conviction in an unprejudiced mind: (Sec.

2 R 133, Rules
of Court)
TRIAL PROPER
The Court in Mupas vs. People, GR No. 172834, Feb. 6,
2008, describes reasonable doubt as " that doubt
Rule 115 RIGHTS OF ACCUSED engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and
an inability after such investigation to let the mind rest
Section 1 – Rights of accused at the trial – In all criminal easy upon the certainty of guilt."
prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the
following rights; Presumption continues even on appeal from a
judgment of conviction-
a.) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved beyond reasonable doubt. The fact of respondent's conviction by the RTC does not
necessarily warrant the suspension. Since the convictions
xxxxx are currently on appeal before the CA, the same have
not yet attained finality. As such, the respondent still
enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence...Until
Why is it that in criminal cases an accused enjoys this the accused's guilt is shown (beyond reasonable doubt),
presumption? Why does the law give the accused the the presumption continues and until a promulgation of
presumption of innocence? final conviction is made, this constitutional mandate
prevails (Re: Conviction of Judge Angeles, AM No. 06-9-
The SC already answered that the reason is to make the 545-RTC, Jan. 31, 2008).
fight at least equal. In criminal cases, all the resources
are directed against the accused. It is the accused versus Regularity in the performance of official duties and
the People of the Philippines – so you are fighting the presumption of innocence-
government, and the government has all the resources "x x x While the seized drugs may be admitted in
at its command – the PNP, NBI, etc. In the case of evidence, it does not necessarily follow that the same
PEOPLE vs. SEQUERRA October 12, 1987 should be given evidentiary weight if the procedures
provided by RA No. 9165 were no. The admissibility of
HELD: the seized dangerous drugs in evidence should not be
equated with its probative value in proving the corpus
“Confronted by the full panoply of state authority, the delicti. The admissibility of evidence depends on its
accused is accorded the presumption of innocence to relevance and competence while the weight of evidence
lighten and even reverse the heavy odds against him. pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency
Mere accusation is not enough to convict him, and to convince and persuade.
neither is the weakness of his defense. The evidence for
the prosecution must be strong per se, strong enough to Finally, ruled the Court, the presumption of regularity in
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable the performance of official duty relied upon by the lower
doubt. Otherwise, he is entitled to be freed.” courts cannot by itself overcome the presumption of
innocence nor constitute proof of guilt beyond
“But as solicitous as the Bill of Rights is of the accused, reasonable doubt. As a rule, the testimony of public
the presumption of innocence is not an automatic or officers who apprehended the accused is accorded full
blanket exoneration. It is at best only an initial faith and credit because of the presumption that they
protection. If the prosecution succeeds in refuting the have performed their duties regularly. However, when the
presumption, it then becomes the outlook of the accused performance of their duties is tained with irregularities
to adduce evidence that will at least raise that inkling of such presumption is effectively destroyed (People vs.
doubt that he is guilty. Once the armor of the Frondoso, GR No. 177164, June 30, 2009).
presumption is pierced, so to speak, it is for the accused
to take the offense and ward off the attack.”
The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such 1. Elements of due process
presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of
evidence required. In so doing, the prosecution must rest Aguirre v. People 363 SCRA 672 August 23, 2001
on the strength of its own evidence and must not rely on Question:
the weakness of the defense. And if the prosecution fails
to meet its burden of proof, the defense may logically What are the elements of due process in judicial
not even present evidence on its own behalf. In such proceedings?
cases the presumption prevails amd the accused should
necessarily be acquitted (People vs. Angus GR No. Answer:
178778, Aug. 3, 2010)So the accused cannot rely forever The essential requirements of due process are:
in the presumption of innocence. This is a disputable
presumption. The prosecution can destroy that 1. There must be a court or tribunal
presumption by presenting evidence that you are guilty clothed with judicial authority to hear
and once the prosecution has presented that you cannot and determine the matter before it;
anymore rely on this presumption. It is now your duty to
present evidence that you are innocent. 2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired
over the person of the defendant or
property which is the subject of the
proceeding;
Paragraph [a] emphasizes the degree of proof in criminal
cases. 3. The defendant must be given an
opportunity to be heard; and
"x x x Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean
such degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, 2. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful
produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is hearing.
required, or that degree of proof which produces
1. Prima facie presumption of guilt
Hizon v. CA 265 SCRA 517 December 13, 1996

1
Facts: right to be informed of the charges against him has not
Hizon challenges the provision of P.D. 704, the Fisheries been violated because where an accused is charged with
Decree, which provides that the discovery of explosives a specific crime, he is duly informed not only of such
or obnoxious substance in any fishing boat shall specific crime, but also of lesser crimes or offenses
constitute a presumption that the owner or operator was included therein (People vs. Noque, GR No. 175319, Jan.
fishing with the use of explosives or poisonous 15, 2010).
substance, as a violation of the constitutional
Waiver
presumption of innocence.
When the counsel of the accused actively participated in
Issue:
the proceedings this indicates that the accused was fully
Is there a violation of the right to be presumed innocent? aware of the charges against him, otherwise, his counsel
would have objected and informed the court of the
Held: blunder (People vs. Pangilinan, 518 SCRA 318)
No. The legislature has the power to provide that proof of But the failure to file a motion to quash the information
certain facts can constitute a prima facie evidence of guilt cannot amount to a waiver of the constitutional right to
provided there is a rational connection between the fact be informed (Burgos vs. Sandiganbayan 413 SCRA 385).
proved and the fact presumed. To avoid any
constitutional infirmity, the inference of one from proof
of the other must not be arbitrary and unreasonable.
1. Relationship
P.D. 704 creates a presumption of guilt based on facts
a. “Half-sister”
proved and hence is not constitutionally impermissible.
However, the statutory presumption can only be prima People v. Sajolga 387 SCRA 519 August 21, 2002
facie. It cannot, under the guise of regulating the
presentation of evidence, operate to preclude accused Issue:
from presenting his defense to rebut the fact presumed. Is the allegation in the information that the victim is a
“half-sister” of the accused sufficient to qualify a charge
of rape?
2. The equipoise rule
Held:
Dado v. People 392 SCRA 46 November 18, 2002
No. It must be alleged in the information that he is a
Issue: relative by consanguinity or affinity, as the case may be,
within the third civil degree. Not only should “relationship
When the evidence presented by the prosecution and the
by consanguinity or affinity” be alleged, it is also
accused are of equal weight, which side shall prevail?
necessary to specify that such relationship is “within the
Held: third civil degree.” Mere allegation and the stipulation
that accused is the brother of the victim because they
Under the equipoise rule, where the evidence on an issue have a common mother are not enough to satisfy the
of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the special qualifying circumstance of relationship.
evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of
proof loses.
The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory b. “Step-daughter”
facts and circumstances are capable of two or more
People v. Blancaflor 421 SCRA 354 January 29,
explanations, one of which is consistent with the
2004
innocence of the accused and the other consistent with
his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of Facts:
moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a
conviction. Briefly stated, the needed quantum of proof Accused was charged with the rape of his own 14-year
to convict the accused of the crime charged is lacking. old step-daughter. Under R.A. 7659, where the victim is
less than 18 years of age and the accused is the
b.) To be informed of the nature and cause of the common- laws-spouse of the parent of the victim, the
accusation against him. imposable penalty is death.
Minor variance between the information and the Issue:
evidence-
Considering that the information merely alleged that the
Does conviction for the sale and possession of victim is the “step-daughter” of accused, without
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) violate the specifying her age or the fact that accused was the
accused's constitutional right to be informed if the fact common-law spouse of the victim’s mother, can accused
that was established and proven during the trial was the be sentenced to death?
sale and possession of ephedrine, a regulated drug?
Held:
"x x x At a glance, a minor variance between the
information and the evidence does not alter the nature of No. The information did not allege the qualifying
the offense, nor does it determine or qualify the crime or circumstance of minority of complainant and the fact that
penalty, so that even if a discrepancy exists, this cannot accused is the common-law spouse of the victim’s
be pleaded as a ground for acquittal. In other words, his mother, not having been legally married. The correct
allegation should have been that accused is the common-
law spouse of the parent of the victim, as contemplated
by law, so that accused may be fully apprised of the
exact charge against him. The minority of the victim and
the offender’s relationship to the victim, which constitute
only one special qualifying circumstance, must be alleged
in the information and proved with certainty. For failure circumstance that the victim is under 18 years of age and that the
to properly allege in the information the qualifying offender is a common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim, the

2
special qualifying circumstance of minority and view of the victim’s mental condition. There was no
relationship could not be taken into consideration and objection from the defense.
accused could only be found guilty of simple rape which
is punishable by reclusion perpetua.
3. Mode or manner of commission
a. As to mode of commission
People v. Atienza 326 SCRA 802 February 29,
2000
2. Age/mental retardation
Question:
a. “Minor”
May an accused charged in the information with rape
People v. Gaudia 423 SCRA 520 February 23, committed through force and intimidation as defined in
2004 Art. 335 [1] of the Revised Penal Code, be convicted of
rape under Art. 335 [2] i.e., rape of a woman who was
Facts: deprived of reason, including those with the mental
Accused was charged with rape. The victim was below 7 capacity of a child below 12 years old?
years old at the time of the incident, but the information Answer:
merely alleged that she was a “minor” without stating
the precise age. Yes. An accused charged with rape through one mode of
commission may still be convicted of the crime if the
Issue: evidence shows another mode of commission provided
Can accused be convicted of qualified rape and that the accused did not object to such evidence.
sentenced to death?
Held: People v. Ortega, Jr. 276 SCRA 166 July 24, 1997
No. Since the information did not allege that the victim Facts:
was below 7 years old when she was violated, accused
was therefore charged with simple rape, under Sec. 335 Accused assisted in concealing the body of a person
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659 stabbed by someone else by dumping it in a well not
(Death Penalty Law). Upon its passage, R.A. 7659 knowing that the victim was still alive. As a consequence,
introduced 7 new attendant circumstances, which when the victim died of drowning. Accused was thus charged
present, will transform the crime to qualified rape, as a principal in the crime of murder committed through
punishable by death. These new attendant circumstances the stabbing.
must be properly pleaded in the information to justify the
imposition of the death penalty. The main purpose of Issue:
requiring all the elements of a crime to be set out in the May accused be convicted of murder in an information
information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare charging him with the offense through stabbing when
his defense. It would be a denial of the right of the the evidence showed that the death was caused by
accused to be informed of the charges against him and, drowning?
consequently, a denial of due process, if he is charged
with simple rape and be convicted of its qualified form Held:
punishable with death.
No. An accused cannot be convicted of an offense,
unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or
information. Constitutionally, he has a right to be
b. Failure to allege retardation informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
People v. Orbita 384 SCRA 393 July 11, 2002 against him. To convict him of an offense other than that
charged in the complaint or information would be a
Issue: violation of this constitutional right. Thus, accused
cannot be convicted of homicide through drowning in an
May an accused be convicted of rape of a mental information that charges murder by means of stabbing.
retardate under an information which failed to allege the
victim’s mental state and where accused failed to object
to evidence of her mental retardation?
b. As to manner of commission
Held:
People v. Dimaano 469 SCRA 14 September 14,
Yes. Accused has waived his constitutional right to be 2005
informed of the accusation against him. The records
show that accused did not object to the manifestation Issue:
made by the prosecution that the victim should first be Is the complaint sufficient if it merely states that accused
examined to determine her mental condition. He neither did “try and attempt to rape” the victim?
moved for reconsideration nor appealed the Order of the
trial court directing the National Center for Mental Health Held:
to conduct the mental examination of the victim. The
No. For a complaint to be sufficient, it must state the
accused likewise did not oppose the prosecution’s
presentation and offer of evidence that would prove the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
victim’s mental condition. During the direct examination offense. The complaint in this case fails to allege specific
of the victim, the public prosecutor asked permission acts or omission constituting the elements of the crime of
from the judge and was allowed to propound leading rape. Neither does it constitute sufficient allegation of
questions in elements for crimes other than rape, i.e., acts of
lasciviousness. The allegation therein that the accused
“tried and

3
attempted to rape” the complainant does not only May an accused, who failed to object to the testimony of
satisfy the test of sufficiency of a complaint or the victim, be convicted of rape committed on Nov. 26,
information, but is merely a conclusion of law by the one 1983 when the information charges him of rape
who drafted the complaint. This insufficiency therefore committed on Nov. 26, 1982?
prevents this Court from rendering a judgment of
conviction; otherwise we would be violating the right of Held:
the accused to be informed of the nature of the
accusation against him. Yes. Where time or place or any other fact alleged is not
an essential element of the crime charged, conviction
may be had on proof of the commission of the crime,
even if it appears that the crime was not committed at
c. As to crime committed the precise time or place alleged, or if the proof fails to
People v. Del Rosario 234 SCRA 246 July 20, 1994 sustain the existence of some immaterial fact set out in
the complaint, provided it appears that the specific crime
Issue: charged was in fact committed prior to the date of the
filing of the complaint or information within the period of
May a person charged with sale of “shabu” be convicted
the statute of the limitations, and at a place within the
of possession of the same instead? jurisdiction of the court. (U.S. vs. Smith, 2 PHIL 20)
Held:
No. Accused cannot be convicted of possession of the 5. As to check number
“shabu” contained in a canister and allegedly seized at
his house, for the charge against him was for selling Dico v. CA 452 SCRA 441 February 28, 2005
“shabu” with the information alleging that the “accused,
without legal authority did . . . sell to a poseur buyer an Issue:
aluminium foil containing Methamphetamine May accused be convicted of violation of B.P. 22 where
Hydrocholoride...” Sale is tot ally different from the information charges him of issuing FEBTC Check No.
possession. Art. 1458 of the Civil Code defines sale as a 364903 but the evidence of the prosecution showed that
contract whereby “one of the contracting parties he in fact issued FEBTC Check No. 369403?
obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to
deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay Held:
therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent”, while
“possession is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of No. The variance in the identity of the check nullifies the
a right” as defined by Art. 523 of the Civil Code. Accused conviction of accused. The identity of the check enters
cannot be convicted of a crime which is not charged in into the first element of the offense under Sec. 1 of B.P.
the information for to do so would deny him the due 22 – that a person draws or issues a check on account or
process of law. for value. There being a discrepancy in the identity of the
checks described in the information and that presented
in court, the constitutional right of accused to be
informed of the nature of the offense charged will be
4. Date of commission violated if his conviction is upheld.
a. BP Blg. 22
Alonto v. People 445 SCRA 624 December 9, 6. Effect of failure to object
2004
People v. Narawi 414 SCRA 395 October 24, 2003
Facts:
Issue:
The information against accused for violation of B.P. 22
charged her of issuing the postdated check on May 14, May the accused be convicted of rape in an information
1992. However, the documentary evidence presented which failed to alleged use of force and intimidation?
and duly marked was BPI Check No. 831258 in the
amount of P25,000 dated Apr. 5, 1992. Held:

Issue: Yes. In this case, while the information failed to

specifically allege that the sexual intercourse was
Can accused be convicted of the offense? committed through force or intimidation, the prosecution
presented evidence, no objection to which was
Held: interposed by accused, that they committed rape
No. Since the identity of the check enters into the first through force. Besides, the information alleged that the
essential elements of the offense under Sec. 1 of B.P. 22, sexual intercourse was against the victim’s will.
that is, that a person makes, draws or issues a check on
account or for value, and the date thereof involves its
second element, namely, that at the time of issue the 7. Alternative charges
maker, drawer or issuer knew that he or she did not
have sufficient funds to cover the same, there is a People v. Dela Cruz 383 SCRA 410 June 21, 2002
violation of the right of the accused to be informed of the Facts:
nature of the offense charged in view of the variance.
Accused was charged with violation of R.A. 7610 which
alleges that he committed sexual abuse on his daughter
b. Rape “either by raping her or committing acts of lasciviousness
on her.”
People v. Lucas 232 SCRA 537 May 25, 1994
Issue:
Issue:
Is the information sufficient to convict accused of the Held:
crime?
No. The allegation in the information that accused “wilfully, unlawfully

4
and feloniously commit sexual abuse on his daughter
[Jeannie Ann] either by raping her or committing acts of
lasciviousness on her” is not a sufficient averment of the 10. Where accused is a deaf-mute
acts constituting the offense as required under Sec. 8,
Rule 110, for these are conclusions of law, not facts. The People v. Parazo 310 SCRA 146 July 8, 1999
information is therefore void for being violative of his Facts:
constitutionally-guaranteed right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him. Accused was charged with rape. The results of medical
Although accused failed to call the attention of both the examinations conducted on him indicate that he is a
trial court and this Court regarding the defects of the deaf- mute and a mental retardate, whose mental age is
information the Court may motu proprio dismiss said only 7 years and 9 months, and with low IQ of 60 only.
information at this stage. During trial, he was not assisted by a sign language
interpreter and he was convicted and sentenced to
death.
8. Number of offenses Issue:
People v. Antido 278 SCRA 425 September 4, Is the conviction valid?
1997
Held:
Issue:
No. The absence of a qualified interpreter in sign
When the information charges an accused with one language and of any other means, whether in writing or
count of rape, may he be convicted of 2 counts where he otherwise, to inform the accused of the charges against
failed to object to the testimony of the victim that she him denied the accused his fundamental right to due
was raped twice? process of law. The accuracy and fairness of the factual
Held: process by which the guilt or innocence of the accused
was determined was not safeguarded. The accused could
No. Since the information specifically charges the not be said to have enjoyed the right to be heard by
accused with only one act of rape committed on a himself and counsel, and to be informed of the nature
specific date, then consistent with the constitutional right and cause of the accusation against him in the
of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of proceedings where his life and liberty were at stake.
accusation against him, he cannot be held liable for other
acts of rape. There can only be one conviction for rape if Yes, you should know why you are there. It is very
the information charges only one offense, even if the awkward that you are charged without even knowing
evidence shows that more than one was in fact what the charge is all about. That is why there is an
committed. The right of a person to be informed of the arraignment to make everything formal.
nature and cause of accusation against him cannot be
waived for reasons of public policy.
Q: Can you waive the right to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him?
9. Conviction of constituent crimes A: NO. It is not waivable because public interest is
People v. Legaspi 246 SCRA 206 July 14, involved in this right, the public having an interest in
1995 seeing to it that no person is unlawfully deprived of his
life or liberty. (U.S. vs. Palisoc, 4 Phil. 207)
Facts:
There are certain rights of the accused that are waivable;
Accused were charged in 2 separate informations, one there are certain rights that cannot be waived. For
for double murder and the other for carnapping under example: to be presumed innocent until the contrary is
RA No. 6539. The two cases arose out of one incident proved – can you waive that? “Ah OK lang, you can
and they were jointly tried in the same RTC branch. presume me guilty!” I don’t think the court will agree with
that. That is not waivable.
Issue:
And mind you, there was a bar examination in the past,
May accused be convicted of the special complex crime where the examiner asked this question – “among the
of robbery with double homicide? rights of the accused outline those which can be waived
Held: and cannot be waived.” So practically you have to know
[a] – [i]. It’s not only a question of enumerate the rights
No. Their conviction can only be limited to the crime of the accused but segregate those which can be waived
alleged or necessarily included in the allegations in the and those which cannot be waived. “To be presumed
separate informations. What controls is the description of innocent – pwede bang ma-waive ito?
the offense, as alleged in the information. While the trial
court can hold a joint trial of two or more criminal cases
and can render a consolidated decision, it cannot convict Sec 1(c) Right of the Accused to be Present at his
the accused of a complex crime constitutive of the Trial
various crimes alleged in the 2 informations. Thus, the
accused were deprived of their constitutional right to be 1. Right of the accused to be present at every
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to
against them. promulgation of judgment:
1. General Rule – the accused may waive his
right to be present at the trial pursuant to the
stipulations set forth in his bail
2. Exceptions – the accused has to appear:
 when his presence is specifically  during arraignment, and
ordered by the court for purposes of
identification,  during promulgation of judgment

5
2. Effect of absence of the accused without of his right to be present thereat.” This is taken from
justifiable cause at the trial of which he had Article II, Section 14 (2), - Trial in absentia.
notice:
But take note that in trial in absentia, it assumes that:
It shall be considered a waiver of his right to be
present thereat 1. the court already acquired jurisdiction over your
person;
3. Effect when an accused under custody escapes:
2. you were arrested; and
He shall be deemed to have waived his right to
be present on all subsequent trial dates until 3. you must first be arraigned. So arraignment is a
custody over him is regained prerequisite for trial in absentia to apply.

This is a right to be present from arraignment to Q: What is the difference between these two sentences
promulgation. in [c]: “The absence of the accused without justifiable
cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be
Q: But technically, do you have the obligation to be
considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat”
there?
and “when an accused under custody escapes, he shall
A: NO. This right is waivable because the law says the be deemed to have waived his right to be present on all
accused may however waive his presence during the subsequent trial dates until custody over him is
trial, unless the presence of the accused is specifically regained”?
ordered by the court for purposes of identification.
A: In the first sentence, the accused is absent without
This was taken from the case of NINOY AQUINO, JR vs. justifiable cause during the particular trial date, and so
MILITARY COMMISSION where Ninoy was arrested and the trial may continue. But he can still appear in the next
tried in a military court and he refused to participate in trial. He only waived his right to be present on that date
the proceedings. And issue now is, can he be forced by but he has not waived his right to be present on
the court to appear? subsequent trial dates. He has not waived his right to
present evidence.
SC: YES, because how can he be identified if he will not
appear? That is why it is now found in the Rules. In the second sentence, you escaped or you jumped bail.
You are not only waiving your right to be present on this
date but on all subsequent dates. And therefore, there
can be a judgment against you when the prosecution
rests.

This trial in absentia was explained by the SC in the case

of
PEOPLE vs. AGBULOS 222 SCRA 196 (1993)
CARREDO vs. PEOPLE 183 SCRA 273 HELD:
ISSUE: The prisoner cannot by simply escaping thwart his
After arraignment he can waive his presence during the continued prosecution and possibly eventual conviction
trial, but can he be ordered arrested by the court for an provided that:
appearance, upon summons to appear for purposes of
identification? 1. he has been arraigned;

HELD: 2. he has been duly notified of the trial; and

YES. “Waiver of appearance and trial in absentia does not 3. his failure to appear is unjustified.
mean that the prosecution is thereby deprived of its right (But how can the prosecution establish that the accused
to require the presence of the accused for purposes of has been duly notified of the trial? How can you notify a
identification by its witnesses which is vital for the person who is hiding? And how can you say that his
conviction of the accused. Such waiver of a right of the failure to appear is unjustified?)
accused does not mean a release of the accused from his
obligation under the bond to appear in court whenever “The fugitive is deemed to have waived such notice
so required. The accused may waive his right but not his precisely because he has escaped, and it is also this
duty or obligation to the court.” escape that makes his failure to appear at his trial
unjustified. Escape can never be a legal justification. His
So, you can waive your right but not your duty. That is escape will, legally speaking, operate to his disadvantage
one of the conditions in the bond under Rule 114, as he will be unable to attend his trial, which will
Section 2 [b] – “the accused shall appear before the continue even in his absence and most likely result in his
proper court whenever so required by the court or these conviction.”
Rules.”

GIMENEZ vs. NAZARENO 160 SCRA 1 (1988)

Q: Now, what happens if during the trial, the accused did
not show up but he was notified? Can the trial proceed FACTS:
without him?
The accused is arraigned, then he escaped from jail.
A: YES, 2nd sentence of paragraph [c] provides, “The The prosecution moved for the trial to proceed without
absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the him – trial in absentia. So the prosecution presented
trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver all its witnesses, and then it rested and submitted the
case for decision based on the prosecution’s evidence
alone –

6
parang ex-parte ba. The judge said “NO, we will have to But now, the guideline is clearer – the accused can be
hear the accused. Trial in absentia means the prosecution allowed to defend himself in person “when it sufficiently
can present its evidence without him but the case will appears to the court that he can properly protect his
not be decided until we catch him because we have to rights without the assistance of counsel.”
hear him.” The prosecution went to the SC.
Q: Now, I will expand the question: Sabi ng offended
ISSUE #1: party, “Alright, ayaw ng akusado na may abogado. Ako
Is the court’s interpretation of trial in absentia correct? rin! Ayoko ko rin ng abugado! I’ll be the one to prosecute
him!” Eh meron mang private prosecutor? “Ah hindi na
HELD: kailangan ng private prosecutor! Siya personal, ako
personal din!” Can he do that?
NO. Definitely, that is not the meaning of trial in
absentia. Pagtapos na, eh di tapos na! why wait for the A: Let’s go back to Rule 110, Section 16 on whether the
accused? However, there are questions. Does an rights of the accused and the offended party are same:
accused, who has been duly tried in absentia retain his
rights to present evidence on his behalf and to confront “Where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is
and cross-examine witnesses who testified against him? instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the
The court said that, “Upon the termination of a trial in offended party may intervene by counsel in the
absentia, the court has the duty to rule upon the prosecution of the offense.”
evidence presented in court. The court need not wait for So their rights are different. The offended party cannot
the time until the accused who escape from custody intervene personally. The law will not allow it. He must
finally decides to appear in court to present his evidence have a counsel. Sabihin niya, “Wala man akong pera
and cross-examine the witnesses against him. To allow pang-hire ng private prosecutor?” Eh di yung fiscal! The
the delay of proceedings for this purpose is to render fiscal will be the one to come in. That is why we have
ineffective the constitutional provision on trial in public prosecutors precisely to handle criminal cases.
absentia.”
ISSUE #2:
Sec. 1 [c] – Right to Counsel during Trial
Why is it that an escapee who has been tried in absentia
does not retain his right to cross-examine witnesses and 1. Right of the accused:
to present evidence? How come those rights are lost?
To be defended by counsel at every stage of the
HELD: proceeding from arraignment to promulgation of
judgment
“By his failure to appear during the trial of which he had
notice, he virtually waived these rights. This Court has 2. Waiver of said right:
consistently held that the right of the accused to
confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses is a The accused, upon motion, may be allowed to
personal right and may be waived. In the same vein, his defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears
right to present evidence on his behalf, a right given to to the court that he can properly protect his rights
him for his own benefit and protection, may be waived without the assistance of counsel.
by him.” So an escape can be considered a waiver.
ISSUE #3: 1. Presence during trial
If judgment is rendered as to the said accused and a. Waiver of appearance
chances are you would be convicted, would it not violate
his right to be presumed innocent and right to due Carredo v. People 183 SCRA 273 March 17, 1990
process?
Facts:
HELD:
After accused was arraigned, he filed a written
NO, he is still presumed innocent. “A judgment of manifestation which reads:
conviction must still be based upon the evidence
presented in court. Such evidence must prove him guilty “(T)he undersigned accused hereby waives his
beyond reasonable doubt. Also, there can be no violation appearance during the trial or any stage thereof and
of due process since the accused was given the he agrees that in case he fails to appear for trial
opportunity to be heard.” If the prosecution does not despite due notice, his absence will be deemed as
present anything, he would be acquitted. express waiver of his right to be present, and the
Honorable Court may proceed with the trial of his
case as if he were present. In this connection, he
admits that he could be identified by witnesses who
Now, the last sentence of paragraph [c]: are testifying at the time that said accused was not
“Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend present.”
himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the Issue:
court that he can properly protect his rights without the
assistance of counsel.” May accused be ordered arrested by the court for non-
appearance upon summons to appear for purposes of
Take note that under the first sentence of [c] he can be identification?
present and defend in person and by counsel. For
example, ayaw niya ng abogado? “I will defend myself!” Held:
Anong mangyari diyan? Is the right to counsel waivable
by the accused? YES. The right to counsel may be Yes. While it has been stated in People v. Presiding Judge
waived by the accused BUT the waiver must be clear, [125 SCRA 269] that as an exception accused may not
intelligent and competent. (People vs. Ben, L-8320, Dec. be compelled to appear even for identification, it applies
20, 1955) only when the accused “unqualifiedly admits in open
court after his arraignment that he is the person less. In this case accused only admits that he can be identified by the
named as defendant in the case on trial,” no more no prosecution witnesses in his absence. He did not admit that he is the

7
very person named as defendant in the case on trial. His When may trial in absentia proceed? Where an accused
admission is vague and far from unqualified. He cannot who has been arraigned escapes, should the court
therefore seek the benefit of the exception recognized in suspend proceedings until accused is rearrested?
People v. Presiding Judge.
Held:
Under the Constitution, a “trial in absentia” may be had
b. Effect of failure to appear in one trial date when the following requisites are present: 1] that there
Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan 456 SCRA 45 April has been an arraignment; 2] that the accused has been
14, 2005 notified; and 3] that he fails to appear and his failure to
do so is unjustified.
Issue:
The court need not wait for the time until the accused
When accused who is on bail fails to appear for a who escape from custody finally decides to appear in
particular trial date, does it amount to a waiver of court to present his evidence and cross-examine the
appearance for the subsequent trial dates? witnesses against him. To allow the delay of proceedings
for this purpose is to render ineffective the constitutional
Held: provision on trial in absentia. This is buttressed by Sec. 1
No. Under Sec. 2(c), Rule 114 and Sec. 1(c), Rule 115 of [c] of Rule 115 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which
the Rules of Court, the non-appearance of the accused states that when an accused under custody had been
on a particular trial date is merely a waiver of his right to notified of the date of the trial and escapes, he shall be
be present for trial on such date only and not for the deemed to have waived his right to be present on said
succeeding trial dates. It states that “the absence of the date and on all subsequent trial dates until custody is
accused without any justifiable cause at the trial on a regained.
particular date of which he had notice shall be
considered a waiver of his right to be present during that
trial.” It is only when an accused under custody had 2. Right to Counsel
been notified of the date of the trial and escapes that he
shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present a. Meaning of the right
on said date and on all subsequent trial dates until People v. Ferrer 406 SCRA 658 July 18, 2003
custody is regained.
Question:
What does the right to counsel mean in a criminal case?
c. Invalid trial in absentia
Answer:
Parada v. Veneracion 269 SCRA 371 March 11,
1997 The right to counsel must be more than just the
presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere
Facts: propounding of standard questions and objections. It
Accused was charged with estafa and was out on bail. means that the accused is amply accorded legal
While trial was going on, accused changed his address assistance extended by a counsel who commits himself
notifying the court through his counsel as well as the to the cause for the defense and acts accordingly. It
bonding company. When accused failed to appear during assumes an active involvement by the lawyer in the
a hearing because notice was sent to his old address, the proceedings, particularly at the trial, his bearing
judge issued a warrant for his arrest, appointed a constantly in mind of the basic rights of accused, his
counsel de oficio for him, ordered a trial in absentia, and being well-versed on the case, and his knowing the
convicted him on the theory that he waived his right to fundamental procedures, essential laws and existing
present evidence. jurisprudence. The right of an accused to counsel finds
substance in the performance by the lawyer of his sworn
Issue: duty of fidelity to his client. It means an efficient and
truly decisive legal assistance and not a simple
Was there a valid trial in absentia? perfunctory representation.
Held:

b. Defense by fake lawyer

People v. Santocildes 321 SCRA 310 December
21, 1999
No. Under Sec. 14[2] of the Bill of Rights, the following
are the requisites of a valid trial in absentia: [1] accused Facts:
had already been arraigned; [2] he has been duly Accused was charged and convicted of the crime of rape
notified of the trial; and [3] his failure to appear is and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. During trial, he
unjustifiable. In this case accused had not been duly was represented by a certain Gualberto C. Ompong, who
notified of the trial because notice of hearing was sent to turned out to be a non-lawyer. On appeal, he argues that
his former address despite the fact that he notified the his right to counsel was violated.
court of his change of address.
Issue:
Is accused correct?
d. Valid trial in absentia
Held:
Gimenez v. Nazareno 160 SCRA 1 April 15, 1988
Yes. The right of accused to counsel was violated, no
Issues: matter that the person who represented him had the
ability of a seasoned lawyer and handled the case in a
professional and skilful manner. This is so because an
accused person is entitled to be represented by a member of the bar in a criminal case filed against him. Unless he is

8
represented by a lawyer, there is a great danger that any present his side, particularly since he himself was present
defense presented will be inadequate considering the during the four hearings. Clearly, such presence is a
legal skills needed in court proceedings. strong indication that accused was interested in
defending himself.

c. Waiver of right
People v. Tulin 364 SCRA 10 August 30, 2001 e. Apppointment of counsel de oficio

Facts: People v. Larranaga 421 SCRA 530 February 3,

2004
Accused were tried for piracy. They were represented by
Tomas Posadas who presented and examined 7 Facts:
witnesses before the court discovered that he was a non- Accused, who are members of prominent families in
lawyer. Their new lawyer, however, manifested that Cebu, were represented by counsel de parte during the
accused were adopting the evidence adduced when they trial for kidnapping with rape. On account of the dilatory
were represented by a non-lawyer. Convicted by the trial motions for postponement, or motions to withdraw as
court, they now claim that their right to counsel was counsel, filed by their lawyers, the judge directed the
violated. Public Attorney’s Office to act as counsel de oficio for
Issue: them.

Should the conviction be reversed? Issue:

Held: Did the judge violate the right of the accused to counsel?

No. The law entitles the accused to be present and to Held:

defend himself in person and by counsel at every stage No. There is no denial of the right where a counsel de
of the proceedings. However, it is also provided that
oficio was appointed during the absence of the counsel
rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to
de parte of accused, pursuant to the court’s desire to
law, public order, public policy, etc. The Rules also states
finish the case as early as practicable under the
that “upon motion, the accused may be allowed to
continuous trial system. Here, accused requested for 3
defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to
weeks to one month to look for new counsel. Such
the court that he can properly protect his rights without
period is unreasonable. Accused could have hired new
the assistance of counsel. By analogy, it is amply shown
lawyers at a shorter time had they wanted to. The
that the rights of accused were sufficiently and properly
constitutional guarantee of right to counsel does not
protected by Tomas Posadas. He knew the technical rules
mean that accused may avoid trial by neglecting or
of procedure. Hence, there was a valid waiver of the
refusing to secure assistance of counsel and by refusing
right to sufficient representation during the trial,
to participate in trial. Otherwise, the pace of criminal
considering that it was unequivocally, knowingly, and
prosecution will be entirely dictated by the accused to
intelligently made with the full assistance of their new
the detriment of the eventual resolution of the case.
bona fide lawyer.

f. Non-appointment of counsel de oficio

d. Non-appearance of counsel
Sayson v. People 166 SCRA 680 October 28,
1988
People v. Diaz 311 SCRA 585 July 28, 1999
Issue:
Facts:
Where an accused who is represented by a counsel de
Accused was convicted of raping his own daughter and parte appears for trial without his lawyer, is it incumbent
sentenced to death. It appears that after the prosecution upon the trial judge to appoint a counsel de oficio for
rested, the case was set for reception of defense him?
evidence. However, in all 4 settings counsel for the
accused failed to appear despite notice. This was treated Held:
by the RTC as a waiver by the accused of his right to No. The duty of the court to appoint a counsel de oficio
present evidence, and it considered the case submitted when the accused has no counsel of choice and desires
for decision. to employ the services of one is mandatory only at the
Issue: time of arraignment [Rule 116, Sec. 6, Revised Rules of
Court.] This is no longer so where the accused has
Does the absence of counsel amount to waiver of the proceeded with the arraignment and the trial with a
right of accused to be heard? counsel of his choice but when the time for the
presentation of the evidence for the defense has arrived,
Held: he appears by himself alone and the absence was
No. Accused has the right to be heard by himself and inexcusable. At the most, the appointment of a counsel
counsel. He has also the right to present evidence. de oficio in situations like the present case is
Accordingly, denial of due process can be successfully discretionary with the trial court, which discretion will not
invoked where no valid waiver of rights has been made. be interfered with in the absence of abuse.
In this case, we find that under the circumstances, the
accused was denied due process when the successive
non-appearance of his counsel was construed as a g. Ineffective counsel
waiver of his right to present evidence. Since the
imposable penalty may be death, the RTC should have People v. Bermas 306 SCRA 135 April 21, 1999
been more circumspect in denying accused his Facts:
opportunity to
Accused, an indigent, was charged with rape, convicted and sentenced to death. His first lawyer withdrew after the direct

9
examination of the victim and cross- examination was
i. Defending one’s self
done by another de oficio lawyer who only prepared for
10 minutes. The third de oficio lawyer also wanted to People v. Sesbreno 314 SCRA 87 September 9,
withdrew but was prevailed upon by the court and he 1999
presented the accused as witness, but later also ceased
to appear for unknown reasons. Facts:

Issue: Accused was charged with murder. Being a practicing

lawyer, he insisted on representing himself. Despite
Was the right to counsel of accused violated? prodding by the court and an offer of the possibility of
assistance from the PAO, he handled his own defense
Held: and was convicted.
Yes. Accused was not properly and effectively accorded
Issue:
the right to counsel. The right to counsel proceeds from
the fundamental principle of due process which basically Was the right to counsel of accused violated?
means that a person must be heard before being
condemned. The right to counsel must be more than just Held:
the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere No. Accused acted as his own counsel. To allege now
propounding of standard questions and objections. The that his right to be assisted by counsel was violated is to
right to counsel means that the accused is amply bend the truth too far. The constitutional right of the
accorded legal assistance extended by a counsel who accused to counsel is not violated where he was
commits himself to the cause of the defense and acts represented by a prominent and competent member of
accordingly. The right assumes an active involvement by the Bar, namely himself, even if there were others
a lawyer in the proceedings, his bearing constantly in available. He is now stopped from claiming that the trial
mind of the basic rights of the accused, his being well- court violated his right to be represented by counsel of
versed on the case and his knowing the fundamental his own.
procedures, essential laws and existing jurisprudence.

Sec. 1 (d) Right to Testify in his own Behalf

h. “Intelligent counsel”
1. Right guaranteed
People v. Liwanag 363 SCRA 62 August 15, 2001
The accused has the right to testify as a witness in
Facts: his own behalf
Accused was convicted of highway robbery with multiple 2. Condition for the exercise of such right:
rape. During trial he was assisted by counsel de oficio, a
PAO lawyer. In the middle of the trial, he retained the He can be cross-examined on matters covered by
services of counsel de parte. After he was convicted by direct examination
the RTC, another lawyer filed the notice of appeal but
failed to file the appellant’s brief. Before the SC he was [deemed a waiver of his right against self-
represented by another counsel de oficio. He now claims incrimination]
that his right to counsel was violated because his counsel 3. Effect of silence on the part of the accused:
made insufficient cross-examination of the prosecution
witnesses, and failed to impeach the testimony of It shall not in any manner prejudice him
complainant through the use of contradictory evidence.
Issue:
Right available only to natural individuals-
Does the right to counsel include the guarantee of an
intelligent counsel? This right applies only to natural individuals. Hence,
stated US v, White 322 US 694, a labor union official
Held: cannot refuse to produce books and records of the union
in his custody and required by the court to be produced.
No. The “right to be assisted by counsel” does not He cannot invoke the privilege against self-incrimination
presuppose “the right to an intelligent counsel.” The by contending that the production of the books and
requirement is not for counsel to be intelligent, but to be records would tend to incriminate himself and the
effective. While fairness is the object of Art. III, Sec. 14 organization.
(2) of the Constitution, the assistance afforded by
counsel to an accused need only be in accordance with
the provisions of the Rules of Court and the Code of
Professional Responsibility. In the Philippine setting, a 1. Waiver of right to testify
counsel assisting an accused is presumed to be providing People v. Tagana 424 SCRA 620 March 4, 2004
all the necessary legal defences which are reasonable
under the circumstances in accordance with said norms. Facts:
Coupled with the presumption that counsel’s
performance was reasonable under the circumstances, as Accused, together with several others, was charged with
long as the trial was fair in that accused was accorded murder. During trial, his counsel manifested to the court
due process by means of an effective assistance of that he is invoking the defense of alibi and denial and
counsel, then the constitutional requirement that an was adopting the arguments of one of his co-accused.
accused shall have the right to be heard by himself and Thereafter, counsel for the accused rested. Later accused
counsel is satisfied. was convicted. While his conviction was pending review
by the Supreme Court, he sent a handwritten letter to
the Presidential Action Center seeking help to reopen his
case which was duly indorsed to the Court. He claims
that he was never asked to give his statement and was
never given a chance to testify in court.
Issue: Was accused deprived of his right to testify in his own behalf?

