CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART III
Criminal Procedure 5.1. General matters Venue in criminal case
Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional. The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. (Isip vs People)
Criminal Jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts as Special Agrarian Courts; jurisdiction in criminal offenses for violation of RA No. 6657 is excluded from the power of DAR
Special Agrarian Courts, which are Regional Trial Courts, are given original and exclusive jurisdiction over two categories of cases, to wit: (1) "all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners" and (2) "the prosecution of all criminal offenses under [R.A. No. 6657]." The provisions of §50 must be construed in harmony with this provision by considering cases involving the determination of just compensation and criminal cases for violations of R.A. No. 6657 as excepted from the plenitude of power conferred on the DAR. Indeed, there is a reason for this distinction. The DAR is an administrative agency which cannot be granted jurisdiction over cases of eminent domain (for such are takings under R.A. No. 6657) and over criminal cases. (LBP vs. Belista)
Jurisdiction to issue hold-departure orders within the RTC
Circular No. 39-97 limits the authority to issue hold-departure orders to criminal cases within the jurisdiction of second level courts. Paragraph No. 1 of the said circular specifically provides that "hold- departure orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regional trial courts." (Mondejar vs. Buban)
Venue in Libel Cases
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations shall be filed simultaneous or separately with the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the libellous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense. (Mary Rose A. Boto vs. Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Villena, A.C. No. 9684, September 18, 2013)
Venue in estafa
In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. A court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed outside its limited territory. The prosecution must not only prove that the offense was committed, it must also prove the identity of the accused and the fact that the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the court. In this case, the prosecution failed to show that the offense of estafa under sec. 1(b) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code (“RPC”) was committed within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Other than the lone allegation in the information, there is nothing in the prosecution evidence which even mentions that any of the elements of the offense were committed in Makati. The Affidavit of Complaint executed by Elizabeth does not contain any allegation as to where the offense was committed, and there is nothing in the documentary evidence offered by the prosecution that points to where the offense, or any of its elements, was committed. Although the prosecution alleged that the check issued by petitioner was dishonored in a bank in Makati, such dishonor is not an element of the offense of estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the RPC. There being no showing that the offense was committed within Makati, the Regional Trial Court of that city has no jurisdiction over the case. (Hector Trenas v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 195002, January 25, 2012)
5.1.1. Distinguish jurisdiction over subject matter from jurisdiction over person of the Accused
The jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. And once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. (Foz vs. Fajardo)
5.1.2. Criminal jurisdiction
What is criminal jurisdiction?
It is the authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose the punishment for it (People v. Marinao, 71 SCRA 600, 604).
Requisites:
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter – is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong (Reyes v. Diaz, 73 Phil 484); by virtue of the imposable penalty or its nature, is one which the court is by law authorized to take cognizance of; conferred by law.
2. Jurisdiction over the territory where the offense was committed – the offense must have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court; jurisdiction over the territory; cannot be waived
3. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused – the person charged with the offense must have been brought to its presence for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court
5.1.3. Jurisdiction of criminal courts Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
In order for the Sandiganbayan to acquire jurisdiction over the said offenses, the latter must be committed by, among others, officials of the executive branch occupying positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. However, the law is not devoid of exceptions. Those that are classified as Grade 26 and below may still fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan provided that they hold the positions thus enumerated by the same law. (People vs. Sandiganbayan)
Powers included in the primary jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman
The Constitution and R.A. No. 6770 endowed the Office of the Ombudsman with wide latitude, in the exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers, to pass upon criminal complaints involving public officials and employees. Specifically, the determination of whether probable cause exists is a function that belongs to the Office of the Ombudsman. Whether a criminal case, given its attendant facts and circumstances, should be filed or not is basically its call. (Jesse Philip B. Eijan Santos vs. Special Presidential Task Force 156, represented by Atty. Allan U. Ventura, G.R. No. 203696, June 2, 2014)
Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 provides that the Office of the Ombudsman has “primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of the Government, the investigation of such cases.” This power to take over a case at any time is not given to other investigative bodies. This means that the power of the Ombudsman to investigate cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan is not co-equal with other investigative bodies, such as the DOJ. The Ombudsman can delegate the power but the delegate cannot claim equal power. (DOJ vs. Liwag)
Powers of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute
The Ombudsman has the power to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of a public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. It has been the consistent ruling of the court not to interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers as long as his rulings are supported by substantial evidence. (Presidential Fact Finding vs. Desierto)
Well-settled is the rule that this Court will not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers without good and compelling reasons that indicate otherwise (Antonino vs. Ombudsman)
5.1.4. When injunction may be issued to restrain criminal prosecution General rule:
Ordinarily, the determination of probable cause is not lodged with this Court. Its duty in an appropriate case is confined to the issue of whether the executive or judicial determination, as the case may be, of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to want of jurisdiction. This is consistent with the general rule that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final.
