RULE 117 – MOTION TO QUASH

*Note: When to file a motion to quash and effect of not filing a motion to quash (refer to
earlier discussions)
What is the form of a motion to quash? (Rule 117, Sec. 2)
-It is in writing.
Who files it? (Rule 117, Sec.2)
It is only the accused or his counsel who files the motion.
What is the nature of a motion to quash?
A motion to quash is a class by itself/sue generis. It is filed only upon the grounds
mentioned in Rule 117, Sec. 3. There can never be any other grounds for a motion to quash
criminal informations except those provided under Rule 117, Sec. 3.
Grounds for Filing a Motion to Quash (Rule 117, Sec. 3)
*Note: These grounds are exclusive. Memorize these grounds.
1) The facts charged do not constitute an offense;
2) The court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense; (Lack of jurisdiction over the
offense)
3) The court trying the accused has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused; (Lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused)
4) The officer who filed the information had no authority to do so.
5) The complaint or information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form.
6) More than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is
prescribed by law.
7) The criminal action or liability has been extinguished. (Extinction of penal action)
8) The complaint or information contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal
excuse or justification, and;
Eg. The information avers that the accused is insane or a minor.
9) The accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case
against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. (Double
jeopardy)

Test for Sufficiency of the Complaint or Information

By way of Jurisprudence: An information is sufficient if its averments, if hypothetically
admitted, whether the facts alleged would establish the essential elements of the offense as
defined by law without considering matters aliunde.
Note: This is very similar to the test to determine the sufficiency of a petition or complaint in a
civil action.
Only the ultimate, and not evidentiary facts are considered. Ultimate facts are those that
allege the cause of action or elements of a crime. Evidentiary facts are those that support the
allegations of the ultimate facts.
Eg. In a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage for absence of essential
requisites, the following will be the ultimate facts:
a) The parties were married.
b) At the time the parties were married, either or both of them do not possess all the
essential elements for marriage – ie consent, contracting capacity such as legal age,
former marriage that has not been nullified or annulled, etc.
 If applicable, the following are added:
c) Allegations as to having children and their custody;
d) Allegations as to acquisition of property;
The evidentiary facts will be the following:
a) How the parties met;
b) Making allegations as to psychological incapacity;
c) Describing their life and feelings before and after the marriage;
Simply said:
Sufficiency of Criminal Information: A criminal information is complete, if by just looking at it,
a judgment of conviction may be had. It can sustain a judgment of conviction.
Sufficiency of a Complaint/Petition in a Civil Action/ Special Proceeding: A complaint is
sufficient, if just by itself, judgment may be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and granting the
prayers therein.
Are there grounds for a motion to quash that may not be waived?
Yes. As a rule, failure to file a motion to quash constitutes a waiver over its grounds.
However, the following grounds may not be waived:
1) The facts averred do not constitute an offense.
2) Jurisdiction over the offense is absent.
3) Extinction of Criminal Liability
4) Double Jeopardy
Is a court mandated to grant a motion to quash?
No. A court may always grant or deny a motion to quash upon its discretion.
Denial of a Motion to Quash
What is the implication of a court’s denial of a motion to quash?
The Court is not persuaded by the accused’s argument.
What is the remedy of an accused whose motion to quash has been denied?
The accused whose motion to quash has been denied must enter his plea and go to trial.
What if the accused still wants to question the order of the Court denying his Motion to
Quash?
The accused must resort to a Rule 65 petition/ Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
