Criminal Procedure

Att. Reden Bides

PHILIPPINE LAW
SCHOOL
CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
ATTY. REDEN B.
BIDES
Lecturer
Saturdays, 6:00pm
to 9:00pm
SYLLABUS
Course
Description:
A study of the
procedural rules
governing the
investigation, trial
and disposition of
criminal cases in
court, including
jurisdiction of
courts in criminal
independent civil
actions
Course
Requirements:
1. Class Standing
( includes
recitations,
quizzes, paper/s,
case digest,
attendance
others)- 30%among
2. Midterm
Examination-30%
3. Final
Examination-40%
Course Outline
I. GENERAL
PRINCIPLES
A. Substantive Law
v. Remedial Law
B. Rule-making
power of the
Supreme Court
1. Limitations on
the rule-making
power of the
Supreme Court
2. Power of the
Supreme Court to
amend and
suspend
C. Nature of
Philippine
1. MeaningCourts
of
court
2. Classification of
Philippine courts
3. Courts of
original and
appellate
4. Courts of
general and special
jurisdiction
5. Constitutional
and statutory
courts
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
6. Courts of law
and
7. equity of
Principle
judicial hierarchy
8. Doctrine of non-
interference v.
Doctrine of judicial
stability
II. JURISDICTION
A. Original v.
Appellate
1. General v.
Special
2. Exclusive v.
Concurrent
B. Doctrines of
hierarchy of courts
and continuity of
jurisdiction
C. Jurisdiction of
various Philippine
Courts
1. Supreme Court
2. Court of Appeals
3. Court of Tax
Appeals
4. Sandiganbayan
5. Regional Trial
Courts
6. Family Courts
7. Metropolitan
Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial
Courts, Municipal
Cities and
Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts
D. Criminal
Jurisdiction
E. Jurisdiction over
subject matter
F. Jurisdiction over
person of the
accused
G. Requisites for
exercise of criminal
jurisdiction
H. When injunction
may be issued to
restrain criminal
jurisdiction
Readings:
Pp v. Mariano, GR public property. Motion to Quash and Jurisdictional Issues
No. L-40527 June The respondent court granted the motion Mariano moved to quash the information on several
30, 1976 to quash, stating that it had lost grounds, including lack of jurisdiction and the
jurisdiction over the case since the Military previous conviction of the municipal mayor for
Commission had already taken cognizance malversation.
of the malversation case against the mayor He argued that since the case against the mayor had
involving the same subject matter. already been decided by the Military Tribunal, the
Issue: Court of First Instance had lost jurisdiction over the
Whether the Court of First Instance has case against him.
jurisdiction over the estafa case against The respondent court granted the motion to quash,
Mariano, considering the previous stating that since the Military Commission had
conviction of the municipal mayor for already taken cognizance of the case, it had lost
malversation of public property by the jurisdiction to pass a new judgment on the same
Military Tribunal. subject matter.
Ruling: Supreme Court's Disagreement with the Ruling
The Court of First Instance has jurisdiction The Supreme Court disagreed with the respondent
over the estafa case against Mariano. court's ruling.
Ratio: It held that estafa and malversation are two separate
Estafa and malversation are two separate and distinct offenses.
and distinct offenses. The accused in the estafa case (Mariano) is different
The accused in the estafa case (Mariano) is from the accused in the malversation case (the
different from the accused in the municipal mayor).
malversation case (the municipal mayor). Therefore, there is no concurrent jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of a court is determined by between the Court of First Instance and the Military
the law in force at the time of the Commission.
commencement of the action. Lack of Jurisdiction of the Military Commission
The law in force was the Judiciary Act of The Court noted that the Military Commission lacks
1948, which vested jurisdiction over estafa jurisdiction over estafa cases.
cases with the Court of First Instance. Estafa is not among the offenses enumerated in
The Military Commission is not vested with General Order No. 49, which redefines the
jurisdiction over the crime of estafa. jurisdiction of military tribunals.
Conclusion: Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the order Based on these findings, the Supreme Court set aside
granting the motion to quash and directed the order granting the motion to quash.
the respondent Judge to proceed with the The Court directed the respondent Judge to proceed
trial of the estafa case against Mariano with the trial of the estafa case against Mariano
without delay. without delay.
 writ of preliminary injunction. (CA)
Ratio: BPI filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of
The Court held that the complaint sought Appeals (CA), challenging the RTC's orders.
the nullification of the loan and mortgage BPI argued that the complaint was a personal action
agreements, not the recovery of and that the venue was not properly laid.
BPI v. Hontanosas possession or title to the properties BPI also argued that the RTC committed grave abuse
Jr, GR No. 157163, burdened by the mortgages. As a personal of discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction.
June 25, 2014 action, it was properly filed in Cebu City, CA's Decision
where one of the plaintiffs had its principal The CA upheld the RTC's orders, ruling that the
office. complaint was a personal action and that the venue
The Court ruled that the issuance of a was properly laid in Cebu City, where one of the
preliminary injunction should be based on plaintiffs had its principal office.
the satisfaction of two requisite conditions: The CA also held that the RTC did not commit grave
(1) the right to be protected exists prima abuse of discretion in issuing the preliminary
facie, and (2) the acts sought to be injunction.
enjoined are violative of that right. BPI's Appeal to the Supreme Court
In this case, the respondents had executed BPI appealed the CA's decision to the Supreme Court.
the mortgages to secure their loan The Supreme Court partially granted BPI's petition,
obligation to BPI and were aware of the ruling that the complaint was indeed a personal
consequences if the loan remained unpaid. action and that the venue was properly laid in Cebu
The foreclosure of the mortgages was the City.
proper remedy for BPI to exact payment. However, the Supreme Court held that the RTC erred
The respondents failed to establish the in granting the preliminary injunction.
irreparable injury they would suffer if the Supreme Court's Ruling
injunction was not issued. The Supreme Court emphasized that a preliminary
The Court emphasized that an injunction injunction should only be issued when the applicant
should not determine the merits of a case has a clear right to be protected and when the acts
or decide controverted facts but should sought to be enjoined are violative of that right.
only seek to prevent threatened wrong, The Supreme Court found that the borrowers had
further injury, and irreparable harm or not sufficiently shown that they were entitled to the
injustice until the rights of the parties can injunction and that they would suffer irreparable
be settled. harm if the injunction was not granted.
The Court emphasized the need for Therefore, the Supreme Court annulled and set aside
caution and sound discretion in the the preliminary injunction and ordered the RTC to
issuance of injunctions, as they are proceed with the case.
extraordinary remedies that should be The borrowers were also ordered to pay the costs of
used with extreme caution. the suit.
III. PROSECUTION
OF OFFENSES
(RULE 110)
A. Criminal actions,
how instituted
B. Information and
Complaint
C. Who may file
criminal actions;
crimes that cannot
be prosecuted de
D. Control of
prosecution
E. Sufficiency of
complaint or
information
F. Designation of
offense
G. Cause of the
accusation
H. Duplicity of the
offense; exception
I. Amendment or
substitution of
complaint or
J. Venue of
criminal
Criminal actions
Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
K. Intervention of
offended party
Readings:
Luis Panaguiton, Jr. Tongson appeared and denied his Petitioner appealed to the DOJ, which initially ruled
vs. DOJ, et al., involvement in the case. in his favor, but later reversed its decision and
November 25, The City Prosecutor found probable cause ordered the withdrawal of the charges against
2008 only against Cawili and dismissed the Tongson.
charges against Tongson. Issue:
Appeal to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Whether the offense of violating B.P. Blg. 22 has
The petitioner appealed to the DOJ, already prescribed.
seeking a reinvestigation of the case Ruling:
against Tongson. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner.
The DOJ directed a reinvestigation of the The Court held that the offense has not yet
case against Tongson. prescribed.
However, an Assistant City Prosecutor The Court cited previous cases that established that
dismissed the complaint against Tongson, the filing of a complaint for preliminary investigation
stating that the case had already suspends the running of the prescriptive period.
prescribed. The delays in the case were beyond the petitioner's
Appeal to the Supreme Court control, as he had initiated the active prosecution of
The petitioner appealed to the DOJ, the case in a timely manner.
arguing that the offense had not yet The DOJ's reversal of its earlier decision and the
prescribed. dismissal of the charges against Tongson were
The DOJ initially ruled in favor of the erroneous.
petitioner, but later reversed its decision, The Court ordered the DOJ to refile the information
stating that the offense had already against the petitioner.
prescribed. Ratio:
The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari The Court's decision was based on the application of
before the Court of Appeals, but it was Act No. 3326, which provides the rules for the
dismissed on technical grounds. prescription of violations penalized by special acts.
The petitioner appealed to the Supreme The Court held that Act No. 3326 applies to offenses
Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals under B.P. Blg. 22.
erred in dismissing his petition and that The Court relied on previous cases that established
the offense had not yet prescribed. that the filing of a complaint for preliminary
Supreme Court Ruling investigation interrupts the prescriptive period.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Ruling otherwise would deprive the injured party of
petitioner. the right to obtain vindication due to delays that are
The Court stated that the offense had not not under their control.
yet prescribed. Therefore, the offense of violating B.P. Blg. 22 has
The Supreme Court ordered the refiling of not yet prescribed, and the DOJ was ordered to refile
the information against Tongson. the information against the petitioner.
Ongkingco and MeTC's decision, and the Court of Appeals Can they be held civilly liable for the dishonored
Ongkingco vs. (CA) also affirmed the RTC's decision. checks?
