CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE
COMMISSION OF A CRIME
1. The litigation process presupposes the prior commission of a crime or at
least the perception that a crime has been committed.
2. When a crime is committed, there is an offender and, generally, there is a
victim. However, a crime may also be committed by the mere possession of
goods or things prohibited by law.
CONTACT WITH THE LAW
1. No matter how or against whom the offense is committed, the mere
commission of a crime does not automatically trigger the application of the
rules on criminal procedure. The rules come into operation only when acts
are initiated that would put the offender in contact with the law or the
criminal justice system.
2. In not a few cases, the contact with the law occurs when a person is
lawfully arrested without a warrant by a peace officer. Such kind of arrest
may also be effected by a private person under certain situations speeled
out clearly in the Rules.
CONTACT WITH THE LAW
Contact with the law may also occur when law enforcement officers search a
place under the control of the alleged offender and seize goods, articles or
things illegally possessed and found therein.
At the appropriate stage, the accused, by way of defence, may raise certain
issues like the legality of the arrest and the search, the validity of any warrant
issued by the court, or the validity of the manner by which such warrants were
enforced.
CONTACT WITH THE LAW
3. Contact with the law may also take place when the offended party files a
written complaint before the barangay. There are situations or violations of
laws or ordinances which require compliance with the barangay conciliation
proceedings.
INSTITUTION OF THE CRIMINAL
ACTION; PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
• Under the Rules, where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense is at
least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, a preliminary
investigation is required. Thus, the crime of slight physical injuries requires
no preliminary investigation. Under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for
such offense is merely arresto menor or a penalty not exceeding thirty (30)
days. However, homicide requires, as a rule, a preliminary investigation,
since the penalty for such offense is reclusion temporal or a penalty ranging
from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years.
INSTITUTION OF THE CRIMINAL
ACTION; PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
• Assume that a complaint has now been files with t he investigating
prosecutor for the purpose of preliminary investigation. How shall it be
resolved? The rule on the matter is clear. It mandates the prosecutor to
evaluate the complaint and its accompanying evidence. If he finds no ground
to continue with the investigation, he shall dismiss the complaint. If he finds
a reason to proceed with the investigation, he shall issue a subpoena to the
respondent who shall submit his counter-affidavit and those of his witnesses.
He may also submit supporting documents relied upon for his defense. He is
not, however, allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of the submissions of
a counter affidavit.
INSTITUTION OF THE CRIMINAL
ACTION; PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
• As earlier noted there are cases which do not require a preliminary
investigation because the penalty is less than four (4) years, two (2) months
and one (1) day. In these cases, a complaint may be files directly with the
prosecutor, not for preliminary investigation, but for evaluation of the
evidence of the complaint. The prosecutor shall act on the complaint based
on the supporting affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the
complainant and his witnesses. The prosecutor may wither dismiss the
complaint, or file the information in court.
INSTITUTION OF THE CRIMINAL
ACTION; PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
• It needs to be emphasized at this juncture, that there could be an instance
when the accused is not entitled to an ipso facto to a preliminary
investigation even if the offense he is alleged to have committed carries with
it an imposable penalty of at least or even higher than four (4) years, two (2)
months and one (1) day. This situation arises when the accused is lawfully
arrested without a warrant. In such a case, he shall not, as a rule, undergo a
preliminary investigation even if, under the Rules, the offense involves a
penalty which normally would require such investigation.
INSTITUTION OF THE CRIMINAL
ACTION; PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
• The rule that a complaint or information may be filed against the person
lawfully arrested without a warrant, even if no preliminary investigation is
conducted, is not an absolute one.
INSTITUTION OF THE CRIMINAL
ACTION; PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
• May the person lawfully arrested ask for a preliminary investigation even
after the information is filed? Fortunately, for the person arrested, who is
now an accused, he may still do so. Even after the filing of the complaint or
information, the rule still allows the accused to ask for a preliminary
investigation as long as it is made within five (5) days from the time he
learns of tis filing.