10
Held:
No. While accused decries his alleged frustrated desire to Meaning, if he refuses to testify, that should not be taken
testify in court, this is now water under the bridge. against him because of his right to remain silent. He can
Accused had all the right and opportunity to do so. He testify if he wants to. Kung ayaw niya, puwede rin.
was properly represented by his counsel of choice and Admission by silence is not generally applicable.
there was no hindrance to his testifying except his own ALTHOUGH there are one or two decisions of the SC
volition. While his silence will not in any manner where it said that if the evidence presented by the
prejudice him, he cannot now be heard to complain for prosecution is overwhelming, the accused should testify.
his failure to avail of his right to be a witness in his own One of these cases is the 1998 case of
behalf. If accused felt that he was deprived of his rights,
he could have easily moved for new trial or PEOPLE vs. DELMENDO 296 SCRA 371 [1998]
reconsideration. He did not.
ISSUE:
If the accused refuses to testify, can it be taken against
This is the right of the accused to testify on his own him?
behalf. But he has no obligation to testify. If you connect
this to the next right – [e] to be exempt to be a witness HELD:
against himself (that is why you cannot compel him to General Rule is NO. BUT the SC said in this case, “An
testify) – once he testifies on his own behalf, he waives adverse inference may also be deduced from accused’s
the privilege against self-incrimination and he can be cross- failure to take the witness stand. While his failure to
examined like any other witness. He cannot say, “I will testify cannot be considered against him, it may however
testify but I refuse to be cross-examined.” That would be help in determining his guilt. The unexplained failure of
unfair no? the accused to testify, under a circumstance where the
So, you are waiving your right against self-incrimination crime imputed to him is so serious that places in the
if you testify in your own behalf because the law is clear balance his very life and that his testimony might at least
– subject to cross-examination on matters covered by help in advancing his defense, gives rise to an inference
the direct examination. You can be cross-examined on that he did not want to testify because he does not want
matters covered by direct examination. Let’s go back to to betray himself.”
Evidence. “An innocent person will at once naturally and
emphatically repel an accusation of crime, as a matter of
self-preservation, and as precaution against prejudicing
Q: What is the rule on cross- himself. A person’s silence, therefore, particularly when it
is persistent, may justify an inference that he is not
examination? A: Look at Rule 132, innocent. Thus, we have the general principle that when
Section 6: an accused is silent when he should speak, in
circumstances where an innocent person so situated
“Upon termination of the direct examination, the witness would have spoken, on being accused of a crime, his
may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to any silence and omission are admissible in evidence against
matters stated in the direct examination, or connected him. Accordingly, it has been aptly said that silence may
therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom from be assent as well as consent, and may, where a direct
interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all and specific accusation of crime is made, be regarded
important facts bearing upon the issue.” under some circumstances as a quasi-confession.”
So,it is very broad – You can be cross-examined on
matters or connected with matters in the direct
examination with sufficient fullness and freedom, etc. – [e] To be exempt from being compelled to be a
very liberal! It is called the ENGLISH RULE on cross- witness against himself.
examination. This is the right against self-incrimination – Nemo
The AMERICAN RULE on cross-examination is tenetur seipsum accusare.
different – the witness can be cross-examined ONLY on
matters stated in the direct examination.
1. Mechanical acts
In the Philippines, we followed the English Rule because
of Rule 132, Section 6. However, it seems the American a. Taking of hair strands
Rule on cross-examination is applied, as an exception,
when you are talking about cross-examining an accused People v. Rondero 320 SCRA 383 December
in a criminal case because of paragraph [d] – subject to 9, 1999
cross-examination on matters covered by the direct
Facts:
examination.
Rondero was charged with rape with homicide. When the
corpse of the 9-year old victim was found, tightly gripped
Q: Now, what is the effect if the accused does not want in her right hand were hair strands. To enable the NBI to
to testify on his own behalf? conduct an examination on the hair strands, it sent a fax
message to the police that hair strands be pulled, no cut,
A: No unfavorable deduction can be drawn from the from Rondero, from the 4 regions of his head for
neglect or refusal of an accused to testify. (U.S. vs. comparison with the specimen. By then Rondero was
Luzon, detained and he now claims that his hair strands were
4 Phil. 343) His silence is not in any manner prejudice taken by the police without his consent.
him. (paragraph [d])
Issue:
Was his right against self-incrimination violated?
Held: incrimination is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communication from the accused, and not the inclusion of his body in
No. What is proscribed by the right against self-
11
evidence when it may be material. For instance, substance extracting from the suspect testimony that may convict
emitted from the body of the accused may be received as him and to avoid a person subjected to such compulsion
evidence in prosecution for rape, and morphine forced out to perjure himself for his own protection. It does not
of his mouth may also be used as evidence against him. apply where, as in these cases, the testimony was freely
Consequently, although Rondero insists that hair samples and voluntarily given by the accused himself without any
were forcibly taken from him and submitted to the NBI for compulsion from the agents of the State. There is
forensic examination, the hair samples may be admitted in nothing in the records that would indicate that accused
evidence against him for what is proscribed is the use of was forced, intimidated, or compelled by the trial court
testimonial compulsion or any evidence communicative in or by anybody into admitting the crimes. At any rate, his
nature acquired from him under duress. plea of guilty and confession or admissions during the
searching inquiry cannot be the sole basis for his
conviction.
b. Examination of sperm specimen
People v. Yatar 428 SCRA 504 May 19, 2004
Take note that the right of the accused against self-
Facts: incrimination is not limited to testimonial evidence.
According to the SC, it refers not only to testimonial
Accused was convicted of rape with homicide. Among the compulsion but also to production by the accused of
evidence presented was the testing of the DNA of the incriminating documents and things. (Villaflor vs.
sperm specimen from the vagina of the victim, which Summers, 41 Phil. 62) So you cannot subpoena his
was identified to be that of the gene type of the accused. personal documents.
Accused contends that the blood sample taken from him
as well as the DNA tests were conducted in violation of There was a tricky question in the Bar exam in the past:
his right against self-incrimination.
PROBLEM: The accused is charged with falsification for
Issue: writing a falsified letter. The prosecution presented it as
evidence that this letter was written by the accused. The
Was the right of accused not to be a witness against accused said, “No, that is not my handwriting.” On cross-
himself violated? examination, he was asked to write on a piece of paper
Held: as dictated. The defense object on the ground of
violation of the right to self-incrimination. Rule on the
No. The kernel of the right against self-incrimination is objection.
not against all compulsion, but against testimonial
compulsion. The right against self-incrimination is simply ANSWER: The objection should be overruled. The case is
against the legal process of extracting from the lips of not covered by the right against self-incrimination. He can
the accused an admission of guilt. Hence, a person may be compelled because he testified that it is not his
be compelled to submit to fingerprinting, photographing, handwriting. From that moment he waived his right
paraffin, blood and DNA tests, as there is no testimonial against self-incrimination. It is unfair that you say it is not
compulsion involved. It must also be noted that the your signature and I have no way of telling you to give
accused in this case submitted himself for blood sampling me a specimen.
that was conducted in open court in the presence of
counsel.
Q: How is the right against self-incrimination waived?
A: The privilege is waivable by the accused taking the
2. Searching inquiry and self-incrimination stand and testifying as a witness or by freely answering
People v. Besonia 422 SCRA 210 February 5, the incriminating questions put to him. (U.S. vs. Grant,
2004 18 Phil. 122; U.S. vs. Rota, 9 Phil. 426) Or by not
objecting.
Facts:
Accused pleaded guilty to 2 counts of murder. The RTC
conducted a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and Q: What is the reason for the right of an accused against
full comprehension of the consequences of his guilty self-incrimination?
plea. In the course of the questioning, accused admitted A: The rule was established on the ground of public
that he shot the victims with a .38 caliber because they policy, because if the accused were required to testify,
were planning to kill him. On automatic review of the he would be placed under the strongest temptation to
death sentences, accused claims that his admissions and commit perjury, and of humanity, because it would
confessions violated his right not to testify against prevent the extortion of confession by duress. (U.S. vs.
himself. Navarro, 3 Phil. 143) So, if you require him to testify,
Issue: chances are he will lie.

Is the contention correct? That is why according to former U.S. SC Justice Black,
“The accused should not be fried by his own fat. [e di
Held: cooking oil!] No sane man will burn his own shirt nor he
will get a stone to hit his own head. The privilege against
No. The right against self-incrimination is intended to self-incrimination is one of the great landmarks in man’s
prevent the State, with all its coercive powers, from struggle to make himself civilized. We do not make even
the most hardened criminal sign his own death warrant
or dig his own grave.”

Our own SC also followed that kind of explanation

through Justice Reynato Puno in the 1994 case of
MAPA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN 231 SCRA 783

12
HELD: Facts:
“The days of inquisitions brought about the most The RTC convicted the accused of murder based mainly
despicable abuses against human rights. Not the least of on an affidavit which was presented, marked and offered
these abuses is the expert use of coerced confessions to by the prosecution. The affiant, however, did not testify
send to the guillotine even the guiltless. To guard against during trial.
the recurrence of this totalitarian method, the right
against self-incrimination was ensconced in the Issue:
fundamental laws of all civilized countries.”
Was the right to confrontation of accused violated?
Held:
(f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses
against him at the trial. Either party may utilize as Yes. The admission of such hearsay evidence and the
part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who conviction of accused on the basis thereof gravely
is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be violated his constitutional right to meet the witness face
found in the Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise to face. Since the affiant never took the stand during the
unable to testify, given in another case or trial, his sworn statement is absolutely inadmissible in
proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving evidence for being hearsay. The constitutional right to
the same parties and subject matter, the adverse confrontation precludes reliance on affidavit. Such a
party having the opportunity to cross-examine him. constitutional safeguard cannot be satisfied unless the
opportunity is given the accused to test the credibility of
any person, who, by affidavit or deposition would impute
the commission of an offense to him. It would be to
(f) Right to Confrontation disregard one of the most valuable guarantees of a
1. Right guaranteed: person accused if solely on the affidavits presented, his
guilt could be predicated.
The accused has the right to confront and cross-
examine the witnesses against him at the trial
2. Additional benefit granted by Sec. 1[f] – Either 3. Death of witness
party may use as evidence testimony of a witness who People v. Narca 275 SCRA 696 July 21, 1997
is not present during trial, provided:
Facts:
 Said witness is:
After the prosecution witness testified, accused moved
a. Deceased, for deferment of her cross-examination. Before the
scheduled date of her cross-examination, the witness
b. out of or can not with due diligence be
died.
found in the Philippines,
Issue:
c. Unavailable, or
Must her testimony on direct examination be expunged
d. Otherwise unable to testify; and
from the records?
 Said testimony was given by the witness in Held:
another case or proceeding:
No. Where death prevents the cross-examination under
1. judicial or administrative, and such circumstances that no responsibility of any sort can
2. involving the same parties or subject be ascribed to the plaintiff or the witness, it seems a
matter; and harsh measure to strike out all that has obtained in the
direct examination. Besides, mere opportunity and not
 The adverse party had the opportunity to cross- actual cross-examination is the essence of the right to
examine said witness cross-examine. Accused lost such opportunity when he
sought the deferment of his cross-examination of the
witness, and he only has himself to blame in forever
losing that right by reason of her demise.
1. Right to confrontation
People v. Ortiz-Miyake 279 SCRA 180
September 16, 1997 4. Recalling witness for cross-examination
Question: a. Burden of recalling witness
What are the purposes of the right to confrontation? People v. Digno, Jr. 250 SCRA 237 November 23,
1995
Answer:
The right to confrontation has two purposes: first, to Issue:
secure the opportunity of cross-examination; and, Where a witness for the prosecution has not been cross-
second, to allow the judge to observe the deportment examined after her testimony, who has the burden of
and appearance of the witness while testifying. ensuring that she is cross-examined at another time?
Held:
2. Affidavit as evidence It should be the counsel for the opposing party who
should move to cross-examine plaintiff’s [prosecution]
People v. Santos 139 SCRA 583 November 11,
witnesses. It is absurd for the plaintiff [prosecutor]
1985
himself to ask the court to schedule the cross-
examination of his own witnesses because it is not his
obligation to ensure that his deponents are cross- shifts to his opponent who must now make the appropriate move.
examined. Having presented his witnesses the burden
13
 Issue:
b. Discretion of the judge to recall
May the testimony of a witness taken during the
People v. Ortillas 428 SCRA 659 May 20, 2004 preliminary investigation be used in evidence against the
Facts: accused where said witness died before he could testify
at the trial?
After the only prosecution eye-witness to the murder
testified on direct examination, counsel for the accused Held:
moved for postponement. Thereafter, counsel withdrew Yes. By the express provision of Sec. 1(f) Rule 115 of the
and the witness was never subpoenaed nor presented for Rules of Court, the testimonies given by witnesses during
cross-examination until the defense rested. In fact, a the preliminary investigation of the case on trial should
motion by the new counsel of accused to cross-examine be admitted into evidence when such testimony was
the witness was denied by the trial court. Eventually, the taken by question and answer in the presence of
judge convicted accused based mainly on the testimony defendant or his attorney, and there was an opportunity
of the witness. for the defendant to cross-examine the witness who is
Issue: dead or incapacitated to testify or cannot with due
diligence be found in the Philippines.
Does the judgment unduly deprive accused of his right to
cross-examine the witness?
Held: b. Testimony of accused given without counsel

Yes. Under Rule 115, Sec. 1(e) of the Revised Rules of People v. Abano 145 SCRA 555 November 14,
Court, the accused has the right “to confront and cross- 1986
examine the witnesses against him at the trial.” The Issue:
refusal of the judge to give opportunity to the new
counsel of accused to cross-examine prosecution witness May the testimony of accused given in the course of a
on the ground that prosecution had already rested its preliminary investigation without the assistance of
case, is patently a grave abuse of discretion on his part. counsel be used as evidence against her during the trial?
While it is well within the trial court’s discretion to allow
the recall of witness, under the foregoing circumstances, Held:
the judge should have known that the interest of justice No. The rule against self-incrimination positively intends
required that accused should have been given the to avoid and prohibit the certainly inhuman procedure of
opportunity to cross-examine, as it was not his fault that compelling a person “to furnish the missing evidence
the witness had not been cross-examined. While a necessary for his conviction.” The rule may apply even to
petition for certiorari could have been duly availed of by a co-accused in a joint trial. The situation would have
counsel for accused to rectify the judge’s grave abuse of been different had accused been assisted by counsel
discretion, accused should not be made to suffer for the during the preliminary investigation. For then, she could
failure of his counsel to do so; as a layman, he could not have availed herself of legal advice on when to refrain
have known better as to what must be done under the from answering incriminating questions. The absence of
circumstances. counsel when she appeared as witness during the
preliminary investigation is an irreparable damage which
rendered inadmissible accused’s alleged confession.
c. Recalling complainant for cross-examination

6. Waiver of right to confrontation

Alonte v. Savellano, Jr. 287 SCRA 245
March 9, 1998

People v. Dela Cruz 150 SCRA 617 June 10, 1987 Facts:
Issue: After accused was arraigned, the prosecution presented
the rape victim who identified her affidavit of desistance
Did the court abuse its discretion in denying a motion of and reaffirmed that she had no further interest in
new counsel to recall private complainant in a rape case prosecuting accused. The judge then asked clarificatory
for further cross-examination? questions to determine the truth of both her affidavit-
Held: complaint and affidavit of desistance and whether they
were voluntarily executed. Counsel for the accused did
No. There was no manifest abuse of discretion in not anymore cross-examine the witness. The prosecutor
refusing to allow or recall complainant to the witness then moved to dismiss the case as she could no longer
stand for additional cross-examination on account of a prove the guilt of the accused. Later, the court convicted
newly retained counsel. The complainant had already accused of rape and sentenced him to reclusion
experienced great embarrassment in narrating the sexual perpetua.
abuses on her. To allow her to be recalled to the witness
stand in spite of a previous extensive cross-examination Issue:
would be tantamount to harassment. Was the right of the accused to cross-examine the
witness against him violated?

5. Testimony in preliminary investigation Held:

a. Testimony of witness who died Yes. No trial was conducted based on the procedure in
the Rules of Court and accused was not given his full day
De Leon v. People 210 SCRA 151 June 22, 1992 in court. It cannot be argued that accused waived his
right
to confront and cross-examine the witness because the done knowingly and with sufficient awareness of the consequence.
existence of the waiver must be shown to have been The case should be remanded for further proceedings.
14
 persuasive in your talk. These are the psychological
reasons behind that.
People v. Nadera 324 SCRA 490 February 2, 2000
Facts:
Q: What are the EXCEPTIONS to the right of the accused
After the rape victim testified, the following dialogue to confront and examine witnesses against him?
occurred:
A: The following:
Court: Any cross?
1. Second portion of paragraph [f]:
Atty. Brotonel: If Your Honor please, we are
not conducting any cross-examination, because this Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the
representation, from the demeanor of the witness, is testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or
convinced that she is telling the truth. can not with due diligence be found in the
Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise unable to
Issue: testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial
or administrative, involving the same parties and
Was the right of the accused to cross-examine the
subject matter, the adverse party having the
witness violated?
opportunity to cross-examine him.
Held: Sometimes there is no choice. Now, one good
Yes. Atty. Brotonel’s decision not to cross-examine the example where the testimony of a witness is
victim is a glaring example of his manifest lack of admissible even if he does not appear in the trial is
enthusiasm for his client’s cause. It may be that defense when the witness is about to die. Malapit ng
counsel personally found the testimony to be believable. mamatay, so you need to take his testimony in
Nevertheless, he had the bounden duty to scrutinize advance. In civil cases we call it deposition. In the
victim’s testimony to ensure that the constitutional right criminal procedure, deposition is called conditional
of the accused to confront and examine the witnesses examination of a witness. That is governed by Rule
against him was not rendered for naught. 119 Sections 12, 13, and 15.

Q: Is the right to confront and cross-examine the 2. when there is a separate civil action filed against
witnesses against him waivable? the accused by the offended party and he made
a reservation
A: YES as ruled by the SC in the case of GIMENEZ VS.
NAZARENO, (160 SCRA 1), such right is waived if the Normally, the prosecution witnesses in the criminal
accused decides to run away, jumps bail, or disappears – case are also the witnesses for the plaintiff in the
he is automatically waiving the right to confront and civil case. Assuming nauna ang trial ng civil case,
cross-examine the witnesses against him. these witnesses testified during the trial of the civil
case, they were cross-examined by the lawyer of the
defendant who is also the accused in the criminal
case. Now, under the law, when the criminal case is
Q: Now what is the reason behind this right? Why is
tried, these witnesses have to testify again in the
there such a right?
criminal case, practically they will have to repeat
A: It is intended to prevent the conviction of an accused their testimony. The trouble is, in the meantime,
upon mere depositions and affidavits; to preserve the some of these witnesses died.
right of the accused to test the recollection of witnesses
against him; and to enable the court to observe the
demeanor of the witnesses who are testifying. (Dowdell Q: Can the testimony recorded in the civil case be now
vs. U.S., 221 U.S. 325; U.S. vs. Anastacio, 6 Phil. 413) admissible in the criminal case when there is no more
confrontation there?
In Evidence those are the important factors for the court
to gauge the credibility of witnesses. Demeanor – their A: Yes. because that is the exception, “when the
manner of testifying. How can the court exercise that testimony of the witness who is now deceased, given in
option if he does not even see the witnesses? So more or another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative,
less, that is the reason behind it. To borrow the language involving the same parties and subject matter, the
of an American justice commenting on this issue, “It adverse party having the opportunity to cross examine
ensures that convictions will not be based on the charges him.”
of unseen and unknown, hence unchallengeable
individuals".
Another Justice, Justice Scalia, he is still an incumbent of As a matter of fact, this is also considered as one of the
the Federal Supreme Court, describing this right, he said, exceptions to the Hearsay Rule. It is the 11th exception
“It is always more difficult to tell a lie about a person to to the Hearsay Rule. Try to connect this with Rule 130 on
his face than behind his back, and even if the lie is told, Evidence. How many exceptions are there to the Hearsay
it will often be told less convincingly.” Meaning, it is Rule? eleven (11) iyan eh – starting from dying
easier to tell a lie ba against somebody if he is not in declaration. That is the last exception – testimony or
front of you. Pero pagkaharap na, parang alanganin deposition at a former trial or proceeding. Yaan! That is
kang magsinungaling eh. And even if you still tell a lie, it considered as an exception to the right against
becomes not so convincing if you will lie about a person confrontation.
in front of you. But if he is not there, you become very The exceptions to the hearsay rule are
likewise exceptions to this right of the
accused. (U.S. vs. Gil, 13 Phil. 530)
If there are 11 exceptions to the hearsay rule, all of them the rules on evidence.
are also exceptions to this. Like dying declaration, how
can you cross-examine iyung taong patay na. So there
are 11 exceptions to the right to confront and cross- Q: One last point, does the right to confront and cross- examine the
examine the witnesses against him which are all found in witnesses against you, include your right to know their names and
15
addresses in advance? 1. The factors, among others, which should be
A: NO, the accused has no such right because the case considered in determining whether to grant a
of the prosecution might be endangered if the accused continuance are as follows:
were to know the prosecution witnesses in advance, for (a) whether the failure to grant such continunace in
known witnesses might be subjected to pressure or the proceeding would be likely to make a
cowered not to testify. (People vs. Palacio, L-13933, May continuation of such proceeding impossible, or result
25, 1960) So, you confront them during the trial, not in a miscarriage of justice.
now.
(b) whether the case taken as a whole is so novel,
so unusual and so complex, due to the number of
(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure accused or the nature of the prosecution or
the attendance of witnesses and production of otherwise, that it is unreasonable to expect
other evidence in his behalf. adequate preparation within the periods of time
established by this Act (Sec. 11, Speedy Trial Act)
2. No continuance shall be granted because of general
Requisites congestion of the court's calendar, or lack of diligent
preparation or failure to obtain available witnesses on
People v. Chua 356 SCRA 225 April 4, 2001 the part of the public prosecutor (ibid).
Question:
What are the requisites before an accused may be a. Factors to determine violation
allowed to avail of the right to compulsory process?
Yulo v. People 452 SCRA 705 March 4, 2005
Answer:
Issue:
The 1973 and 1987 Constitutions expanded the right to
compulsory process which now includes the right to When is the right to speedy trial deemed violated?
secure the production of evidence in one’s behalf. Thus,
the movant must show: [a] that the evidence is really Answer:
material; [b] that he is not guilty of neglect in previously The right to speedy trial is deemed violated only when
obtaining the production of such evidence; [c] that the the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious,
evidence will be available at the time desired; and [d] and oppressive delays, or when unjustified
that no similar evidence could be obtained. postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or
when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of
time is allowed to lapse without the party having his case
Q: Suppose my witness is somewhere there in Cagayan tried. To determine whether the right has been violated,
de Oro, can I secure a subpoena to compel him when the following factors may be considered: [1] the length
under the rules on subpoena a witness is not bound if he of the delay; [2] the reasons for such delay; [3] the
resides more than 100 kilometers? assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused,
and [4] the prejudice caused by the delay.
A: That has already been answered in the cases of
PEOPLE VS. MONTEJO and MILLORCA VS. QUITAIN. The SC
said that the 100-km limitation (formerly 50 kms.) does
not apply when you are talking of witnesses for the b. Justifiable delays
defense in a criminal case because of the Constitutional Sumbang v. Gen. Court Martial 337 SCRA 227
right to have compulsory process issued to secure the August 3, 2000
attendance of witnesses in his behalf. That right cannot
be precluded by provisions in the Rules of Court. Facts:
Sumbang was a member of the Philippine Constabulary
accused before a court martial of killing a civilian on May
(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial. 29, 1988. In view of the enactment of R.A. 6975
There are actually three rights here: otherwise known as the Philippine National Police Law,
the composition of the court martial was changed so that
1. the right to a speedy trial; the case remained pending for years. On Sep. 29, 1999,
Sumbang moved for the dismissal of the case on the
2. the right to an impartial trial; and
ground of violation of the right to speedy trial.
3. the right to a public trial. Issue:
Was the right of Sumbang to speedy trial violated?
Speedy trial Held:
No. The determination of whether an accused has been
denied the right to speedy trial must have to depend on
the surrounding circumstances of each case. Although it
is unfortunate that it took about 8 years from 1991
before the trial resumed in 1999, the delay does not
amount to violation of the right considering that it
could not be attributable to the prosecution. The delay
was due to the changes in the composition of the court
martial. Notably, from the time Sumbang’s motion to
dismiss was filed in 1991, he did not take action to assert
his right. Thus, the
supervening delay seems to have been without his right to speedy trial may be waived.
objection hence impliedly with his acquiescence. The

16
 been suffered and then shifts the burden to the panel of
2. Impartial trial investigators to prove that the impartiality of its
a. Widespread media publicity members has not been affected by said publicity. Such a
rule will overturn our case law that pervasive publicity is
People v. Sanchez 302 SCRA 21 January 25, not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair
1999 trial. For this reason, we continue to hold that it is not
enough for the former President to conjure possibility of
Facts: prejudice but must prove actual prejudice on the part of
Mayor Sanchez was convicted of 7 counts of rape with his investigators for the Court to sustain his plea.
homicide. Considering the position of accused, the trial
was accompanied by widespread media coverage. On
appeal, Sanchez claims that his right to a fair trial was b. Live coverage of trial
violated due to the intense publicity.
Re: Request Radio-TV ...,
Issue:
360 SCRA 248 June 29, 2001
Does intensive publicity of a trial violate the right to a fair
trial? Facts:

Held: The Kapisanan ng mga Broadkaster ng Pilipinas, an

association representing duly franchised and authorized
No. The right of an accused to a fair trial is not television and radio networks, requested the Supreme
incompatible with a free press. Pervasive publicity is not Court to allow live media coverage of the trial of former
per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. President Estrada. The request was anchored on the
It does not by itself prove that the publicity so permeated need to assure the public of full transparency in the
the mind of the trial judge and impaired his impartiality. proceedings. In effect, the request seeks reconsideration
At best accused can only conjure possibility of prejudice of the 1991 resolution of the Court which barred live
on the part of the trial judge due to the barrage of media coverage of all court proceedings.
publicity. But the test is not the possibility of prejudice
Issue:
but actual prejudice. To warrant a finding of prejudicial
publicity, there must be allegation and proof that judges Should live media coverage of court trials be allowed?
have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might
be. Accused must discharge this burden. In this case, Held:
there is no proof that the judge acquired a fixed opinion, No. The issue involves the weighing out of constitutional
or actual bias as a consequence of extensive media guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to
coverage. public information, on the one hand, and the
fundamental rights of the accused, on the other hand,
along with the constitutional power of a court to control
Estrada v. Desierto 356 SCRA 109 April 3, 2001 its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial.
When these rights race against each other, the right of
Facts:
the accused must be preferred. With the possibility of
Former President Estrada seeks a reconsideration of the losing his life or liberty, it must be ensured that accused
decision of the Supreme Court declaring that having receives a verdict decreed by an unprejudiced judge.
resigned from the presidency, he may be prosecuted for Television coverage, however, can impair the testimony
Plunder. Among others, he contends that his right to an in criminal trials, can affect the performance of the
impartial trial has been affected by the prejudicial pre- judge, and can destroy the case of the accused in the
trial publicity of the proceedings before the Ombudsman. eyes of the public. Accordingly, to protect the parties’
He also points to the alleged hate campaign launched by right to due process, to prevent the distraction of the
some newspapers so that the prosecution and the participants in the proceedings and in the last analysis, to
judiciary can no longer assure him of a sporting chance. avoid miscarriage of justice, the request is denied.
He urges the Court to apply the rule on res ipsa loquitor. Re: Request for Live...,
Issue:
365 SCRA 62 September 13, 2001
Has the former President’s right to fair trial been
Facts:
violated?
The Secretary of Justice seeks a reconsideration of the
Held:
resolution denying permission to televise and broadcast
No. The mere fact that the proceeding was given a day live the trial of former President Estrada before the
to day coverage does not prove that the publicity so Sandiganbayan. Among others, he argues that if there is
permeated the mind of the tribunal and impaired his a clash between the rights of the people to public
impartiality. To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, information and the freedom of the press, on the one
there must be allegation and proof that the judges have hand, and the right of the accused to fair trial, it should
been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be. be resolved in favour of the right of the people, because
In this case, the former President has failed to adduce the people, as repository of democracy are entitled to
any proof of actual prejudice developed by the members information; and that live media coverage is a safeguard
of the Panel of Investigators of the Ombudsman. The against attempts by any party to use the courts as
test of actual prejudice cannot be replaced with the rule instruments for the pursuit of selfish interest.
of res ipsa loquitur. The latter rule assumes that an Issue:
injury has
Should the previous order be reconsidered?
Held:
No. However, because of the significance of the trial and recordings will not be for live or real time broadcast but for
the importance of preserving the records, there should documentary purposes. Only later will they be available for public
be an audio visual recording of the proceedings. The showing, after the Sandiganbayan shall have promulgated its

17
decision. The master film shall be deposited in the
National Museum and the Records Management and
Archives Office for historical preservation and exhibition Q: When is trial impartial?
pursuant to law. The audio- visual recording shall be
made under the supervision and control of the A: There should be no bias otherwise, the trial will not be
Sandiganbayan. fair – you are not given due process. If the court or the
judge has already pre-ordained your guilt. “Every litigant
is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an
impartial judge.” (Villapando vs. Quitain, January 20,
Q: What do you mean by speedy trial? Meaning, no
1977)
postponements? not even one postponement?
A: NO. That is not the interpretation. In the case of
Q: Right to a public trial – this is one of the features of
ALVIZO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN 220 SCRA 55 the accusatorial system. What is the reason for public
HELD: trial?

It must not be lost sight of that the concept of speedy A: The requirement of public trial is for the benefit of the
disposition of cases is a RELATIVE term and must accused, that the public may see that he is fairly dealt
necessarily be a flexible concept. Delays per se are with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence
understandably attendant to all prosecutions and are of spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense
constitutionally permissible with the monition that the of responsibility and to the importance of their functions.
attendant delay must NOT be OPPRESSIVE. [Hindi (1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, p. 647)
palagi. Pa-minsan-minsan okay lang man ba] Hence, the Meaning, everybody is on their toes. You don't want to
doctrinal rule is that in the determination of whether or commit a mistake eh, mahihiya ka eh, maraming
not that right has been violated, the factors that may be nanonood. The judge, the prosecutor, the witnesses, the
considered and balanced are: defense counsel, everybody is careful because they are
a. the length of delay; watched by the public. Look at what happened in the
impeachment trial, everybody wants to be careful there
b. the reasons for such delay; because, imagine how many millions of people are
watching you there on T.V.
c. the assertion or failure to assert such right by
the accused; and Please connect this provision on Speedy Trial with Rule
119 Section 9 which is a new provision taken from the
d. the prejudice caused by the delay. Speedy Trial Act. What is the heading of Section 9 Rule
119? Remedy where accused is not brought to trial
within time limits. So there is such a provision. When
Q: What are the remedies of an accused whose rights to your case will not move, the accused may question the
a speedy trial is being violated because the prosecution delay why his case has not been set for trial. That is a
keeps on postponing the case? How do you invoke this new provision taken from the Speedy Trial Act.
right to speedy trial?
A: There are three (3) possible remedies:
[i] To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner
prescribed by law
1. The accused should OPPOSE the postponement Nature of the right to appeal
and insist on trial. If the court denies the
postponement and directs the prosecution to People v. de la Concha 388 SCRA 280
proceed and cannot do so because he does not September 3, 2002
have the evidence, the accused should move for
Question:
dismissal of the case on the ground of failure to
prosecute or insufficiency of evidence. (Jaca vs. What is the nature of the right to appeal?
Blanco, 86 Phil. 452; Gandicela vs. Lutero, 88
Phil. 299; People vs. Diaz, 94 Phil. 714) The Answer:
dismissal is equivalent to an acquittal and there The right to appeal is but a statutory right, and the party
is no way for that case to be brought back
who seeks to avail of it must faithfully comply with the
because it will amount to double jeopardy.
rules. These rules are designed to facilitate an orderly
(People vs. Diaz, 94 Phil. 714)
disposition of cases before the appellate courts; they
2. If the court grants the postponement everytime provide for a system under which suitors may be heard
the fiscal asks for it, over the protest of the in the correct form and manner at the prescribed time in
accused, the latter’s remedy is mandamus to an orderly confrontation before a magistrate.
compel dismissal of the case; (Mercado vs.
Santos, 66 Phil. 215)
There is something you will notice here – all the rights of
3. If the accused is restrained of his liberty, his
the accused in this Rule, from [a] to [h], are also found
remedy is habeas corpus to obtain his freedom.
in the Constitution. These are all Constitutional rights
(Mercado vs. Santos, 66 Phil. 215; Conde vs.
except the last – [i]. The right to appeal is purely
Rivera, 45 Phil. 650)
statutory which may be granted or withheld at the
pleasure of the State. (People vs. Ang Gioc, 73 Phil. 366)

SEC 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 criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend
conducting the preliminary investigation. When the shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the
18
prosecution rests. (6a) Did the court commit grave abuse of discretion in
(sec. 6 is discussed under Pre-Arraignment remedies of denying the motion?
the accused) Held:
No. The determination of how many hearing days shall
be devoted to trial rests within the sound discretion of
the trial court. It does not appear that in setting the
Trial Proper cases to be heard twice a week, the Sandiganbayan
violated Sec. 2, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, which
Rule 119 TRIAL sets the limits to the discretion granted to trial courts
SECTION 1. on the matter of trial dates. The requirement of
continuous trial is satisfied if trial continues from day
Time Periods to day, is held on a weekly or other short-term trial
calendar, and, except as otherwise authorized by this
1. Preparation time for trial
Court, is completed within 180 days from the first day
At least 15 days from the time a plea of not guilty is of trial. Corollarily, the “consultations” referred to in
entered the foregoing provisions does not necessarily mean
that the court has to secure first from the prosecution
2. When trial shall commence and defense their approval before it can set the date
of hearing. To rule otherwise is to subject our trial
Within 30 days from receipt of pre-trial order
system to the control of the parties and their counsel.
3. The above time periods shall not apply when a
shorter period of trial is provided by:
There are many provisions here which are new in the
1. special laws, or sense that they are found in the rules for the first time.
2. circulars of the Supreme Court However, even before the new rules took effect, they
were considered as already existing provisions because
of the Speedy Trial Act and SC Circular 38-98.
SEC. 2. Continuous trial until terminated; postponements.
Trial The new provisions are Section 3 up to Section 10:
1. Trial should be continuous SEC. 3. Exclusions.
 Once commenced it shall continue from day to What shall be Excluded in Computing the Time
day as far as practicable until terminated, within which Trial must Commence

 However, it may be postponed for a reasonable 1. Any period of delay resulting from other
period of time for good cause proceedings concerning the accused, including but
not limited to delay:
2. Trial period:
1. resulting from an examination of the physical and
 General Rule – In no case shall the entire trial mental condition of the accused,
period exceed 180 days from the first day of
trial, 2. resulting from proceedings with respect to other
criminal charges against the accused,
 Exception – when otherwise authorized by the
3. resulting from extraordinary remedies against
Supreme Court
interlocutory orders,
3. The 180 day period shall not apply when a
4. resulting from pre-trial proceedings; provided,
shorter period of trial is provided by:
that the delay does not exceed 30 days,
1. special laws, or 5. resulting from orders of inhibition, proceedings
2. circulars of the Supreme Court relating to change of venue of cases or transfer from
other courts,
6. resulting from a finding of the existence of a
1. Requirement of continuous trial prejudicial question, and
People v. Sandiganbayan 440 SCRA 206 October 7. reasonably attributable to any period, not to
12, 2004 exceed 30 days, during which any proceeding
concerning the accused is actually under advisement
Facts:
2. Any period of delay resulting from the absence
During the trial of former President Estrada for Plunder,
or unavailability of an essential witness – an
the prosecutors filed a motion with the Sandiganbayan
essential witness shall be considered:
asking for “3 days hearing per week” to expedite
proceedings. The motion was denied, but the court set 2  absent- when his whereabouts are
days of hearing per week. unknown or his whereabouts cannot be
determined by due diligence, and
Issue:
 unavailable – whenever his whereabouts
are known but his presence for trial cannot
be obtained by due diligence.
3. Any period of delay resulting from the:
 mental incompetence of the accused to  physical inability of the accused to stand trial.
stand trial, or
19
4. If the information is dismissed upon motion of Held:
the prosecution and thereafter a charge is filed
against the accused for the same offense, any No. The right to speedy trial is deemed violated only
period of delay: when the proceedings is attended by vexatious,
capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified
 from the date the charge was dismissed postponements of the trial are asked for and secured,
or when without cause or justifiable motive a long
 to the date the time limitation would
period of time is allowed to elapse without the party
commence to run as to the subsequent
having his case tried. None of these circumstances
charge had there been no previous charge.
attended the proceedings below.
5. A reasonable period of delay when the accused
is joined for trial:
b. Postponement due to illness of witness
 with a co-accused:
De Zuruarregui v. Roesete 382 SCRA 1
 over whom the court May 9, 2002
has not acquired
jurisdiction, or Facts:

 as to whom the time Two years after arraignment of the accused for
for trial has not run, falsification of a private document, trial has not
and commenced due to 15 postponements. Five were
secured upon agreement of the prosecution and the
 no motion for separate trial has been defense and
granted 6 were on motion or due to non-appearance of the
accused. The last 2 postponements were secured by the
6. Any period of delay: prosecution without objection from the accused because
 resulting from a continuance granted by complainant had to leave for abroad for a medical
treatment. On the last scheduled hearing, however, the
any court:
judge dismissed the case for failure of the prosecution to
1. motu proprio, or present evidence.