Sugiyama and Supreme Court Decision Ruling:
People, G.R. No. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction Socorro Ongkingco is convicted of the four charges
217787, of Socorro Ongkingco but acquitted Marie for violation of B.P. 22.
September Paz Ongkingco. Marie Paz Ongkingco is acquitted of the charges.
The Court ruled that the prosecution Ratio:
proved beyond reasonable doubt that A corporate officer who issues a bouncing corporate
Socorro received a notice of dishonor, but check can only be held civilly liable when convicted.
failed to prove the same for Marie Paz. Once acquitted of the offense of violating B.P. 22, a
Socorro should be held civilly liable for the corporate officer is discharged from any civil liability
dishonored checks, while Marie Paz should arising from the issuance of the worthless check in
be acquitted of the charges. the name of the corporation.
Lack of Prior Written Authority or Approval Socorro Ongkingco should be held civilly liable for the
The Court addressed the issue of lack of amounts covered by the dishonored checks, as she
prior written authority or approval to file was convicted of the charges.
the Informations against the petitioners. Marie Paz Ongkingco cannot be held civilly liable, as
The Court held that the petitioners are there was no evidence that she received a notice of
barred by laches for their delay in raising dishonor.
the issue. The power to declare dividends lies with the board of
The lack of written authority or approval is directors of a stock corporation and can only be
a waivable ground for a motion to quash declared out of unrestricted retained earnings.
the Information. Socorro Ongkingco's fixed monthly director's
Conclusion and Penalties dividends for five years and the loan with interest
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction were considered unauthorized corporate obligations.
of Socorro Ongkingco and ordered her to Socorro Ongkingco cannot hide behind the separate
pay the face value of the dishonored and distinct corporate personality of New Rhia Car
checks. Services, Inc. to evade her personal liability for these
Marie Paz Ongkingco was acquitted of the obligations.
charges. Conclusion:
The lack of prior written authority or Socorro Ongkingco is convicted and held civilly liable
approval to file the Informations is a for the dishonored checks.
waivable ground, and the petitioners are Marie Paz Ongkingco is acquitted due to lack of proof
barred by laches from raising the issue. of notice of dishonor.
The Court modified the legal interest rate The fines imposed by the Metropolitan Trial Court
awarded, in accordance with a previous (MeTC) are affirmed, but the interest rate is
decision. modified.
18, 2019
Heirs of Delgado Informations for lack of probable cause.
vs. Gonzalez, G.R. The Acting Secretary of Justice reversed The Acting Secretary of Justice reversed the dismissal
No. 184337, 07 the dismissal of the complaint. and directed the filing of separate informations
August 2009 The Acting Secretary directed the filing of against the respondents.
separate informations against Gonzalez The respondents filed a petition for certiorari and
and Buenaflor. prohibition with the Court of Appeals.
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the petition
the Court of Appeals but later reversed its decision and dismissed the
Gonzalez and Buenaflor filed a petition for charges against the respondents.
certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Issue:
Appeals. Whether there was probable cause to charge the
The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the respondents with murder and frustrated murder.
petition. Ruling:
The Court of Appeals later granted the The Court of Appeals found that there was no
motion for reconsideration and ordered probable cause to charge the respondents with
the dismissal of the case. murder and frustrated murder.
Petition for Review with the Supreme The court quashed and dismissed the informations
Court filed against the respondents.
The heirs of Delgado and Pesico filed a Ratio:
petition for review with the Supreme In determining probable cause, the court must
Court. carefully evaluate the evidence and consider the
They argued that the Court of Appeals totality of the circumstances.
committed reversible errors in its decision. Positive identification is preferred over alibi and
Supreme Court's Ruling denial, but it must be supported by sufficient and
The Supreme Court denied the petition. credible evidence.
The Court ruled that the heirs of Delgado The court must also consider the reliability of the
and Pesico did not have standing to file the identification procedure conducted by the police.
petition. The court found that the identification made by the
The Office of the Solicitor General, as the eyewitness was not reliable and that there were
representative of the State, did not appeal significant improbabilities, uncertainties, and
the decision of the Court of Appeals. inconsistencies in her account of the events.
The Court held that the case should have The court also found the identification procedure
been resolved on the merits. conducted by the police to be suggestive and
The Court stated that the Court of Appeals unreliable.
should have directed the trial court to Therefore, the court concluded that there was no
proceed with the trial and decide the case probable cause to charge the respondents with
after full presentation of evidence. murder and frustrated murder.
Versoza vs. People, The majority opinion argues that Larry has The court reiterated that the role of the private
et al, G.R. No. a fundamental right to procreation and complainant in a criminal case is limited to being a
184535, parenthood, and that the vasectomy witness, and only the State, through the Office of the
September 3, 2019 performed on him without his consent is Solicitor General, can appeal the criminal aspect of
an act of cruelty and a violation of Republic the case.
Act No. 7610. The court held that the petitioner, as a
Justice Jardaleza, in his concurring opinion, representative of a licensed child-caring institution,
argues that the vasectomy performed on had the authority to file the complaint under Section
Larry does not violate Republic Act No. 27 of RA 7610.
7610, as there is no clear legislative intent The court noted that the parental authority and
to make sterilization of intellectually- responsibility over Larry were transferred to the legal
disabled individuals a criminal act. guardians, and the ties between the child-caring
Justice Jardaleza suggests that the issue of institution and Larry were severed after adoption.
sterilization in relation to intellectually- The court did not rule on the substantive issue of
disabled individuals should be tested in a whether the bilateral vasectomy constitutes child
proper, prospective case. abuse, but it affirmed the dismissal of the case by the
Dismissal of the Case and Views on lower courts.
Parental Authority Ratio:
The Supreme Court dismisses the petition The bilateral vasectomy does not constitute child
as moot and academic due to the death of abuse under RA 7610.
Sr. Pilar Verzosa. The procedure does not permanently impair the
Justice Leonen argues that the vasectomy reproductive capacity of the person and does not
performed on Larry violated his demean or degrade their intrinsic worth and dignity.
fundamental right to life and liberty and The intent of the respondents was to protect Larry
constituted an act of child abuse. and prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Justice Caguioa and Justice Reyes, Jr. The petitioner, who passed away, no longer has the
concur with the resolution, stating that the legal capacity to pursue the appeal.
case had become moot due to Sr. The role of the private complainant in a criminal case
Verzosa's death. is limited to being a witness, and only the State can
Justice Caguioa and Justice Reyes, Jr. appeal the criminal aspect of the case.
express their views on the scope and The petitioner, as a representative of a licensed child-
limitations of parental authority, caring institution, had the authority to file the
emphasizing the plenary and natural right complaint under Section 27 of RA 7610.
of parents to rear their children. The parental authority and responsibility over Larry
The Court emphasizes the importance of were transferred to the legal guardians, and the ties
recognizing the primacy of parental between the child-caring institution and Larry were
responsibility in the upbringing of children. severed after adoption.
Marquez et al v. dismissing the charges. oppressive and vindictive manner.
Alejo, G.R. No. L- The fiscal conducted several hearings on Whether the indorsement of the Secretary of Justice
40575 September the requested reinvestigation. is null and void.
28, 1987 The Supreme Court affirmed the authority Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the
of the Secretary of Justice to order petition and dissolving the restraining order.
reinvestigation. Ruling:
The Court emphasized that the fiscal's Supreme Court dismissed the petition (appeal) and
discretion and control of the criminal affirmed the authority of the Secretary of Justice to
prosecution should not be interfered with order reinvestigation.
by the courts. Court held that the issues raised by the petitioners
The fiscal may re-investigate a case and were legal in nature and fell within the exclusive
subsequently move for dismissal if the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
reinvestigation shows the defendant's Court cited Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court,
innocence or insufficient evidence to which empowers the Secretary of Justice to order or
establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. perform the acts questioned by the petitioners.
Court's Jurisdiction and Discretion Court emphasized that once a case is filed in court,
Once the case is filed in court, the court the court acquires complete jurisdiction over the
acquires complete jurisdiction over the case, and the disposition of the case rests in the
case. sound discretion of the court.
Any disposition of the case rests in the Ratio:
court's sound discretion. Criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction
The fiscal's opinion cannot be imposed on and control of the fiscal.
the trial court. Fiscal has the authority and duty to prosecute
The court has the option to grant or deny a persons who are shown to be guilty of a crime.
motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal. Fiscal's discretion and control of the criminal
Dismissal of the Petition prosecution cannot be interfered with by the court.
The Supreme Court held that the legal Fiscal's action is subject to the approval of the
issues raised by the petitioners were provincial or city fiscal or the chief state prosecutor,
questions of law and within its exclusive and it may be elevated for review to the Secretary of
jurisdiction. Justice.
The Court dismissed the petition (appeal) Once a case is filed in court, the court has the
on the grounds of the Secretary of Justice's exclusive jurisdiction and competence to determine
authority to order reinvestigation and the the case.
court's jurisdiction over the case. Court can grant or deny a motion to dismiss filed by
The petitioners' appeal was dismissed for the fiscal.
failure to include the Secretary of Justice Court's determination of the case is not influenced by
as a necessary and indispensable party. the fiscal's opinion.
Enrile vs. People, Agencies His staff, including respondents Reyes and
et al., G.R. No. The scheme involved individuals from the Evangelista, played a crucial role in the preparation
213455, Aug. 11, legislator's office, the DBM, IAs, and and execution of the PDAF documents.
