CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

COURSE OUTLINE
2016
(Rules 110-127, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure)
Justice Magdangal M. de Leon
I. JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction over subject matter determined by allegations in complaint or information
Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc. (G.R. No. 172505, October 1, 2014)
- Jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter is vested by law. In criminal cases, the
imposable penalty of the crime charged in the information determines the court that has
jurisdiction over the case.
Jurisdiction determined at time of institution of action
People vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 154557, February 13, 2008)
- jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is to be determined by the law in force at
the time of the institution of the action.
Jurisdiction over person of accused
People vs. Yau (G.R. No. 208170, August 20, 2014)
- Any objection to the procedure followed in the matter of the acquisition by a court of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be opportunely raised before he enters
his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived
Jimenez vs. Sorongon (G.R. No. 178607, December 5, 2012)
- one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of
the court. Filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary appearance,
and the consequent jurisdiction of ones person to the jurisdiction of the court.
When there is no voluntary appearance
Miranda vs. Tuliao (G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006)
1. Regional Trial Court Secs. 20, 22, 23 and 35, BP Blg. 129, as amended.
Valdepenas vs. People (G.R. No. L-20687, April 30, 1966, 16 SCRA 871)
People vs. Lagon (G.R. No. 45815, May 18, 1990, 185 SCRA 442)
Money Laundering cases (together with Sandiganbayan) Sec. 5, R.A. 9160, AntiMoney Laundering Act of 2001
2. Municipal Trial Court Sec. 32, BP Blg. 129, as amended by Sec. 2, RA 7691
Zaldivia vs. Reyes (G.R. No. 102342, July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA 277)
Rule on Summary Procedure effective November 30, 1991. See jurisdiction in
criminal cases Sec. 1B (as amended by A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC, March 30,
2003)
3. Sandiganbayan Secs. 4 and 5, PD 1606 (1978) as amended by Exec. Order 164;
RA 7975 (1995); and RA 8249 (1997)

II. PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES

A. CRIMINAL ASPECT (RULE 110)
Criminal actions, how instituted Sec. 1
Where preliminary investigation is required (penalty at least 4 years, 2 months and 1
day) - complaint filed with proper officers (Secs. 1 and 2, Rule 112)
Where preliminary investigation is not required complaint or information filed with
MTC or complaint with office of the prosecutor
Effect of institution of the criminal action on the prescriptive period (Sec. 1 (b), last
par.)
Jadewell Parking Systems Corp. vs. Hon. Judge Nelson F. Lidua Sr. (G.R. No.
169588, October 7, 2013)
Computation of the prescriptive period, Art. 91, RPC
Rule of prescription for violation of special law
People vs. Pangilinan (G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012)
Form of complaint or information (WNA) Sec. 2
Name of People of the Philippines
Francisco Jr. vs. People (G.R. No. 177720, February 18, 2009)
Definition and distinction between complaint and information Secs. 3 and 4
When complaint or information is sufficient
Enrile vs. Manalastas (G.R. No. 166414, October 22, 2014) - less serious
physical
injuries
Rosaldes vs. People (G.R. No. 173988, October 08, 2014) - child abuse, violation of
Republic Act No. 7610
Who must prosecute criminal actions
Criminal actions in general Sec. 5 (as amended by A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC, April 10,
2002, effective May 1, 2002)
Ampatuan, Jr. vs. Sec. De Lima (G.R. No. 197291, April 3, 2013) - multiple murder
Hasegawa vs. Giron (G.R. No. 184536, August 14, 2013) - kidnapping and serious
illegal detention
Crespo vs. Mogul , G.R. No. L-53373, June 30, 1987
Discretion of public prosecutor
People vs. Diu (G.R. No. 201449, April 3, 2013) robbery with homicide [Ponente:
TDC]
.
Intervention by offended party Sec. 16
Lee Pue Liong a.k.a. Paul Lee vs. Chua Pue Chin Lee (G.R. No. 181658, August 7,
2013) - perjury
Criminal prosecution cannot be restrained; exceptions
When injunction may be issued to restrain criminal prosecution
Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Hon. Hontanosas (G.R. No. 157163, June 25,
2014)