2. on motion of either: Issue:

 the accused, or Was there a violation of the right of the accused to

speedy trial?
 his counsel, or
Held:
 the prosecution,
No. The right to speedy trial is a relative one, subject to
 if the court granted the continuance on the reasonable delays and postponements arising from
basis of its findings set forth in the order illness, as in the present case, where it was duly proven
that the ends of justice served by taking that complainant had to undergo carotid operation.
such action outweigh the best interest of Speedy trial means one that can be had soon after
the public and the accused in a speedy trial indictment is filed as the prosecution can, with
reasonable diligence, prepare for trial. For this reason, in
determining the right of the accused to speedy trial,
courts should do more than a mathematical computation
1. Justified reasons for delay
of the number of postponements of the scheduled
a. Postponement to give way to other cases hearings. What offends the right to speedy trial are
unjustified postponements which prolong trial for an
People v. Billaber 421 SCRA 27 January 26, 2004 unreasonable length of time. This is not the case here.
Facts:
In a prosecution for estafa and illegal recruitment on a c. Absence of proof of receipt of subpoena
large scale, the court set the initial trial on Dec. 15, 1992
but this was postponed to Dec. 22, 1992, for failure of Tai Lim v. CA 317 SCRA 521 October 26, 1999
complainants to appear. The trial set Dec. 22, 1992 was
Facts:
also reset upon agreement of the parties to Jan. 19,
1993. The prosecution conducted the direct examination, Accused was charged with violation of the Dangerous
but cross-examination was moved to Jan. 28 and Feb. 2, Drugs Act. Arraigned on Aug. 8, 1995, trial never
1993. The schedule on Jan. 28 was cancelled because by commenced despite the lapse of 1 year and 3 months
mistake complainants left the courtroom. Thereafter, trial due to 11 postponements, 9 of which were secured by
proceeded as scheduled until the prosecution rested on the prosecution. The grounds for postponements ranged
Nov. 24, 1993. from the absence of witnesses for the prosecution,
absence of the prosecutor and re-raffling of the case to
Issue:
another branch.
Was there a violation of the right of the accused to
Issue:
speedy trial?
Must the case be dismissed on the ground of speedy
trial?
Held:
No. The reasons for the prosecution’s postponements
were reasonable and were not intended merely to delay
the proceedings of the case. It would be unjust to dismissing the case when there was a valid excuse for their absence,
pounce on the absence of the witnesses as a basis for that is, there was no proof that they were duly served with subpoena.
20
The other reasons for postponements were due to
Issue:
circumstances beyond the control of the prosecution.
The right of the accused to speedy trial should not be Did the judge abuse his discretion?
utilized to deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity
of fairly prosecuting criminals. Held:
No. The trial and hearings of the case had long been
scheduled and if the accused chose to retain a new
SEC. 4. Factors for granting continuance. counsel and to hand over the records of the case only
shortly before the trial for that day, then there can be no
Factors for Granting Continuance other conclusion but that accused was merely trying to
1. Whether or not the failure to grant a delay the administration of justice as found by the trial
continuance in the proceeding would: court. More so, as the prosecution had finished
presenting its case and it was the turn of the accused to
 likely make a continuation of such proceeding present his witnesses and his evidence. In any case,
impossible, or accused was given a counsel de oficio who acted as his
lawyer during the presentation of the accused as
 result in a miscarriage of justice; and witness. The transcripts would show that the accused
was given an opportunity to be heard and afforded a fair
2. Whether or not the case taken as a whole is so
trial.
novel, unusual and complex:

 due to the number of accused or the nature of

the prosecution, or SEC. 5. Time limit following an order for new trial.
 that it is unreasonable to expect adequate Time Limit following an Order for New Trial
preparation within the periods of time
1. General Rule – trial shall commence within 30 days
established therein.
from notice of the order granting a new trial
2. Exception – the court may extend the period,
Continuance shall NOT be Granted for the following provided:
Reasons:
 The period becomes impractical due to
1. Congestion of the court’s calendar, unavailability of witnesses and other factors,
and
2. Lack of diligent preparation, or
 The extension shall not exceed 180 days from
3. Failure to obtain available witnesses in the part of
notice of said order for a new trial
the prosecutor

SEC. 6. Extended time limit.

1. Disposition of motions for continuance
Time Periods
Marcos v. Ruiz 213 SCRA 177 September 1, 1992
Question:
How should motions for continuances be ruled upon? Stage of When it Must be Held Pertinent
Proceeding or Conducted Provision
Answer: Arraignment Within 30 days from the Rule 116
date the court acquires Sec. 1(g)
Applications for continuances are addressed to the sound jurisdiction over the
discretion of the court which must be judicial and not person of the accused
arbitrary. It is the guardian of the rights of the accused Pre-trial Within 30 days from the Rule 118
as well as those of the people at large, and should not date the court acquires Sec. 1
unduly force him to trial, nor for light causes jeopardize jurisdiction over the
the rights or interests of the public. Where the court person of the accused
conceives it to be necessary for the more perfect Trial General Period – within Rule 119
attainment of justice, it has the power upon the motion 30 days from receipt of Sec. 1
of either party to continue the case. But a party charged pre-trial order
with a crime has no natural or alienable right to a ----------------------------------- Rule 119
continuance. Extended Period – Sec. 6
within 80 days from
arraignment
2. Hiring of new counsel
People v. Dela Cruz 150 SCRA 617 June 10, 1987
Facts:
During the presentation of accused as witness, he hired SEC. 7. Public attorney’s duties where accused is
a new counsel who appeared and asked for imprisoned.
postponement. The judge denied the motion and
assigned counsel de oficio to present the witness. Procedure when the Accused is Imprisoned
Situation Person-in- Duty
charge
The accused is: He shall promptly
1. Preventively Public 1. undertake to
detained, either attorney obtain the presence

21
 because he 1. is assigned to of the prisoner for not exceeding P20,000 for privately
retained
chargedcounsel
with a:of the accused
defend the trial, or
1. bailable accused
2. not exceeding
crime but P5,000
has – for: 2. cause a notice to
no means to be served on the 1. appointed counsel de oficio,
post bail, person having
2. non-bailable custody of the 2. public attorney, or
crime, Or prisoner requiring
2. Serving a term of 3. public prosecutor;
such person to so
imprisonment in any advise the prisoner 2. Denial of the right of the defense
penal institution of his right to counsel or prosecutor to practice before
demand trial the court trying the case for a period not
The custodian of Custodian of He shall promptly exceeding 30 days;
accused receives the accused advise the
notice advising him accused/prisoner of 3. Any appropriate criminal action; and
of the right of the the charge and of 4. Other sanctions authorized under these
accused to demand his right to demand Rules
trial trial

The He shall cause

accused/prisoner notice to be SEC. 9. Remedy where accused is not brought to trial
informs his promptly sent to the within the time limit.
custodian that he public attorney of
When Accused is NOT Brought to Trial within Time
demands such trial the demand of the
Limit
accused/prisoner
The public attorney Public He shall promptly 1. Time limits:
receives the above attorney seek to obtain the
notice from the assigned to presence of the  Accused must be arraigned within 30 days from
custodian of the defend accused for trial the date the court acquires jurisdiction over his
accused accused person [Rule 116, Sec. 1 (g)]
 Pre-trial must commence within 30 days from
The custodian Custodian of He shall make the the date the court acquires jurisdiction over his
receives from the the accused accused/prisoner person [Rule 118, Sec. 1]
public attorney a available
properly supported accordingly  Trial must commence:
request for the
availability of the 1. As a general rule – within 30 days from
accused/ prisoner arraignment [Rule 119, Sec. 1]
for purpose of trial 2. Under the extended period – within 80
days from arraignment [Rule 119 Sec. 6]
2. Effect when accused is not brought to trial
SEC. 8. Sanctions. within the time limit:
Sanctions and their Penalties  If the accused files a motion to dismiss – the
1. Who are covered by Sec. 8: information shall be dismissed

1. Private counsel for the accused,  The dismissal shall be subject to the rules on
double jeopardy
2. Public attorney, and
3. Ground for dismissal of the information:
3. Public prosecutor
Denial of the right of the accused to speedy trial
2. Acts of the above that may be sanctioned:
4. Effect if the accused fails to file a motion to
 Knowingly allowing the case to be set for trial dismiss prior to trial:
without disclosing that a necessary witness
would be unavailable for trial, It shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismiss under
this section
 Filing a motion solely for delay which he knows
is totally frivolous and without merit;
 Making a statement for the purpose of obtaining SEC. 10. Law on speedy trial not a bar to provision on
speedy trial in the Constitution. – No provision of law on
continuance which he knows to be false and
speedy trial and no rule implementing the same shall be
which is material to the granting of a
interpreted as a bar to any charge of denial of the right
continuance; or
to speedy trial guaranteed by section 14(2), article III, of
 Willfully failing to proceed to trial without the 1987 Constitution. (sec. 15, cir. 38-98)
justification consistent with the provisions
hereof,
Take note of Sections 9 and 10. Please correlate this on
3. Penalties for commission of above acts: the rights of the accused to speedy trial as mentioned in
1. A fine: Section 1[h] of Rule 115 on the rights of the accused.
SEC. 11. Order of trial. 1. Presentation of evidence by the prosecution to prove:
Order of Trial  the charge against the accused, and
  the civil liability of the accused, [when deemed cases required the application of any suitable proceeding
instituted with the criminal case] in accordance with Sec. 6 of Rule 135.
2. Presentation of evidence by the accused to Assuming accused admitted the charges, Sec. 3(e) of
prove: Rule 119 should have been applied. Conformably, a
modified order of trial is authorized whenever an accused
 his defense, and
admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense. This
 damages, if any, arising from the issuance of a does not mean, however, that in such a case, trial could
provisional remedy in the case be dispensed with altogether. A judge must nonetheless
ascertain whether the defense put up by the accused
3. Rebuttal evidence by the prosecution could withstand judicial scrutiny. In other words, while
the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to prove
unless the court, in furtherance of justice, permits it
by clear and convincing evidence that he is entitled to an
to present additional evidence bearing upon the extenuating circumstance, the trial court is still duty-
main issue bound to establish that the accused, in fact, did not incur
4. Sur-rebuttal by the defense any liability relative to his admission. Needless to say, a
regular trial on the merits is necessary for this purpose.
Unless the court, in furtherance of justice, permits
them to present additional evidence bearing upon
the main issue 2. Use of affidavit as direct testimony
5. Admission of evidence of the parties Sacay v. Sandiganbayan 142 SCRA 593 July 10,
6. The case shall be submitted for decision unless 1986
the court directs them to: Issue: May the prosecution present the affidavit of a
 argue orally, or witness to serve as his direct testimony subject to cross-
examination by counsel for the accused?
 submit written memoranda
Held:
No. Rules governing the examination of witnesses are
When the Order of Trial may be Modified – When intended to protect the rights of litigants and to secure
the Accused: orderly dispatch of the business of the courts. Only
questions directed to the eliciting of testimony which,
1. admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or under the general rules of evidence, is relevant to, and
information, BUT competent to prove, the issue of the case, may be
propounded to the witness. A witness may testify only on
2. interposes a lawful defense
those facts which he knows of his own knowledge. It is
obvious that such purpose may he subverted, and the
orderly dispatch of the business of the courts thwarted, if
1. Absence of trial trial judges are allowed to adopt any procedure in the
presentation of evidence other than what is specifically
Dayawon v. Garfin 388 SCRA 341 September
authorized by the Rules of Court.
5, 2002
Facts:
Accused filed a motion to quash the 4 indictments for 3. Waiver of right to present evidence
violation of B.P. 22 against her on the ground of People v. Macarang 424 SCRA 18 February 26,
payment. The judge set the case for hearing on the 2004
motion and ordered her to present evidence. Later, the
prosecution presented evidence to support its opposition. Facts:
Based on the evidence, the judge convicted the accused,
Accused was tried for the crime of qualified rape. After
later explaining that she wanted to avoid a “roundabout
several postponements for the presentation of defense
way of disposing cases.”
evidence either because of the absence of his counsel or
Issue: Is the procedure proper? because he was not ready to testify, the court issued the
following order:
Held:
“... as prayed for by the Public Prosecutor and pursuant
No. Before an accused can be convicted of a crime to the order of Aug. 28, 2001, accused is now deemed to
charged, it is essential that he be given the chance to have waived his right to present evidence. As further
refute the allegations against him in a proper trial on the prayed for, this case is now deemed submitted for
merits and not simply in a hearing on an incident of the decision.”
case such as a motion to quash. The Rules of Court
prescribe the procedure to be followed in criminal cases Thereafter, the court sentenced accused to death.
and the judge was not at liberty to disregard the rules on
Issue: Was there a waiver by accused of his right to
the flimsy excuse that the peculiarity of the criminal
present evidence?
Held:
No. In criminal cases where the imposable penalty may
be death, the judge is called upon to see to it that the
accused is made aware of the consequences of not
heeding the warning given by the trial court. Here, the
waiver of the right to present evidence was not even
voluntary nor upon the instance of the accused, but
imposed by the trial court, apparently to penalize the postponements of the scheduled hearings. Obviously, accused
accused, after he and his counsel repeatedly moved for was deprived of his right to due process.
 the deceased, the prosecution rested. Thereafter,
accused presented his evidence.
4. Subpoena during adverse party’s turn
Issue: Is the procedure proper?
Adorio v. Bersamin 273 SCRA 217 June 10, 1997
Held:
Issue: May an accused request for the issuance of
subpoenas to his own witnesses to appear and bring Yes. The procedure for trial provided in Sec. 11, Rule 119
documents during trial while it is still the turn of the of the Rules of Court safeguards and protects the
prosecution to present its evidence? fundamental right of the accused to be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved. Indeed, the form of
Held: a trial is also a matter of public order and interest; the
orderly course of procedure requires that the prosecution
Yes. Rule 119, Sec. 11 of the Rules of Court which
shall go forward and present all of its proof in the first
prescribes the order of trial in criminal cases does not
instance. However, in this case the accused did not
preclude the defense from procuring subpoenas duces
object to the procedure followed. It should be noted that
tecum during the time of the prosecution’s presentation this procedure is now expressly sanctioned in Sec. 11(e),
of evidence. In this case, counsel for the accused felt Rule
that he needed the documents subject of the subpoenas 119 of the Rules of Court which provides for a reverse
for his cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. trial when accused admits the act or omission charged
Accordingly, the judge called a recess to enable said but interposes a lawful defense.
counsel to secure said documents from the bank officials.
The order of trial was not in any way altered. Counsel for
the accused did not even attempt to call any of the bank
officials to the stand. Under these circumstances, the b. Claim of accident
resulting delay cannot be considered unreasonable nor People v. Gutierrez 302 SCRA 643 February 8,
“irregular.” 1999
Issue: Where the accused in a murder case claims that
5. Rebuttal evidence it was the victim who accidentally shot himself, should
the order of trial be reversed?
Pana v. Buyser 358 SCRA 199 May 24, 2001
Held:
Facts:
No. Rule 119, 11 of the Rules of Court allows the trial
After the prosecution and accused rested, the court to modify the order of trial. The change found in
prosecution presented 2 witnesses as rebuttal. After the present rule is based on the theory that by pleading
conviction, accused claimed that the admission of the self- defense, the accused admits the killing and,
rebuttal evidence was improper. therefore, the burden of justification is now on him. This
rule, however, does not require such a change in the
Issue: May the prosecution still be allowed to present order of trial but only allows it in the discretion of the
rebuttal after it has rested its case? court. In this case, although accused pleaded self-
Held: defense, he did not really admit the killing because his
claim was that it was the deceased who accidentally shot
Yes, because in the order of trial set by the rules, the himself. There is, therefore, no basis for reversing the
parties may present rebuttal evidence. The right to order of trial. The burden was on the prosecution to
present evidence is reserved to the State no less than to prove that it was accused who really fired his gun at the
the accused. The rules of evidence permit the use of deceased.
considerable discretion by the trial courts in the
admission of rebuttal evidence. It cannot be said that the The order of the trial in the criminal case is almost the
trial court abused its discretion in this respect, where the same pattern as in civil cases.
defendant is not taken by surprise and is not prevented
from introducing evidence in sur-rebuttal.
Q: Who presents evidence first?
A: The prosecution. Under Section 11 [a], “The
6. Reversed order of trial prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge
a. Claim of self-defense and, in the proper case, the civil liability.” So you prove
the charge and the civil liability.
Sacay v. Sandiganbayan 142 SCRA 593
Q: What is meant “in the proper case”?
July 10, 1986 A: That is because if the civil liability has already been
reserved, then there will be no presentastion of evidence
Facts: in the civil case. But if there is no reservation then it is
During the testimony of the first prosecution witness, deemed instituted with the criminal case.
accused, through counsel, admitted that he shot the Under paragraph [b], provisional remedies are allowed in
deceased, but invoked self-defense and fulfilment of criminal cases, like attachments, etc. in the same way if
duty. The prosecution then moved that the reverse the civil action is deem instituted, the offended party can
procedure be adopted in view of the admission that the ask a preliminary attachment of the property under Rule
accused shot the deceased. No objection was interposed 127.
by the accused or his counsel. Thus, after presenting
evidence to prove damages and the death and medical Paragraph [e] refers to “trial in reverse.” The best
certificates of example is when the accused raises self-defense. The
burden of proof is automatically shifted to the accused.
But this should be included during the pre-trial as
provided under Rule 118, Section 1 [e]:
SECTION 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. – In all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional
 Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial depositions of 3 DEA agents before a consular official of
Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal the Philippine Embassy stationed in the USA. He alleged
Circuit Trial Court, the court shall, after arraignment that the witnesses could not come to the Philippines for
and within thirty (30) days from the date the court security reasons and they had in their possession video
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused, tape recordings. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion.
unless a shorter period is provided for in special laws
or circulars of the Supreme Court, order a pre-trial Issue: Is the denial proper?
conference to consider the following:
Held:
xxxxxxx
Yes. The Sandiganbayan properly rules that no necessity
(e) modification of the order of trial if the accused existed for the conditional examination of the 3 proposed
admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense; witnesses for the defense because: [a] other witnesses
appearing on record are available to testify on the same
xxxxxxx facts on which the proposed deponents would testify;
and that [b] accused failed to show that the video tapes
recording the events prior to and during the shooting
Q: Is there such a thing as deposition-taking in criminal incident could not be produced except through the same
cases? deponents. The testimony of such witnesses are merely
corroborative. A bare allegation that the DEA agents
A: YES, under Section 12:
cannot come to the Philippines to testify for security
SEC. 12. Application for examination of witness for reasons, is not a compelling justification to take their
accused before trial.) deposition in the US. The taking of deposition in criminal
cases may be allowed only in exceptional situation in
Conditional Examination [Deposition Taking] of a order to prevent a failure of justice.
Witness in behalf of the Accused
1. Requisites:
2. Application for subpoena
 The accused has been held to answer for an
offense, Adorio v. Bersamin 273 SCRA 217 June 10, 1997
Issue: Must counsel furnish the adverse party with copy
 The accused must file a motion with the court,
of his request for issuance of subpoena?
and
Held:
 The accused must serve notice to the other
parties to the case No. Requests by a party for the issuance of subpoenas
do not require notice to other parties to the action. No
2. What the motion shall state: violation of due process results by such lack of notice
 The name and residence of the witness, since the other parties would have ample opportunity to
examine the witnesses and documents subpoenaed once
 The substance of the testimony of the witness, they are presented in court.
and

 That fact that the witness: Q: How is deposition in criminal cases being done?
 is sick or infirm as to afford reasonable A: Read Section 13:
ground for believing that he will not be able
to attend the trial, or SEC. 13. Examination of defense witness; how made.
 resides more than 100 kilometers from the Procedure in Conditional Examination of Witness
place of trial and has no means to attend for the Accused
the same, or
1. Effect when the court is satisfied that the
 other similar circumstances exist that would examination of a witness for the accused is
make the witness unavailable or prevent necessary
him from attending the trial.
 The court shall issue an order directing that
3. What shall support the motion: the witness be examined at a specific date,
time and place, and
1. an affidavit of the accused, and
 A copy of the order shall be served on the
2. such other evidence as the court may require. prosecutor at least 3 days before the
scheduled examination

1. Deposition of witness living abroad 2. Who shall conduct the examination:

Jaylo v. Sandiganbayan 370 SCRA 170  1st priority – a judge, or,

November, 22, 2001
 if not practicable – a member of the Bar in
Facts: good standing so designated by the judge
in the order, or
Accused was charged with murder. Before trial, he filed a
motion praying that he be allowed to take oral  if the order is made by a court of superior
jurisdiction – before an inferior court to be
designated in the order
3. Effect when the prosecutor is absent:
The examination shall proceed provided the 4. A written record of the testimony shall be taken
prosecutor was notified of the hearing
 A: According to one case through Justice Feria, this is
The grounds are almost identical. This is deposition because the government has the resources to get he
actually. Only, it is called conditional examination. That is testimony of its witnesses. Pero ang defense may have a
the term used here. hard time lalo na kapag pobre.
Take note, connect this with Section 1[f], Rule 115 –
rights of the accused. Section 12 is an exception to the
right to confront and cross-examine because you cannot SEC. 14. Bail to secure appearance of material witness.
insist during the trial to confront and cross-examine the
witness under Rule 115 Section 1[f] when he was Bail to Secure Appearance of Material Witness
already examined under Section 12. 1. Requisites for the court to order the witness
Q: Is the remedy of deposition-taking also available to to post bail in such sum as may be deemed
the prosecution? proper:

A: YES, under Section 15:  There must be proof or a statement under oath
that a material witness will not testify when
SEC. 15. Examination of witness for the prosecution. required, and
Conditional Examination of Witnesses in behalf of  A motion to the effect must be filed by the
the Prosecution proper party
1. Grounds for allowing conditional examination: 2. Remedies of the court when a witness refuses to
cooperate:
 Witness is too sick or infirm to appear at the
trial as directed by the court, or 1. It may order the witness to post bail –
when the witness refuses to testify when
 The witness has to leave the Philippines with no required, provided:
definite date of returning
 There is proof or a statement under
2. Who shall conduct such conditional examination: oath to that effect, and
The court where the case is pending  A motion must be filed by the proper
3. How conditional examination shall be conducted: party

In the same manner as an examination at the 2. It may commit the witness to prison –
when the such witness refuses to post
bail, until such time:
 he complies with the order, or
 he is legally discharged after his
testimony has been taken
trial
4. Effect of failure or refusal of the accused to
attend the examination after reasonable notice has It seems that the prosecution here is under the mercy of
been served on him: his witnesses. But under Section 14, you can ask the
court to order the witness to post bail. And if he refuses
 It shall be considered a waiver, and to post bail, he can be arrested. This is an instance
where a witness can be jailed ahead of the accused.
 The statement taken from the witness may be
admitted in behalf of or against the accused But actually the truth is in most cases, prosecution
witnesses do not appear not because ayaw but because
Distinctions takot! They are afraid of what will happen like the might
harass them. And the law knows that. That
Conditional Examination Of accused
As to: ere is also another alternative – RA 6981, The Protection
DEFENSE Witness is why th
Program which took effect last April of u read that so you
1. A judge Who1ocan Witness
2. A member of the Bar in good
dep 9s9it1act
io. nas
Yo will have an idea.
officer:
standing
3. An inferior court
1. Witness is sick or infirm as to SEC. 16. Trial of several accused.
Grounds:
afford reasonable ground for How eral Accused Jointly Charged shall be Tried
believing that he will not be able to Sev ral Rule
attend the trial, or
1. Gene
They shall be tried jointly
2. Witness resides more than 100 km
from the place of trial and has no tion – they shall be tried separately if the court,
means to attend the same, or 2. Excep etion, orders separate trials on motion of:
in its
discr 1. the prosecutor, or
3. Other similar circumstances exist
that would make the witness 2. any of the accused
unavailable or prevent him from

1. Separate trial
Q: What is the reason why the law is more generous to Dacanay v. People 240 SCRA 490 January 25,
the defense witness? 1995
Facts: Dacanay was charged before the Sandiganbayan [SB] with violation
of R.A. 3019. His co-accused filed a motion to quash the joint trial lang and you cannot have one information
information and when it was denied he raised the denial charging more than one offense.
in a certiorari before the Supreme Court. Dacanay moved
for a separate trial but this was opposed by the
prosecution on the ground that it would entail a
repetitious proceeding. Consequently, the SB denied the DISCHARGE OF AN ACCUSED TO BE STATE WITNESS
motion. SEC. 17. Discharge of accused to be state witness.
Issue: Procedure in the Discharge of an Accused to be
Is Dacanay entitled to a separate trial? State Witness

Held: 1. Two [2] or more persons are jointly charged with

the commission of any offense,
Yes. Sec. 16, Rule 119 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
grants discretion to the court to allow a separate trial 2. A motion to discharge must be filed by the
upon motion of the fiscal or any accused.The main prosecution before resting its case,
objection to the separate trial is that such a procedure 3. There must be a hearing in support of the
would entail a repetitive presentation of evidence. But discharge where:
the resulting inconvenience and expense on the part of
the Government cannot be given preference over the  The prosecution is required to present evidence,
right to speedy trial and the protection to a person’s and
life, liberty or property accorded by the Constitution.
This is particularly true in the case of Dacanay where the  Each proposed witness is required to make a
prosecutors’ opposition to the request for separate trial sworn statement;
was based on the ground that the principal accused in
the case was abroad and was not yet arrested. If an 4. The court must be satisfied that [requisites for
accused cannot be placed under arrest because he discharge]:
remains outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
 There is absolute necessity for the testimony of
Philippines, with more reason should his co-accused, who
the accused whose discharge is requested,
are under arrest, be entitled to a separate trial
 There is no other direct evidence available for
the proper prosecution of the offense
2. Time to file motion committed, except the testimony of said
accused,
Talino v. Sandiganbayan 148 SCRA 598 March
16, 1987  The testimony of said accused can be
substantially corroborated in its material points,
Question:
 Said accused does not appear to be the most
When should a motion for separate trial be filed?
guilty, and
Answer:
 Said accused has not at any time been
While Rule 119, Sec. 16, of the Rules of Court does not convicted of any offense involving moral
specify when the motion for such a trial should be filed, turpitude;
it has been held in several cases that this should be done
before the prosecution commences presenting its 5. The court may direct the discharge of the
evidence, although, as an exception, the motion may qualified accused; and
be granted later, even after the prosecution shall have
6. The discharge must be with the consent of the
rested, where there appears to be an antagonism in
accused so that he may be a witness for the
the respective defences of the accused. In such an state.
event, the evidence in chief of the prosecution shall
remain on record against all the accused, with right of
rebuttal on the part of the fiscal in the separate trial of
the other accused. Effects on Admissibility of Evidence

Remember that there can be a joint trial of two or more 1. When discharge is directed by the court:
criminal cases if they arose of the same incident like Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall
Judee fired her AK-47 and killed two or more people one automatically form part of the trial
after the other. But you cannot file one information
because that will be duplicitous. There must be one 2. When the court denies the motion for
information for every one homicide and then you move discharge of the accused as state witness:
for a joint trial.
His sworn statement shall be inadmissible in
evidence
Q: Now, how do you compare this rule with civil cases?
A: In civil cases, when there is a common question of 1. Time of discharge
fact or law involving two or more parties, there is such a
thing as filing only one complaint – joinder of causes of a. Discharge during bail hearings
action or parties. But in criminal cases, that is not People v. Sunga 399 SCRA 624 March 27, 2003
allowed. Consolidation in criminal cases is only for the
purpose of Facts:
Accused were charged with rape with homicide. They
applied for bail and in the course of the hearing of their
petition, the prosecution moved to discharge one of their
co-accused, the only eye-witness to the crime, as a state
witness.
Issue: May an accused be discharged as a state 4. Discharge of two accused
witness before trial?
People v. Peralta 343 SCRA 221 October 16,
Held: 2000
Yes. The discharge was ordered during hearings on the
Question:
petition of the accused for bail and after the prosecution
had presented several of its witnesses. A motion for What is the rationale for allowing the discharge of more
discharge may be filed at any stage of the proceedings, than one accused where several are charged in one
and discharge can be effected from the filing of the information?
information to the time the defense starts to offer any
evidence. Answer:
If no other prosecution witness could substantially
corroborate the testimony of a discharged witness, 2 are
b. Discharge before any other witness is presented discharged to meet the requirement of substantial
corroboration. Such corroboration is necessary to
Chua v. CA 261 SCRA 112 August 28, 1996 ascertain the truthfulness of statements emanating from
Issue: May an accused be discharged even before the an accused who turns state witness but is obviously a
prosecution has presented any of its other witnesses? tainted source.

Held:
Yes. The Rule does not require the prosecution to present 5. Evidence for discharge
all its other evidence before an accused can be People v. Chavez 397 SCRA 228 February 11,
discharged. An accused may be discharged at any time 2003
before the defendants have entered upon their defense,
that is, at any stage of the proceedings from the filing of Issue:
the information to the time the defense starts to offer
any evidence. At the hearing for the discharge of an accused as state
witness, may he be allowed to testify in addition to the
affidavit that he submitted for his discharge?
2. Discharge when accused are separately charged Held:
People v. Sandiganbayan 275 SCRA 505 July 16, Yes. Rule 119, Sec. 17 of the Rules of Court does not
1997 make any distinction as to the kind of evidence the
prosecution may present. What it simply requires, in
Issue: addition to the presentation of the sworn statement of
Where the 3 accused are charged in 3 separate the accused concerned, is the presentation of such
informations which arose out of one incident, but all the evidence as are necessary to determine if the conditions
cases were consolidated in one court, may one of them exist for the discharge, so as to meet the object of the
be discharged as state witness to testify against the law, which is to prevent unnecessary or arbitrary
others? exclusion from the complaint of persons guilty of the
crime charged. No exemption from the term evidence is
Held: provided by the law as to exclude the testimony of the
accused. When the law does not distinguish, we should
Yes. It is of no moment that one accused was charged
not distinguish.
separately from his co-accused. The consolidated and
joint trial has the effect of making the 3 accused co-
accused or joint defendants, especially considering that
they are charged for the same offense. In criminal law, 6. Requirement of “absolute necessity”
persons indicted for the same offense and tried together Chua v. CA 261 SCRA 112 August 28, 1996
are called joint defendants.
Issue:
Must the judge satisfy himself completely of the absolute
3. Discharge of co-conspirator necessity of the testimony of an accused before ordering
Chua v. CA 261 SCRA 112 August 28, 1996 his discharge as a state witness?

Issue: Where 2 people are charged as conspirators in a Held:

crime, may one of them be discharged to testify against No. Sec. 17, Rule 119 does not require absolute certainty
the other? in determining the conditions for the discharge. A trial
Held: judge cannot be expected or required to inform himself
with absolute certainty at the very outset of the trial as
Yes. When there is a conspiracy, and the crime is to everything which may be developed in the course of
committed clandestinely, then the discharge of a the trial in regard to the guilty participation of the
conspirator is necessary to testify against the other accused in the commission of the crime charged in the
conspirator. A conspiracy can be established by the complaint. If that were practicable or possible, there
testimony of a co-conspirator. In a conspiracy which was would be little need for the formality of a trial. In coming
done in secret, there is a necessity to discharge one of to his conclusions as to the necessity for the testimony of
the accused to provide direct evidence of the commission the accused whose discharge is requested, as to the
of the crime. For who else outside the conspiracy can availability or non-availability of other direct or
testify on what was concocted between the conspirators, corroborative evidence; as to which of the accused is the
but they themselves? ‘most guilty’ one; and the like, the judge must rely in
large part upon the suggestions and the information
furnished by the prosecuting officer.
 faithfully executed. A necessary component of this power
to execute our laws is the right to prosecute their
7. Previous conviction of a crime violators. The right to prosecute vests the prosecutor
Mangubat v. Sandiganbayan 135 SCRA 732 April with a wide range of discretion – the discretion of
20, 1985 whether, what and whom to charge, the exercise of which
depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are best
Issue: appreciated by prosecutors. It is therefore not
constitutionally impermissible for Congress to enact R.A.
May an accused who has been previously convicted of 6981 vesting in the Department of Justice the power
estafa be discharged as a state witness? to determine who can qualify as a witness in the program
Held: and who shall be granted immunity from prosecution.
Sec. 17 of Rule 119 does not support the proposition that
Yes. While accused should not have been discharged the power to choose who shall be a state witness is an
because he lacks one qualification due to ‘a previous final inherent judicial prerogative. Under this provision the
convictions’ of crimes involving moral turpitude, the court is given the power to discharge as state witness
Supreme Court has time and again declared that even if only because it has already acquired jurisdiction over the
the discharged witness should lack some of the crime and the accused. The discharge of an accused is
qualifications enumerated by Sec. 9. Rule 119 of the part of the exercise of jurisdiction but is not a recognition
Rules of Court, his testimony will not, for that reason of an inherent judicial function.
alone, be discarded or disregarded. In the discharge of a
co-accused, the court may reasonably be expected to
err; but such error in discharging an accused has been SEC. 18. Discharge of accused operates as acquittal.
held not to be a reversible one. This is upon the principle
that such error of the court does not affect the Effects when the Court orders the Discharge of
competency and the quality of the testimony of the an Accused as State Witness:
discharged defendant. It is safe to assume that the
discharge was allowed by the court because there was 1. General Rule – it shall:
absolute necessity for the testimony of the witness  amount to an acquittal of the discharged
whose discharge is requested. At any rate, the discharge accused, and
of a co- defendant is a matter that lies within the sound
discretion of the trial court.  be a bar to future prosecution for the same
offense

8. Testimony of accused not discharged 2. Exception – unless:

the accused fails or refuses to testify against his co-
People v. Chaves 397 SCRA 228 February 11,
2003 accused in accordance with his sworn statement
constituting the basis for his discharge
Issue:
May an accused voluntarily testify against his co-accused
without first being discharged as a state witness? 1. Retrial of discharged accused
Held: People v. De Guzman 326 SCRA 131 February 22,
2000
Yes. It is true that an accused cannot be made a hostile
witness for the prosecution, for to do so would compel Issue:
him to be a witness against himself. However, he may
Where an accused was erroneously discharged as a state
testify against a co-defendant where he has agreed to do
witness, may he be tried again for the same offense?
so, with full knowledge of his right and the consequences
of his acts. There is nothing in the rules that requires the Answer:
court discharges him first as state witness. There is a
difference between testifying as state witness and No. The discharge of an accused is not reversible
testifying as a co-accused. In the first, the proposed because it will place him in double jeopardy. Once his
state witness has to qualify as a witness for the state, discharge is effected, the legal consequence of acquittal
after which he is discharged as an accused and follows unless the accused so discharged fails or refuses
exempted from prosecution. In the second, the witness to testify pursuant to his commitment. The order for his
remains an accused and can be made liable should he discharge may only be recalled in one instance, and that
be found guilty of the criminal offense. is when he subsequently fails to testify against his co-
accused.

9. Exclusion under R.A. 6981

2. Where discharged accused has not yet testified
Webb v. De Leon 247 SCRA 652 August 23, 1995
Bogo-Medellin v. Hermosa 209 SCRA 329 May 27,
Issue: 1992
May a potential accused be excluded from the Facts:
information to be utilized as a State witness without
court approval? Two employees were arraigned for qualified theft.
Thereafter, the prosecution asked for the discharge of
Held: one of them as a state witness, which was granted by
Yes. The prosecution of crimes appertains to the the court. When a new judge took over, he reversed the
executive department of government whose principal previous judge and ordered the discharged accused
power and responsibility is to see that our laws are reinstated in the information. Said discharged witness
has
not yet testified and it appears that the previous order discharging him was obviously erroneous.
Issue: That is not what the law says! What the law says is, HE
Is the reinstatement of accused in the information DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE MOST GUILTY. And it is
proper? not
the same with HE IS THE LEAST GUILTY.
Held:
EXAMPLE: Mortz, Pao and Jet. Mortz – principal; Pao –
No. Under Sec. 18 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, accomplice; Jet – accessory. Pag-sinabi mong “the least
once the discharge of an accused from the information is guilty,” hindi mo puwedeng gamitin si Pao. Si Jet dapat
effected, the legal consequence of acquittal follows and ang gamitin mo because he is the least guilty. [Tsk! tsk!
persists unless the accused so discharged fails to refuses Ginamit si Jet. Ginamit!] PERO, pag-sinabi mong “he
to testify against his co-defendant, in which case the does not appear to be the most guilty”, you can use Pao,
defense of double jeopardy is withdrawn from him and although there is somebody to be less guilty. Basta ang
becomes unavailable to him. Until it is shown that the importante, hindi si Mortz. So, there is a difference
discharged accused has in fact failed or refused to testify between the two phrases.
against his co-defendant, subsequent proof showing that
any or all of the conditions listed in the Rules had not
been actually fulfilled, would not affect the legal Q: What do you mean by the phrase “does not appear to
consequence of the discharge, i.e., would not wipe away be the most guilty’”?
the resulting acquittal.
A: There are cases:
PEOPLE vs. OCIMAR August 17, 1992
3. Effect of erroneous discharge on testimony
FACTS:
People v. Sunga 399 SCRA 624 March 27, 2003
This case involved a hold-upping incident, committed in a
Question: bus in Manila while traveling in the North Express Way.
If the order of discharge of an accused as state witness There were four (4) hold-uppers who rode in the bus.
failed to comply with Sec. 17, Rule 119, of the Rules of When they reach a certain point, they stood up and
Court, should the testimony of the witness be pulled out their guns and robbed the passengers. And
disregarded? they placed themselves strategically: One of them stood
behind the driver, “o, wag kang kikilos, drive ka lang.”
Answer: Yung iba namang dito. Kanya-kanyang silang role eh.
The others were the ones who divested the passengers,
No. Even if the discharge failed to comply with all the
“mga pitaka ninyo, relo… lahat!”
requirements embodied in the Rules, the testimony
would not, for that sole reason, be discarded or Now, there was one passenger there who was a military
disregarded for, in the discharge of a co-accused, the man wearing civilian clothes and may baril siya. So he
court may reasonably be expected to commit error which wanted to fight back but one of them saw him. Pag-
is not reversible, the underlying principle being that it bunot niya, inunahan siya! So accused A shot that
does not affect the competency and quality of testimony passenger. Accused D naman saw A shoot the victim.
of the discharged accused. And of course all of them were charged with Robbery
with Homicide in conspiracy - the act of one is the act of
all.
Let’s take Section 17 and Section 18 together. Discharge The prosecution wants to utilize D – the one who is
of an accused to be state witness means that you will behind the driver – as state witness. The other accused
convert an accused to become “Hudas,” save his neck objected claiming conspiracy – “we are all co-principal –
but hang them all! the act of one is the act of all. So why do you say you
Under Section 18, once the witness is discharged under are not the most guilty? Pare-pareho lang tayo. Same
Section 17, he is now CONSIDERED ACQUITTED and penalty.”
there is no way for him to be brought back in the case ISSUE: Will accused D be qualified under the phrase
EXCEPT when he changes his mind and ayaw na niyang “does not appear to be the most guilty”?
mag- testify. That is the only exception.
HELD:
YES. When you say “he does not appear to be the most
Q: What are the requirements before a witness can be
guilty”, you do not apply the rule on conspiracy. But you
discharged?
apply the rule on individual acts. In reality, who is more
A: Section 17 enumerates the requirements. guilty? The one who really shot the victim or the one who
is just behind the driver? The reality is, the most guilty is
“SAID ACCUSED DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE the one who shot, although for purposes of the RPC both
MOST GUILTY.” of you are co-principal. So, you look at it that way. Do not
apply the principle of the act-of-the-one-is-the-act-of-all.
Let’s comment on some of the requirements. One of the
You consider the most guilty in terms of the participation.
most important requirements for the discharge of an
accused is the fourth one – “Said accused does not “By ‘most guilty’ means the highest degree of culpability
appear to be the most guilty.” Based from what I read in terms of participation in the commission of the offense
from time to time, even lawyers have been commenting and not the severity of the penalty imposed. While all
on this. It seems they are misquoting this eh, like 2 days the accused maybe given the same penalty but by reason
ago, a lawyer said that we must discharge the accused of culpability one may be least guilty if we take into
because he is the least guilty. account his degree of participation in the perpetuation of
the offense.”