DUTY OF THE COURT UPON THE FILING
OD THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
• Under the Rules, the judge has a duty to be performed within ten (10) days
from the filing of such complaint or information. The judge is required to
personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and the evidence
supporting said resolution. This evaluation is called a preliminary
examination, a judicial function separate and distinct from a preliminary
investigation. The latter is a function of the prosecutor and is conducted after
the information is filed in court. When the information has been filed, the
judge conducts the preliminary examination in order to determine probably
cause to justify the propriety of issuing a warrant of arrest.
AVAILMENT OF PROVISION REMEDIES
• When the complaint or information is filed and the civil action arising t=from
the offense charged is properly instituted in accordance with the Rules, the
offended party may avail of the provisional remedies available in civil
actions.
• Where the civil liability includes support for the offspring as a consequence
of the crime, the accused may also be orders to provide support pendente lite
to the child born to the offended party as long as the civil aspect has not been
waived, reserved or instituted prior to the criminal action.
BAIL
• Recall that after the investigating prosecutor finds probable cause to hold the
respondent for trial, he shall prepare the information and the supporting
resolution. When the information is filed, the respondent now becomes
accused. When the court issues a warrant of arrest and he is arrested, the
court now acquires jurisdiction over his person. Jurisdiction over the person
of the accused may also be acquired by other means as when he voluntarily
surrenders, thereby submitting himself to the court’s jurisdiction. Recall, too,
that in those cases not subject to preliminary investigation, a complaint may
be filed directly in court (MTC)
BAIL
• It is not, however, correct to assume that bail may be availed of only after the
filing of the complaint or information. A person in custody of the law who is not
yet charged in court may apply for bail with any court in the province city, or
municipality where he is held.
• Worthy of note is the rule that an application for or admission to bail shall not bar
the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant
issued for his arrest provided that he raises his objections before entering his plea.
The application or admission to bail by the accused shall not also bar him from
assailing the regularity or absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge
against him provided the matter is also raised by him before he enters hi plea.
BAIL
• Bail may be a matter of right or a matter of judicial discretion. Before or after
the conviction of the accused on the MTC, bail is a matter of right. It is also a
matter of right before his conviction in the RTC provided he is charged with
an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
However, if he is convicted in the RTC od an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, bail becomes a matter of
discretion on the part of the court.
BAIL
• Even a person charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment may be allowed bail when evidence of his guilt is not
strong and there are other circumstance which would justify the grant of bail.
The grant or denial of bail to a person charged with an offense punishable by
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is dependent on whether or not the
evidence of guilt is strong. That the evidence of guilt is strong is one which
the prosecution has the burden of proving.
ARRAIGNMENT
• The rule requires the presence of the accused during arraignment for him to
personally enter his plea
• If the accused refuses to plead, a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him.
• The accused may also enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense as when he is
charged with attempted homicide and he pleads guilty merely to physical
injuries.
MOTION TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT
OR INFORMATION
• One of the options of the accused before he enters his plea, when called for arraignment, is
to file a motion to quash the complaint or information. The motion is required to be in
writing, filed before the accused enters his plea, signed by the accused or his counsel, and
distinctly specifies both the factual and legal grounds relied upon for the dismissal of the
complaint or information.
• The filing of the motion is of vital importance to the defense of the accused. His failure to
file the motion or his failure to assert any of the allowable grounds shall be deemed a
waiver of the grounds not invoked. There are, however, grounds which are not deemed
waived even if not invoked like: (a) that the facts charged do not constitute an offense; (b)
that the court is trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; (c) that the
criminal action or liability has been extinguished; and (d) that the accused shall be placed
in double jeopardy.
PRE-TRIAL
• Under the Rules, after the arraignment of the accused and within thirty (30)
days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
accused, the court shall order the mandatory trial conference to consider
certain matter including plea bargaining, stipulation of facts. Marking of the
evidence, waiver of objection to admissibility, possible modification of the
order of the trial, and such other matters that will promote a fair and
expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects of the case.
JUDGEMENT
• After trial, the judgement of the court shall follow. A judgement is the
adjudication by the court on the quit or innocence of the accused and the
imposition on him of the proper penalty and civil liability, if any. It is
required to be written on the official language, personally and directly
prepared by the judge and signed by him and shall contain clearly and
distinctly s statement of the facts and the law upon which it is based.