Exceptions
There are, however, exceptions to this rule. Among the exceptions are enumerated in Brocka vs. Enrile, 74 as follows:
a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused (Hernandez vs. Albano, et al., L-19272, January 25, 1967, 19 SCRA 95);
b. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions (Dimayuga, et al. vs. Fernandez, 43 Phil. 304; Hernandez vs. Albano, supra; Fortun vs. Labang, et al., L-38383, May 27, 1981, 104 SCRA 607);
c. When there is a prejudicial question which is sub-judice (De Leon vs. Mabanag, 70 Phil. 202);
d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority (Planas vs. Gil, 67 Phil. 62);
e. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation (Young vs. Rafferty, 33 Phil. 556; Yu Cong Eng vs. Trinidad, 47 Phil. 385, 389);
f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent (Sangalang vs. People and Avendia, 109 Phil. 1140);
g. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense (Lopez vs. City Judge, L-2579S, October 29, 1966, 18 SCRA 616);
h. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution (Rustia vs. Ocampo, CA-G.R. No. 4760, March 25, 1960);
Instance of a case of persecution rather than prosecution:
The careless inclusion of Mr. Ben Lim, Jr., in the warrant of arrest gives flesh to the bone of contention of petitioners that the instant case in a matter of persecution rather than prosecution (Teodoro C. Borlongan, Jr. Et Al. Vs. Magdaleno M. Peña, Et Al. G.R. No. 143591, May 5, 2010)
i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance (Recto vs. Castelo, 18 L.J. [1953], cited in Rañoa vs. Alvendia, CA-G.R. No. 30720-R, October 8, 1962; Cf. Guingona, et al. vs. City Fiscal, L-60033, April 4, 1984, 128 SCRA 577); and
j. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied (Salonga vs. Paño, et al., L-59524, February 18, 1985, 134 SCRA 438).
Unlawful arrest may be enjoined by an injunction
Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners (Rodriguez vs. Castelo, L-6374, August 1, 1953, cited in REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM, p. 188, 1988 Ed.)
Supreme Court in exceptional cases may resolve existence of probable cause:
In these exceptional cases, this Court may ultimately resolve the existence or non-existence of probable cause by examining the records of the preliminary investigation, as it did in Salonga vs. Paño (187 SCRA 788), Allado and Webb; Paul G. Roberts et al., vs. The Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 113930, March 5, 1996)
5.2. Prosecution of offenses
Filing of the complaint or information interrupts the prescriptive period
With respect to offenses penalized by special laws, the filing of the complaint or information in court is the one that interrupts the prescriptive period and not the filing of the complaint in the proper office for purposes of conducting a preliminary investigation
(Zaldivar v. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277).
5.2.2. Who may file them, crimes that cannot be prosecuted de officio
Who may prosecute cases for abduction, seduction and acts of lasciviousness
Sec. 5, paragraph 3, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for the rule that criminal cases for seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness shall be prosecuted by the private offended party, her parents, grandparents or guardian or in the absence of any relative the State may prosecute under the principle of parens patriae. It states that:
“The offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents of guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by any of them. If the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before she can file the complaint, and she has no known parents, grandparents or guardian, the State shall initiate the criminal action in her behalf.”
5.2.3. Criminal actions, when enjoined 5.2.4. Control of prosecution
It is well-settled that prosecution of crimes pertains to the executive department of the government whose principal power and responsibility is to insure that laws are faithfully executed. Corollary to this power is the right to prosecute violators. Thus, all criminal actions commenced by complaint or information are prosecuted under the direction and control of public prosecutors. In the prosecution of special laws, however, the exigencies of public service sometimes require the designation of special prosecutors from different government agencies to assist the public prosecutor; but this designation does not detract from the public prosecutor having control and supervision over the case. (Bureau of Customs v. Peter Sherman, et al, G.R. No. 190487, April 13, 2011.)