Q: Generally, when the fiscal, after criminal investigation,

believes that one of them can be a state witness,
therefore he will not include his name in the information. NO. Hearing means, you have the opportunity to read
Is it allowed? what he will say and the opportunity to object. Yan ang
A: NO, you have to include him first before he can be a ibig sabihin ng hearing. Hindi kailangan na he will be
state witness. Let the court decide whether he will be a questioned personally in court. That satisfies the
state witness or not. You cannot discharge on your own. requirement of hearing.
Remember under the Rules, the prosecutor is bound to “Hence, in resolving the issue in this petition, the proper
file the information against ALL those who appear to be question we should address is: Was there a failure to
responsible including this guy who you want to use as observe the spirit and intent of Section 17, Rule 119 in
state witness. But when you reach the court, you file a the case at bar? We rule in the NEGATIVE. The
motion to discharge and let the court who will do it. prosecution has submitted the sworn statement of
And under the New Rules, there must be a HEARING to accused Nonilo Arile and its evidence showing that the
determine whether there should be discharged or not. conditions for discharge have been met. Neither can it be
That’s why the rule said, “the trial court must require the denied that the defense was able to oppose the motion
prosecution to present evidence and the sworn to discharge Nonilo Arile. With both litigants able to
statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in present their side, the lack of actual hearing was not
support of the discharge.” So, there must be an affidavit fatal enough to undermine the court's ability to
and there must be a hearing. determine whether the conditions prescribed under
Section 17, Rule 119 were satisfied.”
In the 1985 Rules, there was no need of a hearing. No
need for the prosecution to present evidence. Normally So there is already substantial compliance with the
the fiscal will just file a motion that we would like to use hearing. And that was the first case interpreting this new
this witness and the court will discharge. Now, hindi na provision after the 1985 Rules. But for the merits, later
pwede yan because in most cases in the past, a person is na-acquit man si Pring ba which is a different issue. Yung
discharge and it turns out that he is the most guilty. To dito, discharge lang ang issue eh. On the merits, he was
avoid that possibility, there is now need to present acquitted. But after one year from his acquittal, pinatay
affidavit, etc. and there must be a hearing. The court will naman siya ng ABB. Sabi nila (ABB), kung nakaligtas ka
require presentation of evidence and it will decide sa court, sa amin hindi ka makaligtas. That’s what
whether or not to discharge. happened there.

Now, sabi ng court in the hearing for the discharge of the

accused, “There is no need to discharge him. Motion to
Q: Normally, when is an accused discharged?
discharge, denied!” So sabi ng accused, “Kawawa na ako
nito because I already admitted the crime in my affidavit! A: He is discharged before he testifies. You will use him.
Tapos, hindi pala ako qualified! [‘nak ng pating naman That’s why he is going to be discharged. However, in the
o!].” What will happen to you now? You Look at the last 1992 case of
paragraph of Section 17:
ROSALES vs. COURT OF APPEALS 215 SCRA 102
“Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall
automatically form part of the trial. If the court denies FACTS:
the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, The prosecution wants to use an accused as a witness
his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.” and he was willing. Sabi ng prosecution, “We will file a
So that is fair enough because the affidavit which is motion to discharge you to be state witness.” The
practically an admission of his participation, then if he is accused said, “Hwag! Hwag!.. if you will do that patay
not discharged, do not use it against him. It is ako! Patayin talaga nila ako. They will not allow me to
inadmissible as evidence against him. The leading case in testify.” But still the prosecution used him. He took a
this issue is the 1993 case of stand and he pointed to all his companions. So he
testified first bago nag-file ng motion to discharge ang
PEOPLE vs. CA AND INSPECTOR JOE PRING prosecution.
223 SCRA 475
ISSUE: Is that correct? Can the testimony come ahead
FACTS: before the discharge?
Pring was involved in kidnapping and one policeman HELD:
testified against him – Nonilo Arile. There was a motion
to discharge Arile to testify against Pring. Then the YES because of the peculiar fact – his life is in danger eh.
prosecution gave the defense the affidavit of Arile. Based Anyway according to the law, should the discharge be
on that, the court ordered the discharge of Arile. Pring made, is should be made by the prosecution before
questioned the procedure. This is the first case where resting its case (Section 17). In the case at bar, at that
the SC applied this rule on hearing on the discharge of moment, the prosecution has not rested its case. So
an accused. Sabi ni Pring, “Where is the hearing?” puwede.
Prosecution: “Yon palang motion to discharge na binigay “While it is the usual practice of the prosecution to
namin sa inyo?” Pring: “Ah, hindi naman hearing yun! present the accused who turns state witness only after
Hearing means, ilagay mo si Arile sa witness stand his discharge, the trial court may nevertheless sanction
subject to cross-examination because even under Section his discharge after his testimony if circumstances so
17, evidence adduced to support the discharge shall warrant. In the case before Us, the imminent risk to his
automatically form part of the trial. Meaning, the state life justified the deviation from the normal course of
witness will not testify again. So what is contemplated procedure as a measure to protect him while at the same
here is personal testimony and not the affidavit.” time ensuring his undaunted cooperation with the
ISSUE: Is the argument of Pring correct? prosecution. Indeed, as is explicit from the Rule, as long
as the motion for discharge of an accused to be utilized
HELD: as a state witness is filed before the prosecution rests,
the trial court should, if warranted, grant it.”
August 23, 1995
Q: What happens if an accused who is the most guilty is FACTS:
erroneously discharged – ang mga naiwan, yung mga pipitsugin? Is the erroneous discharge valid? Is he deemed acquitted?
A: The SC said YES. Even if there is a mistake, he is now
acquitted once he is discharged. His testimony is State witness Alfaro admitted that she was with them.
admissible. In the case of She admitted kasama siyang nagpunta sa bahay ng mga
Vizconde. And then she was placed in the Witness
BOGO-MEDELLIN CO. vs. JUDGE PEDRO SON Protection Program and was used against Hubert Webb.
And according to Webb, the provision of the Witness
209 SCRA 329 (May 27, 1992) Protection Act – which authorizes the DOJ to place
HELD: somebody in the Witness Protection Program, and once
he certifies that she is covered, the fiscal is no longer
“Any witting or unwitting error of the prosecution in allowed to file a case against her (state witness) – is
asking for the discharge of an accused and of the trial violative of the judicial prerogative to discharge a witness
court in granting the petition for discharge, so long as no because you jumping the gun on the court.
question of jurisdiction is involved, would not deprive the
discharged accused of the acquittal that is specified in According to Webb, it should be the court that will
Section 10 of Rule 119 and of the constitutional discharge and not the DOJ. The law is not valid because
guarantee against double jeopardy. It is also relevant to it is an encroachment of a judicial prerogative. It is an
note that the improper or mistaken discharge of an intrusion for it is only the court which has the power
accused would not affect his competency as a witness or under the rules on criminal procedure to discharge an
render inadmissible his testimony.” accused as state witness.
ISSUE #1:

Q: Let’s go back to Evidence. He is the most guilty. His Is Webb’s argument valid?
discharge was wrong. Is his testimony admissible? HELD:
A: YES, because he can perceive and perceiving and he “Webb’s argument lacks appeal for it lies on the faulty
can make known his perception to others. That is the assumption that the decision whom to prosecute is a
only qualification. There is no violation of marital judicial function, the sole prerogative of courts and
disqualification or attorney-client confidentiality, etc. beyond executive and legislative interference. In truth,
Wala man! So you go back to Evidence. The testimony of the prosecution of crimes appertains to the executive
the witness is qualified although it might be polluted and department of government whose principal power and
he did it to save his game – that is not enough to make responsibility is to see that our laws are faithfully
his testimony inadmissible. executed. A necessary component of this power to
execute our laws is the right to prosecute their violators.
The right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with a wide
Q: One thing more, who can discharge the witness? range of discretion — the discretion of whether, what
and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a
A: The court where the very case is pending. That’s the smorgasbord of factors which are best appreciated by
rule – the court where the case is pending. prosecutors. We thus hold that it is not constitutionally
impermissible for Congress to enact R.A. No. 6981
vesting in the Department of Justice the power to
BAR QUESTION: What happens when an accused is determine who can qualify as a witness in the program
discharged, and after he is discharged, sabi ng and who shall be granted immunity from prosecution.”
prosecution, “Teka muna nagkamali ako, di pala kita
kailangan. Balik ka!” Can it be done? ISSUE #2:

A: Sabi ng SC, NO, acquitted na yan! The only reason for How do you reconcile this ruling with the rule that only
him to come back is, he is asked to testify pero ayaw the court has the power to discharge?
niya. Prosecution: “But I don’t need him.” SC: that is your HELD:
fault because first, why did you ask for his discharge? So
once he is discharged, he is deemed acquitted whether Simple! In the Witness Protection Program, the accused
you use him or do not use him. The only way for him to is NOT even accused in any case yet. Wala pa! But once
come back is, you want to use him but he does not want he is accused, you need the consent of the court to
to testify because he is double-crossing the Government. discharge, that is kapag kasali na! Pero kung hindi pa
kasali, there is no need for the court’s consent to decide
Lets go further. There is another law, about this witness. because that is an executive function.
You try to compare this principle with the provision of RA
6981 – The Witness Protection Act. Under RA 6981, the ISSUE #3:
fiscal would not even include you in the charge anymore,
for as long as the DOJ will say that he is qualified, he is And why is the court’s consent necessary once the
covered by the Witness Protection Program. Under the accused is charged in court?
law, the fiscal should not include him anymore. HELD:
Unlike in criminal procedure kailangan isali ka muna bago This is because the court has already acquired
ka i-discharge. Sa RA 6981 naman, hindi ka na kasali. jurisdiction over the person of the accused. So the SC
That is why the constitutionality of the law was said, “Section 17 of Rule 119 does not support the
challenged in the case of proposition that the power to choose who shall be a
WEBB vs. DE LEON state witness is an inherent judicial prerogative. Under
this provision the court is given the power to discharge
as state witness only because it has already acquired
jurisdiction over the crime and the accused. The
discharge of an accused is
part of the exercise of jurisdiction but is not a recognition Congress enact this kind of law that will determine that the witness
of an inherent judicial function.” will not be included in the information?
ISSUE #4: HELD:
Is it wise for Congress to enact this law? Why will YES. It is a wise legislation. “Moreover, the Rules of Court have never
been interpreted to be beyond change by legislation would primarily be the function of the court to motu
designed to improve the administration of our justice proprio order the dismissal of the case and direct the
system. The Witness Protection Act is one of the much filing of the appropriate information. The prosecution or
sought penal reform laws to help government in its uphill
the defense may initiate such dismissal and substitution
fight against crime, one certain cause of which is the
at this stage, although, from a realistic point of view, that
reticence of witnesses to testify.”
would be rare situation. Rule 119 Sec. 19 therefore, is
more directly and principally directed to the trial court
to invest it with the requisite authority to direct by itself
SEC. 19. When mistake has been made in charging the the dismissal and refiling of the informations therein
proper offense. contemplated.
When Mistake has been made in Charging the Rule 110 provides the procedural governance for the
Proper Offense prosecution of offenses. Sec. 14[2] provides the
procedure and requisites for the substitution of a
1. Situation: defective information by the correct one. Although, just
 A mistake has been made in charging the like Sec. 11 of Rule 119 the permissible stage for
proper offense; effecting that substitution is “at any time before
judgment,” unlike the latter situation it is sufficient that
 This becomes manifest at any time before “it appears that a mistake has been made in charging the
judgment ; and proper offense.” The situation under Sec. 14
contemplates a longer time span, inclusive of the period
 Because of this mistake, the accused cannot be from the filing of the information up to and before trial.
convicted of: Since no evidence has been presented at that stage, the
error would appear or be discoverable from a review of
 the offense charged, or the records of the preliminary investigation. This fact
 any other offense necessarily included may be perceived by the trial judge himself but
realistically, it will be the prosecutor who can initially
therein; but
determine the same. That is why such error need not be
 There appears good cause to detain the accused manifest or evident, nor is it required that such nuances
as offenses includible in the offense charged be taken
2. Effects: into account. It necessarily follows, therefore, that the
prosecutor can and should institute remedial measures
 The accused shall NOT be discharged; rather
for the dismissal of the original information and the
 The court shall: refiling of the correct one, otherwise he would be
recreant to his duties.
 commit the accused to answer for the
proper offense [order the prosecution
to file the proper information], and 2. Mistake in stating the date of commission
 dismiss the original case upon the filing People v. Molero 144 SCRA 397 September 24,
of the proper information 1986
Facts:
1. Distinguished from Rule 110, Sec. 14 The complaint charged accused of raping his daughter
on Feb. 13, 1976. When his daughter testified that the
Galvez v. CA 237 SCRA 685 October 24, 1994 rape occurred on Feb. 5, 1976, the court dismissed the
Question: case and ordered the Prosecutor to file the proper
information for the rape committed on Feb. 5, 1976.
How is amendment of an information under Sec. 14, Rule
110 distinguished from dismissal when a mistake has Issue:
been made in charging the proper offense and the Is the procedure proper?
subsequent filing of the proper information under Rule
119, Sec. 19 of the Revised Rules of Court? Held:
Answer: No. The court should have simply granted the
prosecution’s motion for leave to amend the complaint as
The following are the distinctions: to the date of the commission of the crime. There was
Rule 119 is the rule specifically governing the trial stage no need to dismiss the case without prejudice to the
where evidence is necessarily being presented, hence the filing of a new complaint. Sec. 19, Rule 119, Rules of
trial court is now in a better position to conclude that Court applies when there is a mistake in charging the
manifestly the accused cannot be convicted of the proper offense but not when an honest error of a few
offense charged of one that it necessarily includes. It days is sought to be corrected and the change does not
affect the rights of the accused.

You co-relate Section 19 with the last paragraph of

Section 14, Rule 110:
If it appears at anytime before judgment that a mistake
has been made in charging the proper offense, the court
shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon
the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in
accordance with section 19, Rule 119, provided the
accused shall not be placed in double jeopardy. The court appearance at the trial.
may require the witnesses to give bail for their
So the same ‘no? The accused shall be discharge because of a wrong
information upon filing of the correct one. So Section 14
 Any of the grounds stated in section 1 of Rule
of Rule 110 and Section 19 of Rule 119 talk of the same
137, or
thing.
 Any other reason,

QUESTION: how will you distinguish the two provisions? 2. The judge or the prosecutor shall communicate with
Kung tingnan mo mukang pareho eh. But for academic the Secretary of Justice; and
purposes, there are differences made by Justice 3. The Secretary of Justice may appoint an acting
Regalado in the 1994 case of GALVEZ VS. CA (237 SCRA prosecutor
685) Alam mo itong si Regalado, siya din ang nag-
distinguish ng amendment and substitution of
information under Rule 110 which was asked in the bar
and thoroughly discussed in the case of TEEHANKEE VS. SEC. 21. Exclusion of the public. –
MADAYAG. In the case of Galvez naman, gi-distinguish Section 21 is an exception to the rule found in Rule 115
naman niya ang Section 14 Rule 110 and Section 19 Rule about the right of the accused to a public trial. There are
119. some exceptions to that right. And under Section 21:
Exclusion of the Public
Q: Distinguish Section 14 of Rule 110 and Section 19 of 1. When the judge may exclude the public from the
Rule 119. courtroom:
A: For academic purposes, the following are the  Motu propio – if the evidence to be produced
distinctions: during the trial is offensive to decency or public
1. Rule 119 is the rule specifically governing the morals, or
trial stage; whereas
 On motion of the accused
Rule 110 provides the procedural governance for
the prosecution of offenses; 2. Who cannot be excluded from the trial:

2. Rule 119 is more directly and principally directed  Court personnel, and
to the trial court to invest it with the requisite authority
 Counsel of the parties
to direct by itself the dismissal and re-filing of the
informations therein contemplated; whereas
Rule 110 is directed to the prosecutor who can Aside from the two exceptions, the other grounds where
and should institute remedial measures for the the public can be excluded, based on American
dismissal of the original information and the re- Jurisprudence are:
filing of the correct one, otherwise he would be
recreant to his duties; 1. To prevent disorder;

3. In Rule 119, evidence is necessarily being 2. To prevent embarrassment to a witness;

presented, hence the trial court is now in a
3. To limit attendance to seating capacity.
better position to conclude that manifestly the
accused cannot be convicted of the offense SEC. 22. Consolidation of trials of related offenses. –
charged or of one that it necessarily includes; Charges for offenses founded on the same facts or
whereas forming part of a series of offenses of similar character
may be tried jointly at the discretion of the court. (14a)
In Rule 110, since no evidence has been
presented at that stage, the error would appear Distinctions
or be discoverable from a review of the records
of the preliminary investigation; and Consolidated under Rule 111

4. In Rule 119, the permissible stage for effecting A consolidation is made between a 1
that substitution is “at any time before criminal case and the civil case arising
judgment”; whereas out of the offense charged

In Rule 110, it is sufficient that “it appears…that The civil case was originally filed 2
a mistake has been made in charging the proper separately from the criminal case
offense…” which situation contemplates a longer
time span, inclusive of the period from the filing
of the information up to and before trial.
1. Consolidation when cases are filed separately

SEC. 20. Appointment of acting prosecutor. People v. Mejia 275 SCRA 127 July 7, 1997

Appointment of Acting Prosecutor; Procedure Facts:

1. A prosecutor, his assistant or deputy is disqualified to Accused stabbed the driver of a jeep to death, wounded
act due to: a passenger and drove the vehicle away. They were
charged with and convicted of murder and frustrated
murder in one RTC, and charged with and convicted the
crime of carnapping in another RTC branch.
Issue:
Should the 3 cases have been consolidated?
Held: founded on the same factual milieu, and would be proved by testimonies
of the same witnesses. Sec. 22 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court provides
Yes. The offenses arose out of the same incident, are
that charges for offenses founded on the same facts or
 If the court GRANTS the demurrer – the case is
forming part of a series of offenses of similar character may
dismissed and the accused is as good as
be tried jointly at the court’s discretion. Although
acquitted
consolidation is one addressed to the sound discretion of
the trial court, joint hearing becomes a matter of duty if
2 or more cases are tried before the same judge, or even
filed with the different branches of the same court, Demurrer to Evidence WITHOUT Leave of Court;
provided one of such cases has not been partially tried. Procedure
1. A demurrer to evidence is directly filed by the
accused with the court
SEC. 23. Demurrer to evidence.
2. Resolution of the court on the demurrer:
Demurrer to Evidence
 If the court DENIES the demurrer:
1. When the court may dismiss the criminal action
on the ground of insufficiency of evidence:  The accused is deemed to have waived his
right to present evidence,
After the prosecution rests
 The court will render judgment based on
2. Basis of the court to dismiss the case on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence: the evidence presented by the prosecution,
and
 On its own initiative – after giving the
prosecution the opportunity to be heard, or  This order shall not be reviewable by appeal
or by certiorari before judgment
 Upon demurrer to evidence – filed by the
accused  If the court GRANTS the demurrer – the case is
dismissed and the accused is as good as
3. Two [2] ways of filing a demurrer to evidence: acquitted

 With leave of court

 Without leave of court Demurrer is a motion to dismiss. After the prosecution

has rested its case, based on the order of trial, the
accused now presents his case. But sabi ng accused,
“Well, I will present evidence on the assumption that the
Demurrer to Evidence WITH Leave of Court; prosecution has proven prima facie the crime and my
Procedure guilt. [meaning the presumption of innocence has already
1. Motion for leave of court to file a demurrer: been disputively rebutted ba!].” But suppose the
prosecution has not proven the facts or not proven the
 Shall be filed by the accused within a non- crime or my guilt, “why will I present evidence? Why will
extendible peiod of 5 days after the prosecution I prove my innocence when I’m still presumed innocent?”
rests its case, Yaan! Yan ang demurrer. The same thing in civil cases –
why will you prove your defense when the plaintiff failed
 Shall specifically state the grounds therefor, and to prove his cause of action? So instead of presenting
evidence, he will file a demurrer. Actually it’s a motion to
 May be opposed by the prosecution within a
dismiss.
non- extendible period of 5 days from its receipt
1. Meaning of demurrer to evidence
2. Resolution of the court on the motion for leave
of court: Katigbak v. Sandiganbayan 405 SCRA 558 July
10, 2003
 If the court DENIES the motion – it shall not be
reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before Question:
judgment
What is a demurrer to evidence?
 If the court GRANTS the motion:
Answer:
 the accused is given a non-extendible
A demurrer to evidence is an objection by one of the
period of 10 days from notice to file the
parties in an action to the effect that the evidence his
demurrer to evidence, and adversary produced is insufficient in point of law,
 the prosecution is given a non- whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the
extendible period of 10 days from issue. The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of
receipt of the demurrer to oppose the the whole evidence to sustain a verdict. For its part, the
demurrer court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence
raised in a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain
3. Resolution of the court on the demurrer itself: whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to
sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.
 If the court DENIES the demurrer – the accused
may present evidence to prove his defense
2. Demurrer with leave
People v. Alcanzado 428 SCRA 681 May 20, 2004
Facts:
Accused was charged with murder. After the prosecution
rested its case, he filed a motion for leave to file
demurrer to evidence which was granted. Thereafter, he
filed his Demurrer to Evidence which was opposed by the prosecution. Five months later, the RTC rendered a decision
convicting him of the crime. evidence for the accused. The rationale for this rule is
Issue: that when the accused moves for dismissal on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence, he does so in the
Is the court correct in deciding the case without giving belief the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient to convict
accused an opportunity to present evidence? and, therefore, any need for him to present any evidence
is negated. An accused cannot be allowed to wager on
Held: the outcome of judicial proceedings by espousing
No. The RTC committed a very serious error in inconsistent viewpoints whenever dictated by
promulgating a decision after denying the demurrer to convenience. This is to avoid the dilatory practice of filing
evidence filed by accused upon prior leave of court, motions for dismissal as a demurrer to the evidence and,
without first giving him the opportunity to present his after denial thereof, the defense would then claim the
evidence. Under Sec. 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, right to present its evidence.
if the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with
leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence in his
defense. Evidently, the RTC violated the provision. A 5. Denial of demurrer
remand of the case for reception of defense evidence is
therefore warranted. Katigbak v. Sandiganbayan 405 SCRA 558 July
10, 2003
Question:
3. Denial of motion for leave
Is an order denying a demurrer to evidence subject to
Ladiana v. People 393 SCRA 419 December 4, appeal?
2002
Answer:
Question:
No. An order denying a demurrer to evidence is
May the court deny a Motion for Leave to File Demurrer interlocutory therefore it is not appealable. Neither can it
to Evidence? be the subject of a petition for certiorari in the absence
of grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction, or
Answer:
an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. Unless there
Yes. Prior leave to file a demurrer to evidence is is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
discretionary upon the trial court. And, unless there is jurisdiction, a denial of a motion to dismiss on demurrer
grave abuse amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in to evidence may not be disturbed and may only be
its denial, the trial court’s resolution may not be reviewed in the ordinary courts of law by an appeal after
disturbed. trial.

4. Demurrer without leave 6. Effect of granting demurrer

People v. Sayaboc 419 SCRA 659 January 15, Ong v. People 342 SCRA 372 October 9, 2000
2004
Facts:
Facts: Accused was charged with estafa before the MTC. After
After the prosecution rested its case, accused asked for the prosecution offered its documentary exhibits, which
15 days to file a motion for leave to admit demurrer to were all photocopies, he filed a demurrer to evidence,
the evidence. The trial court acceded. But instead of which was denied. On certiorari, the RTC reversed the
filing such motion first, he filed a Demurrer to Evidence MTC and ordered it to dismiss the case on the ground of
on 12 July 1999. The motion for leave to file the pleading insufficiency of evidence. The RTC, in turn, was reversed
was filed the next day only. The court denied the by the CA which ordered the MTC to proceed with the
demurrer to evidence. Further, it ruled that because trial.
accused did not seek nor was granted express leave of
Issue:
court to his filing of the demurrer to evidence, he is
deemed to have submitted his case for judgment in Was accused placed in double jeopardy?
accordance with Sec. 23, Rule 119. Thereafter, the court
convicted him of homicide. Held:

Issue: Yes. While generally, the order of the trial court denying
a demurrer to evidence cannot be appealed, it would not
Is the court correct in barring accused from presenting be true if the trial court acted with grave abuse of
evidence for his defense? discretion. The present case falls within the exception.
There is no competent evidence to sustain the charge
Held:
since all documentary evidence submitted were
Yes. The demurrer to evidence filed on 12 July 1999 was uncertified photocopies and are inadmissible. Thus, when
without prior leave of court. The motion for leave to file the RTC reversed the MTC and granted the demurrer the
the said pleading was filed only the next day. The court, same constituted a valid acquittal. A dismissal of a
therefore, correctly applied the rule on demurrer to criminal case by the grant of a demurrer to evidence is
evidence when it disallowed the accused to present not appealable as the accused would be placed in double
evidence on his behalf. jeopardy.

The filing of a demurrer to evidence without leave of

court is an unqualified waiver of the right to present
People v. Sandiganbayan 376 SCRA 74 February
4, 2002
Facts: the prosecution rested, he filed a demurrer to evidence which was
denied. He filed a motion for reconsideration, which was granted.
Accused was charged with violation of R.A. 3019. After
Issue: file demurrer with or without leave and it is granted, then
May the government seek review of the dismissal before you have no problem because the accused will be
the Supreme Court by certiorari? acquitted.

Held: The problem is, if your demurrer is denied. Meaning, the

court says that there is sufficient evidence to prove at
No. The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left least the guilt of the accused. If the demurrer was filed
to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling on with prior leave of court and it is subsequently denied,
the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a the accused is allowed to present evidence to prove his
grave abuse of discretion. Significantly, once the court defense.
grants the demurrer, such order amounts to an acquittal;
and any further prosecution of the accused would violate But if you filed the demurrer without prior leave of court
the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy. This and the demurrer is denied, then you are already
constitutes an exception to the rule that the dismissal of convicted because the accused has forfeited his right to
a criminal case made with the express consent of the present evidence. It is practically equivalent to a waiver
accused or upon his own motion bars plea of double of his right to present evidence. So conviction
jeopardy. automatically follows. This is what the rules say.

7. Civil liability where demurrer is granted What is the rationale behind this? The 1997 case of

Salazar v. People 411 SCRA 598 September 23, PEOPLE vs. TURINGAN 282 SCRA 424
2003 HELD:
Facts: “The rationale for the rule is that when the accused
After the prosecution rested, accused filed a demurrer to moves for dismissal on the ground of insufficiency of the
evidence with leave of court. The motion was granted prosecution evidence, he does so in the belief that said
with the acquittal of the accused of the charge of estafa evidence is insufficient to convict and, therefore, any
but the trial court ordered her to pay a civil liability in the need for him to present any evidence is negated. It is
amount of P214,000. Accused sought reconsideration of said that an accused cannot be allowed to wager on the
the civil aspect of the judgment but it was denied. outcome of judicial proceedings by espousing
inconsistent viewpoints whenever dictated by
Issue: convenience. The purpose behind the rule is also to
avoid the dilatory practice of filing motions for dismissal
Where an accused was acquitted following a demurrer
as a demurrer to the evidence of the prosecution and,
too evidence, may she be adjudged civilly liable without after denial thereof, the defense would then claim the
first requiring her to present evidence? right to present its evidence.”
Held: So, there is an inconsistency in saying that the
No. If demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted prosecution’s evidence is not sufficient, and yet when it
by the court, the accused has the right to adduce is denied, “OK, I will present evidence.” Ahh di puwede
evidence on the civil aspect of the case unless the court yan! And many defense counsels in the past have filed
also declares that the act or omission from which the civil demurrer just to delay the presentation of evidence
liability may arise did not exist. If the trial court issues an when there is no chance for said demurrer to be granted.
order or renders judgment not only granting the
demurrer to evidence of the accused and acquitting him
but also on the civil liability of the accused to the private BERNARDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS 278 SCRA 782
offended party, said judgment on the civil aspect of the
case would be a nullity for the reason that the HELD:
constitutional right of the accused to due process is “The power to grant leave to the accused to file a
thereby violated. This is so because when the accused demurrer is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
files a demurrer to evidence, the accused has not yet court. The purpose is to determine whether the accused
adduced evidence both on the criminal and civil aspects in filing his demurrer is merely stalling the proceedings.
of the case. The only evidence on record is the evidence [Is he really serious or is only delaying the proceedings?]
for the prosecution. What the trial court should do is to Judicial action to grant prior leave to file demurrer to
issue an order or partial judgment granting the demurrer evidence is discretionary upon the trial court. But to
to evidence and acquitting the accused; and set the case allow the accused to present evidence after he was
for continuation of trial for him to adduce evidence on denied prior leave to file demurrer is not
the civil aspect of the case, and for the private discretionary.”[Meaning, when you file a demurrer
complainant to adduce evidence by way of rebuttal. without prior leave, you assume the risk eh because
It is now emphasized in paragraph 1 that a demurrer once your demurrer is denied, you no longer have a
may be filed with or without leave of court. Leave of chance to present evidence.] “Once prior leave is denied
court means before your demurrer, you file muna a and the accused still files his demurrer to evidence or
motion for permission to file the demurrer. The court motion to dismiss, the court no longer has discretion to
grants permission, you file the demurrer. You can still file allow the accused to present evidence. The only recourse
the demurrer even without the permission of the court. left for the court is to decide the case on the basis of the
If you evidence presented by the prosecution. And, unless there
is grave abuse thereof amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, the trial court's denial of prior leave to file
demurrer to evidence or motion to dismiss may not be
disturbed. However, any judgment of conviction by a trial
court may still be elevated by the accused to the
appellate court.” [You cannot question the
order of denial of prior leave, this is discretionary but you
can appeal the judgment of conviction itself.]
BAR QUESTION: How do you distinguish the rule on When the court denies the motion for leave or the
demurrer of evidence in civil cases with the rule of demurrer itself, as a rule, it is not reviewable. You cannot
demurrer in criminal cases? review it. The remedy is to go to trial and if you are
A: The following are the distinctions: convicted, appeal on the judgment of conviction. But as
a general rule, when a demurrer is denied, you cannot
1. In civil cases when the demurrer is denied, the go on certiorari. I’m not saying that this is 100% but
defendant will now present his evidence to there are some instances when the court, based on
prove his defense because the defendant does equity, allows it.
not waive his right to present in the event the
demurrer is denied; whereas Take note that when you file a leave of court to file a
demurrer, the accused must specifically state the
In criminal cases, if the demurrer of the accused grounds.
is denied the accused is no longer allowed to
present evidence if he had no prior leave; The 1985 Rules just says you get prior leave. This is what
I noticed here among trial courts: after the prosecution
2. In civil cases, if the defendant’s demurrer is rests, sometimes the defense counsel will say, “Your
granted and the case is dismissed and the honor, we will file a demurrer. May we ask for leave of
plaintiff appeals to the appellate court and on court to file the demurrer?” And I noticed that the courts
appeal the court reverses the order of will say “Alright, leave granted, file your demurrer.”
dismissal, the appellate court renders Parang naging automatic ba! Pag-hingi mo ng leave,
judgment immediately against the defendant. bigay kaagad!
Goodbye! – talo na ang defendant. There is
no more remanding; whereas Now, the 2000 Rules states, “The motion for leave of
court to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically state
In criminal cases, if the demurrer is granted, its grounds.” Hindi na puwede yung “we intend to file a
there is no more appeal by the prosecution demurrer, may we ask for leave” without stating the
because the accused has already been grounds.
acquitted. Otherwise, there will be a case of
double jeopardy;
3. In civil cases, the court cannot on its own SEC. 24. Reopening.
initiative, dismiss the case after the plaintiff Reopening of a Case
rests without any demurrer by the defendant.
There is no such thing as motu propio 1. When may the judge reopen the proceedings:
demurrer; whereas
 At any time before finality of the judgment of
In criminal cases, the court may dismiss the conviction,
action on its own initiative after giving the
prosecution the chance to present its evidence.  After a proper hearing,

 Either:
Demurrer used to be composed only of two paragraphs. 1. motu propio, or
Under the new rules, there are three (3) new additional
paragraphs. The additional provisions are: 2. upon motion

The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to 2. Ground for reopening the proceedings:
evidence shall specifically state its grounds and shall
To avoid miscarriage of justice
be filed within a non-extendible period of five (5)
days after the prosecution rests its case. The 3. When reopened proceedings shall be
prosecution may oppose the motion within a non- terminated:
extendible period of five (5) days from its receipt.
Within 30 days from the order granting it
If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the
demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible period
of ten (10) days from notice. The prosecution may
A motion to reopen the case to receive further proofs
oppose the demurrer to evidence within a similar
was not in the old rules but it was nonetheless a
period from its receipt.
recognized procedural recourse, deriving validity and
The order denying the motion for leave of court to acceptance from long established usage. This lack of a
file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall specific provision was remedied by the Revised Rules on
not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before Criminal Procedure. Sec. 24, Rule 119 and existing
judgment. (n) jurisprudence stress the following requirements for
reopening of a case:
(1) the reopening must be before the finality of a
These deadlines were not found before. If you want to judgment of conviction;
file leave, pag-rest, 5 days lang, you file a motion for
leave. The prosecution may oppose the leave of within 5 (2) the order is issued by the judge on his own
days. After the court grants leave, you file the demurrer initiative or upon motion;
within 10 days lang. The obvious purpose here is not to (3) the order is issued only after a hearing
delay the trial.
conducted;
(4) the order intends to prevent a miscarriage; and
(5) the presentation of additional and/or further
evidence should be terminated within thirty days
from the issuance of the order (Cabarles v. Maceda
516 SCRA 303, Feb. 20, 2007).
1. Reopening and motion for new trial propio, the court ordered the re-enactment. This is an
Alegre v. Reyes 161 SCRA 226 May 9, 1988 instance of re-opening the trial. This is allowed because
this is an inherent power of the court, if it really wants to
Question: find out the truth. You cannot find any provision in the
rules regulating that kind of remedy. This is allowed
How is a motion to reopen trial distinguished from a
without any specific rule except justice and equity.
motion for new trial?
For the first time, reopening of trial in a criminal case is
Answer: now found in Section 24 of the 2000 Rules. But there is
The following are the distinctions: something wrong here. In reopening of trial, you do it
before the case is decided. Dito naman, you do it “at any
1. A motion to reopen may properly be presented time before the finality of the judgment of conviction.”
only after either or both parties have formally Anong klase ito?! How can this be? There is already a
offered, and closed their evidence, but before judgment of conviction and then, you reopen?? I think the
judgment. A motion for new trial is proper only correct motion is a new trial.
after rendition or promulgation of judgment.(not
applicable anymore) I remember when Galvez was here to lecture on the Rules
on Criminal Procedure. He said that somebody in the
[2. A motion for reopening, unlike a motion for new Supreme Court nakialam dito eh. The original draft was
trial, is not specifically mentioned and prescribed as “anytime before judgment there can be re-opening upon
a remedy by the Rules of Court. There is no specific motu propio or motion.” But when the new rules came
provision in the Rules of Court governing motions to out, it said “at any time before finality of the judgment of
reopen. It is albeit a recognized procedural recourse conviction.” – dinagdagan ba! The person who changed it
or device, deriving validity and acceptance from must have thought the committee had erred but the
long, established usage.](not applicable also) change made it even worse. That’s why the committee
wrote a letter to the SC to amend this mistake.
3. A motion for new trial in civil or criminal actions
may be applied for and granted only upon specific,
well-defined grounds, set forth respectively in Rules
37, Sec. 1 and 121, Sec. 2. On the other hand, the Now, there are some special laws that are related to the
reopening of a case for the reception of additional subject of trial and they are considered as part and parcel
evidence after a case has been submitted for of the criminal procedure. I am referring to RA 4908, RA
decision but before judgment is actually rendered is, 6033, RA 6034 and RA 6035. RA’s 6033, 6034 and 6035
it has been said, controlled by no other rule than are also known as the Laurel Laws because the author of
that of the paramount interests of justice, resting these laws is Senator Laurel in the 70’s.
entirely in the sound judicial discretion of a trial RA 4908 – AN ACT REQUIRING JUDGES OF COURTS TO
court; and its concession, or denial, by said court in SPEEDILY TRY CRIMINAL CASES WHEREIN THE OFFENDED
the exercise of that discretion will not be reviewed PARTY IS A PERSON ABOUT TO DEPART FROM THE
on appeal unless a clear abuse thereof is shown. PHILIPPINES WITH NO DEFINITE DATE OF RETURN
RA 6033 – AN ACT REQUIRING COURTS TO GIVE
EXAMPLE: I will rest my case, the trial is finished and the PREFERENCE TO CRIMINAL CASES WHERE THE PARTY OR
next step is the decision. But after you rest, you have PARTIES INVOLVE ARE INDIGENTS
additional evidence discovered for the first time and RA 6034 – AN ACT PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION AND
therefore could not have been presented beforehand. OTHER ALLOWANCES FOR INDIGENT LITIGANTS.
Q: What will you do? Will you file a motion for new trial RA 6035 – AN ACT REQUIRING STENOGRAPHERS TO GIVE
based on the newly discovered evidence? FREE TRANSCRIPT OF NOTES TO INDIGENT AND LOW
A: NO, you cannot – wala pang decision! Motion for new INCOME LITIGANTS AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR THE
trial based on new evidence is proper only after a VIOLATION THEREOF
decision has been made and the same is not yet final
and executory.
Q: In the example, wala pang decision eh. What is the
proper remedy? Rule 120 Judgment
A: The correct remedy is motion to reopen the trial SECTION 1. Judgment; definition and
because there is no judgment yet.
form. Judgment
Q: On what grounds?
1. Definition:
A: Justice and equity. This is the only ground for re-
opening because there is no specific ground. The adjudication by the court that the accused is
guilty or not guilty of the offense charged and the
Q: Now can the court on its own, re-open a trial, civil or imposition on him of the proper penalty and civil
criminal? liability, if any
A: YES. This has happened several times. The case has 2. Form:
already been submitted for trial, this happened to me
several years ago. The court said “before the court 1. It must be written in official language,
renders a decision, the court would like to conduct an
2. It must be personally and directly prepared
ocular inspection and re-enactment of the alleged crime
by the judge,
in the place where the crime was committed.” Motu
3. It must be signed by the judge, and
4. It must contain clearly and distinctly:
1. a statement of facts, and 2. the law upon which it is based
 Issue:
1. Acquittal and dismissal distinguished
After finding that accused has, on the occasion of rape,
People v. Sandiganbayan 439 SCRA 390 committed homicide, is the judge allowed to impose the
September 29, 2004 penalty of reclusion perpetua, instead of the mandatory
Question: penalty of death, on the ground that he does not believe
in the death penalty?
How is dismissal distinguished from acquittal?
Held:
Answer:
No. Obedience to the rule of law forms the bedrock of
Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, accused our system of justice. If judges, under the guise of
is acquitted because the evidence does not show that his religious or political beliefs were allowed to roam
guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt; but dismissal does unrestricted beyond boundaries within which they are
not decide the case on the merits or that accused is not required by law to exercise the duties of their office, then
guilty. Dismissal terminates the proceeding, either law becomes meaningless. A government of laws, not of
because the court is not a court of competent men excludes the exercise of broad discretionary powers
jurisdiction, or the evidence does not show that the by those acting under its authority. Under this system,
offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction judges are guided by the Rule of Law, and ought “to
of the court, or the complaint or information is not valid protect and enforce it without fear or favour,” resist
or sufficient in form and substance, etc. encroachments by governments, political parties, or even
the interference of their own personal beliefs. In
The only case in which the word dismissal is commonly addition, Sec. 1, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court
but not correctly used, instead of the proper term mandates that after an adjudication of guilt, the judge
acquittal, is when, after the prosecution has presented all should impose “the proper penalty and civil liability, if
its evidence, accused moves for the dismissal and the any.”
court dismisses the case on the ground that the evidence
fails to show beyond a reasonable doubt that accused is
guilty; for in such case the dismissal is in reality an
acquittal because the case is decided on the merits. If 4. Oral judgment
the prosecution fails to prove that the offense was People v. Lascuna 225 SCRA 387 August 18,
committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court 1993
and the case is dismissed, the dismissal is not an
acquittal, inasmuch as if it were so accused could not be Facts:
again prosecuted before the court of competent
jurisdiction; and it is elemental that in such case, As soon as accused presented his last witness, the RTC
accused may again be prosecuted for the same offense judge orally promulgated judgment, by dictating it to the
before a court of competent jurisdiction. stenographer, convicting him of Robbery with Homicide
and Rape. Later, the judge issued a 10-page decision.
Issue:
2. Statement of “facts and law”
Is the act of the judge proper?
People v. Bellaflor 233 SCRA 196 June 15,
1994 Held:

Facts: Yes. A trial judge who has painstakingly listened to the

testimonies of the witnesses, taken notes and
Accused was convicted of arson. He filed a motion for meticulously observed the latter’s deportment and
reconsideration. The judge granted the motion and manner of testifying may logically be presumed to have
acquitted him in a decision which failed to state the facts properly made up his mind on what the decision should
and the law on which the reversal was based. be. What may therefore remain for him is the actual
writing of the decision. Judges are not required to await
Issue: the transcription of the stenographic notes before they
May the order be appealed without placing accused in can render their decisions.
double jeopardy? Sec. 1, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court requires that a
Held: judgment be in writing, personally and directly written by
the judge, signed by him and contains clearly and
Yes. The decision was a nullity. It did not state the facts distinctly a statement of facts and the law upon which it
and the law on which it is based, as required by Sec. 14, is based. However, here the “verbal” judgment was
Art. VIII of the Constitution. Furthermore, it is a incomplete as it does not contain findings of fact and is
requirement of due process that the parties to a litigation not signed by the Judge. Be that as it may, the infirmity
be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation was corrected when the judge subsequently issued a full-
of the factual findings and legal justifications that led to blown Judgment – which contains a summary of the
the conclusions of the court. evidence for the parties, findings of fact and his
signature.

