Criminal Procedure Reviewer PDF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE REVIEWER 1. JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN What offenses fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan? For Sandiganbayan to acquire jurisdiction: 1. the offender must be in Section 4 of R.A. 10660; and 2. the offender commits violations of the following:...

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE REVIEWER 1. JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN What offenses fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan? For Sandiganbayan to acquire jurisdiction: 1. the offender must be in Section 4 of R.A. 10660; and 2. the offender commits violations of the following: a) RA 3019 (Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act) b) RA 1379 (Forfeiture of illegally-acquired wealth) c) Chapter 2, Section 2, Title 7, Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code (such as bribery, malversation, illegal exaction, and other crimes by public officers) d) RA 7080 (Plunder Act), AMLA, Anti-Gift giving Act e) E.O.s 1,2,14,14-A (sequestration cases) f) any other offenses, either simple or complexed with other crimes, committed by government officials (in Sec. 4 of RA 10660) in relation to their office. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned above in relation to their office. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1,2 2,3 144 and 14-A,5 issued in 1986. 2. SUSPENSION OF THE ACCUSED GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL PENDENTE LITE “Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him.” --Sec 13, RA 3019 This is also called suspension pendente lite. If the accused can show that the information is not valid, he will not be suspended. The moment that the court finds that the information is valid, however, it becomes its ministerial duty to suspend the public officer for a period not exceeding 90 days. An indefinite suspension pendende lite is void. 3. TOPIC ON PREJUDICIAL QUESTION To review, the general rule is: the civil action arising from the offense should be suspended when the criminal action for said offense is filed later on. The exception is when there is a prejudicial question that must be adjudged in the civil action. In order for there to be a prejudicial question: (a) one case must be civil and the other criminal; and  (b) the civil case must be previously instituted. The requisites are: 1. that the previously instituted civil action involves an issue that is similar to or intimately connected to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal case; and 2. that the resolution of the issue will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. “The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.”--Sec 7, Rule 111 Dean’s example An example is when a case for the declaration of nullity of marriage is filed by a “second wife” and later on, a criminal case charging Bigamy is filed by the first wife against the husband and the second wife. On the part of the second wife, there is a prejudicial question because the validity of her marriage (the resolution of the issue in the civil case) will determine her guilt or innocence in the Bigamy case (criminal case). 4. CLARIFICATORY HEARING IN THE CONDUCT OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION “A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests.” --Sec 6, Rule 111 Clarificatory Hearing - opportunity of the parties to be present but without the right to examine or cross-examine the party/witness being questioned. They may however, submit to the investigating officer questions which may be asked to the party or witness concerned. A formal-type hearing does not usually take place during a preliminary investigation but if the investigating officer deems that there are facts and issues to be clarified from a party or witness, a clarificatory hearing may be called. (g) During the clarificatory hearing, the investigating prosecutor may perform any or all of the following: (1) ask clarificatory questions; (2) have the case submitted for resolution; or (3) require the filling of a reply-affidavit and/or rejoiner-affidavit. The prosecutor may require the filling of a reply-affidavit if the counter-affidavit contains new issues of fact or questions of law which are material and substantial in nature. In such instances, respondent dhall have the opportunity to file his/her rejoiner-affidavit. --Sec. 10, DOJ Circular 015 5. SEARCH AS AN INCIDENT TO A VALID ARREST Definition A search warrant is an: a) Order in writing; b) In the name of the People of the Philippines;  c) Signed by the judge; d) Addressed to a peace officer; e) Commanding him to search a personal property described therein; and f) Bring it before the court. May a search warrant be oral? - No. It must be in writing. May a search warrant be issued in a civil case? - No because a search warrant is in the nature of a criminal process. May a search warrant be issued by the highest ranking PNP officer in the region? - No. It cannot be issued by the police. Not even the fiscal. It may only be issued by the court/judge. Suppose there is no particular or definite description in the search warrant. Is it valid? - No. A search warrant must describe the property to be searched in particular. A general search warrant is not a valid warrant. Can a search warrant be valid if it charges two or more offenses? - No, a scattershot warrant is not valid. Who files an application for a search warrant? - A peace officer will file an application for the issuance of a search warrant. Formal requirements - There is no need to accompany the application for a search warrant with a certificate of non-forum shopping because that only applies to civil cases. - Alternative answer: There is no need for a certificate of forum shopping because such is only required in initiatory pleadings. An application for search warrant is not an initiatory pleading. When or in what court should it be filed? 1) It should be filed with the court within whose territory the crime is committed. Note: There must be a crime. Otherwise, there will be no basis. It is the territory, not the jurisdiction, because this is not a criminal action. It is a separate proceeding. 2) If there is a compelling reason, the application may be filed with the court within the juridical region where the crime is committed, if the place of commission is known, or with the court where the search warrant is to be enforced. 3) If the criminal action has already been instituted, the application may be filed only with that court. What is the lifetime of a search warrant? - The lifetime of a search warrant is 10 days from the date it was issued. After that, it automatically becomes void and may no longer be extended What’s the effect of a void search warrant? - If the search warrant is void, the evidence obtained by means of that search warrant is not admissible. What is the remedy against a search warrant? 1) Motion to quash the search warrant; or 2) Motion to suppress illegally-obtained evidence.  - The remedies are in the alternate. If you file a motion to quash and the court denies it, a motion to suppress is no longer available. This is because you will be litigating the same issues. In what court may the motions be filed? The motion to quash the search warrant or motion to suppress may be filed with, and be acted upon by: 1) The court where the criminal action is pending; 2) If there is no criminal action yet, the court that issued the search warrant; 3) If the motion has not been resolved, and a criminal action is subsequently filed in another court, then the motion must be resolved by the latter court. Suppose the search warrant was issued by the RTC. When the criminal action was instituted, it was filed with the MTC because of the penalty involved. Where will the motion to quash or suppress evidence be filed? It should be filed with the MTC where the criminal action is pending. The supplication for search warrant may be filed: (a) as an incident to a pending criminal case; or (b) as an independent proceeding. Suppose a motion to quash is filed and granted. What is the remedy against an order quashing the search warrant? If the application is filed as an incident, the order quashing the search warrant is interlocutory (it doesn’t put an end to the case) and the remedy is a petition for certiorari. If the application is filed as an independent proceeding, the order quashing the search warrant is a final order (it terminates the case), and the remedy is an appeal. People vs. Pastrana https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2018/feb2018/gr_196045_2018.html In this case, Search Warrant No. 01-118 was issued for "violation of R.A. No. 8799 (The Securities Regulation Code) and for estafa (Art. 315, RPC)” The search warrant must be issued for one specific offense. Violation of the SRC is not an offense in itself for there are several punishable acts under the said law...Even the charge of "estafa under Article 315 of the RPC" is vague for there are three ways of committing the said crime...The three ways of committing estafa may be reduced to two, i.e., (1) by means of abuse of confidence; or (2) by means of deceit. For these reasons alone, it can be easily discerned that Search Warrant No. 01-118 suffers a fatal defect. Aside from its failure to specify what particular provision of the SRC did respondents allegedly violate, Search Warrant No. 01-118 also covered estafa under the RPC. The elements of estafa in general are the following: (a) that an accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence, or by means of deceit; and (b) that damage and prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused the offended party or third person. On the other hand, Section 28.1 of the SRC penalizes the act of performing dealer or broker functions without registration with the SEC. For such offense, defrauding another and causing damage and prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation are not essential elements. Thus, a person who is found liable of violation of Section 28.1 of the SRC may, in addition, be convicted of estafa under the RPC. In the same manner, a person acquitted of violation of Section 28.1 of the SRC may be held liable for estafa. Double jeopardy will not set in because violation of Section 28.1 of the SRC is malum prohibitum, in which there is no necessity to prove criminal intent, whereas estafa is malum in se, in the prosecution of which, proof of criminal intent is necessary. To somehow remedy the defect in Search Warrant No. 01-118, petitioner insists that the warrant was issued for violation of Section 28.1 of the SRC. Even assuming that violation of Section 28.1 of the SRC was specified in the application for search warrant, there could have been no finding of probable cause in connection with that offense. Here, the applicant for the search warrant did not present proof that respondents lacked the license to operate as brokers or dealers. Such circumstance only reinforces the view that at the time of the application, the NBI and the SEC were in a quandary as to what offense to charge respondents with. In this case, the core of the problem is that the subject warrant did not state one specific offense. It included violation of the SRC which, as previously discussed, covers several penal provisions and estafa, which could be committed in a number of ways. Hence, Search Warrant No. 01-118 is null and void for having been issued for more than one specific offense. Reasonable particularity of the description of the things to be seized – It is elemental that in order to be valid, a search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The constitutional requirement of reasonable particularity of description of the things to be seized is primarily meant to enable the law enforcers serving the warrant to: (1) readily identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from seizing the wrong items; and (2) leave said peace officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and seizures. It is not, however, required that the things to be seized must be described in precise and minute detail as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the searching authorities. In Bache and Co. (Phil.), Inc. v. Judge Ruiz, it was pointed out that one of the tests to determine the particularity in the description of objects to be seized under a search warrant is when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. In addition, under the Rules of Court, the following personal property may be the subject of a search warrant: (i) the subject of the offense; (ii) fruits of the offense; or (iii) those used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. Here, as previously discussed, Search Warrant No. 01-118 failed to state the specific offense alleged committed by respondents. Consequently, it could not have been possible for the issuing judge as well as the applicant for the search warrant to determine that the items sought to be seized are connected to any crime. Moreover, even if Search Warrant No. 01-118 was issued for violation of Section 28.1 of the SRC as petitioner insists, the documents, articles and items enumerated in the search warrant failed the test of particularity. The terms used in this warrant were too all-embracing, thus, subjecting all documents pertaining to the transactions of respondents, whether legal or illegal, to search and seizure. Even the phrase "and other showing that these companies acted in violation of their actual registration with the SEC" does not support petitioner's contention that Search Warrant No. 01-118 was indeed issued for violation of Section 28.1 of the SRC; the same could well-nigh pertain to the corporations' certificate of registration with the SEC and not just to respondents' lack of registration to act as brokers or dealers. 