Crim Pro Syllabus of Sir Arno Sanidad

COLLEGE OF LAW University of the Philippines

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE First Semester 2012-2013 Arno V. Sanidad

MANDATORY READINGS:

1. Jurisdiction

a. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (as amended); b. SC Administrative Circular No. 09-94; c. The 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure; d. Republic Act No. 8493 (The Speedy Trial Act of 1988); e. SC Circular No. 38-98 (Implementing Rules to RA 8493); f.

Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as amended (Sandiganbayan Law)

g. RA 8249 (Amendments to Sandiganbayan Law); h. Rep. Act. No. 6770 (Ombudsman Law); i. j

A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, “The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.” S.C Administrative Circular No. 51-96 [Superseding Administrative Order No. 173-94 dated 28 September 1994] Special Courts for kidnapping, Robbery, Dangerous Drugs, Carnapping and Other Heinous Crimes under R.A. No. 7659.

2. Substantive Rights

a. Const. (1987), art. III; b. Const. (1987), art. VIII, sec 5 (5); c. Rule 115, 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure; d. Republic Act. No. 7438; e. DOJ-NPS Manual, Part XI, secs. 1, 2; f.

Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, Secs. 60-61;

3. DOJ Inquest and Preliminary Investigation Procedure

a. DOJ Department Order No. 70 [2000 NPS Rule on Appeal]; b. DOJ Circular No. 61 (1993) [New Rules on Inquest]; c. DOJ National Prosecution Service, 2008 Manual for Prosecutors [see Reserved Section);

4. Special Rules and Procedures

a. SC AM No. 00-04-07-SC [Child Witness Rule]; b. SC AM No. 02-1-18-SC [Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law]; c. SC AM No. 02-1-19-SC [Rule on Commitment of Children]; d. SC AM No. 02-2-07-SC [Amendments to Rule 110, sec. 5]; e. SC AM No. 03-1-09-SC [Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by the Trial Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures] f.

Rule on DNA Evidence A.M. No. 06-11-5 -SC October 2, 2007

g. Rule on the Writ of Amparo [A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, 25 September 2007] h. Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data [A.M. No.08-1-16-SC dated 22 January 2008] i.

S.C., A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, “The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.”

j.

S.C. “A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC (Re: Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon City Trial Courts).

February 21, 2012 [http:// sc.judiciary.gov.ph/admin matters/AM No 11-6-10-SC.pdf) k. Judicial Affidavit Rule, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC (Effective Jan. 1, 2013)

COURSE OUTLINE

PART ONE

INTRODUCTION

I.

History Sources of Rules on Criminal Procedure Amy Rossabi, The Colonial Roots of Criminal Procedure in the Philippines, 11 Columbia Journal of Asian Law 175

II. Criminal Jurisdiction & Hierarchy of Courts:

A.

Oscar M. Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. IV, Criminal Procedure [Rules 110-127), pp 1-56.

a. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (as amended); b. SC Administrative Circular No. 09-94; c. The 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure; d. Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as amended (Sandiganbayan Law); e. RA 8249 (Amendments to Sandiganbayan Law); f.

Rep. Act. No. 6770 (Ombudsman Law);

See: summary of jurisdiction in Philippine Legal Research.

B.

Criminal Jurisdiction

1.

Allegations of complaints as basis 

2.

Buaya v. Polo, 169 SCRA 471 (1989)

Elements & Requisites of Criminal Jurisdiction a)

Subject matter or offense Revised Penal Code as amended

Special Penal Laws Law at time of institution of criminal action not at commission 

People v. Lagon, 185 SCRA 442 (1990)

Neither at arraignment 

b)

Palana v. People, 534 SCRA 296 (2007)

Venue or Territory where committed; Purpose Sec. 18, B.P. 129 

Treῆas v. People, G.R. No. 195002, January 25, 2012



Uy v. C.A., 276 SCRA 367 (1997)



Campanano, Jr. Vs. Datuin, 536 SCRA 471 (2007)



People v. Taroy, G.R. #192466, Sept. 12, 2011

Change of Venue: Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (4), 1987 Constitution 

People v. Gutierrez, 36 SCRA 172 (1970)



People v. Pilotin, 65 SCRA 635 (1975)



Mondiguing v. Abaci, G.R. No. 4131 3. November 6, 1975, 68 SCRA 14.



People v. Sola, G.R. No. L-56158-64 March 17, 1981**

See:

[A.M. No. 10-1-06 RTC : January 12, 2010] Re: Petition for Change of Trial Venue of Criminal Case No. Sa-198, People v. Data Andal Ampatuan, Sr., et Al. For Rebellion From the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon

City.

c)

3.

a)

Person of the Accused 

Valdepenas v. People, 16 SCRA 871 (1966)



Miranda v. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377 +

Jurisdiction not subject to waiver or agreement 

b)

Jurisdiction and Double jeopardy 

III.

Figueroa v. People, 558 SCRA 63 (2008)

Heirs of Honrales v. Honrales, 629 SCRA 423 (2010)

Hierarchy of Courts and the Remedy of Appeal A.

Generally Rule 122, Secs. 1, 2, 3, 6, 9; 

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. V. People, 427 SCRA 456 (2004)

Section 9. Appeal to the Regional Trial Courts. – Rules 123, 124, 125; 

Alonso, et al vs. Cebu Country Club, Inc., et al., G.R. No.

188471, April 20, 2010.

B.

MTC: (Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts)

1.

Original & Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction: Sec. 32, (1) & (2), B.P. 129 Sec, 3 & 4, SC Administrative Circular No. 09-94

2.

Appeal Sec. 1, Rule 122 Sec. 39, B.P. 129 Sec. 2 (a) Rule 122

3.

How appeal taken Sec. 3, (a), Rule 122

C.

Regional Trail Court: 1.

Original & Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction Sec. 20, B.P. 129 (As amended by R.A. No. 7691)

a.

Family Courts Sec. 3 & 5 (a), R.A. No. 8369 (“Family Courts Act of 1997”)

b.