3. Imposing the proper penalty

SEC. 2. Contents of the judgment.
People v. Veneracion 249 SCRA 244 October 12,
1995 Contents of the Judgment
1. Judgment of Conviction:
1. It shall state the:
  legal qualification of the offense "x x x The parties to a litigation should be informed of
constituted by the acts committed by how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual
the accused, and and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the trial
court. The losing party is entitled to know why he lost, so
 the aggravating or mitigating he may appeal to the higher court, if permitted, should
circumstances which attended its he believe that the decision should be reversed. A
accused; commission; decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the
facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties
2. It shall state the participation of the accused
in the dark as to how it was reached and is precisely
in the offense, whether as:
prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint
1. principal, the possible errors of the court for review by a higher
tribunal" (Lumanog, et al. vs. People, GR No. 182555,
2. accomplice, or Sept. 7, 2010).
3. accessory after the fact;
3. It shall state the penalty imposed upon the There is something wrong in convicting somebody
without even a clear statement of why he is guilty.
According to the SC, why is it that the law requires,
4. It shall state the civil liability or damages
especially in criminal cases, the judge should be careful
caused by his wrongful act or omission to be in rendering a judgment? Why must it be clearly stated
recovered from the accused by the offended why you are guilty under Section 1 & 2. Why is it that
party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of under Sections 1 and 2, the judgment must clearly state
the civil liability by a separate civil action has why you are guilty? In the following cases of
been reserved or waived;
PEOPLE vs. CAYAGO 312 SCRA 623 [1999]
2. Judgment of Acquittal:
HELD:
1. It shall state whether the evidence of the
prosecution: “A strict compliance with the mandate of the said
provision is imperative in the writing of every decision.
 absolutely failed to prove the guilt of Otherwise, the rule would simply be a tool for
the accused, or speculations, which this Court will not countenance
specifically in criminal cases involving the possible
 merely failed to prove his guilt beyond deprivation of human life.”
reasonable doubt;
2. In either case, it shall determine if the act or
omission from which the civil liability might arise did not PEOPLE vs. BUGARIN 273 SCRA 384 [1997]
exist HELD:
“The requirement that the decisions of courts must be in
1. Reason for the requirements writing and that they must set forth clearly and distinctly
the facts and the law on which they are based serves
People v. Lizada 396 SCRA 657 January 24, 2003 many functions. It is intended, among other things, to
inform the parties of the reason or reasons for the
Facts: decision so that if any of them appeals, he can point out
In its decision convicting the accused of 4 counts of rape, to the appellate court the findings of facts or the rulings
the RTC merely summarized the testimonies of the on points of law with which he disagrees. More than that,
witnesses of the prosecution and those of accused and the requirement is an assurance to the parties that, in
his witnesses, and forthwith set forth the decretal portion reaching judgment, the judge did so through the
of said decision. The RTC even failed to state in said processes of legal reasoning. It is, thus, a safeguard
decision the factual and legal basis for the imposition of against the impetuosity of the judge, preventing him
the supreme penalty of death on him. from deciding by ipse dixit [by instinct]. Vouchsafed
neither the sword nor the purse by the Constitution but
Issue: nonetheless vested with the sovereign prerogative of
passing judgment on the life, liberty or property of his
Is the decision valid?
fellowmen, the judge must ultimately depend on the
Held: power of reason for sustained public confidence in the
justness of his decision. The decision of the trial court in
No. Art. VIII, Sec, 14 of the 1987 Constitution provides this case disrespects the judicial function.”
that “no decision shall be rendered by any court without
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the In other words, among the three branches of
law on which it is based.” This requirement is reiterated government, the judiciary is the weakest. It has no
and implemented by Rule 120, Sec. 2 of the Rules of power of the purse or the sword. Purse – congress holds
Court. The purpose of the provision is to inform the the budget. Sword – the judiciary has no army to enforce
parties how the decision was reached by the court. The decisions unlike the executive where the executive is
losing party must be given an opportunity to analyze the already the commander- in-chief of the AFP. So how can
decision so that, if permitted, he may elevate what he the judiciary command the respect of the people? There
may consider its errors for review by a higher tribunal. is only one way – the force of its decisions – that its
Furthermore, the decision if well-presented and decisions are well argued and logical. This is the only
reasoned, may convince the losing party of its merits and way to have the people believe in the judiciary. If it
persuade it to accept the verdict in good grace instead of cannot cope with this, it is an insult, an attack to judges
prolonging the litigation with a useless appeal. who do not know how to write decisions, because this is
how the judiciary earns the respect of the people.
Otherwise, baka wala ng maniwala sa korte. That is how
the SC explained that idea in the case of Bugarin.
One interesting case in relation to Section 2 which dealt judgment should state whether the evidence of the
with the double jeopardy rule was the case of prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the
ABAY, SR. vs. GARCIA 162 SCRA 665 accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment shall
FACTS: determine if the act or omission from which the civil
liability might arise does not exist. Because generally if
On the day of trial, the accused was there with his
you are acquitted on reasonable doubt, it will not bar the
lawyer. The offended party was not in court. The judge
filing of a separate civil action. But if the fact from which
asked the fiscal what action he wanted to proceed with.
the civil liability might arise does not exist, then the
The fiscal said, “We will look at the records, whether the
acquittal is already a bar to a future civil liability.
offended party were properly informed.” Finding that the
offended party was properly informed, the fiscal said Compare this with the language of the 1985 Rules, Rule
[oral motion], “In that case your honor, we are moving 120, Section 2, last paragraph:
for the dismissal of the criminal case for lack of evidence
now upon us – wala ang offended party eh.” The judge In case of acquittal, unless there is a clear showing
dictated in open court, “Alright, the case is dismissed for that the act from which the civil liability might arise
failure to prosecute.” With that, the accused went home did not exist, the judgment shall make a finding on
happy. the civil liability of the accused in favor of the
offended party.
After the accused left and shortly thereafter, the
offended party arrived with his lawyer. After they learned According to the 1985 Rules, if the accused is acquitted
of the dismissal they explained that they had to travel based on reasonable doubt, the court may order the
far, had a flat tire and got caught in traffic. The judge accused to satisfy civil liability because the cause of
found their earlier non-appearance as justified and action in the civil case is already proven although the
ordered the revocation or reconsidered the earlier accused is acquitted. It is possible for the accused to be
decision of dismissal, consequently resetting the trial. acquitted and yet is found to be civilly liable based on
the 85 Rules.
The accused learned of the succeeding events and
protested that this was a case of double jeopardy. He The rule under the 1985 Rules was taken from decided
contends that all the necessary elements of double cases such as the case of METROBANK VS. CA (188
jeopardy are present: valid complaint, valid information SCRA 259). In this case, the accused was charged with
filed in a competent court; had an arraignment; and the estafa. After trial, the court said that there was no estafa.
case was dismissed without his express consent. It is only a simple loan – so there is no crime. Normally,
the next step is to let the offended party file a civil case
HELD: to demand payment of the loan. But in the case of
Metrobank, the SC said that it is a double effort. The
The order of dismissal is equivalent to an acquittal but a
Supreme Court said, “While it is true that petitioner
judgment of acquittal under Rule 120 must be in writing.
Metrobank can no longer collect private respondent's civil
The order dismissing the case was not in writing but was liability on the basis of the criminal case filed, it could
dictated in open court. It was never reduced into writing.
nonetheless collect the said civil liability prayed for on
What was reduced to writing was the second order which the basis of the non-payment of the loan contracted by
revoked the first order. Since it was never in writing,
respondent spouses from the bank. There appear to be
there was no judgment of acquittal. Therefore, there is no sound reasons to require a separate civil action to still
no double jeopardy.
be filed considering that the facts to be proved in the
“However, this order of dismissal must be written in the civil case have already been established in the criminal
official language, personally and directly prepared by the proceedings where the accused was acquitted. To require
judge and signed by him conformably with the provisions a separate civil action simply because the accused was
of Rule 120, section 2 of the Rules of Court. In the acquitted would mean needless clogging of court dockets
instant case, it is very clear that the order was merely and unnecessary duplication of litigation with all its
dictated in open court by the trial judge. There is no attendant loss of time, effort, and money on the part of
showing that this verbal order of dismissal was ever all concerned.” This was the 1985 Rules.
reduced to writing and duly signed by him. Thus, it did
not yet attain the effect of a judgment of acquittal, so
that it was still within the powers of the judge to set it Q: Now, is that rule still valid under the 2000 Rules?
aside and enter another order, now in writing and duly
signed by him, reinstating the case.” A: The new rule is silent. There is nothing here that says
that the accused may be acquitted but found civilly liable
unlike the 1985 Rules. It only says that in case of
acquittal, the judgment should state whether the
This is how the Supreme Court skirted the double
acquittal is based merely on reasonable doubt or the
jeopardy rule by applying Rule 120, Sections 1 and 2.
prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the
The 2nd paragraph of Section 2 is new and it radically accused. In either case, the judgment shall determine if
changed the language of the previous rule. Section 2, the act or omission from which the civil liability might
second paragraph: arise does not exist. But as it is worded now, it would
seem, you should file a separate civil case. And the
In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state practice of holding the accused liable civilly in a criminal
whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely case where he is acquitted, seems to be no longer
failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely possible.
failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In
either case, the judgment shall determine if the act Under the new rules, just acquit – let him file a separate
or omission from which the civil liability might arise civil case. The old rule is simplier: No need! Dun na
did not exist. (2a) mismo sa criminal case – acquit him but make him civilly
liable. But now, the language is different. It is a radical
This is just a repetition of Rule 111, Section 2 [last departure from the 1985 rules.
paragraph] when the judgment acquits the accused, the
SEC. 3. Judgment for two or more offenses.
Effects when Complaint or Information is Duplicitous
1. General Rule: 1. Situation:
 When 2 or more offenses are charged in a 1. There is variance between:
single information, accused may file a motion to
quash the same before trial  the offense charged in the complaint or
information, and
2. Effect of failure to file a motion to quash a
duplicitous information before trial:  that proved after the trial; and
1. The accused is deemed to have waived the 2. The offense as charged is included in or
defect, necessarily includes the offense proved
2. The court may: 2. Effects – the accused shall be convicted of:
 convict him of as many offenses as are  The offense proved which is included in the
charged and proved, and offense charged, or
 impose on him the penalty for each  The offense charged which is included in the
offense, setting out separately the offense proved
findings of fact and law in each offense

1. Conviction for graver offense

1. Failure to object to charges
a. Rape
People v. Tira 430 SCRA 134 May 28, 2004
People v. Lucas 232 SCRA 537 May 25, 1994
Facts:
Issue:
Accused was charged in one information for possession
of “shabu”, a regulated drug and for possession of May an accused charged with attempted rape be
marijuana, a prohibited drug. While the trial court convicted of consummated rape as proved by testimony
convicted him of illegal possession of “shabu”, the during the trial that was not objected to by accused?
Solicitor General asserts that he should be convicted of
Held:
illegal possession of marijuana.
No, as this would be in violation of Sec. 4, Rule 120 of
Issue:
the Rules of Court. The offense charged in the
Who is correct? information (attempted rape) is necessarily included in
the offense proved (consummated rape). Accordingly.
Held: Accused should be convicted of attempted rape only.
Both are wrong. There are 2 separate crimes: (a)
possession of a regulated drug [shabu] under Sec. 16 of
R.A. 6425, and, (b) possession of a prohibited drug Variance in the mode of the commission of the
[marijuana] under Sec. 8. Although only one information offense-
was filed against accused, he could still be tried and In one case, the testimony of the victim shows that she
convicted for the crimes alleged therein and proved by
was roused from sleep with the male organ of the
the prosecution. Accused should have filed a motion to
accused inserted in her mouth. Both the RTC and the CA
quash before arraignment under Sec. 3, Rule 117 of the
failed to notice the variance between the allegations in
Rules of Court. Since he failed to do so, under Rule 120,
the information for rape and that proven at the trial on
Sec. 3, he may be convicted of the 2 crimes charged.
the mode of committing the offense. The information
Let’s go back to Rule 110 on duplicitous complaint or alleges "force and intimidation" as the mode of
information. Under Section 3 of Rule 110, this is defined commission, while the victim testified during the trial that
as a complaint or information which charges more than she was asleep at the time it happened and only awoke
one offense. This is not allowed. And the remedy here is to find the male organ of the accused inside her mouth.
you file a Motion to Quash under Section 3 [f], Rule 117. This variance is not fatal to the conviction of the accused
for rape by sexual assault. A variance in the mode of
But the defect is waivable because if you do not file a the commission of the offense is binding upon the
Motion to Quash, the trial can proceed and if you are accused if he fails to object to evidence showing that
found guilty for committing 2 or more crimes, then there the crime was committed in a different manner than
will be 2 or more penalties. Under Section 3, the court what was alleged. In this case, the accused did not
may convict the accused of as many offenses as are object to the presentation of evidence showing that the
charged and proved and impose on him the penalty for crime was committed in a different manner than what
each offense if the accused fails to object the duplicitous was stated in the information. The variance is not a bar
complaint before the trial. to his conviction of the crime charged in the information
(People vs. Corpuz, 482 SCRA 435; People vs. Abello GR
No. 151952, March 25, 2009).
SEC. 4.
Rules in Case of Variance
b. Theft
People v. Salazar 277 SCRA 67 August 11, 1997
Issue:
May an accused charged with theft of a pistol worth
P6,000 be convicted of the graver offense of theft of said
pistol worth P6,500 where he fails to object to the Held:
evidence as to the value of the gun?
Yes. While it was proven during the trial that the stolen pistol was
worth P6,500, the information placed the value at P6,000
Issue:
only. However, the accused did not object to the higher
valuation and is thus deemed to have waived his right to May the RTC convict an accused of a lesser offense
avail of the lower penalty under Art. 309[3] of the included in the offense charged, under Sec. 4, Rule 120
Revised Penal Code. Consequently, he may be penalized of the Rules of Court, even if the lesser offense falls
for theft under Art. 309(2) of the said Code. within the jurisdiction of the MTC?
Held:
c. Illegal recruitment No. Sec. 4, Rule 120 applies exclusively to cases where
the offense as charged is included in or necessarily
People v. Reyes 242 SCRA 264 March 9, 1995 includes the offense proved. It presupposes that the
Issue: court rendering judgment has jurisdiction over the case
based on the allegations in the information. However,
May an accused charged separately in several in this case, from the onset of the criminal proceedings,
informations for simple illegal recruitment pending before the RTC had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.
the same court be convicted of illegal recruitment in a
large scale under Art. 38 (b) of the Labor Code?
Held: We will go to this basic principle:

No. The different cases of simple illegal recruitment Mr. Calizo is charged in an information of committing one
cannot be taken into account for the purpose of Art. crime. However, during the trial, what was proven is
38(b). When the Labor Code speaks of illegal recruitment another crime. What will happen now? Well, we will have
“committed against 3 or more persons individually or as to ask this question –
a group,” it must be understood as referring to the Q: Is the offense proven included in the offense charged
number of complainants in each case who are or does the offense proven includes the offense charged?
complainants therein, otherwise, prosecutions for single
crimes of illegal recruitment can be cumulated to make A: If YES, then apply Section 4. You convict the accused
out a case of large scale illegal recruitment. In other of the offense proved which is included in the offense
words, a conviction for large scale illegal recruitment charged, or of the offense charged which is included in
must be based on a finding in each case of illegal the offense proved.
recruitment of 3 or more persons whether individually or
as a group.
Q: What if kung malayong-malayo? The crime proved is
different from the crime charged like for example: The
2. Conviction for lesser offense crime charged is homicide and what is proved is robbery.
What will happen? Will you apply Section 14 of Rule 110
a. Lesser offense has prescribed on substitution of information?
Magat v. People 201 SCRA 21 August 21, 1991 A: No, you will not apply Rule 110 Section 14 because we
Issue: are already through with that stage. We are now in the
trial stage where the crime proved is different from the
Under Sec. 4, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court, may an crime charged. Therefore, the proper remedy here is
accused be convicted of a lesser offense necessarily Section 19 of Rule 119, last paragraph:
included in the offense charged if the former had already
prescribed at the time of the institution of the complaint? RULE 119, SEC. 19. When mistake has been made in
charging the proper offense. – When it becomes
Held: manifest at any time before judgment that a mistake
has been made in charging the proper offense and
No. It was stated in Francisco vs. CA (122 SCRA 538 the accused cannot be convicted of the offense
[1983]): charged or any other offense necessarily included
“As a general rule, one indicted for an offense not barred therein, the accused shall not be discharged if there
by limitation, but convicted of a lesser included offense appears good cause to detain him. In such case, the
which is so barred, is entitled to discharge. It frequently court shall commit the accused to answer for the
happens that a change of felony includes an offense of a proper offense and dismiss the original case upon
lower grade with a different period of limitation, so that, the filing of the proper information. (11a)
while the felony is not barred, the statute has run as to
the lesser offense. In this situation, the rule is that if the
statute has not run against the felony, while the lesser [Editor: Try to correlate this with Section 14, Rule 110.
offense is barred, the bar cannot be evaded by indicting They are similar. But for clearer understanding, please go
the defendant for the felony and convicting him of the back to Section 19, Rule 119 in the case of GALVEZ on
lesser offense.” (State v. King, 84 SE 2d 313; 47 ALR 2d the distinctions between these two provisions. Thanks!]
878 at pp. 545-546).

SEC. 5. When an offense includes or is included in

b. Lack of jurisdiction over lesser offense another.
Pangilinan v. CA 321 SCRA 51 December 17, Rules:
1999
1. An offense charged necessarily includes the
offense proved:
When some of the essential elements or ingredients When the essential ingredients of the offense charged constitute
of the offense charged, as alleged in the complaint or form part of those constituting the offense proved
or information, constitute the offense proved
2. An offense charged is necessarily included in
the offense proved 1. Homicide and reckless imprudence
Magno v. People 414 SCRA 246 October 23, 2003 Mr. Acelar is accused of murder as principal by direct
Issue: participation. After trial, it was established that Mr. Acelar
is only an accessory.
May an accused charged with homicide be convicted of
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide? ISSUE:

Held: Can a person accused of murder as a principal may be

convicted as an accessory?
Yes. Sec. 4 and 5 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court allows
conviction of the accused for the offense proved which is HELD:
included in the offense charged. The quasi offense of YES, a person charged with an offense as principal
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide is necessarily maybe convicted as an accessory because the greater
included in a charge of murder. While a criminal responsibility includes the lesser responsibility. Accessory
negligent act is not a simple modality of a wilful crime, is a lesser degree of participation.
but a distinct crime in itself, defined as an offense in the
Revised Penal Code, it may, however, be said that a This is not a case of a variance between the offense
conviction for the former can be had under an charged and the offense proved. Here, the accused was
information exclusively charging the commission of a charged with murder and what was established by
wilful offense upon the theory that the greater includes evidence was also murder. There is here no mistake in
the lesser offense. charging the proper offense. The variance is in the
participation of the accused in the commission of the
crime which is not covered by any specific provision.
Q: When does an offense include another, or when is it What is covered by the rules is when there is a mistake
included in the other? in charging the proper offense, or when there is a total
mistake because the crime was never committed.
A: Section 5, Rule 120.
For example, Mr. Tiamzon is charged with MURDER and
what is established is HOMICIDE. Homicide is included in Q: What is the difference between malversation and
the crime of murder. The elements are identical. The only technical malversation?
difference is that there are no qualifying circumstances in A: Although both crimes are committed by public
homicide. Or, THEFT is included in ROBBERY. The only officers, malversation is punishable under Article 217 of
missing element in theft is violence or intimidation. Or, the RPC, whereas, technical malversation is not referred
LESS PHYSICAL INJURY is included in SERIOUS as such in the RPC. Technical malversation is
PHYSICAL INJURY. denominated as Illegal Use of Public Funds under Article
In that case, the case will not be dismissed. Just convict 220 of the RPC.
the accused of the crime proven which is included in the EXAMPLE: Technical malversation/Illegal Use of Public
crime charged. Such that if you are charged with murder, Fund is when a public officer uses funds appropriated for
you can be convicted for homicide. a certain public purpose (let’s say, for the construction of
Q: Suppose the accused is charged with homicide and a school building) for another public purpose (like
what was proven is murder. So it is the other way widening or cementing of roads.)
around. What is the correct procedure?
A: Convict him for the crime charged. Do not dismiss the
PARUNGAO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN 197 SCRA 173
case. Although the crime proved (murder) includes that
which is charged (homicide), a person cannot be FACTS:
convicted of a more serious offense than that charged.
The accused can only be convicted for homicide and the A public officer was charged with technical malversation
qualifying circumstances of murder should be treated of public funds or property. The trial court found that the
only as an ordinary aggravating circumstances. The same crime committed is not technical malversation. It is more
is true with theft and robbery. [c.f. discussions on Section of malversation.
8, Rule 110] ISSUE:
May a person, charged with technical malversation under
We will now go to some important cases. Article 220 of the RPC, be found guilty of malversation
under Article 217?
VINO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 178 SCRA
626 HELD:
NO. He cannot be convicted of malversation because
there is no similarity between these two crimes. “In
malversation of public funds, the offender
misappropriates public funds for his own personal use or
allows any other person to take such public funds for the
latter's personal use. In technical malversation, the
public officer applies public funds under his
administration not for his or another’s personal use, but
to a public use other than that for which the fund was
appropriated by law or ordinance.”
“Technical malversation is, therefore, not included in nor
does it necessarily include the crime of malversation of
public funds charged in the information.”
FACTS:
“The Sandiganbayan therefore erred in not ordering the and in convicting him of technical malversation in the original case for
filing of the proper information against the petitioner, malversation of public funds. Ordinarily, the court’s recourse would be
to acquit the petitioner of the crime of illegal use of Can a person charged with a crime punishable under a
public funds without prejudice, but subject to the laws on special law be found guilty instead of a felony in the
prescription, to the filing of a new information for such RPC? Can a crime under the RPC be considered as
offense.” included in the crime under a special law?
“Considering however that all the evidence given during
HELD:
the trial in the malversation case is the same evidence
that will be presented and evaluated to determine his There is no such thing as attempted violation of the Anti-
guilt or innocence in the technical malversation case in Graft Act. The attempted, frustrated and consummated
the event that one is filed and in order to spare the stages only apply to felonies in the RPC. Under crimes
petitioner from the rigors and harshness compounded by punishable by a special law, you only punish the
another trial, not to mention the unnecessary burden on consummated stage. You do not punish the attempted
our overloaded judicial system, the Court acquitted the and frustrated stages unless the special law says so.
accused of the crime of illegal use of public funds.” Since there was no injury caused to the government due
to the time discovery, there was no violation of the Anti-
But Justice Feliciano dissented, “Why question the
Graft Act.
procedure used for violation the law?” Anong klaseng
decision ito? Even before filing the correct information, However, they made false entries, thereby committing
the SC already ruled that you are innocent? According to falsification. Therefore, they can be convicted of
him, the correct procedure is not to dismiss both cases falsification of public or commercial documents.
but to acquit the accused of the original complaint of
technical malversation and require the filing of a new So in this case, it started as attempted violation of the
information charging the proper offense (malversation). Anti-Graft Act (special law) and ended up as a conviction
So this is one of the rare cases where the SC decided not for falsification under the RPC. A crime under the RPC
to be very technical and went straight to the decision. was considered as included in the crime malum
Siguro the SC would like to save time. prohibitum

Q: If a person is charged with rape, can he be convicted PEOPLE vs. VERZOSA 294 SCRA 466 [1998]
of qualified seduction? Is qualified seduction included in FACTS:
rape?
Appellants were charged for violating PD 532 – Anti-
A: It seems that the elements are different. In rape, Piracy And Anti-Highway Robbery Law Of 1974.
there is no consent in the sexual intercourse. But in
seduction, there is consent although there is abuse of ISSUE:
authority, relationship or there is deceit. But in the 1993
case of Can a person charged for violating a special law be found
guilty for a crime of robbery with homicide under the
PEOPLE vs. SUBING-SUBING 228 SCRA 168 RPC?
HELD: HELD:
“A person charged with rape can be convicted of YES. What appellants committed is the crime of robbery
qualified seduction if the latter though not alleged in the with homicide, which is distinct from the offense covered
complaint, appears in the victim’s affidavit.” by P.D. 532 which punishes, among others,
indiscriminate highway robbery.
It seems that there is something wrong here; the
complaint says rape, but the victim’s affidavit says “Nonetheless, the designation of the crime in the
qualified seduction. However the SC says it is fine. It is information as “highway robbery with homicide (Violation
tantamount to the same thing: not found in the of PD 532)” does not preclude conviction of the
complaint but found in the victim’s affidavit. This is appellants of the crime of robbery with homicide (Article
another queer decision of the SC. 294 [1] of the RPC). In the interpretation of an
information, what controls is not the designation but the
description of the offense charged. The crime of robbery
PECHO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN 238 SCRA 116 with homicide is clearly alleged in the information
notwithstanding its erroneous caption. It is an offense
FACTS: necessarily included in that with which they were
charged.”
There was somebody who imported highly taxable items.
Obviously, he had some connections with the Bureau of
Customs. He declared his items different form which he
brought, so the taxes are less. The obvious intention it to SEC. 6. Promulgation of judgment.
cheat the government of the correct amount of taxes. He Promulgation of Judgment
prepared the import entry declaring false information or
entries. However, the Collector of Customs ordered a 1. How judgment is promulgated:
spot inspection. So the attempt did not succeed.
1. General Rule – by reading it in the presence
The importer, together with the Customs people were of:
charged with attempted violation of the Anti-Graft Act.
So, there was an attempt to cause undue injury to the 1. the accused, and
government by depriving it of its proper taxes. 2. any judge of the court in which it was
ISSUE: rendered
2. Exceptions:

 If the conviction is for a light

offense – it may be pronounced in
the
 presence of his counsel or
3. If the judgment is for conviction and the failure
representative
of the accused to appear was without justifiable
 When the judge is absent or cause:
outside the province or city – it 1. he shall lose the remedies available in these
may be promulgated by the clerk of rules against the judgment, such as:
court
 appeal,
 If the accused is confined or
detained in another province or  new trial, and
city
 reconsideration; and
– it may be promulgated by the
executive judge of the RTC having 2. the court shall order his arrest
jurisdiction over the place of
4. Last chance for accused to avail of above
confinement or detention upon
remedies; requisites:
request of the court which rendered
the judgment. 1. Within 15 days from promulgation of
judgment, the accused:
 In case the accused fails to appear
at the scheduled date of  surrenders, and
promulgation of judgment despite notice – it shall  files a motion for leave of court to avail
be made by recording the judgment in the criminal of said remedies;
docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last
known address or thru his counsel. 2. He must state the reasons for his absence at
the scheduled
2. The court promulgating the judgment shall have
authority to: promulgation;

1. Accept the notice of appeal, and 3. He must prove that his absence was for a
justifiable cause,
2. To approve the bail bond pending appeal
4. He shall only be given 15 days from notice to
But if the decision of the trial court avail of said remedies
convicting the accused changed the nature
of the offense from non-bailable to bailable
– the application for bail can only be filed
1. Absence of accused
and resolved by the appellate court.
Pascua v. CA 348 SCRA 197 December 14, 2000
3. Duty of clerk of court before promulgation – give
notice to the accused requiring him to be present at the Question:
promulgation, either:
When may judgment be promulgated despite the
1. Personally, or absence of the accused?
2. Through his bondsman or warden and Answer:
counsel, or
Judgment in a criminal case must be promulgated in the
3. Served at his last known address, if the presence of the accused, except where it is for a light
accused was tried in absentia because he: offense, in which case it may be pronounced in the
presence of his counsel or representative, and except
 jumped bail, or
where the judgment is for acquittal, in which case the
 escaped from prison presence of the accused is not necessary. Likewise,
regardless of the gravity of the offense, under Sec. 6,
Rule 120, if accused fails to appear despite notice,
judgment may be promulgated in absentia, provided: (a)
Rules with Respect to Accused Tried in Absentia that the judgment be recorded in the criminal docket;
1. The notice requiring the accused to be present and
at promulgation shall be served at his last known (b) that a copy thereof shall be served upon the accused
address – if the accused was tried in absentia because or counsel.
he:
1. jumped bail, or 2. Where judgment is acquittal
2. escaped from prison Cruz v. Pascual 244 SCRA 111 May 12, 1995
2. If the accused fails to appear at the scheduled Issue:
date of promulgation of judgment despite notice –
the promulgation shall be made by: May a judgment of acquittal be promulgated in the
absence of accused and his counsel?
1. recording the judgment in the criminal
docket, and Held:

2. serving him a copy thereof at his last known Yes. In a verdict of acquittal, the presence of accused is
address or through his counsel not indispensable since no appeal is necessary and the
judgment becomes final and executory immediately after
promulgation. The reading of the sentence in open court
to accused’s counsel or giving a copy of the decision to
accused or his counsel is sufficient promulgation.
Even in the promulgation of the judgment of conviction, the presence of accused is not necessary if the conviction is for a light
offense inasmuch as the judgment may be read to his Issue: Was there substantial compliance with Sec. 6
counsel or representative, or if accused is tried in Rule 120 of the Rules of Court?
absentia or fails to appear and the promulgation is done
in absentia, the promulgation shall consist in the Held:
recording of the judgment in the criminal docket and a
copy thereof served upon accused or his counsel. No. Where the judgment is promulgated in absentia, all
means of notification must be done to let the absent
accused know of the judgment of court. The means
provided by the Rules are: [1] the act of giving notice to
3. Reason for presence of accused all persons or the act of recording or registering the
Pascua v. CA 348 SCRA 197 December 14, 2000 judgment in the criminal docket (which Sec. 6 mentions
first showing its importance); and [2] the act of serving a
Question: copy thereof upon the accused (at his last known
address) or his counsel. In a scenario where the
What is the reason for requiring the presence of the
whereabouts of the accused are unknown (as when he is
accused during promulgation of judgment?
at large), the recording satisfies the requirement of
Answer: notifying the accused of the decision wherever he may
be.
In U.S. v. Beecham, (28 Phil. 258), the Court stated the
reasons for requiring the attendance of accused in case
of conviction for a grave or less grave offense, so that: 6. Presence of counsel of accused
[1] accused may be identified by the court as the real
party adjudged to be punished; [2] accused may have a Jamiliano v. Cuevas 152 SCRA 158 July 23, 1987
chance to plead or move in arrest of judgment; [3] he
may have an opportunity to say what he can say why Issue:
judgment should not be given against him; and [4] the May an accused file a motion for new trial or
example of accused, who is found guilty of reconsideration 23 days after the decision was
misdemeanours of a gross and public kind may tend to promulgated to him without his counsel, but 15 days
deter others from the commission of similar offenses. from service of said decision to his counsel?
Held:
4. Right to appeal of absent accused No. Under Sec. 6, Rule 120, a valid promulgation would
Moslares v. CA 291 SCRA 440 June 26, 1998 be a reading of the sentence or judgment in the
presence of the accused and any judge of the court in
Issue: Does an accused who unjustifiably fails to which it was rendered. Sec. 6 does not require the
appear during promulgation lose his right to appeal? presence of counsel for the validity of the promulgation.
Held:
No. The last sentence of Sec. 6, Rule 120 of the Revised 7. Absence of offended party
Rules on Criminal Procedure states that “if the judgment
is for conviction, and the failure of the accused to appear Pagayao v. Imbing 363 SCRA 26 August 15,
was without justifiable cause, the court shall further 2001
order the arrest of the accused, who may appeal within
Issue:
15 days from notice of the decision to him or his
counsel.” This means that whether or not the absence of May the court promulgate the judgment even in the
the accused during promulgation is justified, the right to absence of the private offended party?
appeal is not lost, the only requirement being that the
notice of appeal must be filed within 15 days from notice Held:
of the judgment. (Not anymore applicable) Yes. The attendance of the private offended party in the
promulgation of judgment is not necessary. Only the
presence of the accused is required in the promulgation
5. Recording in criminal docket of judgment in the trial courts.
Pascua v. CA 348 SCRA 197 December 14, 2000
Facts: 8. Promulgation of decision on appeal
On May 5, 1998, the court promulgated the decision Report on the On-the-Spot...
convicting accused of 26 counts of violation of B.P. 22.
The dispositive portion was read in the presence of 451 SCRA 300 February 15, 2005
complainant, public prosecutor and counsel for the Question:
accused, though accused herself was absent. All, except
the accused, received written copies of the decision. On Must an RTC promulgate its judgment in cases decided in
June 8, 1998 accused filed a notice of change of her the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction?
address with the court and asked for the lifting of the
warrant for her arrest. On June 22, 1998, she filed a Answer:
notice of appeal. However, as of Oct. 28, 1998, the There is no need to promulgate the decision in a case
judgment was not recorded in the criminal docket of the decided by the RTC by virtue of its appellate jurisdiction.
RTC. The judgment which the rule requires to be promulgated
is the sentence rendered by the trial court, not the
judgment of the appellate court sent to the trial court,
the latter being unnecessary to be promulgated to the
accused because it is presumed that the accused or his
attorney had already been notified thereof by the judgment to the trial court not for promulgation or reading thereof to
appellate court. The latter court sends the copy of his the accused, but for execution of the judgment against him.
It is not necessary that the promulgation be made before an incumbent member of a court of equal jurisdiction,
the very same judge who rendered the decision. and his decisions written thereafter would be invalid.”
Example: The RTC of Davao has many branches.
Suppose the promulgation will be made in the RTC
Branch 8, but on the date of promulgation, the judge
thereof got sick. Q: In places where there is only one branch of the RTC,
no other sala, who promulgates the decision in case of
the absence of the judge?
Q: Can the decision of RTC Branch 8 be promulgated A: The clerk of court. Under Section 6, “When the judge
before the judge of RTC Branch 9? is absent or outside the province or city, the judgment
may be promulgated by the CLERK OF COURT.”
A: YES, a decision rendered by one branch of a court
may be promulgated before another branch of the same Q: Suppose the accused has several cases in different
court precisely because it is the same court although of places. Like for example he has a case in Davao and
different branches. Section 6, reads: “The judgment is another in Cebu. After the trial in Davao, he was sent to
promulgated xxx in the presence of xxx ANY JUDGE of Cebu for another trial. In the meantime, tapos na yung
the court in which it was rendered.” sa Davao, promulgation na lang, but the accused is in
Cebu. What will happen if there will be a promulgation in
the Davao case?
Do not confuse this on what happened in the 1993 case A: Under Section 6, the Davao court will send the
of decision to the RTC Executive Judge of Cebu and let it be
PEOPLE vs. CFI OF QUEZON BRANCH 10 227 SCRA promulgated there in the presence of the accused.
457
FACTS: Now, a new clause is inserted in Section 6 which
Accused was charged criminally in the RTC Branch 10 provides that “if the decision of the trial court convicting
presided by Judge A who tried the case but retired the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-
without deciding the case. Meanwhile, Judge B, presiding bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be
judge of Branch 3 was designated temporarily to take filed and resolved by the appellate court.” So in the
over Branch 10 and among the cases submitted to him previous example, if the accused is charged (in Davao) of
for decision was the undecided case of the accused. So, murder but later convicted for homicide, the RTC
he read the records and he wrote the decision on May Executive Judge of Cebu has no power to entertain any
22. On June 9, Judge C was appointed presiding judge of application for bail if the accused wanted to appeal the
Branch 10. He took his oath of office the following day, conviction. Such application can only be filed and
June 10, terminating automatically the designation of resolved by the appellate court. This is similar to Section
Judge B. With the appointment of Judge C, Judge B was 5 of Rule 114 on Bail –
only left with his original sala – Branch 3. On June 20, x x x x However, if the decision of the trial court
the deputy clerk of court promulgated the decision of convicting the accused changed the nature of the
Judge B made on May 22. offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application
ISSUE: for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the
appellate court.
Was the judgment penned by Judge B, detailed to the
vacant branch of the court, but promulgated after the The above provision was taken and modified in the case
permanent judge has been duly appointed to the of OMOSA vs. CA (266 SCRA 281 [1997])
vacancy, valid?
HELD: Q: Is there such a thing as promulgation by proxy?
YES. It is valid. Judge B did not retire. He is still in the A: YES. A decision may be promulgated even without the
SAME court although in another branch. presence of the accused but ONLY if the conviction is for a
“It is not necessary that Judge B be the presiding judge light offense. Generally, promulgation is by personal
of Branch 10 at the time his decision was promulgated appearance. However under the Section 6, “if the
since even after the expiration of his temporary conviction is for a light offense, the judgment may be
designation at Branch 10 he continued to be an pronounced in the presence of his COUNSEL or
incumbent of Branch 3. After all, the RTC is divided into REPRESENTATIVE.”
several branches, each of the branches is not a court PEOPLE vs. PRADES July 30, 1998
distinct and separate from the others. Jurisdiction is
vested in the court, not in the judges, so that when a HELD:
complaint or information is filed before one branch or
judge, jurisdiction does not attach to said branch of the “In the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the
judge alone, to the exclusion of the others.” judgment is promulgated by merely filing the signed copy
thereof with the Clerk of Court who causes true copies of
“Indeed, it would have been different altogether if the the same to be served upon the parties, hence the
judge whose decision was promulgated had, prior to its appearance of the accused is not even required there as
promulgation, died, resigned, retired, been dismissed, his presence is necessary only in the promulgation of the
promoted to a higher court, or appointed to another judgments of trial courts.”
office with inconsistent functions. Then, he would no
longer be
Q: Is the presence of the complainant required during
the promulgation?
A: NO. There is no rule requiring a judge to notify the made in the presence of the accused. (Ramirez vs. Macandog, 144
complainant of the date of promulgation of judgment in SCRA 462)
criminal cases. What the Rules of Court particularly
Section 6, Rule 120 requires is that the promulgation be Q: Is the presence of the counsel of the accused required during the
promulgation? scheduled date of promulgation of judgment
A: NO. The Rules of Court does not require the presence despite notice.
of counsel for the validity of the promulgation. The
accused is not required to be present at the
promulgation if the conviction is for light offense, in SEC. 7. Modification of judgment.
which case, his counsel or representative may appear in
his behalf. But definitely, in any case, the promulgation is Modification of Judgment
valid even the counsel does not appear thereat. 1. What juddgment may be modified or set aside:
(Pangilano vs. Nuevas, 152 SCRA 158)
1. Judgment of acquittal – No
Q: What happens if the accused was tried in absentia?
Or before the promulgation he escaped or jumped bail? 2. Judgment of conviction – Yes
A: Under Section 6, the proper clerk of court shall give 2. Requisites for modification of judgment of
notice to the accused personally or through his conviction:
bondsman or warden and counsel, requiring him to be
present at the promulgation of the decision. If the  The accused must file a motion for the
accused was tried in absentia because he jumped bail or modification of judgment:
escaped from prison, the notice to him shall be served at
his last known address.  The motion must be filed before:
1. such judgment becomes final, or

In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date 2. an appeal is perfected
of promulgation of judgment despite notice, the 3. When a judgment becomes final:
promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment
in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at  Judgment of acquittal – immediately upon
his last known address or through his counsel. promulgation
If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the  Judgment of conviction:
accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall
lose the remedies available in these rules against the  after the lapse of the period for
judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within perfecting an appeal [except when the
fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, death penalty is imposed as there is an
however, the accused may surrender and file a motion automatic review by the CA], or
for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall
state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled  even within the period to appeal, when
promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a the sentence has been partially or
justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said totally satisfied or served, or
remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice.  when the accused has waived in
writing his right to appeal, or
 when the accused has applied for
probation.

