Principles and Doctrines in Criminal Procedure Cases

Atty. Soleng

BATCH 1

(1) Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases such that the place where the crime was committed
does not only determine the venue of the action, but also constitutes an essential element
of jurisdiction.

(2) A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his oppo-
nent, then repudiate or question that same jurisdiction afterwards upon obtaining or failing
to obtain such relief.

(3) Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon the application for bail, but it
is not required for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere
application constitutes a waiver of defense for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
accused.

(4) RTC has the exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165, even if the accused
occupies a position classified as Grade 27 or higher, and regardless of whether the violation
is alleged to have been committed in relation to his or her office.

(5) The running of prescriptive period for crimes violating Ordinances is tolled upon filing of an
Information in court and not in the prosecutor’s office.

(6) The running of prescriptive period for crimes violating RPC and SPL is tolled upon filing of a
complaint in the prosecutor’s office.

(7) When the accused is acquitted, the private complainant may still recover damages ex de-
licto, provided that the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt.

(8) A bill of particulars details items or specific conduct not recited in the Information but none-
theless pertain to or are included in the crime charged. Its purpose is to enable an accused
to:
(a) know the theory of the government's case;
(b) prepare his defense and to avoid surprise at the trial;
(c) plead his acquittal or conviction in bar of another prosecution for the same
offense; and
(d) compel the prosecution to observe certain limitations in offering evidence.

(9) Although the rules provide that an information should charge only one offense, in a catena
of cases, the Court ruled that the same defect must be raised in a motion to quash prior to
the arraignment; because failure to challenge the defect prior to arraignment constitutes a
waiver to question the same.

(10) In the criminal case, failure to allege aggravating circumstances will not be appreciated by
the court. However, in civil cases, despite failure to allege aggravating circumstances but
were proven during trial, entitles the plaintiff to recover exemplary damages.

Batch Olympus RSPol

(11) The application for bail does not waive the right to question the legality of arrest or the right
to preliminary investigation.

(12) Although as a rule, an amendment of an information to insert a co-accused in conspiracy is

only formal, the amendment is deemed substantial when due to such insertion the accused
can no longer use his defense under the original information. Jurisprudence is clear that
once the accused has already entered his plea, any amendment is prohibited as it is preju-
dicial to the accused.

BATCH 2

(1) Although the rules allow the private complainant to reserve the filing of a separate and inde-
pendent action, the rules expressly provide that no filing of a separate civil action is allowed
in cases under BP 22.

(2) Although jurisprudence is clear that an acquittal does not bar an action for recovery in the
civil case, the rule applies only where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt. Hence,
the rule does not apply where the acquittal is based on pure innocence or the accused did
not commit the crime, as such, the accused will not be civilly liable.

(3) Although appeal is prohibited when the accused is acquitted under the doctrine of finality of
acquittal doctrine, such rule does not apply where the private complainant appeals the civil
aspect of the case and not the criminal aspect.

(4) Although the rules allow for prejudicial question to suspend the criminal case, the application
of the rule presupposes that there is a previously instituted civil action and a subsequent
filing of a criminal case.

(5) An element of a prejudicial question is that the resolution of the issues in the civil case de-
termines the innocence or guilt of the accused in the criminal case.

However, the issue on the validity of a contract is not a prejudicial question in the criminal
case of BP22, because such issue is not an element of BP 22. The gravamen of such offense
is the mere issuance, drawing or making of a worthless check, regardless of the agreement
of the parties.

(6) Under the existing rules, a complaint or information filed with the MTC outside of Metro
Manila is subject to petition for review before the RSP, unless the SOJ performs a positive
act of exercising his power of control and supervision over the decision of the RSP.

(7) Jurisprudence dictates that when the information is filed with the court, the dismissal of the
case is subject to the sound discretion of the court, not at the instance of the prosecutor;
and that when the case is dismissed, the proper remedy is to file an appeal, not certiorari,
because there is nothing left for the court to decide.

(8) Upon filing of the information with the court, the dismissal of the case is under the sound
discretion of the court which is not bound by the resolution or recommendation of the pros-
ecution or SOJ, as the judge is mandated to independently asses the merits of the case.

