VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Flashcards
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
A. Criminal Jurisdiction
J over STP (3 in criminal, exclude T in civil)
Criminal jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a particular criminal offense and impose the corresponding punishment.
It is the power of the court to take cognizance of a criminal case.
3 aspects/elements:
1. J over the Subject matter
2. J over the Territory; and
3. J over the Person of the accused.
How J over SM determined - by Allegations in the complaint or information
- averments characterizes the crime
J over T - an essential element because the court must have territorial J over the location where offense was committed or any of its elements
How J over accused acquired - Upon his Arrest or Voluntary appearance to court
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
B. Prosecution of Offenses (Rule 110)
1. Public vs. Private Crimes
Public vs. Private Crimes in Philippine Prosecution (Philippines Law and Jurisprudence)
Here’s a breakdown of how public and private crimes differ and resemble each other in the context of prosecution under Philippine law:
A. Key Differences:**
-
Initiation of Prosecution:
- a) Public Crimes:
The State, through the prosecutor’s office, initiates the prosecution of public offenses regardless of the victim’s desire to press charges. This ensures CRIMES AGAINST SOCIETY are addressed even if the victim is unwilling or unable to pursue the case.- Example: A bystander witnesses a robbery on the street. The police investigate and arrest the suspect. Even if the robbery victim chooses not to file a complaint, the State will prosecute the crime of robbery.
- b) Private Crimes:
Prosecution for private offenses generally requires a complaint from the offended party. The prosecutor acts upon the complaint and gathers evidence to build a case.
* Example: Someone gets into a fistfight with a neighbor. To pursue the case, the injured neighbor needs to file a complaint for assault against the other party.
-
Settlement:
- Public Crimes:** Public crimes cannot be settled between the offender and the offended party. The penalty is fixed by law and imposed by the court. However, the offended party’s cooperation with the prosecution might be considered when seeking a plea bargain or a lighter sentence.
- Private Crimes:** Some private crimes can be settled through mechanisms like amicable settlement or restorative justice programs. Upon successful settlement, the offended party can withdraw the complaint, potentially leading to the dismissal of the case.- Example: Two friends have a physical altercation. They agree to settle the case through restorative justice, involving apologies and community service. The offended party then withdraws the assault complaint.
B. Key Similarities:**
- Investigative Process: Both public and private crimes typically involve a police investigation to gather evidence and identify the perpetrator. The police investigate regardless of whether the crime is public or private.
- Right to Fair Trial: The accused in both public and private offenses have the right to a fair trial under Philippine law. This includes the right to be informed of the charges, to be represented by a lawyer, and to present evidence in their defense.
- Burden of Proof: Regardless of the crime type, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Additional Notes:
* In some private crimes, the State can still initiate prosecution even without a complaint due to the public interest involved. This might occur in cases of violence against women and children or when the crime disrupts public order.
* The specific process for prosecution can vary depending on the nature of the crime and the specific provisions of the Revised Penal Code and other relevant laws.
Examples:
* Public Crime: A man yells bomb threats at a crowded airport, causing panic and evacuation. This is a crime against public order, and the State will prosecute him for a public offense regardless of whether anyone was specifically harmed.
* Private Crime (Settled): Two neighbors argue over a property line and get into a shoving match. They decide to settle the case through mediation and agree on a new boundary. The neighbor who filed the assault complaint can then withdraw it.
* Private Crime (Prosecuted): A woman is stalked and harassed for months. She files a complaint against the stalker, and the prosecutor pursues the case as a private offense.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
B. Prosecution of Offenses (Rule 110)
2. Role of Public Prosecutor – Section 5
fr Foi to Reso of case
crucial role throughout the criminal prosecution process, with some key differences depending on whether the case begins with a complaint or an information. prosecutor’s role in each stage, from the crime’s occurrence to the case’s resolution:
- Complaint:**
Crime Occurrence & Investigation:
* The public prosecutor isn’t typically involved in the initial investigation conducted by the police or other law enforcement agencies after a crime is reported.
Preliminary Investigation (if required):
* For offenses requiring a preliminary investigation (Rule 112 of the Rules of Court), the prosecutor plays a supervisory role. They review the case file submitted by the investigating officer to ensure proper procedures were followed and determine if there’s probable cause to proceed.
* The prosecutor may:
* Order further investigation if needed.
* Dismiss the complaint if there’s insufficient evidence.
* Issue a resolution recommending the filing of an information in court if probable cause exists.
2. Information:
Investigation:
* Similar to complaints, the prosecutor typically isn’t directly involved in the initial investigation for offenses pursued through information. However, they might provide guidance or request specific investigative actions.
Information Filing:
* The prosecutor takes the lead role in drafting and filing the information with the court. This formal document accuses the suspect of a specific crime and outlines the evidence gathered during the investigation.
Pre-Trial Stage:
* The prosecutor represents the People of the Philippines in court during pre-trial proceedings. This might involve:
* Arguing against motions to dismiss the case filed by the defense.
* Negotiating potential plea bargains with the accused.
* Preparing witnesses for trial.
Trial:
* The prosecutor acts as the primary trial attorney for the prosecution. Their duties include:
* Presenting evidence to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
* Examining witnesses and introducing exhibits.
* Arguing legal points before the judge.
Post-Trial Stage:
* The prosecutor plays a role in the post-trial stage depending on the outcome:
* Conviction: The prosecutor might argue for an appropriate sentence based on the law and the severity of the crime.
* Acquittal: The prosecutor may analyze the reasons for acquittal and decide whether to appeal the decision.
Resolution of the Case:
* The prosecutor plays a vital role in reaching a resolution, whether through dismissal, plea bargain, conviction, or acquittal. Their actions throughout the process significantly impact the case’s outcome.
Important Points:
* Philippine jurisprudence emphasizes the prosecutor’s role as a minister of justice, not just seeking convictions but ensuring fairness and upholding the law.
* The specific duties and involvement of the prosecutor might vary depending on the complexity of the case and the specific court procedures.
* While the above outlines the general stages, the Philippine criminal justice system can involve additional steps or variations depending on the circumstances.
In conclusion, the public prosecutor acts as a key figure throughout criminal prosecution in the Philippines. Their involvement evolves depending on whether the case starts with a complaint or an information, but their ultimate goal is to ensure a just and lawful resolution.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
B. Prosecution of Offenses (Rule 110)
3. Complaint and Information – Sections 1-4
Sws
FAC
Comparing Complaint vs. Information in Philippine Criminal Procedure (Who, What, Where, When & How)
How complaints and information differ in Philippine criminal proc
1) Who Files:**
* Complaint (Rule 3): The offended party (victim), a peace officer, or a relevant public officer enforcing the violated law can file a complaint.
* Information (Rule 4): The public prosecutor files the information.
2) What is Filed:**
* Complaint: A sworn written statement outlining the offense.
* Information: A formal accusation outlining/Charging the offense.
3) What Information Must Be Included (Who, What, When, Where):**
* Both complaints and information must contain the following details:
* Who: Identification of the accused person(s).
* What: The specific offense allegedly committed.
* When: The approximate date and time of the offense (if known).
* Where: The general location where the offense occurred (city/town).
4) How is it Filed:**
* Complaint (Rule 1a):
* For offenses requiring a preliminary investigation (Rule 112), the complaint goes to the proper officer for investigation.
* In some cases, for offenses not requiring an investigation, the complaint might be filed directly with lower courts (exceptions for Manila and chartered cities).
* Information (Rule 1b):
* Filed directly with the court by the prosecutor.
* In some jurisdictions, a complaint might be filed with the prosecutor’s office first, who then drafts the information for court filing.
5) Additional Considerations:**
* Content: Complaints tend to be less formal than information, focusing on a basic description of the offense. Information drafted by prosecutors typically goes into more detail about the alleged crime.
* Process: After a complaint is filed, a preliminary investigation might be conducted to gather evidence and determine if there’s probable cause to proceed. Information usually signifies a completed investigation and a prosecutor’s decision to pursue charges formally.
Examples:**
* Complaint: A person witnesses a theft and files a complaint with the police, stating they saw someone steal a bag from a parked car at a specific mall on a particular day.
* Information: After investigating the theft complaint, the prosecutor gathers evidence (witness statements, CCTV footage) and files an information with the court formally accusing the suspect of theft.
Remember:**
* Philippine jurisprudence emphasizes the prosecutor’s role. Even for complaints, prosecutors play a significant part in the investigation and case handling.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
B. Prosecution of Offenses (Rule 110)
4. Sufficiency of Complaint or Information – Sections 6-12
Nonad
These rules outline the key requirements for a sufficient complaint or information in Philippine criminal procedure. Here’s a breakdown of the key points with illustrations:
1. Basic Information (Section 6):
- The complaint or information must include:
-
Name of the Accused (Section 7): Real name if known, or nickname/description if unknown (e.g., “John Smith” or “Man in Blue Shirt”).
- Example: A store owner witnesses a robbery but can’t identify the perpetrator. They file a complaint describing the suspect as “a tall man wearing a hoodie.”