Special Courts Kidnapping, Robbery, Dangerous Drugs, Carnapping and Other Heinous Crimes under R.A. No. 7659. S.C. ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR No. 51-96 [Superseding Administrative Order No. 173-94 dated 28 September 1994]

Environmental Courts (AO No. 23-2008, Re: Designation of Special Courts to Hear, Try, and Decide Environmental Cases, January 28, 2008)

c.

Offenses committed by public officials Sec. 4 (a) par. 2, Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975 and R.A No. 8249

2.



Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298 (1999) +



Magno v. People, 647 SCRA 362 (2011)

Appellate jurisdiction Sec. 1, Rule 122 Sec. 2 (a), Rule 122

3.

Appeals from RTC, how appeal taken a. In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction Sec. 2 (b), Rule 122

b. In the exercise of its original jurisdiction (1)

Death Penalty Cases R.A. 9346 Rule 122, secs 3 (d), 10 (as amended by SC A.M. No. 00-5-03 [October 15, 2004]; Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to Govern Death Penalty Cases); cf. RA 9346;

Rule 124, sec. 12, 13 (as amended by SC A.M. No. 00-5-03 [October 15, 2004]; Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to Govern Death Penalty Cases)

Rule 125;

(2)

Penalty is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment Rule 122, Sec. 3 (c) Rule 124, Sec 12

Intermediate Appeal 

People v. Mateo, 433 SCRA 640 (2004)



People v. Abon, 545 SCRA 606 (2007) Appeal to Supreme Court not mandatory



People v. Rocha, 531 SCRA 761 (2007)

No automatic appeal 

(3)

People v. Salome, 500 SCRA 659, Aug. 31, 2006

Other cases Rule 122, Sec. 2 (c)

To the Court of Appeals Rule 41, Sec. 2 Rule & Exception: 

Tabujara III vs. People, 570 SCRA 229 (2008)

Appeal and certiorari distinguished: 

c)

Magestrado vs. People, 527 SCRA 125 (2007)+

Appeal by any of several accused Rule 122, sec.11;

Applied to accused appealing separately 

d)

Constantino v. Sandiganbayan, 533 SCRA 205 (2007)

Withdrawal of Appeal Rule 122, sec. 12; PD 968 (as amended), sec. 4;

e)

f)

Effects of death of accused pending appeal 

Villegas v. CA, 271 SCRA 148 (1997);



People v. Ayochok, 629 SCRA 324 (2010)

Effect of Failure to Appeal a patently wrong judgment 

g)

4.

People v. Barro Sr., 338 SCRA 212 (2000);

Appeal a judgment of Acquittal: 

People v. Asis, 629 SCRA 250 (2010)



Merciales v. C.A., 379 SCRA 345 (2002)**



Mupas v. People, G.R. No. 189365, Oct. 12, 2011



Bangayan v. Go-Bangayan, G.R. No. 172777/172792, Oct. 19, 2011

Ombudsman & Sandiganbayan: Pres. Dec. No. 1605, as amended (Sandiganbayan Law); RA 8249 (Amendments to Sandiganbayan Law); Rep. Act. No. 6770 (Ombudsman Law);

a)

Ombudsman: Uy v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 105965-70. March 20, 2001

Appeals from the Ombudsman: (i)

In administrative cases & annulment of judgment 

Fabian vs. Desierto, 295 SCRA 470, September 16, 1998



Macalalag vs. Ombudsman, 424 SCRA 741 (2004)



Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals, 640 SCRA 544 (2011)

(ii)

In criminal cases 

Golangco vs. Fung, 504 SCRA 321 (2006)



Perez vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 429 SCRA 357 (2004)



b)

Office of the Ombudsman vs. Heirs of Margarita Ventura, 605 SCRA 1(2009)

Sandiganbayan -“...in relation to office” (i)

“Grade 27 and above” Sec. 4(a), (1), (2), (3), (4), & (5) Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as amended by 7975 and R.A. No. 8249

(ii)

Public Officials irrespective of salary grade Sec. 4(a), 1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), & (g) Pres. Dec. No, 1606, as Amended by R.A. No. 7975 and R.A. No. 8249 

Rodriguez v. Sandiganbayan, 424 SCRA 236 (2004)

(iii)



Bariaga v. Sandiganbayan, 457 SCRA 301 (2005)



Organo v. Sandiganbayan, 320 SCRA 684 (1994)



Inding v. Sandiganbayan, 434 SCRA 388 (2004)



Lacson v. Executive Secretary, supra

Appeals from the RTC Magno v. People, supra

5.

Court of Appeals: a) Rule 41 Ordinary Appeal (Appeal by Writ of Error) b) Rule 42 Petition for Review c) Rule 124 Sec. 8 & Rule 125 Sec. 1 Ivler v. Mondest’o-San Pedro, 635 SCRA 191 (2010)



6.

Supreme Court: a) Generally Rule 65 Finality of acquittal doctrine and exception: 

People vs. Asis, 629 SCRA 250 (2010)



People v. Velasco, 340 SCRA 207 (2000) **

b) Improvident Plea; Remand & Re-arraignment When Proper: 

People v. Molina, G.R Nos. 141129-33, December 14, 2001;

Ong vs. Genio, 609 SCRA 188, Dec. 23 2009



c) Even Split or no majority in Supreme Court Rule 125, sec. 3; 

Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals 71 SCRA 231 (1976)

IV. Remedies after Final Judgment Habeas Corpus Rule 102 In Re: Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo de Villa 442 SCRA 706 (2004) **

PART TWO

RULE 126 – SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Pertinent Documents & Pleadings: 1) Search Warrant; 2) Documents as basis for issuance: Request for Issuance; Affidavit/s of complainant or witnesses Others (Photographs, sketches, etc.) 3) Motion to Quash Search Warrant 4) Motion to Suppress 5) Motion for Return of Property Seized

I.