Batch Olympus RSPol

(9) Jurisprudence is clear that when the arrest is illegal, the subsequent search and seizure also
becomes illegal and that any item obtained therefrom are inadmissible in evidence, as it is
a fruit of the poisonous tree.

(10) Absence of any overt act in the presence of the officer makes the arrest illegal, and its
subsequent search and seizure and any item obtained therefrom are inadmissible in evi-
dence for being a fruit of the poisonous tree.

(11) In search of a moving vehicle, the search is conducted in the vehicle itself and not only
limited to any specific person.

(12) For stop and frisk to be valid, it does not require probable cause but reasonable belief based
on specific and articulable facts.

(13) A buy-bust operation is a valid entrapment where the accused is arrested on the ground of
in flagrante delicto, which does not require a warrant of arrest.

(14) The issuance of an HDO is inherent in the courts and not with the SOJ, in the absence of
any law authorizing the latter. The issuance of a HDO by the SOJ, absence of any law, is an
arrogation of power which it does not have.

(15) Jurisprudence is clear that cases under Article 365 should be filed only in one information,
regardless of the resulting acts, because it punishes the very act of negligence and not the
resulting acts. In Article 365, negligence is not a mode of committing a crime but a crime in
itself where the consequent acts are necessary only to determine the penalty.

(16) A judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory which cannot be a subject of an
appeal or MR by the prosecutor as it violates the right of the accused against double jeop-
ardy.

(17) The denial of motion to quash is not a subject for appeal because it is an interlocutory order.
It cannot also be a subject of certiorari because there is a plain, speedy and adequate rem-
edy which is to proceed to trial and raise the same issue in the appeal upon conviction.
However, when there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, it can be a
subject of certiorari under Rule 65.
(Note: Same rule applies to the denial of demurrer to evidence).

(18) Speedy trial is application in criminal actions before the courts, while speedy disposition
applies to any tribunal, including the prosecution or the ombudsman. In order to trigger the
application of speedy disposition, there must be (1) delay, (2) reason for delay, (3) assertion
of such right, and (4) prejudice to the accused.

Delay per se does not automatically trigger the application of speedy disposition. The delay
must be unreasonable or vexatious. Assuming arguendo that there was delay and it was
inordinate or unreasonable, the accused must timely assert such right, otherwise, it is
deemed waived.

Batch Olympus RSPol

BATCH 3

(1) Change of date such as the month of the commission of the crime is only a formal amend-
ment which does not require re-arraignment.

(2) Arraignment is made in an open court by the judge of clerk of court.

(3) The power to promulgate rules, such as plea bargaining, concerning the protection and en-
forcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts belongs
exclusively to the Supreme Court; it is not shared with the Congress.

(4) Jurisprudence is clear that plea bargaining may be made during pre-trial, during trial, or even
after the prosecution has rested its case.

(5) Civil liability must correspond to the fact of death and not only to the value of property as it
may result to injustice on the part of the heirs of the deceased-victim.

(6) In plea of guilt to a capital offense, the court shall (1) conduct searching questions on the
comprehension of the consequence and voluntariness on the part of the accused, (2) require
the prosecution to present evidence to prove degree of culpability, and (3) ask the accused
if he want to present evidence in his favor.

(7) Mere testimony on the age of the victim is not sufficient to prove the age of the victim in
statutory rape.

(8) Even if the extrajudicial confession was uncounselled, when made not under custodial in-
vestigation, the same is admissible.

(9) A plea of guilt is to plead guilty to a lesser offense, not to plead guilty to the crime charged
but to a lower penalty. Such plea is conditional and as a consequence, the filing of another
information for the same offense originally charged is not a violation of the accused’s right
against double jeopardy.

(10) A judgment based on an invalid plea for being conditional is void ab initio, which could not
be a basis for the invocation of the right against double jeopardy.

(11) In plea of guilt to a capital offense, the court shall (1) conduct searching inquiry as to the
voluntariness and comprehension of consequence, (2) require the prosecution to present
evidence to determine the degree of culpability and (3) ask accused if he may present evi-
dence on his behalf.

