Criminal Procedure

Basic Concepts:

1. Definition and Nature

>    Criminal procedure is  the  method  prescribed  by  law  for  the  apprehension and
prosecution of persons accused of any criminal offense and for their punishment, in case of
conviction
>     As  applied  to  criminal  law,  procedural  law  provides  or  regulates the  steps  by  which 
one  who  has  committed  a  crime  is  to  be punished

2. Interpretation of the rules

Institution of criminal actions. — Criminal actions shall be instituted as follows:

(a) For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required pursuant to section 1 of Rule 112,
by filing the complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite
preliminary investigation.

(b) For all other offenses, by filing the complaint or information directly with the Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, or the complaint with the office of the prosecutor. In
Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor
unless otherwise provided in their charters.

3. Suspension of the rules

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.

During the pendency of the criminal action, the running of the period of prescription of the civil
action which cannot be instituted separately or whose proceeding has been suspended shall be
tolled. (n)
 Section 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. — 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. (6a)

Section 11. Suspension of arraignment. — Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment
shall be suspended in the following cases:

(a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effective
renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto.
In such case, the court shall order his mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for
such purpose;

(b) There exists a prejudicial question; and

(c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the Department
of Justice, or the Office of the President; provided, that the period of suspension shall not
exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office. (12a)

4. Systems of criminal procedure

 THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (As amended, December 1, 2000)
 A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 5, RULE 110 OF THE
REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE April 10, 2002

 The sources of procedural criminal law were the constitution, the revised penal code of
1930, the New Rules of Court of 1964, special laws, and certain presidential orders and
letters of instruction. These governed the pleading, practice, and procedure of all courts
as well as admission to the practice of law. All had the force and effect of law.

 The rights of the accused under Philippine law are guaranteed under Article 3 of the
1987 constitution and include the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the
right to enjoy due process under the law, and the right to a speedy, public trial. Those
accused must be informed of the charges against them and must be given access to
competent, independent counsel, and the opportunity to post bail, except in instances
where there is strong evidence that the crime could result in the maximum punishment
of life imprisonment. Habeas corpus protection is extended to all except in cases of
invasion or rebellion. During a trial, the accused are entitled to be present at every
proceeding, to compel witnesses, to testify and cross-examine them and to testify or be
exempt as a witness. Finally, all are guaranteed freedom from double jeopardy and, if
convicted, the right to appeal.

 Criminal action can be initiated either by a complaint--a sworn statement by the

offended party, a witness, or a police officer--or by "information." Information consists
of a written accusation filed with the court by a prosecutor, known as a fiscal at the
provincial levels of government and below. No information can be filed unless
 investigation by a judge, fiscal, or state prosecutor establishes a prima facie case.
Warrant for arrest is issued by a judge. Warrantless arrest by a police officer can be
made legally only under extraordinary circumstances. Aquino immediately discontinued
Marcos-era practices of presidentially ordered searches and arrests without judicial
process and prolonged "preventative detention actions."

 Trial procedure consists of arraignment, trial, and the court's judgment and sentencing.
The accused must be arraigned in the court where the complaint or information is filed.
A defendant must be present to plead to the charge, except in certain minor cases
where a lawyer can appear for him or her. All offenses are bailable, save the most
serious cases when strong evidence of guilt exists. If a defendant has no lawyer, the
court is required to supply one. Prosecution is carried out by the state prosecutor or
provincial fiscal, who exercises broad discretion in screening cases and affixing charges.
No jury is employed; the judge determines all questions of law and fact and passes
sentence. A written sentence must be read to the court. Afterward, either party may
appeal.

5. Guilt beyond reasonable doubt

a. Cases
i. People vs Engracio Valeriano, et.al. (23 September 1993)
CRIMINAL LAW; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; WHEN ALLEGED AS GENERIC
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES, COURT CANNOT ELEVATE THE SAME AS
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES. — The trial court, however, erred in considering
nighttime, use of fire and abuse of superior strength as "attendant qualifying
aggravating circumstances." The information in Criminal Case No. 4585 alleged
only treachery and evident premeditation as qualifying aggravating
circumstances. Nighttime, band, use of fire, craft, fraud or disguise and ignominy
were alleged as generic aggravating circumstances only. The trial court cannot
elevate the status of any of the generic aggravating circumstances and consider
them as qualifying circumstances for the crime of murder. Moreover, nighttime
is not a qualifying circumstance under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; TRIAL IN ABSENTIA; WHEN AVAILABLE.