5.2.5. Sufficiency of complaint or information When is a complaint or information sufficient?
For complaint or information to be sufficient, one of the requirements is that it must allege the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be determined by reference to the definitions and essentials of the specified crimes. (People vs. Dimaano)
A complaint is substantially sufficient if it states the known address of the respondent, it is accompanied by complainant’s affidavit and his witnesses and supporting documents, and the affidavits are sworn to before any fiscal, state prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or in their absence or unavailability, a notary public who must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. (Sasot vs. People)
Error in the name of the accused
An error in the name of the accused is not reversible as long as his identity is sufficiently established. This defect is curable at any stage of the proceedings as insertion of the real name of the accused is merely a matter of form (People v. Padica, 221 SCRA 362)
Rule in case some of the witnesses are not included in the information
preclude the prosecutor from presenting them during trial. (People v. Dela Cruz)
Aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the information or complaint
It should be remembered that every aggravating circumstance being alleged must be stated in the information. Failure to state an aggravating circumstance, even if duly proven at trial, will not be appreciated as such. It was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution to state the aggravating circumstance of "wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the information in order for all the evidence, introduced to that effect, to be admissible by the trial court. (People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Feliciano Jr., et. al, G.R. No. 196735, May 5, 2014)
Documents attached to the information or complaint
An information filed in court shall be supported by affidavits and counter-affidavits of the parties and their witnesses, other supporting documents and the resolution of the case. The reason for this rule is because the law aims not only to acquit the innocent but to like insulate the clearly innocent from false charges and from the strong arm of the law. (OKABE VS. GUTIERREZ)
Test of sufficiency of information
The test of sufficiency of Information is whether it enables a person of common understanding to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly. x x x The purpose is to allow the accused to fully prepare for his defense, precluding surprises during the trial. (People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Feliciano Jr., et. al, G.R. No. 196735, May 5, 2014)
Failure to object in the defect of information is deemed a waiver thereof
Appellants aver that the information filed before the trial court was substantially defective considering that it accuses Abdul and Ampuan as one and the same person when in fact they were identified as different persons. As such, Ampuan was not able to comprehend the information read to him. However, appellants failed to raise the issue of the defective Information before the trial court through a motion for bill of particulars or a motion to quash the information. Their failure to object to the alleged defect before entering their pleas of not guilty amounted to a waiver of the defect in the Information. Records even show that the information was accordingly amended during trial to rectify this alleged defect but appellants did not comment thereon. Moreover, objections as to matters of form or substance in the information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. (People of the Philippines v. Renandang Mamaruncas and Pendatum Ampuan, G.R. No. 179497, January 25, 2012)
5.2.6. Designation of offense Designation of the offense
An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof. In other words, if the offense is stated in such a way that a person of ordinary intelligence may immediately know what is meant, and the court can decide the matter according to law, the inevitable conclusion is that the information is valid. It is not necessary to follow the language of the statute in the information. The information will be sufficient if it describes the crime defined by law. (Lasoy vs. Zenarosa)
Variance doctrine
In case of variance between the complaint filed by the offended party and the information in crimes against chastity, the complaint controls (People v. Oso, 62 Phil 271)
Application in rape cases
However, since the charge in the Information for the December 2003 incident is rape through carnal knowledge, Pareja cannot be found guilty of rape by sexual assault even though it was proven during trial. This is due to the material differences and substantial distinctions between the two modes of rape; thus, the first mode is not necessarily included in the second, and vice-versa. Consequently, to convict Pareja of rape by sexual assault when what he was charged with was rape through carnal knowledge, would be to violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
Nevertheless, Pareja may be convicted of the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness under the variance doctrine embodied in Section 4, in relation to Section 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:
SEC. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. – When there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.
SEC. 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. – An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BERNABE PAREJA y CRUZ, G.R. No. 202122, January 15, 2014)
When variance between allegation and fact proved is deemed binding
A variance in the mode of commission of the offense is binding upon the accused if he fails to object to evidence showing that the crime was committed in a different manner than what was alleged. While the information clearly states that the crime was committed by
appellant's insertion of his penis inside AAA's vagina, the latter solemnly testified on the witness stand that appellant merely put his penis in her mouth. Nevertheless, appellant failed to register any objection that the Information alleged a different mode of the commission of the crime of rape. Thus, appellant's conviction for rape by sexual assault must be sustained, the variance notwithstanding. (PEOPLE vs. GULLERMO LOMAQUE, GR 189297, June 5, 2013)
Defect in the complaint court may still acquire jurisdiction
Even when a complaint is defective for being signed and filed by the chief of police and not by the complainant, the court may still acquire jurisdiction over the case. The complaint required in Art. 344 of the RPC is but a condition precedent to the exercise by the proper authorities of the power to prosecute the guilty parties. The complaint simply starts the prosecutory proceeding but does not confer jurisdiction in the court to try the case. Art. 344 is not determinative of the jurisdiction of courts over private offenses because the same is governed by the Judiciary Law and not the RPC. (People v. Yparraguire)
Minority is a special and qualifying circumstance in rape cases
In rape cases, the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender is a special qualifying circumstance which should be both alleged (People v. Cantos) and proved (People v. Manggasin) with certainty in order to warrant the imposition of the [maximum] penalty.
Facts alleged in the information is controlling
It is not the designation of the offense in the complaint or information that is controlling (People v. Samillano, 56 SCRA 573); the facts alleged therein and not its title determine the nature of the crime
(People v. Magdowa, 73 Phil 512).
The accused may be convicted of a crime more serious than that named in the title or preliminary part if such crime is covered by the facts alleged in the body of the information and its commission is established by evidence (Buhat v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 701).
An accused could not be convicted under one act when he is charged with a violation of another if the change from one statue to the other involves:
a. a change in the theory of the trial;
b. requires of the defendant a different defense; or
c. surprise the accused in any way. (U.S. v. Panlilio, 28 Phil 603).
5.2.7. Cause of the accusation PURPOSE:
1. To enable the court to pronounce a proper judgment;
2. To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge as to enable him to make a defense;
3. As a protection against further prosecution for the same cause. ( U.S. v. Karelsen).
5.2.8. Duplicity of the offense; exception General rule:
An information or complaint must charge only one offense, unless the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses
Exceptions to the rule on duplicity 1. continuing crimes 2. complex crimes
3. special complex crimes
4. crimes susceptible of being committed in various modes 5. crimes of which another offense is an ingredient
Requisites of continuous crimes:
1. Plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time; 2. Unity of penal provision infringed upon or violated;
3. Unity of criminal intent which means that two or more violations of the same penal provision are united on one and the same intent leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or claim (People v. Ledesma).