Nature, scope and definition A. Definition & Nature Const. (1987), art. III, Secs. 2,3; Rule 126, Secs, 1, 13; + “Exclusionary Rule”



Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 (1967);



People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 25 (2000)**

“People not places” 

Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967);



See: Polo v. David, G.R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011**

Private searches Governmental interference 

People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991);

Vessel Security officer 

People v. Bongcarawan, 384 SCRA 525 (2002)

See: Spousal or privacy of communication exception? 

Zulueta v. C.A., 253 SCRA 699 (1996)

B. Constitutional and statutory boundaries; limitation on State action 1. Nature of right protected; waiver of protected right 

Villanueva v. Querubin, 48 SCRA 349 (1972);



Guanzon v. De Villa, 181 SCRA 623 (1990);

Governmental transgression 

People v. Marti, supra

2. Scope of protection Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 3(1) 

Katz c. U.S., supra



Burgos v. Chief of Staff 133 SCRA 800 (1984) Eb;



People v. Valde, supra

“Enhanced Senses” and “Reasonable expectation of privacy”: 

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S 27 (2001) – Thermal Imaging device



California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S 207 (1986) –Aerial “naked eye” observation



Dow Chemicals v. U.S., 476 U.S 227 (1986) – Aerial search using device



United States v. Place, 462 U.S 696 (1983) – Sniff Dog



Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S 293 (1966) “Plant”



California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S 35 (1988) – Garbage search



Washington vs. Boland, 115 Wn.2d (1990); 800P.2d 1112 Airport searches:



People v. Canton, G.R No. 148825, December 277, 2002

RA 4200 (Anti-wire Tapping Law): 

Gaanan vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-69809 October 16, 1986

RA 9272 (Human Security Act of 2007): Sec. 7-16 Rule 126, sec. 13;

C. Types 1.

With A Search Warrant + a. Generally

Rule 126, sec 1;  People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626 (1998); + ;  Manalili v. CA, 280 SRCA 400 (1997); +

b.

Venue of application; jurisdiction of court Rule 126, sec 2; BP 129 (as amended by RA 7691), sec. 21;

Interim Rules (January 11, 1983), par. A3; 

Malaloan v. CA, 232 SCRA 249 (1994)**; + + + o



c.

Range of enforceability

People v. CA, 291 SCRA 400 (1998);

Requisites for issuance

Rule 126, sec. 1; cf. Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 2; PICOP v. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253 (1999); +

(1)

Concept of probable cause in search warrants + 

People v. Estrada, 296 SCRA 383 (1998); +



Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc., 438 SCRA (2004);



People v. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915 April 3, 1998;



Burgos v. Chief of Staff, supra



Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 613 (1983); +



Stonehill v. Diokno, supra

(2)

Determining probable cause:

i)

Person Authorized: Who determines? Const. (1987), Art. III, sec. 2;

Rule 126, sec. 4;

ii)



People v. Tuan, G.R. No. 176066. August 11, 2010



Kho v. Makalintal, 306 SCRA 70



Bache v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823 (1971) + (see Oscar Herrera’s digest p. 892)



People v. Mamaril, 420 SCRA 662 (2004)



Tan v. Sy Tiong Gue, 613 SCRA 98 (2010)

Procedure: How is it determined? Rule 126, sec. 5; Personal examination by searching questions of complaint of witness: + + + +

(3)



Bache v. Ruiz, supra



Kho vs. Makalintal, supra



PICOP v. Asuncion, supra



People v. Tuan, G.R. No. 176066. August 11, 2010



Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 (1984);



Coca- Cola v. Gomez, 571 SCRA 18 (2008)

Description of things to be seized + 

Kho v. Makalintal, supra;

+



(4)

Bache vs. Ruiz, supra;

Description of place to be searched + + People v. Estrada, supra Roan vs. Gonzales, supra PICOP v. Asuncion, supra People v. C.A., supra

d.

Things that may be seized + Rule 126, sec. 3; 

Burgos vs. Chief of Staff, supra +



California v. Greenwood, supra



Washington vs. Boland, supra

Rules on DNA Evidence A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC October 2, 2007

e.



People v. Umanito, G.R. #172607 Oct. 26, 2007



People v. Umanito, G.R. #172607, April 16, 2009

Form and content of warrant; lifetime Rule 126, sec. 1, 6, 10;

F.



Bache v. Ruiz, supra



Mustang Lumber v. CA, 257 SCRA 430 (1996); (nevermind) +

Validity of warrant 

People v. Estrada, supra



People v. CA, supra

Others: +

2.

Warrantless Search & Seizure:

a. Search incident to lawful arrest Rule 126, sec. 13; + + +



People v. Molina G.R. No. 133917, February 19, 2001**



People v. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915 April 3, 1998



People v. Valdez, supra



People v. Padilla, 269 SCRA 402 (1997);



People v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432 (1999); +



People v. Binad Chua, G.R. Nos. 136066-67, February 4, 2003



Office of the Court Administrator v. Barron, 297 SCRA 376 (1998);



Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969); +



Nolasco v. Pano, 147 SCRA 509 (1987); Cf. Nolasco v. Pano, 139 SCRA 152 (1985);



Posadas v. CA, 188 SCRA 288 (1990) +



People vs. Cuizon, 265 SCRA 325



Malacat v. CA, 283 SCRA 159 (1997)**;

Warrantless Search of Computers & Cell Phones: Computers: 

U.S. vs. Hill, 459 F.3d 966 (2006)



U.S. vs. Ziegler, 474 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir., January 30, 2007



Polo v. David, supra Journal Articles:



Edward T.M. Garland and Donald F. Samuel, Fourth Amendment and Computers, Georgia Bar Journal, Vol. 44, Feb. 2009

Cellphones: U.S. vs. Finley, 477 F.3d 250 State vs. Smith, 124 Ohio St. 3d 163 (2009)

Journal Articles: 

Adam M. Gershowitz, The Iphone Meets the Fourth Amendment, UCLA Law Review, October, 2008.



Bryan Andrew Stillwagon, Bringing an End to Warrantless Cell Phone Searches, Summer 2008 Georgia Law Review

b.