— The trial court further erred in holding that no penalty could be imposed on
accused Engracio Valeriano in Criminal Case No. 4584 because he "is nowhere to
be found, hence, not brought to the bar of justice, he being a fugitive or at
large." The court ignored the fact that Engracio jumped bail after he had been
arraigned, just before the retaking of evidence commenced. Paragraph (2),
Section 14, Article III of the Constitution permits trial in absentia after the
accused has been arraigned provided he has been duly notified of the trial and
his failure to appear thereat is unjustified. One who jumps bail can never offer a
justifiable reason for his non-appearance during the trial. Accordingly, after the
trial in absentia, the court can render judgment in the case and promulgation
may be made by simply recording the judgment in the criminal docket with a
copy thereof served upon his counsel, provided that the notice requiring him to
 be present at the promulgation is served through his bondsmen or warden and
counsel.

"The elements of murder in this case, Criminal Case No. 4585 for the killing of
Rizalina Apatan-Silvano having been proved by the prosecution beyond doubt,
the accused JUANITO RISMUNDO, MACARIO ACABAL and ABUNDIO NAHID,
considering the attendant qualifying aggravating circumstances of nighttime,
use of fire by burning the house of victim Rizalina Apatan-Silvano in order to
forcibly drive her out of her house and hack her to death, the abuse of superior
strength, the penalty impossable [sic] here will be in its maximum degree, that
is reclusion perpetua taking into account Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code,
the penalty now for murder is Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua, and
for all the accused to indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of Thirty
Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos since this case occurred [sic] in 1980. For the
wounding of the victim Wilson A. Silvano, this Court believes that simple
frustrated homicide only is committed by the accused Engracio Valeriano only.
But since the person who actually inflicted the injuries of victim Wilson
Silvano, Accused Engracio Valeriano only is nowhere to be found, hence, not
brought to the bar of justice, he being a fugitive or at large, no penalty could be
imposed on him since he is beyond the jurisdiction of this court to reach. All the
other two (2) accused, JUANITO RISMUNDO and ABUNDIO NAHID are hereby
ordered and declared absolved from any criminal responsibility from frustrated
homicide.

THE HONORABLE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION

WITNESSES (ANTONIO SILVANO, WILSON SILVANO, AND VISITACION SILVANO),
HUSBAND AND CHILDREN, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE DECEASED RIZALINA APATAN-
SILVANO, HAVE POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED THE ACCUSED AS THE CULPRITS WHEN
ONLY ANTONIO SILVANO TESTIFIED AS TO WHO ALLEGEDLY KILLED HIS WIFE,
AND WHILE OTHER TWO (2) WITNESSES ONLY TESTIFIED AS TO THE WOUNDING
OF WILSON SILVANO BY ENGRACIO VALERIANO AND ALL THESE WITNESSES
WERE VERY VOCAL IN THEIR SILENCE AS TO THE IDENTITIES OF THE ACCUSED
FOR A LONG TIME.

ii. People vs Roberto Pido (2 August 1991)

The undersigned complainant accuses ROBERTO R. PIDO of the crime of rape,

committed as follows:

That on or about the 15th day of April 1980, in the City of Manila, Philippines,
the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by
means of force and intimidation, to wit: by holding the neck of the complainant
simultaneously poking a deadly bladed instrument against her, threatening to
kill her should she shout for help and ordering her to remove her entire
clothings, have sexual intercourse with the undersigned complainant, against
her will.
 On 3 January 1990, the trial court promulgated its decision, 21 dated 5 December
1989, convicting the accused of the crime of rape and sentencing him as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered pronouncing accused ROBERTO R. PIDO

guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of RAPE, and
sentencing him to  reclusion perpetua.