Note: Appeal is not the proper remedy in case the motion to quash is denied. There being no
appeal, if the accused still wants to question the order denying the motion to quash, he must
resort to a Rule 65 Petition/Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. Nonetheless, before such
petition may be acted upon, two things need to be alleged and shown:
a) first, there is no appeal, nor any other plain, adequate, and speedy remedy
provided for by law and;
b) second, the grounds for the petition must be alleged and shown – grave or
abuse of discretion resulting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
Note: Courts are given a wide array of discretion. It is only grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess or jurisdiction that is condemned by the rules.
By simply alleging and invoking the grounds and requisites for a Rule 65 petition, is the
Court mandated to entertain such petition?
No. Claiming that the court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, lack or excess of jurisdiction, or invoking substantial justice, liberal
application of rules are never magic words that will automatically warrant the Courts to review
its findings.
Granting a Motion to Quash
What is the prosecution’s remedy in case a motion to quash is granted?
The following are the remedies available to the prosecution when a motion to quash
has been granted.
1) Amend the complaint or information if such cures the defect.
Eg. Duplicity of complaint or information; The facts charged do not constitute an
offense.
2) Refile the complaint or information.
Eg. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense.
3) Appeal from the order granting the motion to quash. This is applicable only if the
motion to quash is sustained on the grounds of extinction of criminal liability and
double jeopardy. Sustaining a motion to quash over the said grounds constitutes a
final order or an adjudication by merits, which is the proper subject of an appeal.
Appeal is available only for a final order or an adjudication by merits, and not for
interlocutory orders.
Void and Defective Information
A void information may be assailed anytime while a defective information may only be
assailed before arraignment. A void information does not confer any jurisdiction to the
courts over the offense while the defects in a defective information may be waived and the
courts may still acquire jurisdiction over the offense.
An order sustaining a motion to quash not a bar to another prosecution.(sec. 6)
Exception: When the motion to quash was based on the grounds of extinction of criminal
liability or double jeopardy because such is considered an adjudication by merits.
Rule on Supervening Facts (Rule 117, Sec. 7)
Sec. 7, par 1=General rule on double jeopardy also described as “Res judicata in prison
grey”(Trinidad v. Ombudsman, Dec. 4, 2007)
Sec 7, par. 2 is otherwise known as the Supervening Fact Doctrine
The conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense
which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint or information under any
of the following instances.
a) The graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or
omission constituting the former charge.
b) The facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered only after a
plea was entered in the former complaint or information; or
c) The plea of guilty to a lesser offense was made without the consent of the prosecutor and
of the offended party.
Note: this is an exception to the general rule on Double Jeopardy.
Note: Where after the first prosecution, a new fact supervenes for which the accused is
responsible, which changes the character of the offense  and,  together  with  the  facts 
existing  at the time,
 constitutes a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if
indicted for the second offense.
A new fact supervenes which, would change the nature of the crime.
Origin of the Rule
(P vs. Tarok, 73 Phil. 260; P vs. Villasis, 46 O.G. 268; Melo vs. People, 85 Phil. 766; People vs.
Buling, 107 Phil. 712; People vs. Adil, 76 SCRA 462; People vs. Tac-an, 182 SCRA 601; and
People vs. City Court of Manila, 121 SCRA 637)
This present rule was brought about as a result of jurisprudence.
Prior to this rule, there is this case where a former charge of grave physical injuries was
not allowed to be amended to Homicide. In this case, the charge for Grave Physical Injuries was