2015 Napoles-controlled NGOs. The DBM, through respondents Relampagos, Nuñez,
DBM personnel expedited the release of Paule, and Bare, expedited the release of the SAROs
SAROs and NCAs for the PDAF projects. and NCAs for Senator Enrile's projects.
The IAs facilitated the processing and The IAs, including NABCOR, NLDC, and TRC,
release of the PDAF disbursements to the facilitated the processing and release of the PDAF
NGOs. funds to the NGOs.
The NGOs, controlled by Napoles, would Issue:
manufacture fictitious documents to make Whether the respondents violated Section 3 (e) of RA
it appear that the projects were 3019, which prohibits public officials from causing
implemented. undue injury to the government or giving
Specific Focus on Senator Enrile's PDAF unwarranted benefits to private parties.
Allocation Ruling:
The case specifically focuses on Senator The court found that the respondents violated
Enrile's PDAF allocation and the Section 3 (e) of RA 3019.
involvement of Napoles and her affiliated The respondents acted with manifest partiality,
NGOs. evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence in their
Evidence presented includes business involvement in the scheme.
ledgers, COA reports, and independent The diversion and misuse of the PDAF funds caused
field verification reports. undue injury to the government and gave
Conclusion and Findings unwarranted benefits to Napoles and her cohorts.
The case concludes that a violation of the Ratio:
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was The court ruled that the respondents violated Section
committed by the respondents. 3 (e) of RA 3019, which prohibits public officials from
The respondents acted with manifest causing undue injury to the government or giving
partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable unwarranted benefits to private parties.
negligence. The respondents acted with manifest partiality,
Their actions caused undue injury to the evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence in their
government and gave unwarranted involvement in the scheme.
benefits to private individuals and The diversion and misuse of the PDAF funds caused
organizations. undue injury to the government and gave
The case highlights the complex scheme unwarranted benefits to Napoles and her cohorts.
used to divert and misuse the PDAF funds The court's ruling emphasizes the need for
and the involvement of various individuals accountability and the prosecution of those involved
and agencies. in corruption and the misuse of public funds.
People v. Arrojado, MCLE Certificate of Compliance in the mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA),
G.R. No. 207041, information was a valid ground for challenging the dismissal of the information.
November 09, dismissal. The CA affirmed the RTC's orders.
2015 The Court emphasized that an information Arrojado's motion for reconsideration was also
is considered an initiatory pleading and denied by the CA.
falls within the ambit of the Supreme Issue:
Court resolution requiring the indication of Whether the failure of the investigating prosecutor
MCLE compliance in all pleadings filed to indicate her MCLE Certificate of Compliance in the
before the courts. information warrants the dismissal of the case.
Rejection of Arguments and Emphasis on Ruling:
Procedural Compliance The Supreme Court held that the failure to indicate
The Court rejected the petitioner's the MCLE Certificate of Compliance in the
argument that the dismissal of the information is a valid ground for dismissal.
information would prejudice the interests The Court rejected the argument that the dismissal
of the State and the private offended would prejudice the interests of the State and the
party. private offended party.
The Court pointed out that the prosecution The Court denied the petition for review on certiorari
had the option to simply re-file the and affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court
information with the required indication of of Appeals.
MCLE compliance. Ratio:
The Court emphasized the importance of An information is considered an initiatory pleading
complying with procedural requirements and falls within the ambit of the Supreme Court
and suggested that re-filing the resolution requiring practicing members of the bar to
information with the necessary indication indicate their MCLE Certificate of Compliance in all
would have been a more practical and pleadings filed before the courts.
efficient solution. The Court cited previous rulings from other
Conclusion jurisdictions that considered an information as a
The Supreme Court denied the petition pleading.
and affirmed the CA's decision, upholding Therefore, the failure to indicate the MCLE Certificate
the dismissal of the murder case due to of Compliance is a valid ground for dismissal.
the failure to indicate MCLE compliance in The prosecution could have simply re-filed the
the information. information with the required information, instead of
The Court emphasized the importance of wasting time and resources by filing various petitions
complying with procedural requirements in court.
and suggested a more practical solution of The dismissal of the information does not prejudice
re-filing the information with the necessary the interests of the State and the private offended
indication. party.
People vs. Bali- Issue: inconsistent with each other regarding the victim's
Balita, G.R. No. The main issue raised in the case is age. The court emphasized that the burden of
134266, 15 whether the guilt of the accused has been proving the victim's age rests on the prosecution and
September 2000 proven beyond reasonable doubt. that no independent proof was presented to
establish the victim's age. The court concluded that
Ruling: the prosecution failed to prove the minority of the
The court affirmed the judgment finding victim beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the death
the accused guilty of rape but reduced the penalty cannot be imposed.
penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The court discussed the importance of properly
The court held that the guilt of the accused alleging the qualifying circumstances of minority and
has been proven beyond reasonable doubt relationship in the information. The court noted that
based on the clear and categorical the information in this case did not specifically allege
testimony of the victim. The defense of the relationship of the accused to the victim. The
denial and alibi raised by the accused was court emphasized that every element of the offense
deemed insufficient to overcome the must be alleged in the information and that the real
positive identification of the accused by nature of the criminal charge is determined from the
the victim. actual recital of the facts as alleged in the body of the
information. The court concluded that the
Ratio: information in this case did not state the relationship
The court relied on the testimony of the of the accused to the victim as a qualifying
victim, which was corroborated by the circumstance and thus, the death penalty cannot be
findings of the medico-legal officer. The imposed.
court noted that the absence of fresh The court discussed the medical findings and
lacerations does not negate the concluded that the lacerations found on the victim's
commission of rape, as healed lacerations private part were not essential in establishing the
indicate that the assault occurred more crime of rape. The court emphasized that complete
than seven days prior to the examination. penetration of the penis is not essential to
The court also rejected the accused's claim consummate rape and that it is enough that there is
that the victim's demeanor after the a slight penetration or entry of the penis into the lips
incident was contrary to human nature, of the vagina. The court cited jurisprudence to
stating that reactions to traumatic events support this conclusion.
vary from person to person. The court The court awarded indemnity and moral damages to
further held that the failure to allege the the victim. The court noted that civil indemnity is
relationship of the accused to the victim as separate and distinct from the award of moral
a qualifying circumstance in the damages, which is automatically granted in rape
information does not affect the validity of cases. The court modified the damages awarded to
the conviction for rape. the victim.
Navaja vs. De In cases of falsification of private case that the crime was committed in Jagna, Bohol.
Castro, G.R. No. documents, the venue is the place where The Court also emphasized that each act of
182926, 22 June the document is actually falsified. falsification constitutes a separate offense, and
2015 The allegations in the Information and the venue in criminal cases cannot be waived.
complaint-affidavit make out a prima facie
case that the crime was committed in Procedural Issues and Petition for Certiorari
Jagna, Bohol, which falls within the An order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory
territorial jurisdiction of the MCTC. and not appealable.
The separate filing of the falsification cases It can only be questioned through a petition for
in different jurisdictions would not result in certiorari in exceptional circumstances, such as when
multiplicity of actions because there are as there is grave abuse of discretion or when the
many acts of falsification as there are interlocutory order is patently erroneous.
documents falsified, and the venue of such Navaja failed to prove any of these circumstances.
cases is where the document was actually Regarding the procedural issues, the Supreme Court
falsified. held that an order denying a motion to quash is
Procedural Issues: interlocutory and not appealable. It can only be
An order denying a motion to quash is questioned through a petition for certiorari in
interlocutory and not appealable, nor can exceptional circumstances, such as when there is
it be the subject of a petition for certiorari, grave abuse of discretion or when the interlocutory
unless there are special circumstances order is patently erroneous. The Court found that
present such as grave abuse of discretion Navaja failed to prove any of these circumstances.
or when the interlocutory order is patently
erroneous and the remedy of appeal Supreme Court's Decision
would not afford adequate and expeditious The Supreme Court denied Navaja's petition and
relief. affirmed the CA's decision, upholding the jurisdiction
The petitioner failed to prove any of these of the MCTC over the case.
special circumstances in this case. If the evidence presented during the trial shows that
Therefore, the CA did not err in affirming the crime was committed outside the MCTC's
the RTC's ruling that the MCTC correctly jurisdiction, the case should be dismissed on the
denied the motion to quash. ground of improper venue.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the Supreme Court denied Navaja's
The Supreme Court denies the petition and petition and affirmed the CA's decision, upholding
affirms the decision of the CA. the jurisdiction of the MCTC over the case. The Court
The MCTC has jurisdiction over the case for also emphasized that if the evidence presented
falsification of private document filed during the trial shows that the crime was committed
against the petitioner, and the motion to outside the MCTC's jurisdiction, the case should be
quash was correctly denied. dismissed on the ground of improper venue.
Lee Pue Liong vs. Ratio: Trial court denies the motion, stating that an
Chua Pue Chin Lee, The court explained that an offended party offended party may intervene in the prosecution of a
G.R. No. 181658, may intervene in the prosecution of a criminal action, even without civil liability.
07 August 2013 criminal action, even if no civil liability is Appeal to Court of Appeals (CA)
involved. This means that the offended Petitioner appeals trial court's decision to the CA.
party has the right to participate in the CA affirms trial court's ruling, allowing the presence
criminal case and present evidence to of a private prosecutor under the control and
support their claim. supervision of the public prosecutor in perjury cases.