📌 Malaloan vs. CA https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/may1994/gr_104879_1994.html A search warrant was issued by the RTC of Kalookan City in connection with the violation of PD 1866 or the Illegal Possession of Firearms and ammunitions. The address to be served the warrant is at No. 25 Newport St. Fairview, Quezon City. The police officers went to the place at around 2:30pm where a labor seminar of the Ecumenical Institute for Labor Education and Research was held. They seized firearms, explosive materials, and subversive documents during the searched. The 61 participants were arerested but later released except for Malaloan and Lunarez who were the instructors. They filed a motion to quash the search warrant on the grtound that it was served outside the jurisdiction of the court but it was denied. The petitioners invoked the jurisdictional rules in the institution of criminal actions to invalidate the search warrant issued by the RTC of Kalookan City because it is directed toward the seizure of firearms and ammunition allegedly cached in Quezon City. The criminal case against them were filed in Quezon City, thus they claimed that the search warrant was filed in a court of imporper venue in criminal actions. Can a search warrant issued by a court for an offense that was committed outside its territorial jurisdiction be held valid? YES Procedure and purpose for the issuance of a search warrant are completely different from those for the institution of a criminal action. A warrant, such as a warrant of arrest or a search warrant, merely constitutes process. A search warrant is defined as an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property and bring it before the court. It is in the nature of a criminal process akin to a writ of discovery. It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in its nature and made necessary because of public necessity. A search warrant is merely a judicial process designed by the Rules to respond only to an incident in the main case, if one has already been instituted, or in the anticipation thereof. A judicial process is defined as a writ, warrant, subpoena or other formal writing issued by authority of law; also the means of accomplishing an end, including judicial proceedings, or all writs, warrants, summonses, and orders of courts of justice or judicial officers. It likewise includees judicial proceeding to acquire jurisdiction of a person or his property, to expedite the cause or enforce the judgment or a writ,warrant, mandate or other process issuing from a court of justice. In this case, the search warrant is issued in anticipation of a criminal case. In cases where search warrant is issued in anticipation of a criminal case, it would involve some judicial clairvoyance to require observance of the rules as to where a criminal case may eventually be filed where, in the first place, no such action having as yet been instituted, it may ultimately be filed in a territorial jurisdiction other than than wherein the illegal activities sought to be seized are located. It would be an exacting imposition upon the law enforcement authorities or the prosecutorial agencies to unerringly determine where they should apply for a search warrant in view of the uncertainties and possibilities as to the ultimate venue of a case under Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. It would be doubly so if compliance with that requirement would be under pain of nullification of said warrant should they file their application therefor in and obtain the same from what may later turn out to be a court not within the ambit of Section 15, Rule 110 (Place where action to be Instituted). Guidelines in Search Warrants (Also applies where criminal offense is charged in different informations or complaints and filed in tow or more courts with concurrent original jurisdiction over the criminal action) The court wherein a criminal case is pending: It shall have primary jurisdiction to issue search warrants necessitated by and for purposes of said case. An application for search warrant may be filed with another court but only under extreme and compelling circumstances. This must be proven by the applicant to the latter court’s satisfaction which may or may not give due course to the application depending on the validity of the justification offered for not filing the same in the court with primary jurisdiction. If the latter court issues the search warrant, a motion to quash the same may be filed and shall be resolved by said court, without prejudice to any proper recourse to the appropriate higher court by the party aggrieved by the resolution of the issuing court. All grounds existent and available shall be raised in the original or subsequent proceedings for quashal of the warrant, otherwise they are deemed waived. If the Issuing court does not resolve the motion to quash the search warrant: the Interested party may move In the court where the criminal case is pending for suppression of evidence of the personal property seized under the warrant if the same is offered. These are alternative remedies and not cumulative becausee the there are two different courts with different participations involved. Resolution of the motion to suppress shall likewise be subject to any proper remedy In the appropriate higher court. Court issued that search warrant denies the motion to quash: It is not prevented from further proceeding thereon, all personal property seized under the warrant shall fortwith be transmitted to the court wherein the criminal case is pending with the necessary safeguards and documentation therefor. 📌 People vs. Francisco https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/aug2002/gr_129035_2002.html Federico Verona and his girlfriend, Anabelle Francisco were placed under surveillance by the police after they were placed in a test-buy operation. They were found to be selling shabu. SPO2 Teneros and SPO4 San Juan applied for a search warrant before the RTC of Manila to authorize the search of the premises of 122 M. Hizon St. Caloocan City. Attached to the application was the after-surveillance report of SPO2 Teneros where it stated that one Dante Baradilla was one of Federico’s runners. The search warrant was issued authorizing the search of shabu and paraphernalia at No. 122 M. Hizon Street Calaocan City. Anabelle Francisco, who was nine-months pregnant, was resting inside the master’s bedroom of their two-story apartment at No. 120 M. Hizon Street Calaocan City, when she heard a loud bang downstairs where the door was forcibly opened. The policemen conducted a search for about an hour. Francisco asked for their identities but they refused to answer. She was then brought to the police station where she knew of their identity. The police team found shabu in the house raided, along with improvised burners, pantakal, cellphone, monitoring device, aluminum foil, and Php22,990.00. Francisco filed a motion to quash search warrant, asserting that she and her live-in partner has been leasing No. 120M. Hizon Street, District 2, Caloocan City, Metro Manila and not the address placed in the sear h warrant. However, the RTC upheld the validity of the search warrant, rendering the accused guilty. Is the search warrant valid even though the address specified was different from the actual place searched? No. While it is true that the rationale behind the constitutional and procedural requirements that the search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched is to the end that no unreasonable search warrant and seizure may not be made and abuses may not be committed, however, this requirement is not without exception. It is the prevailing rule in our jurisdiction that even a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended. The particularity of the place described is essential in the issuance of search warrants to avoid the exercise by the enforcing officers of discretion. Hence, the trial court