Review by the Secretary of Justice

Department of Justice vs. Alaon (G.R. No. 189596, April 23, 2014) - rape
Who represents People in the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court
People vs. Go (G.R. No. 201644, September 24, 2014) - estafa thru falsification of
commercial documents
When private offended party may bring special civil action of certiorari in criminal
proceedings
Perez vs. Hagonoy Rural Bank, G.R. No. 126210, March 9, 2000 Estafa
Hagonoy, Bulacan
.
Prosecutors in election cases
Ejercito vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 212398, November 25, 2014)
Prosecution of private crimes (adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, acts of
lasciviousness, defamation imputing said crimes) Sec. 5
Complainant in private crimes
Lee Pue Liong a.k.a. Paul Lee vs. Chua Pue Chin Lee (G.R. No. 181658, August 7, 2013)
perjury

Art. 344, Art. 360, last par., Revised Penal Code

Nature of requirement in Sec. 5, Rule 110 and Art. 344
Who may file complaints committed against children under Sec. 27, RA 7610 (Special
Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act)
Formal requisites of complaint or information
a. Sufficiency of complaint or information (NDANAP) Sec. 6
Enrile vs. Manalastas (G.R. No. 166414, October 22, 2014) - less serious physical
injuries
Designation; acts or omissions
Rosaldes vs. People (G.R. No. 173988, October 8, 2014) - child abuse, violation of
Republic Act No. 7610
Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation
Constitutional Basis Art. III, Sec. 14 (2), 1987 Constitution
People vs. Bayabos (G.R. No. 171222, February 18, 2015) Key components of a sufficient information
Statutory Basis Sec. 1(b), Rule 115
b. Name of accused Sec. 7, Rule 110
Su Zhi Shan @ Alvin Ching So vs. People (G.R. No. 169933, March 9, 2007) - drug
pushing/selling
People vs. Cagadas Jr. (G.R. No. 88044, Jan 23, 1991) - murder
c. Designation of offense Sec. 8
People vs. Feliciano, Jr. (G.R. No. 196735, May 5, 2014) - murder
Matrido vs. People (G.R. No. 179061, Juy 13, 2009) - Qualified theft
.

Effect of failure to designate the offense by the statute or to mention provision violated
Licyayo vs. People, G.R. No. 169425, March 4, 2008 - homicide

4
People vs. Padit, G.R. No. 202978, February 1 2016 rape
Failure to designate the offense by statute or to mention the specific provision
penalizing the act, or an erroneous specification of the law violated, does not vitiate
the information if the facts alleged therein clearly recite the facts constituting the
crime charged.
Aggravating and qualifying circumstances must be alleged In the information
People vs. Mejia, G.R .No. 185723, August 4, 2009 rape and acts of lasciviousness
Minority and relationship must be alleged In the information
People vs. Malibiran, G.R. No 173471, March 17, 2009 qualified rape
d. Cause of accusation (OAQ) Sec. 9
People vs. Umawid (G.R. No. 208719, June 9, 2014) murder and frustrated murder
.
Consigna vs. People (G.R. No. 175750-51, April 2, 2014) - estafa as penalized under
Art. 315 (2)(a) of the RPC
e. Place of commission Sec. 10
U.S. vs. Cunanan (GR No. L-8267, Dec. 27,1913, 26 Phil 376)
People vs. Navarro, 63 SCRA 264 (1975)
f. Date or time of commission Sec. 11
People vs. Delfin (G.R. No. 201572, July 9, 2014) - murder
- In crimes where the date of commission is not a material element, like murder, it is not
necessary to allege such date with absolute specificity or certainty in the information.
:
People vs. Balino (G.R. No. 194833, July 2, 2014) - statutory rape.
- time not an essential element except to prove that the victim was a minor below 12
years old at the time of the commission of the offense
Corpuz vs. People (G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014) - Article 315(Estafa) paragraph 1,
(b) of the RPC
Bacasmas vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 189343, July 10, 2013) - violation of Section
3- Corrupt practices of public officers, (e) of Republic Act No. 3019
g. Name of offended party Sec, 12
Senador vs. People, G.R. No. 201620, March 6, 2013 - estafa
if the subject matter of the offense is specific and identifiable, such as a warrant, as
in Kepner, or a check, such as in Sayson and Ricarze, an error in the designation of
the offended party is immaterial
Duplicity of offense Sec. 13
Soriano vs. People (G.R. No, 159517-18, June 30, 2009) violation of the
- Rules prohibit the filing of a duplicitous information to avoid confusing the accused in
preparing his defense.
Teehankee Jr. vs. Madayag, G.R. No. 103102, March 6, 1992, 207 SCRA 134
People vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 62116, March 22, 1990, 183 SCRA 511
People vs. Quemaggan, G.R. No. 178205, July 27, 2009
Amendment or substitution of complaint or information Sec. 14 (relate to Sec. 4, Rule 120)
Mendez vs. People (G.R. No. 179962, June 11, 2014) - failure to file income tax return
- there is no precise definition of what constitutes a substantial amendment.
Leviste vs. Alameda (G.R. No. 182677, August 3, 2010)
- test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment is whether a defense
under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is
made, and whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to