The accused is ordered to indemnify the offended party, Teresita Patinio, of the
sum of P25,000.00 as moral damages. However, payment of the required docket
and other legal fees shall constitute a lien in the execution of this award.

With costs against the accused.

WHEREFORE, for failure of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused
for the crime of rape as charged beyond reasonable doubt, the decision of the
trial court in Criminal Case No. 61752 is hereby REVERSED and another is hereby
entered ACQUITTING the accused Roberto R. Pido, with costs  de officio.

6. Jurisdiction and venue

a. Nature of venue in criminal cases

 In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional in that a court cannot exercise

jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed outside its limited
territory.28 As such, when it becomes apparent that the crime was committed
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, the case must be dismissed for
want of jurisdiction.29 In Navaja v. De Castro,30 the Court held:

 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 took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial
jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to
take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the
accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense
allegedly committed outside of that limited territory. Furthermore, 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.31 (Emphases and underscoring
supplied)

 In this relation, Sections 10 and 15 (a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, also state that:

 Section 10. Place of commission of the offense.- The complaint or information is

sufficient if it can be understood from its allegations that the offense was
committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at some place within
 the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place where it was committed
constitutes an essential element of the offense charged or is necessary for its
identification.

b. Acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the accused

The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a court acquires jurisdiction over the
person of the plaintiff by the filing of his complaint. (Manila Railroad Co. vs.
Attorney General, 20 Phil. 523). In King Mau Wu vs. Sycip, 50 O.G. page 5366,
April 23, 1954 it was contended that as the plaintiff therein has never been a
resident of the Philippines, the courts of this country have not acquired
jurisdiction to take cognizance of his action based on a contract which was
executed in the State of New York, U.S.A. The Supreme Court held that a non-
resident may sue a resident in the courts of his country for the collection of
money arising from a contract notwithstanding the fact that said contract was
executed outside the country. In Western Equipment and Supply Co. vs. Reyes, 51
Phil. 116, it was held that a foreign corporation which has never done any
business in the Philippines and which is unlicensed and unregistered to do
business here, may sue in the courts of the Philippines for the purpose of
restraining certain residents and inhabitants of the Philippines from organizing a
corporation in this country bearing the same name as that of the plaintiff
because the action involves the use of a tradename and hence, it is one in rem.

The instant case is however different because it is a personal action based on an

act defined as a crime under Philippine Law. It is therefore of first impression.
Defendants contend that if a counterclaim is filed against the plaintiff for
damages, it cannot be enforced because the Court has not acquired jurisdiction
over his person as he has never been and is not now present in this country. It
may be stated in addition, that in such a case, if a judgment is rendered against
him by this Court since he has no property in the Philippines, the decision cannot
be enforced because the decision of a court of this country is not enforceable
outside of Philippine jurisdiction.

c. Cases
i. UBP and Desi Tomas vs People (28 February 2012)
Facts:
Tomas was charged in court for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC) for making a false narration in a Certificate against Forum Shopping.
The accusation stemmed from petitioner Union Bank’s two (2) complaints for
sum of money with prayer for a writ of replevin. The first complaint filed before
the RTC of Pasay. The second complaint was filed to the MeTC, Pasay City. Both
complaints showed that Tomas executed and signed the Certification against
Forum Shopping. Accordingly, she was charged of deliberately violating Article
183 of the RPC by falsely declaring under oath in the Certificate against Forum
Shopping in the second complaint that she did not commence any other action
 or proceeding involving the same issue in another tribunal or agency. Tomas
filed a Motion to Quash, she argued that the venue was improperly laid since it
is the Pasay City court (where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was
submitted and used) and not the MeTC-Makati City (where the Certificate
against Forum Shopping was subscribed) that has jurisdiction over the perjury
case.

Issue:
Whether the criminal case against the Petitioner was instituted in the proper
venue?

