor. thereby validly terminating said case. Although they(accused)
were the ones who requested a re-investigation, such act
Gonzales vs Salvador, Glen Dale Dec. 5, 2006 cannot be equated to EXPRESS CONSENT.
NOTE: Dismissal without the express consent is a
A Case for libel against petitioner was filed which he moved ground to invoke double jeopardy.
to quash on the ground that the information was defective for
not alleging where the material was first published nor the Pp vs Mogol 131 S 296
residence of the complainant which are essential elements of
libel. Accused is facing charges for Serious Physical
Injury, the Prosecutor moved to amend the information
Petitioner(prosecutor) now contents that he should be given because the facts can prove that the crime committed is
time to amend rather than quash it outright in view of " SEC. actually Frustrated Murder. The Judge dismissed the case in
4. Amendment of complaint or information. If the motion to order to give way to the filing of the new Charge.
quash is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or
information which can be cured by amendment, the court shall Whether or not the first jeopardy has attached : No,
order that an amendment be made." However "It is gathered the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion thus the
that petitioner never asserted the propriety of amending the proceeding was null and void, and has not been validly
Information, he having maintained that the allegations in terminated thereby.
the Information provided sufficient and adequate bases to Note: The duty of the judge was to render judgement
confer jurisdiction. When the trial court granted the motion based on the charge and evidence presented.
to quash, petitioner did not assail the same within the Further note: First jeopardy does not attach if the
reglementary period. The order quashing the Information thus proceedingsis rendered null and void, mostly for grave
became final and executory" abuse of discretion or violation of procedural due process.

Benares vs Lim Dec. 14, 2006

For Sec 4 to apply, it needs to be raised
Estafa was filed against accused, the court then
within the reglementary period. Otherwise the irregularity is
dismissed the case because of the prosecution's failure to
cured.
prosecute " in this case, No Formal Offer of Exhibits"
(discussed further in rule 119).
Held: The first jeopardy did not attach because
Pp vs Relova GR L-45129 148 S 292
republic was deprived of procedural due process. Although
Accused(Opulencia ice plant/ Manuel Opulencia)
republic did not make any formal offer of exhibits, the same
was charged of (1) theft for installing illegal electrical
may still prove the guilt of the accused through testimonial
connections, and (2) for violation of an Ordinance in
evidence.
Batangas(regarding the same act). Respondent judge granted
Note: Prosecution was denied of substantial due
the motion to quash for the violation of the ordinance on the
process, thus fist jeopardy did not attach.
ground of double jeopardy.
Cerezo vs Pp June 1, 2011
Held: The quashal is proper because the same act was
Respondents were facing charges for libel, in which
punished by a statute and an ordinance. (Double Jeopardy)
they filed amotion for re-investigation before the DOJ. The
valid information was filed in court of competent jurisdiction
Pp vs Pineda 219 S 1
and the accused entered a plea of not guilty on arraignment.
The motion for re-investigation for the finding of probable
cause was reversed by the DOJ, thus the prosecutor filed a
11
motion to dismiss the case. Upon the recommendation of the "Therefore, petitioner admitted hypothetically in her motion
prosecutor, the court dismissed the case and found no more that:
cause to continue. The petitioner appeal by certiorari citing
that the court erred in dismissing the case, whereas respondent (1) She was a public officer;
raised the defense of double jeopardy because the case was
dismissed without their express consent. (2) She approved the application for
legalization of the stay of aliens, who
Held: The first jeopardy did not attach because the arrived in the Philippines after January 1,
court gravely abused its discretion when it submitted to the 1984;
recommendation of dismissal by the prosecutor. The judge
must consider the evidence presented and determine the merits (3) Those aliens were disqualified;
thereof on its own independent appreciation of the facts and
law involved, and not the mere recommendation of the (4) She was cognizant of such fact; and
prosecutor.
(5) She acted in "evident bad faith and
Suero vs Pp Jan. 31, 2005 manifest partiality in the execution of her
Accused was charged with violation of RA3019 anti official functions."
Graft and corrupt practices for undue injury against the
government in which the same was acquitted. Ombudsman The foregoing allegations of fact constitute the elements of the
filed a new information against the accused for the same offense defined in Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019."
transaction, with a new charge for falsification of public
documents. Accused contends that ombudsman is now barred Los Banos vs Pedro April 22, 2009
by double jeopardy. Accused was charged for violating the election gun
ban. He then filed a motion to quash on the ground that the
Held: No double jeopardy because the elements of preliminary investigation did not materialize. The prosecution
the offense under RA3019 and falsification of public sought to re-open the case, but accused contends that the
document are distinct from each other. Thus, the refiling is not provisional dismissal's period of 1 year has elapsed thereby
barred. bars the prosecution from reopening said case.
Held: " the provision used applies where both the
Nierras vs Dacuycuy 181 S 1 prosecution and the accused mutually consented to the
The petitioner is charged for violation of bp22 and dismissal of the case, or where the prosecution or the offended
filed a petition for review on certiorari due to the respondent party failed to object to the dismissal of the case, and not to a
judge's denial of his motion to quash on the ground of double situation where the information was quashed upon motion of
jeopardy to the case of estafa. the accused and over the objection of the prosecution"
Held: There is no double jeopardy because of the Principle: The grant of a motion to quash does not
variance of elements. have the effect of provisional dismissal.
"there is variance or differences between the elements
of an offense in one law and another law as in the PRE-TRIAL [RULE 118]
case at bar there will be no double jeopardy because
what the rule on double jeopardy prohibits refers to Chua-Burce vs CA April 27, 2007
identity of elements in the two (2) offenses.
Otherwise stated prosecution for the same act is not Chua-Burce was charged of criminal case and civil case for
prohibited. What is forbidden is prosecution for the estafa. During the pre-trial conference of the criminal case, the
same offense. Hence, the mere filing of the two (2) parties agreed to adopt their respective evidence in the civil
sets of information does not itself give rise to double case as their respective evidence in the criminal case.
jeopardy "
Held: It was during pre-trial conference when the parties
agreed to adopt their respective evidence in the civil case to
Mallari vs Pp 168 S 422
the criminal case. This is allowed under Section 2 (e) of Rule
Accused was charged for estafa through falsification
118 of the Rules of Courtwhich provides that during pre-trial
of public document. Held: Since the crime is complex under
conference, the parties shall consider "such other matters as
article 48, double jeopardy sets in upon the conviction of
will promote a fair and expeditious trial." The parties, in
which, can no longer be prosecuted for the same offense.
compliance with Section 4 of Rule 118, reduced to writing
such agreement. Petitioner, her counsel, and the public
Santiago vs Garchitorena 228 S 214
prosecutor signed the agreement. Petitioner is bound by the
Santiago was charged with 32 informations for
pre-trial agreement, and she cannot now belatedly disavow its
RA3019 giving unwarranted benefit and undue injury to the
contents. 
state, but consolidated in one information upon finding that it
is a continuing offense. Pp vs Ancheta Jan. 14, 2004
However, the issue in this case is the motion to quash
by Santiago, on the ground that the offense charge does not Rule 118, Sec. 2 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
constitute an offense. provides that "all agreements or admissions made or entered
Principle: A motion to quash on such ground(it does during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and
not constitute an offense) is a hypothetical admission. Thus signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be
Santiago hypothetically admitted all charges in the used against the accused." This requirement is mandatory.
information to wit: Thus, the omission of the signature of the accused and his
counsel, as mandatorily required by the Rules, renders the
Stipulation of Facts inadmissible in evidence.