Consented Search 

People v. Malasigul, 63 Phil. 221 (1936);



Alvarez v. CFI, 64 Phil. 48 (1937);



Schneckcloth v Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973)



People vs. Cuizon, 265 SCRA 325

(1) 

Peaceful submission not consent to search

Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689 (1938); Written consent:



Roan v. Gonzales, supra

(2) 

Effect of voluntary surrender

People v. Agbot, 106 SCRA 325 (1981);

(3)

Effect of posting bail Rule 114, sec. 26;

c.

“Stop and Frisk”, Roadblocks & Checkpoints, and Other Less Intrusive Searches

“Stop and Frisk”: 

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S 1 (1968); +



Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)



Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)



People v. Binad Chua, supra



Malacat v. CA, supra



Esquillo v. People, 629 SCRA 370 (2010) Airport searches:



People v. Canton, G.R. No. 148825, Dec. 27, 2002, supra

Roadblocks & Checkpoints: 

Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979); +



Michigan Dept. Of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444



Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325



Caballes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002; +



People v. Lacerna, 278 SCRA 561 (1997)



People v. Solayao, 262 SCRA 255 (1996)



People v. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401 (1991)



People v. Encinada, G.R. No. 116720. October 2, 1997

Checkpoints:

d.

e.



Valmonte v. De Villa, 178 SCRA (1989); +



People vs. Vinecario, 420 SCRA 280 (2004);



Aniag vs. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 424 (1994);



People vs. Escano, 323 SCRA 754 (2000)



People vs. Vinecario, 420 SCRA 280 (2004)

Moving vehicles/hot pursuit + 

Caroll v. US, 267 132 (1925); +



California V. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985)



Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857 (1968); +



Caballes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002; +



Asuncion v. CA, 302 SCRA 490 (1990); +



Roldan v. Arca, 65 SCRA 336 (1975); +



People v. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122 (1990); +



People v. Balingan, 241 SCRA 277 (1995); +



Obra v. CA, 317 SCRA 594 (1999); +

“Plain View” Doctrine 

Harris v. US, 390 U.S. 234 (1966); +



Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 472 (1971);



Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987)

f.



Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990)



People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597 (1993); +



People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668 (1999); +



People v. Bolasa, 321 SCRA 459 (1999);



People v. Evaristo, 216 SCRA 431 (1992);



People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 24 (2000);



People v. Salanguit, 356 SCRA 683 (2001)

Private Searches & “State Expansion of Private Search” 

People v. Marti, supra +



People v. Bongcarawan, G.R. No. 143944, July 11, 2002



State v. Von Bulow, 475 A. 2d 995 + See: Zulueta v C.A., 253 SCRA 699 (1996)

g.

Extraordinary circumstances: 

People v. De Gracia, 233 SCRA 716 (1994);



Bringham City v. Stuart, 126 S. Ct. 1943 (2006)

h. Concepts of: “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”; “Attenuation”; “Inevitable Discovery” (where did it come from?)

II.



Nardone v. U.S. 308 U.S. 338



Wong Sun v. U.S. 371 U.S. 471



Nix vs. Williams, 467 U.S. 431

Procedure for service of warrant; post-service procedure A. Service of warrant

1. Time of search Rule 126, sec. 9;

2. Two-witness rule Rule 126, sec. 8; 

People v. Gesmundo, 219 SCRA 743 (1993);

3. Breaking of door or window to effect search Rule 126, sec. 7; 

People vs. Huang Zhen Hua, 439 SCRA 350 (2004)

B. Post-service procedure 

People v. Gesmundo, supra

1. Issuance of Receipt Rule 126, sec. 11; 

People v. Lacbanes, 270 SCRA 193 (1997);

2. Delivery of property and inventory; return and proceedings on the return; Rule 126, sec. 12; 

III.

People v. Gesmundo, supra

Remedies against unreasonable search and seizure 1. “Exclusionary Rule” : Motion to quash search Warrant or suppress evidence: Art. III, Sec. 3 (2) Rule 126, sec. 14;

RA 8493, sec. 2 (d) (cf. Rule 118, sec. 2[d]; )



Stonehill v. Diokno, supra



Bache v. Ruiz, supra



Rakes v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978);



PICOP v. Asuncion, supra

2. Waiver of Jurisdiction & Non Waiver of Admissibility: 

People vs. Lapitaje, 397 SCRA 674 (2003);



Esquillo vs. People, G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010 (dissent of Bersamin)

3. Return of property illegally seized: 

Uy Kheytin v. Villareal, 42 Phil. 892 (1920);



Magoncia v. Palacio, 80 Phil. 170 (1948);



Collector v. Villaluz, 71 SCRA 356 (1976);



Mata v. Bayona, 128 SCRA 388 (1984);

4. Criminal liability and Civil Damages: 

Rev. Pen. Code, Arts. 128, 129, 130, 206;



MHP Garments v. CA, 236 SCRA 227 (1994);

Remedy against warrantless searches: 

Galvante v. Casimiro, G.R. No. 162808, April 22, 2008

PART THREE RULE 113- ARREST

Pertinent Pleadings & Documents: 1) Warrant of Arrest 2) Petition for Habeas Corpus 3) Motion to Quash Warrant of Arrest 4) Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause

I. Nature and Definition

A. Definition Rule 113, Secs. 1, 2: 

Sanchez v. Demetriou, 227 SCRA 627 (1993);



People v. Sequiῆo, 264 SCRA 79 (1996);



Defensor- Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 663 (1993);

Cf. Diplomatic and parliamentary immunities from arrest Const. (1987), art. VI, sec. 11; Rev. Pen. Code, art. 145; Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Arts. 31-37; Visiting Forces Agreement, Art. V;

B. Types 1. With a warrant a. When and how warrant issued Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 2; Rule 112, sec. 6; May dismiss instead of issue warrant Ong vs. Genio, 609 SCRA 188, Dec. 23, 2009

b. Requisites for issuance Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 2: Rule 112, Sec.6 (a); Rule 112, Sec. 8;

1) By a Regional Trial Court; 

People v. Grey, 625 SCRA 523 (2010)