Held:
Yes, Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in
the court or municipality or territory where the offense was committed or
where any of its essential ingredients occurred. The above provision should be
read in light of Section 10, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure which states: Place of commission of the offense. – The complaint or
information is sufficient if it can be understood from its allegations that the
offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at some
place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place where it
was committed constitutes an essential element of the offense charged or is
necessary for its identification.Both provisions categorically place the venue and
jurisdiction over criminal cases not only in the court where the offense was
committed, but also where any of its essential ingredients took place. In other
words, the venue of action and of jurisdiction are deemed sufficiently alleged
where the Information states that the offense was committed or some of its
essential ingredients occurred at a place within the territorial jurisdiction of the
court.

ii. Fiscal Celso Giminez, et.al. vs Hon. Ramon Nazareno, et.al. (15 April 1998)
SEC. 19. In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall be presumed innocent
until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him,
to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face,
and to have compulsory process to the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment trial may
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been
duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified. (Emphasis supplied.) *

Pursuant to the above-written provision, the lower court proceeded with the
trial of the case but nevertheless gave the private respondent the opportunity
to take the witness stand the moment he shows up in court. 1
 After due trial, or on November 6,1973, the lower court rendered a decision
dismissing the case against the five accused while holding in abeyance the
proceedings against the private respondent. The dispositive portion is as
follows:

WHEREFORE, insofar as the accused Samson Suan Alex Potot, Rogelio Mula
Fernando Cargando and Rogelio Baguio are concerned, this case is hereby
dismissed. The City Warden of Lapu-Lapu City is hereby ordered to release these
accused if they are no longer serving sentence of conviction involving other
crimes.

The proceedings in this case against the accused Teodoro de la Vega, Jr. who has
escaped on August 30,1973 shall remain pending, without prejudice on the part
of the said accused to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to
present his defense whenever the court acquires back the jurisdiction over his
person. 2

7. Prosecution of Offenses (Rule 110)

a. Prescription of offences
i. Case: People vs Ma. Theresa Pangilinan (13 June 2021)
Respondent contends that the arguments advanced by petitioner are anchored
on erroneous premises. She claims that the cases relied upon by petitioner
involved felonies punishable under the Revised Penal Code and are therefore
covered by Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) [14] and Section 1, Rule 110
of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. [15] Respondent pointed out that the
crime imputed against her is for violation of BP Blg. 22, which is indisputably a
special law and as such, is governed by Act No. 3326, as amended.  She submits
that a distinction should thus be made between offenses covered by municipal
ordinances or special laws, as in this case, and offenses covered by the RPC.

With regard to the main issue of the petition, we find that the CA
reversively erred in ruling that the offense committed by
respondent had already prescribed. Indeed, Act No. 3326 entitled
“An Act to Establish Prescription for Violations of Special Acts and
Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall
Begin,” as amended, is the law applicable to BP Blg. 22 cases.
Appositely, the law reads:

SECTION 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless

otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the
following rules: (a) xxx; (b) after four years for those punished by
imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years;
(c) xxx.

SECTION 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the

commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not
known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of
judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment.

The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are

instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if
the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting
jeopardy.

Article 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. — The period of

prescription shall commence  to run from the day on which the
crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their
agents, and shall be interrupted by the  filing of the complaint or
information, and shall commence to run again when such
proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or
acquitted, or  are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to him.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the

assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch
218, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and Criminal Cases Nos. 89152
and 89153 against petitioner Ma. Theresa Pangilinan are hereby
ordered DISMISSED.[3]

On 16 September 1997, Virginia C. Malolos (private complainant)

filed an affidavit-complaint for estafa and violation of Batas
Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22 against Ma. Theresa Pangilinan
(respondent) with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City.
The complaint alleges that respondent issued nine (9) checks with
an aggregate amount of Nine Million Six Hundred Fifty-Eight
Thousand Five Hundred Ninety-Two Pesos (P9,658,592.00) in favor
of private complainant which were dishonored upon presentment
for payment.

Consequently, two counts for violation of BP Blg. 22, both dated 18

November 1999, were filed against respondent Ma.Theresa
Pangilinan on 3 February 2000 before the Office of the Clerk of
Court, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Quezon City. These cases
were raffled to MeTC, Branch 31on 7 June 2000.