12
Pp vs Guzman Jan. 26, 2007 Accused(PETITIONER) was facing charges for Grave
Coercion before MTC Manila. He was arraigned Feb 12 2003,
The pre-trial order of the RTC shows that the defense named and pre-trial was set on May 2008(105 Days timegap)  and
only four witnesses. Only one witness was presented. The another gap of 148 days from the latter date up to the second
defense counsel moved to substitute them but the RTC denied pre-trial setting on October 23, 2003 or for a total of 253
the motion. days - a clear contravention, according to petitioner, of the
Held: RTC is correct in denying the motion. Matters agreed 80-day time limit from arraignment to trial.
upon in the pre-trial conference and as stated in the pre-
trial order shall bind the parties as mandated under Held: No merit
Section 4, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules on Criminal " In determining whether the accused has been deprived of
Procedure. his right to a speedy disposition of the case and to a speedy
Note: Such provision is not absolute. It can be relaxed in the trial, four factors must be considered:
greater interest of justice. a) length of delay;
(b) the reason for the delay;(must not be vexatious,
TRIAL [RULE 119] capricious, and oppressive)
(c) the defendants assertion of his right; and
Mari vs Gonzales GR 187728 (d) prejudice to the defendant" (not prejudiced when out
on bail)
Indicted for rape, the accused was detained. However, the
prosecution did not appear for trial by reason of the pendency The reason for the delay is justified(Declaration of holiday,
of petition for change of venue. The RTC then dismissed the issuance of warrant upon a mistake that petitioner was notified
case for failure to prosecute. of the hearing, typhoon chedeng,..etc). Inspite the prescribed
Held: The RTC did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed time limits, jurisprudence continues to adopt the view that the
the case on the ground of speedy trial. concept of "speedy trial" is a relative term and must
" Here, it must be emphasized that private respondent had necessarily be a flexible concept. 
already been deprived of his liberty on two occasions.
First, during the preliminary investigation before the Pp vs SPO1 Marcial GR 152864-65
MCTC, when he was incarcerated from November 18,
2004 to March 16, 2005, or a period of almost four months; Respondents in this case was charged of homicide and
then again, when an Information had already been issued frustrated homicide. Petitioner made an oral motion to reverse
and since rape is a non-bailable offense, he was imprisoned the order of the trial upon the ground that respondents
beginning June 27, 2008 until the case was dismissed on admitted committing the acts for which they were charged in
January 16, 2009, or a period of over 6 months. Verily, the two informations but interposed lawful justifying
there can be no cavil that deprivation of liberty for any circumstances. RTC denied such motion. Hence the petition.
duration of time is quite oppressive. Because of private
respondent's continued incarceration, any delay in trying Held: RTC’s decision was sustained. Rules of Court, Rule
the case would cause him great prejudice. Thus, it was 119, Section 3(e):
absolutely vexatious and oppressive to delay the trial in the
subject criminal case to await the outcome of petitioners' x xx
petition for transfer of venue, especially in this case where
there is no temporary restraining order or writ of (e) When the accused admits the act or omission charged in
preliminary injunction issued by a higher court against the complaint or information but interposes a lawful
herein public respondent from further proceeding in the defense, the order of trial may be modified.10 
case."
Accordingly, the RTC correctly exercised its discretion in
denying petitioner's request for a reverse order of trial.
Section 3, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court “The following
periods of delay shall be excluded in computing the time
within which trial must commence: In any event, a denial of a motion to reverse the Order of Trial
is interlocutory in nature and, hence, not appealable. As it
turned out, petitioner's appeal has in fact caused more, a lot
(a) Any period of delay resulting from other
more, delay than would have been caused by proceeding with
proceedings concerning the accused, including but
the trial forthwith as directed by the trial court. No further
not limited to the following:”
delay should be countenanced in these cases.
A careful reading of the above rule would show that the only
Vda. De Manguerra vs Risos Aug. 28, 2008
delays that may be excluded from the time limit within which
trial must commence are those resulting from proceedings
concerning the accused. The time involved in the The conditional examination of a prosecution witness for the
proceedings in a petition for transfer of venue can only be purpose of taking his deposition should be made before the
excluded from said time limit if it was the accused who court, or at least before the judge, where the case is pending.
instituted the same. Hence, in this case, the time during which Such is the clear mandate of Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules.
the petition for transfer of venue filed by the private If the deposition is made elsewhere, the accused may not be
complainant is pending, cannot be excluded from the time able to attend, as when he is under detention. More
limit of thirty (30) days from receipt of the pre-trial order importantly, this requirement ensures that the judge would be
imposed in Section 1, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. able to observe the witness’ deportment to enable him to
properly assess his credibility.
Olbes vs Buembo GR 173319
Pp vs Ocimar Aug. 17, 1992

13
Who is the least guilty in a crime perpetrated in conspiracy? argue that reinstating would place the discharged accused in
double jeopardy.However, the Judge countered that Section 10
The discharge of an accused to be utilized as state witness (now Section 18) of Rule 119, would mean that,where
clearly looks at his actual and individual participation in the thedischarged accused (Hermosa) has not yet testified, the
commission of the crime, which may or may not have been principle of double jeopardy does not yet apply.
perpetrated in conspiracy with the other accused. What the law
prohibits is that the “most guilty” will be set free while his co- Held: SC held nope. We consider Section 10 (Sec. 18) to mean
accused who are less guilty will be sent to jail. And by "most that once the discharge of an accused from the information is
guilty" we mean the highest degree of culpability in terms of effected, the legal consequence of acquittal follows and
participation in the commission of the offense, and not persists unless the accused so discharged fails or refuses to
necessarily the severity of the penalty imposed. While all the testify against his co-defendant, in which case the defense of
accused may be given the same penalty by reason of double jeopardy is withdrawn from him and becomes
conspiracy, yet one may be considered least guilty if We take unavailable to him. Hence, absence any showing that the
into account his degree of participation in the perpetration accused has in fact failed or refused to testify against his co-
of the offense. defendant reinstating would place the discharged accused in
double jeopardy. (Mere failure to attend two (2) scheduled
The matter of discharging a co-accused to become state hearings does not necessarily show that he had violated his
witness is left largely to the discretion of the trial fiscal, undertaking to testify against his co-accused)
subject only to the approval of the court. The reason is
obvious. The fiscal should know better than the court, and the Webb vs De Leon, supra
defense for that matter, as to who of the accused would best
qualify to be discharged to become state witness. Petitioner here challenged the validity of R.A. No. 6981,
vesting in the Department of Justice the power to determine
Pp vs CA, Pring 223 S 475 who can qualify as a witness in the program and who shall be
granted immunity from prosecution.
Facts: Pring was charged with kidnapping for ransom along
with other accused, Arile. The prosecution filed a Motion to Held: Petitioner's argument lacks appeal for it lies on the
Discharge Arile to be a state witness.Such motion was faulty assumption that the decision whom to prosecute is a
challenged by private respondent Pring in his Opposition to judicial function, the sole prerogative of courts and beyond
Discharge NoniloArile and in his Petition for Bail. The executive and legislative interference. The argument is based
respondent is questioning the validity of discharge without on Section 9, Rule 119which gives the court the prerogative to
conducting a hearing. approve the discharge of an accused to be a state witness. The
right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with a wide range of
discretion — the discretion of whether, what and whom to
Held: The present rule (Section 9, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rule charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of
on Criminal Procedure) thus amends the old rule (Prior to the factors which are best appreciated by prosecutors. SC thus
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, Section 9, hold that it is not constitutionally impermissible for Congress
Rule 119) by categorically requiring a hearing where the to enact R.A. No. 6981 vesting in the Department of Justice
prosecution shall present the sworn statement of the proposed the power to determine who can qualify as a witness in the
witness and its other evidence for the purpose of proving to program and who shall be granted immunity from
the satisfaction of the court that the conditions for discharge as prosecution.Section 9 of Rule 119 does not support the
enumerated exist. (Note: This Rule is now in Sec. 17, or Rule proposition that the power to choose who shall be a state
119, Discharge of accused to be state witness. —… after
witness is an inherent judicial prerogative. Under this
requiring the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn
provision, the court, is given the power to discharge a state
statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in
support of the discharge…) witness only because it has already acquired jurisdiction over
the crime and the accused. 
However, itcannot be denied that the defense was able to
oppose the motion to discharge NoniloArile. Private Mah main take away: The power to choose a state witness is
respondent Jose Pring has filed his opposition to the motion to different to the power to discharge a state witness???
discharge NoniloArile and even discussed the material points
of the latter's testimony in his petition for bail. His assertion Pp vs dela Cruz June 25, 2008
then that there was a denial of due process for failure to
conduct a hearing in support of the discharge is unfounded and The provision does not require that a state witness should
not substantiated after a perusal of the records of the case. appear to be the "least guilty" among the accused. Rather, it
provides that he "does not appear to be the most guilty."
In requiring therefore, a "hearing in support of the discharge,"
the essential objective of the law is for the court to receive or Salvanera vs Pp, Parane GR 143093
possess evidence for or against the discharge which will serve
as tangible and concrete basis, independent of the fiscal's or The corroborative evidence required by the Rules does not
prosecution's persuasions, in granting or denying the motion have to consist of the very same evidence as will be testified
for discharge.
on by the proposed state witnesses. If it is shown that the
statements of the conspirator are corroborated by other
Bogo-Medellin Co. vs Pedro Son 209 S 329 (Erroneous evidence, then we have convincing proof of veracity. Even if
Discharge) the confirmatory testimony only applies to some particulars,
we can properly infer that the witness has told the truth in
Facts: The presiding judge here reinstated the State witness as other respects."
co-accused for the crime of qualified theft. The prosecution

