Rule 118 Pre Trial

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 118 – Pre-trial

Rule 118 PRE-TRIAL

SECTION 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. - In all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the court shall, 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, order a pre-trial conference to consider the following: (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. (secs. 2 and 3, cir. 38-98) One thing you have to remember, pre-trial in criminal cases is now MANDATORY as compared to the 1985 rules. In the prior rules, “if the accused and his lawyer will agree.” Ngayon parang civil case na rin - mandatory in all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, RTC, MTC, etc. after arraignment and within 30 days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. That is why there was a bar question before - how do you distinguish a pre-trial in a criminal case from a pre-trial in a civil case? And one of the answers there is that pre-trial in a criminal cases is not mandatory, in civil case it is mandatory. But now, wala na yan. Palitan mo na yan. That answer is obsolete because of this amendment. You must always see to it that the answers are valid under the new law. Do not stick to answers given by the UP Law Center - tama man yon at that time. But now they are changed. [A] PLEA BARGAINING Plea Bargaining. That is Section 2 of Rule 116 is all about - yung tawaran tayo, plea of a lesser offense with the consent of the prosecutor and the offended party. Now, there is only one EXCEPTION: plea bargaining seems to be prohibited under the Dangerous Drugs Act, Section 20-A - when you are charged with the violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act and the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death - no plea bargaining! Bawal! [B] STIPULATION OF FACTS - meaning, if we can agree on certain facts, so that during the trial we do not have to prove them anymore. [C] MARKING FOR IDENTIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES - showing of the evidence already so that during the trial, they can easily be identified. [D] WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - we will agree beforehand whether the evidence is admissible or not. [E] MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF TRIAL IF THE ACCUSED ADMITS THE CHARGE BUT INTERPOSES A LAWFUL DEFENSE Paragraph [e] is new - Modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense. Meaning, “I am accused of homicide. I admit I killed him but I acted in self-defense.” Ganun ba? Palitan natin, mauna ka. The prosecution will not present evidence ahead because anyway you admitted ikaw ang pumatay. This is what we call trial in reverse.

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 118 – Pre-trial

This is because in relation to Section 11[e], Rule 119: (e) When the accused admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or information but interposes a lawful defense, the order of trial may be modified.

[F] SUCH MATTERS AS WILL PROMOTE A FAIR AND EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF THE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL ASPECTS OF THE CASE. Q: Can we discuss in a pre-trial of a criminal case settlement or compromise? A: Yes - sa civil aspect lang because we know the rule that compromise in the criminal aspect is not allowed. But if we talk about how to promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal aspect, ah puwede yan. Anyway it has nothing to do with areglo.

SEC. 2. Pre-trial agreement. - All agreements or admissions made or entered during the 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. (sec. 4 cir. 38-98) Take note, pre-trial agreements or admissions made or entered into the pre-trial conference must be in writing and signed by the accused and his counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused. There is no such provision in civil procedure to that effect. Q: Now, is this requirement mandatory? A: YES. FULE vs. COURT OF APPEALS 162 SCRA 446 FACTS: There were some stipulations made during the trial: Is this your check? “Yes, that is my check.” Did you issue it to the complainant? “Ah yes - admitted!” You knew it was not funded? “Yes, I know!” That the check bounced? “Yes - admitted!” Ganun? OK, convicted ka! HELD: The conviction is not valid because the accused did not sign his admissions. Do not confuse the case of Fule with the case of PEOPLE vs. HERNANDEZ 260 SCRA 25, July 30, 1996 ISSUE: Are the agreements or stipulations made during the trial (not pre-trial) without being signed by the party binding on the accused? HELD: YES because iba ang rules sa trial compared sa pre-trial. If the lawyer makes an admissions during the trial we follow the general rule - you are bound. The lawyer represents the client. There is no need for the client to agree or sign anything. “An attorney who is employed to manage a party's conduct of a lawsuit has prima facie authority to make relevant admissions by pleadings, by oral or written stipulation, which unless allowed to be withdrawn are conclusive. In fact, judicial admissions are frequently those of counsel or of the attorney of record, who is, for the purpose of the trial, the agent of his client. When such admissions are made for the purpose of dispensing with proof of some fact, they bind the client, whether made during, or even after, the trial." “The foregoing find basis in the general rule that a client bound by the acts of his counsel who represents him. For all intents and purposes, the acts of a lawyer in the defense of a case are the acts of his client.”