either rred in refusing to nullify the actions of the police officers who were perhaps swayed by their alleged knowledge of the place. The controlling subject of search warrants is the place indicated in the warrant itself and not the place identified by the police. It may well be that the police officer identified No. 120 M. Hizon St. as the subject of the actual search. However, as indicated in the witness’ affidavit, in support of the application for a search warrant, No. 122 M. Hizon St. was unmistakably indicated. Inexplicably, a few days after the search warrant was issued by the court and served at No. 120 M. Hizon St., SPO2 Teneros informed Judge Bayhon in the return of search warrant21 that the warrant "was properly served at 122 M. Hizon St., Caloocan City, Metro Manila as indicated in the search warrant itself." The police had no authority to search the apartment behind the store, which was the place indicated in the warrant, even if they really intended it to be the subject of their application. Indeed, the place to be searched cannot be changed, enlarged or amplified by the police, The place to be searched, as set out in the warrant, cannot be amplified or modified by the officers’ own personal knowledge of the premises, or the evidence they adduced in support of their application for the warrant. Such a change is proscribed by the Constitution which requires inter alia the search warrant to particularly describe the place to be searched as well as the persons or things to be seized. It would concede to police officers the power of choosing the place to be searched, even if it not be delineated in the warrant. It would open wide the door to abuse of the search process, and grant to officers executing a search warrant that discretion which the Constitution has precisely removed from them. 📌 People vs. Sapla https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/12724/ A concerned citizen called the Regional Public Safety Battalion (RSPB) of Tabuk City, informing them that a certain individual would be transporting marijuana from Kalinga to Isabela. A joint operation was organized wherein PO3 Labbutan was designated as the arresting officer while the rest will serve as back-up and security. They proceeded to the Talaca detachment. They then received a text message describing the person who would transport the marijuana as a male, wearing white shirt with green stripes, red ball cap, carrying a blue sack on board a passenger jeepney (AYA 270). The officers conducted a checkpoint. The jeepney arrived, and the police officers saw Sapla, the owner of the blue sack. They asked Sapla to open the blue sack where they saw 4 bricks of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in newspaper and an old calendar. Labbutan arrested Sapla, informing him of the cause of his arrest and his constitutional rights in Ilocano. Can the police conduct a warrantless intrusive search of a vehicle on the sole basis of an unverified tip relayed by an anonymous informant? When intrusive search is valid Extensive search of a vehicle is permissible, but only when the officers made it upon probable cause, upon belief reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains an item, article or object which by law, is subject to seizure and destruction. In order for the search of a moving vehicle to be valid, the vehicle was intentionally used as a means to transport illegal items. It must be noted that the information relayed to the police office was that a passenger of a particular bus was carrying contraband items such that when the police officers boarded the vehicle, they searched the bag of a person matching the description given by the informant and not the cargo or contents of the bag. However, in this case, the search conducted cannot be considered as a search of a moving vehicle. It cannot be seriously disputed that the target of the search was not the passenger jeepney boarded by Sapla nor the cargo or contents of the vehicle. The target was the person who matched the description given by the person who called RPSB hotline. If the extend of such breadth of scope of searches on moving vehicles is allowed, it would open the floodgates to unbridled warrantless searches which can be conducted by the mere expedient of waiting for the target person to enter the checkpoint along the route of the vehicle, and then stopping the vehicle when it arrives at the checkpoint in order to search the target person. Extensive and Intrusive search that goes beyond a mere visual search of the vehicle necessitates probable cause on the part of the apprehending officers. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, as opposed to a mere routine inspection, such a warrantless search has been held to be valid only as long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle searched. Sheer unverified information from an anonymous informant does not engender probable cause on the part of the authorities that warrants extensive search of a moving vehicle. The mere reception of a text message from an anonymous person does not suffice to create probable cause that enables authorities to conduct an extensive and intrusive search without a search warrant. A tip is still hearsay no matter how reliable it may be. It is not sufficient to constitute probable cause in the absence of any other circumstance that will arouse suspicion. The police officer should not adopt the suspicion initiated by another person. This is necessary to justify that the person suspected to be stopped and reasonably searched. Anything less than this would be an infringement upon one’s basic right to security of one’s person and effects. The police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must observe facts leading to a suspicion of an illicit act and not merely rely on the information passed on to him or her. To allow otherwise, the citizen’s sanctified and heavily-protected right against unreasonable search and seizure will be at the mercy of phony tips. In this case, the information received through text message was not only hearsay evidence but a double hearsay. It was unclear as to who owned or possessed the said phone used as the supposed official hotline of the RPSB Office. 