14
Where a crime is contrived in secret, the discharge of one of It can be seen from the motion to dismiss, petitioner Cabador
the conspirators is essential because only they have knowledge took pains to point out in paragraphs 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
of the crime. "10 (sic)," 13, 14, and 15 (in his motion) how trial in the case
Pp vs Turingan 282 S 424 had painfully dragged on for years. The gaps between
proceedings were long, with hearings often postponed because
The filing of a demurrer to evidence without leave of court is of the prosecutor’s absence. In criminal cases, a motion to
an unqualified waiver of the right to present evidence for the dismiss may be filed on the ground of denial of the accused’s
accused. right to speedy trial.

The rationale for the rule is that when the accused moves for It was only in few observations made in paragraphs "11 (sic)"
dismissal on the ground of insufficiency of the prosecution and 12 (of the motion) regarding the inadequacy of the
evidence, he does so in the belief that said evidence is evidence against him that the RTC and the CA simply chose to
insufficient to convict and, therefore, any need for him to treat Cabador’s motion as a demurrer to evidence
present any evidence is negated. The purpose behind the rule
is also to avoid the dilatory practice of filing motions for Since Cabador filed his motion to dismiss before he could
dismissal as a demurrer to the evidence of the prosecution and, object to the prosecution’s formal offer, before the trial court
after denial thereof, the defense would then claim the right to could act on the offer, and before the prosecution could rest its
present its evidence. case, it could not be said that he had intended his motion to
dismiss to serve as a demurrer to evidence.
Pp vs Cachola Jan. 21, 2004
Cabarles vs Maceda Feb, 20, 2007
It is clear that the filing by the appellants of a demurrer to
evidence in the absence of prior leave of court was a clear Facts: Cabarles insists that Judge Maceda gravely abused his
waiver of their right to present their own evidence. To sustain discretion when he ordered the reopening of the case before
their claim that they had been denied due process because the promulgation of judgment although both parties had already
evidence they belatedly sought to offer would have exculpated rested their case. Cabarles argues that a case may only be
them would be to allow them to "wager on the outcome of reopened after a judgment of conviction has been made but
judicial proceedings by espousing inconsistent viewpoints
before its finality, as provided in Section 24, Rule 119 of the
whenever dictated by convenience.”
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Pp vs Cristobal GR 159450
For Judge Maceda’s cause, the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) contends that Section 24 is a new provision (took effect
Facts: Upon the State resting its case against the accused, her on December 1, 2000.) which merely formalized the long-
counsel filed a Demurrer to Evidence and Motion to Defer accepted practice of judges of reopening a case to avoid a
Defense Evidence, praying for the dismissal of the charge on miscarriage of justice. This being the case, jurisprudence
the ground that the evidence of the State did not suffice to providing that a judge has the discretion to reopen a case
establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It was denied for even before promulgation of judgment still holds.
lack merit by the RTC and she was convicted of qualified
theft.
Held: A motion to reopen may thus properly be presented only
after either or both parties had formally offered and closed
Appellant now contends that such demurrer is not a waiver of their evidence, but before judgment is rendered, and even
his right to present evidence because her demurrer was, at the after promulgation but before finality of judgment.
same time, also a motion to defer defense evidence.
Section 24, Rule 119 and existing jurisprudence stress the
Held: A motion to defer evidence does not constitute a request following requirements for reopening a case: (1) the reopening
for leave to file a demurrer to evidence. In fact, such motion must be before the finality of a judgment of conviction; (2) the
indicates that appellant wanted the Trial Court to consider the order is issued by the judge on his own initiative or upon
demurrer before proceeding to hear her evidence. motion; (3) the order is issued only after a hearing is
Furthermore, there is nothing in appellant’s Demurrer from conducted; (4) the order intends to prevent a miscarriage of
which it can be inferred that appellant was asking the Trial justice; and (5) the presentation of additional and/or further
Court permission to move for the dismissal of the case. evidence should be terminated within thirty days from the
issuance of the order.

Cabador vs Pp GR 186001 However, while Judge Maceda is allowed to reopen the case
before judgment is rendered, Section 24 requires that a hearing
Facts: The prosecution made its formal offer on August 1, must first be conducted. Judge Maceda issued the April 1,
2006, the day Cabador (petitioner) filed his motion to dismiss. 2003 Order without notice and hearing and without giving the
The RTC issued an Order treating petitioner Cabador’s August prosecution and accused an opportunity to manifest their
1, 2006 motion to dismiss as a demurrer to evidence. And, position on the matter.
since he filed his motion without leave of court, the RTC
declared him to have waived his right to present evidence in Alegre vs Reyes 161 S 226
his defense.
Facts: Beforerendition or judgmentAlegre (petitioner) filed a
Held: To determine whether the pleading filed is a demurer to Motion to Reopen Trial. RTC denied such motion. Court of
evidence or a motion to dismiss, the Court must consider (1) Appeals sustained the trial court’s decision.
the allegations in it made in good faith; (2) the stage of the
proceeding at which it is filed; and (3) the primary objective of
the party filing it.

15
Held: The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. WON double jeopardy had set in.
A motion to reopen the trial is quite distinct from a motion for
new trial.  Held: No. An order of dismissal must be written in the official
language, personally and directly prepared by the judge and
signed by him. There is noshowing that this verbal order of
For one thing, a motion to reopen may properly be presented
dismissal was ever reduced to writing and duly signed by him.
only after either or both parties have formally offered, and
closed their evidence, but before judgment. On the other hand, Thus, it did not yet attain the effect of a judgment of acquittal,
a motion for new trial is proper only after rendition or so that it was still within the powers of the judge to set it aside
promulgation of judgment.  and enter another order, now in writing and duly signed by
him, reinstating the case.
For another, a motion for reopening, unlike a motion for new D’Aigle vs Pp GR 174181
trial, is not specifically mentioned and prescribed as a remedy
by the Rules of Court. There is no specific provision in the
Rules of Court governing motions to reopen. It is albeit a Requisites of a valid judgment of conviction, pursuant to
recognized procedural recourse or device, deriving validity Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court.
and acceptance from long, established usage.
1) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts
Hence, the trial court acted unreasonably in spurning Alegre's committed by the accused and the aggravating or mitigating
plea for reopening the trial since his motion was before circumstances which attended its commission;
judgment. (And considering that it took the prosecution no less 2) the participation of the accused in the offense, whether as
than two and a half years to adduce its proofs while the principal, accomplice or accessory;
accused presented evidence within than a span of five (5) days 3) the penalty imposed upon the accused; and
and only on two (2) hearing dates.) 4) the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or
omission to be recovered from the accused by the offended
party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of the civil
Note: Alegre is a 1988 case while Cabarles is a 2007 case.
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure took effect on December liability by a separate civil action has been reserved or waived.
1, 2000.
SC find that all of these are sufficiently stated in the trial
JUDGMENT (RULE 120) court’s Decision. All elements of estafa have been sufficiently
established by the prosecution.
Pp vs Bugarin GR 110817-22