5
the information in the one form as in the other
Substantial amendment vis--vis formal amendment
Leviste vs. Alameda (G.R. No. 182677, August 3, 2010)
- Is the amendment of the Information from homicide to murder considered a substantial
amendment?
- in Buhat v. CA (333 Phil. 562 (1996) and Pacoy v. Cajigal (G.R. No. 157472,
September 28, 2007, 534 SCRA 338), amendment of the caption of the Information
from homicide to murder was not considered substantial
Test of prejudice by amendment
Mendez vs. People (G.R. No. 179962, June 11, 2014)
- amendments that do not charge another offense different from that charged in the
original one; or do not alter the prosecution's theory of the case so as to cause surprise
to the accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume - formal
amendments
Amendment or substitution of information
Pacoy vs. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472, September 28, 2007, 534 SCRA 338 - homicide
Remedy against a defective complaint or information
a. Amendment Sec. 14
b. Motion to Quash Sec. 4, Rule 117
Venue Sec. 15
Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional
Navaja vs. De Castro (G.R. No. 182926, June 22, 2015)
Perjury
Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People (G.R. No. 192565, February 28, 2012)
Estafa
Treas vs. People (G. R. No. 195002, January 25, 2012)
- The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action
but is an essential element of jurisdiction.
Fukuzume vs. People (G.R. No. 143647, November 11, 2005)
- If the evidence adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed
somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction
Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check is a transitory or continuing offense.
Exception
People vs. Yabut (G.R. No. L-42847, April 29, 1977, 76 SCRA 624)
People vs. Grospe (G.R. Nos. L-74053-54, January 20, 1988, 157 SCRA 154)
Falsification of private document
Navaja vs. De Castro (G.R. No. 182926, June 22, 2015) - venue is the place where
the document is actually falsified, to the prejudice of or with the intent to prejudice a
third person, regardless whether or not the falsified document is put to the improper or
illegal use for which it was intended.
Violation of BP 22 is a continuing offense
Yalong vs. People (G.R. No. 187174, August 28, 2013)
A criminal case for violation of BP 22 may be filed in any of the places where any of its
elements occurred the place where the check is drawn, issued, delivered, or
dishonored.

Rigor vs. People (G.R. No. 144887, November 17, 2004) - Violations of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22 are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes: a person
charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where
the offense was in part committed.

Libel
Bonifacio vs. Regional Trial Court of Makati (G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010)
Written defamation
Foz, Jr. vs. People (G.R. No 167764, October 9, 2009) - Libel
Illlegal recruitment in large scale
People vs. Olermo (G.R. No. 127848, July 17, 2003, 406 SCRA 412)
Abduction is a continuing offense
People vs. Gorospe (G.R. No. L-51513, May 15, 1984, 129 SCRA 233
Kidnapping is a continuing offense
People vs. Suriaga (G.R. No. 123779, April 17, 2002)
Estoppel to question jurisdiction
Figueroa vs. People (G.R. No. 147406, July 14, 2008)
Austria vs. People (G.R. No. 83530, December 18, 1990, 192 SCRA 342)
Change of venue
People vs. Sola (G.R. No. , March 17, 1981, 103 SCRA 393)