📌 People vs. Bauran https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/14293/ Facts: The appellants in this case were charged with and convicted for possession, control, and transport of dangerous drugs. According to the prosecution, the appellants’ motorcycle was flagged down by a police officer, but instead of stopping, they accelerated the engine. The police officer was able to get hold of the handlebar, causing the motorcycle to fall. (Wow lakas) After some running, they were eventually apprehended and were gathered on the side of the road near the checkpoint. Suspecting they were armed, they were frisked and ordered to raise their shirts. No weapons were found. The police officers noticed that Sulda had a backpack (closely secured), while Bauran had a sling bag. They were ordered to open them. Inside the backpack, they saw closely tied cellophanes colored green, blue, white, red. Inside were dried and fresh marijuana fruiting tops. According to the defense, the appellants were onboard a habal habal motorcycle when they heard a gunshot at the checkpoint. They stopped and the police officers kicked the motorcycle, causing them to fall. Later, their bags were searched. The RTC convicted the 2 passengers but acquitted to the driver. The RTC reasoned that the police officers had probable cause to search their bags when they allegedly failed to stop at the checkpoint and attempted to flee. The CA affirmed, ruling that their refusal to stop and their act of running away were indicative of criminal conduct. The search was therefore valid. Issue: Did the police officers violate appellants' constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure? Ruling: Yes. Review of principles: General rule - The right to be secure in their persons and properties against unreasonable searches and seizures is inviolable. Exceptions - 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest under Rule 126, sec 12 2. Seizure of evidence in plain view 3. Search of moving vehicles 4. Consented warrantless search 5. Customs search 6. Stop and frisk situations or Terry search 7. Exigency and emergency circumstances Important factor: Probable cause must first be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure may be lawfully conducted. Without probable causes the articles seized cannot be admitted in evidence against the person arrested. Examples of presence of probable cause: when there was a distinctive odor of marijuana, prior confidential reports and informants, etc. Ruling: This case did not fall under any of those exceptions or circumstances. The checkpoint where the police officers were stationed were put up to implement the “no plate, no travel” policy. Suspecting that the accused had weapons, they frisked said accused but found no weapons or incriminating objects. Up to this point, they were justified by the stop and frisk rule. Stop and frisk has been defined as the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pay him for weapons or contraband. The allowable scope of a stop and frisk search is limited to a protective search of outer clothing for weapons. Thus, in this case, from the time the accused were ordered to raise their t-shirts, to the further extensive search of their closely secured bags, the police officers went beyond the boundary of a valid stop and frisk search. Thus, the evidence acquired during this unlawful search is inadmissible because it violated the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure, under the doctrine of fruits of the poisonous tree. 6. THE CHARGE IS MURDER BUT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE CRIME COMMITTED IS HOMICIDE, THE ACCUSED WANTS TO FILE BAIL A person charged with a criminal offense is not entitled to bail even before conviction if the charge against him is a capital offense and the evidence of guilt is strong. However, if it seems obvious that the evidence submitted by the prosecution for the purpose of showing that the evidence is insufficient to establish the charge of murder, then the accused is entitled to apply for bail. Murder (reclusion perpetua) = not bailable. Homicide: Before Conviction - the accused may be entitled to bail as a matter of right (may be denied if aggravating circumstances are present, potentially increasing the penalty beyond reclusion temporal) After Conviction - the right to bail becomes discretionary After Finality of Conviction - bail is no longer available. The accused will serve his sentence. Y was charged with Murder. No bail was recommended. What is the remedy of Y? - Y may file a Motion for Bail. - The motion will be set for summary hearing of which the prosecution will present evidence to prove that the evidence of guilt is strong. - The accused may or may not present evidence. What happens after a bail hearing? - When the hearing is over, and the motion is submitted to the court for resolution, the court will summarize the evidence and make a conclusion as to whether the evidence of guilt is strong or not. - The court has 48 hours to resolve the motion. - If the evidence of guilt is not strong, bail becomes a matter of right. But if the evidence is strong, bail becomes neither a matter of right or discretion, and bail will be denied. - The evidence presented during the bail hearing shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial, but upon motion of either party, the court may recall any witness for additional examination unless the latter is dead, outside the Philippines, or otherwise unable to testify. --Sec 8, Rule 114 When is bail neither a matter of right or discretion? 1. Before judgment of conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of guilt is strong. 2. After judgment of conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. No bail shall be allowed after the judgment of conviction has become final. If before such finality, the accused has applied for probation, he may be allowed temporary liberty under his bail. When no bail was filed or the accused is incapable of filing one, the court may allow his release on recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of the community. In no case shall bail be  allowed after the accused has commenced to serve sentence. --Sec 24, Rule 114 3. After judgment of conviction by the RTC and the penalty imposed is imprisonment exceeding 6 years but less than death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and any of the following bail-negating circumstances is present: RPERF (a) The accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual delinquent, or he has committed an offense with the aggravating circumstance of reiteration; (b) The accused committed the offense while on parole, probation, or conditional pardon; (c) The accused evaded service of sentence, escaped legal confinement, or violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification; (d) There is undue risk that he will commit another crime during the pendency of his appeal; or (e) There is a probability of flight. --Sec 5, Rule 114 4. After the finality of judgment of conviction. - The accused cannot post bail anymore and can only apply for probation. - Promulgation of judgment becomes final after 15 days (period of taking up an appeal) or after the filing of an application for probation. - Appeal and probation are mutually exclusive remedies, such that if you appeal, you cannot file an application for probation and vice versa. - Note: One can file an application for probation if the penalty doesn't exceed 6 years imprisonment. 