Pp vs Flores GR 128823-24
Lengthy case. Point is, the trial court fell short of what was
required in the form and contents of a judgment. First, it does
not contain an evaluation of the evidence of the parties and a In this case, a criminal complaint stated that the daughter was
discussion of the legal questions involved. It does not explain “sexually abused” by his father.Can the father be convicted for
why accused-appellant's licking of complainant's genital a lesser offense of acts of lasciviousness by virtue of variance
constituted attempted rape and not another crime. Second, six doctrine?
informations were filed against the accused, but the decision
found the accused-appellant guilty of only four counts of rape No. The case is not one of variance between allegation and
(which the trial court erroneously said three counts) and one proof. The recital of facts in the criminal complaints simply
count of attempted rape, without explaining whether accused- does not properly charge rape, "sexual abuse" not being an
appellant was being acquitted of one charge of rape. Third, the essential element or ingredient thereof.
decision is so carelessly prepared that it finds the accused-
appellant guilty of three counts of consummated rape but
sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua "for
each of the four counts of . . . rape."
Consulta vs Pp GR 178462
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court found the accused-appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four counts of rape and of
acts of lasciviousness. Facts: Nelia R. Silvetre was riding a tricycle when Pedro
Consulta, the herein accused, and his brother Edwin Consulta
(Edwin) blocked and kicked the tricycle. Accused shouted
Pp vs Nadera GR 131384-87
"Putanginakangmatanda ka, walakangkadaladala,
sinabihannakitanakahitsaankitamatiempuhan, papatayinkita."
Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside Appellant thereafter grabbed Nelia’s 18K gold necklace with a
only if such plea is the sole basis of judgment. If the trial court crucifix pendant which was worth ₱3,500. He was charged of
relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict the robbery.
accused, the conviction must be sustained, because then it is
predicated not merely on the guilty plea of the accused but on
Held: Should be convicted of grave coercion. Sections 4 and 5
evidence proving his commission of the offense charged.
of Rule 120 is applicable in this case. Grave coercion, like
robbery, has violence for one of its elements. The taking of
Abay Sr., vs Garcia GR L-66132 Nelia’s necklace does not indicate presence of intent to gain.
Intent to gain is difficult to appreciate given his undenied
Facts: The case were verbally dismissed by the judge during claim that his relationship with Nelia is rife with ill-feelings.
the trial. On the same day, the prosecution moved to have the Intimidation and violence consisting of, inter alia, uttering of
order of dismissal set aside. The Judge granted the motion for invectives, driving away of the tricycle driver, and kicking of
reconsideration and set aside the verbal order of dismissal, the tricycle, Nelia was prevented from proceeding to her
reinstating the case. destination.

16
Navarette vs Pp GR 147913 If there was no penetration, or even an attempt to insert the
accused penis into the complainant’s vagina, the accused can
Although an accused is charged in the information with the be convicted of acts of lasciviousness.
crime of statutory rape (i.e., carnal knowledge of a woman
under twelve years of age), the offender can be convicted of PP vs CFI Quezon City Br. 10 GR 48817
the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness, which is included in
rape. Is the judgment of acquittal penned by a trial judge detailed to
a vacant branch of the court but promulgated after a permanent
Parungao vs Sandiganbayan GR 96025 judge has been duly appointed to the vacancy is valid?

Facts: Oscar Parungao,aMunicipal Treasurer of Porac, Held: Yes. Because a trial judge whose temporary detail to a
Pampanga was charged of malversation of public funds. He vacant branch which has expired remains to be the incumbent
was nevertheless convicted in the same criminal case, for judge of the branch of the court where he is permanently
illegal use of public funds. assigned. Thus, he may still decide cases submitted to him for
decision during his temporary detail in the vacant branch even
Issue: WON SB’s judgment was proper. after the vacancy has been filled.

Held: No. Section 4 and 5 of Rule 120 of the Rules on What is required is that the judge who pens the decision is still
Criminal Procedure does not apply in the instant case. A an incumbent judge. In this case, even after the expiration of
comparison of the two articles reveals that their elements are Judge Montecillo’stemporary designation at Branch X, he
entirely distinct and different from the other. In malversation continued to be an incumbent of Branch III. (Juan B.
of public funds, the offender misappropriates public funds for Montecillo, Presiding Judge of Branch III, was designated pro
his own personal use or allows any other person to take such tempore to take over Branch X.)
public funds for the latter's personal use. In technical
malversation, the public officer applies public funds under his Cruz vs Judge Pascual GR AM MTJ-93-782
administration not for his or another's personal use, but to a
public use other than that for which the fund was appropriated In a verdict of acquittal, the presence of the accused is not
by law or ordinance.Technical malversation is, therefore, not
indispensable since no appeal is necessary and the judgment
included in nor does it necessarily include the crime of
becomes final and executory immediately after promulgation.
malversation of public funds charged in the information.
The reading of the sentence in open court to counsel for the
accused or giving a copy of the decision to the accused or his
Daan vs Sandiganbayan GR 163972-77
counsel is sufficient promulgation.
Facts: Accused Joselito Daan was charged of malversation and
Pp vs Prades GR 127569
falsification of public document by a public officer or
employeeinvolving a sum of P18,860.00. The accused with the
recommendation of the prosecution, plea bargain for a lesser In the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the judgment
is promulgated by merely filing the signed copy thereof with
of offense. SB denied the motion.
the Clerk of Court who causes true copies of the same to be
served upon the parties, hence the appearance of the accused is
Issue: WON the decision of SB was proper. not even required there as his presence is necessary only in the
promulgation of the judgments of trial courts. Thereafter,
Held: No. SC however, acknowledged the SB’s discretion in when the judgment of the appellate court becomes executory,
denying the motion. Second sentence of Section 2, Rule 116 of the records of the case together with a certified copy of the
the Rules of Court, use the word may, denoting an exercise of appellate court judgment are returned to the court a quo for
discretion upon the trial court on whether to allow the accused execution of the judgment. (Note: This is a 1998 case. Last
to make such plea.  paragraph Section 6 of Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure was cited.)
However, subsequent events and higher interests of justice and
fair play dictate that petitioner's plea offer should be Bernardo vs Pp GR 166980
accepted.The Court sees no reason why the standards applied
by the Sandiganbayan to Estrada should not be applied to the Icdang vs Sandiganbayan GR 18596 Jan. 25, 2012
present case. Estrada involves a ₱25,000,000.00 taken from
the public coffers, this case tremendously pales in comparison.
There is nothing in the rules that requires the presence of
counsel for the promulgation of the judgment of conviction
Moreover, the lesser offenses of Falsification by Private to be valid. While notice must be served on both accused and
Individuals and Failure to Render Account by an Accountable his counsel, the latter’s absence during the promulgation of
Officer are necessarily included in the crimes of Falsification judgment would not affect the validity of the promulgation.
of Public Documents and Malversation of Public Funds, Indeed, no substantial right of the accused on the merits was
respectively, with which petitioner was originally charged. prejudiced by such absence of his counsel when the sentence
was pronounced.
Pp vs Sumingwa GR 183619
Palu-ay vs CA July 30, 1998
Following the "variance doctrine" embodied in Section 4, in
relation to Section 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure, an accused charged of rape can be found guilty of Tamayo vs Pp July 28, 2008
the lesser crime of Acts of Lasciviousness.
Accused-appellant Tamayo contends that the decision of the
trial court and CA should be set aside because the private

17
complainant and her had entered into a compromise finality of judgments by virtue of filing a prohibited pleading;
agreement. such a situation is not only illogical but also unjust to the
winning party.
Held: No. As can be gleaned from Sec. 7 Rule 120 of the
Rules of Court, a judgment of conviction may be modified or Pp vs Garcia 288 S 382
set aside only if the judgment is not yet final. A judgment
becomes final when no appeal is seasonably perfected. In this An affidavit of recantation is not sufficient to warrant a new
case, it is clear that the petitioner did not appeal the Decision trial. More likely, it was prepared by a legal mind and
the Court of Appeals despite her, or her former counsel’s, presented to the complainant already typed and signature-
receipt of the same, therefore, petitioner’s conviction for estafa ready. It is not the withdrawal or recantation or exculpation
has already attained finality. that the law considers sufficient to overturn the overwhelming
evidence earlier given during the trial.