The court emphasized that the private CA states that the respondent, as the private
prosecutor's intervention is subject to the complainant, has the right to intervene in the
direction and control of the public proceedings.
prosecutor. This ensures that the public Petition for Review with the Supreme Court
prosecutor retains the prosecuting Petitioner files a petition for review with the
authority and supervises the private Supreme Court.
prosecutor's actions. Petitioner argues that perjury is a crime against
The court acknowledged that the public interest and does not offend any private party.
petitioner's false statements in the perjury Petitioner contends that the respondent, as an
case were injurious to the respondent's alleged stockholder of CHI, does not have the
personal credibility and reputation as a authority to intervene in the criminal case as a
Board Member and Treasurer of CHI. The private complainant on behalf of the corporation.
potential injury to the corporation itself Supreme Court's Decision
was also recognized. Supreme Court rejects petitioner's arguments and
Therefore, the court concluded that the affirms the CA's decision.
respondent, as an aggrieved party, has the Court holds that the presence and intervention of a
right to intervene in the perjury cases. private prosecutor in perjury cases are allowed under
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision the rules.
of the Court of Appeals, ruling that the Court explains that the offended party in a criminal
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) did not case can intervene through a private prosecutor,
commit grave abuse of discretion in even without civil liability.
denying the petitioner's motion to exclude Court emphasizes that the private prosecutor's
the private prosecutor. participation is subject to the control and supervision
The court held that the private of the public prosecutor.
prosecutor's participation in the trial does Conclusion
not violate the petitioner's right to a fair Supreme Court denies petitioner's petition for review
trial, as the public prosecutor still retains and upholds the CA's decision.
the prosecuting authority and controls the Affirms the right of the offended party to intervene in
private prosecutor. perjury cases.
People vs. Solar, existence of conspiracy. Accused-appellant Rolando Solar y Dumbrique was
G.R. No. 225595, The Court modified the award of damages found guilty of murder.
August 6, 2019 and upheld the sufficiency of the The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but
Information. downgraded the offense to homicide.
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Bersamin The information filed against the accused-appellant
Justice Bersamin dissented from the alleged conspiracy to attack and assault the victim,
decision, arguing that the CA correctly resulting in his death.
downgraded the offense because the The information did not provide specific facts and
information did not sufficiently allege the circumstances describing how treachery attended the
qualifying circumstances of treachery and killing.
abuse of superior strength. Issue:
He maintained that the accused-appellant Whether the accused-appellant can be held guilty of
could not be held guilty of murder if the murder if the information did not give him due notice
information did not provide him with due of what he was being charged with.
notice of the charges against him. Ruling:
Concurring Opinion of Justice Perlas- The accused-appellant's conviction for murder is
Bernabe affirmed.
Justice Perlas-Bernabe concurred with the The accused-appellant had waived his right to
majority opinion, stating that the accused- question the defects in the information.
appellant had waived his right to question The accused-appellant is deemed to have understood
the defects in the information by not filing the acts imputed against him by the information.
a motion to quash or motion for bill of Ratio:
particulars. The accused-appellant had the opportunity to clarify
She argued that his conviction for murder any unclear matters during arraignment.
should be upheld. The right to be informed of the charges against the
Concurring Opinion of Justice Gesmundo accused continues until the accused is formally
Justice Gesmundo also concurred with the arraigned.
majority opinion, stating that the accused- The procedure requiring specific details of the
appellant was sufficiently informed of the qualifying or aggravating circumstance in the
charges against him through the information shall apply only to pending and future
prosecutor's resolution attached to the criminal cases.
information. Additional Information:
He agreed with the proposed procedure The Court established guidelines for prosecutors to
set forth in the majority opinion, which properly allege qualifying and aggravating
requires the specific allegation of circumstances in the information to ensure that the
qualifying or aggravating circumstances in accused is sufficiently informed of the charges
the information. against him.
People vs. Rico seriousness of the wounds suffered by the
dela Pena, G.R. No. victim indicate that the accused's actions
238120, February were not merely in self-defense but were
12, 2020 acts of aggression.

When the unlawful aggression ceases, the

defender no longer has the right to kill or
wound the former aggressor. Continuing to Conviction of Rico Dela Peña for the crime of murder
attack the former aggressor after the Rico Dela Peña was convicted of murder for stabbing
danger has ceased constitutes retaliation, his brother-in-law, Olipio Gomez Amahit, multiple
not self-defense. times while the latter was sleeping.
The court upheld the conviction, stating that
Treachery qualifies the killing to murder. attacking a sleeping victim shows treachery, as the
Treachery exists when the victim is victim is unable to defend themselves.
attacked suddenly and unexpectedly, The testimony of the victim's son, who witnessed the
depriving the victim of any chance to incident, was found to be credible.
defend themselves. In this case, the victim Dela Peña's claim of self-defense was not supported
was asleep and lying face down, making by the evidence, as the nature and extent of the
him defenseless against the accused's victim's wounds contradicted his version of events.
attack. The court ruled that the information filed against
Dela Peña was sufficient, as it contained all the
An Information is sufficient if it contains necessary elements of the crime.
the full name of the accused, the Appeal by accused-appellant Rico Dela Peña
designation of the offense, the acts Rico Dela Peña appealed his conviction for murder.
constituting the offense, the name of the The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the
offended party, the approximate date, and Court of Appeals (CA).
the place of the offense. In this case, the The accused-appellant waived his right to question
Information complied with these the defects in the information filed against him
requirements, as it specifically alleged the because he did not raise any objections during the
qualifying circumstance of treachery. trial.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the
Failure to object to the sufficiency of the lower courts was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Information during the trial and allowing The death penalty has been suspended by Republic
the prosecution to present evidence on the Act No. 9346.
elements of the offense constitutes a The Supreme Court affirmed the award of damages
waiver of any objections against the made by the Court of Appeals, following the latest
sufficiency of the Information. jurisprudence on the matter.
People vs. Buca, any time as near to the actual date when Buca argued that there were inconsistencies in the
G.R. No. 209587, the offense was committed, the testimonies of the victim and her brother, who
Sept. 23, 2015 information is considered sufficient. The witnessed the crime.
court also points out that Section 11, Rule The court dismissed these inconsistencies as minor
110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal details that did not affect the veracity of the
Procedure allows for a crime to be alleged witnesses' declarations.
to have been committed on a date as near Proof of victim's age
as possible to the actual date of its The court found that the victim's age was proven
commission. through her birth certificate.
Argument regarding the date of the crime
The court further explains that the purpose Buca argued that the Information stating that the
of requiring the various elements of a crime occurred sometime before December 24, 2002,
crime to be set out in the information is to violated the rules of criminal procedure.
enable the accused to prepare his defense. The court held that this did not invalidate the
In this case, the accused-appellant was conviction, as the precise date of the commission of
able to testify about the incident on the the crime of rape is not an essential element of the
alleged date because the date alleged was offense.
not vague or covering an unreasonable As long as it is alleged that the offense was
period. The court also notes that the committed at any time near the actual date, the
accused-appellant did not raise any information is sufficient.
objection about the date of the Clarification on the use of "without eligibility for
commission of the crime during the parole"
arraignment or at any other point in the The court clarified that the phrase "without eligibility
proceedings. for parole" should only be used to qualify reclusion
perpetua when circumstances warrant the imposition
The court also clarifies that in cases where of the death penalty but it is not imposed due to a
the death penalty is not warranted, there law prohibiting it.
is no need to use the phrase "without In this case, since accused-appellant was only
eligibility for parole" in the imposition of sentenced to reclusion perpetua, the phrase should
indivisible penalties. It is understood that not be used.
convicted persons penalized with an Affirmation of the conviction and sentencing
indivisible penalty are not eligible for The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
parole. The court only uses the phrase Regional Trial Court, finding accused-appellant guilty
when circumstances are present based on the testimony of the victim.
warranting the imposition of the death The appeal was dismissed and accused-appellant was
penalty, but this penalty is not imposed sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
due to a specific law. perpetua.
People vs. The court affirms the quashal of the The Supreme Court agreed that the case against the
Bayabos, G.R. Nos. Information against the school authorities. school authorities should not have been dismissed
171222 and The Information did not include all the solely based on the dismissal of the case against the
174756, 18 material facts constituting the crime of principal accused.
February 2015 accomplice to hazing. It failed to allege However, the court affirmed the quashal of the
that the purported acts were employed as information because it did not include all the
a prerequisite for admission or entry into material facts constituting the crime of accomplice to
the organization, which is a crucial element hazing.
of the crime. Therefore, the Information Ruling of the Supreme Court
must be quashed. The court emphasized that the information must
Ratio: include the essential elements of the offense and be
The dismissal of the case against the crafted in a language understandable to persons of
principal accused does not automatically common understanding.
dismiss the case against the school The court found that the information in this case did
authorities. The trial of those charged as not allege that the acts of hazing were employed as a
accomplices can proceed independently if prerequisite for admission or entry into the
the commission of the crime can be duly organization.
proven. The court rejected the argument that the
The Information filed against the school Sandiganbayan should have ordered the filing of a
authorities did not contain all the material new information or the correction of the defect by
facts constituting the crime of accomplice amendment.
to hazing. It failed to allege that the The court concluded that the information must be
purported acts were employed as a quashed, but the Special Prosecutor is not precluded
prerequisite for admission or entry into the from filing another information.
organization, which is a crucial element of The court affirmed the dismissal of the case against
the crime. the school authorities but left open the possibility of
The Sandiganbayan was correct in ordering further prosecution if the criminal action or liability
the quashal of the Information and the has not been extinguished or if double jeopardy has
dismissal of the case since the Special not attached.