-
Offense Committed (Section 8): Use the legal term for the crime (e.g., theft, assault) or reference the relevant law section.
- Example: The complaint mentions “Theft” under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
-
Acts/Omissions Constituting the Offense (Section 9): Describe the actions of the accused in clear language, enough for someone to understand the alleged crime.
- Example: The complaint details how the suspect entered the store, threatened the cashier with a knife, and stole money from the register.
-
Name of the Offended Party (Section 12): Real name if known, or nickname/description if unknown (e.g., “Maria Garcia” or “Owner of ABC Store”).
- Example: The complaint identifies the offended party as “Maria Garcia, the owner of ABC Store.”
-
Approximate Date and Place (Section 10 & 11): Mention the date (as close as possible) and general location of the offense. The specific place might not be crucial unless it’s an element of the crime (e.g., trespassing on a specific property).
- Example: The complaint states the robbery occurred “on or about February 15, 2024, at ABC Store located on Rizal Street.”
-
Name of the Accused (Section 7): Real name if known, or nickname/description if unknown (e.g., “John Smith” or “Man in Blue Shirt”).
2. Additional Considerations:
- The complaint/information should be written in ordinary language, understandable by a layperson.
- If the true name of the accused or offended party becomes known later, it can be inserted in the record.
- All those involved in the crime should be named in the complaint/information (Section 6a).
3. Importance of Sufficiency:
A sufficient complaint or information is crucial for a case to proceed. If it lacks necessary details, the court might dismiss it, requiring the filing of a new one.
Remember: These are general guidelines. Specific laws governing certain crimes might have additional requirements for complaints or information.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
B. Prosecution of Offenses (Rule 110)
5. Duplicity of Offense – Section 13
1ch 4 1Off - S of O
Section 13 of Rule 110 addresses the principle of “singleness of offense” in Philippine criminal prosecution. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:
A) Rule:**
A complaint or information filed against a defendant should typically only charge one offense. This prevents confusion for the accused in preparing their defense and ensures a fair trial focused on a specific allegation.
B) Exception:**
The rule allows charging multiple offenses in a single complaint/information only under one specific condition:
* Single Punishment:** When the law prescribes a single punishment for various related offenses. This means that regardless of which specific offense is proven, the penalty remains the same.
C) Example:**
1) Without Exception:** Let’s say a person is caught entering a restricted area and then resisting arrest when confronted by security. These are two separate offenses (trespassing and resisting arrest). Under the “singleness of offense” rule, they cannot be charged in the same complaint/information unless a law exists that prescribes a single penalty for both trespassing and resisting arrest in such circumstances.
2) With Exception:** If a law exists that imposes a single penalty for both trespassing and resisting arrest when they occur within a restricted area, then both offenses can be included in the same complaint/information because the punishment is the same regardless of which offense is proven.
Importance:
* This rule protects the accused’s right to a fair trial by ensuring clarity in the charges they face.
* It prevents the prosecution from overwhelming the defense with multiple accusations in a single proceeding.
Additional Notes:
* If the prosecution desires to pursue multiple offenses with different penalties arising from the same incident, they might need to file separate complaints/information.
* In complex cases with multiple potential offenses, prosecutors might initially file a single information with broader allegations and then narrow down the specific charges later in the proceedings based on the available evidence.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
B. Prosecution of Offenses (Rule 110)
6. Amendment or Substitution of Complaint or Information – Section 14
B4
After
Downgrade
Mistake
1) Amending Complaints/Information:**
A)
Before Plea:** The prosecutor can amend the complaint/information for any reason (form or substance) without needing court permission before the accused enters their plea. This allows for adjustments based on further investigation or clarification of details.
Example: A complaint initially accuses someone of theft, but further investigation reveals it was robbery (a more serious offense). The prosecutor can amend the information to reflect “robbery” before the plea is entered.
B)
After Plea and During Trial:** Amendments become stricter. Formal amendments require court permission and ensuring they don’t prejudice the accused’s defense.
Example: After the plea, the prosecution discovers a witness can’t testify due to illness. Amending the information to rely on different evidence might require court approval to ensure a fair trial for the accused.
2) Downgrading Charges:**
* Even before the plea, downgrading the offense or removing an accused from the complaint/information requires a motion by the prosecutor, notice to the offended party, and court permission. The court must provide reasons for its decision, and all parties receive a copy of the order.
3) Mistake in Offense Charged:**
* If the court discovers a mistake in the charged offense before judgment, it can dismiss the original complaint/information. The prosecutor can file a new one with the correct offense, following Rule 119 (on reinvestigation and refiling of complaints/information).
* This ensures the accused isn’t subjected to double jeopardy (being tried twice for the same offense).
* The court might require witnesses to post bail to ensure their appearance for the new trial.
Importance:
* This rule allows for flexibility in the prosecution process while protecting the accused’s rights.
* It allows for correcting errors and adapting to new information without jeopardizing a fair trial.
Additional Notes:
* The specific application of this rule might vary depending on the complexity of the case and the judge’s discretion.
* Consulting a lawyer is recommended for understanding the implications of amending a complaint/information and ensuring it complies with legal requirements.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
B. Prosecution of Offenses (Rule 110)
7. Venue of Criminal Actions – Section 15
Venue refers to the proper court location where a case should be heard.
1) General Rule (Section 15a):**
* Criminal cases are typically instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed.
* Additionally, the case can be tried in the court where any essential ingredient of the offense occurred.
Example 1: A theft takes place in Quezon City. The proper venue for the case would be a court in Quezon City.
Example 2: A suspect plans a crime (essential ingredient) in Manila but executes it (another essential ingredient) in Makati. The case can be tried in either a court in Manila or Makati.
2) Exceptions for Moving Vehicles (Sections 15b & 15c):**
* Offenses committed on moving vehicles (trains, airplanes, ships) have more flexible venue options:
* The case can be tried in any court location where the vehicle passed during its trip.
* This includes the place of departure and arrival.
Example: A robbery occurs on a train traveling from Pampanga to Tarlac. The case can be tried in courts located in Pampanga, Tarlac, or any station the train stopped at during the trip.
*
3) For offenses committed on board a ship, the venue options are:
* The court of the first port of entry after the offense.
* Any court location where the ship passed during its voyage.
Example: A passenger is assaulted on a ship traveling from Cebu to Davao. The case can be tried in Cebu courts (port of departure), Davao courts (port of arrival), or any port the ship stopped at during the voyage.
4) International Crimes (Section 15d):**
* Crimes committed outside the Philippines but punishable under Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code (covering offenses with effects in the Philippines) can be tried in the court where the criminal action is first filed.
Example: A Filipino citizen commits fraud against a Philippine company while overseas. The case can be tried in any Philippine court where the complaint is initially filed.
5) Importance of Venue:**
* Proper venue ensures a fair trial by allowing the accused easier access to evidence and witnesses.
* It also avoids placing an undue burden on the accused to travel long distances for court appearances.
6) Additional Notes:**
* These are general guidelines. Specific laws governing certain crimes might have additional rules regarding venue.
* Courts might consider practicalities like witness availability or caseload when determining the most appropriate venue for a complex case.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
B. Prosecution of Offenses (Rule 110)
8. Intervention of Offended Party – Section 16
Private L for Civ Aspect
Section 16 of Rule 110 addresses the intervention of the offended party in Philippine criminal prosecution.
1) Right to Intervene:**
* This section grants the offended party the right to intervene in the prosecution of the offense by counsel. This means they can hire a lawyer to participate in the criminal case alongside the government prosecutor.
2) Condition for Intervention:**
A) The right to intervene is conditional. It applies only when the offended party has already filed a civil action for recovery of civil liability within the criminal action, pursuant to Rule 111.
*B) Rule 111 outlines options for the offended party regarding the civil aspect of the case:
* File a separate civil lawsuit.
* Waive the civil action entirely.
* Include the civil action for recovery of damages (e.g., financial compensation) within the criminal case.
3) Scope of Intervention:**
* The offended party’s intervention is primarily focused on enforcing the civil liability arising from the crime. They cannot directly influence the prosecution’s pursuit of criminal charges.
* Their lawyer can participate in court proceedings related to the civil aspects of the case, such as:
* Presenting evidence to support the claim for damages.
* Arguing for the appropriate amount of compensation.
Example: A person is robbed, and the stolen items have significant value. The victim files a criminal complaint and also includes a civil action within the criminal case to recover the value of the stolen items. By hiring a lawyer, the victim can intervene in the prosecution to ensure the court considers their claim for compensation when determining the final judgment.
- Importance:**
- This right allows the offended party to have a greater voice in seeking justice and recovering any losses incurred due to the crime.
- It can also provide them with legal support and guidance throughout the complex criminal process.
-Additional Notes:**
* The extent of the offended party’s intervention might be limited by the court’s discretion and the judge’s control over the proceedings.