Allado v. Diokno, 232 SCRA 192 (1994);



Placer v. Villanueva, 126 SCRA 463 (1983);



People v. Inting, 187 SCRA 788 (1990);



Cojuangco v. Sandiganbayan, 300 SCRA 367 (1998);



Soliven v. Makasiar,



Lim v. Felix, 194 SCRA 292 (1991);



Pangandaman v. Casar, 159 SCRA 599 (1988);



People v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 475 (1999);



Roberts v. C.A. 254 SCRA 307



Webb vs. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652



Ho vs. People, 280 SCRA 285 (1997)



Okabe vs. Gutierrez, 429 SCRA 685 (2004)



AAA vs. Carbonell, 524 SCRA 496 (2007)



DOJ- National Prosecution Service Manual for Prosecutors, Part VI, sec. 1;

2) Inferior Courts Rule 112, Sec. 6 (b) Examine complainant and witnesses: 

Tabujara III vs. People, 570 SCRA 229 (2008) Not mandatory to issue warrant:



Gutierrez v. Hernandez, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1628, June 8, 2007,

c. How effected or served Rule 113, secs. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7; 

People v. Lumayok, 139 SCRA 1 (1985);



People v. Albior, 163 SCRA 332 (1988);

d. Assistance; breaking into and out of building or enclosure Rule 113, secs. 10, 11, 12; 

2.

People vs. Huang Zhen Hua, G.R. No. 139301, September 29, 2004

Warranties (In flagrante Delicto & “Hot Pursuit”) a. When justified:

(1) Old Rule : Rule 113, sec. 5, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure



People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 (1985);

(2) New Rule : Rule 113, sec. 5 

Umil v. Ramos, 187 SCRA 311 (1990)



Umil v. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251 (1991)



Go vs. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 138 (1992)



Larranaga v. C.A., 287 SCRA 581 (1998);



People v. Tudtud, 412 SCRA 142 (2003);



People v. Molina, G.R. No. 133917, February 19, 2001**



People v. Chua, 396 SCRA 657 (2003);



People v. Mendez, G.R. No. 147671, November 21, 2002;



People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668 (1999) N.B. J. Panganiban, Concurring



Cadua v. CA, 312 SCRA 703 (1999);



People v. Montilla, 285 SCRA 703 (1998);



People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 (1986);



People v. Jayson, 282 SCRA 166 (1997);



Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968);



Padilla v. C.A. 269 SCRA 402 (1997)



People v. Racho, 626 SCRA 633 (2010)

b. Method of arrest by officer Rule 113, sec. 8; 

People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455 (1999)

R.A. 7438 [Guidelines, procedures and duties of officers arresting, detaining, inviting or investigating at the time of arrest or at custodial interrogation];

c. Method of arrest by private person Rule 113, sec. 9;

d. Post-arrest procedure Rule 112, sec. 7;

e. Exceptions construed strictly 

People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 140 (1999);



People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 (1985);

f. Special Rule for Juveniles in Conflict with Law 

Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with Law (RJCL), secs. 6, 7;



Rep. Act. No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006; JJWA), secs. 21, 22;

3. John Doe warrants:

4.



People v. Veloso, 48 Phil. 169;



Pangandaman v. Casar, 159 SCRA 599 (1988);



DOJ Circular No. 50, October 29, 1990;

“DNA” Warrants: [DNA warrants: A panacea for old, cold rape cases? Georgetown Law Journal, Apr 2002 by

Valdivieso, Veronica See: http:// www.denverda.org/DNA/John _Doe_DNA_Warrants.htm] 1. The John Doe Arrest Warrant. PDF 2. The John Doe Complaint With Genetic Profile. PDF 3. The John Doe Arrest Warrant With Alles. PDF 4. The John Doe Amended Complaint After Cold Hit. PDF 5. The brief in support of John Doe Warrants. PDF 6. Wisconsin v. Davis, Wisconsin C.A. District 1,3/8/05 davis. PDF.]

5.

Invitations 

Babst, et al. v. NIB, 132 SCRA 316 (1984);



People v. Sequiῆo, 264 SCRA 79 (1996);



People v. Del Rosario, 305 SCRA 740 (1999) R.A. No. 7438

II.

Custodial Investigation

A. Source, Definition, Scope and Procedure

1. Definition 

People v. Pasudag, G.R. No. 128822, May 4, 2001;



People v. Zuela, 323 SCRA 589 (2000);



People v. Abe Valdez, G.R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000, 341 SCRA 25;



People v. Rodriguez, 341 SCRA 645 (2000);



People v. Del Rosario, 305 SCRA 740 (1999); Cf. Babst v. NIB, 132 SCRA 31 (1984)



People v. Muleta, 309 SCRA 148 (1999);



People v. Tan, 286 SCRA 207 (1998);

2. Duty of police during custodial investigation, procedure



Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 12;



Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966);



People v. Obrero, 332 SCRA 190 (2000);



People v. Duero, 104 SCRA 379 (1981);



Republic Act No. 7438, sec. 2 (b), (c), (d);

Cf.

People v. Ordono, 334 SCRA 673 (2000);

B. Rights Involved and consequences of violation

1. Rights involved Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 12 (1), (2); Republic Act. No. 7438, sec. 2(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f); 

People v. Obrero, 332 SCRA 190 (2000);



People v. Mojello, G.R. No. 145566, March 9, 2004 **

2. Consequences of violation 

Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 12 (3)



Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971);



New York v. Quarles, 104 S. Ct. 2626 (1984);



People v. Duero, 104 SCRA 379 (1981);



People v. Figueroa, 335 SCRA 299 (2000);



Gumabon v. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 429 (1971);



Republic Act. No. 7438, sec. 4:

C. Specific requirements in case law:

1. Waiver of right to counsel 

People v. Caguioa, 141 SCRA 289 (1980);



People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985);



People v. Continente, 339 SCRA 1 (2000);



Cf. People v. Bacor, 306 SCRA 522 (1999)



People v. Quidato Jr., 297 SCRA 1 (1998);

