John Wesley School of Law and Governance

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

S Y L L A B U S Part 2
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2018-2019

2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 110 to Rule 127)

RULE 110 – PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES

Jurisdiction determined by allegations in information
 Macasaet v. People, 452 SCRA 255

SEC.1 Institution of Criminal Actions

A. Where P.I. required – file complaint affidavit with proper officer for the conduct
of P.I.
- PI mandatory where penalty prescribed is at least 4 years, 2months, 1 day
RTC Jurisdiction: more than 6 years imprisonment
-Proper Officer: City/Provincial Prosecutor, Regional State Prosecutor, DOJ
Ombudsman
Exception: Warrantless arrest/Inquest, Sec. 6, Rule 112
B. All other offenses (not requiring P.I.)
i. file complaint or information directly with MTC or MCTC (Direct Filing)
ii. File complaint with office of the prosecutor, Sec. 1(b)
C. In Manila and chartered cities (RTC, MetTC) – file complaint with the City
Prosecutor, Sec. 1 (b)
(No direct filing in MetTC Manila, chartered cities) Exception: Otherwise provided in
chapter

Interruption of prescription of offense (Statute of Limitations)

- Sec. 1, last par: Cf. Sec. 3 (g), Rule 117 Quashal of complaint/information
where criminal action/liability extinguished.
- Article 90, RPC – Prescription of Crime
-Article 91, RPC – Computation of prescription of offenses: commences from
the day crime is discovered by offended party; “interrupted by the filing of
the complaint or information”, runs again when proceedings terminate
without conviction or acquittal, or unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to the accused.
Rule: Filing or complaint with prosecutor’s office will suspend running of
prescriptive period.
 People v. Olarte G.R. No. L-22465, Feb. 28, 1967
Exception: “unless otherwise provided in special laws
- Act No. 3326: for violations of special acts and municipal ordinances;
Prescription begins to run from the fay of commission of violation of law, or if
not known from discovery thereof and institution of judicial proceedings
  Zaldivia v. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277 (violation of ordinance): Interruption by
judicial proceedings, not administrative proceedings
 Sanrio Co. Ltd v. Lim, G.R. No. 168662, Feb. 19, 2008: However, filing with
DOJ Task Force on Intellectual Property Piracy interrupted prescription.
 SEC v. Interport Resources Corp. G.R. No. 135808 , Oct. 6, 2008: In violation
of Securities and Regulation Code filing of complaint with SEC interrupted
period of prescription
 Panaguiton Jr. v. DOJ, G.R. No. 167571, Nov 25, 2008: In violation of BP 22,
filing of complaint-affidavit before City Prosecutor interrupted prescriptive
period of offense

SEC 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions – Par 1.

A. All criminal actions prosecuted under the direction and control of a public
prosecutor (City Prosecutor, Provincial Prosecutor, Regional State
Prosecutor, State Prosecutor)
 Baviera v. Paglinawan, G.R. No. 168380, Feb 3, 2007
 Ledesma v. CA, 278 SCRA 656: Courts cannot interfere in fiscal’s discretion
and control of criminal prosecution Cf. Crespo v. Mogul, Supra
 Republic v. Sunga, L-38634, June 20, 1988: Dismissal of the criminal case,
even without objection from private complainant, should first be referred to
prosecuting fiscal.
 Pinote v. Ayco, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1944, Dec 13, 2005: Court transgressed the
rules where it allowed presentation of defense witness in absence of public
prosecutor, even if subject to cross examination
 Caes v. IAC, 179 SCRA 54: complaining witness had no personality to move
for dismissal or revival

B. A private prosecutor, under the following conditions:

1. Heavy work schedule or lack of public prosecutor
2. With authority in writing from Chief of Prosecution Office or Regional
State Prosecution
3. Subject to the approval of the court
4. Authority may be revoked/ withdrawn by public prosecutor
5. To represent private offended party for recovery of civil liability, Sec
16. Cf. Sec 1, Rule 111
 People v. Dacudao, 170 SCRA 489: private prosecutor has no authority to
appear for People before SC
C. In MTC/MCTC, offended party, any peace officer, public officer charged
with enforcement of law violated (OCA Circular No. 39-2002, restored this in
Sec. 5)
D. In appeal of criminal cases before CA, SC, the Office of Solicitor General is
appellate counsel for the people (Sec.35(1), 1987 Administrative Code)
 People v. Dacudao, Supra
 Only upon complaint by offended party in: (Private crimes, cannot be prosecuted
de oficio) Sec 5, Par 2, 3, 4 ,5
A. Adultery and Concubinage - by the offended spouse and must include all guilty
parties
No prosecution: if offended party consented to offense or pardoned offenders
B. Seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness:
1. By offended party or her parents, grandparents, guardian
No Prosecution: if offender expressly pardoned by offended party or
parents, grandparents of guardian
2. Minor offended party has right to initiate prosecution independently of
her parent, grandparents or guardian
Unless: minor is incompetent or incapable of initiating
3. By minor’s parents, grandparents, guardian (exclusive of all other
persons and exercised successively in that order), where minor offended
party fails to file complaint
4. State shall initiate criminal action, where:
a. Offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before she can file
complaint
b. Offended party has no known parents, grandparents or guardian
(Note: Under RA 8353, rape is no longer a crime against chastity and can now
be prosecuted de oficio)

C. Defamation (imputation of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction and acts

of lasciviousness) - by offended party
D. Libel, Slander, Defamation – by offended party (Art. 260, Par. 5, RPC)

SEC. 16. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action – where civil action for
recovery of liability is instituted in the criminal action, pursuant to Rule 111.