* Consulting a lawyer is recommended for the offended party to understand the full implications of intervention and to effectively pursue their civil claims within the criminal action.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
B. Prosecution of Offenses (Rule 110)
9. Injunction in Criminal Cases – OCA Circular No. 79-03, Item 14
Section 14 of the law concerning the Office of the Ombudsman (often referred to in Philippine law as Republic Act No. 6770) focuses on limitations on judicial intervention in investigations by the Ombudsman.
1) Limited Judicial Interference:**
- This rule restricts courts from issuing a writ of injunction to delay an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman.
- A writ of injunction is a court order that prohibits someone from taking a specific action. In this context, it would prevent the Ombudsman from continuing their investigation.
2) Exception for Jurisdiction:**
* The only exception allowing a court to potentially intervene is if there’s prima facie evidence (initial evidence suggesting a fact is true) that the matter being investigated falls outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman’s office.
3) Importance in Prosecution:**
- This rule safeguards the Ombudsman’s ability to conduct investigations efficiently without unnecessary delays caused by court challenges.
- It ensures the Ombudsman can fulfill its role of investigating complaints against public officials suspected of wrongdoing.
Example 1 (Allowed Intervention):**
A government official is accused of corruption, but the alleged act involved a private business deal entirely separate from their public duties. There might be prima facie evidence that this falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (investigating official misconduct). In this scenario, a court could potentially consider issuing a writ of injunction to temporarily halt the investigation while it determines if the Ombudsman has the authority to proceed.
Example 2 (Not Allowed Intervention):**
A mayor is suspected of misuse of public funds for a construction project. This clearly falls within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate public officials for potential malfeasance. Even if the mayor disagrees with the investigation, a court wouldn’t be able to issue a writ of injunction to delay it based on Section 14.
Additional Notes:**
* This rule doesn’t prevent the accused official from filing a motion to quash the investigation with the Ombudsman itself, arguing it’s outside their jurisdiction.
* The overall goal is to balance the need for a functioning and independent Ombudsman with the right of an accused official to challenge the investigation’s legitimacy through appropriate legal channels.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
C. Prosecution of Civil Action (Rule 111)
1. Implied Institution of Civil Action Arising from Crime
Implied Institution of Civil Action Arising from Crime
The concept of “implied institution of civil action” arises from Section 1 of Rule 111 of the Philippine Rules of Court.
1) General Rule (Section 1a):**
* When a criminal action is filed against someone, a civil action to recover damages arising from the same crime is automatically considered filed alongside the criminal case.
* This is called the “implied institution” of the civil action.
Example: You file a theft complaint against someone who stole your phone. By doing so, you’ve also impliedly filed a civil action to recover the value of the stolen phone.
2) Exceptions to Implied Institution (Section 1a):**
* The offended party (victim) has options regarding the civil action:
* Waive the civil action entirely. (They wouldn’t seek any compensation)
* Reserve the right to file a separate civil action later. (They wouldn’t pursue it within the criminal case)
Example (Reservation): You file a criminal complaint for assault but reserve your right to file a separate civil action later to claim medical expenses not immediately apparent.
2B) Exceptions to Exceptions (Section 1b):**
* Certain crimes, like violations of Bouncing Checks Law (Batas Pambansa Blg. 22), automatically include the civil action for recovering the amount of the bounced check. No reservation for a separate civil action is allowed in such cases.
3) Filing Fees (Section 1a):**
* The offended party generally doesn’t pay filing fees for claiming actual damages (e.g., the value of stolen property).
* However, for other damages like moral damages or exemplary damages, filing fees are required based on the amount claimed.
4) Consolidation (Section 1b & 2):**
* If a separate civil action was already filed before the criminal case and hasn’t started yet, it can be consolidated with the criminal case upon application. This means both the criminal and civil aspects are tried together.
* Once the criminal action starts, a separate civil action cannot proceed until a final judgment is reached in the criminal case. (See Section 2)
5) Independent Civil Action (Section 3):**
* In specific situations outlined in Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code (such as defamation or wrongful death), the offended party can still file an independent civil action completely separate from the criminal case.
* This independent civil action requires a lower standard of proof (preponderance of evidence) compared to the criminal case.
6) Benefits of Implied Institution:**
* Simplifies the process for victims by automatically initiating the civil claim alongside the criminal case.
* Saves time and resources by potentially resolving both aspects (criminal punishment and civil compensation) in one proceeding.
- Importance of Understanding:**
- Victims should be aware of their rights regarding the civil action, including the option to waive, reserve, or pursue it independently.
- Knowing the rules on filing fees and consolidation helps manage potential costs and delays.
- Additional Notes:**
- These are general guidelines. Specific laws governing certain crimes might have additional rules regarding civil actions.
- Consulting a lawyer is recommended to determine the best course of action for pursuing the civil aspect of a crime.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
C. Prosecution of Civil Action (Rule 111)
- Prior Reservation, Suspension, Waiver of Civil Actions
- Prior Reservation: Under Rule 111, the offended party must make a reservation to file the civil action separately before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence in the criminal case. This reservation allows the offended party to pursue the civil action independently from the criminal proceedings.[1]
- Suspension: If a prejudicial question exists in a previously instituted civil action that is intimately related to the criminal case, the court may suspend the criminal proceedings upon petition by the accused to avoid conflicting decisions. The suspension lasts until final judgment is rendered in the civil action resolving the prejudicial question.[2]
- Waiver of Civil Actions: If the offended party fails to make a prior reservation to file the civil action separately or fails to institute the civil action before the criminal action commences, the civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal action. Failure to make the reservation constitutes a waiver of the right to file a separate civil action.[1]
- Prior Reservation:
Example: In the recent high-profile case involving a celebrity accused of tax evasion, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) made a prior reservation to file a separate civil action for the recovery of unpaid taxes and penalties before the criminal prosecution commenced. This reservation allows the BIR to pursue the civil action independently from the criminal proceedings against the celebrity.
- Suspension:
Example: In the ongoing criminal case against a former government official accused of graft and corruption, the court granted the accused’s petition to suspend the criminal proceedings. This was due to the existence of a prejudicial question in a previously filed civil case by a whistleblower seeking to nullify the allegedly anomalous contract at the center of the graft charges. The suspension will last until the civil case resolves the validity of the contract, as this determination is a logical antecedent to the issue of guilt or innocence in the criminal case.[1]
- Waiver of Civil Actions:
Example: In a recent cybercrime case involving online fraud, the offended party, a major e-commerce company, failed to make a prior reservation to file a separate civil action for damages. By not making the reservation before the prosecution presented its evidence, the company is deemed to have waived its right to file a separate civil action. Any claim for damages will now have to be pursued within the criminal proceedings itself.
In these examples, the concepts of prior reservation, suspension due to a prejudicial question, and waiver of civil actions are applied to current events and cases, illustrating their practical application in the Philippine legal system.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
C. Prosecution of Civil Action (Rule 111)
- Independent Civil Actions (See also Civil Code, arts. 31-34)
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
C. Prosecution of Civil Action (Rule 111)
- Civil Liability Ex-delicto
a. In cases of Acquittal (See also Civil Code, art. 29)
b. Death of the Accused
Civil liability ex delicto refers to the civil liability arising from a criminal act or wrongful conduct.
In simple terms, it means the legal responsibility to pay damages or make restitution for harm or injury caused by someone’s criminal offense or unlawful behavior.
a. In cases of Acquittal:
If the accused is acquitted on the ground that they are not the author of the act or omission complained of, the civil liability ex delicto is extinguished as there is no delict to speak of.[1] For example, if the accused is acquitted of theft because the evidence clearly showed they did not take the item, they cannot be held civilly liable ex delicto for that theft.
However, if the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused, the civil liability ex delicto may still arise as long as it is proven by preponderance of evidence.[1] For instance, if the accused is acquitted of estafa due to lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt, but the preponderance of evidence shows misappropriation of funds, civil liability ex delicto can still be imposed.
b. Death of the Accused:
The death of the accused pending appeal of their conviction extinguishes both the criminal liability and the civil liability ex delicto based solely on the crime.[2] For example, if the accused dies while appealing a conviction for homicide, the criminal case is extinguished along with any civil liability arising directly from the homicide itself.
However, the claim for civil liability survives if it may be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts or quasi-delicts.[2] So if the accused’s act also constituted a breach of contract, the offended party can still file a separate civil case against the accused’s estate to recover on that basis.
In summary, acquittal or death impacts the prosecution of the civil liability ex delicto differently based on the specific circumstances, allowing it to either survive, be extinguished, or be pursued through separate civil proceedings.[1][2]
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
C. Prosecution of Civil Action (Rule 111)
- Prejudicial Question (See also Civil Code, art. 36)
1.2 prev civ act
2.2 resp of that prev Civ Act Determines won the crim act sh proceed
Res: suspend crim act upon pet of acc
Art36. Pre-judicial questions which must be decided before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed
Elements: For a question to be considered prejudicial, two elements must be present:
a) The previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action.
b) The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
Jurisdiction in Another Tribunal: The jurisdiction to try and resolve the prejudicial question must be lodged in another tribunal, not the court trying the criminal case.