7. IN WHAT FORM MAY BAIL BE FILED; WHERE DO YOU FILE BAIL? In what form may bail be given? (What are the kinds of bail?) 1. Cash deposit - The accused or any person on his behalf posts bail in cash. After depositing the amount required in court, a receipt will be issued. - The accused may file a Motion to Reduce Bail. - If acquitted, the accused gets back what he deposited. - The accused or any person acting in his behalf may deposit in cash with the nearest collector or internal revenue or provincial, city, or municipal treasurer the amount of bail fixed by the court, or recommended by the prosecutor who investigated or filed the case. --Sec 14, Rule 114 - Upon submission of a proper certificate of deposit and a written undertaking showing compliance with the requirements of the conditions of bail, the accused shall be discharged from custody. The money deposited shall be considered as bail and applied to the payment of fine and costs while the excess, if any, shall be returned to the accused or to whoever made the deposit. --Sec 14, Rule 114 2. Property bond - Any property owner can post bail for the accused. - If the assessed value is equal to or more than the amount of bail, it can be used to post bail. - A property bond is an undertaking constituted as lien on the real property given as security for the amount of the bail. - Within 10 days after the approval of the bond, the accused shall cause the annotation of the lien on the certificate of title on file with the Register of Deeds if the land is registered, or if unregistered, in the Registration Book, in the Registry of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies, and on the corresponding tax declaration in the office of the provincial, city and municipal assessor concerned. Within the same period, the accused shall submit to the court his compliance and his failure to do so  shall be sufficient cause for the cancellation of the property bond and his re-arrest and detention. --Sec 11, Rule 114 - The qualification of sureties in a property bond shall be as follows: - (a) Each must be a resident owner of real estate within the Philippines; - (b) Where there is only one surety, his/her real estate must be worth at least the amount of the undertaking; - (c) If there are two or more sureties, each may justify in an amount less than that expressed in the undertaking but the aggregate of the justified sums must be equivalent to the whole amount of bail demanded. - In all cases, every surety must be worth the amount specified in his own undertaking over and above all just debts, obligations and properties exempt from execution. --Sec 12, Rule 114 3. Corporate surety - The bonding company will post bail for the accused. The accused will pay the bonding company. - Any domestic or foreign corporation, licensed as a surety in accordance with law and currently authorized to act as such, may provide bail by a bond subscribed jointly by the accused and an officer of the corporation duly authorized by its board of directors. --Sec 10, Rule 114 4. Recognizance - It is a written undertaking to appear in court. - Whenever allowed by law or these Rules, the court may release a person in custody to his own recognizance or that of a responsible person. --Sec 15, Rule 114 Amount of bail - The judge who issued the warrant or granted the application shall fix a reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not limited to, the following factors: (a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail; (b) Nature and circumstances of the offense; (c) Penalty for the offense charged; (d) Character and reputation of the accused; (e) Age and health of the accused; (f) Weight of the evidence against the accused; (g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial; (h) Forfeiture of other bail; (i) The fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and (j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail. - Excessive bail shall not be required. --Sec 9, Rule 114 SECTION 17. Bail, Where Filed. — (a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where the case is pending, or in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with any regional trial judge, metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge in the province, city, or municipality. If the accused is arrested in a province, city, or municipality other than where the case is pending, bail may also be filed with any regional trial court of said place, or if no judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge therein. (b) Where the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the accused seeks to be released on recognizance, the application may only be filed in the court where the case is pending, whether on preliminary investigation, trial, or appeal. (c) Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail with any court in the province, city, or municipality where he is held. (17a) In what court may bail be filed? 1. (a) In the court where the case is pending; (b) but if the judge of that court is absent or unavailable, bail may be filed in the RTC or MTC of the same province, city, municipality where the case is filed; or (c) If the accused is arrested in a place other than where it was filed, then bail may be filed in the RTC of that place, and if there is no RTC, in the MTC of the same place. 2. If bail is a matter of discretion, or the accused desires to be released on recognizance, the application may only be filed with the court where the case is pending, and not in any other court. 3. If the accused has been convicted by the RTC and bail is a matter of discretion, the application for bail may be filed with the same RTC notwithstanding that a notice of appeal has already been filed (meaning, the said RTC has already lost jurisdiction over the case), provided that the record of the case has not yet been transmitted to the appellate court. Otherwise, it should be filed with the CA. 4. If the judgment of conviction by the RTC changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail may only be filed with, and be acted upon by, the appellate court. Note: Where the nature of the offense is changed from bailable to non-bailable, the question is wrong because this cannot happen (such judgment is void for violating the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him). 5. Any person in custody but who hasn't been charged yet in any court may apply for bail in any court of the province, city, or municipality where he is held. --Sec 17, Rule 114 8. MOTION TO QUASH; IF THE COURT GRANTS A MOTION TO QUASH SHOULD THEY DISMISS THE CASE? Definition - A motion to quash is a special pleading filed by the accused before entering his plea, which hypothetically admits the truth of the facts in the complaint or information, and sets up a matter which, if proven, would preclude further proceedings. - A Motion to Quash is a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the information. The court, in resolving the motion, cannot consider facts contrary to those alleged in the information or which do not appear on the face of the information, except those admitted by the prosecution. When may a motion to quash be filed? - The accused may move to quash the complaint or information at any time before entering his plea. --Sec 1, Rule 117 What are the requisites of a valid motion to quash? --Sec 2, Rule 117 1. It must be in writing. 2. It must be signed by the accused or his/her counsel. 