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 118 – Pre-trial

The last sentence is new: “The agreements covering the matters referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be approved by the court.” SEC. 3. Non-appearance at pre-trial conference. - If the counsel for the accused or the prosecutor does not appear at the pre-trial conference and does not offer an acceptable excuse for his lack of cooperation, the court may impose proper sanctions or penalties. (sec. 5, cir. 38-98) Section 3, bago rin ito. Here, it is not the party who is penalized, but the lawyer - if the counsel of the accused or the prosecutor does not appear in the pre-trial conference and there is no offer. SEC. 4. Pre-trial order. - After the pre-trial conference, the court shall issue an order reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated, and evidence marked. Such order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of, and control the course f the action during the trial, unless modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice. (3) So after the trial, the court will issue a pre-trial order where it will summarize what matter had been agreed upon; what are the issues; the elements that had been established; facts stipulated; and exhibits that had been marked. Now, before we leave this rule, please review the provisions on Katarungang Pambarangay Law on the provisions of conciliation in the barangay of criminal cases - penalty not more than one year. MANDATORY man yan ba! In other words, that is one way of saying indirectly, compromise in criminal cases is now allowed. That is an instance where an offer of a compromise in a criminal case is not an implied admission of guilt. [The following discussions on the Katarungang Pambaranggay are taken in 1996 Criminal Procedure Transcription:] In connection with Rule 118, you must be aware of another law which is closely related to the subject matter of Pre-Trial. What we will discuss is the Katarungang Pambarangay Law which is applicable to both criminal and civil cases. This law used to be PD 1508 which was already repealed. The new law on Katarungang Pambaranggay is from Section 399 to Section 422 of the Local Government Code of 1991 [R.A. 7160] which took effect last January 1, 1992. Under this law, you cannot file the case directly in court or with the fiscal’s office without first trying to settle things with the Lupong Tagapamayapa which is headed by the Barangay Captain. If thee case is not settled at this level, that is the time the Barangay Captain would say, “We will bring this matter to court.” The law applies only to the following instances: 1) When the case is between natural persons; (does not apply to corporations and the like) 2) 3) When the offended party and the accused reside in the same city or municipality; (not necessarily in the same barangay) Example: B is from Bunawan and he sued T who is from Toril. The barangays are from one end to the other. Is there are need for B to comply with the Barangay Law? YES because they are of the same city, and under the law, the venue is the residence of the respondent or accused. 3) When the crime is punishable by imprisonment NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR or fine ot exceeding P5,000. (case is cognizable by the MTC) The Katarungang Pambarangay does not apply to the following cases:

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 118 – Pre-trial

1) Where there is no private offended party (e.g. illegal possession of firearms) 2) In criminal cases where the accused is under police custody or detention (This is the so-called inquest, after a valid warrantless arrest.) In these two latter instances, the case can be filed directly in court without going through the conciliation process. Where these rules apply, there must be a certification that you have first tried to settle matters in the barangay. The Supreme Court has issued a circular on the applicability of the Barangay Law: Administrative Circular No. 14-93 dated July 15, 1993 where the SC laid down all the guidelines for the implementation of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law. [End of the 1996 transcription. The following notes are taken from A Laymen’s Guide To Court Procedure, A Handbook On Lawsuits by Neomi T. Olivares and Justice Jose Y. Feria, pp.63-65]: KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY Katarungang Pambarangay is the system which promotes and implements t he amicable settlement of disputes at the barangay level before resorting to filing cases in court or in any other government office. It was first established by Presidential Decree 1508 (signed into law on June 1978, now superseded by sections 399 to 422 of R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991.) Only individuals actually residing in the same barangay, city or municipality can be parties to the proceedings. Corporations, partnerships, and other juridical entities are not covered by R.A. 7160. Each barangay constitutes a body know as LUPONG TAGAPAMAYAPA (hereinafter referred to as LUPON) which administers the conciliation or arbitration process. A Lupon is composed of 10 to 20 members chosen from the community and is headed by the Barangay Captain. Disputes brought before the Lupon are resolved by a conciliation panel known as PANGKAT NG TAGAPAGKASUNDO (hereinafter referred to as PANGKAT), consisting of 3 members chosen by agreement between the disputing parties from the list of the membership of the LUPON. In all proceedings, parties appear in person without the assistance of counsel or representative, with the exception of minors and physically or mentally handicapped people who may be assisted by their nest of kin (who are not lawyers). Refusal or willful failure to appear in compliance with the barangay summons may result in barring:  The complainant from seeking recourse in the courts for the same cause of action; or  The respondent from filing any counterclaim connected therewith. Proceedings are public and informal, except for those cases which require the exclusion of the public in the interest of public decency or morals. CASES NOT SUBJECT TO AMICABLE SETTLEMENT AT THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY: 1) Where one party is the government or a subdivision or instrumentality thereof; 2) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official function; 3) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year or a fine exceeding PhP 5,000; 4) Offenses where there is no private offended party. DISPUTES NOT COVERED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE LUPON 1) Those involving parties who reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities unless their barangays are adjoining. 2) Those involving real property located in different cities or municipalities.