filed while the victim is still in the hospital. The accused was arraigned, and he entered a plea of
not guilty. Subsequently, the victim died of his injuries. When the prosecutor expressed his
desire to upgrade the former charge, the Court ruled that it may not be allowed as Double
Jeopardy has set in. In another case, an accused was charged with serious physical injuries, for
which he was convicted. When the victim, who happens to be his own wife, died from
meningitis contracted from her injuries, the Court did not allow the second charge of parricide to
prosper (People v Taroc, 73 Phil 260).
These doctrines were later abandoned, in one case, the accused was initially charged with
frustrated homicide. After his arraignment, the victim died, and the information was amended
into one for consummated homicide. The Court abandoned its former rulings and allowed the
second charge to prosper (Melo v People, 85 Phil 766).
In another similar case, an accused was charged for Grave Physical Injuries. His
arraignment was scheduled in the afternoon. On the morning of the day of his arraignment, the
victim died and the accused was informed of it. The accused kept silent and never informed the
prosecutor or the court. The prosecutor and court were unaware that the victim died.
Arraignment and plea proceeded as scheduled. Upon learning that the victim died, the prosecutor
expressed his desire to upgrade the offense from Grave Physical Injuries to Homicide. This time,
the Court allowed it. It pointed out that the accused knowingly pleaded to the lesser offense.
(People v Espino, 69 Phil 471)
This was reiterated in another case (People v City Court of Manila 121 SCRA 637 –
compare this with the Ivler Doctrine). The accused was charged with Reckless Imprudence
Resulting In Serious Physical Injuries and the accused pleaded to such. However, the victim died
on the day that the first information was filed. The information was amended into a charge for
Reckless Imprudence Resulting In Homicide. On the issue whether double jeopardy has set in
preventing the amended charge to prosper, the Court ruled that there will be double jeopardy if
the accused is unaware that the victim is dead while entering the plea. But if the accused is
aware that the victim died and still he entered a guilty plea, there will be no double
jeopardy.
People v City Court of Manila, 121 SCRA 637
The victim died on the day that the first information for Reckless Imprudence Resulting
in Serious Physical Injuries was filed. 2 days later, the accused was arraigned, pleaded guilty,
and was sentenced. The prosecutor though, received information that the victim died. He moved
to hold in abeyance the arraignment and proceedings in the first charge to allow amendment of
the information. The court did not allow it. When the amended information was filed, the Court
dismissed it. It made this pronouncement, “the accused was arraigned, pleaded guilty and
sentenced accordingly. Thus, jeopardy had attached and no new fact supervened after the
arraignment and conviction of the accused.”
 Provisional Dismissal (Rule 117 Sec. 8)
A provisional dismissal is one where the dismissal is merely temporary.
What are the requisites of a valid provisional dismissal?
A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except with the express consent of the
accused and with notice to the offended party.
Why is the express consent of the accused needed? (People v Lacson GR No. 149453, April
1, 2003)
The raison d’ etre for the requirement of the express consent of the accused to a
provisional dismissal of a criminal case is to bar him from subsequently asserting that the
revival of the criminal case will place him in double jeopardy for the same offense or for an
offense necessary included therein.
May the Offended Party oppose the granting of a Provisional Dismissal?
No. In fact, provisional dismissal is favorable to the offended party especially for
purposes of locating witnesses for the prosecution. Provisional Dismissal is designed to counter
the possibility of an accused invoking his Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial.
May a provisional dismissal become permanent?
Yes, provided the case has not been revived and after the lapse of one or two years from
the issuance of the order granting provisional dismissal, as the case may be. (This is known as
the Time Bar rule)