1. On motion of prosecution
People v. Viernes 372 SCRA 231 December 13,
2001
So there are six (6) types of promulgation of
judgment under Section 6: Facts:

1. Ordinary judgment - promulgated by reading it Accused was convicted of 2 counts of rape and one
in the presence of the accused and any judge of count of attempted rape. For the 2 rape charges, he was
the court in which it was rendered. This applies meted 2 penalties of reclusion perpetua, and for the
only to trial courts (People vs. Prades, supra); attempted rape, he was given the sentenced of from 4
years to 8 years and one day. On motion of the
2. Promulgation by the Clerk of Court - when the prosecution, one day after promulgation, the court
judge is absent or outside the province or city; modified the sentence and imposed on him the death
penalty twice for rape, and a maximum sentence of
3. Promulgation by the Executive Judge - If the reclusion temporal for attempted rape.
accused is confined or detained in another
province or city, the judgment may be Issue:
promulgated by the executive judge of the
Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the May the court modify the judgment upon motion of the
place of confinement or detention upon request prosecution to increase the penalties?
of the court which rendered the judgment; Held:
4. Promulgation in absentia - If the accused was No. Under Sec. 7 of Rule 120, a judgment of conviction,
tried in absentia because he jumped bail or before it became final or before appeal is perfected,
escaped from prison, the notice to him shall be could be modified or set aside upon motion of the
served at his last known address; accused. This aims to protect accused from being put
5. Promulgation by recording the judgment – in anew to defend himself from more serious offenses or
case the accused fails to appear at the penalties which the prosecution or the court may have
overlooked in the original trial. It does not however bar
him from seeking or
receiving more favorable modifications. The trial court motion to set aside before the judgment of conviction
cannot increase the penalties without the consent of the becomes final.
accused.

Q: When does the judgement in a criminal case

2. Motion of offended party become final?
Potot v. People 383 SCRA 449 June 26, 2002 A: It DEPENDS:
Facts: a. If it is a judgement of ACQUITTAL – immediately
Accused pleaded guilty to homicide and proved the executory after promulgation of judgment
mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea because it cannot be changed anymore.
of guilty. After conviction he manifested that he was not b. If it is a judgment for CONVICTION:
appealing and would immediately serve his sentence.
Private complainant moved to set aside the decision due 1. After the lapse of the period for
to irregularities in the preliminary investigation perfecting an appeal (2nd part of
contending that accused should have been charged with Section 7). So 15 days generally.
murder. Accused opposed on the ground of double EXCEPT when the DEATH penalty is
jeopardy. imposed. That is now inserted in the
new Rules because even if the accused
Issue: will not appeal, there is an automatic
May a judgment of conviction, upon motion of the review. So the rule that when the
offended party, be set aside or modified? period to appeal has expired, the
judgment will become final, will NOT
Held: apply in death penalty cases. However,
the lapse of the period to appeal and
No. Only the accused under Sec. 7 of Rule 120 of the
no appeal is perfected, is not the only
Rules of Court can move to set aside a judgment of instance where the judgment of
conviction before it becomes final. As accused has been conviction becomes final;
placed in jeopardy for the crime of homicide, he cannot
be prosecuted anew for the same offense, or any offense 2. Even within the period to appeal, that
which necessarily includes or is included in the first is when the sentence has been partially
offense charged. The records do not show any or totally satisfied or served. For
irregularity in the preliminary investigation. The evidence example Charles has been sentenced to
that would upgrade the offense to murder was not 10 days of Arresto Menor and he has
presented and complainant did not appeal the resolution already served it. Or Charles has been
downgrading the offense to homicide. sentenced to pay a fine of P100 and he
pays it. Wala na! Final na iyan! Because
he has decided to serve his sentence, it
Q: May judgement of conviction be modified or set has become final. We do not have to
wait for 15 days;
aside? A: YES, for as long as:
3. When the accused has waived in
a. the judgement has not yet become final, or writing his right to appeal;
b. appeal has not been perfected 4. When after conviction, the accused
applies for probation (this is based on
the probation law). When Charles
Take note that only a judgment of conviction can be applies for probation, he is waiving his
modified. A judgment of acquittal cannot be modified. It right to appeal and he is accepting the
is only upon motion of the accused. judgement of conviction.

Q: How about upon motion of the prosecution?

A: It would seem under the rules, that it is only the Take note, however, that in these instances, when the
accused who is given that privilege of moving to modify judgment of conviction becomes final, even before the
the judgement and set it aside. lapse of 15 days, what the law means is that what has
become final is the criminal aspect. The civil aspect of
the case does NOT become final after the lapse of 15
days. And these instances do not apply when the penalty
There is an identical provision here that we have already
imposed is death because of the automatic review of the
taken up before – about the judgment of conviction
Supreme Court.
which may be set aside before it becomes final. Read
Section 5, Rule 116 on Arraignment and Plea: I met this problem before where the judgment convicted
the accused and the trouble is that judgment forgot to
Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty. – At
impose civil liability. Nalimutan talaga! And there was no
any time before the judgment of conviction becomes reservation or waiver so that the court should have
final, the court may permit an improvident plea of imposed the civil aspect. The trouble is, after the
guilty to be withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of promulgation, the accused started to serve his sentence
not guilty. (5) the following day.
So even if you plead guilty, and it is not a capital offense But within the period of 15 days, we filed a motion for
and there is now a judgment sentencing you because of reconsideration to complete the judgment because under
your plea, you can still change your mind by changing Section 1 of this Rule, the imposition of the proper civil
your plea from guilty to not guilty. But you have to file a liability must be included. And Section 2 also provides
that the civil liability should be enforced unless the The judge acknowledged and admitted that he overlooked the civil
enforcement of civil liability in a separate civil action has liability. He said that he is ready to modify the judgment to include the
been reserved or waived. civil liability which he forgot. But the judge said, the trouble is that he
can no longer do it because the accused has already started
What shall not be affected by this Rule – Existing
serving his sentence after promulgation, and from that provisions in law governing:
moment, the judgment has become final. So he said,
“how can I amend my judgment kung final na?” 1. Suspension of sentence,
I told him, what became final was the criminal aspect, the 2. Probation, or
civil aspect cannot become final until after the lapse of 15
days. Sabi ng judge, “Are you sure? Can you sight a case 3. Parole
which says so? Because my researcher said na hindi The suspension of sentence, probation or parole are
pwede.” governed by substantive law such as the Indeterminate
Yes, according to the SC in one case, “…as long as the Sentence Law and the Probation law. These laws have
period for appeal has not yet expired, even if the never been modified or affected by the Rules of Court.
judgment has become final by service of sentence or
waiver of appeal, the trial court may still modify its
judgment as to its civil aspect.” So what is final is the
criminal aspect and NOT the civil aspect. Because if the
offended party cannot claim civil liability kasi inunahan PROCEEDINGS AFTER JUDGMENT
ng accused ng pag-serve ng sentence, there is
something unfair there no.
Rule 121 NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION
SECTION 1. New trial or reconsideration.
SEC. 8. Entry of judgment. – After a judgment has
become final, it shall be entered in accordance with Rule Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration
36. (8)
1. When filed:
Rule 36 is entitled, “Judgments, Final Orders and Entry
Thereof.” While Rule 36 falls under the subject of Civil At any time BEFORE the judgment becomes final
Procedure, some of its provisions may be applied in
2. From what judgment:
criminal procedure.
Only from a judgment of CONVICTION
"If no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration is
filed within the time provided in these rules, the 3. How initiated – either by:
judgment or final order shall forthwith be entered by the
clerk in the book of entries of judgments. The date of 1. Motion of the accused
finality of the judgment or final order shall be deemed to 2. By the court motu propio with the consent of
be the date of its entry. The record shall contain the the accused
dispositive part of the judgment or final order and shall
be signed by the clerk, with a certificate that such
judgment or final order has become final and executory."
1. Amendment of decision
People v. Astudillo 401 SCRA 723 April 29,
1. Finality of judgment of conviction 2004
People v. Salle 250 SCRA 581 December 4, 1995 Facts:
Question: After accused was convicted of murder qualified by abuse
of superior strength, he filed a motion for reconsideration
When does a judgment of conviction become final?
contending that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt
Answer: beyond reasonable doubt.

A judgment of conviction becomes final The RTC denied the motion and issued an Amended
Decision where the phrase “abuse of superior strength”
(a) when no appeal is seasonably perfected, was replaced with “TREACHERY” in the body of the
Decision.
(b) when accused commences to serve
sentence, Issue:
(c) when the right to appeal is expressly waived Is the amendment of the decision proper?
in writing, except where the death penalty was
imposed by the court, and Held:

(d) when accused applies for probation, thereby Yes. Under Rule 121, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court, a
waiving his right to appeal. motion for reconsideration of a judgment of conviction
may be filed by the accused, or initiated by the court,
with the consent of the accused. Likewise, under Rule
120, Sec. 7, a judgment of conviction may be modified or
SEC. 9. Existing provisions governing suspension of
set aside only upon motion of the accused. His motion
sentence, probation and parole not affected by this Rule.
gives the court an opportunity to rectify its errors or to
reevaluate its assessment of facts and conclusions of law
and make them conformable with the statute applicable
to the case in the new judgment it has to render. The
raison d’etre is to afford the court a chance to correct its
own mistakes and to avoid unnecessary appeals from
being taken. In effect, a motion for reconsideration filed
by accused renders the entire evidence open for the
review of the trial court without, however, conducting
further proceedings, such as the taking of additional proof.
 changes, although the entire decision may have
to be rewritten. (People vs. Tamayo, 86 Phil. 209)
2. Reconsideration where judgment is acquittal
Mobilia Products v. Umezawa 453 SCRA 511
March 4, 2005 Now, there is a new section in the New Rules which
created confusion – Rule 119 Section 24.
Issue:
SEC. 24. Reopening.– At any time before finality of
If an accused is acquitted or the case against him is the judgment of conviction, the judge may, motu
dismissed, who may file a motion for reconsideration? proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either case,
reopen the proceedings to avoid a miscarriage of
Held: justice. The proceedings shall be terminated within
If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there thirty (30) days from the order granting it. (n)
is an acquittal, a reconsideration of the order of dismissal
or acquittal may be undertaken, whenever legally
feasible, insofar as the criminal aspect thereof is When do you make the motion for reopening? At anytime
concerned and may be made only by the public before the judgment of conviction becomes final? The
prosecutor; or in the case of an appeal, by" the State language of the 3 provisions are identical, motion for: (1)
only, through the OSG. The offended party may not reopening of trial; (2) modification of judgment of
undertake such motion for reconsideration or appeal on conviction; and (3) new trial or reconsideration
the criminal aspect of the case. However, the offended
party may file a motion for reconsideration of such How is this different from the others?
dismissal or acquittal or appeal therefrom but only Former Solicitor General Galvez, said that Rule 119 is an
insofar as the civil aspect thereof is concerned. In so error because Why will you reopen after judgment of
doing, the offended party need not secure the conformity conviction? Reopenning is done before judgment is
of the public prosecutor. If the court denies his motion rendered not after a judgment of conviction. It created a
for reconsideration, the offended party may appeal or file lot of confusion. So if we believe Galvez, the confusion is
a petition for certiorari or mandamus, if grave abuse caused by a typographical error, which according to him
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction is shown and is not the language of the Rules submitted to the SC and
the aggrieved party has no right of appeal or given an somebody tinkered with that provision.
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
There is also a rule on New Trial in civil cases under Rule
37 (Civil Procedure),and the grounds: FAME, NDE, etc.
NEW TRIAL And there are some rules there to follow such as the
motion for new trial must be supported by affidavits of
Q: What is the effect of the filing of a motion for new merits, or the motion for reconsideration must point out
trial on the double jeopardy rule? specifically the error committed by the trial court, and
the portion of the decision not supported by the
A: An accused who files a motion for new trial WAIVES evidence. Otherwise, if you do not comply with these
the protection of double jeopardy, so that if the motion is requisites, what is the name of your motion? PRO
granted, he can be tried and convicted of the graver FORMA. Pro Forma, meaning the filing of your motion for
offense charged in the complaint or information. (Trono new trial or reconsideration will NOT interrupt the period
vs. U.S. 11 Phil. 726; Santos vs. People, 64 Phil. 10) to appeal. That is the effect.
Actually, it is like an appeal – when an accused appeals
the judgment against him, he is waiving his right against
double jeopardy. And it has happened several times in This is now the question:
the past where the accused was charged with murder
and convicted of homicide. He was not contented. When Q: Is there such a thing as pro forma motion for new
he filed an appeal, he was convicted of murder. trial or reconsideration in criminal cases? Where your
Sometimes, appeal can give you a worse situation. motion is obviously dilatory? Your grounds are too
general, too vague, too ambiguous? No affidavit of
merits? And therefore if it is denied, there is no more
right to appeal by the accused applying the pro forma
Q: Compare and Distinguish New Trial from Modification rule?
of Judgment.
A: The SC ruled in the past that the pro forma rule in
A: Similarity: Both may be resorted to before the civil cases DOES NOT apply to criminal cases. In criminal
judgment of conviction becomes final. cases, a general statement of the grounds for new trial is
Distinctions: sufficient. (People vs. Colmenares, 57 O.G. 3714) Even if
you do not go into details because you expect your
1. In new trial, by the very nature of its purpose motion to be denied, but the filing will still interrupt the
and what is to be done, both parties intervene; period. It is too harsh if the remedy of appeal will be
whereas, in modification of judgment, the court removed from the accused simply because of a motion
moto propio may act provided the consent of for new trial which is not prepared properly. So the pro
the accused is required; forma rule will not apply in criminal cases. The filing of a
motion for new trial or reconsideration will always
2. In new trial, if the motion is granted, the
interrupt the running of the period to appeal.
original judgment is vacated and a new
judgement shall be rendered; whereas, in
modification of judgment, the integrity of the
decision already rendered is unaffected, except SEC. 2. Grounds for a new trial.
for the proposed Grounds for New Trial
1. Errors of law have been committed during the trial,
2. Irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of 3. Newly discovered evidence; requisites:
the accused have been committed during the trial, and
  The evidence must have been discovered Note: Evidence to be considered newly discovered, must
after the trial, be one that could not, by the exercise of due diligence,
 It could not have been discovered before have been discovered before the trial in the court below.
The determinative test is the presence of due or
the trial even with the use of reasonable
reasonable diligence to locate the things to be used as
diligence,
evidence in the trial (Briones vs. People, GR No. 156009,
 It is material, not merely cumulative, June 5, 2009)
corroborating or impeaching; and
 It is of such weight, that if introduced and Newly discovered evidence is not a newly created
admitted, would probably change the evidence nor forgotten evidence.
judgment
b. Paraffin test result
People v. Ducay 225 SCRA 1 August 2, 1993
1. Newly discovered evidence
Facts:
a. DNA tests results
Accused was convicted of murder. While the case was
In Re: Writ of Habeas Corpus pending review before the Supreme Court, he asked for
442 SCRA 706 November 17, 2004 new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence
consisting of the results of a paraffin test done on him
Facts: one (1) day after the commission of the crime. The test
showed that he was negative for gunpowder residue.
Three years after the Supreme Court affirmed the
conviction of petitioner for rape, he asked for new trial Issue:
based on newly discovered evidence gathered after
performing deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing on Should accused be granted a new trial?
samples allegedly collected from him and a child born to Held:
the victim. He alleged that during the trial of the case, he
was unaware that there was a scientific test that could No. The chemistry report cannot be considered as newly
determine once and for all if he was the father of the discovered evidence since it was already existing even
victim’s child. He was only informed during the pendency before the trial commenced and could have been easily
of the automatic review of the case that DNA testing produced in court by compulsory process. Accused either
could resolve the issue of paternity. did not exercise reasonable diligence for its production or
simply forgot about it. Forgotten evidence is, of course,
Issue: not a ground for a new trial. Moreover, the result of the
Does the belated results of the DNA test constitute newly paraffin test conducted on accused is not conclusive
discovered evidence? evidence that he did not fire a gun. It is possible for a
person to fire a gun and yet be negative for the presence
Held: of nitrates, as when he wore gloves or washed his hands
afterwards.
No. Under Sec. 1 of Rule 121 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure a motion for new trial can only be
filed at any time before a judgment of conviction
becomes final, that is, within 15 days from its c. Passport
promulgation or notice. The decision sought to be People v. Li Ka Kim 429 SCRA 169 May 25, 2004
reviewed has long attained finality. Moreover, the DNA
evidence does not fall within the statutory or Facts:
jurisprudential definition of “newly- discovered evidence”.
Li Ka Kim was convicted of selling “shabu” under the
The requisites for a motion for new trial based on newly- Dangerous Drug Acts. While his appeal was pending
discovered evidence have not been met. It is essential before the Supreme Court, he filed a motion to remand
that the offering party exercised reasonable diligence in the case for new trial on the ground of newly discovered
seeking to locate the evidence before or during trial but evidence. The evidence consisted of his passport which
nonetheless failed to secure it. would establish his true identity as Huang Xiao Wei, a
Chinese National (not Li Ka Kim), and as having entered
In this instance, although the DNA evidence was the Philippines as a tourist, not an undocumented alien,
undoubtedly discovered after the trial, such evidence as found by the trial court.
disproving paternity could have been discovered and
produced at trial with the exercise of reasonable Issue:
diligence. His claim that he was “unaware” of the
existence of DNA testing until the trial was concluded Should accused be granted new trial to enable him to
carries no weight. Lack of knowledge of the existence of present his passport?
DNA testing speaks of negligence, either on the part of Held:
petitioner, or his counsel. In either instance, however,
this negligence is binding upon petitioner. No. Not one of the requisites mentioned under Sec. 1 Rule
121 of the Rules of Court is attendant. The passport of
accused could have easily been presented and produced
during the trial. Then, too, the presentation of the
passport, would hardly be material to the outcome of the
case. Accused was positively identified by the
prosecution witnesses as being the perpetrator of the
crime. Most importantly, accused even identified himself
as Li Ka Kim at the trial and not as Huang Xiao Wei, that
bolsters the
conclusion that accused deliberately concealed his true
identity in the nefarious enterprise.
 confessing to the commission of the crime for which
d. Discovery of witness’ address accused was held liable. The convict later executed an
People v. Dela Cruz 207 SCRA 632 March 31, affidavit formalizing his confession.
1992 Issue:
Facts: Does this constitute newly discovered evidence to entitle
Accused appealed his conviction for murder. The next accused to a new trial?
day, he filed a petition for new trial on the ground that Held:
he found an eye-witness to the crime, whose “address is
newly discovered.” He claims that said witness will Yes. There is a need for a new trial in order to determine
corroborate the testimony of his main witness. A few the veracity of positive identification of accused vis-a-vis
days later, he also filed a motion to withdraw appeal. the alleged confession made by the convict since no less
than a life is at stake. Court litigation is primarily for the
Issue: search of truth, and a liberal interpretation of the rules
Should new trial be granted? by which both parties are given the fullest opportunity to
adduce proofs is the best way to ferret out such truth.
Held: We cannot convict accused and impose upon him the
death penalty when evidence which would possibly
No. Since the testimony of the witness sought to be exonerate him may be presented by him in a new trial.
presented is only corroborative, the third requisite for Neither can we acquit him on the sole ground that
new trial is absent. another person confessed to having committed the
crime.

e. Discovery of new witness

People v. Amparado 156 SCRA 713 December 21, g. Affidavit of recantation
1987 People v. Garcia 288 SCRA 382 March 31, 1998
Facts: Issue:
After accused was convicted of murder, he learned that May an affidavit of recantation serve as a ground for
there were 2 people who were present when the incident granting a new trial?
happened and these 2 were the ones who rendered
assistance to the victim. Accused himself did not know Held:
this during the trial because he stayed in another
barangay to avoid retaliation from the relatives of the A recantation, as a general rule, is not sufficient to
victim. The testimonies of the 2 would tend to show that warrant a new trial. If it were otherwise, a new trial
accused acted in self-defense and that the main would be granted whenever an interested party succeeds
prosecution witness whose testimony resulted to his in intimidating or inducing any or some of the witnesses
conviction was nowhere at the crime scene. to retract after trial their testimony, thus, opening the
door to endless litigation. It is also injudicious to reject a
Issue: testimony solely on the basis of such recantation, which
may later be repudiated, as this “will make solemn trial a
Should accused be given a new trial based on newly mockery and place the investigation at the mercy of
discovered evidence? unscrupulous witnesses.”
Held:
Yes. The evidence sought to be presented is newly- h. Medical certificate
discovered as defined by the Rules of Court. The
proposed testimonies of the witnesses, who aver to be People v. Del Mundo 262 SCRA 266 September
the first persons to render assistance to the victim 20, 1996
immediately after the stabbing incident, if admitted,
would tend to show that the alleged eyewitness of the Facts:
prosecution, whose version of the crime was given full Accused was convicted of 6 counts of incestuous rape of
faith and credence by the trial court, was not present at his own daughter. He was sentenced to death in one of
the scene of the crime. If this is true, then, the version of them. While the case was pending review by the
the prosecution might perforce fail and that of the Supreme Court, he asked for new trial on the ground of
defense prevail. Consequently, the judgment of the affidavit of desistance executed by the victim and a
conviction could be reversed, or at the very least, medical certificate showing that the victim was a virgin.
modified. The medical certificate was at variance with what was
presented by the prosecution, which was based on the
examination conducted by another physician.
f. Confession of another convict
Issue:
People v. Ebias 342 SCRA 675 October 12, 2000
Should accused be granted new trial?
Facts:
Held:
While the conviction of accused for murder and
frustrated murder was being reviewed by the Supreme Yes. While the NBI-Medico Legal report cannot be
Court, a death convict at the National Bilibid Prison wrote considered new and material evidence which accused
a letter could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and
produced at the trial, we grant the motion for new trial
on the broader ground of substantial justice, taking into
account the variance in the two aforesaid reports. It is
the sense of this Court that such serious discrepancy
raised
substantial doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
1. Errors of law;
Furthermore, the penalty imposed on accused is death.
Here is a situation where a rigid application of the rules Example: In one case, during the trial, the trial
must bow to the overriding goal of courts of justice to court excluded a defense witness from testifying
render justice to secure to every individual all possible based on an erroneous interpretation of the
legal means to prove his innocence of a crime of which rules of evidence. The judge disqualified him.
he is charged. But it turned out that the witness was not
disqualified. That is an error of law. For all you
know, if his testimony will be given, the accused
2. Error of counsel will be acquitted. Therefore, a new trial should
be granted where he should be allowed to
People v. Remudo 364 SCRA 61 August 30, 2001 testify. (People vs. Estefa, 86 Phil. 104)
Issue: 2. irregularities prejudicial to the substantial
rights of the accused;
Is the error of counsel a ground for a motion for new
trial? Example: In one case, the trial court compelled
the accused, over his objection, to submit to
Held: trial without the assistance of his counsel.
No. The error of the defense counsel in the conduct of (People vs. Enriquez, L-4934, November 28,
the trial is neither an error of law nor an irregularity upon 1951) If the accused is convicted because of
which a motion for new trial may be presented. such irregularity, this is a valid ground for new
Generally, the client is bound by the action of his counsel trial. Besides, why should the judge punish the
in the conduct of his case and cannot be heard to accused? He should punish the lawyer.
complain that the result of the litigation might have been 3. Newly discovered evidence; this is similar
different had his counsel proceeded differently. The fact to civil cases, newly discovered evidence.
that blunders and mistakes may have been made in the The requisites are the same:
conduct of the proceedings in the trial court as a result
of the ignorance, inexperience or incompetence of a. discovered after trial;
counsel does not furnish a ground for a new trial. If such
grounds were to be admitted as reasons for reopening b. it could not have been discovered
cases, there would never be an end to suits so long as a before trial even with the use of
new counsel could be employed who could allege and reasonable diligence
show that the prior counsel has not been sufficiently c. and if introduced and admitted would
diligent, experienced, or learned. probably change the decision

3. “Interest of justice” Q: May a new trial be granted on the ground of loss of

People v. Almendras 401 SCRA 555 April 24, stenographic notes?
2003 A: NO. The loss of stenographic notes after trial is NOT
Facts: such an irregularity as would justify a new trial. The
remedy of the accused is to have the missing evidence
Accused were charged with illegal sale of “shabu.” After reconstituted. (People vs. Castelo, L-10774, February 16,
the prosecution presented evidence, they filed a 1961)
demurrer which was denied. Thereafter, through
There is a case, the trial is concluded, and the accused is
counsel, they filed a certiorari before the CA to challenge
convicted. Within the period of 15 days from
the order of the court. Due to the repeated absence of
counsel in the proceedings before the trial court, the promulgation, here comes the accused filing a motion for
new trial on the ground that the prosecution witness has
judge ruled that they waived their right to present
evidence. After they were sentenced to death, they executed an affidavit recanting his testimony. The
prosecution witness, in effect, is saying that what he said
asked to be allowed to present evidence.
during the trial is not true.
Issue:
Q: May a new trial be granted on the ground of loss or
May accused be granted a new trial? recantation of prosecution witnesses?

Held: A: As a GENERAL RULE, recantation is NOT a ground for

new trial, otherwise there would never be an end to
Yes. Although Sec. 2, Rule 121 of the Rules of Court criminal litigation. “The Court has looked with disfavor
enumerates the specific grounds in granting new trial or upon retraction of testimonies previously given in court.
reconsideration, none of which is present here, Thus, the Court has ruled against the grant of a new trial
nonetheless Sec. 6 on the effects thereof considers the on the basis of a retraction by a witness. The rationale
“interest of justice” as a gauge in the introduction of for the rule is obvious: Affidavits of retraction can easily
additional evidence. In the case at bar, the paramount be secured from poor and ignorant witnesses usually for
interest of justice militates against closing the door of the a monetary consideration. Recanted testimony is
courtroom against accused. For unless granted a day in exceedingly unreliable. There is always the probability
court now, an accused may be doomed without that it may later be repudiated. So courts are wary or
competent counsel presenting a proper defense at his reluctant to allow a new trial based on retracted
disposal. We are not predisposed to such an eventuality testimony.” (People vs. Clamor, July 1, 1991; People vs.
that could taint seriously our adversarial system. Soria, October 4, 1996)
Q: Is there an EXCEPTION?
Grounds for new trial:
A: YES, when it is made to appear that there is no Dacir, 26 Phil. 503) When aside from the testimonies of the retracting
evidence sustaining the judgment of conviction other witness or witnesses there is no other evidence to support a
than the testimony of the recanting witness. (U.S. vs. judgment of conviction, a new trial may be granted. (People vs.
Clamor, July 1, 1991) you saying now?” As he answers, Thaddeus must say
under oath that he lied before and this is the truth…
[amen!]
GOMEZ vs. IAC April 9, 1985
Q: After that, can the court say that the accused is
HELD: now acquitted because now Thaddeus is telling the truth
when before Thaddeus was not telling the truth? Is this
“It is conceded that the State has the sovereign right to
what will happen?
prosecute criminal offenses under the full control of the
fiscal and that the dismissal of criminal cases by the A: The SC said NO. The only thing that will happen
execution of an affidavit of desistance by the is that a new trial will be granted. But this does not mean
complainant is not looked upon with favor. However, it is that the accused shall be acquitted. When we say new
also true that an affidavit of desistance may create trial, this means that the court should hear the testimony
serious doubts as to the liability of the accused. At the of the complainant again. BUT after testifying, the court
very least, it calls for a second hard look at the records may say, “You say you were lying before and you are
of the case and the basis for the judgment of conviction. telling the truth now, but the court does not believe you
Jurisprudence on the effect of desistance because as far as the court is concerned, you were
notwithstanding, the affidavit should not be peremptorily telling the truth before and you are lying now.” Therefore
dismissed as a useless scrap of paper.” the conviction stands. That is possible.
Sometimes there are affidavits of recantation made by Because some lawyers believe that if a new trial is
the complainant, which says “I have lost interest in granted, sigurado na acquitted na ang accused. NO, the
continuing the case.” However he already testified. This SC never guaranteed that. It will only be a ground for new
is not a proper ground for a motion for new trial. trial without a guarantee whether the decision will be
reversed or not. But in practice, lutong Macau lahat iyan.
To be such ground you have to say that you were
Usapan nalang iyan between the lawyer and the fiscal
mistaken in your allegations in the affidavit regarding the tapos kasali pa ang judge. That is what is happening, I
commission of the crime by the accused. know that.

If you say that you are not interested, you are not really But if you follow the rules, there is no guarantee that if
repudiating what you said. That is what the SC new trial is granted, the accused will be acquitted. There
emphasized in the 1998 case of is no rule that says that when a witness testifies twice,
PEOPLE vs. GARCIA 288 SCRA 382 [1998] the court will always believe the latest testimony. And the
SC has emphasized that in many cases, one of them is
HELD: the case of
“To warrant a new trial, the affidavit of desistance must PEOPLE vs. CLAMOR July 01, 1991
constitute a recantation and not a mere withdrawal from
the prosecution of the case. The complainant's affidavit HELD:
of desistance did not constitute a recantation, because “Where a witness testifies for the prosecution and
she did not deny the truth of her complaint but merely retracts his or her testimony and subsequently testifies
sought to be allowed to withdraw and discontinue the for the defense, the test in determining which testimony
case because she wished to start life anew and live to believe is one of comparison coupled with the
normally again. She never absolved or exculpated the application of the general rules in evidence.” So you
accused. In other words, a recantation of a prior apply what you know about evidence, about credibility,
statement or testimony must necessarily renounce the appreciation of evidence.
said statement or testimony and withdraw it formally and
publicly.” “The rule should be that a testimony solemnly given in
court should not be lightly set aside and that before this
Now we will go to one last point. can be done, both the previous testimony and the
PROBLEM: Let us assume that Sheriff was convicted subsequent one be carefully compared, the
purely because of the testimony of the complainant, circumstances under which each given carefully
Thaddeus. Now, Thaddeus makes an affidavit stating scrutinized, the reasons or motives for the change
that everything he said is not true. Meaning he is really carefully scrutinized — in other words, all the expedients
recanting. devised by man to determine the credibility of witnesses
should be utilized to determine which of the
Q: Is this a ground for new trial? contradictory testimonies represents the truth.”
A: Following jurisprudence, YES. It becomes now Of course, if the court believes that the second testimony
an exceptional case. There will be a new trial. is accurate and the witness lied during the first, then
acquit! But if the court believes that the witness was
Q: What do you mean new
telling the truth in the first testimony, the conviction
trial? A: We will now restart the case. stands.