2. Counsel of choice during custodial investigation 

People v. Obrero, 332 SCRA 190 (2000);



People v. Labtan, 320 SCRA 140 (1999);



People v. Samulde, 336 SCRA 632 (2000);



People v. Gallardo, 323 SCRA 218 (2000);

3. Compliance with requirement to inform person detained of rights 

People v. Canoy, 328 SCRA 385 (2000);



People v. Sapal, 328 SCRA 417 (2000);



People v. Jara, 144 SCRA 517 (1986);



People v. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289 (1986)



People v. Continente, 339 SCRA 1 (2000);

4. Police line-up 

Gamboa v. Cruz, June 27, 1988;



United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967);



People v. Pavillare, 329 SCRA 684 (2000);

5. Proof of voluntariness of confession; burden on prosecution 

People v. Jara, 144 SCRA 516 (1986);



People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 (1986);

6. Exceptional cases of uncounseled confessions not held to be excluded 

People v. Andan, 269 SCRA 95 (1997);



People v. Domantay, 307 SCRA 1 (1999);

But cf. People v. Morada, 307 SCRA 362 (1999);

III.

Rights and Remedies

A. Rights of persons under arrest Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 12; Rule 113, sec. 14; RA No. 7438, sec. 2;



People v. Ramos, 186 SCRA 184 (1990);



People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985);



People v. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289 (1986);



People v. Decierdo, 149 SCRA 496 (1987);

Cf. v.v. Mendoza, The Right to Counsel in Custodial Interrogations, 61 PHIL. L. J. 409 (1986);

B. Remedies

1. Motion to Quash Warrant 

Miranda vs. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377 (2006) Cf.- Talag vs. Reyes, 430 SCRA 428 (2004)



De Joya vs. Marquez, 481 SCRA 376 (2006)



2. Motion to quash information; Preliminary investigation/ Reinvestigation

Rule 117, secs. 1, 3; 

Luna v. Plaza, 26 SCRA 310 (1968);



Alimpoos v. CA, 106 SCRA 159 (1981);

3. Bail Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 14; RJCL, sec. 15, 16, 17; JJWA, secs. 34, 35, 36 cf. sec. 4(p); Rule 114, sec. 26; 

Panada v. Veneracion, 269 SCRA 371 (1997);

4. (a) Habeas Corpus

Rule 102 

Sec. of National Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, Oct. 7, 2008



Ilagan v. Enrile, 139 SCRA 349 ( 1985);



Velasco v. CA, 245 SCRA 677 (1995)



Moncupa v. Enrile, 141 SCRA 233 (1986);

(b) Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC) & Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16 SC) V.V. Mendoza, A Note On The Writ of Amparo, PLJ 82 No.4 (2008)

State participation, indispensable: 

Navla v. Pardico, G.R. No. 184467, June 19, 2012**



Rubrico vs. Macapagal- Arroyo, 613 SCRA 233 (2010)



Yano vs. Sanchez, 612 SCRA 347 (2010)



Razon, Jr. Vs. Tagitis, 612 SCRA 685 (2010)

(c) Effects of plea on objections to legality of arrest 

People v. Alojado, 305 SCRA 236 (1999);



People v. Rondero, 320 SCRA 383 (1999);

See cited case in Esquillo vs. People, J. Bersamin Dissenting Aug. 25, 2010 

People vs. Racho, 626 SCRA 633 (2010)

Cf. also Non-curability of illegal nature of arrest



Umil v. Ramos, 187 SCRA 311 (1990)



Umil v. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251 (1991);



Bagcal v. Villaraza, 120 SCRA 525 (1983);

5. Criminal liability for unlawful arrest Rev. Pen. Code, Arts. 124-126;

6. Suppression of evidence obtained Const. (1987), art. III, secs. 3(2), 12(3), 12 (4); 

Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975);



Sayo v. Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 859 (1948);

Cf. Rule 126, sec. 14;

RULE 114- BAIL

Pertinent pleadings:

1) Motion to set bail/ Petition for bail 2) Motion to reduce bail

I.

Nature and Definition

A. Definition; persons covered or required to post bail

-Rule 114, secs. 1,3: 

Feliciano v. Pasciolan, 2 SCRA 888 (1961) (EB)



Villaseῆor v. Abaῆo, G.R. No. L-23599, September 29, 1967 (EB)



Defensor-Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 663 (1993);



Miranda v. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377 (2006)



Cortes v. Catral, 279 SCRA 1 (1997);



People v. Manallo, 400 SCRA 129 (2003);



People v. Nitcha, 240 SCRA 283 (1995)

B. Nature

1. Matter of right



Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 13;



Rule 114, sec.4;



JJWA, secs. 34-37;



RJCL, sec. 15-16;



People v. Donato, 198 SCRA 130 (1991);

Cf. Arraignment not pre-requisite to bail 

Lavides v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129670, Feburary 1, 2000;



Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, 396 SCRA 443 (2003);

2. Discretionary

Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 13; Rule 114, secs. 5,6,7,8,24; RJCL, sec. 17; 

Teehankee v. Director of Prisons, 76 Phil. 756 (1946);



People v. San Diego, 26 SCRA 522 (1988);



Ocampo v. Bernabe, 77 Phil. 55 (1946);



Siazon v. Judge, 4 SCRA 184 (1971);



Mamolo v. Narisima, 252 SCRA 613 (1995);

Cf. Duties of Judge 

Cortes v. Catral, 279 SCRA 1 (1997);



People v. Tuppal, 395 SCRA 72 (2003);

See also Interim bail 

Enrile v. Perez, G.R. No. 147785 (resolution of the Supreme Court En banc dated May 5,

2001);

II.