Prosecutor did not file a new information Summary
or correct the defect by amendment after The case of People v. Bayabos examines the liability
the motion to quash was sustained. of school authorities under the Anti-Hazing Law in
Conclusion: the Philippines.
The court denies the petition for review on The case was dismissed against the school authorities
certiorari and dismisses the petition for due to insufficient information in the charges.
certiorari. The dismissal of the case against The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal while
the school authorities is affirmed. leaving open the possibility of further prosecution.
Dungo vs. People, decision, stating that the defense of denial final initiation rites, which resulted in his death.
G.R. No. 209464, and alibi failed to cast doubt on the The positive identification was made by witnesses
01 July 2015 positive identification made by the who testified to the petitioners' involvement in the
prosecution witnesses. initiation rite.
Dungo and Sibal argued that they were charged with
Issue: a different offense than what they were convicted of,
The main issue in this case is whether the but the court found that the offense of hazing by
petitioners are guilty beyond reasonable inducement was included in the charge.
doubt of the crime of violation of the Anti- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and the
Hazing Law. petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.
Comparison of Hazing Laws in the Philippines and the
Ruling: United States
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision This case discusses the issue of hazing in the
of the RTC finding the petitioners guilty of Philippines and compares it to the laws and
violation of the Anti-Hazing Law and jurisprudence on hazing in the United States.
sentenced them to suffer the penalty of It highlights the need for stronger measures to
reclusion perpetua. combat hazing and examines the provisions of the
Anti-Hazing Law of 1995.
Ratio: The court concludes that hazing is a malum
The court held that the prosecution was prohibitum crime, meaning it is prohibited by law
able to establish the guilt of the petitioners regardless of the intent of the offender.
beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies The case emphasizes the importance of addressing
of the prosecution witnesses, including hazing through both criminal and civil actions.
medical professionals who examined the Conclusion
body of Villanueva and determined the The petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse
cause of his death, provided sufficient the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed
evidence to prove that the injuries the Regional Trial Court's decision finding the
sustained by Villanueva were a result of petitioners guilty of violating the Anti-Hazing Law.
hazing. The court also considered the The petitioners were convicted based on
testimonies of witnesses who saw the circumstantial evidence and positive identification.
petitioners at the scene of the initiation The case highlights the need for stronger measures
rite and their involvement in the assault on to combat hazing and compares hazing laws in the
Villanueva. The defense's alibi and lack of Philippines and the United States.
involvement in the initiation rite were not The court concludes that hazing is a malum
given weight by the court, as they were prohibitum crime and emphasizes the importance of
contradicted by the testimonies of the addressing hazing through both criminal and civil
prosecution witnesses. actions.
People vs. Court of decision of acquittal, disregarding the encounters were consensual.
Appeals, G.R. No. findings of the trial court. However, they were unable to provide enough
183652, 25 The Court finds that the private evidence to substantiate their claim.
February 2015 respondents failed to sufficiently prove The court also noted that AAA's behavior and
People v. that AAA consented to the sexual acts, testimony were consistent with a victim of rape.
considering that she was heavily The court observed that AAA's behavior and
intoxicated at the time of the assault. testimony were in line with what would be expected
The Court also finds that the private from a victim of rape.
respondents failed to prove that AAA had This consistency further supported the credibility of
previous sexual encounters, which could AAA's claims.
explain the presence of an old hymenal The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision,
laceration. stating that the lack of fresh hymenal laceration does
The Court further notes that the Court of not disprove rape, and that even if AAA had a
Appeals ignored the fact that AAA promiscuous reputation, it does not justify non-
positively identified the private consensual sexual acts.
respondents as her rapists and that she The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision made by
showed physical resistance and cried the trial court.
during the assault. The CA stated that the absence of recent hymenal
The Court concludes that the Court of laceration does not negate the occurrence of rape.
Appeals committed grave abuse of The CA also emphasized that even if AAA had a
discretion in disregarding the evidence promiscuous reputation, it does not justify non-
presented by the prosecution and in consensual sexual acts.
adopting the private respondents' version The court also dismissed the argument that AAA's
of the events. mother hitting her after learning about the rape
The Court reverses the decision of the indicated consent, stating that people react
Court of Appeals and finds the private differently to traumatic experiences.
respondents guilty of rape. The court rejected the argument that AAA's mother
The Court imposes the penalty of reclusion hitting her after discovering the rape implied
perpetua on Raymund Carampatana, consent.
Joefhel Oporto, and Moises Alquizola for The court explained that people respond differently
each count of rape. to traumatic experiences, and physical reactions
The Court orders the private respondents cannot be used as evidence of consent.
to pay AAA civil indemnity, moral damages, Overall, the court found the accused guilty of rape
and exemplary damages for each count of based on AAA's credible testimony.
rape. In conclusion, the court found the accused
The case is remanded to the court of origin individuals guilty of rape based on the credible
for the execution of judgment. testimony provided by AAA.
Sandiganbayan
and Recio, G.R. No.
240621, July 24,
Quiambao vs.
People of the
Philippines and
Star Infrastructure
Corporation, G.R.
No. 195957,
January 15, 2020
Navaja vs. de
Castro, G.R. No.
182926, 22 June
Villalon vs. Chan,
G.R. No. 196508,
24 September
Gina Villa Gomez v.
People, G.R. No.
216824. November
10, 2020
People v. XXX, GR
No. 245926, July
25, 2023
IV. PROSECUTION
OF CIVIL ACTION
(RULE 111)
A. Rule on implied
institution of civil
action with
criminal action
B. When civil
action may
proceed
C. When separate
civil action is
suspended
D. Effect of the
death of accused
or convict on civil
action
E. Prejudicial
question
F. Rule on filing
fees in civil action
deemed instituted
with the criminal
Readings:
Dy vs. People, et
al., G.R. No.
189081, Aug. 10,
Supreme
Transportation
Liner, Inc., et al. vs.
San Andres, G.R.
No. 200444, Aug.
15, 2018
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
People v. Ayochok,
G.R. No. 175784,
August 25, 2010
Landicho vs.
Relova, L-22579,
Feb. 23, 1968
People vs.
Arambulo, et al.,
G.R. No. 186597,
June 17, 2015
JM Dominguez
Agronomic
Company, Inc. vs.
Dagdagan, et al.,
29, 2015 Ramones
vs. Sps. Guimoc,
G.R. No. 226645,
Aug. 13, 2018
V. PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
(RULE 112)
A. Nature of right
B. Purposes of
preliminary
investigation
C. Who may
conduct
determination of
existence of
1. Distinguish:
executive and
judicial
determination of
D. Resolution of
investigation
prosecutor
E. Review
F. When warrant
of arrest may issue
G. Cases not
requiring a
preliminary
H. Remedies of
accused if there
was no preliminary
investigation
I. Inquest
Readings:
People vs. Bariales,
L-39962, April 7,
1976
Yusop vs.
Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 138859-
60, Feb 22, 2001
Maximo and
Panganiban vs.
Villapando, Jr., G.R.
No.
26, 2017
Quisay vs. People,
G. R. No. 216920,
January 13, 2016
Silver and Salcedo
vs. Judge Daray, et
al, G.R. No.
219157, August 14,
Enrile vs. People,
et al., G.R. No.
213455, Aug. 11,
Corpus, et al. vs.
Pamular, et al.,
G.R. No. 186403,
Sept. 5, 2018
People vs. Casiano,
L- 15309, Feb. 16,
1961
VI. ARREST (RULE
113)
A. Arrest, how
made
B. Arrest without
warrant, when
lawful
C. Method of
arrest
1. By officer with
warrant
2. By officer
without warrant
3. By private
person
D. Requisites of a
valid warrant of
arrest
E. Determination
of probable cause
for issuance of
warrant of arrest
Readings:
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
People vs. Morial,
G.R. No. 129295,
Aug. 15, 2001
People vs. Velarde,
G.R. No. 139333,
July 18, 2002
Comerciante v.
People, G.R. No.
205926, July 22,
Mendoza vs.
People, G.R. No.
234196, Nov. 21,
Veridiano vs.
People, G.R. No.
200370, June 7,
Telen v. People,
G.R. No. 228107,
October 9, 2019
Lim Sr. vs. Felix, et
al G.R. Nos.
940554-57, Feb.
VII. BAIL (RULE
114)
A. Nature
1. Sec. 13, Article
III, 1987
Constitution
B. When a matter
of right; exceptions
C. When a matter
of discretion
D. Hearing of
application for bail
in capital offenses
E. Guidelines in
fixing amount of
bail
F. Bail when not
required
G. Increase or
reduction of bail
H. Forfeiture and
cancellation of bail
I. Application not a
bar to objections in
illegal arrest, lack
of or irregular
preliminary
investigation
Readings:
People vs. Abner,
G.R. No. L-2508,
October 27, 1950
Lavides vs. CA, G.R.
No. 129670, Feb.
1, 2000
Serapio vs.
Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 148468,
Manotoc vs. CA,
G.R. No. 62100,
May 30, 1986
People vs. Raba,
G.R. No. L-10724.
April 21, 1958
Carpio vs.
Maglalang, G.R.
No. 78162, April
Siazon vs.
Presiding Judge, L-
34156-58, Oct. 29,
Borinaga vs.
Tamin, A.M. No.
RTJ-93-936, Sept.
Aguirre vs.
Belmonte, A.M.
No. RTJ- 93-1052,
Oct. 27, 1994
Jose Antonio
Leviste vs. Court of
Appeals and
People, G.R. No.
2010
People vs. Valdez
and
Sandiganbayan,
G.R. Nos. 216007-
Enrile vs.