 Community Rural Bank of Talavera v. Talavera, 455 SRA 34: Private

complainant had right to be heard on motion derogatory to its interest in the
civil aspect of case, especially where there is conflict in position with public
prosecutor.
 Cabral v. Puno, G.R. No. L-41692, April 30, 1976: Offended party, thru private
prosecutor, has no legal personality to appeal or file MR, which will not
interrupt period for appeal.
 Mobilia Products Ic. V. Umezawa, 452 SCRA 736: Offended party may file MR
or appeal decision only insofar as the civil aspect thereof is concerned.

SEC. 2. The complaint or information – Form

SEC 3. Complaint defined. – sworn statement; subscribed by offended party, any
peace officer, public officer charged with enforcement of the law violated (OCA
Circular No. 39-2002)
SEC 4. Information defined – accusation in writing; subscribed by the prosecutor;
filed with the Court.
SEC 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information
SEC 13. Duplicity of the offense – Sec 14(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution: Sec 1(b),
Rule 115
Complaint or information may be quashed if “it does not conform substantially to
the prescribed form: Sec.3 (e) Rule 117
 People v. Mendoza, 175 SCRA 743 – Real nature of criminal charge
determined by actual recital of facts in complaint or information;
 People v. Aspili – real nature of crime charged not determined by title or
specification of the provision of law alleged to be violated
 Lacyayo v. People, G.R. No. 169425, March 4, 2008 – Information sufficient
and valid even where it did not mention “violation of Art 249 RPC” for
homicide.

SEC. 7 Name of accused

SEC. 8 Designation of the offense: Qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be
expressly and specifically alleged in complaint or information
 People v. Legaspi, G.R. 136164, April 20, 2001: Qualifying and aggravating
circumstances not alleged will not be considered by court, even if proved;
SEC. 9 Cause of Accusation – where information fails to allege qualifying or
aggravating circumstances, same cannot be considered in imposition of penalty
 People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 132923, June 6, 2002: In rape, no allegation of
“use of deadly weapon”
 Buebos v. People, G.R. No. 163938, March 28, 2008: In arson, no allegation
that house was “inhabited”
 People v. Ubina, G.R. No. 176349, July 10, 2007: In rape no allegation of
specific relationship, only “uncle”
SEC.10 Place of commission of the offense
 Lopez v. The City Judge
 People v. Taroy, 657 SCRA 349: Venue in criminal cases can be neither be
waived nor subjected to stipulation
Where place of commission is essential element of the offense, it must be
alleged with particularity (e.g. Robbery in an inhabited house)
SEC .11 Date of commission of the offense – precise date of offense not necessary to
be stated in complaint or information.
Exception: When date is a material ingredient of offense (e.g. infanticide, which
requires victim to be less than three days old; physical injuries)
SEC. 12. Name of the offended party- Juridical person as offended party – sufficient
ot state its name
 US v. Kepner, 1 Phil 519: Error in designation of offended party is not
reversible error, where offense can still be ascertained despite such error, eg.
Estafa
 US v. Lahoylahoy, 28 Phil 330: In robbery with homicide, the identity of the
offended party is an essential element of the offense and error is fatal: (Also
in Libel, People v. Uba, 99 Phil 134)
SEC. 14. Amendment or Substitution
 Amendment as matter of right (without leave of court) at any time
before accused enters his plea
Amendment before plea, which downgrades offense or excludes any accused:
a) Only upon motion by the prosecutor
b) With notice to offended party
c) With leave of court
After plea and during trial
a) Formal amendments only (eg. Real name of accused)
b) With leave of court
c) Must not cause prejudice to the rights of the accused
 Matalam v. Sandiganbayan, 455 SCRA 736: After arraignment, substantial
amendment may be allowed if beneficial to the accused.
SEC 15. Place where action is to be instituted
A. General Rule: Court of municipality or territory where offense was
committee or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.
Not applicable to:
a) Libel
b) Felonies stated in Art 2, RPC (Extraterritorial crimes)
c) Piracy, triable anywhere
d) Continuing offenses (e.g. kidnapping or illegal detention, abduction
with rape)
e) Cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan
f) Change of venue ordered by SC (Sec 5(4), Art VIII, 1987 Constitution
B. Offense committed in train, aircraft, other public/private vehicle in the
course of its trip – “passed during its trip, including place of departure and
arrival”
C. Offense committed on board a vessel in the course of its voyage – “first
port of entry” or “where vessel passed during the voyage”, subject to
principles of international law
D. Extraterritorial crimes (Art 2, RPC) – where first filed