• The judgement is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused
and any judge of the court in which it was rendered, unless it is for a light
offense, in which case, the judgement may be pronounced in the presence of
his counsel or representative
JUDGEMENT
• If the judgement is for conviction and the accused fails to appear during the
promulgation of judgement and such failure is without justifiable case, he
shall lose the remedies against the judgement. The only way for him to regain
the right to avail of such remedies is to surrender within fifteen (15) days
from the promulgation of the judgement and file a motion for leave to avail
of the remedies.
POST JUDGEMENT REMEDIES
• The person convicted is allowed by the Rules of Court certain remedies to
modify or reverse the judgement of conviction within the period to appeal.
Under existing law, the period to appeal is within fifteen (15) days from
notice of the judgement or final order. As a rule, after the lapse of the period
for perfecting an appeal, the judgement of conviction becomes final. Thus,
before the judgement of conviction becomes final or before an appeal is
perfected, the accused may file a motion for the modification of the
judgement or for the setting aside of the same. Also, within the same period,
the judge may, motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either case,
reopen the proceedings to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
ENTRY OF JUDGEMENT
• When all remedies have been exhausted and the judgement has become final,
the same shall be entered in accordance with the existing rules.
BASIC CONCEPTS
• Criminal procedure is “a generic term to describe the network of laws and
rules which governs the procedural administration of justice”. As such, it
treats of the rules and processes by which the criminal laws are enforced and
by which the State prosecutes persons who violate such laws.
THE ADVERSARIAL OR
ACCUSATORIAL SYSTEM
• The system of procedure in our jurisdiction is accusatorial or adversarial. It is not
inquisitorial. It contemplates two contending parties before the court which hears them
impartially and renders judgement only after trial. In our judicial set-up, a judge is not
permitted to act as an inquisitor who pursues his won investigation and arrives at his own
conclusion ex parte.
• In the inquisitorial system, the court plays a very active role and is not limited to the
evidence presented before it. The court may utilize evidence gathered outside the court
and a judge or a group of judges under this system actively participates in the gathering of
facts and evidence instead of passively receiving information or evidence from parties.
The judge steers the course of the proceedings by directing and supervising the gathering
of the evidence and the questioning of the witnesses to the case. Thus, the counsels in the
inquisitorial system have less active roles than they have in the adversarial system.
LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE
RULES
• The rules on criminal procedure, being parts of the Rules of Court, shall be
“liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just,
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding”.
REQUISITES
• A reading of jurisprudence and treatises on the matter discloses the following
basic requisites before a court can acquire jurisdiction over criminal cases
(Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 388 SCRA 71, 83 ):
(a) Jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(b) Jurisdiction over the territory; and
(c) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER VERSUS
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED
• Jurisdiction over the subject matter refers to the authority of the court to hear
and determine a particular criminal case. It is, in simple terms, jurisdiction
over the offense charged.
JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY;
VENUE IN CRIMINAL CASES (BAR 1997)
• A very important principle in relation to jurisdiction over the territory is that, in criminal cases,
venue is jurisdictional and a court is bereft of jurisdiction to try an offense committed outside its
limited territory. Thus, the Court, in very lucid terms, explains that the place where the crime
was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of
jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal
cases, the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should
have been taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial jurisdiction in
criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the
offense allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a
person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory. If the
evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the
court should dismiss the action for want jurisdiction (See Trenas v. People, 664 SCRA 355, 366;
Citations of the Court omitted).
JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY;
VENUE IN CRIMINAL CASES (BAR 1997)
• For a complaint or information to be sufficient, the same must enable the
court, through the allegations therein to determine that the offense was
committed or any of its essential ingredients occurred at some place within
the jurisdiction of the court (See sec. 6, Rule 110, Rules of Court). Hence, the
rule places the venue of criminal cases either in the court of municipality or
territory (a) where the offense was committed, or (b) where any of its
essential ingredients occurred. (Sec. 15[a], Rule 110, Rules of Court; Sec 10,
Rule 110, Rules of Court; Union Bank of the Philippines v. People, 667 SCRA
113, 133).