Sandiganbayan
and People, G.R.
No. 213847, July
Altobano-Ruiz vs.
Pichay, A.M. No.
MTJ-17-1893, Feb.
19, 2018
Padua, et al. vs.
People, et al., G.R.
No. 220913, Feb.
People vs. Escobar,
G.R. No. 214300,
July 26, 2017
Personal Collection
Direct Selling, Inc.
vs. Carandang, G.R.
No. 206958, Nov.
Usares vs. People,
G.R. No. 209047,
Jan. 7, 2019
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
Okabe vs.
Gutierrez, G.R. No.
150185 May 27,
VIII. RIGHTS OF
THE ACCUSED
(RULE 115)
Readings:
Article III of the
1987 Constitution
R.A. 7438 - An Act
Defining Certain
Rights of Persons
Arrested, Detained
Custodial
Investigation as
well as the Duties
of the Arresting,
Investigating
Officers, and
Providing Penalties
for violations
R.A. 8493 - Speedy
Trial Act of 1998
SC Circular No. 38-
98 - August 11,
1998
People vs. Flores,
G.R. No. 128823-
24, Dec 27, 2002
People vs. Quibate,
G.R. No. 54881,
July 31, 1984
Borja vs. Mendoza,
L- 45667, June 20,
1977
Gimenez v.s
Nazareno, L-
37933, April 15,
People vs.
Presiding Judge,
G.R. No. 64781,
People vs.
Holgado, G.R. No.
L-2809, March 22,
Delgado vs. CA, L-
46392, Nov. 10,
1986
People vs.
Ameztuzo, G.R. No.
104383, July 12,
People vs.
Crisologo, G.R. No.
74145, June 17,
Chavez vs. CA, L-
29169, Aug 19,
1968
People vs.
Otadora, G.R. No.
L-2154, April 26,
People vs. Olvis
G.R. No. 71092,
Sept 30, 1987
Cojuangco, Jr, vs,
Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 134301
Dec 21, 1998
People vs. Orsal, L-
47069, Mar 29,
1982
Tatad vs.
Sandiganbayan,
G.R. Nos. 72335-
Dela Pena vs.
Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 144542,
June 29, 2001
Licaros vs.
Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 145851,
People vs. Gioc,
G.R. No. 48547,
October 31, 1941
Pielago vs. People,
G.R. No. 202020,
13 March 2013
Ibañez, et al. vs.
People, G.R. No.
Jan. 27, 2016
Sindac vs. People,
G.R. No. 220732,
Sept. 6, 2016
IX. ARRAIGNMENT
AND PLEA (RULE
116)
A. How made
B. When should
plea of not guilty
be entered
C. When may
accused enter a
plea of guilty to a
lesser offense
D. Accused plead
guilty to capital
offense, what the
court should do
E. Duty of Court to
Inform Accused of
his Right to
Counsel and
Counsel de Officio
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
F. Searching
inquiry
G. Improvident
Plea
H. Suspension of
Arraignment
Readings:
Diño vs. Olivarez,
G.R No. 170447
December 4, 2009
People vs. Perez, L-
14783, April 29,
1961
Binabay vs. People,
et al., L-31008, Jan.
30, 1971
People vs.
Escalona, L-13294,
Mar.29, 1961
People vs. Palacio,
G.R. No. L-13933
May 25, 1960
People vs. Sabilul,
G.R. No. L-5520,
July 31, 1953
People vs. Strong,
L-38626, Mar. 14,
1975
People vs.
Kayanan, et al., L-
30355, May 31,
People vs. Aguilar,
et al., L-30932, Jan.
29, 1971
People vs. Estebia,
L-26868, July 29,
1971
People vs. Camay,
G.R. No. 51306,
July 20, 1987
People vs.
Mendoza, et al.,
G.R. Nos. 58678-
80, July 20, 1982
PAO vs.
Sandiganbayan,
G.R. Nos. 154297-
300, 15 February
Aguinaldo, et al.
vs. Ventus, et al.,
G.R. No. 176033,
March 11, 2015
Corpus, et al. vs.
Pamular, et al.,
G.R. No. 186403,
Sept. 5, 2018
Enrile vs. People,
et al., G.R. No.
213455, Aug. 11,
ABS-CBN
Corporation Vs.
Gozon, G.R. No.
195956, 11 March
People vs. Solar,
G.R. No. 225595,
August 6, 2019
People v. Pagal,
G.R. No. 241257.
September 29,
Estipona vs.
Lobrigo, et al., G.R.
No. 226679,
August 15, 2017
People v. Reafor,
G.R. No. 247575,
November 16,
Nurullaje Sayre v.
Xenos, G.R. Nos.
244413 & 244415-
16, February 18,
X. MOTION TO
QUASH (RULE 117)
A. Grounds
B. Effects of
sustaining the
motion to quash
C. Exception to the
rule that sustaining
the motion is not a
bar to another
prosecution
D. Double jeopardy
1. Sec. 1, Clause
[20], Art. III, 1935
Constitution;
2. Sec. 22, Art. IV,
1973 Constitution;
3. Sec. 21, Art. III,
1987 Constitution
E. Provisional
dismissal
Readings:
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
People vs. Dela
Rosa, et al., L-
34112, June 25,
Mill vs. People, et
al., G.R. No. L-
10427. May 27,
Sanchez vs.
Demetriou, et al.,
G.R Nos. 111771-
77, Nov. 9, 1993
People vs.
Macandog, L-
18601-2, Jan. 31,
Baesa, et al. vs.
Prov. Fiscal of
Camarines Sur, et
al., L-30363, Jan.
People vs.
Manlapas, L-
17993, Aug. 24,
Cabral vs. Puno, et
al., L-41692, April
30, 1976
People vs. Gomez,
et al., L-32815,
June 25, 1980
People vs. City
Court of Manila,
Branch XI, et al., L-
36342, April 27,
People vs.
Balisacan, L-26376,
Aug. 31, 1966
People vs. Ylagan,
G.R. No. L-38443
November 25,
Republic vs.
Agoncillo, et al., L-
27257, Aug. 31,
People vs. Hinaut,
et al., G.R. No. L-
11315. March 18,
People, et al., vs.
Donesa, et al., L-
24162, Jan. 31,
Esmeña, et al., vs.
Pogoy, et al., G.R
No.54110, Feb. 20,
1981
Gandicela vs.
Lutero, etc., G.R.
No. L-4069 March
People vs.
Manlapas, L-
17993, Aug. 24,
Lauchengco vs.
Alejandro, et al., L-
49034, Jan. 31,
Cabarroguis vs.
Diego, et al., L-
19517, Nov. 30,
Galman vs.
Sandiganbayan,
G.R No.72670,
People vs.
Liwanag, L-27683,
Oct. 19, 1976
People vs. Castro,
G.R. No. L-6407.
July 29, 1954
Silvestre vs.
Military
Commission Nos.
1, 2, 6 and 25, L-
Quisay vs. People,
G. R. No. 216920,
January 13, 2016
Ivler v. Modesto
San Pedro, G.R.
No. 172716,
November 17,
Canceran vs.
People, G.R. No.
206442, July 1,
Enrile vs. People,
et al., G.R. No.
213455, Aug. 11,
Guelos, et al. vs.
People, G.R. No.
177000, June 19,
Lim, et al., vs.
People, G.R. No.
226590, April 23,
Corpus, et al. vs.
Pamular, et al.,
G.R. No. 186403,
Sept. 5, 2018
People vs. Solar,
G.R. No. 225595,
August 6, 2019
People vs. Rico
dela Pena, G.R. No.
238120, February
12, 2020
XI. PRE-TRIAL
(RULE 118) to be
A. Matters
considered during
pre-trial
1. Art. 2034, Civil
Code
B. What the court
should do when
prosecution and
offended party
agree to the plea
offered by the
accused
C. Pre-trial
agreement
D. Non-
appearance during
pre-trial
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
E. Pre-Trial Order.
Readings:
People vs.
Santiago, et al.,
G.R No.80778,
Daan vs.
Sandiganbayan,
G.R. Nos. 163972-
77, 28 March 2008
Zaldivar vs. People,
G.R. No. 197056,
02 March 2016
Garayblas vs. Ong,
G.R. Nos. 174507-
30, 03 August 2011
Estipona vs.
Lobrigo, et al., G.R.
No. 226679,
August 15, 2017 in
People v. Reafor,
G.R. No. 247575,
November 16,
XII. TRIAL (RULE
119)
A. Instances when
presence of
accused is required
B. Requisite before
trial can be
suspended on
account of
C. Order of trial
D. Trial in absentia
E. Remedy when
accused is not
brought to trial
within the
F. Requisites for
discharge of
accused to become
a state witness
G. Effects of
discharge of
accused as state
H. Demurrer to
evidence
1. Distinguished
from Motion to
Quash
I. Guidelines on
continuous trial
1. Applicability
2. Prohibited and
meritorious
motions
3. Arraignment
and pre-trial
4. Trial;
memoranda
5. Promulgation
Readings:
People vs. Oplado,
et al., L-20146,
Sept. 30, 1964
People vs. CA, et
al., G.R No. 55533,
July 31, 1984
People vs.
Sandiganbayan, et
al., G.R Nos.
115439-41, July 16,
People vs. CA, et
al., G.R No.62881,
Aug. 30, 1983
Barreto, et al. vs.
Sandiganbayan,
G.R Nos. 573333-
37, Sept. 16, 1986
Sardinia-Linco, et
al. vs. Pineda, et
al., G.R Nos.