Types and conditions of bail

A. Corporate surety Rule 114, secs. 1, 2, 10, 13, 21, 22;

B. Cash deposit Rule 114, secs. 1, 2, 14, 21;

C. Property Rule 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22;

D. Recognizance Rule 114, secs. 1, 2,15,16; RJCL, secs. 6(i), 15; JJWA, secs. 4 (p), 35;

III. Amount of bail; when not required

A. Guidelines Rule 114, sec.9; 

Dela Camara v. Enage, 41 SCRA 1 (1971);



Villaseῆor v. Abaῆo, 21 SCRA 321 (1967);

B. When not required or reduced

Rule 114, secs. 16, 20; Rep. Act. No. 6036;

IV. Forfeiture and cancellation of bail; remedies for violation of bail conditions Rule 114, Sec. 21, 22, 23; Bail

V. Bail filed with other courts: Rule 114, Sec. 17 Re: Anynomous Letter-complaint against Hon. Tamang, 617 SCRA 428 (2010)

VI. Bail on Appeal: Leviste vs C.A., G.R. No. 189122. March 17, 2010

PART FOUR

RULES 110,111,127 PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL ASPECTS OF OFFENSE, WITH APPLICATION FOR PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

Pertinent Forms: 1) Complaint 2) Information 3) Authority to Appear as Private Prosecutor

Pertinent Pleadings: 1) Motion for Suspension of Criminal Action 2) Reservation of Civil Action 3) Entry of Appearance as Private Prosecutor

I.

Nature of liability arising from criminal act

A. Criminal Revised Penal Code Special Penal Laws

B. Civil Revised Penal Code, arts. 100-113; Civil Code, arts. 29-32-33, 34, 2176; 

II.

Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 322 SCRA 160 (2000)

Institution of actions arising from crime

A. Criminal aspect

1. Generally Rule 110, sec.1; RJCL, sec. 11; 

Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, 253 SCRA 773 (1996)

2. Venue and Jurisdiction BP 129 (as amended), secs. 20, 32; Rule 110, sec. 15: RJCL, sec.14;

a) MTC : (Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts) Sec. 32(2), B.P.129 (As amended by Sec. 2, R.A. No. 7691) Sec. 3 & 4, S.C. ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 9-94

b) RTC CASES: People v. Lagon, 185 SCRA 442 (1990) Malaloan v. CA, 232 SCRA 249 (1994)

3. The complaint/ information; test of sufficiency Art. III, Sec. 14 (1) & (2), 1987 Constitution Rule 110, Sec. 6 

People v. Pardilla, 92 SCRA 591 (1979) **



Malto v. People, 553 SCRA 643, September 21, 2007



Lazarte, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 581 SCRA 431 (2009) **

Allege elements of the offense & effect of failure 

People v. Valdez, 663 SCRA 272 (Jan. 2012)

a. MTC : Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts) Sec. 11 & 12, 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure

b. RTC: Rule 110, secs. 2, 3, 4: DOJ-NPS Manual, Part III, sec.8;

4. Person prosecuting criminal action; intervention of offended party Rule 110, secs. 5 (as amended by SC AM No. 02-2-07-SC, April 10, 2002), 16; JJWA, sec. 32, 33; 

People v. Berialies, 76 SCRA 42 (1977)



Republic v. Sunga, 162 SCRA 191 (1988)



People v. Ocapan, 150 SCRA 607 (1987)



People v. Ilarde, 125 SCRA 607 (1987)



People v. Madali, 349 SCRA 104 (2001)

Cf. Crespo v. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462 (1987) 

Roberts v CA, 254 SCRA 307 (1996)

Cf also. Non-retroactivity of removal of “complaint” requirement in Rape 

5.

People v. Galigao, G.R. Nos. 140961-63, January 14, 2003

Form and content

1) Procedural

a. Name of accused and offended party Rule 110, secs. 7, 12; o

People v. Guevarra, 179 SCRA 740 (1989)

b. Designation of offense Rule 110, sec. 8 DOJ-NPS Manual, Part III, sec. 40; 

People v. Pardilla, supra **



People v. Purisima, 86 SCRA 542 (1978)



People v. Buayaban, 400 SCRA 48 (2003)



People v. Delim, G.R. No. 142773, January 28, 2003**



People v. Fernandez, 414 SCRA 84 (2003)



People v. Masapol, 417 SCRA 371 (2003)

Estafa includes falsification as means?: 

Patula v. People, G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012

Consequence of failure to allege 

People v. Valdez, 663 SCRA 272 (Jan. 2012) supra

c. Formal amendment

(2)



People v. Degamo, 402 SCRA 133 (2003);



Villaflor v. Viver, 349 SCRA 194 (2001);

Substantive a. Single offense Rule 110, sec. 13; 

People v. Fernandez, 183 SCRA 511 (1990);



People v. Lopez, 312 SCRA 684 (1999);

b. Cause of accusation Rule 110, sec. 9: 

People v. Chan Toco, 12 Phil. 262 (1908);



Balitaan v. CFI- Batangas, 115 SCRA 729 (1982);



Matilde v. Jabson, 68 SCRA 456 (1975);



People v. Gallo, G.R. No. 124736, resolution dated September 29, 1999;



Vasquez v. CA, 314 SCRA SCRA 460 (1999);



People v. Llanto, G.R. No. 146458, January 20, 2003;

Evidentiary Facts & Ultimate Facts 

Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, supra;

c. Date, place and time of commission Rule 110, secs. 10, 11; 

People v. Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003;



People v. Ladrillo, 320 SCRA 61 (1999);



People v. Losano, G.R. No. 127122, July 20, 1999;



U.S. v. Javier Dichao, 27 Phil. 421 (1914);



People v. Molero, 144 SCRA 397 (1986);



People v. Lualhati, 171 SCRA 277 (1989);



Rocaberte v. People, 193 SCRA 152 (1991);

Cf. Need not be alleged 

People v. Perez, 417 SCRA 449 (2003);

6. Suspension of criminal action by reason of prejudicial question Rule 111, secs. 6, 7; DOJ - NPS Manual, Part III, secs. 23-24;

B.