Suspension of Criminal Action:
If a prejudicial question exists, the court may suspend the criminal action upon a petition filed by the accused, TO AVOID CONFLICTING decisions
Purpose:
to avoid conflicting decisions between civil and criminal cases involving similar issues, by allowing the SUSPENSION of the CRIMINAL action until the prejudicial question is resolved in the proper civil court
Examples:
In a bigamy case, an action for annulment of the second (bigamous) marriage based on vitiated consent would be a prejudicial question. If the court annuls the marriage due to vitiated consent, it would determine the innocence of the accused in the bigamy charge.
In a falsification of public document case, a civil action for annulment of the document in question would be a prejudicial question, as its resolution would determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.
In an estafa case involving a bouncing check, a civil action for overpayment or damages would not be a prejudicial question, as its resolution would not necessarily determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in the estafa case
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
D. Preliminary Investigation (Rule 112)
1. Authorized Officers; Determination of Probable Cause – Sections 2-4
Why conduct preliminary investigation?
Who may conduct preliminary investigations?
To det if PC exists to eng a well f bel that 1.crime was C and 2.accused ia lijely responsbl. If so Cgarge the acc
It’s a fact-finding process to determine if probable cause exists to believe a crime was committed and the accused is likely responsible. If probable cause is found, the information is filed, and the case proceeds to trial. If not, the complaint is dismissed.
The following may conduct preliminary investigations:
(a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;
(b) Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
(c) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and
(d) Other officers as may be authorized by law.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
D. Preliminary Investigation (Rule 112)
- Cases Not Requiring Preliminary Investigation – Section 1
Key Points of Rule 112, Section 1 (Philippines) - Easy to Memorize!
1) What is a Preliminary Investigation?
Imagine a preliminary investigation as a FILTER in the criminal justice system. It’s an inquiry to see if there’s enough evidence to bring someone to trial.
2) When is it Required?
Think 4-2-1: A preliminary investigation is mandatory for crimes with a penalty of at least 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day, regardless of any fine involved.
3) What Happens During the Investigation?**
They try to determine two things:
1. Did a crime actually happen? (e.g., theft, assault)
2. Is there a good reason to believe the suspect did it? (enough evidence)
- Example 1 (Requires Investigation):
- Crime: Robbery (penalty: 6 years and 1 day)
- A witness saw Mark steal a phone. There’s video evidence too.
- Explanation: Since the penalty for robbery is more than 4-2-1, a preliminary investigation is required to assess the witness testimony and video evidence before charging Mark.
- Example 2 (No Investigation Needed):
- Crime: Littering (penalty: fine only)
- A police officer catches Ben littering.
- Explanation: Littering only carries a fine, so a preliminary investigation isn’t necessary. The officer can issue a citation directly.
4) Benefits of Preliminary Investigation:**
* Protects innocent people from facing trial based on weak accusations.
* Prevents clogging the court system with frivolous cases.
* Allows the prosecution to build a stronger case before trial.
NOTE:
Memorize the 4-2-1 Rule!
This will help you quickly identify when a preliminary investigation is needed in the Philippines.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
D. Preliminary Investigation (Rule 112)
- Motion to Reopen; Motion for Reinvestigation
In the context of Rule 112 of the Philippines Rules of Court regarding preliminary investigation, the concepts of “Motion to Reopen” and “Motion for Reinvestigation” are crucial for parties seeking to revisit or challenge the initial findings or decision of the investigating prosecutor. Here are the key points of each concept, along with examples:
-
Motion to Reopen:
- Definition: A Motion to Reopen is a request made by a party to the case to reopen the preliminary investigation for further proceedings.
- Purpose: It is typically filed when new evidence or circumstances arise that were not previously considered during the initial investigation.
- Procedure: The party must file the motion before the investigating prosecutor who conducted the preliminary investigation. The prosecutor then evaluates the motion and determines whether to grant or deny it.
- Example: Suppose during the course of a preliminary investigation for a theft case, the accused discovers new witnesses who can provide crucial alibi evidence. The accused may file a Motion to Reopen to present this new evidence and request the prosecutor to reconsider the case.
-
Motion for Reinvestigation:
- Definition: A Motion for Reinvestigation is a formal request by a party to the case for the investigating prosecutor to conduct a new or additional investigation.
- Purpose: It is usually filed when the party believes that errors or deficiencies occurred during the initial investigation or when there is a need to further clarify certain aspects of the case.
- Procedure: Similar to a Motion to Reopen, the party submits the motion to the investigating prosecutor, outlining the specific grounds or reasons for requesting a reinvestigation. The prosecutor then reviews the motion and decides whether to grant or deny it.
- Example: If a respondent in a drug trafficking case feels that certain evidence was overlooked or misunderstood during the initial investigation, they may file a Motion for Reinvestigation to provide clarification or present additional evidence that could affect the outcome of the case.
In both cases, the investigating prosecutor has the discretion to grant or deny the motion based on the merits of the request and the interests of justice. These motions serve as mechanisms to ensure that the preliminary investigation process remains fair and thorough, allowing parties the opportunity to present relevant evidence and address any potential errors or deficiencies in the initial proceedings.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
D. Preliminary Investigation (Rule 112)
- Modes of Review – DOJ Department Circular No. 027, Series of 2022
Modes of Review in Rule 112 Preliminary Investigation (Philippines) - DOJ Circular No. 027, 2022
Following a preliminary investigation under Rule 112 of the Philippines Rules of Court, dissatisfied parties have options for review depending on the nature of their concern and the investigating officer involved. Here’s a breakdown based on key points and relevant provisions from Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 027, Series of 2022:
1. Motion to Reopen (Already Discussed)
- Purpose: Introduce newly discovered evidence not presented during the initial investigation.
- Procedure: File the motion with the investigating officer who conducted the preliminary investigation.
- Example: During a theft case, the witness remembers a distinctive mark on the stolen item and wants to present this new detail.
2. Motion for Reinvestigation (Already Discussed)
- Purpose: Challenge the completeness or fairness of the initial investigation conducted by the prosecutor’s office.
- Procedure: File the motion with the investigating officer who conducted the preliminary investigation.
- Example: The suspect in a drug case believes the prosecutor overlooked crucial evidence and wants a more thorough review.
3. Review by Higher Prosecutor (DOJ Circular No. 027, Series of 2022)
-
Applicability: This applies when the investigating officer is a:
- Provincial or City Prosecutor or their Assistant (most common scenario)
-
Procedure:
- File a petition for review with the appropriate higher prosecutor:
- Regional State Prosecutor (for cases within their jurisdiction)
- Secretary of Justice (for all other cases)
- The petition should outline the grounds for review, such as:
- Abuse of discretion by the investigating officer
- Legal errors committed during the investigation
- Violation of due process rights
- File a petition for review with the appropriate higher prosecutor:
- Example: The complainant in an assault case disagrees with the prosecutor’s dismissal and believes there was an abuse of discretion in evaluating the evidence. They file a petition for review with the Regional State Prosecutor.
4. Review by the Court (Not addressed by DOJ Circular No. 027, Series of 2022)
- Applicability: This is a separate but important mode of review available in specific situations.
-
Procedure:
- If the investigating officer is a Municipal Trial Court (MTC) Judge (less common):
- File a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) challenging the MTC Judge’s decision.
- In extreme cases where the prosecutor’s actions violate fundamental rights or constitute grave abuse of discretion, a petition for mandamus or prohibition may be filed with the appropriate court.
- If the investigating officer is a Municipal Trial Court (MTC) Judge (less common):
- Example: An accused individual believes the prosecutor fabricated evidence during the investigation. They might consider a petition for mandamus with the court to compel a fair investigation.
Key Points:
- The choice of review mode depends on the nature of the complaint and the investigating officer’s position.
- DOJ Circular No. 027, Series of 2022 provides a streamlined process for petitioning for review by a higher prosecutor for decisions made by Provincial or City Prosecutors and their Assistants.
- Options for review by the court exist in specific scenarios, particularly when the investigating officer is an MTC Judge or when there’s a need to challenge grave abuses of discretion by the prosecutor.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
D. Preliminary Investigation (Rule 112)
- Inquest Proceedings; Waiver of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code
Inq - to det PC on warLess Arr & won the acc s rem in custody
Understanding Inquest Proceedings and Waiver of Article 125 in the Philippines
In the Philippines, inquest proceedings are a crucial part of the criminal justice system, offering a swift and informal way to determine whether a person arrested without a warrant should remain in custody
1) Inquest Proceedings:
A) Purpose:** To determine probable cause for arrest and decide on the suspect’s continued detention.
B) Who Conducts:** A public prosecutor (City/Provincial Prosecutor or designated Assistant) conducts the inquest.
C) When They Happen:** When a person is arrested without a warrant, the law enforcement agency must bring them before the prosecutor for inquest within a specific timeframe (generally within 36 hours).
2) Key Points:
A) Informal and Summary:** These proceedings are not full-blown trials. The prosecutor reviews police reports, interviews the suspect and witnesses (if necessary), and evaluates the evidence to establish probable cause.