555939, May 29,
People vs. Marcial,
G.R. Nos. 152864-
85, 27 September
2006
Pacoy v. Cajigal,
G.R. No. 157472,
28 September
People vs.
Sandiganbayan, et
al., G.R. No.
197953, Aug. 5,
Remulla v.
Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 218040,
April 17, 2017
People v. Cagang,
G.R. Nos. 206438,
206458 & 210141-
42, July 31, 2018
Javier v.
Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 237997,
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
People vs.
Dominguez, et al.,
G.R. No. 229420,
Feb. 19, 2018
People vs.
Macasaet, et al.,
G.R. No. 196094,
March 5, 2018
Cuenco, et al. vs.
Risos, et al., G.R
No. 152648,
August 28, 2008
People vs. Sergio
and Lacanilao, G.R.
No. 240053,
October 9, 2019
XIII. JUDGMENT
(RULE 120) of a
A. Requisites
judgment
B. Contents of
judgment
C. Promulgation of
judgment;
instances of
promulgation of
D. Instances when
judgment becomes
final
E. Probation
Readings:
Villanueva vs.
Estenzo, et al., L-
30050, June 27,
Marcelino vs. Cruz,
Jr., L-42428. March
18, 1983
Jimenez vs.
Republic, et al., L-
24529, Feb. 17,
Jandayan vs. Ruiz,
et al., L-37471, Jan.
25, 1980
Pascua vs. CA, et
al., G.R No.
104243, Dec. 14,
People vs. Español,
et al., G.R Nos.
57597-99, June 29,
De Leon vs.
Salvador, et al., L-
30871, Dec. 28,
Prov. Fiscal of Rizal
vs. Muñoz-Palma,
et al., G.R. No. L-
15325. August 31,
People vs. CA, et
al., G.R No. 54641,
Nov. 28, 1980
Yusi et al., vs.
Morales, et al., G.R
No.61958, April 28,
Budlong, et al., vs.
Apalisok, et al., G.R
No. 60151, June
24, 1983
Baclayon vs.
Mutia, et al., G.R
No. 59298, April
Ricalde vs. People,
G.R. No. 211002,
21 January 2015
People vs. Pareja,
G.R. No. 202122,
15 January 2014
Javier v. Gonzales,
G.R. No., 193150,
Jan. 23, 2017
Osorio vs. People,
G.R. No. 207711,
July 2, 2018
People vs.
Aycardo, G.R. No.
218114, June 5,
XIV. NEW TRIAL OR
RECONSIDERATIO
N (RULE 121)
A. Grounds for
new
B. trial for
Grounds
reconsideration
C. Requisites
before a new trial
may be granted on
ground of newly
evidence
D. Effects of
granting a new
trial or
Readings:
People vs.
Enriquez, et al.,
G.R. No. L-4934,
November 28,
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
People vs.
Concepcion, G.R.
No. L-1553.
People vs. Castelo,
L-10774, Feb. 16,
1961
People vs.
Colmenares, et al.,
G.R. No. L-13284.
February 29, 1960
People vs.
Alquisar, et al., L-
32080, May 22,
People vs.
Morales, L-37107,
April 27, 1982
People vs. Delasa,
L-36094, July 16,
1982
Ibabao vs. People,
et al., L-36957,
Sept. 28, 1984
People vs. Bocar,
et al., L-27935,
Aug. 16, 1985
People vs.
Cuariano, L-15256-
57, Oct. 31, 1963
Payo vs. CA, et al.,
L-36809, Feb. 24,
1984
XV. APPEAL (RULE
122)
A. Effect of an
appeal
B. Where to appeal
C. How appeal
taken
D. Effect of appeal
by any of several
accused
E. Grounds for
dismissal of appeal
Readings:
People vs. Mateo,
G.R. Nos. 147648-
87, 07 July 2004
Sanico vs. People,
G.R. No. 198753,
25 March 2015
People vs.
Feliciano, Jr., et al.,
G.R. No. 196735,
Burgos, Jr. vs. Sps.
Naval, G.R. No.
219468, 08 June
People vs.
Hernandez, G.R.
No. 154218 and
154372, 28 August
Antone vs. People,
G.R. No. 225146,
Nov. 20, 2017
People vs. Sison, et
al, G.R. No.
238453, July 31,
Salvador vs. Chua,
G.R. No. 212865,
July 15, 2015
People vs. Escobar,
G.R. No. 214300,
July 26, 2017
Antone vs. People,
G.R. No. 225146,
Nov. 20, 2017
XVI. SEARCH AND
SEIZURE (RULE
126)
A. Nature of search
warrant
B. Distinguish from
warrant of arrest
C. Application for
search warrant,
where filed
D. Probable cause
for issuance of
search warrant
E. Personal
examination by
judge of the
applicant and
F. Particularity of
place to be
searched and
things to be seized
G. Personal
property to be
seized
H. Exceptions to
search warrant
requirement
1. Search
incidental to lawful
arrest
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
2. Consented
search
3. Search of
moving
4. Checkvehicle
points;
body checks in
airport
5. Plain view
situation
6. Stop and frisk
situation
7. Enforcement of
custom laws
I. Remedies from
unlawful search
and seizure
J. Cybercrime
warrants
1. Scope and
applicability
2. General
provisions
3. Preservation of
computer data
4. Disclosure of
computer data
5. Interception of
computer data
6. Search, seizure,
and examination
of computer data
7. Custody of
computer data
8. Destruction of
computer data
K. Rules on the Use
of Body-Worn
Cameras in the
Execution of
No. 21-06-08-SC)
Readings:
Stonehill vs.
Diokno, G.R. No. L-
19550, 19 June
Katz vs. United
States, 389 U.S.
347 (1967)
People vs. Marti,
G.R. No. 81561, 18
January 1991
Roldan, Jr., etc., et
al., vs. Arca, et
al., L-25434, July
25, 1975 et al.
Rodriquez,
vs. Villamiel, et al.,
G.R. No. 44328.
December 23,
Yee Sue Koy, et al.,
vs. Almeda, et al.,
G.R. No. 47021,
June 25, 1940
Uy Kheytin vs.
Villareal, etc., G.R.
No. 16009,
September 21,
People vs. Rubio,
G.R. No. L-35500,
October 27, 1932
People vs. Veloso,
G.R. No. L-23051,
October 20, 1925
People vs. Marcos,
et al., L-31757,
Oct. 29, 1982
Mata vs. Bayona,
et al., G.R. No.
50720, Mar. 26,
La Chemise
Lacoste vs.
Fernandez, G.R.
No. L-63796-97
Pagkalinawan, et
al. vs. Gomez, et
al., L-22585, Dec.
18, 1967
People vs. Dichoso,
G.R. Nos. 101216-
18 June 4, 1993
People vs. Huang
Zhen Hua, G.R. No.
139301, 29
September 2004
Balayon, Jr. vs.
Dinopol, A.M. NO.
RTJ-06-1969 : June
15, 2006
Sony Computer
Entertainment, Inc.
vs. Bright Future
Technologies, Inc.,
G.R. No.
169156, 15
February
People vs.2007
Padilla,
G.R. No. 172603,
24 August 2007
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
People vs.
Mamaril, G.R. No.
171980, 06
October 2010 SEC
170425, 23 April
2012
People vs.
Belocura, G.R. No.
173474, 29 August
People vs.
Calantiao, G.R. No.
203984, 18 June
2014 Pilipinas Shell
vs. Romars Int’l
Gases Corp. G.R.
No. 189669, Feb.
16, 2015
Ogayon vs. People,
G.R. No. 188794,
Sept. 2, 2015
People vs.
Punzalan, G.R. No.
199087, 11
Bulauitan vs.
People, G.R. No.
218891, Sept. 19,
People vs. Castillo,
et al., G.R. No.
204419, Nov. 7,
People vs.
Pastrana et al.,
G.R. No. 196045,
Feb. 21, 2018
People v. Sapla,
G.R. No. 244045,
June 16, 2020
XVII. PROVISIONAL
REMEDIES IN
CRIMINAL CASES
(RULE 127)
Readings:
Erana v. Vera, G.R.
No. L-48955, July
27, 1943
Babala vs. Abaño,
G.R. No. L-4600.
February 28, 1952
Santos, Jr. et al.,
vs. Flores, et al.,
G.R. Nos. L-18251
and L-18252,
Liberal application of the Liberal construction, on Our courts are not only
rules the other hand, extends courts of law, but are also
the meaning of the courts of equity.129
statute to matters which Equity is justice outside
come within the spirit or legal provisions, and must
reason of the law be exercised in the
absence of law, not
against it.130 In Reyes v.
Lim:131 Equity
jurisdiction aims to do
complete justice in cases
where a court of law is
unable to adapt its
judgments to the special
circumstances of a case
because of the inflexibility
of its statutory or legal
jurisdiction. Equity is the
principle by which
substantial justice may be
attained in cases where
the prescribed or
customary forms of
ordinary law are
inadequate.132 (Citation
omitted)

Liberality lies within the

bounded discretion of a
court to allow an
equitable result when the
proven circumstances
require it. Liberality
acknowledges a lacuna in
the text of a provision of
law. This may be because
those who promulgated
1. Valeroso v CA 598 S 41 Background of the Case Facts:
Sr. Insp. Jerry C. Valeroso Sr. Insp. Jerry C. Valeroso,
was convicted for illegal a police officer, was
possession of a firearm. found guilty of illegal
The case originated from possession of a firearm.
a warrant of arrest issued On July 10, 1996, SPO2
against Valeroso for a Antonio M. Disuanco and
kidnapping with ransom his team were ordered to
case. serve a warrant of arrest
On July 10, 1996, against Valeroso for a
Valeroso was arrested by case of kidnapping with
a police team led by SPO2 ransom.