People v. Consing Jr., 395 SCRA 366 (2003);



Magestrado v. People, 527 SCRA 125 (2007)



Trinidad v. Office of the Ombudsman, 539 SCRA 415 (2007)**

Civil Aspect

1. Generally Rule 111, sec. 1; RJCL, sec. 12;



People vs. Bayotas, 236 SCRA 239, G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994**

2. Suspension of separate civil action Rule 111, sec. 2;

Acquittal and Civil liability: Manantan v. CA, 350 SCRA 387 (2001)

Cf. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question Rule 111, secs. 6,7; Dreamwork Construction, Inc., Vs. Janiola, 591 SCRA 466 (2009)

3. Independent civil actions Rule 111, sec. 3;

4. Effect of death on civil actions Rule 111, sec.4;

5. Effect of judgment in civil action on criminal action Rule 111, sec. 5;

III. Remedies available

A. Amendment/substitution of information Rule 110, sec. 14; DOJ-NPS Manual, Part III, sec. 4;



Teehankee v. Madayag, 140 SCRA 425 (1985)**;



Draculan v. Donato, 140 SCRA 425 (1985);



Almeda v. Villaluz, 66 SCRA 38 (1975);



People v. CA, 121 SCRA 733 (1983);



People v. Tubongbanua, 500 SCRA 727 (2006)

And right to preliminary investigation; 

Matalan v.Sandiganbayan, 455 SCRA 736 (2005)

B. Motion to Quash Rule 117; Cf. Rule 119, sec. 19; 

Cruz v. CA, 194 SCRA 145 (1991);

C. Bill of Particulars Rule 116, sec. 9; See: Bill of Particulars in Criminal Cases by Ambrosio R. Blanco, 202 SCRA 739

D. Provisional Remedies Rule 127, secs. 1, 2: Rule 57, 58, 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure;

PART V

RULE 112 – PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AND INQUEST

Pertinent Pleadings/Legal Documents: 1) Complaint-Affidavit 2) Counter- Affidavit 3) Resolution 4) Motion for Preliminary Investigation 5) Motion for Reinvestigation

ASSIGNMENT: DRAFT A COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT AND COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

RESOLUTION INFORMATION

I.

Definition; when required

A. Nature, Purpose, Scope and Probable Cause 

Sales v. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 293 (2001)



Baytan v. COMELEC, 396 SCRA 703 (2003);



Paderanga v. Drilon, 196 SCRA 86(1991);



Go vs. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 138 (1992)

Probable cause in preliminary investigations: 

Allado v. Diokno, 232 SCRA 192 (1994)



DOJ-NPS Manual, Part III (Preliminary Investigation), Part II (Inquest);

B. Definition : when required Rule 112, sec. 1; DOJ - NPS Manual, Part III, secs. 1, 2, 3, 7; RJCL, secs. 13,8: 

Doromal V. Sandiganbayan, 177 SCRA 354 (1989);



Go vs. Court of Appeals, supra



Webb v. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652 (1995);

C. Persons authorized to conduct Rule 112, sec. 2; DOJ- NPS Manual, sec. 6;

RA 6770, secs. 11 (4) (a), 15; 

Velasco v. Casaclang, 294 SCRA 396 (1998);



Balgos v. Sandiganbayan, 176 SCRA 287 (1989);



Alonzo vs. Concepcion, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1879. January 17, 2005

II. Procedure in cases where preliminary investigation required

A. In cases cognizable by RTC Conducted by prosecutor Rule 122, secs. 3, 4, 6, 8; RJCL, sec. 13; 

Rodil v. Garcia, 104 SCRA 362 (1981);

Objective of P.I. & duty of public prosecutor: 

Allado v. Diokno, 232 SCRA 192 (1994);

B. In cases cognizable by MTC Conducted by prosecutor Rule 112, secs. 1 [par.2], 3, 4, 6, 8; RJCL, sec. 13;

C. In cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan 1. Conducted by prosecutor Rule 112, secs. 3, 4, 5, 8;

2. Conducted by Ombudsman/Special Prosecutor RA 6770;

Administrative Order No. 07, Rule II, secs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7; See: Ombudsman & DOJ MOA, April 19, 2012

III. Procedure in cases not requiring a preliminary investigation

A. MTC cases or those covered by summary procedure Rule 112, sec. 9;

B. When person lawfully arrested without warrant Rule 112, sec. 7; DOJ Department Order No. 61 (September 21, 1993) [“ New Rules on Inquest”]; Rev. Pen. Code, art. 125; RJCL, sec. 8; 

Leviste vs. Alameda, 626 SCRA 575 (2010)

IV. Remedies from Preliminary Investigation

A. Appeal DOJ Department Order No. 70 (July 3, 2000) [“2000 NPS Rule on Appeal]; cf. DOJ-NPS Manual, Part IV (Petition for Review); 

Dimatullac v. Villon, 297 SCRA 679 (1998);



Ty v. NBI, 638 SCRA 671 (2010)

B. Reinvestigation/ Preliminary Investigation 

Crespo v. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462 (1987);



Roberts v. CA, 254 SCRA 307 (1996);



Dungog v. CA, 159 SCRA 145 (1988);



Velasquez v. Undersecretary of Justice, 182 SCRA 388 (1990);



People v. Beriales, 70 SCRA 361 (1976);



Doromal v. Sandiganbayan, supra



Leviste vs. Almeda, supra

Cf. Effects of absence of or irregularity in preliminary investigation 

Go vs. Courts of Appeals, 206 SCRA 138 (1992)



Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, 253 SCRA 773 (1996);

C. Reconsideration 

Sales v. Sandiganbayan, supra

D. Injunction and writs of retraint in proper cases 

Primicias v. Pangasinan, 93 SCRA 462 (1979);



Guingona Jr. v. City Fiscal, 137 SCRA 597 (1985);



Paderanga v. Drilon, supra;



People vs. Grey, 625 SCRA 523 (2010)



Brocka v. Enrile, 192 SCRA 183 (1990)

E. Petition for certiorari Rule 65 

Ty v. NBI, supra

F. Bail, effect of Posting

Rule 114, sec. 26; DOJ-NPS Manual, Part V, secs. 1-13: 

Go v CA, 206 SCRA 138 (1992);



Larranaga v. CA, 287 SCRA 581 (1998);