(12) Although jurisprudence states that if the sole basis of the conviction is the plea of guilt, the
judgment is void; such rule does not apply where the judge conducted searching inquiry
and there is sufficient evidence to support conviction, which makes the judgment valid.

(13) As a rule, during arraignment, the information is read to the accused in the language known
to him, except when he waives the reading of the information with his consent and his coun-
sel.

Batch Olympus RSPol

(14) Presumption of regularity does not apply where the case involved is punishable by death
or capital punishment.

(15) Although the rules allow suspension of arraignment during the pendency or upon filing of
petition for review with the DOJ, the suspension should only be for 60 days and that the
arraignment shall proceed with or without the resolution of the DOJ on said petition.

(16) Reinstatement of the case may be made only by the proper party such as the complainant
or the prosecutor, not by a mere witness.

(17) Reinvestigation is not a ground for motion to quash.

(18) The test for sufficiency of information: when admitted, the information can establish the
elements of a crime. Matters of defense are not considered and threshed out only during
trial.

(19) When the judge grants a motion to quash, the bar-limit of 1 or 2 years does not apply
because such rule is only applicable to provisional remedies. Where the ground for the mo-
tion to quash is neither extinguishment of criminal liability nor double jeopardy, the infor-
mation may be refiled without violating the right against double jeopardy, as the motion to
quash is initiated by the accused.

(20) Although the rule provides that the denial of a demurrer to evidence is not subject to appeal
as it is an interlocutory order or cannot be of subject of certiorari as there is a plain, speedy
and adequate remedy which is to proceed to the case, such rule does not apply where there
is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, as enunciated in the Arroyo case.

(21) The crime is said to be in relation to office when: (1) the office is an element of the crime, or
(2) there is an intimate connection or relation between office and the commission of the
crime, which needs to be alleged in the information.

(22) SB has jurisdiction over private individuals who acted in conspiracy or acted as accom-
plices with public officials who are SG 27 or those officers expressly enumerated under the
law.

(23) When a case is provisionally dismissed, it can be revived, provided it is made within the
time-bar limit of 1 or 2 years, as the case may be. When a case is dismissed via MTQ, it can
be refiled, provided the ground is not either extinguishment of criminal liability or double
jeopardy.

(24) The time-bar rule does not apply to MTQ.

(25) Dismissal due to violation of speedy trial, demurrer to evidence and state witness operate
as acquittal which bar the subsequent filing as a violation of the right to double jeopardy.

(26) When a crime is committed, the accused offends not only the State but also the private
complainant, who is allowed to intervene in the criminal case through a counsel under the
supervision of the prosecutor, and to recover civil liability ex delicto.

Batch Olympus RSPol

(27) Although acquittal bars appeal, the same does not apply where the accused himself ap-
peals his conviction which throws open the entire case before the appellate court that can
review not only the assigned errors but the entire case.

(28) The time-bar rule under the provisional dismissal is reckoned from the notice to the private
complaint or his counsel, who is given an opportunity to object the same on valid grounds.

(29) Nothing in the rules requires both the filing of the revival and grant of the same be made
within the time-bar rule of 1 or 2 years under provisional dismissal; it is thus sufficient when
the filing of such revival is made within the period.

(30) Although failure on the part of the plaintiff to appear at the pre-trial in civil cases is a ground
to dismiss the case, the rule is not applicable in criminal cases, as the failure of the com-
plainant or prosecution to appear at the pre-trial sanctions only the prosecutor or counsel,
not the party.

(31) Questioning the validity of arrest must be raised before arraignment, otherwise it is deemed
waived. However, the illegality of arrest cannot invalidate a valid judgment, where there is
sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

(32) The right to counsel of choice is not absolute. Where the accused is represented by a coun-
sel de officio who actively participated at the trial, even if not his choice, does not violate his
right to counsel and due process.

(33) Where the accused sought affirmative relief from the court, he is considered to have volun-
tarily surrendered to its jurisdiction, except for special appearance questioning the jurisdic-
tion of the court.

(34) Although it is settled that the right against self-incrimination can only be invoked against
testimonial compulsion and not against purely mechanical act, the rule does not apply where
the mechanical act has no relevance or connection with the offense for which the person
was arrested.