Rule on duplicity of offense: Effects:
A defectively crafted information, such as that alleging multiple offenses in a single complaint or information transgresses Rule 110, 13. A. However, failure to make a timely objection to such a defect is deemed to be a waiver of the said objection. (People v. Santiago)
Effects of failure to object on the duplicity of offenses
Under Sec. 3, Rule 120, failure on the part of the accused to object on the duplicity of offense as charged in the information, he may be convicted as many crimes as charged in the information or complaint.
5.2.9. Amendment or substitution of complaint or information Preliminary investigation not required in case of amendment
There are also no substantial amendments in the information warranting a new preliminary investigation. A new preliminary investigation is also required if aside from the original accused, other persons are charged under a new criminal complaint for the same offense or necessarily included therein; or if under a new criminal complaint, the original charge has been upgraded; or if under a new criminal complaint, the criminal liability of the accused is upgraded from that as an accessory to that as a principal. The accused must be accorded the right to submit counter-affidavits and evidence. (Saludaga vs. Sandiganbayan)
Venue in libel cases
Where the complainant is a private individual, the venue of libel cases is limited to only either of the 2 places, namely: (1) where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or (2) where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published. (Bonifacio vs. RTC of Manila)
When amendments to information may be allowed?
a. it does not deprive the accused of the right to invoke prescription b. it does not deprive the accused of the right to invoke prescription c. it does not affect or alter the nature of the offense originally charged
d. it does not involve a change in the basic theory of the prosecution so as to require the accused to undergo any material charge or modification in his defense
e. it does not expose the accused to a charge which would call for a higher penalty f. it does not cause surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment.
5.2.10. Venue of criminal actions Purpose of venue:
Not to compel the defendant to move to and appear in a different court from that of the territory where the crime was committed as it would cause him great inconvenience in looking for his witnesses and other evidence in another place.
GENERAL RULE:
Penal laws are territorial; hence Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over crimes committed outside the Philippines.
5.2.11. Intervention of offended party GENERAL RULE:
Offended party has the right to intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the criminal action where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Where from the nature of the crime and the law defining and punishing it, no civil liability arises in favor of the offended party;
2. Where the offended party has waived the right to civil indemnity; or 3. Where the offended party has already instituted an action.
5.3. Prosecution of civil action
The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender to deter him and others from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, reform or rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social order. The purpose, meanwhile, of the civil action is for the restitution, reparation or indemnification of the private offended party for the damage or injury he sustained by reason of the delictual or felonious act of the accused. (Buntiong vs. Balboa)
When private prosecutor can intervene in the trial
Under the Rules, where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense. Rule 111(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that, “[w]hen a criminal action is instituted, the civil action arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.”
Private respondent did not waive the civil action, nor did she reserve the right to institute it separately, nor institute the civil action for damages arising from the offense charged. Thus, we find that the private prosecutors can intervene in the trial of the criminal action. (Lee Pue Liong vs. Chua Pue Chin Lee, 703 SCRA 240)
5.3.1. Rule on implied institution of civil action with criminal action
Sec. 1, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides for the rule that
in case a criminal action is instituted, the civil liability resulting therefrom shall be deemed impliedly instituted in the said criminal action unless there is waiver or a reservation to institute a separate civil action before the institution of the said criminal case. It states that:
instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.”
5.3.2. When civil action may proceed independently ACQUITTAL IN A CRIMINAL CASE DOES NOT
BAR THE FILING OF THE CIVIL CASE WHERE:
1. The acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, if the civil case has been reserved.
2. The decision contains a declaration that the liability is not criminal but only civil in nature. 3. The civil liability is not derived from or based on the criminal act of which the accused is acquitted. (Sapiera v. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA 370)
An Independent Civil Action Cannot Give Rise to Prejudicial Question
It is well settled that a civil action based on defamation, fraud and physical injuries may be independently instituted pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil Code, and does not operate as a prejudicial question that will justify the suspension of a criminal case. This was precisely the Court's thrust in G.R. No. 148193, thus: Moreover, neither is there a prejudicial question of the civil and the criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other. Under Rule 111, Section 3 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, iun the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, the independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. xxx In the instant case, Civil Case No. 99-95381, for Damages and Attachment on account of alleged fraud committed by respondent and his mother in selling the disputed lot to PBI is an independent civil action under Article 33 of the Civil Code. As such, it will not operate as a prejudicial question that will justify the suspension of the criminal case at bar. (Rafael Jose Consing, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 161075, July 15, 2013)
5.3.3. When separate civil action is suspended
Sec. 2 of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides for the rule on the suspension of civil action after the commencement of the criminal action. It states that:
“Section 2. When separate civil action is suspended. — After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action.
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless,
before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, the same may upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying the criminal action. In case of consolidation, the evidence already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the offended party in the criminal case and of the parties to present additional evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil actions shall be tried and decided jointly.”
When suspension of the civil action allowed?
In Gandiongco vs. Penaranda [155 SCRA 725], it was held that suspension is allowable only if the civil action arises from the criminal act subject of the criminal case. The civil action must be intended to enforce civil liability arising from the offense charged.