Q: Who will testify? So take note of that because these are misunderstood
concepts eh.
A: Eh di si Thaddeus! – yung complainant, who will
be asked: “During the trial this is what you said, what
are
RECONSIDERATION
SEC. 3. Ground for reconsideration.
Grounds for Reconsideration
1. Errors of LAW in the judgment, which requires no further proceedings
further proceedings; and
2. Errors of Fact in the judgment, which requires no
1. Reconsideration in lieu of habeas corpus A: YES – when the case is tried in the MTC under the
Villa v. CA 319 SCRA 794 December 6, 1999 Summary Rules. Bawal man iyan ba! That’s a prohibited
motion. Now you just take note of that. Under Section
Facts: 19[c] of the Revised Summary Rules, a motion for
reconsideration or new trial of a final judgment is
On Aug. 19, 1994, the CA rendered a decision sentencing
prohibited.
accused to 6 years and 1 day to 10 years of
imprisonment. On Jan. 12, 1996, or after more than 1 Q: Of course, what are the effects of granting the motion
year and 6 months, accused filed a Motion for for new trial or reconsideration.
Reconsideration and Modification of Sentence. Seeking
retroactive application of the decision of People v. Simon A: You have Section 6:
[G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994], she prayed that her
sentence be reduced to 6 months to 2 years and 4
months and that her sentence for the violation of Sec. 8, SEC. 6. Effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration.
Art. II of R.A. 6425 be declared fully served.
Effects of Granting a New Trial or Reconsideration
Issue:
1. General Effect:
Considering the finality of the judgment, may the court
entertain the motion for reconsideration? The original judgment shall be set aside or vacated
and a new judgment rendered accordingly
Held:
2. Effects if the motion for new trial is granted on
Yes. While the appropriate remedy of accused is to file a the ground of:
petition for habeas corpus. The CA should have treated
the motion for reconsideration and modification of 1. Errors of law or irregularities committed
sentence filed by accused as a petition for the issuance during the trial:
of a writ of habeas corpus and modified the penalty
 all the proceedings and evidence
imposed on accused.
affected thereby shall be set aside
and taken anew, and

SEC. 4. Form of motion and notice to the prosecutor.  the court may, in the interest of
justice, allow the introduction of
Form of a Motion for New Trial or Consideration additional evidence
1. It shall be in writing 2. Newly-discovered evidence:
2. It shall state the grounds on which it is based  the evidence already adduced shall
If the motion for new trial is based on newly stand, and
discovered evidence, it must be supported by:
 the newly-discovered and such
 affidavits of witnesses by whom such other evidence as the court may,
evidence is expected to be given, or in the interest of justice, allow to
be introduced shall be taken and
 duly authenticated copies of documents considered together with the
which are proposed to be introduced in evidence already in the record
evidence.
3. Notice of the motion must be given to the
prosecutor 1. Consequence of granting new trial
Obugan v. People 244 SCRA 263 May 22,
1995
SEC. 5. Hearing on motion.
Question:
Hearing on Motion
What is the effect if the motion for new trial is granted
1. When the court may hear evidence on the by the court?
motion:
Answer:
When the motion for new trial calls for resolution of
any question of fact Once a new trial is granted the original judgment is
vacated. The nullification of the original judgment is not
2. How the court may hear evidence on the motion: dependent on whether or not the new trial results in a
new or modified judgment. The mere grant of the motion
By affidavits or otherwise for new trial operates to vacate the original judgment.
The effect of granting a new trial is not to acquit the
Q: Is there an instance when a MOTION for accused of the crime of which the judgment finds him
reconsideration or new trial is PROHIBITED? guilty, but, precisely, to set aside the judgment so that
the case may be tried de novo as if no trial had been had
before, for the purpose of rendering a judgment in
accordance with the law, taking into consideration the
evidence to be presented during the second trial. While
evidence already taken in the original trial is not
disregarded but is to be taken into account together with
the new evidence, original judgment is automatically set
aside and the case is reverted to its original status before
judgment, upon the granting of a motion for new trial. Q: Will there be really a trial de novo or will there just be a reopening
of the trial to introduce the newly discovered evidence?
A: Under paragraph [c] which we already discussed: “In from any order of the court making him subsidiarily
all cases, when the court grants new trial or liable for the civil liability of the accused under Art.
reconsideration, the original judgment shall be set aside 103 of the Revised Penal Code
or vacated and a new judgment rendered accordingly.”
Q: Suppose after new trial, the court still finds the
accused guilty? 1. Party who can appeal
A: There will be another judgment but definitely the Philippine Rabbit v. People 427 SCRA 456 April
original judgment is already set aside. When the court 14, 2004
grants the motion, wala na iyon! Regardless of whether
the new judgment will be the same or not. Question:
Who may appeal in criminal cases?
Answer:

Rule 122 APPEAL Sec. 1 of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court states that any
party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless
the accused will be placed in double jeopardy.
SECTION 1. Who may Clearly, both accused and the prosecution may appeal a
criminal case, but the government may do so only if the
appeal. Q: What is appeal? accused would not thereby be placed in double jeopardy.
A: Appeal means a review of a decision of a lower court Furthermore, the prosecution cannot appeal on the
by a higher court. The higher court will determine ground that the accused should have been given a more
whether the decision of the lower court is correct, just, severe penalty. On the other hand, the offended parties
etc. may also appeal the judgment with respect to their right
to civil liability. If the accused has the right to appeal the
Who May Appeal judgment of conviction, the offended parties should have
the same right to appeal as much of the judgment as is
1. General Rule:
prejudicial to them.
Any party may appeal from a judgment or final order
2. Exception: 2. Appeal by offended party of civil aspect
Appeal cannot be made if the accused will be placed
Heirs of Rillorta v. Firme 157 SCRA 518 January
in double jeopardy
29, 1988
3. What may be the subject of appeal:
Facts:
1. A judgment, or Although charged for the death of the victim, accused
2. Final order was eventually convicted only of less serious physical
injuries, sentenced to 20 days and ordered to indemnify
the heirs of the victim the amount of P500. The heirs
appealed the civil aspect urging that the civil award in
Specific Persons who may File an Appeal
the sum of only P500 be increased because accused
1. The accused: should not have been found guilty of only less serious
physical injuries but of homicide.
 from a judgment of conviction (Phil. Rabbit v.
People, 427 SCRA 456) Issue:
May the criminal aspect of the decision be modified as a
 with respect to the civil aspect (Salvan v.
basis for the increase in the civil award?
People, 410 SCRA 638)
Held:
2. The prosecution:
No. The civil indemnity may be increased only if it will
provided the accused will not be placed in
not require an aggravation of the decision in the criminal
double jeopardy
case on which it is based. In other words, the accused
3. The offended party: may not, on appeal by the adverse party, be convicted of
a more serious offense or sentenced to a higher penalty
with respect to the civil aspect arising out of the to justify the increase in the civil indemnity. The award
offense charged cannot be related to the victim’s death, of which accused
has been absolved by the trial court. Here, the heirs of
4. The bondsman of the accused:
the victim are not confining themselves to the civil aspect
in case of judgment against the bond in a forfeiture of the challenged decision. In their own words, their
case appeal involves both the criminal aspect and the civil
liabilities in the criminal cases. This is not permitted
5. The employer of the accused: under the rule on double jeopardy.
3. Appeal of civil aspect by accused
Salvan v. People 410 SCRA 638 October 29, 2002
Issue:
May an accused who applies for probation file a partial Yes. The filing of the application for probation should be deemed a
appeal insofar as the civil aspect of the judgment waiver of the right to appeal. However, even if the execution of
ordering him to pay damages? sentence is suspended by the grant of probation, it does not follow
that the civil liability of the offender, if any, is extinguished.
Held:
 may be allowed to intervene in criminal proceedings on
4. Appeal of civil aspect by employer appeal in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, his
Philippine Rabbit v. People 427 SCRA 456 April participation is subordinate to the interest of the People,
14, 2004 hence, he cannot be permitted to adopt a position
contrary to that of the Solicitor General (Carino vs. De
Facts: Castro)
A driver of Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines [PRBL] was
convicted of reckless imprudence resulting to triple
homicide, multiple physical injuries and damage to Effect of appeal
property. PRBL was held civilly liable as accused was It is settled that in a criminal case, an appeal throws the
insolvent. PRBL filed a notice of appeal through the whole case open for review, and it becomes the duty of
counsel of accused who was hired and paid by PRBL. the appellate court to correct such errors as may be
Later, accused jumped bail and remained at large. The found in the judgment appealed from, whether they are
CA dismissed the appeal as Sec. 8, Rule 124 of the Rules made the subject of the assignment of errors or not
on Criminal Procedure authorizes the dismissal of appeal (People vs. Michael Lindo y Vergara GR No. 189818, Aug.
when accused jumps bail. 9, 2010)
Issue: The above rule is in contrast with the general rule in civil
Where the accused jumps bail, can his employer appeal cases where as a rule, no error will be considered by the
the civil aspect of the judgment? appellate court unless stated in the assignment of errors
except when (a) the error affects the jurisdiction of the
Held: court over the subject matter; (b) the error affects the
validity of the judgment appealed from or the
No. PRBL’s appeal obviously aims to have accused proceedings therein; (c) the error is closely related or
absolved of his criminal responsibility and the judgment dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in
reviewed as a whole. But an appeal from the sentence of the brief; and (d) the error is a plain error or a clerical
the trial court implies a waiver of the constitutional error (Sec. 8 R 51 Rules of Court; Heirs of Marcelino
safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole Doronio vs. Heirs of Fortunato Doronio 541 SCRA 479);
case open for review. It thus follows that a penalty (d) the appellate court finds that the consideration of
higher than that which has already been imposed by the erros not assigned on appeal is necessary in arriving at a
trial court may be meted out to him. The employer’s complete and just resolution of the case or to serve the
appeal would thus violate his right against double interests of justice or to avoid piecemeal justice (Sps.
jeopardy, since the judgment against him could become Romulo vs. Layug, GR No. 151217, Sept. 8, 2006).
subject to modification without his consent.

Change of theory on appeal

Only the State thru the OSG can institute
proceedings before the CA and SC The rule is that a party cannot change his theory on
appeal nor raise in the appellate court any question of
In the case of the People of the Philippines, only the law or of fact that was not raised in the court below or
state, through its appellate counsel, the OSG, has the which was not within the issue raised by the parties in
sole right and authority to institute proceedings before their pleadings.
the CA and the SC (Carino vs. De Castro GR No. 176084,
April 30, 2008; Sarah Marie Palma Burgos vs. CA GR No. In a long line of cases, the SC held that points of law,
169711, February 8, 2010). The authority to represent theories, issues and arguments not adequately brought
the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Court of to the attention of the trial court ordinarily will not be
Appeals and the Supreme Court is solely vested in the considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised
Solicitor General (People vs. Duca, GR No. 171175, Oct. for the first time on appeal because this would be
9, 2009). offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due
process (People vs. Mamaril GR No. 171980 Oct. 6,
Where the appellate court failed to notify the Solicitor 2010)
General of its resolution on a petition filed by the
accused and to require it to file its comment, this failure
has deprived the prosecution of a fair opportunity to
prosecute and prove its case (Pp vs. Duca). Q: May an accused appeal from a judgement of acquittal?

Hence, the conformity of the Assistant City Prosecutor to A: Normally, NO, because a judgement of acquittal
a petition for review before the CA is insufficient as the becomes final immediately upon promulgation, so why
rule and jurisprudence mandate that the same should be will you appeal? And why are you appealing if you are
filed by the Solicitor General who is solely vested with acquitted? You mean to tell me, you are praying to be
the authority to represent the people in the Court of convicted? However in the old case of
Appeals or in the Supreme Court. Also, while a private PEOPLE vs. MENDOZA 74 Phil. 119
prosecutor
FACTS:
The accused was acquitted but the decision contained
some harsh remarks against the accused which the
accused feels are irrelevant. So he decided to appeal
from the judgement of acquittal, not for the purpose of
reversing it, but for the purpose of removing all those
harsh irrelevant remarks against him in the decision.
HELD:
The accused may appeal from a judgement of acquittal if those statements.
it contains statements that are irrelevant and should be
expunged from the record, for the purpose of striking out
Q: Can the People of the Philippines or the prosecution ang prosecution, “Why will you acquit him when he
appeal in a criminal case? already pleaded guilty?”
A: It depends. If you read Section 1, it would seem so,
ISSUE:
for as long as the accused will not be placed in double
jeopardy. BUT if the appeal of the prosecution will place Can the prosecution appeal the judgment of acquittal in
the accused in double jeopardy, then he cannot appeal. the case at bar?
Q: Suppose the accused filed a Motion to Quash the HELD:
information on this or that ground and the court quashed
the information but the quashing is wrong. Can the YES, the prosecution can appeal because the judgement
prosecution appeal from the judgement of the court of acquittal is NULL and VOID. In the first place, the
quashing the information? hearing is not for the purpose of proving his innocence.
The hearing is for the purpose only of proving mitigating
A: YES, because the elements of double jeopardy would circumstance so why will you give him the benefit of
not be present. First, the dismissal is with his express justifying circumstance? Now what should be the correct
consent. And normally, a dismissal on a technicality is procedure? You just say mitigating and tapos you are
not considered as an acquittal. It is just a dismissal proving self defense? Pag ganyan, the court will say:
where there is no trial. So puwede. “Okay, self defense ba? The plea of guilty is hereby
erased enter a plea of not guilty and we proceed to trial.”
However, according to the Supreme Court, if the Motion
And then the prosecution will present evidence.
to Quash is based on the grounds of extinction of
criminal liability, or double jeopardy, then the The prosecution should not be deprived of its right to
prosecution cannot appeal because that would place the present evidence as part of due process.
accused under double jeopardy. (Bandoy vs. CFI, 13 Phil.
157)
Q: How about an appeal by the prosecution because the Q: Aside from the accused and the People of the
penalty is wrong? The accused is convicted but the Philippines, unless there is double jeopardy, who can
penalty is very low. The penalty should be higher. So the appeal?
prosecution is appealing for the purpose of correcting the A: The offended party may appeal from any judgement,
penalty. It should be higher. Can the prosecution do order or ruling which is adverse to his civil rights or to
that? the civil liability, or on pure questions of law (e.g.
A: NO, because that will place the accused in double whether or not the information charges no offense).
jeopardy. (People vs. Cabarles, 54 O.G. 7051; People vs. Provided, he has not waived or reserved the right to file
Pomeroy, 97 Phil. 927; People vs. Flores, April 28, 1958) a separate civil action and the civil action is deemed
In other words, the error will remain as it is. instituted, because the civil aspect is different from the
criminal aspect. So the offended party can appeal from
HOWEVER, based on jurisprudence, even if the accused that portion of judgement adverse to his civil liability.
is acquitted, but the judgement of acquittal is NULL and
VOID, then the prosecution is allowed to appeal because Q: Who else can appeal?
a void judgement does not give rise to double jeopardy. A: The bondsmen can appeal in case of judgement
(People vs. Balisacan, August 31, 1966) against the bond in a forfeiture case. In bail, what
Q: Now give an example of a case where the prosecution happens when the accused failed to appear? The court
was allowed to appeal from a judgement of acquittal, may order the confiscation or forfeiture of the bond. And
because the SC said the acquittal is null and void. if the bondsman cannot satisfactorily explain why he
failed to present the accused, then judgement may be
A: A good example is what happened in the old case of rendered, holding the bondsman/bonding company
People vs. Balisacan. This was already asked in the BAR. liable. Can he appeal? Ah yes. He can appeal from the
judgement making him liable for his bond.
Q: Who else can appeal?
PEOPLE vs. BALISACAN August 31, 1966
A: The employer of the accused can also appeal from
FACTS: any order of the court making him subsidiarily liable for
The accused was charged with a certain crime which is the civil liability of the accused under Article 103 of the
not a capital offense. Maybe the penalty is only reclusion Revised Penal Code.
temporal or prision mayor. And then during the So these are the people who can appeal in criminal cases.
arraignment, the accused pleaded guilty. And sabi ng
accused: “Your Honor, may we be allowed to present
evidence to prove mitigating circumstance?” You are
guilty but you may still present evidence to prove SEC. 2. Where to appeal.
mitigating circumstances for purposes of reducing the Where to Appeal
penalty. Do you know during the presentation of the
evidence for the accused to prove mitigating, he 1. To the RTC: In cases decided by the MTC
attempted to prove self-defense? And the court, after
trial, said: self defense? After the hearing, self defense 2. To the CA or SC: In the proper cases decided by
pala. Okay, the accused is hereby acquitted. Nagreklamo the RTC as provided by law
3. To the SC: In cases decided by the CA

1. Decisions of the RTC

People v. Pajo 348 SCRA 492 December 18, 2000
Facts: RTC of 3 counts of rape and 2 counts of acts of lasciviousness. For the
rape, the RTC imposed upon him 3 death sentences, and for the acts
In a consolidated decision, accused was convicted by the of lasciviousness it meted imprisonment both ranging from 10 years
and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months. The records of the serious offense for which the penalty is
cases were elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic death
review.
5. Automatic Review by the SC
Issue:
Where the penalty imposed by the CA is death, and
May the Court review the convictions for acts of
lasciviousness? 6. Where the penalty imposed by the RTC is
reclusion perpetual or life imprisonment, or where
Held:
a lesser penalty is imposed but for offenses
No. Under Sec. 2(b)], Rule 122 of the Rules on Criminal committed on the same occasion or which arose
Procedure, the appeal of a judgment rendered by the out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the
RTC in its original jurisdiction sentencing the accused to more serious offense for which the penalty for
other than life imprisonment or death must be taken to death, reclusion perpetual or life imrpisonment is
the CA by the filing of a notice of appeal with the court imposed, the appeal shall be by notice of appeal to
which rendered the judgment or order appealed from, the CA in accordance with par. (a) of R 122 (Sec.
and by serving a copy thereof on the adverse party. In 3[c], R 122)
the two cases, accused did not appeal.

Summary on Where and How to Appeal

Original Jurisdiction
From To
MTC RTC
SEC. 3. How appeal taken. RTC CA
How to Appeal
1. Notice of Appeal
1. When the appeal is made to the:

 RTC, or
 CA in cases decided by the RTC in the
 From To
RTC CA
CA SC

APPEAL Jurisdiction
Appellate
exercise of its original jurisdiction; No notice of appeal is necessary in cases where the
(Sec.3[a], R 122, Rules of Court) Regional Trial Court imposed the death penalty. The
Court of Appeals shall automatically review the judgment
2. By: as provided in Section 10 of this Rule.
 Filing the notice of appeal with the
Except as provided in the last paragraph of section 13,
court which rendered the judgment or
Rule 124, all other appeals to the Supreme Court shall be
the final order appealed from, and
by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
 Serving a copy thereof to the adverse
A. Cases where death penalty is imposed
(Sec. 3[a] R 122, Rules of Court)
In cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion
2. Petition for Review under Rule 42 perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, the Court now
o When the appeal is made to the CA: provides for a review by the Court of Appeals before the
case is elevated to the Supreme Court. The Court
o In cases decided by the RTC in the explained in People v. Mateo that a prior determination
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction by the Court of Appeals of the factual issues would
(Sec. 3[b], R 122) minimize the possibility of an error of judgment. If the
Court of Appeals should affirm the penalty of death,
3. Petition for Review on Certiorari reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, it could then
All other appeals to the SC, except as provided in render judgment imposing the corresponding penalty as
Rule 124 Sec. 13 [last paragraph] (applies to appeals the circumstances so warrant, refrain from entering
from RTC in exercise of original jurisdiction to SC on judgment and elevate the entire records of the case to
pure question of law and from CA to SC where the the Supreme Court for its final disposition.
CA imposes a penalty other than death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment. In this case the
petition also raises only pure questions of law and Note: Sec. 1 of RA 9346, approved on June 24, 2006,
should raise the errors of the CA not of the RTC now prohibits the imposition of the death penalty.
(Batistis v. People GR No. 181571 Dec. 16, 2009)
In lieu of the death penalty, the law imposes the penalty
4. Automatic Review by the CA of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use
of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal
 Where the penalty imposed by the RTC Code or life imprisonment, when the law violated does
is death, and not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the
Code (Sec. 2 RA 9346; People vs. Abon 545 SCRA 606,
 Where a lesser penalty is imposed but Feb. 15, 2008)
for offenses committed on the same
occasion or which arose out of the
same occurrence that gave rise to the
more 1. Reclusion perpetua as maximum penalty

Macalat v. CA 283 SCRA 159 December 12, 1997 Facts:

Facts: Accused was convicted of murder and frustrated murder which crimes
arose out of one incident. For murder, the sentence was reclusion
For the crime of violating Sec. 3 of P.D. 1866, the trial perpetua and for the frustrated murder, he was sentenced to from 10
court sentenced the accused to not less than 17 years 4 years to 17 years. Accused appealed to the CA which held that it has
months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, no jurisdiction over the murder case considering the imposable
and not more than 30 years of reclusion perpetua, as penalty. Thus it dismissed the appeal for murder, but it acquitted the
maximum. accused of frustrated murder.
Issue: Issue:
Where should the appeal be filed? Did the CA have jurisdiction over the 2 cases?
Held: Held:
For purposes of determining appellate jurisdiction in No. The 2 crimes were committed on the same occasion and arose
criminal cases, the maximum of the penalty, and not the from the same facts. In this light, the CA did not have jurisdiction
minimum, is taken into account. Since the maximum of over the appeals. Under Art. VIII, Sec. 5(2)(d) of the Constitution, the
the penalty is reclusion perpetua, the appeal therefrom Supreme Court has jurisdiction over appeals of final judgments in
should have been to the Supreme Court, and not the CA, criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
pursuant to Sec. 9(3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act higher. Sec. 3 (c), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court also provides that
of 1980 (B.P. 129), in relation to Sec. 17 of the Judiciary the appeal to the SC in cases where the penalty imposed is life
Act of 1948, Sec. 5(2) of Art. VIII of the Constitution and imprisonment, or where a lesser penalty is imposed but involving
Sec. 3(c) of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court. The term “life offenses committed on the same occasion or arising out of the same
imprisonment” as used in Sec. 9 of B.P. 129, the Judiciary occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which the
Act of 1948, and Sec. 3 of Rule 122 must be deemed to penalty of death or life imprisonment is imposed shall be by filing a
include reclusion perpetua in view of Sec. 5(2) of Art. notice of appeal. The SC has exclusive jurisdiction over such appeals.
VIII of the Constitution.(Note: this decision was rendered The splitting of appeals is not conducive to the orderly administration
prior to the above changes) of justice and invites possible conflict of dispositions between the
reviewing courts.

2. Crimes committed on the same occasion [Note: Decision rendered prior to AM No. 005-5-03- SC]

Limpangog v. CA 319 SCRA 341 November 26,

1999
3. Review of death penalty well as the resolution of the Supreme Court en banc,
dated Sept. 19, 1995, in “Internal Rules of the Supreme
People v. Mateo 433 SCRA 640 July 7, Court” in cases similarly involving the death penalty, are
2004 to be deemed modified accordingly.
Question:
May the CA be empowered to review RTC 4. Review of penalty of life imprisonment
decisions imposing the death penalty?
People v. Ochoa 453 SCRA 299 March 11, 2005
Answer:
Question:
Yes. While the Fundamental Law requires a
mandatory review by the SC of cases where Where accused is sentenced by the RTC to a penalty of
the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, where should the appeal be filed?
life imprisonment, or death, nowhere,
however, has it proscribed an intermediate Answer:
review. Where life and liberty are at stake, In Administrative Matter No. 00-5-03-SC, which
all possible avenues to determine his guilt or took effect on Oct. 15, 2004, the Court resolved to
innocence must be accorded an accused, revise Rule 122, Sec. 3(c) of the Revised Rules of
and no care in the evaluation of the facts Criminal Procedure. Presently, the appeal in cases where
can ever be overdone. A prior determination the penalty imposed by the RTC is reclusion perpetua or
by the CA on, particularly the factual issues, life imprisonment or where a lesser penalty is imposed
would minimize the possibility of an error of for offenses committed on the same occasion or which
judgment. If the CA should affirm the arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the
penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life more serious offense for which the penalty of death,
imprisonment, it could then render reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed,
judgment imposing the corresponding shall be by notice of appeal to the CA.
penalty as the circumstances so warrant,
refrain from entering judgment and elevate
the entire records of the case to the SC for
5. Escape of death convict pending review
its final judgment.
Under the Constitution, the power to amend People v. Esparas 260 SCRA 539 August 20,
rules of procedure is constitutionally vested 1996
in the SC. Therefore, Sec. 3 and Sec. 10 of Facts:
Rule 122, Sec. 13 of Rule 124, Sec. 3 of Rule
125, of the Rules of Court and any other Accused escaped after being arraigned for violation of RA
rule insofar as they provide for direct 6425. After trial in absentia, she was convicted and
appeals from the RTC to the SC in cases sentenced to death/
where the penalty imposed is death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, as Issue:

Considering that accused remained at large, should the Facts:

Supreme Court [now CA] automatically review the death
sentence? The MTC quashed the information against the accused for swindling
under Art. 316[2] and falsification of public document under Art.
Held: 171[4] of the Revised Penal Code. When the RTC reversed the order,
accused filed an appeal with the CA.
Yes. There is more wisdom in existing jurisprudence
mandating review of all death penalty cases, regardless Issue:
of the wish of the convict and regardless of the will of
the Court. Nothing less than life is at stake and any court Is the procedure adopted correct?
decision authorizing the State to take life must be as Held:
error-free as possible. This objective must be realized,
however elusive it may be, and efforts must not depend No. The RTC decision is merely interlocutory. Sec. 3[b], Rule 122 and
on whether appellant has withdrawn his appeal or has Sec. 1 of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court contemplate of an appeal from
escaped. Indeed, an appellant may withdraw his appeal a final decision or order of the RTC in the exercise of its appellate
not because he is guilty but because of his wrong jurisdiction. Thus, the remedy of appeal resorted to is improper. A
perception of the law; or because he may want to avail final order is one that which disposes of the whole subject matter or
of the more speedy remedy of pardon; or because of his terminates a particular proceeding, leaving nothing to be done but to
frustration and misapprehension that he will not get enforce by execution what has been determined. On the other hand,
justice from the authorities. an order is interlocutory if it does not dispose of a case completely,
but leaves something more to be done upon its merits.
The court should not be influenced by the
seeming repudiation of its jurisdiction when a convict The denial by the RTC is essentially a denial of the motion to quash
escapes. The Court has not only the power but also the because it leaves something more to be done in the cases.
duty to review all death penalty cases. No litigant can Specifically, the MTC has yet to arraign the accused, then proceed to
repudiate this power which is bestowed by the trial, and finally render the proper judgment.
Constitution. The power is more of a sacred duty which
has to be discharged to assure the People that the
innocence of a citizen is a concern not only in crimes that 7. Appeal of pure question of law
slight but even more, in crimes that shock the
conscience. This concern cannot be diluted. Tan v. People 381 SCRA 74 April 12, 2002
Issue:
6. Appeal of interlocutory order
Basa v. People 451 SCRA 510 February 16, 2005
May the CA dismiss an appeal on the ground sentencing him to reclusion perpetua to SC because
that it raises pure questions of law that the latter’s review of the sentence is automatic?
should have been filed with the SC in
accordance with Rule 122, Sec. 3[e], of the HELD:
Rules of Court? The issue is not new. We have consistently ruled that it is
Held: only in cases where the penalty actually imposed is death
that the trial court must forward the records of the case
No. Neither the Constitution nor the to the SC for automatic review of the conviction.
Rules exclusively vests in the SC the
power to hear cases on appeal in which As the petitioners did not file a notice of appeal or
only an error of law is involved. Indeed, otherwise indicate their desire to appeal from the
the CA, under Rule 42 and Rule 44, is decision convicting them of murder and sentencing each
authorized to determine “errors of of them to reclusion perpetua, the decision became final
fact, of law, or both.” These rules are and unappealable.
expressly adopted to apply to appeals in The above ruling that the review is with the SC is no
criminal cases, and they do not thereby longer applicable because of an amendment as will be
divest the SC of its ultimate jurisdiction discussed later. The appeal is to the CA and the
over such questions. procedure is:

GARCIA vs. PEOPLE 318 SCRA 434 [1999] Sec. 13 Rule 124“Whenever the Court of Appeals finds
that the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life
FACTS:
imprisonment should be imposed in a case, the court,
The accused were sentenced to reclusion after discussion of the evidence and the law involved,
perpetua. Their lawyer believed that there is shall render judgment imposing the penalty of death,
automatic review of the case so he did not reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment as the
do anything. The prosecution now moves to circumstances warrant. However, it shall refrain from
enforce the judgment. The accused entering the judgment and forthwith certify the case and
contended that there can be no execution elevate the entire record thereof to the Supreme Court
yet because of the automatic review. for review.

ISSUE:
Must the SC automatically review a trial Q: Now, how about CA to SC?
court’s decision convicting an accused of a
A: That is appeal by certiorari or also called petition for
capital offense and sentencing him to
review on certiorari under rule 45. That is paragraph [e]
reclusion perpetua? In other words, is the
accused not required to interpose an – Except as provided in the last paragraph, Section 13,
Rule 124, all other appeals to the Supreme Court shall be
appeal from a trial court’s decision
by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
“All other appeals,” Ano yang “all other appeals?” All he appeal? He will appeal in the Sandiganbayan. And then from
other appeals, not mentioned in a, b, c, d. These are: Sandiganbayan to SC.
1. CA to SC; Or, in case he is a civilian, or the case is not Anti-Graft, that would be
from the RTC to CA, and CA to SC. If you notice in both examples,
2. RTC direct to the Supreme Court on questions there are two levels of appeals, eh. Now, if you are tried in the
of law only, because normally pag RTC, dapat Sandiganbayan and you are Grade 27 or higher and you are
CA yan eh. But pure questions of law, diretso convicted, you appeal will be to the SC – so, isang level lang. Bakit
na iyan. Or, from Sandiganbayan to the siya dalawa, ako isa lang? So, the law is unconstitutional. It violates
Supreme Court; the equal protection of the law. It is discriminatory – that was the
3. In case the Sandiganbayan convicts an challenge.
accused, the appeal is direct to the Supreme HELD:
Court by petition for review on certiorari.
The majority still sustained the validity. But there were three senior
members of the Supreme Court at that time who dissented. They
APPEAL FROM THE SANDIGANBAYAN believe that the law is unconstitutional - bakit all the rest dalawa ang
appeal, ako isa lang? Among those who dissented were Justice
Q: If you are tried in the Sandiganbayan for, let’s say, Teehankee, Makasiar and Fernandez. These were very influential in
graft, you are a grade 27 employee of the government or the Supreme Court and they were the ones who voted to declare the
higher. If you are convicted, where will you appeal? law unconstitutional. But the majority said it is valid.
A: You appeal to the Supreme Court by way of appeal by Starting with that, the SC adopted the policy that if you are convicted
certiorari under Rule 45. by the Sandiganbayan and you go to the Supreme Court on appeal by
certiorari, we will carefully review the petition for review because
Now, the constitutionality or validity of that procedure precisely, you are placed at a disadvantage. You have only one level, one
was attacked in the case of : appeal lang eh. And therefore, it is our obligation to really review
NUÑEZ vs. SANDIGANBAYAN 111 SCRA 433 everything to see to it that you were correctly convicted. I think that is
what happened to Imelda Marcos, no? So the court said in the case of
FACTS:
The challenge in this case is that the Sandiganbayan law,
at least on that portion on appeal, is unconstitutional CESAR vs. SANDIGANBAYAN 134 SCRA 105
because what is violated is equal protection of the law. HELD:
Because for example: An employee who is below Grade
27 is tried for Anti-Graft, where will case be filed? It
should be filed in RTC. In case he is convicted, where will
“Considering further that no less than three By personal service
senior members of this Court, Justices
Teehankee, Makasiar, and Fernandez 2. Exceptions:
dissented from the Court's opinion in Nuñez
 By registered mail, or
vs. Sandiganbayan partly because of the
absence of an intermediate appeal from  By substituted service pursuant to Rule
Sandiganbayan decisions, where questions 13 Sec. 7 & 8
of fact could be fully threshed out, this
Court has been most consistent in carefully
examining all petitions seeking the review of
the special court's decisions to ascertain that SEC. 5. Waiver of notice.
the fundamental right to be presumed Failure to Give Notice to Appellee
innocent is not disregarded. This task has
added a heavy burden to the workload of 1. The appellee may waive his right to a notice that
this Court but it is a task we steadfastly an appeal has been taken
discharge.”
2. The appellate court may, in its discretion,
entertain the appeal, if the interests of justice so
require
In other words, it has become cumbersome,
no? Because we have to be very careful. We
have to be very meticulous. Kaya it has
Q: Who is the appellant?
become an added burden. We have no
choice because the accused is deprived of a A: If you are convicted in the lower court and you
second chance. This is his last chance, so appealed, you are the appellant.
we have to be very sure that he is really
guilty.
Q: Who is the appellee?

SEC. 4. Service of notice of appeal. A: People of the Philippines.

Service of Notice of Appeal

1. To whom notice of appeal should be served: SEC. 6. When appeal to be taken.

1. Upon the adverse party, or Period to Appeal

2. His counsel 1. Period to file an appeal – Within 15 days from:

2. Procedure in serving the notice: 1. Promulgation of the judgment, or

1. General Rule: 2. notice of the final order appealed from

2. Effects if the accused files a motion for new trial (at his last known address) or his counsel. In a scenario where the
or reconsideration: whereabouts of the accused are unknown (as when he is at large),
the recording satisfies the requirement of notifying the accused of the
 the period for perfecting an appeal shall be decision wherever he may be. From the foregoing, accused is deemed
suspended from the time the motion is filed, notified of the decision upon its recording in the criminal docket and
and he only had 15 days therefrom within which to file an appeal.
 only the balance of the period shall begin to run
again from the time the notice denying the
motion has been served upon the accused or his 2. Effect of motion for new trial
counsel a. Where motion is granted
Obugan v. People 244 SCRA 263 May 22, 1995
1. Appeal in promulgation in absentia Question:
Estrada v. People 468 SCRA 233 August 25, 2005 When the motion for new trial is granted, but the court affirms the
original judgment of conviction, what is the period to appeal?
Issue:
Answer:
Where judgment is promulgated in absentia, when does
the 15-day period to appeal begin to run? The period to appeal is 15 days counted from receipt of the new
judgment. Sec. 6, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court states that the
Held: period for perfecting an appeal shall be interrupted from the time a
The Rules allow promulgation of judgment in absentia to motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order
obviate the situation where judicial process could be overruling the motion shall have been served upon the accused or his
subverted by the accused jumping bail. But the Rules counsel. Thus the rule provides for the interruption of the appeal
also provide measures to make promulgation in absentia period in the event the motion for new trial or reconsideration is
a formal and solemn act so that the absent accused, overruled. The implication is that if the motion for new trial is granted
wherever he may be, can be notified of the judgment and a new judgment is rendered after the new trial was conducted,
rendered against him. the period within which to perfect an appeal is 15 days from receipt
of the new judgment.
The means of notification are: [1] the act of giving notice
to all persons or the act of recording or registering the
judgment in the criminal docket (which Sec. 6 b. Where motion is denied
incidentally mentions first showing its importance); and
[2] the act of serving a copy thereof upon the accused Jamiliano v. Cuevas 152 SCRA 158 July 23, 1987
Facts: Facts:
Counsel received the copy of the decision The judgment was promulgated on Jan. 23, 1980. The
convicting accused on Oct. 13, 1970. On prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration on Feb. 2,
Oct. 28, the last day for perfecting an 1980. The private prosecutor received a copy of the
appeal, he filed a motion for new trial. On order denying the motion on Mar. 18, 1980. On Mar. 20,
Nov. 30, 1970 counsel received a copy of 1980, he appealed the civil aspect of the judgment.
the order denying the motion for new trial.
On Dec. 1, he filed a pro forma motion for Issue:
reconsideration. On Dec. 16, he filed a Was the appeal filed on time?
Notice of Appeal.
Held:
Issue:
Yes. The notice of appeal was filed within the 15-day
Was the appeal filed on time? reglementary period. The motion for reconsideration of
Held: the decision rendered in open court on Jan. 23, 1980,
was filed on Feb. 2, 1980, date of its posting by
No. Even if the period of 15 days to appeal registered mail. Only 10 days had elapsed from the
were counted from the date when counsel earlier date. The running of the period was suspended
received a copy of the decision (Oct. 13, while the motion was under study and until a copy of the
1970) the last day of the 15-day period was order denying the same was furnished the private
Oct. 28, 1970. His notice of appeal filed on prosecutor on Mar. 18, 1980. When on March 20, the
Dec. 16, 1970 was out of time. The filing of fiscal and the private prosecutor jointly filed a notice of
the Motion for New Trial on Oct. 28, 1970, appeal, only 12 days of the period of appeal had been
suspended the running of the appeal period consumed.
under Sec. 6, Rule 122. This left counsel
only one (1) day to perfect appeal in the
event his Motion for New Trial was denied. Neypes v. CA ruling and criminal cases
On Nov. 30, 1970, when counsel received
the order denying his Motion for New Trial, *Note that in Neypes vs. Court of Appeal, GR No.
he had only up to Dec. 1, 1970 within which 141524, Sept. 14, 2005, the Court granted a "fresh
to perfect his appeal. Needless to state, the period" of 15 days from notice of the denial to appeal.
motion for reconsideration filed on Dec. 1, Some argue that this does not apply in criminal cases
1970 being merely pro-forma, did not because it made no reference to Sec. 6 of R 122.
suspend the running of the period of appeal. However, there are others who say that it applies to
criminal cases because the Neypes rule wabe expressly
declared to be applicable to appeals under Rules 40, 41,
Effect of motion for reconsideration 42, 43 and 45. Rule 122, Sec. 3 however, of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure also allows appeals in criminal cases
Heirs of Rillorta v. Firme 157 SCRA based under Rule 42 (Sec. 3[b], R 122) and Rule 45 (Sec.
518 January 29, 3[e] R 122). If the appeal in
1988
criminal cases is predicated upon either Rules 42 and 45, willing to be reformed and rehabilitated, to avail of probation at the
it is likewise argued that the Neypes rule should be made first opportunity. Such provision was never intended to suspend the
to apply. period for the perfection of an appeal.

4. Effect of application for probation b. Waiver of appeal

a. Non-suspension of period to appeal Cal v. CA 251 SCRA 523 December 28, 1995
Palo v. Militante 184 SCRA 395 April 18, 1990 Facts:
Issue: On the day that accused was convicted of illegal recruitment and
sentenced to 4 years imprisonment, he was committed to jail by
Does the filing of an application for probation suspend virtue of a commitment order. The following day, accused, assisted by
the running of the period for perfecting an appeal? his counsel, filed with the court an application for probation, an
Held: affidavit of recognizance, and an application for release on
recognizance. Almost 2 weeks later, accused filed with the trial court
No. The pertinent portion of Sec. 4 of P.D. 968, as a “Motion to Withdraw application for Probation and Notice of
amended by P.D. 1990, provides: Appeal,” alleging that he “hastily filed his application because of the
threats employed upon him by the authorities” and that “he was not
“SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. --- Subject to the able to intelligently consult with his lawyer and reflect on the legal
provisions of this Decree, the trial court may, after it consequences and effects of his application for probation under the
shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant, and law” so that he may not be considered to have waived his right to
upon application by said defendant within the period appeal the decision.” The court denied the motion.
for perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution of
the sentence and place the defendant on probation Issue:
for such period and upon such terms and conditions
as it may deem best; Provided, That no application Did accused lose his right to appeal by applying for probation?
for probation shall be entertained or granted if the Held:
defendant has perfected an appeal from its
judgment of conviction.” Yes. Sec. 4 of P.D. 968 was amended by P.D. 1990 to make probation
and appeal mutually exclusive. This is because an accused applying
It is clear that what the law requires is that the for probation is deemed to have accepted the judgment. In fact, “. . .
application for probation must be filed within the period the application
for perfecting an appeal. The need to file it within such
period was intended to encourage offenders, who are
for probation is an admission of guilt on the Q: Suppose the motion for new trial is granted. After new
part of an accused for the crime which led trial, convicted ka pa rin. So there will be a second
to the judgment of conviction and . . . the judgement. What is your period to appeal? Is it 15 days
application for probation is considered a all over again? Or we count the 15-day period from the
waiver upon his part to file an appeal, . . .” first judgement, deducting the period during which the
The trial court’s order denying the motion to motion for new trial was pending?
withdraw his application for probation and
rejecting his notice of appeal, partook of the A: The SC said, the counting of the 15-day period starts
nature of an order granting probation, which all over again from the time you received the second
is not appealable. decision. (Obugan vs. People, May 22, 1995)
Q: Now how do you reconcile that principle with Section
6?
Under the Neypes vs. CA decision, the
appellant is given a fresh period of 15 days A: Section 6 is different because here, the motion for
from notice of the order of denial of the new trial is denied but in the above example, the motion
motion. for new trial was granted. But after new trial, convicted
ka pa rin. So you start counting the period to appeal all
Q: When do you appeal? over again from the time you received the second
judgement. And the SC cited Section 6[c] of Rule 121.
A: Under Section 6, fifteen (15) days from
promulgation of the judgement or from
notice of the order appealed from.
Rule 121, SEC. 6. Effects of granting a new trial or
Q: What happens if you filed a motion for reconsideration. – The effects of granting a new trial or
new trial or reconsideration within the 15- reconsideration are the following:
day period?
xxxxx
A: The same as in civil cases – the filing of
the motion for reconsideration will suspend (c) In all cases, when the court grants new trial or
the running of the 15-day period to appeal reconsideration, the original judgment shall be set aside
until notice of the order overruling the or vacated and a new judgment rendered accordingly.
motion has been served upon the accused (6a)
or his counsel, at which time, the balance of
the period begins to run. That phrase was
added in the new rules – “At which time, the Q: What is the effect of a motion for new trial if it is
balance of the period begins to run.” That is granted?
only emphasizing what the rule should be.
A: Under Rule 121, the judgement is vacated. Meaning, it
So, the 15-day period does not start to run doesn’t exist anymore. After new trial, convicted – all
all over again. But you can still apply the over, start na naman tayo. That was the ruling in the
balance if the motion for reconsideration is case of:
denied. Now, itong tanong ko:
OBUGAN vs. PEOPLE May 22, 1995 3. If death penalty is imposed:
HELD:  The stenographic reporter shall, within 30 days
If a motion for new trial is granted, and after new trial, or 2 or 3 days, “Teka muna. I will file muna pala a motion for
the accused is still convicted, he has 15 days all over reconsideration. Huwag muna yang appeal, baka sakali pala.” So I say,
again to file an appeal because under Rule 121, the “I’m withdrawing my notice of appeal, and instead file a motion for
previous judgement of conviction was already vacated. It reconsideration.” Can I still do that?
does not exist anymore.
A: In the case of PEOPLE VS. DE LA CRUZ (201 SCRA 632),
“Thus the rule provides for the interruption of the appeal The SC said, NO, you cannot because the moment you file your
period in the event the motion for new trial or notice of appeal, the appeal is already perfected and the court has
reconsideration is overruled. The implication is that if the lost jurisdiction already over the case and can no longer change its
motion for new trial is granted, as in the case at bar, and own decision.
a new judgment is rendered after the new trial was
conducted, the period within which to perfect an appeal So baliktad ‘no? – motion for reconsideration-withdraw- appeal,
is fifteen days from receipt of the new judgment.” pwede. Appeal, and then withdraw – motion for reconsideration, hindi
pwede! because the court has no more jurisdiction over the case.
Sec. 7
Alright, let’s go to another issue. You have two choices if
you are convicted – 1) File a motion for reconsideration. Duties of Stenographer when Appeal is Filed
2) If denied, you appeal. Now, I will file a motion for 1. When notice of appeal is filed by the:
reconsideration. And then while it is still pending, there is
still no order, I changed my mind, “Appeal na lang ako 1. Accused – the trial court shall direct the stenographic
diretso. I will not anymore insist. Wala nang mangyayari reporter to transcribe his notes of the proceedings
diyan.”
2. People of the Philippines – the trial court shall direct the
Q: Can I say, “I’m withdrawing my motion for stenographic reporter to transcribe such portion of his notes of the
reconsideration and I am instead substituting it with a proceedings as the court, upon motion, shall specify in writing
notice of appeal?”
2. The stenographic reporter shall:
A: YES, because that is your choice. You can abandon
your motion for reconsideration, withdraw it and then file 1. Certify to the correctness of the notes and the transcript
a notice of appeal. No problem about that. thereof, which shall consist of the original and four copies, and

Q: But I will now reverse the situation: Within 15 days 2. File said original and four copies with the clerk without
after promulgation, I will file an appeal. And then after 1 unnecessary delay
 from promulgation of the same is not mandatory but merely directory which thus
sentence, file with the clerk the requires a great deal of circumspection, considering all
original and 4 copies of the duly the attendant circumstances. It was primarily because of
certified transcript of his notes of the negligence and lackadaisical attitude of the Court
the proceedings stenographic reporters that the notes of the proceedings
were either lost or not transcribed. This non-feasance
 No extension of time for filing of should not prejudice the right of the accused to have
said transcript of stenographic their convictions reviewed by a higher Court, especially
notes shall be granted except by since it is their liberty which is at stake.
the Supreme Court and only upon
justifiable grounds.
Sec. 8

1. Completion of stenographic notes Transmission to Appellate Court upon Appeal

Advincula v. IAC 147 SCRA 262 January 16, 1987 1. Within 5 days from the filing of the notice of
appeal – the clerk of the court with whom the notice of
Issues: appeal was filed must transmit to the clerk of court of
the appellate court the following:
May the CA dismiss an appeal on the
ground of the failure of accused to take the  The notice of appeal filed,
necessary steps to complete the record,
particularly the absence of the stenographic  The complete record of the case, and
notes of the testimony of one witness,
despite an order of the court?  The original and 3 copies of the transcript of
stenographic notes, together with the records
Held:
2. The other copy of the transcript – shall remain in
No. In all criminal prosecutions the accused the lower court
shall have the right to appeal in the manner
prescribed by law. Because the right to
appeal is granted by the statute, it is part of
1. Officer to whom duty is imposed
due process of law, denial of which violates
the due process clause of the Constitution. Tan v. Coliflores 240 SCRA 303 January 20, 1995
Appeal being an essential part of our judicial
system, Courts should proceed with caution Facts:
so as not to deprive a party of the right to
The MTC judge ordered the Clerk of Court to transmit the
appeal. Sec. 1 of Rule 50 merely confers a
original records of the concubinage case to the RTC on
power and does not impose a duty; and the
Feb. 17, 1993 following an appeal from the accused.
However, it was only on Mar. 10, 1994, when the records 3. Within 15 days from receipt of said notice, the parties may:
were finally transmitted to the higher court.
1. submit memoranda or briefs, or
Issue:
2. be required by the RTC to do so.
Who is administratively liable for the delay?
4. When the RTC shall decide the case:
Held:
1. after the submission of such memoranda or
Rule 122, Sec. 8 provides that the clerk or judge of the briefs, or
court with whom the notice of appeal has been filed
must, within 5 days after filing of the notice, transmit to 2. upon the expiration of the period to file the
the clerk of court to which the appeal is taken, the same,
complete record in the case together with the notice of 5. What may be the basis for the decision of the RTC:
appeal. The judge is not liable for the year-long delay in
the transmission of the records. While he has supervision 1. the entire record of the case, and
over the clerk of court, he cannot be expected to
constantly check on the latter’s performance of his duties 2. such memoranda or briefs as may have been
since the Clerk of Court is presumed to be a responsible
employee. To the contrary, the judge had a right to
expect that the Branch Clerk of Court would enforce his
order. It is the Branch Clerk of Court who is responsible
for seeing to it that the records of appealed cases are
properly sent to the appropriate appellate court without
delay. He has shown want of diligence for which he
should be held administratively liable.