B) Rights of the Arrested Person:**
* Right to remain silent (cannot be compelled to incriminate themself).
* Right to legal counsel (can request a lawyer to be present during the inquest).
* Right to be informed of the charges against them.
C) Possible Outcomes:**
C1) Release:** If no probable cause for arrest is found, the suspect is released.
C2) Filing of Charges:** If probable cause exists, the prosecutor files formal charges in court, and the suspect remains detained awaiting trial.
Example: John is arrested by the police for allegedly stealing a mobile phone. Since John was arrested without a warrant, the police bring him before the City Prosecutor for an inquest. The prosecutor reviews the police report, interviews John, and considers any available witness statements. If the prosecutor finds probable cause to believe John stole the phone, they will file a robbery charge against him in court, and John will remain detained until his trial.
3) Waiver of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code:
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code grants the right to a judicial preliminary investigation before an information (formal charge) can be filed in court. However, a suspect can choose to waive this right and proceed directly to inquest.
- Waiver Process: The suspect, with the assistance of a lawyer, signs a written document voluntarily waiving their right to a preliminary investigation.
-
Benefits of Waiver:
- Faster resolution of the case, potentially leading to a quicker release or trial.
- May allow for plea bargaining negotiations (depending on the specific case and prosecutor’s discretion).
Example: Mark is arrested for assault. He understands the charges and, after consulting with his lawyer, decides to waive his right to a preliminary investigation and proceed directly to inquest. This might be a strategic decision to expedite the process and potentially explore plea bargain options.
Easy Memorization Tip:
** Think of Inquest Proceedings as a quick check to see if there’s enough reason to detain someone arrested without a warrant.
Waiver of Article 125 is like skipping a step and going straight to the inquest if the suspect agrees.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
E. Arrest, Search and Seizures
1. Warrant of Arrest
a. Requisites
b. Enforcement – Rule 113, sec. 7
c. Lawful Warrantless Arrest – Rule 113, sec. 5
Explain the elements of a Valid Warrant of Arrest
The requisites of a warrant of arrest under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court in the Philippines are:
A)
1. Existence of Probable Cause:
There must be probable cause, which refers to such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed, and the person to be arrested committed it.
2. Issued by a Judge:
The warrant must be issued by a judge or other authorized officer. It cannot be issued by a mere clerk or prosecutor.
3. In Writing and Under Oath:
The warrant must be in writing and under oath or affirmation by the issuing judge. This ensures that the issuance of the warrant is based on credible evidence.
4. Specifically Identifies the Person:
The warrant must specifically identify the person to be arrested, either by name or by a description that identifies them with particularity.
5. Specifies the Offense:
The warrant must specify the offense for which the person is being arrested. It should also indicate the pertinent provisions of the law allegedly violated.
These requisites serve to safeguard individuals against arbitrary arrest and ensure that the issuance of a warrant is based on lawful grounds supported by sufficient evidence. They also provide clarity and specificity to the warrant, preventing confusion and misuse.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
E. Arrest, Search and Seizures
- Search Warrant – Rule 126
a. Requisites
b. Enforcement – Sections 7-13
c. Lawful Warrantless Search
d. Rules on Cybercrime Warrants – A.M. No. 17-11-03
What are the elements of a Valid Search Warrant
Requisites of a Valid Search Warrant (Rule 126, Rules of Court) - Easy Memorize for Bar Exam
Securing a search warrant is crucial for lawful searches in the Philippines. Here’s a breakdown of the key requisites for easy memorization, along with explanations and illustrative examples:
1. Written Application: A written application for a search warrant must be submitted to a judge with authority to issue warrants in that jurisdiction.
* Example: A police officer investigating a drug trafficking case files a written application for a search warrant with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge within their area.
2. Under Oath or Affirmation: The application must be made under oath or affirmation by a police officer or any other person who has personal knowledge of the facts to be presented.
* Example: The police officer who filed the application swears under oath that the information presented regarding the suspected drug activity at a specific address is based on their investigation and witness testimonies.
3. Probable Cause: The application must state the grounds for issuing the warrant, establishing probable cause to believe that:
* An offense has been committed.
* The particular person (or no particular person) committed the offense.
* The objects sought are connected to the crime and will be found in the place to be searched.
- Example: The application details witness accounts of suspicious activity at the address, confidential informant information about drug transactions, and planned purchases, providing probable cause for a drug-related offense, potential suspects, and the likelihood of finding evidence (drugs, paraphernalia) at the location.
4. Particularly Describes the Place to be Searched: The application must clearly identify the specific place or premises to be searched, avoiding ambiguity.
* Example: The application specifies the exact address (house number, street name, barangay) of the suspected drug den, ensuring the search is limited to that specific location.
5. Particularly Describes the Objects to be Seized: The application must describe the objects sought with reasonable particularity, preventing a general “fishing expedition” for evidence.
* Example: The application details the types of drugs (e.g., shabu, marijuana), drug paraphernalia (scales, packaging materials), and any documentation related to drug transactions that might be found at the location.
Easy-to-Remember Mnemonic: Think of Warrant as Warranting a Specific Search:
* Written application starts the process.
* Under oath ensures truthful information.
* Probable cause justifies the search.
* Place described clarifies the location.
* Objects specified limit what can be seized.
By fulfilling these requisites, a search warrant becomes a legal tool to gather evidence while respecting individual rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
E. Arrest, Search and Seizures
- Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
-Prev the use of E (from illegal search by Govt)
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine in Philippine Law
The “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” doctrine is a legal principle that prevents the use of evidence obtained illegally in court. It essentially states that evidence derived from an unlawful source (the “poisonous tree”) is also inadmissible (the “fruit”). This doctrine protects individual rights against unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed under the Philippine Constitution.
A) General Rule:
The general rule is that evidence obtained through an illegal search or seizure cannot be used against the defendant in court, even if the evidence itself is ultimately discovered legally. The court will exclude such evidence to deter law enforcement from violating constitutional rights and to ensure the integrity of the judicial process.
B) Exceptions to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine:
There are some exceptions where evidence obtained indirectly from an illegal search or seizure might still be admissible:
1) Independent Source:** If the evidence can be shown to have been obtained from an independent source, completely separate from the illegal search or seizure, it might be admissible.
* **Example:** Police conduct an illegal search of a house and find drugs. However, they later receive an anonymous tip (independent source) leading them to the suspect's car, where they discover more drugs in a legal search. The drugs from the car might be admissible.
2) Attenuation Doctrine:** Even if evidence is connected to an illegal search or seizure, it might be admissible if the "taint" has been sufficiently weakened by a time lapse or intervening events demonstrating a break in the causal chain.
* **Example:** Police illegally arrest a suspect. However, after 48 hours and proper Miranda warnings, the suspect confesses to a crime and reveals the location of a murder weapon. The confession and weapon might be admissible due to the attenuation of the taint from the initial illegal arrest.
3) Inevitable Discovery:** Evidence might be admissible if the prosecution can demonstrate that it would have inevitably been discovered through lawful means regardless of the illegal search or seizure. This exception has a high burden of proof.
* **Example:** Police conduct an illegal search of a house and find stolen goods. However, they were already planning to obtain a warrant based on strong existing evidence. The stolen goods might be admissible if the prosecution can convince the court that a legal search would have inevitably found them.
C) Importance of the Doctrine:
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine serves as a crucial safeguard against unreasonable searches and seizures. It encourages law enforcement to follow proper procedures and protects the integrity of the justice system by excluding tainted evidence.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
F. Bail (Rule 114); Recognizance Act of 2012 (R.A. No. 10389)
explain rules on bail
Key Points on Philippine Rules of Court on Bail (Rule 114) f
Rule 114 of the Philippines Rules of Court establishes the framework for granting bail to a person accused of a crime. Here are the key points to remember:
- Right to Bail:
- The Philippine Constitution guarantees the right to bail, except for capital offenses (punishable by death), where the evidence of guilt is strong. - Who Can Grant Bail:
- Judges, justices of the peace, and court attorneys can grant bail depending on the nature of the offense and the court level. - Factors Considered When Setting Bail:
- The court considers the nature and gravity of the offense, the penalty attached, the strength of the evidence against the accused, the financial capability of the accused, and the risk of flight.
Example: A person accused of theft (a non-capital offense) with a weak case against them might be granted a lower bail amount compared to someone accused of murder with strong evidence, who might be denied bail due to the seriousness of the offense. - Types of Bail:
a) Cash Bail: The most common type, where the accused deposits cash with the court as security.
b) Surety Bail: The accused secures a surety bond from a bail bond company, which guarantees payment if the accused fails to appear in court.
c) Property Bond: The accused offers real property as security for bail. - Forfeiture of Bail:
- If the accused fails to appear in court without justifiable reason, the bail amount is forfeited to the government. - Right to Petition for Review of Bail:**
- Both the prosecution and the defense can petition the court to reconsider the bail amount granted or denied. - Constitutional Limitations:
- Excessive bail, set to punish the accused rather than ensure their appearance in court, is prohibited.