(35) Mandatory drug test to a “person arrested” under RA 9165, as amended, does not refer to
any and all person arrested but only to persons arrested for violation of said law.

(36) The taking of deposition for the witness of the accused outside the Philippines is under the
sound discretion of the court. However, the taking of deposition for the prosecution outside
the Philippines must strictly comply with the rules that it should be made before the court
where the case is pending, so as not to violate the constitutional right of the accused to
confront or cross-examine the witnesses against him.

(37) Although the taking of deposition for the prosecution must strictly comply with the rules
that it must be made before the court where the case is pending, the rule does not apply
when there are exceptional circumstances and where the accused are given ample oppor-
tunity to cross-examine the witness through written interrogatories, as enunciated in the
Mary Jane Veloso case.

Batch Olympus RSPol

(38) The denial of motion to reverse trial, being interlocutory, is not appealable. The rule on the
discharge of an accused as a state witness does not require that his testimony is substan-
tially corroborated on all points, it only requires substantial corroboration in its material
points.

(39) The accused who participated in the planning of the commission of the crime but did not
participate in its actual commission, is not the most guilty.

(40) Although the court may have erred in its decision in acquitting the accused, absence of any
showing of grave abuse of discretion, the case cannot be subject of appeal as it violates the
finality of acquittal doctrine and the right of the accused against double jeopardy.

(41) Although the acquittal of the accused can no longer be appealed under the finality of ac-
quittal doctrine, the rule does not apply where (1) the trial was a sham, (2) there was mistrial,
or (3) there was grave abuse of discretion.

(42) For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that it was physically impossible for him to be
present at the crime scene.

(43) As between the affidavit and the testimony given in open court, the latter prevails.

(44) Although the judge who penned the decision was not the one who heard the case, the
decision remains valid, provided he conducted an independent examination and assess-
ment of the case based on records and that there is sufficient evidence to support the con-
viction.

(45) The decision promulgated by a new judge, which was penned by the previous judge who
died or retired, is not valid as it was not penned by an incumbent judge and that the authority
of the judge to pen decisions dies and retires with him.

(46) The decision promulgated by a new judge, which was penned by the previous judge who
was transferred to an equal court, is valid as it was penned by an incumbent judge of equal
court.

(47) The decision promulgated by a new judge, which was penned by the previous judge who
was promoted to a higher court, is not valid as it was not penned by an incumbent judge of
equal court.

(48) A void judgment is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor of any obli-
gation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect.

(49) The accused who failed to appear at the promulgation, except for light felonies, has waived
his rights to all available remedies as he has lost his legal standing in court, unless he sur-
renders within 15 days with justifiable reasons.

(50) Although only the OSG can represent the People in the CA or SC, this rule does not apply
in a special civil action of Certiorari under Rule 65 where the aggrieved party includes not
only the State but also the private complainant.

Batch Olympus RSPol

(51) The word “surrender” in Section 6, Rule 120 requires physical and voluntary surrender be-
fore the trial court. Mere filing of a motion before the court within 15 days from the absence
during the promulgation does not satisfy the requirement of “surrender”.

(52) Although the rule that the accused who appealed the conviction can no longer apply for
probation, the rule does not apply where the lower court rendered an erroneous penalty that
was not probationable to begin with, because, had the court rendered the right penalty, the
accused would have entertained the idea of probation.

(53) A summary judgment being a final judgment can be a subject of appeal.

(54) A motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence may be granted only if the fol-
lowing requisites are met: (a) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) that said evi-
dence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of
reasonable diligence; (c) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or im-
peaching; and (d) that the evidence is of such weight that, if admitted, it would probably
change the judgment.

(55) The Neypes ruling on the fresh period of 15 days from a denial of a motion for reconsider-
ation within which to appeal is also applicable to criminal cases.

(56) As a rule a motion for reconsideration is a condicio sine qua non for the filing of a petition
for certiorari, except:
(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
(b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised
and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed
upon in the lower court;
(c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any
further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or
the subject matter of the action is perishable;
(d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless;
(e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for
relief;
(f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting
of such relief by the trial court is improbable;
(g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
(h) where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no oppor-
tunity to object; and
(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.