De Vera vs De Vera April 7, 2009 Pp vs Clamor July 1, 1991

Facts: Gregorio Clamor was charged of Murder for shooting
Facts: RTC convicted the accused for bigamy but appreciated and killing Ricardo Rivera. After the trial court had rendered
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. its decision sentencing appellant for the crime of murder, two
Geren(accused) was able to apply for probation by reason of (2) of the prosecution witnesses apparently executed affidavits
such mitigating circumstance. Rosario (complainant) appealed in which they retract testimony given by them: Gregorio
before CA questioning the validity of the appreciation of RTC Rivera, father of the victim; and Inocencio Arellano, uncle of
to the mitigating circumstance. the victim.

Held: Geren timely invoke his right against double Issue: Whether or not a new trial on the basis of a retraction by
jeopardy. Moreover, the same should have been likewise a witness should be granted.
denied pursuant Section 7, Rule 120 of the Rules of
Court.Judgments of conviction, errors in the decision cannot Held: No. the Court has ruled against the grant of a new trial
be corrected unless the accused consents thereto; or he, on the basis of a retraction by a witness. The rationale for the
himself, moves for reconsideration of, or appeals from, the rule is obvious:
decision.
Affidavits of retraction can easily be secured
from poor and ignorant witnesses usually for
NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION [RULE 121] a monetary consideration. Recanted
testimony is exceedingly unreliable. There is
Mapagay vs Pp Aug. 19, 2009 always the probability that it may later be
Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a motion for repudiated. So courts are wary or reluctant
reconsideration of the judgment of conviction may be filed to allow a new trial based on retracted
within 15 days from the promulgation of the judgment or from testimony.
notice of the final order appealed from. Failure to file a motion
for reconsideration within the reglementary period renders the However, when aside from the testimonies of the retracting
subject decision final and executory. witness or witnesses there is no other evidence to support a
judgment of conviction, a new trial may be granted.
Dinglasan vs CA Sept. 19, 2006
Custodio vs Sandiganbayan 453 S 24 (2005)
Facts: While petitioner Dinglasan agrees that the instant
petition (Petition for New Trial or in the alternative, Facts: Petitioners are charged of double murder of Benigno
Reopening of the Case) should be filed before the finality of Aquino Jr. and Rolando Galman. Petitioners were found
thejudgment for conviction, he, however argues that judgment guilty. The petitioners, assisted by the Public Attorney’s
attains finality only upon the receipt of the order or resolution Office, now want to present the findings of the forensic group
denying his second motion for reconsideration. to this Court and ask the Court to allow the re-opening of the
cases and the holding of a third trial to determine the
Issue: Whether or not a new trial or reopening of the case circumstances surrounding the case.
based on newly discovered evidence should be allowed.
Issue: Whether or not re-opening of the case for a third trial
Held: No. An accused may move for a new trial on the ground should be granted.
of newly discovered evidence only before judgment becomes
final. Rule 52 Section 2 provides: Held: No. The threshold question in resolving a motion for
new trial based on newly discovered evidence is whether the
Section 2. Second Motion for Reconsideration. – No second proferred evidence is in fact a "newly discovered evidence
motion for reconsideration of a judgment or a final resolution which could not have been discovered by due diligence." The
by the same party shall be entertained. question of whether evidence is newly discovered has two
aspects: a temporal one, i.e., when was the evidence
To rule that finality of judgment shall be reckoned from the discovered, and a predictive one, i.e., when should or could it
receipt of the resolution or order denying the second motion have been discovered. It is to the latter that the requirement of
for reconsideration would result to an absurd situation due diligence has relevance.
whereby courts will be obliged to issue orders or resolutions
denying what is a prohibited motion in the first place, in order It appears from their report that the forensic group used the
that the period for the finality of judgments shall run, thereby, same physical and testimonial evidence proferred during the
prolonging the disposition of cases. Moreover, such a ruling trial, but made their own analysis and interpretation of said
would allow a party to forestall the running of the period of evidence.
18
These materials were available to the parties during the trial. murder of one Generoso Panganiban while in Nos. L-438 and
Petitioners, in their present motion, failed to present any new L-439, two death penalties were imposed for the murders of
forensic evidence that could not have been obtained by the Victoria and Anatalia Panganiban. L-438 and L-439 came
defense at the time of the trial even with the exercise of due before this (Supreme) Court on automatic review. Criminal
diligence. Case L-437, however, was not appealed by the accused.

Held: Criminal Case No. L-437 where accused-appellant was

APPEAL (RULE 122) sentenced to life imprisonment (reclusion perpetual) by the
trial court, should be deemed also included in this automatic
Pp vs Abon GR 169245 Feb. 8, 2008 review of the death penalty imposed on him in the other two
cases, L-438 and L-439, although accused-appellant did not
People vs. Mateo, 2004, modified these rules by providing an expressly appeal his conviction in L-437. It would be absurd to
intermediate review of the cases by the CA where the penalty require accused-appellant, under the peculiar circumstances, to
imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death. file a separate appeal in L-437 because the three criminal
Pursuant to Mateo’s ruling, the Court issued A.M. No. 00-5- cases of which he was convicted by the trial court in a single
03-SC 2004-10-12, amending the pertinent rules governing decision are so intertwined with each other, the three cases
review of death penalty cases. having arisen on the same occasion.

Moreover, provisions of the Rules of Court on appeals, death Manuel vs Alfeche, Jr. GR 115683 259 S 475
penalty are no longer operational due to the enactment of
Republic Act No. (RA) 9346 or An Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines, which took While petitioner may be correct in asserting that a direct
effect on June 29, 2006. petition may, under appropriate circumstances, be taken to this
Court from the final judgment of the Regional Trial Court on
pure questions of law in the form and manner provided for in
Pp vs Madali Jan. 16, 2001
the Revised Rules of Court, nevertheless, in view of the
factual environment of this case, particularly that private
It has been held that the word "party" in the provision (Sec 1, respondents herein had already taken an appeal to the Court of
Rule 122) includes not only the government and the accused Appeals to question the trial court's judgment of conviction,
but other persons as well, such as the complainant who may be the proper remedy for petitioner is simply ordinary appeal to
affected by the judgment rendered in the criminal the said tribunal.
proceedings.The complainant has an interest in the civil
liability arising from the crime, unless of course he has
reserved to bring a separate civil action to recover the civil Pp vs Rocha GR 173797 Aug. 31, 2007
liability.
Issue: WON the Motions to Withdraw Appeal of accused-
Pp vs Sandiganbayan GR 164577 appellants should be granted. (In this case, it is the plaintiff-
appellee’s contention that in cases where the penalty imposed
Section 1 of Rule 122 allows "any party" to appeal from a is reclusion perpetua, appeal in criminal cases to this
judgment or final order, unless the right of the accused against Honorable Court is a matter of right. A review of the trial
double jeopardy will be violated. As a consequence, an appeal court’s judgment of conviction is automatic and does not
by the prosecution from a judgment of acquittal necessarily depend on the whims of the convicted felon. It is mandatory
places the accused in double jeopardy. and leaves the reviewing court without any option.)