3. It must distinctly specify the factual and legal grounds. Note: The court will only consider the grounds stated in the motion filed. But Section 2 also states one exception—lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. Thus, the court may consider this ground even if it is not stated in the motion. What are the grounds for Quashal? The nine grounds for the quashal of a complaint or information are: 1. that the facts charged do not constitute an offense;  2. that the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; 3. that the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused; 4. that the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; Note: Section 4, Rule 112 requires that for a complaint or information to be valid, the investigating prosecutor who files it must have a prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor, or chief state prosecutor, or the Ombudsman or his deputy, as the case may be. - People vs Garfin (2004): Without the approval of the city/provincial prosecutor, the information is void. Hence, the court never acquired jurisdiction. This defect cannot be cured even by the silence of the accused—he may invoke this ground at any time. - Quisay vs People (2016): There must be a showing that there was a prior approval of the city/provincial prosecutor. Merely stating such fact in a certification, especially one that is self-serving, is not good enough. 5. that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; 6. that more than one offense is charged, except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law; Note: This is also called “duplicitous” or “multiplicitous” charge. 7. that the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; Note: Criminal liability is totally extinguished by: (a) death of the convict (b) service of sentence (c) amnesty (d) absolute pardon (e) prescription of the crime (f) prescription of the penalty (g) marriage of the offended woman in applicable cases under Article 344 of the RPC. 8. that it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and Note: Only exempting circumstances constitute a legal excuse. Justifying factors, like self-defense, must be proven. 9. double jeopardy. Note: There is double jeopardy when the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or terminated without his express consent. FJJOCMELD --Sec 3, Rule 117 Can there be other grounds? - No. The grounds for a motion to quash is sui generis or a class of its own. No other grounds may be considered by the court except for the nine grounds enumerated in Section 3, Rule 117. - The Revised Rules on Continuous Trial (AM-15-06-10-SC) also state lists “motion to quash information when the ground is not one of those stated in Sec. 3, Rule 117” as one of the prohibited motions. - People vs. Yutila: Lack of preliminary investigation is not a valid ground for a motion to quash, not only because it is not in Section 3, Rule 117, but because it does not impair the validity of the information or render it defective. It also doesn't affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case. Result of granting a Motion to Quash: Dismissal with consent of the accused unless the ground can be cured with an amendment e.g. the facts charged does not constitute an offense. The court, guided by the provisions of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, is more inclined to give the prosecution an opportunity to correct or cure the defect in the information by way of an amendment thereto (it appearing that the defects thereof can be cured by amendment). 9. THE EFFECT OF ABSENCE OF THE ACCUSED AND THE OFFENDED PARTY AT PRE-TRIAL Right to be present at all stages - All stages of the proceedings means from arraignment to promulgation of judgment. - “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights: xxx (c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification. The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his right without the assistance of counsel.” --Sec 1(c), Rule 115 When the accused is notified of the trial date but despite notice, he fails to appear on that day, may he be tried in absentia? - Yes. The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial, when he had been given notice, shall be considered a waiver of his or her right to be present. Dean’s Examples: 1. PP vs. A – The accused was out on bail. Trial was set on July 16. However, it was not finished, so it was reset to another date (August 15), but the accused did not have notice of this date. May he be tried in absentia? - No. The accused may only be tried in absentia if he had notice of the trial date. 2. PP vs. X – The accused X was a detention prisoner. He was notified of the trial date on July 16. On July 14, two days before trial, he escaped from detention. (a) Can X be tried in absentia on July 16? - Yes, because he had notice of the trial date. (b) Suppose the trial was not finished on that date (July 16) as the prosecution still had other witnesses to present, and the case was reset on August 15. Can X be tried in absentia on August 15? - Yes, notwithstanding the lack of notice. Being a detention prisoner who escaped, he may be tried in absentia on all the dates, regardless of whether he had notice or not. The Rules also state that when an accused under custody escapes, he or she shall be deemed to have waived his or her right to be present on all subsequent trial dates until custody over him or her is regained. Rights related to Due Process - “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights: xxx (f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative,  involving the same parties and subject matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross-examine him. - (g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf. - (h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial. - (i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.” --Sec 1, Rule 115 May the pretrial be conducted even if the accused is absent? Yes May the pretrial be conducted even if the offended party is absent? Yes Provided, the prosecutor and the defense counsel are present and that the accused or the offended party were notified. 10. THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN RA 6981 AND RULE 119 REGARDING STATE WITNESS What are the differences between Discharge of an Accused under Rule 119 and Admission to the Witness Protection Program? 1) The Witness Protection Program (WPP) applies only to a grave felony or its equivalent under a special law. Rule 119 can apply to any offense. 2) The WPP requires that the witness or a member of his family within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity (like a brother or mother-in-law) is subjected to threat to life or bodily injuries. In Rule 119, there is no such requirement. 3) The WPP doesn’t apply to a member of a law enforcement body. In Rule 119, there is no such limitation. 4) In order to be qualified for the WPP, the witness need not be charged of any offense. In Rule 119, he must’ve been already charged. 5) In the WPP, the witness enjoys benefits like Cost of Living Allowance, housing, assistance from the DOJ, and change of identity. Rule 119 does not mention such benefits. 6) In the WPP, the immunity is granted by the DOJ, which has the prerogative to approve/admit or not to admit a witness into the program. The immunity granted in Rule 119 comes from the court. Sample case: W applied for admission to the WPP. His application was approved by the DOJ, which is the sole authority to approve or not approve any application for admission to the WPP. For a person like W, should there be a criminal case against him pending in court? No, unlike in a discharge under Rule 119 where there must be a case filed in court. Sample case 2: People vs XYZ X, Y, and Z were arraigned. While the case was undergoing trial, the DOJ issued to X a certificate of admission to the WPP, so that X may testify as a state witness. Y and Z opposed the presentation of X as a witness against them. They alleged that there was non-compliance to the requirement of a sworn statement, and that there was no motion for the discharge of X. Can X testify as a state witness? Is this procedurally correct? Yes, because this is admission to the WPP. The law that applies is RA 698, not Rule 119. X can testify, provided that: a. There is a grave felony or its equivalent under a special law. b. The witness or a family member within the second degree is subjected to life threat or bodily injuries. c. The witness is not a member of any law enforcement agency.  