Rule 111 – PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION

Art 100, RPC: Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable

SEC. 1 Institution of criminal and civil actions

General Rule: Civil action deemed instituted with criminal (civil liability
arising from the offense charged: damages ex delicto)
Exceptions: (a) waiver (b) reservation (c) prior institution
(also dependent civil actions)
Exception to exception: Violation of BP 22, no reservation allowed
 Lo Bun Tiong v. Balboa, G.R. No. 158177: prior filing of civil action not
allowed
Reservation to file separate civil action:
-before prosecution presents evidence
separate civil action filed before filing of criminal
 Statute of Limitations (prescription) on civil liability is deemed interrupted
during pendency of criminal
Rule on Filing fees:
a) Actual damages – no filing fee
b) Moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages - when amount
specified in information/complaint offended party pays filing fees
upon filing in court
c) Maral etc. - when not specified and offended party seeks to enforce,
no filing fees, but first lien on the judgment award
Litigation of counterclaim in separate civil action by accused Art. 2177, Civil
Code, quasi-delict
 Casupanan v. Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, Aug. 26, 2002: Since accused is
prohibited from filing counterclaim, prescriptive period can set in, accused is
presumed innocent, he can litigate in separate civil action, under Art. 2177,
Civil Code
Consolidation of civil action with criminal – separate civil action has not yet
commenced; Does not apply to independent civil actions (Arts 32, 33, 34 and
2176 Civil Code)
General Rules of venue in civil actions apply
Exception: Libel

SEC.2 When separate civil action is suspended

Damages ex delicto only (arising from offense)
Does not apply to independent civil actions ((Arts 32, 33, 34 and 2176 Civil Code)
Extinction of penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability -
where acquittal was based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence
is required
 Alferez v. People, 641 SCRA 116
 Lim v. Mindanao Wines & Liquor Galleria, G.R. 17551, July 4, 2012
However, a final judgment in criminal action finding that the act of omission from
which civil liability may arise did not exist shall deem extinguished the civil action.

SEC. 3. When civil action may proceed independently –

Art 31, Civil Code: Obligation not arising from felony
Independent civil actions (Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176, Civil Code) – civil
liability arises from violation of specific provisions of the Civil Code.
Art 32: Violation of rights and liberties
Art 33: Defamation, fraud, physical injuries
Art 34 Refusal or failure to render aid or protection by police
Art 2176: Quasi Delict/culpa aquiliana – damage caused by act or omission,
there being fault or negligence
Not deemed instituted
No reservation required
Not suspended, culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict)
Limitation: Offended party cannot recover twice (Art. 2177, Civil Code; Sec 3)
SEC. 4. Effect of death (of accused) on civil actions
a) Before arraignment: criminal case dismissed, without prejudice to civil action
by offended party against estate
b) After arraignment: civil liability arising from delict is extinguished
c) Independent Civil Action: may be continued against the estate or legal
representative of accused after proper substitution; order of substitution
within 30 days from notice
Final Judgment in favor of offended party shall be enforced under Rules 86
(Claims against estate) and 87 (Actions by and against executors and
administrators)

SEC. 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar – in independent civil action, result of the
criminal action is entirely irrelevant
 Heirs of Late Teodoro Guaring v. CA, Philippine Rabbit, 269 SCRA 283

Doctrine of Prejudicial Question

Definition: “One based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so
intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the
accused”
Rationale: to avoid conflicting decisions
 Te v. CA, G.R. No. 126746, Nov. 29, 2000
SEC. 7. Elements of prejudicial question
a) Previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately
related to the issue raised in subsequent criminal action
b) Resolution of such issue determines wheher or not the criminal action may
proceed

SEC. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question – petition for suspension of

criminal action, where file:
a) During P.I.: Office of prosecutor or court conducting the P.I.
b) If filed in court for trial: court hearing criminal action at any time before the
prosecution rests
Art 40, Family Code: Absolute nullity of a previous marriage may not be invoked
for purposes of remarriage unless there is a final judgment declaring such
previous marriage void
 Ladicho v. Relova, 22 SCRA 731: Parties to a marriage should not be
permitted to judge for themselves its nullity
 Bletran v. People, G.R. No. 137567, june 20, 2000: Action for declaration of
nullity of marriage is not a prejudicial question to a concubinage case
 Zapantav. Montesa, G.R. No, L-14534, Feb 28, 1962: In case for bigamy filed
by second wife against husband, action for annulment of second marriage on
ground that he was forced to contract said marriage was prejudicial question
 Ras v. Rasul, G.R. No. 50441, Sept 18. 1980: in estafa, civil action for
annulment of sale filed by private complainant against accused is prejudicial
 where the accused raised defense that his signature on the deed of sale to
private complainant was falsified
Doctrine does not apply where no civil, but only an administrative case is
involved.
 Flordelis v. Castillo, 58 SCRA 301
 La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. v. Hon. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-63796-97, May 2,
1984