Penalty of the Number of Years

Offense Charged before provisional
dismissal becomes
final
Imprisonment of not 1 year
more than 6 years
Fine only 1 year
Imprisonment of 2 years
more than 6 years

Distinctions Between Motion to Quash and Provisional Dismissal

Motion to Quash Provisional Dismissal

Form Should be in writing May be in any form

Who Files Filed by the Accused Either filed by the accused,

prosecution, or both.
When to File Before Entering Plea Anytime

Grounds for Filing Exclusive- only those found in Any ground will do
Rule 117, Sec. 3
Effect Bars Continuation of Proceedings Shortens the period of
Prescription

*Note: Another exceptional case of People v. Lacson, GR No. 149453, April 1, 2003 (When the
Ivler case was penned in 2010, reviewers and authors all claimed that it will be asked sooner or
later. It has been asked in the 2014 Bar. The Lacson case is considered as a potential bar question
as well ever since it was penned.
In Lacson case, Lacson filed a motion to determine probable cause in the arrest warrants
and information filed against him in connection with the Kuratong Baleleng Shoot outs. The
prosecution moved for provisional dismissal of the cases. No notices of the court orders were
given to the victims’ heirs.
(Patalastas- Allegedly, the heirs were paid blood money amounting to 400 thousand pesos each,
a huge sum at the time the shootout took place. Hehe)
Doctrines in Lacson:
- A motion to determine probable cause filed by the accused is not equivalent to his
express consent.
- The State may revive a criminal case beyond the one-year or two-year periods (of the
time bar rule) provided that there is a justifiable necessity for the delay.
- Lacson construed the phrase “after the issuance of the order of provisional dismissal” to
mean as “after service of the order of dismissal on the public prosecutor who has control of the
prosecution without the criminal case being revived.
Note: In another case involving Lacson, (Secretary v Lacson, 1999) it was held that Criminal
Laws may not be given retroactive effect even if they favor the accused who is not a habitual
delinquent, and even if the law does not prohibit retroactive effect if doing so will result into
grave injustice.
(Some authors and reviewers actually say that Lacson is one single person who can
change the legal landscape of criminal laws.)
Motion to Quash Warrant of Arrest
Note: Refer to earlier discussions on the finding of probable cause to issue warrant of
arrest and the remedies for an accused who claims to be illegally arrested or detained.
Note: There is no rule requiring that the accused must surrender, be arrested or be placed
under the custody of law before his motion to quash the warrant of arrest may be acted
upon.
But in a petition for bail, the accused needs to surrender before the court, be
arrested, or be placed under the custody of law before his petition will be acted upon.
2014 Bar Question: A was charged before the Sandiganbayan with a crime of plunder, a non-
bailable offense, where the court had already issued a warrant for his arrest. Without A being
arrested, his lawyer filed a Motion to Quash Arrest Warrant and to Fix Bail, arguing that the
allegations in the information did not charge the crime of plunder but a crime of malversation, a
bailable offense. The court denied the motion on the ground that it had not yet acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the accused and that the accused should be under the custody of
the court since the crime charged is non-bailable. The accused’s lawyer counter-argued that the
court can rule on the matter even if the accused was at large because it had jurisdiction over the
case. According to the said lawyer, there was no need for the accused to be under the custody of
the court because what was filed was a Motion to Quash Warrant of Arrest and to Fix Bail, not a
Petition for Bail.
A) If you are the Sandiganbayan, how will you rule on the motion?
B) If the Sandiganbayan denies the motion, what judicial remedy should the accused
undertake?
Answers:
 A) As the Sandiganbayan, I will entertain the motion, denying or granting it as the
case maybe depending on whether the ground sought for is meritorious. I may not deny it solely
on the basis the court has yet to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused. There is no
rule requiring that the accused must surrender, be arrested, or be placed under the custody of law
before his motion to quash may be acted upon.

B) The accused should prepare for trial or resort to a petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. The remedy of appeal is not available in an order denying
a motion to quash a warrant of arrest. Without appeal, or any other plain, adequate, and speedy
remedy available, a petition under Rule 65 is appropriate but only upon the grounds of grave
abuse of discretion resulting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or lack or excess of jurisdiction.