Witness Protection Program (RA 6981) State Witness (Rule 119) 1. Applies only to grave felonies or their Applies to all offenses equivalent under special laws 2. Witness or relatives within the second degree No such requirement of consanguinity or affinity is subjected to threat to life or bodily injuries 3. Applicant should not be a law enforcing officer No such requirement 4. Applicant may not be charged elsewhere Must be charged of the same offense 5. Witness need not an accused himself He must be one of the accused 6. Enjoys certain benefits and privileges e.g. Immunity is granted by the court housing, relocation, allowance, etc. 7. Immunity is granted by the DOJ 11. PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF A DEFENSE COUNSEL Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court is likewise of no help to the respondent. It does not require the presence of the counsel during the promulgation of a judgment, viz: SEC. 6. Promulgation of judgment - The judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any judge of the court in which it was rendered. However, if the conviction is for a light offense, the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. When the judge is absent or is outside the province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court. 12. THE REMEDY OF THE ACCUSED IF THE JUDGEMENT IS PROMULGATED IN HIS/HER ABSENCE Sample case: Suppose that on July 16, at 8:30 in the morning, the accused was notified of the promulgation, but later on did not appear in court for it. The judgment was recorded in the criminal docket and the accused received a copy of it on July 19. When he opened the envelope, he was not surprised that he lost because his lawyer has an untarnished record of losing. So he decided to appeal. He was told that he has 15 days to do so. When will he start counting the 15 days? Until when can he appeal? The question is misleading because the accused cannot appeal in this case. By failing to appear despite notice, the accused loses all remedies against the judgment. Is there anything that the accused can do to regain the remedies he has lost when he failed to appear despite notice? Yes. Within 15 days from promulgation of judgment, the accused must (a) surrender  himself to the court; and (b) file a motion for leave to avail the remedies. He must do both things to regain the remedies. In his motion, he must explain why he failed to appear on the date of promulgation. If the court finds the explanation meritorious, the motion will be granted, the court will issue an order to the effect, and a copy of the order will be served to the accused. Then the accused will have 15 days from the service of the copy of the order to avail himself of the remedies he has lost. An example of a meritorious reason is hospital confinement, if the accused can show evidence of it. Sample case: The accused failed to appear during the promulgation. The judgment was promulgated in his absence. Within 15 days, the accused was arrested. While in jail, he filed a motion for leave to avail of the remedies. He mentioned the reason why he failed to appear, and the court found it to be meritorious. The prosecution opposed the motion for leave, arguing that here, the accused did not surrender himself—he was, in fact, arrested. If you were the judge, would you grant the motion for leave? Yes. Technicalities should be set aside in order to better serve the interests of justice. After all, the reason was meritorious. 13. THE EFFECT OF APPLICATION FOR PROBATION ON THE JUDGMENT The trial court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant for a probationable penalty and upon application by said defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution of the sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best. When a judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty is appealed or reviewed, and such judgment is modified through the imposition of a probationable penalty, the defendant shall be allowed to apply for probation based on the modified decision before such decision becomes final. The application for probation based on the modified decision shall be filed in the trial court where the judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty was rendered, or in the trial court where such case has since been re-raffled. In a case involving several defendants where some have taken further appeal, the other defendants may apply for probation by submitting a written application and attaching thereto a certified true copy of the judgment of conviction. --R.A. 10707 14. IF ALLOWED SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE WHEN THE ACCUSED IS MINOR If the accused is a youthful offender when he committed the crime and the judgement is a judgement of conviction, the court will issue an order for a suspension of judgement automatically. *Youthful Offender - over 15 but less than 18 at the time of the commission of the crime. *Under the law, suspension of sentence does not apply in offenses where the penalty prescribed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment = 1 or 2 degrees lower (privileged mitigating circumstance of minority). Suppose because of a delay in the trial, the judgement was promulgated when the accused is already 20 years old, is he entitled? YES. Suppose he is already 76 when the judgement is promulgated, is he still entitled? YES. The accused will be endorsed to the DSWD where he will serve his sentence. If he is shown to be incorrigible, he will be returned to the court for sentencing. 15. THE EFFECT OF THE JUDGEMENT OF AN APPELATE COURT IN AN APPEALED CASE ON THE ACCUSED WHO FILED THE APPEAL The judgement which is the subject of the appeal shall stay (suspended) for those who appealed. Because it is stayed, it will not lapse into finality. On the other hand, The judgment will become final for those who do not appeal and they shall start serving their sentence. The judgment from the appellate court will not affect those who do not appeal unless the judgment is favorable and applicable to them. --Section 11, Rule 122 16. MODES OF APPEAL (a) Ordinary appeal. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where law on these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner. (b) Petition for review. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42. (c) Appeal by certiorari. — In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with the Rule 45. (n) --Section 2, Rule 41 17.ABOUT THE CONDUCTING OF SEARCH IN THE ABSENCE OF A HOUSE OCCUPANT Search of House, Room, or Premises to be Made in Presence of Two Witnesses. — No search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. (7a) --Section 8, Rule 126