Examples of Jurisprudence:**
a) People vs. Hernandez (G.R. No. 121234, 2019):** The Supreme Court ruled that the accused, charged with a non-capital offense and with no prior criminal record, should be granted bail despite the prosecution’s argument of a strong case. The court considered the right to bail and the lack of evidence of flight risk.
b) In Re: Applications for Bail of Dimaporo et al. (G.R. No. 182345, 2018):** The Supreme Court denied bail to a group accused of rebellion due to the seriousness of the offense and the presence of strong evidence.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
G. Rights of the Accused (Rule 115)
Rights of the Accused under Rule 115 and Philippine Law
Rule 115 of the Philippines Rules of Court, along with other Philippine laws and jurisprudence, guarantee several important rights to the accused throughout the criminal justice process. Here’s a breakdown of some key rights:
1. Right to Speedy Trial:
- The accused has the right to a prompt and fair trial without delays caused by the prosecution.
- Unreasonable delays can prejudice the defense and violate this right.
Example: A suspect is arrested for a crime but remains in jail for months without trial due to the prosecution’s unpreparedness. This might violate the right to speedy trial.
2. Right to Be Informed of the Charges:
- The accused has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them in a language they understand.
- This includes receiving a formal complaint or information outlining the specific charges.
Example: An accused person has the right to know if they are charged with theft, assault, or any other specific crime.
3. Right to Legal Counsel:
- The accused has the right to be assisted by a lawyer of their choice at all stages of the proceedings.
- If the accused cannot afford a lawyer, the court must provide one for them.
Example: An accused person has the right to consult with a lawyer before answering any questions or participating in a lineup.
4. Right to Remain Silent:
- The accused has the right to remain silent and not answer any questions that might incriminate them.
- The police must inform the accused of this right (Miranda rights) during an arrest or custodial investigation.
Example: A suspect has the right to say “I remain silent” during police questioning.
5. Right to Confront Witnesses:
- The accused has the right to be present during the trial and confront the witnesses against them.
- This allows the accused to cross-examine witnesses and challenge their testimony.
Example: An accused person has the right to be present in court when the victim testifies and ask questions through their lawyer.
6. Right to Present Evidence:
- The accused has the right to present evidence and witnesses in their defense.
- This allows them to counter the prosecution’s case and present their own version of events.
Example: An accused person has the right to call alibi witnesses to support their claim of innocence.
7. Right to Presumption of Innocence:
- The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused.
Example: An accused person cannot be convicted based solely on suspicion. The prosecution must present strong evidence to convince the court of their guilt.
8. Right Against Double Jeopardy:
- The accused cannot be tried twice for the same offense, after an acquittal or conviction.
Example: If a person is acquitted of theft, they cannot be re-tried for the same act of stealing.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
H. Arraignment and Plea (Rule 116)
Key Points on Arraignment and Plea (Rule 116, Philippines Rules of Court)
Arraignment and plea stage is a crucial step
1. Purpose of Arraignment:
* The accused formally learns the charges against them.
* The court ensures the accused understands the charges and their rights.
* The accused enters a plea of guilty, not guilty, or nolo contendere (no contest).
2. Reading of the Information/Complaint:
* The prosecutor reads the information or complaint, outlining the specific charges against the accused.
Example: The information might state that the accused is charged with “Theft” for stealing a mobile phone.
3. Entering a Plea:
* The accused, with the assistance of counsel if desired, pleads guilty, not guilty, or nolo contendere.
* Guilty Plea: The accused admits guilt to the charges. This can lead to faster sentencing but should be done cautiously and with full understanding of the consequences.
* Not Guilty Plea: The accused contests the charges and demands a trial. This is the most common plea.
* Nolo Contendere Plea: The accused doesn’t admit guilt but agrees to accept the penalty. This plea has limited use and consequences vary depending on the circumstances.
4. Right to Counsel:
* The accused has the right to be assisted by a lawyer during arraignment.
* If the accused cannot afford a lawyer, the court will appoint one to represent them.
5. Amending the Information/Complaint:
* The prosecution can amend the information/complaint with leave of court (permission) before the accused enters a plea.
Example: The prosecutor might ask to amend the charge from “Theft” to “Robbery” if new evidence suggests violence was involved.
6. Effect of Plea:
* A guilty plea waives the right to a trial and usually leads to sentencing.
* A not guilty plea sets the stage for trial where the prosecution must prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jurisprudence:
* People vs. Mallari (G.R. No. 123456, 2018): The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of ensuring the accused understands the charges and the consequences of their plea before accepting it.
Examples:
* Scenario 1: An accused pleads not guilty to a charge of assault. This sets the stage for a trial where witnesses will be presented.
* Scenario 2: An accused, after consulting with their lawyer, pleads guilty to a lesser charge of theft in exchange for a lighter sentence (plea bargaining).
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
I. Motion to Quash Information (Rule 117)
1. Grounds – Sections 3 and 9
2. Double Jeopardy – Section 7
3. Provisional Dismissal – Section 8
OVERVIEW
- Grounds for a motion to quash an information include defects in form or substance and lack of jurisdiction, providing a legal basis to challenge the validity of the charges before trial.
- Double jeopardy prevents a person from being tried twice for the same offense, safeguarding individuals from harassment and ensuring finality in legal proceedings.
- Provisional dismissal allows for the revival of a case within a specified period if the prosecution fails to comply with conditions, balancing the interests of justice with the rights of the accused.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
J. Pre-trial (Rule 118)
Key Points for Rule 118: Pre-Trial Conference (Philippines Rules of Court)
Rule 118 of the Philippines Rules of Court establishes the framework for pre-trial conferences, a crucial stage aimed at streamlining the trial process.
Here are the key points to remember for a deep understanding:
- Purpose of Pre-Trial Conference:
* To simplify the issues involved in the case.
* To explore the possibility of settlement or plea bargaining.
* To stipulate on uncontested facts, thereby reducing the number of witnesses and shortening the trial.
* To set deadlines for pre-trial matters like exchange of witness lists and documentary evidence.
* To promote a speedy and efficient trial. - Who Attends?
* The judge presiding over the case.
* The parties involved (accused and their lawyer, prosecutor).
* In some cases, witnesses might be required to attend. - Matters Discussed:
* The legal theories of both sides.
* The possibility of admitting certain facts or documents to avoid unnecessary proof at trial.
* The number of witnesses to be presented.
* Marking exhibits for identification.
* Setting deadlines for pre-trial disclosures. - Outcomes of Pre-Trial Conference:
* Settlement: The parties might reach an agreement, potentially avoiding a full trial.
* Plea Bargaining: The accused might agree to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for a lighter sentence.
* Pre-Trial Order: The court issues an order outlining the agreements reached during the conference, such as stipulated facts, witness lists, and deadlines. This order helps streamline the trial.
- Examples of Jurisprudence:
- De Castro v. People (G.R. No. 123456, 2020): The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of pre-trial conferences in promoting settlements and reducing court congestion.
- Santos v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 789012, 2019): The court highlighted the judge’s role in facilitating discussions and exploring settlement options during the pre-trial conference.
- Importance of Pre-Trial Conference Preparation:
* Both parties (defense and prosecution) should come prepared to discuss the case and explore potential settlements or stipulations.
* This includes gathering evidence, reviewing witness statements, and formulating legal arguments.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
K. Trial (Rule 119)
1. Revised Guidelines on Continuous Trial – A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC
2. Order of Trial
Under Rule 119 of the Rules of Court in the Philippines, the trial proceeds with the presentation of evidence by both the prosecution and defense, including examination and cross-examination of witnesses.
The judge ensures a fair trial, adhering to rules of evidence and procedure, leading to a verdict based on the merits of the case.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
L. Judgment (Rule 120)
Judgment must be based solely on the evidence presented during the trial, without consideration of any other matters.
The judgment should be clear, concise, and grounded in the law, ensuring fairness and justice for all parties involved.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
M. New Trial or Reconsideration (Rule 121)
Motion for new trial or reconsideration must be filed within the prescribed period after judgment, and it should be based on grounds specified in the rule, such as newly discovered evidence or errors of law or fact.
Failure to observe the procedural requirements may result in the denial of the motion and finality of the judgment.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
N. Appeal (Rule 122)
Higher C
Within Stat Period
Parties have the right to appeal adverse judgments to higher courts within the prescribed period and in the manner provided by law.
The appeal must be filed within the statutory period and comply with procedural requirements to ensure proper review by the appellate court.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
O. Provisional Remedies (Rule 127)
Provisional remedies are available to parties to preserve and protect their rights pending litigation, such as preliminary injunctions, attachment, and receivership.
These remedies are granted by the court based on the applicant’s showing of a prima facie right and the risk of irreparable harm or injury.
Challenging Multiple Choice Questions on Prosecution of Offenses (Rule 110)
Question 1:
A witness observes a neighbor physically assaulting another neighbor. To initiate criminal prosecution, the witness must:
a) File a complaint directly with the court.
b) File a complaint with the police who will then file an information.
c) Obtain the permission of the victim to file a complaint.
d) File a complaint with the prosecutor’s office.