5.3.4. Effect of death of the accused or convict on civil action
Finally, we observe that the Court of Appeals did not rule on the effect of the death of Eddie Malogsi during the pendency of this case. Considering that no final judgment had been rendered against him at the time of his death, whether or not he was guilty of the crime charged had become irrelevant because even assuming that he did incur criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto, these were totally extinguished by his death, following Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code and, by analogy, our ruling in People v. Bayotas. Therefore, the present criminal case should be dismissed with respect only to the deceased Eddie Malogsi. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARCELINO DADAO, et al., G.R. No. 201860, January 22, 2014)
5.3.5. Prejudicial question
Prejudicial Question – meaning; rationale
A prejudicial question is understood in law to be that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in the criminal case, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is determinative of the criminal case, but the jurisdiction to try and resolve it is lodged in another court or tribunal. It is based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but is so intimately connected with the crime that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid conflicting decisions. (San Miguel Properties, Inc. vs. SEC. Hernando B. Perez, et al., GR No. 166836, September 4, 2013)
Elements of Prejudicial Question
The essential elements of a prejudicial question are provided in Section 7, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, to wit: (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. (San Miguel Properties, Inc. vs. SEC. Hernando B. Perez, et al., GR No. 166836, September 4, 2013)
Action for specific performance is a prejudicial question in criminal case for violation of Sec. 25, PD No. 957
BF Homes’ posture that the administrative case for specific performance in the HLURB posed a prejudicial question that must first be determined before the criminal case for violation of Section 25 of the PD No. 957 could be resolved is correct.
Raising prejudicial question is hypothetical admission of sufficiency of the information
A party who raises a prejudicial question is deemed to have hypothetically admitted that all the essential elements of the crime have been adequately alleged in the information, considering that the Prosecution has not yet presented a single piece of evidence on the indictment or may not have rested its case. A challenge to the allegations in the information on the ground of prejudicial question is in effect a question on the merits of the criminal charge through a non-criminal suit. (San Miguel Properties, Inc. vs. SEC. Hernando B. Perez, et al., GR No. 166836, September 4, 2013)
Action for Rescission of Contract not a prejudicial question to violation of BP 22
To properly appreciate if there is a prejudicial question to warrant the suspension of the criminal actions, reference is made to the elements of the crimes charged. The violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 requires the concurrence of the following elements, namely: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. The issue in the criminal actions upon the violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is, therefore, whether or not Reyes issued the dishonoured checks knowing them to be without funds upon presentment. On the other hand, the issue in the civil action for rescission is whether or not the breach in the fulfillment of Advanced Foundation’s obligation warranted the rescission of the conditional sale. If, after trial on the merits in the civil action, Advanced Foundation would be found to have committed material breach as to warrant the rescission of the contract, such result would not necessarily mean that Reyes would be absolved of the criminal responsibility for issuing the dishonored checks because, as the aforementioned elements show, he already committed the violations upon the dishonor of the checks that he had issued at a time when the conditional sale was still fully binding upon the parties. His obligation to fund the checks or to make arrangements for them with the drawee bank should not be tied up to the future event of extinguishment of the obligation under the contract of sale through rescission. Indeed, under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the mere issuance of a worthless check was already the offense in itself. Under such circumstances, the criminal proceedings for
the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 could proceed despite the pendency of the civil action for rescission of the conditional sale. (Teodoro A. Reyes vs. Ettore Rossi, GR No. 159823, February 18, 2013)
5.3.6. Rule on filing fees in civil action deemed instituted with the criminal action
Payment of filing fees in case civil aspect is deemed impliedly instituted in the criminal action
The amendments were deliberated on and adopted by this Court after the Manchester doctrine has been enunciated. Yet, observe that the last two (2) paragraphs prescribe a rule different from that in Manchester, and in the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Under the 1985 Rule, the filing fees for the civil action impliedly instituted with the criminal had to be paid first to the Clerk of Court where the criminal action was commenced, without regard to whether the claim for such damages was set out in the information or not. Under the 1988 Rules however, it is only when the amount of damages, other than the actual, is alleged in the complaint or information that the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court for trial. In any other case — i.e., when the amount of damages other than actual is NOT alleged in the information — the filing fees for the civil action “to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages x x x shall merely constitute a first lien on the judgment except in an award for actual damages.’’ This Court’s plain intent — to make the Manchester doctrine, requiring payment of filing fees at the time of the commencement of an action applicable to impliedly instituted civil actions under Section 1, Rule 111 only when the amount of damages other than actual is alleged in the complaint or information — has thus been made manifest by the language of the amendatory provisions.