RULE 118: PRE-TRIAL

What is the nature of a pre-trial? (Rule 118, Sec. 1)
-A pre-trial, whether in a criminal or civil case is always mandatory. It may never be dispensed
with.
-In criminal cases, it is mandatory in cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial
Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and
Municipal Circuit Trial Court.
Purpose of Pre-trial (Rule 118, Sec. 1)
Pre-trial considers the following (6):
a) Plea bargaining
b) Stipulation of Facts
c) Marking for Identification of evidence of the parties
d) Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence
e) Modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful
defense; and
f) Such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects
of the case.
Note: = Plea bargaining is proper in Pre-trial.
=Facts stipulated upon are among those that need not be proved during trial.
=Evidence that were not presented and marked during the pre-trial, and subsequently are
not included in the pre-trial order, may be objected to when presented and offered during trial.
*Waiving objections over the admissibility of the opposing party’s evidence is probably
the most useless purpose of pre-trial. Neither the prosecutor nor defense, in his right mind, would
waive his objections over the opposing party’s evidence.
When is pre-trial held?
Pre-trial shall be held after arraignment and within thirty (30) days from the date the
court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a shorter period is provided
for in special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court.
Note: A pre-trial needs a Notice of Pre-trial.
Duty of the Judge before pre-trial conference:
He must study the allegations in the information, the statements in the affidavits of
witnesses and other documents forming part of the preliminary investigation. (A.M. No. 03-1-09-
SC, 7-13-04, effective 8-16-04)
What should the Court do if plea bargaining is agreed upon?
The court must:
a) issue an order to that effect;
b) proceed to receive evidence on the civil aspect; and
c) render and promulgate judgment of conviction including the civil liability or damages
duly established by the evidence. (A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, 7-13-04, effective 8-16-04)
NOTE: If plea bargaining fails, the judge shall adopt the minutes of the preliminary
conference (before the clerk of court) as part of the pre-trial proceedings
Note: AM No. 12-8-8-SC or Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR)
To speed up court proceedings, the Supreme Court through its rule making power issued
the Judicial Affidavit Rule.
Judicial Affidavits take the place of direct testimonies of the parties to a case and their
witnesses. Instead of a party or a witness going to court and being asked questions by the counsel
for his testimony, their direct testimonies are now being taken outside of the court through their
judicial affidavits.
Contents of Judicial Affidavits:
Section 3. Contents of Judicial Affidavit- A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the
language known to the witness and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in
English or Filipino, and shall contain the following:
(a) The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;
(b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination
of the witness and the place where the examination is being held;
(c) A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully
conscious that he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony
or perjury;
(d) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively
numbered, that:
(1) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon
which he testifies;
(2) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case
presents; and
(3) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their
authenticity in accordance with the Rules Of Court;
(e) The signature of the witness over his printed name; and
(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an
officer who is authorized by law to administer the same.
Attestation Clause:
Section 4. Sworn Attestation of the Lawyer. –
(a) The judicial affidavit shall contain an attestation at the end, executed by the
lawyer who conducted or supervised the examination of the witness, to the effect that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked and the
corresponding answers that the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting him coached the
witness regarding the latter’s answer;
(b) A false attestation shall subject the lawyer mentioned to disciplinary action,
including disbarment.
Application of JAR in criminal proceedings:
In criminal cases the application of the Judicial Affidavit Rule as well as the time for its
submission are all provided for in Sec. 9 of the Rule or AM No. 12-8-8-SC.
Sec. 9. Application of the Rule to all criminal actions. – (a) This rule shall apply to all
criminal actions:
(1) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years;
(2) Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavit irrespective of the
penalty involved; or
(3) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are.
(b) The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than five
(5) days before pre-trial, serving copies of the same upon the accused. The complainant or the
public prosecutor shall attach to the affidavits such documentary or object evidence as he may
have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on. No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or
object evidence shall be admitted at the trial.
(b) If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits
of the prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavits as well as those of his
witnesses to the court within ten (10) days from receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of
each on the public and private prosecutor, including his documentary and object evidence
previously marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on. These affidavits shall serve as the direct
testimonies of the accused and his witnesses when they appear before the court to testify.
What is the effect of non-compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule?
This is answered by Section 10 of the Rule.
Sec. 10. Effect of Non-compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule.
(a) A party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time
shall be deemed to have waived their submission. The court, may, however, allow only once the
late submission of the same provided, the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice
the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a find of not less than P 1,000.00 nor more than
P 5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.
(b) The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the
scheduled hearing of the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause
despite due notice shall be deemed to have waived his client’s right to confront by cross-
examination the witnesses there present.
The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform to the content
requirements of Section 3 and attestation requirement of Section 4 above. The court, may,
however allow only once the compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing or trial
provided the delay is for a valid reason and would not unduly prejudice the opposing party and
provided further, that public or private counsel responsible for their preparation and submission
pays a fine of not less than P 1,000.00 nor more than P 5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.
Pre-trial Agreement (Rule 118, Sec. 2)
All agreements or admissions made or entered during pre-trial conference shall be
reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against
the accused. The agreements covering the matters referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be
approved by the court.
What are the requisites of a valid pre-trial agreement?
The following are the requisites of a valid pre-trial agreement.
a) It must be in writing.
b) It must be signed by the accused and counsel.
Note: Absent any of the above requisites, any admission made by the accused during pre-trial,
may not be used against him.
General Rule: Allegations must be proven.
Exception/ (What need not be proven):
1) Judicial admission entered at the pre-trial signed by the accused and counsel.
2) Matters that can be taken judicial notice of.
*Judicial Notice connotes that a matter is considered as fact without any proof.
Judicial notice may be mandatory or discretionary but these are better taken in the
subject of evidence.
Eg of Judicial Notice.

Witness (W): I saw the accused at 10 am in the morning.