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER THE
SUBJECT MATTER
• Generally, jurisdiction is the right act or the power and authority to hear and
determine a cause - it is a question of law (Gomez v. Montalban, 548 SCRA
693, 702). The term imports the power and authority to hear and determine
issures of facts and of law, the power to inquire into the facts, to apply the
law and to pronounce the judgement (21 C.J.S., Courts, § 2, 1990).
HOW JURISDICTION OVER THE
SUBJECT MATTER IS CONFERRED
• It is the law that confers jurisdiction and not the rules. Rules of procedure
yield to substantive law. Otherwise stated, jurisdiction must exist as a matter
of law (Padunan v. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
[DARAB], 396 SCRA 196, 204). Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred by law and any judgement, order or resolution issued without it is
void and cannot be given any effect (Magno v. People, 647 SCRA 362, 371).
THE CONFERMENT OF JURISDICTION
CANNOT BE PRESUMED
• When the law confers jurisdiction, that conferment must be clear. It cannot
be presumed. It must appear from the statute or will not be held to exist. Such
jurisdiction cannot be broadened upon “doubtful inferences” drawn from
statutes. Absent a statutory grant, the assumption of jurisdiction cannot be
justified by convenience or assumed justice or propriety (De Jesus v. Garcia,
19 SCRA 554, 559).
HOW JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT
MATTER IS DETERMINED
• Case law has it that while jurisdiction of courts is conferred by law,
jurisdiction over a criminal case is determined by allegations in the
complaint or information. The court, therefore, must look into the allegations
o the written accusation for it to know whether or not, it has jurisdiction over
the offense charged therein. If the facts set out in the complaint or
information are sufficient to show that the court has jurisdiction, then that
court indeed has jurisdiction. Otherwise, it has no jurisdiction.
USE OF THE IMPOSABLE PENALTY
• in relation to the immediately preceding rule, it must be stated that
jurisdiction is not determined by the penalty actually imposed after trial but
by the penalty imposable by law on the offense. Thus, if the allegations of the
information charge the accused with an offense within the jurisdiction of the
RTC because the imposable penalty exceeds six (6) years, that court has
jurisdiction even if the penalty imposed by said court, after trial, is
imprisonment less than six years.
STATUTE APPLICABLE TO A CRIMINAL
ACTION
• It is firmly settled doctrine that the subject matter jurisdiction of a c ourt in
criminal matters is measured by the law in effect at the time of the
commencement of a criminal action rather than by the law in effect at the
time of the commission of the offense charged (People v. Lagon, 185 SCRA
442, 446; People v. Magallanes, 249 SCRA 212, 227). Neither is it
determined by the law in force during the arraignment of the accused
(Palana v. People, 534 SCRA 296, 302).
PRINCIPLE OF ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION
OR CONTINUING JURISDICTION
• Once a court acquired jurisdiction, it may not be ousted from the case by any
subsequent events, such as a new legislation placing such proceedings under
the jurisdiction of another tribunal. The only recognized exceptions to the
rule, arise when; (a) there is an express provision in the statute, or (b) the
statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its enactment
(People v. Cawaling, 293 SCRA 267, 288; Palana v. People, 534 SCRA 296,
303).
OBJECTIONS ON JURISDICTIONAL
GROUNDS
• The rule is settled that an objection based on the ground that the court lacks
jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised or considered motu proprio
by the court at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal (Fukuzume v.
People, 474 SCRA 570, 583; Foz, Jr. v. People, 603 SCRA 124, 133). Hence,
questions of jurisdiction may be cognizable even if raised for the first time
on appeal (Atienza v. People, G.R. No. 188694, February 12, 2014).
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE
ACCUSED (BAR 2008),
HOW ACQUIRED
• In criminal proceedings, it is not sufficient for the court to acquire
jurisdiction over the subject matter for the court to acquire jurisdiction over
the subject matter. It also needs to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
accused. It has been earlier stated that the jurisdiction over the subject matter
is conferred by law. On the other hand,, how then is jurisdiction over the
person of the accused acquired?
• Jurisprudence answered the same question when it was held that jurisdiction
over the person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or apprehension,
with or without a warrant, or his voluntary appearance or submissions to the
jurisdiction of the court (Valdepeñas v. People, 16 SCRA 871, 875).
VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION TO THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COURT; SEEKING AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF
• As a rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to
the jurisdiction of the court. Filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief
constitutes voluntary appearance, and the consequent jurisdiction of one’s
person to the jurisdiction of the court. Thus, by filing several motions before
the Regional Trial Court and seeking the dismissal of the criminal case,
respondent voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court (Jimenez v.
Sorongon, 687 SCRA 151, 161, December 5, 2012).
VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION TO THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COURT; SEEKING AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF
• The voluntary submission of the accused to the jurisdiction of the court is
accomplished either by his pleading to the merits such as by filing a motion
to waush or other pleadings requiring the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction,
appearing for arraignment or entering trial (Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA
633, 643; See also Antiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551, 559).
When the accused appears for arraignment, voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court is accomplished. If he subsequently fails to appear
during the trial and escapes from the custody of the law, such jurisdiction is
not lost. Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost but continues until the case is
terminated (Gimenez v. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 4,5).
VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION TO THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COURT; SEEKING AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF
• Voluntary submission may also be effected through some other acts as when
he enters into a counsel-assisted plea and actively participates in the trial and
presents evidence for the defense.
OBJECTING TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED

Exception
• Not all acts however, seeking affirmative relief would constitute a voluntary
appearance or submission to the jurisdiction of the court. Making a special
appearance in court. Making a special appearance in court to question the
jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused is not a voluntary
appearance as when, in a criminal case, a motion to quash is filed precisely on that
ground. There is, likewise, no submission to the jurisdiction of the court when the
accused files a motion to quash the warrant of arrest because it is the very legality
of the court process forcing the submission of the person of the accused that is the
very issue in a motion to quash the information or the warrant of arrest (See
Miranda v. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377, 390).
CUSTODY OF THE LAW VERSUS JURISDICTION OVER
THE PERSON; OBJECTING TO THE LEGALITY OF
THE ARREST
• The Court has made a distinction between custody of the law and jurisdiction over the
person. Being in the custody of the law is not necessarily being under the jurisdiction of the
court.
The Court elucidates, thus:
“ Custody of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender,9 while jurisdiction over the
person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. 10 One can be under the custody
of the law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, such as when a person arrested
by virtue of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant. On the other hand, one can
be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, and yet not be in the custody of the law, such as
when an accused escapes custody after his trial has commenced. 11 Being in the custody of the law
signifies restraint on the person, who is thereby deprived of his own will and liberty, binding him to
become obedient to the will of the law. 12 Custody of the law is literally custody over the body of the
accused. It includes, but is not limited to, detention.” (Miranda v. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377, 388-389)
INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION (BAR 1999)
General Rule
• A well-entrenched principle, consistently adhered to in procedural law, is the
general rule that injunction will not be granted to restrain a criminal
prosecution since public interest requires that criminal acts be immediately
investigated and prosecuted for the protection of society (Reyes v. Camilon,
192 SCRA 445, 453, citing Romero v. Chief of Staff, 170 SCRA 408). This
injunction applies to either a preliminary or final injunction (Brocka v. Enrile
192 SCRA 183, 188)
INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION (BAR 1999)
Exception
• There are, however, exceptions to the above rule. Such exception
accordingly, are meant to apply in extreme cases, thus:
(1) When the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional
rights of the accused;
(2) When it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or
multiplicity of actions;
(3) When there is a prejudicial question which is subjudice;
(4) When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;
(5) Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation
INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION (BAR 1999)
(6) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
(7) Where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
(8) Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
(9) Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for
vengeance
(10) When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a
motion to quash on that ground has been denied (Brocka v. Enrile, 192 SCRA
183, 188; Samson v. Guingona, Jr., 348 SCRA 32, 36; Citations omitted).
MANDAMUS TO COMPEL
PROSECUTION (BAR 1999)
• In our criminal justice system, the public prosecutor exercises a wide latitude
of discretion in determining whether a criminal case shall be filed in court,
and the courts must respect the exercise of such discretion (People v. Yecyec,
739 SCRA 719, 732, November 12, 2014). Mandamus therefore, will, as a
rule, not lie to compel criminal prosecution.