In any event, the Court now makes that intent plainer, and in the interest of clarity and certainty, categorically declares for the guidance of all concerned that when the civil action is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal in accordance with Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court — because the offended party has not waived the civil action, or reserved the right to institute it separately, or instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action — the rule is as follows: (1) when the amount of the damages, other than actual, is alleged in the complaint or information filed in court, then the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon filing thereof in court for trial; and (2) in any other case, however — i.e., when the amount of damages is not so alleged in the complaint or information filed in court the corresponding filing fees need not be paid and shall simply constitute a first lien on the judgment, except in an award for actual damages. (Honesto General vs. Hon. Graduacion Reyes Claravall, et al., 195 SCRA 623)
5.3.7 Extinguishment/Maintenance of civil liability despite acquittal
The civil action based on delict may be deemed extinguished if there is a finding on the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may
arise did not exist or where the accused did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him. (Lee Pue Liong vs. Chua Pue Chin Lee, 703 SCRA 240)
Civil liability in case of estafa
An accused, though acquitted of estafa, may still be held civilly liable where the preponderance of the established facts so warrants. (People of the Philippines vs. Gilbert Reyes Wagas, GR NO. 157943, September 4, 2013)
5.4. Preliminary investigation Nature of Preliminary Investigation
A preliminary investigation is essentially prefatory and inquisitorial. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except to determine whether a crime has been committed, and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty of that crime. A preliminary investigation is not the occasion for a full and exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence, which needs to be presented only to engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed, and that the accused is probably guilty thereof (Community Rural Bank vs. Judge Telavera)
Resolution on the motion for reinvestigation
We rule that the trial court in a criminal case which takes cognizance of an accused’s motion for review of the resolution of the investigating prosecutor or for reinvestigation and defers the arraignment until resolution of the said motion must act on the resolution reversing the investigating prosecutor’s finding or on a motion to dismiss based thereon only upon proof that such resolution is already final in that no appeal was taken therefrom to the Department of Justice. (Serag vs. CA)
Preliminary investigation not part of the trial
It is not part of the trial of the criminal action in court. Nor is its record part of the record of the case in the RTC. The dismissal of the case by the investigator will not constitute double jeopardy and will not bar the filing of another complaint for the same offense, but if re-filed, the accused is entitled to another preliminary investigation (U.S. v. Marfori, 35 Phil 666).
Reply is not mandatory in preliminary investigation; hence, no deprivation of due process if denied
There is no provision in Rule 112 of the Rules of Court that gives the Complainant or requires the prosecutor to observe the right to file a Reply to the accused’s counter-affidavit. To illustrate the non-mandatory nature of filing a Reply in preliminary investigations, Section 3 (d) of Rule 112 gives the prosecutor, in certain instances, the right to resolve the Complaint
even without a counter-affidavit, viz: “(d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, of if subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day period, the investigating officer shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented by the complainant.” On the other hand, petitioner was entitled to receive a copy of the Counter-affidavit filed by Aguillon. (P/Insp. Ariel S. Artillero v. Orlando C. Casimiro, etc., et al, G.R. No. 190569, April 25, 2012)
5.4.1. Nature of right of the Ombudsman to conduct preliminary investigation
The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers and employees, not only those within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but those within the jurisdiction of the regular courts as well. § 15 of RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) does not make any distinction. “Any illegal act or omission of any public official” is broad enough to embrace any crime committed by a public officer or employee. Such grant of primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan does not necessarily imply the exclusion from its jurisdiction of cases involving public officers and employees cognizable by the other courts (Uy v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 105965-70(2001)
5.4.2. Purposes of preliminary investigation Probable cause – meaning and determination
Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, exists when the facts are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. It does not mean “actual and positive cause” nor does it import absolute certainty. Rather, it is based merely on opinion and reasonable belief. Accordingly, probable cause does not require an inquiry whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction; it is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. (Iris Kristine Balois Alberto vs. CA, GR No. 182130, June 19, 2013)
Probable cause for purposes of filing a criminal information is defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. The prosecution evidence fails to establish probable cause against petitioner HPG officers. (P/C Insp. Lawrence B. Cajipe, P/C Insp. Joell. Mendoza, P/C Insp. Gerardo B. Balatucan, PO3 Jolito P. Mamanao, Jr., P03 Fernando Reys. Gapuz, Po2 Eduardo G. Blanco, Po2 Edwin Santos And Po1 Josil Rey I. Lucena, G.R. No. 203605, April 23, 2014)
Evidence required in finding of probable cause
A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence
establishing absolute certainty of guilt. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt. The term does not mean “actual and positive cause” nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. (Cruz v. Hon. Gonzales, et al, G.R. No. 173844, April 11, 2012)
The determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits.28 As implied by the words themselves, "probable cause" is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The prosecution need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial. (Century Chinese Medicine Co., et al. vs. People of the Philippines and Ling Na Lau, GR No. 188526, November 22, 2013)
5.4.3. Who may conduct determination of existence of probable cause
The determination of probable cause for the filing of an information in court is an executive function which pertains at the first instance to the public prosecutor and then to the Secretary of Justice. As a rule, in the absence of any grave abuse of discretion, courts are not empowered to substitute their own judgment for that of the executive branch; the public prosecutor alone determines the sufficiency of evidence that will establish probable cause in filing a criminal information and courts will not interfere with his findings unless grave abuse of discretion can be shown. In this case, the Supreme Court found no error in the public prosecutor’s determination that no probable cause existed to justify the filing of a criminal complaint. (Manila Electric Company, represented by Manolo C. Fernando v. Vicente Atilano, et al., G.R. No. 166758, June 27, 2012)
Authority of the Ombudsman to conduct preliminary investigation
The Ombudsman’s primary jurisdiction, albeit concurrent with the DOJ, to conduct preliminary investigation of crimes involving public officers, without regard to its commission in relation to office, had long been settled in Sen. Honasan II vs. The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of DOJ, and affirmed in subsequent cases: The Constitution, Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 and Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan Law, as amended, do not give the Ombudsman exclusive jurisdiction to investigate offenses committed by public officers and employees. The authority of the Ombudsman to investigate offenses involving public officers or employees is concurrent with other government investigating agencies such as provincial, city and state prosecutors, however, the Ombudsman, in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan may take over, at any stage, from any investigating agency of the government, the investigation of such cases. (Alfredo Romulo A. Busuego vs. Office of the Ombudsman, GR No. 196842, October 9, 2013)
5.4.4. Resolution of investigation prosecutor
Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, provides for the duties of the investigating officer in resolving the case under preliminary investigation in which he may either dismiss the case or file it in court together with the proper information. It states:
“Section 4. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review. — If the investigating prosecutor finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and information. He shall certify under oath in the information that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him; and that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Otherwise, he shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint.”