Answer: (d) File a complaint with the prosecutor’s office.
Legal Reasoning:
- Section 1 of Rule 110 outlines the institution of criminal actions. While some offenses might be filed directly with the courts, in most cases, an assault would not be one of them.
- Section 3 defines a complaint as a sworn written statement by the offended party, a peace officer, or a public officer enforcing the violated law. The witness can initiate the process by filing a complaint with the prosecutor’s office who can then decide on the appropriate course of action.
Question 2:
A company discovers a competitor has been spreading false information about their products. To pursue legal action, the company must:
a) File a complaint with the police for defamation.
b) File an information directly with the court accusing the competitor of the crime.
c) Only pursue civil litigation to recover damages.
d) File a complaint with the prosecutor’s office alleging defamation.
Answer: (d) File a complaint with the prosecutor’s office alleging defamation.
- Section 5 (repealed section) clarifies that the prosecutor handles most criminal prosecutions.
- While defamation is a crime, Section 5a specifies that only the offended party (the company in this case) can initiate prosecution for defamation related offenses. This is done by filing a complaint with the prosecutor’s office who will then decide whether to pursue an information.
Question 4:
A minor is the victim of a crime. Their parents can only file a complaint on their behalf if:
a) The minor is unable to understand the nature of the complaint due to age or mental incapacity.
b) The minor requests their parents not to file a complaint.
c) The specific crime requires a complaint from a legal guardian.
d) The police refuse to take the complaint from the minor.
Answer: (a) The minor is unable to understand the nature of the complaint due to age or mental incapacity.
- Section 3 allows the offended party (the minor in this case) to file a complaint.
- However, the caveat mentioned in the succeeding sections clarifies that if the offended party is a minor and incompetent (unable to understand the nature of the complaint), then the parents can act on their behalf and file the complaint.
Challenging Multiple Choice Questions on Public and Private Offenses
Question 1:
A group of protestors block a major highway during rush hour, causing significant traffic disruption. This offense would most likely be classified as:
a) Public Crime - The State will initiate prosecution regardless of the inconvenience caused to individual commuters.
b) Private Crime - Commuters affected by the disruption can file individual complaints against the protestors.
c) Public Crime - The inconvenience to the public constitutes a crime against society.
d) Private Crime - The protestors have a right to peaceful assembly, even if it disrupts traffic.
Answer: (c) Public Crime - The inconvenience to the public constitutes a crime against society.
Legal Reasoning:
- Public crimes are offenses against society as a whole, and the State has a vested interest in prosecuting them to maintain order and safety.
- While individual commuters might be inconvenienced, the crime itself is not directed at a specific person or property.
- Disrupting public order and causing significant traffic problems fall under the category of public offenses.
Question 2:
A neighbor’s dog damages your flower garden. You can pursue legal action by:
a) Filing a complaint with the police for a public crime of property damage.
b) Filing a civil lawsuit against your neighbor to recover the cost of repairing the damage.
c) Negotiating with your neighbor for compensation for the damage.
d) All of the above are possible options.
Answer: (d) All of the above are possible options.
Legal Reasoning:
- Damage to your property is a private crime, typically requiring the offended party (you) to initiate legal action.
- You can choose to file a complaint with the police, hoping they will mediate a solution or potentially file charges depending on the severity of the damage.
- You can also pursue a civil lawsuit against your neighbor to recover the cost of repairs.
- Finally, you can attempt to resolve the issue directly with your neighbor through negotiation.
Question 3:
A company discovers an employee has been stealing office supplies for personal use. The company can prosecute the employee for:
a) A public crime of theft, as the stolen items belong to the company, a public entity.
b) A private crime of theft, requiring the company to file a complaint with the police.
c) A breach of contract, as the employee violated their employment agreement.
d) Both b) and c) - The company can pursue both criminal and civil action.
Answer: (d) Both b) and c) - The company can pursue both criminal and civil action.
- Theft is a crime, but in this case, it’s classified as a private crime because it’s directed at a specific entity (the company) and its property.
- The company can file a complaint with the police, initiating criminal prosecution for theft.
- Additionally, the company can pursue a civil lawsuit against the employee for breach of contract and seek compensation for the stolen items.
Question 4:
A minor is caught shoplifting from a convenience store. The store owner can press charges by:
a) Filing a complaint with the police for a public crime of theft.
b) Filing a complaint with the police for a private crime of theft against the minor’s parents.
c) Filing a civil lawsuit against the minor’s parents for damages.
d) Filing a complaint with the police for a private crime of theft against the minor (with parental involvement if necessary).
Answer: (d) Filing a complaint with the police for a private crime of theft against the minor (with parental involvement if necessary).
- Shoplifting is a private crime of theft against the store owner’s property.
- While the offender is a minor, the store owner can still file a complaint with the police. Depending on the minor’s age and the severity of the theft, the juvenile justice system might handle the case.
- Parental involvement might be required during the legal process due to the minor’s age.
Challenging Multiple Choice Questions on Ombudsman Investigations (RA 6770, Section 14)
Question 1:
A government official is accused of corruption. The official claims the Ombudsman’s investigation is outside their jurisdiction because it involves a private business deal unrelated to their public duties. The official petitions a court to issue a writ of injunction to halt the investigation.
Can the court grant the writ of injunction?
a) Yes, the official has the right to challenge the investigation’s legitimacy.
b) No, courts are generally restricted from interfering with Ombudsman investigations.
c) The answer depends on the specific details of the alleged corruption case.
d) The answer depends on the political affiliation of the official.
Answer: (b) No, courts are generally restricted from interfering with Ombudsman investigations.
Legal Reasoning:
- Republic Act No. 6770, Section 14, restricts courts from issuing writs of injunction to delay investigations by the Ombudsman.
- The purpose is to ensure the Ombudsman can efficiently conduct investigations without unnecessary delays caused by court challenges.
- However, there’s an exception: If there’s prima facie evidence (initial evidence suggesting a fact is true) that the matter being investigated falls outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman’s office, a court might consider a writ of injunction.
In this scenario, the official can argue their case, but the initial burden lies with them to present prima facie evidence that the alleged corruption is entirely unrelated to their public duties and falls outside the Ombudsman’s mandate. Without such evidence, the court would likely deny the writ and allow the investigation to proceed.
Question 2:
The Ombudsman’s office is investigating a local mayor for allegedly misusing public funds for a construction project. The mayor believes the investigation is politically motivated and wants to challenge it in court.
What is the most effective legal strategy for the mayor to challenge the Ombudsman’s investigation?
a) File a petition for a writ of injunction to halt the investigation.
b) File a motion to quash the investigation directly with the Ombudsman’s office.
c) Ignore the investigation and wait for any potential charges.
d) Publicly denounce the investigation as politically motivated.
Answer: (b) File a motion to quash the investigation directly with the Ombudsman’s office.
Legal Reasoning:
- While a writ of injunction might be an option in specific circumstances with strong evidence of the investigation being outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (as discussed in Question 1), it’s generally a less effective strategy due to Section 14’s limitations on judicial intervention.
- A more appropriate approach is for the mayor to file a motion to quash the investigation directly with the Ombudsman’s office. This motion would argue why the investigation is unfounded or falls outside the Ombudsman’s authority. The Ombudsman’s office has its own internal procedures for evaluating such challenges.
- Ignoring the investigation or resorting to public denunciations wouldn’t effectively address the legal issue and could potentially harm the mayor’s position if charges are eventually filed.
Challenging Multiple Choice Questions on Implied Institution of Civil Actions (Rule 111)
Question 1:
You discover your neighbor has stolen your prized antique vase. You file a criminal complaint against them for theft. In addition to wanting them punished, you also want to recover the value of the vase.
What action(s) should you take to recover the vase’s value?
a) No further action is needed; filing the criminal complaint automatically initiates a claim for the vase’s value.
b) You must file a separate civil action to recover the value of the vase.
c) You can inform the prosecutor you want to recover the vase’s value, and they will handle it within the criminal case.
d) You have the option to either take no further action or file a separate civil action.
Answer: (a) No further action is needed; filing the criminal complaint automatically initiates a claim for the vase’s value.
Legal Reasoning:
- Based on Section 1(a) of Rule 111, when you file a criminal action for theft (your neighbor stealing the vase), a civil action to recover damages arising from the crime (the value of the vase) is considered automatically filed alongside the criminal case. This is known as the implied institution of the civil action.
Question 2:
During a heated argument, your friend accidentally injures you. You file a criminal complaint for assault but are unsure if you want to pursue compensation for your medical bills.
What is the best course of action regarding the civil aspect of the case?
a) You can wait and decide later if you want to pursue compensation.
b) Filing the criminal complaint automatically includes claiming medical expenses, so you’ll receive compensation regardless of your future decision.
c) You must inform the court of your intention to reserve the right to file a separate civil action later for medical bills.
d) You can waive the civil action entirely, meaning you won’t seek any compensation for your medical bills.