The rule barring an appeal from a judgment of acquittal is, Held: The confusion in the case at bar seems to stem from the
however, not absolute. The following are the recognized effects of the Decision of this Court in People v. Mateo. We
exceptions thereto: (i) when the prosecution is denied due had not intended to pronounce in Mateo that cases where the
process of law; and (ii) when the trial court commits grave penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment are
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction subject to the mandatory review of this Court.
in dismissing a criminal case by granting the accused’
demurrer to evidence.
Since the case of accused-appellants is not subject to the
mandatory review of this Court, the rule that neither the
Pp vs Balisacan Aug. 31, 1966 accused nor the courts can waive a mandatory review is not
applicable. Consequently, accused-appellants’ separate
The People of the Philippines cannot appeal if the defendant motions to withdraw appeal may be validly granted.
would be placed thereby in double jeopardy. However, the
court a quo decided the case upon the merits without giving
the prosecution any opportunity to present its evidence or even Cesar vs SB 134 S 105 GR L-54719-50
to rebut the testimony of the defendant. In doing so, it clearly
acted without due process of law. And for lack of this Supreme Court carefully examines petitions for review of
fundamental prerequisite, its action is perforce null and void. Sandiganbayan decisions. Because of the absence of an
The acquittal, therefore, being a nullity for want of due intermediate appeal from Sandiganbayan decisions, where
process, is no acquittal at all, and thus cannot constitute a questions of fact could be fully threshed out, this Court has
proper basis for a claim of former jeopardy been most consistent in carefully examining all petitions
seeking the review of the special court's decisions to ascertain
Pp vs Panganiban GR L-48879-82 125 S595 that the fundamental right to be presumed innocent is not
disregarded. This task has added a heavy burden to the
Facts: The judge sentenced the accused Moises Panganiban workload of this Court but it is a task we steadfastly discharge.
to reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No. L-437 for the
19
Obugan vs Pp GR 116506 May 22, 1995 against petitioner notwithstanding the petitions for review
filed by his co-accused.
The period within which to perfect an appeal is fifteen days
from receipt of the new judgment. (If the motion for new trial Petitioner cannot invoke the exception contained in the second
is granted and new judgment is rendered.) clause of Section 11(a) Rule 122 because it speaks of a
judgment rendered by the appellate court which is favorable to
Neypes vs CA GR 141524 accused-appellant. It is too strained to construe the exception
as including procedural consequences of a pending appeal
although it may be beneficial to the accused.
To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to
afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court
deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within Pp vs Tuniacao Jan. 19, 2010
which to file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court,
counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a
new trial or motion for reconsideration.  The court cannot increase the civil liability of the accused who
did not appeal. The appeal by one or more of several accused
cannot affect those who did not appeal, except if the judgment
Carmelo vs Pp GR 166980 of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to them.

Facts: Petitioner argues that the 15-day extension granted to

him by the appellate court should be reckoned from his date of Teodoro vs CA 258 S 643
receipt of its Resolution granting him such extension.
The withdrawal of appeal may be allowed before judgment of
Held: A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC issued on February 29, 2000 is the case on appeal.
clear. It provides that "[a]ny extension of time to file the
required pleading should . . . be counted from the expiration of
the period . . ." The extension should thus be tacked to the (Compare with Rule 122, Sec. 12??)
original period, to commence immediately after the expiration
of such period. The court has no discretion to reckon the
commencement of the extension from a date later than the PROCEDURE IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
expiration of such original period, not even if the expiry date (RULE 123)
is a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday.
Balayon, Jr. vs Ocampo 218 S 13 A.M. MTJ-91-619
Yu vs Tatad GR 170979
In Rules on Summary Procedure, a witness who has not
The fresh period rule in Neypes (a civil case) should equally submitted any affidavit cannot testify (Affidavit in Rules on
apply to period for appeal in criminal cases under Section 6 of Summary Procedure serve as direct testimony--- cross
Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. examination nalang). However, in this case, a doctor who has
not priorly submitted his/her affidavit, may be called to testify
Pp vs Rugay July 2, 1998 291 S 692 with a specific factual matter relevant to the issue.

Note: The doctor’s issued medical certificate is among the

Facts: RicolitoRugay and ArvilVillalon alleged to have evidence on record.
conspired to kill and actually killed one Ariel Mendoza. RTC
convicted them of the crime of murder and was sentenced to Rio vs Cawaling June 7, 2004 A.M. MTJ-02-1391
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Both accused
appealed to Supreme Court. However, accused ArvilVillalon Facts: Rino was charged of grave threat. The judge ordered his
later filed a motion to withdraw his appeal,  which was granted arrest.
by the Court in its Resolution of December 13, 1995,  thus
leaving accused RicolitoRugay as the lone appellant in this Issue: WON this case is governed by the Rules on Summary
case. Procedure.

After a careful study of the evidence on record, SC find that Held: Yes. Grave threat is penalized with imprisonment of 1
the prosecution failed to establish appellant's guilt beyond month and 1 day to 6 months (arresto mayor) and a fine not
reasonable doubt.
exceeding P500.00 if the threat is not subject to a condition.
Section 2 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
Held: Finally, the Court notes that the conviction of appellant's
provides that “upon the filing of a civil or criminal action, the
co-accused, ArvilVillalon, rests on the same evidence used to
court shall issue an order declaring whether or not the case
convict appellant. The Court finds that such evidence does not
prove beyond reasonable doubt either of the accused's guilt. shall be governed by the Rule.
The acquittal of RicolitoRugay should also benefit
ArvilVillalon, the withdrawal of the latter's appeal Tan vs Tabin Jan. 20, 2009 A.M. MTJ-09-1729
notwithstanding. 
Judge Tabin issued a warrant of arrest to Tan because he failed
Lubrica vs Pp GR 156147-54 Feb. 6, 2007 to appear before the court on his arraignment. It was found out
that Tan was not notified of his arraignment.
The benefit of stay of execution afforded to a co-accused who
timely files an appeal cannot be extended to those who failed Held: Judge Tabin failed to uphold the rules for which she
to file the same. Thus, the period to appeal continued to run should be held administratively liable.Nothing in the Rules on
Summary Procedure that states that a warrant of arrest shall
immediately issue even without actual notice to the accused.
20
 The rule now appears to have been relaxed, if not abandoned,
Enriquez vs Vallarta Feb. 27, 2002 A.M. MTJ-02-1398 in subsequent cases like "Helmuth, Jr. v. People" and "People
v. Amparado".
Judge Vallarta erred in requiring parties to submit memoranda.
Sec. 19 on Rules on Summary Procedure enumerates In both cases, the Court, opting to brush aside technicalities
prohibited pleadings and motions, which includes memoranda. and despite the opposition of the Solicitor General, granted
A memorandum is one which other trial courts may require at new trial to the convicted accused concerned on the basis of
the conclusion of a trial. The purpose of the prohibition is to proposed testimonies or affidavits of persons which the Court
carry out the objective of the Revised Rules on Summary considered as newly discovered and probably sufficient
Procedure to promote the “expeditious and inexpensive evidence to reverse the judgment of conviction.
determination of small or simple cases.”
SEARCH & SEIZURE (RULE 126)
PROCEUDRE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS (RULE 124)
Malaloan vs CA 232 S 249 GR 104879
Foralan vs Pp Feb. 7, 1995

The failure to file appellant’s brief on time may cause the Uy vs BIR Oct. 20, 2000
dismissal of the appeal except when the appellant is
represented by a counsel de oficio. Facts: A search warrant indicates “Hernan Cortes St. Cebu
City” while the body of the same warrant states the address as
Pp vs Esparas GR 120034 “Herman Cortes St., Mandaue City.”