5.4.5. Review
Principle of non-interference in the review of the DOJ Secretary
In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in line with the principle of non-interference with the prerogative of the Secretary of Justice to review the resolutions of the public prosecutor in the determination of the existence of probable cause. The Secretary of Justice found sufficient evidence to indict petitioner. It was adequately established by DBP and found by the Secretary of Justice that the funds would not have been released pursuant to the subsidiary loan agreement if HSLBI had no sub-borrowers/Investment Enterprises to speak of. As it turned out, not only were the collaterals submitted inexistent, all the purported sub-borrowers/Investment Enterprises were also fictitious and inexistent. In fact, the signatures of the sub-borrowers and the supporting documents submitted to DBP by petitioner and her co-respondents were all forged. The findings of probable cause against petitioner was based on the document showing that petitioner’s opinion was instrumental in the deceit committed against DBP. (Cruz v. Hon. Gonzales, et al, G.R. No. 173844, April 11, 2012)
Non-interference of the court in finding probable cause by prosecutor; Exceptions; Remedy of certiorari under Rule 65
Courts of law are precluded from disturbing the findings of public prosecutors and the DOJ on the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the purpose of filing criminal information, unless such findings are tainted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The rationale behind the general rule rests on the principle of separation of powers, dictating that the determination of probable cause for the purpose of indicting a suspect is properly an executive function; while the exception hinges on the limiting principle of checks and balances, whereby the judiciary, through a special civil action of
certiorari, has been tasked by the present Constitution “to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.” (Iris Kristine Balois Alberto vs. CA, GR No. 182130, June 19, 2013)
The rule is that this Court will not interfere in the findings of the DOJ Secretary on the insufficiency of the evidence presented to establish probable cause unless it is shown that the questioned acts were done in a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment evidencing a clear case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion, thus “means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.” The party seeking the writ of certiorari must establish that the DOJ Secretary exercised his executive power in an arbitrary and despotic manner, by reason of passion or personal hostility, and the abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as would amount to an evasion or to a unilateral refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law. (Rosalinda Punzalan vs. Michael Plata, GR No. 160316, September 2, 2013)
We have consistently held in jurisprudence that the resolution of such a factual question is best left to the sound judgment of the trial court, and that, absent any misapprehension of facts or grave abuse of discretion, the findings of the trial court shall not be dismissed. (People of the Philippines vs. Marcelino Dadao, et al., GR No. 201860, January 22, 2014)
Trial Court not bound to adopt resolution of DOJ Secretary
The trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the DOJ Secretary since it is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits of the case. In other words, the dismissal of the case was based upon considerations other than the judge’s own personal individual conviction that there was no case against the accused. (SAMUEL LEE AND MAYBELLE LIM VS. KBC BANK)
Remedy to assail determination of DOJ Secretary pertaining to existence or non-existence of probable cause
Contrary to respondents’ claim, Rule 65 provides the proper remedy to assail the DOJ’s determination of the presence or absence of probable cause instead of a petition for review under Rule 43. By weighing the evidence submitted by the parties in a preliminary investigation and by making an independent assessment thereof, an investigating prosecutor is, to that extent, performing functions of a quasi-judicial nature in the conduct of a preliminary investigation. However, since he does not make a determination of the rights of any party in the proceeding, or pronounce the respondent’s guilt or innocence (thus limiting his action to the determination of probable cause to file an information in court), an investigating prosecutor’s function still lacks the element of adjudication essential to an appeal under Rule 43. Additionally, there is a “compelling reason” to conclude that the DOJ’s exclusion from the enumeration of quasi-judicial agencies in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court is deliberate. However,
the petitioner must allege and show that the DOJ acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting or denying the petition for review. (PCGG Chairman Magdangal B. Elma and Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Reiner Jacobi, Crispin T. Reyes, et al., G.R. No. 155996, June 27, 2012)
5.4.6. When warrant of arrest may issue
Section 5, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court gives the trial court three options upon the filing of the criminal information:
(1) dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly failed to establish probable cause;
(2) issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause; and
(3) order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five days from notice in case of doubt as to the existence of probable cause. (People vs. Hon. Dela Torre-Yadao, G.R.