Prosecutor (P): Is the sun up when you saw him?
 Instead of asking whether the sun is up or is it daytime during 10am, the court
may simply take judicial notice of it.

W: I’m a student at UP.

P: Is UP a market?
*Again, instead of adducing evidence that UP is school or university, the court may
simply take judicial notice of it.
Doctrine of Processual Presumption/ Presumed Identity Approach
May courts take judicial notice of foreign laws?
No. Foreign laws are never the subject of judicial notice. They must be properly alleged
in a pleading and duly proved. In case a foreign law is not alleged or it is not duly proven, it is
presumed to be identical with the local law.
How are foreign laws proven? (Rule 132 Sec. 24)
Foreign laws may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by
the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the
record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the
office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul-general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or by
any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the
record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
What are the modes of alternative dispute resolution?
The following are the modes of alternative dispute resolution.
a) Mediation
b) Conciliation
c) Mini trial
d) Early Neutral Evaluation
e) Arbitration
f) Proceedings before the Philippine Mediation Center
g) Any combination of the foregoing
Proceedings before the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) / Court Annexed Mediation
(CAM)
Before pre-trial and trial, criminal cases that may be the subject of mediation are brought
before the PMC for CAM.
 The purpose of CAM is settlement.
Proceedings before the CAM are unrecorded and confidential. It lasts for a 30-day period
which may be extended for another 30-day period. If no settlement will be arrived at, the case is
brought back to the Courts for Judicial Dispute Resolution.
What crimes may be the subject of mediation(PMC)/JDR?
1. The civil aspect of the following crimes may be the subject of mediation.
a) Estafa
b) Civil aspect of quasi-offenses
c) Violation of BP 22
d) Theft
e) Malicious Mischief
f) Slander or Libel
1. Those covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure (EXCEPT: violations of traffic
rules, violations of municipal or city ordinances because compromise is prohibited)
2. Cases cognizable by the Lupong Tagapamayapa under the Katarungang Pambarangay
Law.
g) Quasi-offenses except those that result to physical injuries or death
Additionally, the following are also covered:
a) Those covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure (except those where compromise
is prohibited), to wit:
1. offenses whose penalty do not exceed 6 months or a fine not exceeding 1,000;
2. Violation of Rental Law;
3. NOTE: while violations of traffic rules & regulations, and municipal or city
ordinances are covered by the Summary Rules, compromise is not allowed for
these offenses.
b) Offenses covered by the Katarungang Pambarangay Law (offenses punishable by not
more than 1 year or fine of not more than 5,000)

Pre-trial in Civil Cases Compared to Pre-trial in Criminal Cases

Civil Case Criminal Case

How initiated: The Court moto proprio or upon The court moto proprio
an ex-parte motion by the
plaintiff
When held: After all pleadings have been After arraignment and within
served and filed. thirty (30) days from the date
the court acquires jurisdiction
over the person of the
accused.
Purpose: Possibility of Amicable Plea bargaining, stipulation of
Settlement or submission to the facts, marking of evidence,
alternative modes of dispute waiver of objections to
resolution admissibility of evidence,
modification of the order of
trial, other matters that will
promote a fair and
expeditious trial
Imposition of Sanctions for The nonappearance of the If the counsel for the accused
Failure to Appear during plaintiff warrants the dismissal or the prosecutor does not
Pre-trial: of his action. The nonappearance appear during pre-trial
by the defendant warrants the conference and does not offer
 presentation of evidence by the an acceptable excuse for his
plaintiff, ex-parte. lack of cooperation, the court
(It is the party who is may impose proper sanctions
sanctioned) or penalties. (It is the
accused’s counsel or
prosecutor who is sanctioned)
Necessity of Pre-trial Brief The parties are required to file Pre-trial briefs are not
and serve their respective pre- mandated by the rules. The
trial briefs. rules are silent as to its
necessity.

Record During Pre-trial. There is no such rule requiring There is strict requirement
that admissions or agreements be that all agreements and
in writing and signed by the admissions made by the
parties otherwise they cannot be accused be in writing and
used against them. signed by him and his
counsel, otherwise, they
cannot be used against him.

Over-all Diagram of Mediation and Court Proceedings