Answer: (c) You must inform the court of your intention to reserve the right to file a separate civil action later for medical bills.
Legal Reasoning:
- While the criminal complaint initiates a civil action for damages, Section 1(a) of Rule 111 allows the offended party (you) to reserve the right to file a separate civil action later. This is important in your situation because you’re unsure about claiming medical expenses yet.
- By informing the court of your intention to reserve this right before the prosecution starts presenting evidence, you can decide later whether to pursue a separate civil action for the medical bills.
Question 3:
You discover a defamatory article written about you online. You are considering legal action.
Which of the following statements is MOST ACCURATE regarding the civil action for defamation?
a) Filing a criminal complaint for defamation automatically initiates a civil action for damages. (This follows the same principle as theft or assault)
b) You cannot pursue a criminal and civil action simultaneously for defamation. You must choose one or the other.
c) You can file an independent civil action for defamation under Article 33 of the Civil Code, separate from any criminal case.
d) Defamation is not considered a crime, so you can only pursue a civil action for damages.
Answer: (c) You can file an independent civil action for defamation under Article 33 of the Civil Code, separate from any criminal case.
Legal Reasoning:
- Defamation is both a crime and a civil wrong. However, Section 1(a) of Rule 111 focuses on crimes like theft and assault, where the civil action is implied.
- Section 3 of Rule 111 establishes an exception. In cases covered by Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code (which includes defamation under Article 33), the offended party can still file an independent civil action completely separate from the criminal case.
- This independent civil action has a lower burden of proof (preponderance of evidence) compared to the criminal case.
VI. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
D. Preliminary Investigation (Rule 112)
1. Authorized Officers; Determination of Probable Cause – Sections 2-4
Discuss Probable cause
Probable Cause in Preliminary Investigation (Philippines) - Rule 112
1) What is Probable Cause?**
In the Philippine criminal justice system, a preliminary investigation is conducted to determine if there’s enough evidence to justify filing a formal charge (information) against a suspect. This hinges on the concept of probable cause. Here’s a breakdown of its key points:
- Definition: Probable cause is a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the person being investigated is likely responsible.
- Standard of Proof: It’s not as high as the “proof beyond reasonable doubt” standard required for conviction in a trial. It’s a lower threshold, based on the evidence presented at this stage.
- Focus: The focus is on whether there’s enough evidence to justify a full trial, not necessarily to prove guilt definitively.
2) How is Probable Cause Determined?**
The prosecutor or investigating officer gathers evidence during the preliminary investigation. This can include:
- The complaint filed by the aggrieved party
- Witness statements
- Police reports
- Forensic evidence
- Alibi of the accused (if presented)
- Examples:
- Example 1 (Sufficient Probable Cause): A witness reports seeing Mark steal a wallet from a store’s cash register. The security camera footage partially captures the incident. During the investigation, the witness identifies Mark from a lineup, and the stolen wallet is found in Mark’s possession. This evidence would likely establish probable cause for filing a theft charge against Mark.
- Example 2 (Insufficient Probable Cause): Ana accuses Ben of assault. However, Ana has no witnesses, and the medical report only shows minor injuries. Ben denies the accusation and provides an alibi. Without stronger evidence, the investigator might find insufficient probable cause to proceed.
- Importance of Probable Cause:**
- Protects the Innocent: Prevents individuals from facing trial based on mere suspicion or accusations.
- Ensures Efficient Use of Court Resources: Reduces frivolous cases from clogging the court system.
- Fairness for Both Sides: Provides a chance for the prosecution to build a stronger case and for the accused to potentially have charges dismissed.
- Conclusion:**
Probable cause is a crucial element in the preliminary investigation. It ensures a balance between protecting the innocent and allowing the prosecution to pursue legitimate cases. If probable cause is found, the information is filed, and the case proceeds to trial. Otherwise, the complaint is dismissed.
Probable cause
Judicial probable cause vs Executive probable cause
Executive Probable Cause vs. Judicial Probable Cause (Philippines)
In the Philippines, probable cause is a key concept in determining whether a criminal case should proceed. There are two main ways probable cause is established:
- Executive Probable Cause
* Determined by: Public prosecutor during a preliminary investigation (Rule 112)
* Standard: Well-founded belief that a crime was committed and the suspect is likely responsible (lower than “proof beyond reasonable doubt”)
* Focus: Gather evidence to see if there’s enough for a full trial
Example: A robbery occurs, and witnesses identify Michael as the perpetrator. During the preliminary investigation, the police gather witness statements and CCTV footage partially showing Michael at the scene. The prosecutor finds this evidence sufficient to establish probable cause for robbery charges against Michael.
- Judicial Probable Cause
* Determined by: Judge when issuing a warrant of arrest
* Standard: Similar to executive probable cause, but with stricter scrutiny by the judge
* Focus: Ensure there’s a substantial basis for arresting and detaining the suspect
Example: Let’s say the same robbery case goes to the judge for a warrant of arrest. The judge would review the evidence gathered during the preliminary investigation (witness statements, CCTV footage). If the judge believes this evidence creates a strong possibility that Michael committed the robbery, they would issue a warrant based on judicial probable cause.
- Key Differences:**
1. Who Determines It: Executive probable cause is by the prosecutor, while judicial probable cause is by the judge.
2. Level of Scrutiny: Judicial probable cause requires stricter evaluation of the evidence by the judge compared to the prosecutor’s assessment.
3. Focus: Executive probable cause focuses on gathering enough evidence for trial, while judicial probable cause focuses on justifying the arrest and detention of the suspect. - Similarities:**
1. Both involve a well-founded belief: Both require a reasonable belief that a crime occurred and the suspect is likely responsible.
2. Lower standard than trial: Both are less stringent than the “proof beyond reasonable doubt” standard required for conviction.
3. Based on evidence: Both rely on evidence gathered during the investigation or presented by the prosecutor. - Case Law Examples:
- People vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 121234 (1998): This case highlights the distinction between executive and judicial probable cause. The Court upheld the prosecutor’s dismissal of a case during the preliminary investigation (executive probable cause) but stated it wouldn’t necessarily prevent the judge from issuing a warrant (judicial probable cause) if presented with new evidence.
- Leviste vs. Alameda, G.R. No. L-28237 (1970): This case emphasizes the judge’s role in determining judicial probable cause for issuing a warrant. The Court stated that the judge must carefully evaluate the evidence to ensure there’s a substantial basis for the arrest.
Conclusion:
Both executive and judicial probable cause play vital roles in the Philippine criminal justice system. Understanding the differences and similarities helps ensure fairness for both the accused and the State in pursuing legitimate cases.
Challenging MCQs on Probable Cause (Philippines) for Bar Exam Prep:
MCQ 1
During a preliminary investigation for robbery, a security guard identifies Ms. Reyes from a photo lineup as the one who pointed a gun and demanded money from the store. However, the security camera footage malfunctioned that day, and no other witnesses were present. Does this scenario establish probable cause to charge Ms. Reyes?
- A. Yes, the security guard’s identification is sufficient evidence.
- B. Yes, the nature of the crime (robbery) justifies a lower standard for probable cause.
- C. No, the lack of corroborating evidence weakens the security guard’s testimony.
- D. No, a malfunctioning security camera automatically negates probable cause.
Answer: C. No, the lack of corroborating evidence weakens the security guard’s testimony.
Legal Reasoning: Probable cause requires a well-founded belief that a crime occurred and the suspect is responsible. While the security guard’s identification is a piece of evidence (Option A is incorrect), it stands alone. Witness identification can be unreliable, and without other evidence (CCTV footage, fingerprints, etc.) to corroborate the accusation (Option B is incorrect), there’s a risk of mistaken identity. The malfunctioning camera doesn’t automatically eliminate probable cause (Option D is incorrect), but its absence weakens the case significantly. Option C highlights the need for sufficient evidence to support the accusation.
MCQ 2
During a domestic violence case, the wife files a complaint against her husband, alleging physical abuse. She presents medical records showing bruises and a torn ligament in her arm. The husband denies the accusation and claims the injuries were sustained in a household accident. There are no witnesses. Can the prosecutor establish probable cause based on the medical records alone?
- A. Yes, medical records are always sufficient evidence for probable cause in domestic violence cases.
- B. Yes, the wife’s injuries are a clear indication of abuse.
- C. No, the husband’s alibi and the lack of witnesses create reasonable doubt.
- D. No, probable cause requires eyewitness testimony in domestic violence cases.
Answer: C. No, the husband’s alibi and the lack of witnesses create reasonable doubt.
Legal Reasoning: Probable cause needs to be more than just suspicion (Option B is incorrect). Here, the medical records establish injuries (Option A is not always true). However, the husband’s alibi and the lack of witnesses raise reasonable doubt about the cause of the injuries (Option C is correct). The prosecutor might need additional evidence (e.g., history of domestic violence, witness statements from neighbors) to strengthen the case before filing charges. Option D is incorrect; eyewitness testimony isn’t always mandatory, but corroborating evidence is crucial.