In death penalty cases, automatic review is mandatory. Section WON the warrant is invalid.
8 of Rules 124 of the Rules of court which authorizes the
dismissal of an appeal when the appellant jumps bail has no Any designation or description known to the locality that
application to cases where the death penalty has been imposed. points out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on
This is the text and tone of Section 10, Rule 122. inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the
constitutional requirement. In this case, it was not shown that a
Pp vs Zarate Feb. 28, 2005 GR 162767 street similarly named Herman Cortes could be found in Cebu
City. Nor the officers had any difficulty in locating the
The rationale for Sec 8 Rule 124 is that once an accused premises. Therefore, such is not a defect that would spell the
escapes from imprisonment or jumps bail or flees to a foreign warrant’s invalidation in this case.
country he loses his standing in court.
Pp vs Encinada Oct. 2, 1997
Lagua vs CA GR 173390

Despite several extensions, the accused failed to file his brief. Columbia Pictures vs CA Aug. 26, 1996
Hence, his appeal was declared to be abandoned by the CA.
He comes to Supreme Court alleging GAD on the part of the
lower court in declaring his appeal abandoned. Stonehill vs Diokno 20 S 383

A search warrant was issued against a businessman who had a

Held: CA correctly dismissed his appeal.The independent violation of Central Bank Laws, tariff and customs laws, Tax
action for certiorari will lie only if grave abuse of discretion is Code and Revised Penal Code.
alleged and proven to exist.Yet, far from committing the
grievous error petitioner presents it to be, the CA merely Such was general warrant and was invalidated by the Court
exercised the authority expressly granted to it under Rule 124, because no specific offense had been alleged in said
Sec. 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to application.
prosecute. – The appellate court may, upon motion of the
appellee or on its own motion and notice to the appellant, Note: A 1967 case.
dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within
the time prescribed by this rule, except in case the appellant is
Burgos vs Chief of Staff Dec. 26, 1984
represented by a counsel de oficio.
Burgos challenged the validity of the warrant because the
Petitioner was represented by private counsel (and not counsel
paraphernalia and machineries allegedly used for subversive
de oficio) to whom the CA had granted multiple extensions.
purposes were not his and those were not personal properties.
PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME COURT (RULE 125)
Held: There is no provision to that effect. Under Section 3
(Rule 126), stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of
Cuenca vs CA 250 S 485
the offense can be seized. And such were personal properties
because the machines were attached by somebody who is not
Although in "Goduco v. CA", this Court ruled that it is not the owner of the building. (Article 415, [5])
authorized to entertain a motion for reconsideration and/or
new trial predicated on allegedly newly discovered evidence
However, the search warrant was declared a general warrant
the rationale of which being:SC is not a trier of facts.
despite the fact that only one law was violated.

Pp vs Dichoso 223 S 174

21
 It was also held that the search warrant is also void because
Appellant suggests that the search warrant is for more than one there was no certification on non-forum shopping.
specific offense and thus invalid. There should have been 3
separate warrants for illegal possession of marijuana, illegal UyKhey Teng vs Villareal 42 P 886
possession of shabu and illegal possession of paraphernalia.
A search warrant was issued for the seizure of opiums but the
Held: Dangerous drugs act is a special law that deal officers found firearms instead. WON the seizure of firearms
specifically with dangerous drugs which are subsumed into were valid.
“prohibited and “regulated” drugs and defines and penalizes
categories of offense which are closely related or which As a general rule, a SW can only issue on one offense thus it
belong to the same species. Therefore, one search warrant may cannot be used for the seizure of firearms. However, they
be validly issue for said violations of the Dangerous Drugs discovered another crime of illegal possession of firearms and
Act. therefore there was a valid warrantless arrest. And because
there was a valid WA such seizure becomes incidental to the
Pp vs CA 216 S 101 arrest of the accused.

Pp vs Cendana Oct. 17, 1990

Quintero vs NBI 162 S 467 Upon arresting the accused, they found a gun allegedly used
for the killing the victim. Is the gun admissible as evidence?
NBI agents conducted search simultaneously. No members of
the household were in the position to watch them. Held: There was no valid warrantless arrest. The accused was
arrested one day after the killing and only on the basis of
Held: Such a procedure were highly irregular. It is violative information obtained from unnamed sources. Evidence
both the spirit and letter of the law, which provides that “no obtained during an unlawful search is inadmissible in
search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made, evidence.
except in the presence of at least one competent witness,
resident of the neighborhood.” Pp vs Catan 205 S 235

Sony Computer vs Bright Future Feb. 15, 2007 Appellant was arrested for selling marijuana. A search was
thereafter made on his immediate vicinity (his house) where
the arrest was made. The police officers found more
Mustang Lumber vs CA 257 S 430 (1996) marijuana which became the basis of his conviction for
possession of prohibited drugs. Was the search valid.
A truck loaded with lauan and almaciga lumber was seized
which were not accompanied with the required invoices and Held: Yes. Appellant was caught in flagrante delicto. The
transport documents. On the following day or on April 3, subsequent search in his house which yield another
1990, a warrant was issued. Thereafter, a search was incriminating evidence was a search contemporaneously made
conducted on their warehouse on April 3, 1990 which was and as an incident to a valid warrantless arrest in the
continued on April 4, 1990. immediate vicinity where the arrest was made.

WON the search and seizures were valid. Incidental search not only means the body but also within the
immediate premises.
Held: Valid seizure. The search was conducted on a moving
vehicle. Such a search could be lawfully conducted without a Pp vs Li Way Chung 214 S 431 (1992)
search warrant.
The search without a valid warrant of appellant’s dwelling (a 9
And the search conducted on April 4, 1990 by virtue of April square meter room) was a valid incident of a lawful
3, 1990 search warrant is also valid. Such were a continuation warrantless arrest. The search was conducted in a confined
of the search. A search may be continued under the same area whithin his control where he might gain possession of a
warrant the following day, provided it is still within the ten- weapon.
day period.
Pp vs Gerente 219 S 756
Washington Distillers vs CA 260 S 821 (1996)
There was a mauling incident. The police investigator went to
La Tondena applied for a search warrant to raid the premises the hospital and found out that the victim had died. Upon
of Washington Distillers to recover their bottles which was proceeding to the scene of the mauling a witness told them
allegedly cleaned and used by WD.There was a raid and the that there were three men who killed the victim. The police
bottles were turned over to LT. went to the house of Gerente and arrested him. He was frisked
and found in his body a marijuana leaves. Is marijuana
Held: A search warrant proceeding is a special criminal admissible as an evidence for illegal possession of drugs.
process the order of which cannot and does not adjudicate the
permanent status or character of the seized property. SW Held: Yes. The search was made as an incident to a valid
cannot be resorted as a means of acquiring property or of warrantless arrest. An individual may be frisked for concealed
settling a dispute over the same. weapons he may use against the arresting officer.

Compare with Cendana Case.

22
 This case was compared to Lacerna case. In Lacerna case, the
Pp vs Quizon 256 S 325 (1996) appellant testified in open court that he allowed such search
because he had nothing to hide. In the present case, there was
The law requires that the search be incident to a lawful arrest, no checkpoint established. The policemen stopped
in order that the search may likewise be considered legal. the motorela and forthwith subjected the passengers to a
search of their persons and baggage. In contrast to the accused
Posadas vs CA 180 S 283 in Lacerna, herein appellant testified that he openly objected to
the search by asking for a warrant. The prohibited drugs found
At about 10 o’clock in the morning, when the police officers in his possession — cannot be therefore used against him in
were conducting a surveillance, they spotted Posadas carrying this case.
a buri bag. When the police approached and introduced
themselves Posadas attempted to flee. He was arrested and the Pp vs Malmsteadt 198 S 401
buri bag was searched. It contained grenades, a gun and live
ammunitions. An information was received by the Commanding Officer of
NARCOM, that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his
Held: Valid seizure. The search is reasonable considering that possession prohibited drugs.
Posadas acted suspiciously. He attempted to flee, there was
probable cause that he was concealing something illegal. Held: There was a valid search. The receipt of information by
NARCOM that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had
Pp vs Mengote 210 S 174 prohibited drugs in his possession, plus the suspicious failure
of the accused to produce his passport, taken together as a
Rogelio Mengote were acting suspiciously, looking side to whole, led the NARCOM officers to reasonably believe that
side and holding his abdomen. When searched, he was found the accused was trying to hide something illegal from the
with a gun and live ammunitions. He was convicted of illegal authorities. From these circumstances arose a probable
possession of firearms. cause which justified the warrantless search that was made on
the personal effects of the accused.
Held: Almost the same case with Posadas. However, there was
an invalid search and seizure in this case. He never attempted To deprive the NARCOM agents of the ability and facility to
to flee. He was not committing an offense. Looking side to act accordingly, including, to search even without warrant, in
side and holding his abdomen are not sinister acts. the light of such circumstances, would be to sanction
impotence and ineffectiveness in law enforcement, to the
Pp vs Evaristo Dec. 11, 1992 detriment of society.