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 118 – Pre-trial

In both cases, the parties may agree to submit their differences for amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon. Conciliation proceedings at the barangay level are a pre-condition to filing an action in court or a government office. Non-compliance with this requisite may result in the dismissal of the complaint. PARTIES MAY FOREGO THE BARANGAY CONCILIATION PROCESS AND GO DIRECTLY TO THE COURT WHEN: 1) The accused is under detention. 2) Habeas corpus proceedings are called for. 3) Actions are accompanied by provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property, etc. 4) Legal action is barred by the Statute of Limitations (the law that bars the institution of an action after the lapse of a prescribed period.) == end == July 15, 1993 ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 14-93 Subject : Guidelines on the Katarungang Pambarangay conciliation procedure to prevent circumvention of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law (Sections 399-422, chapter VII, Title I, Book III, R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991). To : All Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts The Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law under R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, effective on January 1, 1992, and which repealed P.D. 1508, introduced substantial changes not only in the authority granted to the Lupon Tagapamayapa but also in the procedure to be observed in the settlement of disputes within the authority of the Lupon. cd i In order that the laudable purpose of the law may not subverted and its effectiveness undermined by indiscriminate, improper and/or premature issuance of certifications to file actions in court by the Lupon or Pangkat Secretaries, attested by the Lupon/Pangkat Chairmen, respectively, the following guidelines are hereby issued for the information of trial court judges in cases brought before them coming from the Barangays: I. All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant to the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law (formerly P.D. 1508, repealed and now replaced by Secs. 399-422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, and Sec. 515, Title I, Book IV, R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991), and prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in court or any government offices, EXCEPT in the following disputes: 1. 2. 3.

4.

Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof; Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions; Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and municipalities, unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon; Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships or juridical entities, since only individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 118 – Pre-trial

either as complainants or respondents (Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules); NOTE: Only natural persons can undergo barangay conciliation. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon; 6. Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00); 7. Offenses where there is no private offended party; 8. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or further continued, specifically the following: NOTE: “Urgently.” A good example in civil action is where the action is coupled with a provisional remedy such as preliminary injunction, attachment, replevin or support. Or, actions which may be barred by the statute of limitations. 5.

a) Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention (See Sec. 412 (b)(1), Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law); b) Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful custody over another or a person illegally deprived of his liberty or one acting in his behalf; c) Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support during the pendency of the action; and d) Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations. Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice; 10. Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) (Secs. 46 & 47, R.A. 6657); 11. Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations (Montoya vs. Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended, which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction over conciliation and mediation of disputes, grievances or problems to certain offices of the Department of Labor and Employment); NOTE: In the case of Montoya vs. Escayo (171 SCRA 442), the conciliation there is in the Department of Labor. 9.

12. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise, which may be filed directly in court (See Sanchez vs. Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459).