5.4.7. Cases not requiring a preliminary investigation
Sec. 9, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides for a situation where preliminary investigation is not required. It states that:
“Section 9. Cases not requiring a preliminary investigation nor covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure. —
(a) If filed with the prosecutor. — If the complaint is filed directly with the prosecutor involving an offense punishable by imprisonment of less than four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, the procedure outlined in section 3(a) of this Rule shall be observed. The prosecutor shall act on the complaint based on the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the complainant within ten (10) days from its filing.
(b) If filed with the Municipal Trial Court. — If the complaint or information is filed with the Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court for an offense covered by this section, the procedure in section 3(a) of this Rule shall be observed. If within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint or information, the judge finds no probable cause after personally evaluating the evidence, or after personally examining in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers, he shall dismiss the same. He may, however, require the submission of additional evidence, within ten (10) days from notice, to determine further the existence of probable cause. If the judge still finds no probable cause despite the additional evidence, he shall, within ten (10) days from its submission or expiration of said period, dismiss the case. When he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused had already been arrested, and hold him for trial. However, if the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for placing the accused under custody, he may issue summons instead of a warrant of arrest.”
5.4.8. Remedies of accused if there was no preliminary investigation Right to Bail Pending Preliminary Investigation
A person lawfully arrested may post bail before the filing of the information or even after the filing without waiving his right to PI, provided that he asks for a PI by the proper officer within the period fixed in the said rule. (People v. Court of Appeals, May 29, 1995).
Remedies of the accused in case of denial of his right to preliminary investigation: Waiver a) The accused who is denied the mandatory preliminary investigation may refuse to enter a plea upon arraignment and to object to the continuation of further proceedings based on lack of preliminary investigation. If he pleads without objection, he cannot raise the issue on appeal. (People vs. Mabuyo, 63 SCRA 532; People vs. Lazo; 198 SCRA 274)
b) Although it is entirely possible that the investigating fiscal may erroneously exercise the discretion and annulment by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. (Hegerty vs. Court of Appeals, 409 SCRA 285 [2003])
Habeas Corpus not proper remedy in case of denial of preliminary investigation: Remedies available
a) A petition for habeas corpus is not a proper remedy if the accused was not accorded preliminary investigation which he did not waive. The remedy is a motion to quash the warrant of arrest and/or information or to ask for an investigation/re-investigation of the case. (Ilagan vs. Enrile 139 SCRA; Paredes vs. Sandiganbayan, 193 SCRA 464)
5.4.9. Inquest
A preliminary investigation is a proceeding distinct from an inquest. A “preliminary investigation” is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. “An inquest” is a summary inquiry conducted by a prosecutor for the purpose of determining whether the warrantless arrest of a person was based on probable cause.” (Imelda S. Enriquez vs. Olegario R. Sarmiento, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-06-2011, August 7, 2006)
5.5. Arrest
Arrest is defined under Sec. 1, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure as:
“Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense.”
5.5.1. Arrest, how made
Section 2, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides for the manner,
time and conduct of arresting a person who committed a crime. It states that:
“Section 2. Arrest; how made. — An arrest is made by an actual restraint of a person to be arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.
No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest. The person arrested shall not be subject to a greater restraint than is necessary for his detention.”
Arrest in Summary Procedure – when available
Whenever a criminal case falls under the Summary Procedure, the general rule is that the court shall not order the arrest of the accused unless he fails to appear whenever required. In this case, Judge Tormis claimed that the issuance of the warrant of arrest against the accused in the Librando case was justified because of the accused’s failure to appear during her arraignment despite notice. However, as clearly found by the OCA, Judge Tormis’ order requiring the accused to appear and submit her counter-affidavit and those of her witnesses within ten days from receipt of the order was not yet served upon the accused when she issued the warrant. In doing so, Judge Tormis issued the warrant of arrest in violation of the Rule on Summary Procedure that the accused should first be notified of the charges against him and given the opportunity to file his counter-affidavits and other countervailing evidence. (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Hon, Rosabella M. Tormis, AM No. MTJ-12-1817, March 12, 2013)
5.5.2. Arrest without warrant, when lawful
For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante delicto under paragraph (a) of Section 5 to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. (People vs. Laguio)
Warrantless arrest under the Rules on Environmental case
a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
b. When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
Warrantless search
The following searches and seizures are deemed permissible by jurisprudence: (1) search of moving vehicles (2) seizure in plain view (3) customs searches (4) waiver or consent searches (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry Search) and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrests, to wit: (1) arrests in flagrante delicto, (2) arrests effected in hot pursuit, and, (3) arrests of escaped prisoners.” (Valdez vs. People)
5.5.3. Method of arrest By officer without warrant
A person may be arrested lawfully even without a warrant of arrest, under any of the circumstances provided under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure:
“Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
b. When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.”
Circumstances in a valid warrantless arrest:
An arrest made during the commission of a crime does not require a warrant. Such warrantless arrest is considered reasonable and valid under Rule 113, section 5(a) of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. In the instant case, contrary to accused-appellants’ contention, there was indeed a valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto. Consider the circumstances immediately prior to and surrounding the arrest of accused-appellants: (1) the police officers received information from an operative about an ongoing shipment of