A burst of gunfire was heard. The police officers came Pp vs Bagista 214 S 53
uponBarequielRosillo who was firing a gun into the air.Seeing
the patrol, Rosillo ran to the nearby house of appellant The same with Malmstedt case. There was a tip. And the
Evaristo prompting the lawmen to pursue him. Upon description fits the woman allegedly carrying a marijuana.
approaching the immediate perimeter of the house, the patrol Valid search. Evidence is admissible. There was a probable
chanced upon the slightly inebriated appellants, Evaristo and cause.
Carillo. Inquiring as to the whereabouts of Rosillo. Sgt.
Vallarta immediately observed a noticeable bulge around the Pp vs Aminudin 163 S 402
waist of Carillo who, upon being frisked, admitted the same to
be a .38 revolver. PC officers had received a tip that IdelAminnudin was
carrying a marijuana. Aminnudinwas arrested shortly after
Held: This visual observation along with the earlier report of disembarking from the M/V Wilcon. The PC officers
gunfire, as well as the peace officer's professional instincts, are inspected his bag and finding what looked like marijuana
more than sufficient to pass the test of the leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation.
Rules.Consequently, under the facts, the firearm taken from
Carillo can be said to have been seized incidental to a lawful Held:  Vessels and aircraft are subject to warrantless searches
and valid arrest. and seizures for violation of the customs law because these
vehicles may be quickly moved out of the locality or
Pp vs Lacerna 278 S 561 jurisdiction before the warrant can be secured.

Nonetheless, we hold that appellant and his baggage were The present case presented no such urgency. From the
validly searched, not because he was caught in flagrante conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that
delicto, but because he freely consented to the search. True, they had at least two days within which they could have
appellant and his companion were stopped by PO3 Valenzuela obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was
on mere suspicion — not probable cause — that they were coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9.
engaged in a felonious enterprise. But Valenzuela expressly
sought appellant's permission for the search. Only after Caballes vs CA Jan. 15, 2002
appellant agreed to have his person and baggage checked did
the actual search commence. It was his consent which Two police officers spotted a passenger jeep unusually
validated the search, waiver being a generally recognized covered with "kakawati" leaves.Suspecting that the jeep was
exception to the rule against warrantless search.  loaded with smuggled goods, the two police officers flagged
down the vehicle. The jeep was driven by appellant Rudy
Pp vs Encinada GR 116720 Caballes. When asked what was loaded on the jeep, he did not
answer; he appeared pale and nervous. The police officers

23
checked the cargo and they discovered bundles of 3.08 mm information for the PC officers to have obtained a warrant.
aluminum/galvanized conductor wires exclusively owned by The officers knew the name of the accused, that the accused
National Power Corporation (NPC). was on board M/V Wilcon 9, bound to Iloilo and the exact
date of the arrival of the said vessel.
Held: No valid search. The mere mobility of these vehicles,
however, does not give the police officers unlimited discretion On the other hand, in this case there was no information as to
to conduct indiscriminate searches without warrants if made the exact description of the vehicle and no definite time of the
within the interior of the territory and in the absence of arrival. A jeepney cannot be equated with a passenger ship
probable cause. Still and all, the important thing is that there on the high seas. The ruling in the Aminnudin case, is not
was probable cause to conduct the warrantless search, which applicable to the case at bar.
must still be present in such a case.

Obra vs CA 317 S 594 Pp vs Bongcawaran GR 143944

. 
Pp vs Musa 217 S 597 (1995) The vessel security personnel found shabu on the suitcase of
Basher Bongcarawan. WON there was an unlawful seizure.
Pp vs Doria GR 125299
Held: The baggage of the accused-appellant was searched by
Pp vs Figueroa 248 S 679 the vessel security personnel. It was only after they found
"shabu" inside the suitcase that they called the Philippine
Pp vs Salanguit 356 S 683 Coast Guard for assistance. The search and seizure of the
suitcase and the contraband items was therefore carried out
Pp vs Valdez 341 S 24 without government intervention, and hence, the constitutional
protection against unreasonable search and seizure does not
Veroy vs Layague 210 S 97 apply.

Pp vs Cuizon 265 S 325 Pp vs Marti 193 S 57

Pp vs De Gracia 233 S 716 Facts: Reyes (a shipping proprietor) opened the box containing
marijuana leaves, he took samples of the same to the NBI and
Pp vs Montilla GR 123872 later summoned the agents to his place of business. Thereafter,
he opened the parcel containing the rest of the shipment and
Pp vs Sucro GR 93239 entrusted the care and custody thereof to the NBI agents. 

Pat. Roy Fulgencio was instructed by P/Lt. Vicente Seraspi, Held: Clearly, the NBI agents made no search and seizure,
Jr.to monitor the activities of appellant Edison Sucro. much less an illegal one, contrary to the postulate of
Fulgencio observed Sucro from a distance. Sucro would go to accused/appellant. The mere presence of the NBI agents did
the chapel, take marijuana and sell it to his customers. Upon not convert the reasonable search effected by Reyes into a
his third customer, Fulgencio apprehended Sucro. Sucro now warrantless search and seizure proscribed by the Constitution.
contends that the marijuana was inadmissible because the Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain sight is
officer had sufficient time to apply for a search and arrest not a search. Having observed that which is open, where no
warrants. trespass has been committed in aid thereof, is not search.
Where the contraband articles are identified without a trespass
Held: An offense is committed in the presence or within the on the part of the arresting officer, there is not the search that
view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule authorizing is prohibited by the constitution.  It was held that the search
an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense, and seizure clauses are restraints upon the government and its
although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created agents, not upon private individuals.
thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof.Under the
circumstances (monitoring of transactions) there existed Pp vs Malaloan, supra
probable cause for the arresting officers, to arrest appellant
who was in fact selling marijuana and to seize the Pp vs Bans GR 104147
contraband.There is nothing unlawful about the arrest
considering its compliance with the requirements of a But if the criminal case which was subsequently filed by virtue
warrantless arrest. Ergo, the fruits obtained from such lawful of the search warrant is raffled off to a different branch, all
arrest are admissible in evidence. incidents relating to the validity of the warrant issued should
be consolidated with that branch trying the criminal case. The
Pp vs Maspil GR 85177 rationale is to avoid confusion as regards the issue of
jurisdiction over the case and to promote an orderly
The appellants were caught transporting marijuana on their administration of justice.
jeep. WON the marijuana are inadmissible evidence. Accused-
appellants cited the Aminudin case where the Court ruled that For this reason, the court trying the criminal case should be
since the marijuana was seized illegally, it is inadmissible in allowed to rule on the validity of the search warrant in order to
evidence. arrive at a judicious administration of justice.

Held: There are certain facts of Aminudin case which are not Solid Triangle vs RTC Sheriff Nov. 13, 2001
present in this case. In the Aminnudin case, the records
showed that there was sufficient time and adequate

24
It is therefore puerile to argue that the court that issued the
warrant cannot entertain motions to suppress evidence while a
preliminary investigation is ongoing. Such erroneous
interpretation would place a person whose property has been
seized by virtue of an invalid warrant without a remedy while
the goods procured by virtue thereof are subject of a
preliminary investigation

I. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN CRIMINAL

CASES (RULE 127)

25