Antonio Disuanco. Valeroso was arrested at
During the arrest, a the Integrated National
Charter Arms revolver Police (INP) Central
was found tucked in Station in Quezon City.
Valeroso's waist. During the arrest, a
The firearm was later Charter Arms revolver
verified to be registered with five live ammunition
to someone else, not was found tucked in
Valeroso. Valeroso's waist.
Valeroso's Defense It was later discovered
Valeroso pleaded not that the firearm was not
guilty and claimed that issued to Valeroso but to
the firearm was planted someone else.
by the police. Issue:
He argued that the search Whether there is proof
conducted in his boarding beyond reasonable doubt
house was illegal. to convict Valeroso of
He claimed that he was illegal possession of a
not shown any proof of firearm.
the arrest warrant. Whether the search and
Valeroso presented seizure of the firearm
witnesses who testified to were legal.
the alleged irregularities Whether the
in his arrest and the Memorandum Receipt
search conducted in his issued to Valeroso by the
2. Cariaga v People GR no Background of the Case Facts:
180010, july 30,2010 Cenita M. Cariaga, the Cenita M. Cariaga, the
municipal treasurer of municipal treasurer of
Cabatuan, Isabela, was Cabatuan, Isabela, was
convicted of malversation charged with three
of public funds. counts of malversation of
She filed an appeal to the public funds.
Court of Appeals, but it The charges were filed
was dismissed for lack of before the Regional Trial
jurisdiction. Court (RTC) of Cauayan
Cariaga then filed a City in Isabela.
petition for review to The three cases involved
transfer the case to the different amounts of
Sandiganbayan, which misappropriated funds.
was granted by the Court. Cariaga was found guilty
Conviction and by Branch 20 of the
Sentencing Cauayan RTC and was
Cariaga was charged with sentenced accordingly.
three counts of Issue:
malversation of public The main issue is the
funds. jurisdiction of the Court
The Regional Trial Court of Appeals over the
(RTC) of Cauayan City in appeal filed by Cariaga.
Isabela convicted her in The Court of Appeals
all three cases. dismissed the appeal for
She was sentenced to lack of jurisdiction, stating
imprisonment, fines, and that the Sandiganbayan
disqualification from has exclusive appellate
holding public office. jurisdiction over the
Dismissal of Appeal by offense of malversation of
the Court of Appeals public funds.
Cariaga filed a Notice of Ruling:
Appeal to the Court of The Court ruled in favor
Appeals. of Cariaga and granted
The Court of Appeals her petition for review.
dismissed her appeal, The Court set aside the
stating that the Resolutions of the Court
3. Rolando Sideño v Case Background Facts:
People GR No 235640 Sideño v. People is a case Rolando S. Sideño, a
september 3 2020 involving a petition for Barangay Chairman, was
review on certiorari filed convicted of violation of
by Rolando S. Sideño, a Section 3 (b) of the Anti-
Barangay Chairman. Graft and Corrupt
Sideño was convicted of Practices Act.
three counts of violation Sideño was accused of
of the Anti-Graft and requesting and receiving
Corrupt Practices Act by money from a bidder in
the Regional Trial Court connection with a
(RTC). barangay project.
He sought to appeal the The appeal was
decision but mistakenly mistakenly filed before
filed the appeal with the the Court of Appeals
wrong court, the Court of instead of the
Appeals (CA), instead of Sandiganbayan, resulting
the Sandiganbayan (SB), in the dismissal of the
which has exclusive appeal.
appellate jurisdiction over Issue:
cases involving low- Whether Sideño's appeal
ranking public officers. should be given due
Factual Background course by the
Sideño, as the Barangay Sandiganbayan.
Chairman, was accused of Ruling:
requesting and receiving The Supreme Court
a "share" from a bidder in granted Sideño's petition
the projects of Barangay and directed the
205. Sandiganbayan to
The prosecution reinstate his appeal.
presented evidence Ratio:
showing that Sideño Sideño's appeal was
issued a Purchase erroneously filed before
Request, approved the the Court of Appeals
recommendation to instead of the
award the project to the Sandiganbayan.
bidder, received the However, due to the
4. Joel Latogan v People Case Background and Facts:
GR No 238298, January Conviction of Joel F. Joel F. Latogan was
22,2020 Latogan convicted of murder by
Joel F. Latogan was the Regional Trial Court
indicted for the crime of (RTC) in Baguio City.
Murder allegedly The RTC found that
committed on November Latogan had inflicted fatal
8, 2009, in Baguio City, injuries on Mary Grace
Philippines. Cabbigat, resulting in her
The prosecution death.
presented circumstantial Latogan was sentenced to
evidence that showed reclusion perpetua and
Latogan was with the ordered to pay damages
victim, Mary Grace to the victim's family.
Cabbigat, before she Issue:
suffered severe head Whether procedural
injuries leading to her infirmities violated
death. Latogan's right to a fair
Based on this evidence, trial.
the trial court convicted Whether technicalities
Latogan and sentenced should be set aside in the
him to reclusion interest of justice.
perpetua. Ruling:
Denial of Motion for The Supreme Court
Reconsideration and granted Latogan's
Notice of Appeal petition and reversed the
Latogan filed a motion for decisions of the Court of
reconsideration of the Appeals (CA).
trial court's decision, but The CA had dismissed
it was denied due to a Latogan's petition for
lack of notice of hearing. certiorari due to
He then filed a notice of procedural flaws.
appeal, which was also The Supreme Court held
denied as it was filed that the strict application
beyond the reglementary of procedural rules should
period. yield to the demands of
Petition for Certiorari substantial justice.
De Lima v Guerrero Oct Case Background and Facts:
10, 2017 - Legislative Inquiries Senator Leila De Lima
Senator Leila De Lima filed a petition for
filed a petition certiorari and prohibition
challenging the orders with the Supreme Court.
and warrant issued by a The petition challenged
regional trial court judge the orders and warrant
in a criminal case against issued by Judge Juanita
her. Guerrero of the RTC of
The case originated from Muntinlupa City.
legislative inquiries The orders and warrant
conducted by the Senate were issued in Criminal
and the House of Case No. 17-165, charging
Representatives on the De Lima with violation of
proliferation of the Comprehensive
dangerous drugs Dangerous Drugs Act of
syndicated at the New 2002.
Bilibid Prison (NBP). De Lima argued that the
Multiple complaints were RTC lacked jurisdiction
filed against De Lima with over the offense and that
the Department of Justice the Sandiganbayan
(DOJ), which consolidated should have jurisdiction.
the cases and conducted De Lima also raised
a preliminary procedural issues, such as
investigation. the alleged omission of
De Lima's Omnibus the judge to act on her
Motion and Denial by DOJ Motion to Quash.
Panel Issue:
During the preliminary Whether the RTC has
investigation, De Lima jurisdiction over the
filed an Omnibus Motion offense charged against
to Immediately Endorse De Lima or if the
the Cases to the Office of Sandiganbayan should
the Ombudsman and for have jurisdiction.
the Inhibition of the Panel Whether there was an
of Prosecutors and the omission by the judge to
Secretary of Justice. act on the Motion to
A liberal application of the rule may be justified where
special circumstances or compelling reasons are
present.

Admittedly, the authorization of petitioner PPSTA's

corporate secretary was submitted to the appellate
court only after petitioners received the comment of
respondents. However, in view of the peculiar
circumstances of the present case and in the interest
of substantial justice, and considering further that
petitioners submitted such authorization before the
[Court of Appeals] resolved to dismiss the petition on
the technical ground, we hold that, the procedural
defect may be set aside pro hac vice. Technical rules of
procedure should be rules enjoined to facilitate the
orderly administration of justice. The liberality in the
application of rules of procedure may not be invoked if
it will result in the wanton disregard of the rules or
cause needless delay in the administration of justice.
Indeed, it cannot be gainsaid that obedience to the
requirements of procedural rule is needed if we are to
expect fair results therefrom.46 (Emphasis supplied)

The "peculiar circumstances"47 in Philippine Public

School Teachers Association pertained to a finding that
the signatory of the verification and certification of
non-forum shopping, Ramon G. Asuncion, Jr., was "the
former Acting General Manager"48 of the Philippine
Public School Teachers Association and was, thus,
previously "authorized to sign a verification and
certification of non-forum shopping"49 on behalf of
the Association. By the time the Association actually
filed its petition before the Court of Appeals, however,
his authority as the Acting General Manager had
ceased, and the Association's Board of Directors
needed to give him specific authority to sign a
certification of non-forum shopping:
Cenita M. Cariaga, convicted of malversation of public
funds, appeals her case to the Court of Appeals but is
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, leading her to file a
petition for review to transfer the case to the
Sandiganbayan, which is granted by the Court.
A convicted murderer's right to a fair trial is upheld by
the Supreme Court, which grants his petition and
reverses previous decisions due to procedural flaws,
emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over
strict adherence to procedural rules.
Senator Leila De Lima's petition challenging the orders
and warrant issued by the RTC judge in a criminal case
against her is dismissed by the Supreme Court, citing
prematurity and violation of the rule against forum
shopping, while in a related case, the Supreme Court
grants De Lima's petition to annul the Order and
Warrants of Arrest issued against her, ruling that the
Information filed against her did not allege the
essential elements of the offense and that the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case.