II. Under the provisions of R.A. 7160 on Katarungang Pambarangay conciliation, as implemented by the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Justice, the certification for filing a complaint in court or any government office shall be issued by Barangay authorities only upon compliance with the following requirements: aisa dc 1)

2)

Issued by the Lupon Secretary and attested by the Lupon Chairman (Punong Barangay), certifying that a confrontation of the parties has taken place and that a conciliation or settlement has been reached, but the same has been subsequently repudiated (Sec. 412, Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law; Sec. 2[h], Rule III, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules); Issued by the Pangkat Secretary and attested by the Pangkat Chairman, certifying that:

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 118 – Pre-trial

a. a confrontation of the parties took place but no conciliation/settlement has been reached (Sec. 4[f], Rule III, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules; or b. that no personal confrontation took place before the Pangkat through no fault of the complainant (Sec. 4[f], Rule III, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules). 3)

4)

Issued by the Punong Barangay, as requested by the proper party on the ground of failure of settlement where the dispute involves members of the same indigenous cultural community, which shall be settled in accordance with the customs and traditions of that particular cultural community, or where one or more of the parties to the aforesaid dispute belong to the minority and the parties mutually agreed to submit their dispute to the indigenous system of amicable settlement, and there has been no settlement as certified by the datu or tribal leader or elder to the Punong Barangay of the place of settlement (Secs. 1, 4, & 5, Rule IX, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules); and If mediation or conciliation efforts before the Punong Barangay proved unsuccessful, there having been no agreement to arbitrate (Sec. 410 [b], Revised Rule Katarungang Pambarangay Lay; Sec. 1, c, (1), Rule III, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules), or where the respondent fails to appear at the mediation proceeding before the Punong Barangay (3rd par. Sec. 8, a, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules), the Punong Barangay shall not cause the issuance of this stage of a certification to file action, because it is now mandatory for him to constitute the Pangkat before whom mediation, conciliation, or arbitration proceedings shall be held.

III. All complaints and/or informations filed or raffled to your sala/branch of the Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court or Municipal Trial Court shall be carefully read and scrutinized to determine if there has been compliance with prior Barangay conciliation procedure under the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, as a pre-condition to judicial action, particularly whether the certification to file action attached to the records of the case comply with the requirements hereinabove enumerated in par. II; IV. A case filed in court without compliance with prior Barangay conciliation which is a pre-condition for formal adjudication (Sec. 412[a] of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law) 1)

2)

may be dismissed upon motion of defendant/s, not for lack of jurisdiction of the court but for failure to state a cause of action or prematurity (Royales vs. IAC, 127 SCRA 470; Gonzales vs. CA, 151 SCRA 289), or the court may suspend proceedings upon petition of any party under Sec. 1, Rule 21 of the Rules of Court; and refer the case motu propio to the appropriate Barangay authority, applying by analogy Sec. 408[g], 2nd par., of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law which reads as follows: "The Court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the Lupon under this Code are filed may at any time before trial, motu proprio refer the case to the Lupon concerned for amicable settlement.

Strict observance of these guidelines is enjoined. This Administrative Circular shall be effective immediately. Manila, Philippines. July 15, 1993. (Sgd.) ANDRES R. NARVASA Chief Justice

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 118 – Pre-trial

editor-in-chief: mortmort editors: jayceebelle balite • j-j torres • michael peloton • maying dadula • jessamyn agustin • lyle santos • paul ryan ongkingco • dynn gutierrez • maya quitain • riezl locsin • patrick tabar • maritess gonzales • maricel culpable • kenneth leyva • jenny namoc • ferdinand vido • melissa suarez • rayda sullano • rucel cayetano • rod quiachon • hannah examen • myra montecalvo • genie salvaña • grace salesa • leo gillesania • gemma betonio • jenny aquiatan • michael pito • karen de leon • elma tormon • judee uy • pao angeles • jet pascua • contributing editors: bathsheba baldoza • marlo masangkay _-----_ _ / / \/ \ / / / / /| \\ | // / / /\\\| \ / /\////^ \/ (| __ __ |) | | | '--' | \ -/ \ ____ /

SPACE-FILLER #6: A friend and I were shopping for dresses for her threeyear-old girls to wear to a wedding. In the shop, another girl staring intently at Sarah and Becky asked, “Are those girls twins?” “Actually they’re triplets,” I explained. “They have a brother at home.” “Wow,” she replied. “They sure look like twins to me.” Source: Reader’s Digest, November 2000