(57) As a rule, an information should charge one offense, otherwise it is a ground for MTQ and
the accused must raise the same prior to arraignment. Failure to raise such issue before
arraignment constitutes waiver.

(58) When two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the ac-
cused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are
charged and proved, and impose upon him the proper penalty for each offense.

Batch Olympus RSPol

(59) An acquittal is final and unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy, whether it happens
at the trial court level or before the Court of Appeals.

(60) A final judgment entered in favor of the offended party shall be enforced in the manner
especially provided in these rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of the deceased.
(Note: Connected with the money claims and non-statue of claims under Spec Pro, which
is filed against the estate because it is a judgment in money).

(61) If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice to
any civil action the offended party may file against the estate of the deceased.
(Note: Connected with filing against the executor or administrator for recovery of damages
for injury to property or persons).

(62) While application of the search warrant is not under the control of the prosecution, an
action for certiorari on the issuance of search requires that the People of the Philippines be
impleaded because (1) it cannot be denied that the search warrant in question had been
issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, and (2) such fact render the People of
the Philippines indispensable parties in the special civil action for certiorari brought to nullify
the questioned orders of respondent Presiding Judge.

(63) Although search warrants could be procured in any court within the judicial region where
the crime was committed, or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be
enforced, in both cases, it is required that the applicant is able to prove compelling reasons
for doing such.
(Note: The rule states “court” which means that nothing in the above-quoted rule does it
say that the court issuing a search warrant must also have jurisdiction over the offense. That
is why the MTC can issue a search warrant regardless of the possible case to be filed. Re-
member that in these cases, there is no information filed in court yet. When a case is already
filed in court, there is only ONE court that can issue a search warrant and that is the court
where the case is pending per last paragraph of Sec 2, Rule 126.)

(64) An application for a search warrant, not being a criminal action, does not require the con-
formity of the public prosecutor.

(65) An order quashing a search warrant as the main case, partakes of a final order that can be
the proper subject of an appeal. However, if the order quashing the search warrant is inci-
dental to the main case, it is subject to certiorari for being interlocutory order, provided there
is grave abuse of discretion.

(66) The administrative penalties imposed on a judge does not invalidate the warrant, as he is a
de facto officer when he issued the same. As a de facto officer, his acts remain valid.

(67) The Executive Judges of RTC Manila and Quezon City and, whenever they are on official
leave of absence or are not physically present in the station, the Vice-Executive Judges are
authorized to act on warrant applications and to issue the warrants, if justified. These war-
rants may then be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said courts.

This, however, only applies when the crimes involved are heinous crimes, illegal gambling,
illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions, as well as violations of the Comprehensive

Batch Olympus RSPol

 Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the Intellectual Property Code, the Anti-Money Laundering
Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs Code.

(68) There is no violation of the one-specific-offense rule in the search warrant under Section 4,
Rule 126 of the Rules of Court when there are several counts of the same offense. This is
different from the number of offenses specified in the search warrant.

(69) The application for the issuance of search warrants in special criminal cases by the Regional
Trial Courts of Manila and Quezon City may be endorsed by the heads of such agencies
or their respective duly authorized officials.

(70) In the service of search warrant, the requirement of two witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality must be present applies only in the absence of either
the lawful occupant of the premises or any member of his family.

(71) A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, in which the violator is caught in flagrante
delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized, but are
duty-bound, to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been
part of or used in the commission of the crime.

(72) The non-compliance with Section 21 of RA No. 9165 (on inventory, photograph, etc.) shall
not necessarily render the arrest of an accused as illegal or the items seized as inadmissible
if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved in compliance
with the chain of custody rule.

(73) In the absence of any showing of bad faith, ill will, or tampering of the evidence on the part
of the officers, the presumption that the integrity of the evidence has been preserved will
remain.

(74) A case for “illegal search” against an officer is not a criminal offense. The proper offense
would be either Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those
legally obtained (Art 129) or Searching domicile without witnesses (Art 130).

(75) There is no arbitrary detention if there is no detention to begin with.

Jehovah will fight for you and you will be still.

Exodus 14:14

Batch Olympus RSPol