Sec. 9
Appeal to the RTC; Procedure
1. Within 5 days from perfection of the appeal – the
clerk of court of the MTC shall transmit the original
record to the appropriate RTC
2. Upon receipt of the complete record of the case,
transcripts and exhibits – the clerk of court of the
RTC shall notify the parties of such fact
2. The transcript shall also be forwarded – pronouncing his guilt in the event the evidence warrants
within 10 days after the filing thereof by the affirmance of the decision of the trial court.
stenographic reporter

SEC. 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused.

Judgment where accused escapes
Effect of Appeal when there are Several Accused
People v. Palabrica 357 SCRA 533 May 7, 2001
1. When an appeal is made by one or more of
Issue: In the absence of the accused who several accused:
escaped during trial, can a decision be
rendered by an appellate court affirming a 1. General Rule – the ones who did not appeal shall
death sentence imposed by the trial court. not be affected by the judgment of the appellate
court
Held:
2. Exception – they shall be affected only when
Yes. There is no good reason to withhold the judgment of the appellate court is:
judgment pending the re-arrest of accused
after reviewing the decision of the trial 1. favorable to them, and
court. Rule 122, Sec. 10 of the Revised 2. applicable to them
Rules of Criminal Procedure in fact provides
for “automatic review and judgment.” 2. Effect of appeal by the offended party with
Consequently, if such review shows that respect to the civil aspect:
accused is guilty, his conviction must be
affirmed either in toto or with modification, It shall not affect the criminal aspect of the
just as his acquittal must be declared if a judgment or order appealed from
review shows he is innocent. There is no 3. Effect of perfection of the appeal:
sense in holding that the automatic review
of the decision must proceed even if the The execution of the judgment or final order
accused has absconded short of appealed from shall be stayed as to the appealing
party
filed.

Sec. 10 Transmission of records in case of death 1. Where judgment is reversed

penalty. People v. Escano 349 SCRA 674 January 19, 2001
Transmission of Records to the CA for Automatic Facts:
Review in Case of Death Penalty
Escano, together with Usana and Lopez, was charged with
1. The records shall be forwarded: violation of Sec. 4, Art. II of R.A. 6425. Escano and Usana
1. within 20 days, were also charged with violation of P.D. 1866. All were
convicted and they appealed. Escano, however, withdrew
2. but not earlier than 15 days from: his appeal and started serving his sentence. Usana and
Lopez were later on acquitted by the SC.
 the promulgation of the judgment, or
Issue:
 notice of denial of a motion for new
trial or reconsideration Should Escano be also acquitted?
Held: Held:
Yes. Sec. 11(a), Rule 122 of the New Rules on Criminal Additional penalties cannot prejudice an accused who did not appeal,
Procedure provides that an appeal taken by one or more but modifications to the judgment beneficial to him are considered in
of several accused shall not affect those who did not his favor. Because of the deletion of the award of exemplary
appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate damages, Y is only liable, jointly and severally with X, for the sum of
court is favorable and applicable to the latter. P50,000 as moral damages for the 2 counts of rape as adjudged by
Considering that the acquittal of Usana and Lopez based the RTC. Moreover, Y is not affected by the increase in the amount of
on reasonable doubt, the same should benefit Escano the said award. In the same vein that the additional moral damages
notwithstanding the fact that he withdrew his appeal. can no longer be imposed, Y cannot also be ordered to pay civil
indemnity.

2. Where civil liability is modified

3. Where accused escapes before trial
People v. Cabales 274 SCRA 83 June 19, 1997
People v. Fernandez 186 SCRA 830 June 27, 1990
Facts:
Issue:
The RTC convicted X and Y of 2 counts of rape and
ordered them to pay P25,000 for each count as moral Does the rule that a favorable judgment in an appeal benefit an
damages. X appealed, while Y did not. In affirming the accused who did not appeal apply also to a co- accused who jumped
convictions, the SC increased the moral damage to bail or escaped after arraignment and was tried and convicted in
P50,000 for each count, deleted the exemplary damage absentia?
awarded by the RTC, and further ordered payment of
P100,000 as indemnity to the victim. Held:

Issue: Yes. Under Sec. 11, Rule 112, an appeal shall not affect those who did
not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is
What is the effect of the modifications on the civil liability favorable and applicable to the latter. While, in effect, accused
of Y who did not appeal? committed an act of defiance of the law by escaping, such
undesirable conduct, which should not be condoned, has who appealed, nanalo. Will it favor then other accused
sometimes been ascribed to a sense of desperation of who did not appeal?
those who believe they are guiltless but fear that they
cannot prove their innocence. While we castigate and A: The GENERAL RULE is NO because if you do not
reprove his jumping bail and remaining at large up to appeal, the judgement of conviction will become final as
now, we have to concede, however, that our disquisition far as you are concerned.
in this case is applicable and favorable to him, hence he
is affected by and shall benefit from the acquittal that we However, there is an EXCEPTION – if the ruling in the
hand down in this appeal. appeal also applies to you, you will be favored.
For example: Two accused were convicted. One
appealed, the other one did not appeal. On the appeal
Q: There are 2 accused. Both of them are convicted. One sabi ng court, “No. The victim was not killed. He
will appeal, the other will not appeal. Suppose, the one committed suicide.” Naloko na! Acquitted yun! “Paano
na ako? Nakulong ako!” It will also benefit you because
the judgement of the appellate court is also favorable
and applicable to you. BUT if the ruling is only applicable
to the appealing accused, pasensya ka.
Like for example, both of you are convicted. You will not
appeal, he will appeal. He will appeal tapos sabi niya,
“Minor man ako! Minor!” Tapos sabi ng appellate court ,
“Ah, minor! He did not act with discernment. Ok!
Acquitted!” So, paano ka? Maiwan ka, hindi ka man
minor! The defense of minority is not applicable to you.

Now, this provision has been applied already several

times. Among the first cases where this was applied was
the case of:
PEOPLE vs. FERNANDEZ 186 SCRA 830
FACTS:
There were two accused charged for selling marijuana,
under the Dangerous Drugs Act. Both of them were
convicted. Accused No. 1 appealed, but Accused No. 2
jumped bail and remained at large. On appeal, the
Supreme Court acquitted Accused No. 1 because of
material discrepancies in the testimony of the star
prosecution witness.
ISSUE:
What happens now to the conviction of Accused No. 2,
who escaped and did not appeal his conviction?
HELD:
It applies to the Accused No. 2. “While, in effect, he
committed an act of defiance of the law by escaping, we
are not without other prior incidents where such
undesirable conduct, which should not be condoned, has
sometimes been ascribed to a sense of desperation of
those who believe they are guiltless but fear that they
cannot prove their innocence. While we castigate and
reprove his jumping bail and remaining at large up to
now, we have to concede, however, that our disquisition
in this case is applicable and favorable to him, hence he
is affected by and shall benefit from the acquittal that we
hand down in this appeal.”

So acquitted kahit na nag-jump bail, because of this

provision…So with that, he can come out openly. And the
ruling happened again. The same thing happened in the
1996 case of PEOPLE VS. PEREZ (263 SCRA 206). And
one
of the latest where this happened again is the 1998 case
of
PEOPLE vs. RUGAY 291 SCRA 692
HELD:
“Finally, the Court notes that the conviction of appellant's
co-accused, Arvil Villalon, rests on the same evidence
used to convict appellant. The Court finds that such evidence does not prove beyond reasonable doubt either of the
accused's guilt. The acquittal of Ricolito Rugay should
Withdrawal of Appeal
also benefit Arvil Villalon, the withdrawal of the latter's
appeal notwithstanding.” 1. When withdrawal of appeal may be made:
1. Even after perfection of the appeal
Now let’s go to [b]: Provided the record of the case had not been
forwarded to the appellate court
(b) The appeal of the offended party from the civil aspect
shall not affect the criminal aspect of the judgment or 2. When the appeal is made to the RTC from the
order appealed from. judgment of the MTC:
This is what I told you earlier that the civil aspect is Provided a motion to withdraw appeal is filed
different from the criminal aspect. It is possible that the before the RTC renders judgment on appeal
accused is acquitted but the offended party may appeal
insofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned. It 2. The granting of the motion to withdraw an
shall not affect the criminal aspect of the judgement or appeal is discretionary on the part of the court
order appealed from.

Withdrawal of the appeal:

Q: Normally, who will handle the appeal in criminal
When withdrawal is Made Which Court Appr
cases?
Withdrawal
A: Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General handles the Upon PERFECTION of the appeal Court of Origin
appeal. BEFORE the record has been
BUT the SC said that if the appeal is only about the forwarded to the appellate court
offended party, walang pakialam ang gobyerno diyan! BEFORE judgment of appealed case RTC
Let the offended party handle his own appeal and let him in the RTC originally decided by MTC
get his own lawyer to handle the appeal. So the Court
said in the case of
BERNARDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS 190 SCRA 63
HELD: 1. Discretion of the court

“The Court has clearly settled the matter by ruling that Teodoro v. CA 258 SCRA 603 July 11, 1996
despite a judgment of acquittal, the offended party, Facts:
private respondent in the case at bar, may appeal, only
insofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned.” Accused was charged with grave slander by deed, but
the MTC convicted him of simple slander by deed
sentencing him to pay a fine of P110. He appealed to the
RTC. When
“Such an appeal dispenses with the authority and the RTC ordered him to submit his memorandum, he
representation of both the fiscal and the Solicitor instead filed a motion to withdraw appeal and paid the
General, considering that the subject matter of the action fine of P110 imposed by the MTC. The RTC denied the
involves solely the interests of the offended party and motion and convicted him of grave slander.
hence, no longer concerns the State.”
Issue:
Is the RTC correct?
Let’s go to paragraph [c]:
Held:
(c) Upon perfection of the appeal, the execution of the
judgment or final order appealed from shall be stayed as Yes. Under Rule 122, 12 of the Rules of Court, the
to the appealing party. (11a) withdrawal of appeals from the decisions of the MTC lies
in the sound discretion of the RTC. To allow the
Q: What are the effects of a perfected appeal? withdrawal of the appeal would be to allow an error of
the MTC to go uncorrected, because the crime committed
A: The following are the effects: parang sa civil was not simple slander by deed but a grave one. In
procedure din addition, since accused appealed from the decision of the
1. The execution of the sentence is stayed; MTC, until that appeal is validly withdrawn, there is no
decision of the MTC to serve or satisfy because the
2. The trial court loses jurisdiction over the case appeal, at the very least, stayed the decision. His
because it is now transferred to the higher payment of the fine as imposed on the judgment of the
court, the Court of Appeals. MTC did not render that decision final and executor.
3. Once you appeal, the entire case is open for
review and you are waiving your right to double
jeopardy. 3. Withdrawal to pave way for new trial
People v. Dela Cruz 207 SCRA 632 March 31,
1992
Q: Now finally, can you withdraw an appeal?
Facts:
A: YES. The procedure for withdrawing an appeal is
found in Section 12: Accused filed a notice of appeal on their conviction for
murder. The following day, they filed a petition for new
trial on the ground that they found the other eye-witness
to the crime, whose “new address is newly discovered.”
SEC. 12. Withdrawal of appeal- A
few days later, they also filed with the trial court a
FACTS:
motion to withdraw appeal.
Amado Teodoro was charged with the crime of grave
Issue: slander by deed before the MTC of Mandaluyong. He was
Should the motion to withdraw appeal be granted? convicted of the lesser offense of simple slander by deed
and sentenced to pay a fine of P110. So mababa. Hindi
Held: pa siya kuntento, Teodoro appealed to the RTC. Of
course, what is the procedure pag nasa RTC na? – both
No. In criminal cases, an appeal is deemed perfected
parties will prepare a memorandum.
upon the filing of the notice of appeal. Upon the
perfection of the appeal, the trial court loses its power to After Teodoro’s lawyer had received a copy of the appeal
modify or set aside the decision, or order a new trial. All memorandum of the prosecution where the prosecution
it can do is to issue orders for the protection and urged that Teodoro be held guilty of grave slander by
preservation of the rights of the parties which do not deed, not just simple slander as the MTC, pagbasa niya
involve any matter litigated in the appeal. This does not ng memorandum ng prosecution, “Naku, delikado pala
mean, however, that an accused is thereafter forever ako dito! Basig masamot ba! So, okay na lang yong
barred from filing a petition for new trial. In an simple slander. Bayad na lang ako ng fine of P110”.
appropriate case, he may file it with the appellate court.
While it is true that accused filed a motion to withdraw So he filed a motion to withdraw his appeal. Kay nakita
their appeal to save their petition for new trial, the niya, delikado pala e! Baka mabalik sa dati, sa original
records do not show that the trial court favorably acted ba. So he is now accepting the decision. He is now
on it. Besides, a notice of appeal, once filed, cannot be withdrawing his appeal. Apparently, he realized that his
validly withdrawn to give way to a motion for appeal was likely to result in the imposition of a higher
reconsideration or a petition for new trial since, as above penalty and he wanted to avoid that possibility.
stated, the filing of the notice perfected the appeal and HELD:
the court thereby lost its jurisdiction over the case;
hence, it can no longer act on either the motion or the Under Section 12 of Rule 122, the withdrawal of appeal is
petition. The only valid withdrawal of an appeal would be not a matter of right, but a matter which lies in the
one where an accused decides to serve the sentence. sound discretion of the court and the appellate court.
After the parties in this case had been required to file
their memoranda and the memorandum of the
3. Where withdrawal should be denied prosecution had been filed and a copy served on
appellant, it was too late for Teodoro to move for the
People v. Gatward 267 SCRA 785 February 7, withdrawal of the appeal. It was apparent that
1997 petitioner's motion was intended to frustrate a possible
adverse decision on his appeal. That is what exactly
Facts: happened in this case. Withdrawal of the appeal at that
The trial court convicted the accused of violation of R.A. stage would allow an apparent error and possibly an
7659 and erroneously imposed the penalty of 35 years of injustice to go uncorrected. Justice is due as much to the
reclusion perpetua when the proper penalty should have State — the People of the Philippines — as to the
been 40 years. Accused appealed, but before he could accused.
submit his appeal brief, he moved to withdraw his So even if he is accepting already the lower penalty, sabi
appeal. ng Court, hindi na. Nag-file na yung kabila ng
Issue: memorandum, eh. So, tuloy na. I do not know what
happened after that but definitely, he was not allowed
Should the motion be granted? anymore to withdraw the appeal anymore. Yaan! That is
the risk nga of appealing, sometimes.
Held:
No. The basic rule is that, in appeals taken from the RTC
to either the CA or the SC, the same may be withdrawn SEC. 13. Appointment of counsel de oficio for accused on
and allowed to be retracted by the trial court before the appeal -
records of the case are forwarded to the appellate court.
Once the records are brought to the appellate court, only Duties of the Clerk of Court of the Trial Court when
the latter may act on the motion for withdrawal of Accused Files a Notice of Appeal
appeal. In the SC, the discontinuance of appeals before 1. To ascertain from the appellant – if confined in
the filing of the appellee’s brief is generally permitted. In prison, whether he desires the RTC, CA or the SC to
this case, however, the denial of the motion to withdraw appoint a counsel de oficio to defend him, and
is not only justified but is necessary since the trial court
had imposed a penalty based on an erroneous 2. To transmit – with the record on a form to be
interpretation of the governing law thereon. The prepared by the clerk of court of the appellate court:
unauthorized penalty would remain uncorrected if the
appeal had been allowed to be withdrawn. In fact, it 1. a certificate of compliance with this duty, and
would stamp a nihil obstantium on a penalty that in law 2. the response of the appellant to his inquiry
does not exist.

1. Inability to hire counsel

Now there is one interesting case about withdrawing an
appeal. Definitely, withdrawal of appeal is your People v. Rio 201 SCRA 702 September 24,
prerogative, eh. If you are convicted and you appeal and 1991
then later on you withdraw, that is your prerogative. You
are now accepting the judgement of conviction. Now let’s Issue:
see what happened in the 1996 case of May an accused be allowed to withdraw his appeal by
TEODORO vs. COURT OF APPEALS 258 SCRA 643 reason of poverty?

Held: No. The only reason offered by accused for the withdrawal of his
appeal is his inability to retain the services of a counsel de Rule 124 PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
parte on account of his poverty, a reason which should
not preclude anyone from seeking justice in any forum. It SECTION 1. Title of the case.
seems that the accused was unaware that this Court can
appoint a counsel de oficio to prosecute his appeal Terms to be used in Appeals to the CA
pursuant to Sec. 13 of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court and 1. Title of the case:
the constitutional mandate provided in Sec. 11 of Art. III
of the 1987 Constitution on free access to courts. This It shall be the same as it was in the court of
constitutional provision imposes a duty on the judicial origin
branch of the government which cannot be taken lightly.
“The Constitution is a law for rulers and for people equally 2. Designation of parties:
in war and in peace and covers with the shield of its 1. Appellant – the party appealing the case
protection all classes of men at all times and under all
circumstances.” 2. Appellee - the adverse party

Now one interesting case about appointment of counsel SEC. 2. Appointment of counsel de oficio for the accused.
de oficio, is what happened in the 1991 case of
Appointment of Counsel de Oficio for the Accused
PEOPLE vs. RIO 201 SCRA 702
1. When the clerk of court of the CA shall designate
FACTS: a counsel de oficio for the accused – if it appears
from the record of the case that the accused:
The accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He
was detained at the National Penitentiary. He appealed.  is confined in prison,
And then later, he wrote a letter to the SC, “I am
withdrawing my appeal. I am no longer continuing my  is without counsel de parte in appeal, or
appeal because I cannot afford it. Poverty prevents me
from pursuing the appeal.” The SC got intrigued, ‘no? The  has signed the notice of appeal himself
SC issued an order directing the clerk of Court to go to 2. An appellant who is not confined in prison may
the National Penitentiary and look for this accused to be assigned a counsel de oficio provided:
confirm if he did really send this letter to the Supreme
Court.  he makes a request within 10 days from receipt
So hinanap siya. Nakita. You wrote this letter? “Yes.” You of the notice to file his brief, and
affirm what you say? “Yes. Hindi ko kaya. Pobre ako, eh. I  he establishes his right thereto
cannot afford the appeal.” So, siya talaga. He is
withdrawing his appeal because of poverty. And the SC
came up with this decision:
SEC. 3. When brief for appellant to be filed.
HELD:
Appellant’s Brief
“The right to a counsel de oficio does not cease upon the
conviction of an accused by a trial court. It continues, 1. When appellant’s brief shall be filed:
even during appeal, such that the duty of the court to Within 30 days from receipt by the appellant or his
assign a counsel de oficio persists where an accused counsel of the notice from the clerk of court of the
interposes an intent to appeal. Even in a case, such as CA that the evidence, oral and ocumentary, is
the one at bar, where the accused had signified his already attached to the record
intent to withdraw his appeal, the court is required to
inquire into the reason for the withdrawal. Where it finds 2. Number of copies:
the sole reason for the withdrawal to be poverty, as in
this case, the court must assign a counsel de oficio, for  7 copies of appellant’s brief to be filed with the
despite such withdrawal, the duty to protect the rights of clerk of court of the CA, and
the accused subsists and perhaps, with greater reason.
 with proof of service of 2 copies thereof upon
After all, “those who have less in life must have more in
law.” Justice should never be limited to those who have the appellee
the means. It is for everyone, whether rich or poor. Its
scales should always be balanced and should never
equivocate or cogitate in order to favor one party over SEC. 4. When brief for appellee to be filed; reply brief of
another.” the appellant.
So, sabi ng SC, your desire to withdraw because of Appellee’s Brief
poverty, denied! We will continue. We will appoint a
lawyer for you. We will get the best. So, tuloy ang kaso. 1. When appellee’s brief shall be filed:
And then, after reviewing the evidence, sabi ng Court: Within 30 days from receipt of the brief of the
“You are guilty!” [ha!ha!ha!] Guilty pa rin! But definitely, appellant
you will not be allowed to withdraw. Yes, he was still
found guilty in the case of Rio. Akala niya siguro, 2. Number of copies:
paboran siya ng SC because he is poor. Ah, hinde. You
are still guilty.  7 copies of the appellee’s brief to be filed with
the clerk of court of the CA

 with proof of service of 2 copies thereof upon

the appellant
Appellant’s Reply 2. It may traverse matters:
1. This may be filed within 20 days from receipt of 1. raised in the appellee’s brief, but
appellee’s brief; and
2. not covered in appellant’s brief
 both parties and of those in
controversy,
SEC. 5. Extension of time for filing briefs.
 together with the substance of the
Extension of Time for Filing Briefs proof relating thereto in sufficient detail
to make it clearly intelligible, with page
1. General Rule – not allowed
references to the record;
2. Exception – may be allowed only when:
5. A clear and concise statement of the issues of fact
1. A motion for extension is filed before the or law to be submitted to the court for its judgments;
expiration of the time sought to be extended, and
6. Under the heading “Argument:”
2. There is good and sufficient cause for an
extension  the appellant’s arguments on each
assignment of error with page
references to the record
SEC. 6. Form of briefs.– Briefs shall either be printed,  the authorities relied upon shall be
encoded or typewritten in double space on legal size cited by:
good quality unglazed paper, 330 mm. in length by 216
mm. in width. (6a) 1. the page of the report at which the
case begins, and
2. the page of the report on which
SEC. 7. Contents of brief. – The briefs in criminal cases the citation is found
shall have the same contents as provided in sections 13
and 14 of Rule 44. A certified true copy of the decision or 7. Under the heading “Relief” – a specification of the
final order appealed from shall be appended to the brief order or judgment which the appellant seeks; and
of the appellant. (7a)
8. In cases not brought up by record on appeal, the
Contents of Appellant’s Brief [Rule 44 Sec. 13] apellant’s brief shall contain, as an Appendix, a copy of
the judgment or final order appealed from
1. A subject index of the matter in the brief with:
1. a digest of the arguments and page
references, and Contents of Appellee’s Brief [Rule 44 Sec. 14]

2. a table of: 1. A subject index of the matter in the brief with:

 cases alphabetically arranged, 1. a digest of the arguments and page

references, and
 textbooks, and
2. a table of:
 statutes cited with reference to the
1. cases alphabetically arranged,
pages where they are cited;
2. textbooks, and
2. An assignment of errors intended to be urged –
which errors shall be separately, distinctly and concisely 3. statutes cited with reference to the pages
stated without repetition and numbered consecutively; where cited;
3. Under the heading “Statement of the Case:” 2. Under the heading:
 a clear and concise statement of the 1. “Statement of Facts” – the appellee shall
nature of the action, state that he accepts the statement of facts in
the appellant’s brief, or
 a summary of the proceedings,
2. “Counter-Statement of Facts” – he shall
 the appealed rulings and orders of the point out such insufficiencies or inaccuracies
court, as he believes exist in the appellant’s
statement of facts:
 the nature of the judgment, and
 with references to the pages of the
 any other matters necessary to an
record in support thereof, but
understanding of the nature of the
controversy, with page references to  without repetition of matters in the
the record; appellant’s statement of facts; and
4. Under the heading “Statement of Facts:” 3. Under the heading “Argument”:
 a clear and concise statement in a 1. the appellee shall set forth his arguments in
narrative form of the facts admitted by the case on each assignment of error with page
references to the record,
2. the authorities relied upon shall be cited by:

 the page of the report at which the

case begins, and


the page of the report on which
the citation is found
a. Where defect not fatal

1. Effect of failure to comply People v. de la Concha 388 SCRA 280

 September 3, 2002 1. escapes from prison or confinement,
Facts: 2. jumps bail, or
The Brief of appellant who was convicted for rape lacked
3. flees to a foreign country
the following: (a) table of cases cited; (b) statement of
issues; and (c) page references to the record in the 2. How the appeal is dismissed:
Statement of the Case and in the Statement of Facts.
1. Either upon motion of appellee or motu
Issue: propio, and
Should his appeal be dismissed? 2. With notice to appellant in either case
Held:
No. The contents of the Appellants Brief are enumerated 1. Effect of failure to file brief
in Sec. 13, Rule 44, in relation to Sec. 7 of Rule 124 and
Sec. 1 of Rule 125 of the Rules of Court. The infractions Tamayo v. People 423 SCRA 175 February
above mentioned are not, however, among the grounds 17, 2004
for dismissal of appeals as provided for under Sec. 5 of
Facts:
Rule 56, in relation to Sec. 18 of Rule 124 and Sec. 1 of
Rule 125. Hence, the procedural infirmities of the Accused was convicted of arson by the RTC and
Appellant’s Brief filed in this case do not warrant a sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day to
dismissal of his appeal. 12 years and 1 day. After he filed his notice of appeal,
the CA required him to submit his brief. Despite the lapse
of the deadline, however, he failed to do so and the
b. Where defect fatal court dismissed his appeal under Sec. 8, Rule 124 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Accused is
People v. Fabula 265 SCRA 607 December 16, challenging the dismissal claiming that his failure to
1996 submit the brief was the fault of his lawyer who
abandoned him without his knowledge and consent.
Facts:
Issue:
Appellant was convicted of robbery with double
homicide. His brief proceeded to discuss his arguments Should the appeal be reinstated?
without complying with the other requirements of Rule
44 of the Rules of Court. Held:

Issue: Yes. Accused timely filed his notice of appeal and the CA
acquired jurisdiction over the case. Accused merely failed
Is the defect fatal? to submit his brief within the period provided by the
rules. A distinction should be made between the failure
Held: to file a notice of appeal within the reglementary period
Yes. Appellant’s counsel proceeded directly to discuss his and the failure to file a brief within the period granted by
arguments without stating the assigned errors and the the CA. The former results in the failure of the CA to
issues in accordance with Rule 44[b] & [e] Sec. 13 of the acquire jurisdiction over the appealed decision resulting
Rules of Court. The brief also does not contain a Prayer in its becoming final and executor if appellant fails to
to indicate the relief sought by appellant. These move for reconsideration. The latter simply results in the
omissions are fatal and highlight the bankruptcy of the abandonment of the appeal which can lead to its
appeal. dismissal upon failure to move for its reconsideration.
In this case, when accused learned of the dismissal of his
appeal, he timely moved for its reconsideration on the
Q: Now, who prepares the appellee’s brief? ground that he had no knowledge that his counsel not
only failed to file the required brief but actually withdrew
A: The Solicitor General.
as such without his consent. Accused is not responsible
for the failure to file the brief because he was waiting for
the resolution of his motion for reconsideration. It must
SEC. 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to be recalled that, in his motion, he prayed that he be
prosecute. given sufficient time to file his brief in the event of
reinstatement of his appeal.
Dismissal of Appeal
1. Grounds for dismissal:
2. Effect of jumping bail
1. Failure of appellant to file his brief within 30
days from receipt of the notice from the clerk of People v. Castillo 430 SCRA 40 May 28, 2004
court of the CA
Facts:
Exception – when the appellant is
represented by counsel de oficio The RTC convicted accused of murder and sentenced him
to suffer the penalty of 14 years and 8 months, as
2. If, during the pendency of the appeal, the minimum, to 17 years and 4 months, as maximum, both
appellant: of reclusion temporal. On appeal, the CA modified the
sentence to reclusion perpetua. Consequently, the CA
certified the case to the SC for the purpose of reviewing
the criminal liability of accused, in accordance with Rule
124, Sec. 13 of the Rules of Court. Meanwhile, during the
pendency of the appeal, accused jumped bail.
Issue: Considering that accused jumped bail, should his appeal be dismissed
pursuant to Sec. 8, Rule 124?
Held: HELD:
No. If the appeal is dismissed at this stage, the decision “Under Sec. 8 of Rule 124, the failure to file the
of the RTC sentencing accused to a prison term within appellant's brief on time may cause the dismissal of the
the range of reclusion temporal would become final, appeal, upon either the motion of the appellee or on the
despite the finding of the CA that accused should instead own motion of the appellate court, provided that notice
be meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua. To avoid the
must be furnished to the appellant to show cause why
absurdity of rewarding accused for his act of jumping
his appeal should not be dismissed.” At least give him a
bail, the instant appeal must be considered.
warning.
“But the exception to this rule has been clearly stated —
3. Effect of posting fake bail bond i.e. when the appellant is represented by a counsel de
oficio.”
People v. Del Rosario 348 SCRA 603 December
19, 2000
Facts: The second paragraph of Section 8 is more important:

Accused was convicted of murder and sentenced to 10 The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the
years and 1 day, to 17 years and 4 months. On appeal, appellee or motu proprio, dismiss the appeal if the
the CA affirmed the conviction but increased the penalty appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps
to reclusion perpetua and thus certified the case to the bail or flees to a foreign country during the
SC. While the case was pending before the SC, it was pendency of the appeal. (8a)
discovered that the personal bail bond accused posted There is an appeal pending in the CA, the appellant
was fake. escaped from prison or jumped bail, or flees to a foreign
Issue: country, under the 2nd paragraph of Section 8, his
appeal will be dismissed. Abandoned na! By his act of
What is the effect of the fake bail bond posted on the running away, the judgment of conviction will become
appeal? final.
Held: This provision prompted the SC to also apply doon sa
promulgation. Under Rule 120, if during the promulgation
Under Sec. 8[2], Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, the
the accused disappears, the promulgation will proceed in
escape from prison or confinement, the act of jumping absentia and then the law says the accused forfeits all
bail, or fleeing to a foreign country of the accused results
his remedies. Why? Kung nag-appeal siya, and then nag-
in the outright dismissal of his appeal. layas siya, the appeal will be dismissed, lalo na kung di
In this case, by filing fake bail bond, accused is deemed siya nag-appeal! You will also lose your right to appeal.
to have escaped from confinement even while the appeal The reason according to the SC, once the accused
was pending before the CA. In the normal course of escaped from prison or confinement or jumped bail, he
things, the CA should have dismissed the appeal. loses his standing in court and unless he surrenders or
However, this was not possible because the fake bail submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to
bond was discovered only after the CA had already have waived any right to seek relief from the court.
affirmed the sentence. Hence, to revert to the sentence (Gimenez vs. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 1)
imposed by the RTC would result in the absurdity that by
filing a fake bond, accused would enjoy the lower
sentence imposed by the RTC. To avoid this blatant Q: When a person who is sentenced to death escaped,
mockery of justice, the CA must continue to exercise can the automatic review still proceed? Or assuming
jurisdiction over the appeal. Accused having mocked and there is already an automatic review and while he is in
trumped the judicial process by filing a fake bail bond, he jail, naglayas, and the SC learns of his escape, what will
must be considered to have waived his right to further happen to the automatic review? Tuloy or dismissed?
review of the decisions of the RTC and the CA,
respectively. A: This is the question which bugged the SC in the 1996
case of PEOPLE vs. ESPARAS (260 SCRA 539) which was
If the appellant will not file his appellant’s brief, the case asked in the 1998 bar in remedial law. The SC here is not
is dismissed – same in civil cases – except where the unanimous. Six (6) justices dissented from the majority.
appellant is represented by counsel de oficio because the There are two sections compared here – Section 8 of
counsel de oficio is really a court-appointed lawyer. So Rule 124 and Section 10 of Rule 122.
why will the accused suffer if the court-designated
lawyer is negligent? But if it is a lawyer of your own
choice who failed to file the brief, then you suffer the PEOPLE vs. ESPARAS 260 SCRA 539 [1996]
consequence.
ISSUE:
Will the SC proceed to automatically review the death
Although we are talking of criminal cases, if you based it
sentence of an accused who was tried in absentia and
on the guidelines, it would seem that when the CA remained at large up to the present time? Or even if he
dismisses the appeal, it should give a warning to the appealed, and while the appeal is pending, he escaped?
accused. This is what the SC said in the case of
HELD:
FAROLAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS February 07,
1995 The majority said YES. You cannot apply Rule 124
because of the nature of the death penalty. There are 6
justices who disagreed.
“Section 8 of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court which, inter
alia, authorizes the dismissal of an appeal when the
appellant jumps bail, has no application to cases where
the death penalty has been imposed. In death penalty cases, automatic review is mandatory. This is the text and tone of
Section 10, Rule 122, which is the more applicable rule.” (b) Where the judgment also imposes a lesser
So there is an applicable rule and not the general rule in penalty for offenses committed on the same
Rule 124. Let’s go to the philosophy of the ruling: occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence
that gave rise to the more severe offense for which
“There is more wisdom in our existing jurisprudence the penalty of death is imposed, and the accused
mandating our review of all death penalty cases, appeals, the appeal shall be included in the case
regardless of the wish of the convict and regardless of certified for review to the Supreme Court.
the will of the court. Nothing less than life is at stake and
any court decision authorizing the State to take life must (c) In cases where the Court of Appeals imposes
be as error-free as possible. We must strive to realize this reclusion perpetual, life imprisonment or a lesser
objective, however, elusive it may be, and our efforts penalty, it shall render and enter judgment imposing
must not depend on whether appellant has withdrawn such penalty.The judgment may be appealed to the
his appeal or has escaped. Nor should the Court be Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the
influenced by the seeming repudiation of its jurisdiction Court of Appeals.
when a convict escapes. Ours is not only the power but
the duty to review all death penalty cases. No litigant can
repudiate this power which is bestowed by the How can this happen that the CA finds the penalty of
Constitution. The power is more of a sacred duty which death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment should be
we have to discharge to assure the People that the imposed? This happens normally in a situation like this:
innocence of a citizen is our concern not only in crimes Mr. Concon is charged with murder and the court
that slight but even more, in crimes that shock the convicted him only for homicide – so temporal yan.
conscience. This concern cannot be diluted.” Where will he appeal? Sa CA because the penalty
imposed is not death or perpetua. The trouble is when
“The Court is not espousing a “soft, bended, approach”
the CA reviews the case and finds that the crime should
to heinous crimes for we have always reviewed the be murder pala!
imposition of the death penalty regardless of the will of
the convict. Our unyielding stance is dictated by the Q: What should the CA do?
policy that the State should not be given the license to
kill without the final determination of this Highest A: The CA should still decide and lay down the facts and
Tribunal whose collective wisdom is the last; effective the law as if it is the SC. And then the CA should really
hedge against an erroneous judgment of a one-judge impose the death penalty or reclusion perpetua. But it
trial court. This enlightened policy ought to continue as should not enter judgment. After imposing death or
our beacon light for the taking of life ends all rights, a perpetua, itapon sa SC, “Please review our work and find
matter of societal concern that transcends the personal out whether we are correct.”
interest of a convict. The importance of this societal Automatically, the CA will not enter judgement but
value should not be blurred by the escape of a convict should elevate the case. So the SC should have the final
which is a problem of law enforcement. Neither should say on whether or not to adopt the findings and
this Court be moved alone by the outrage of the public in conclusions of the CA. But definitely, the CA should not
the multiplication of heinous crimes for our decisions shirk from its responsibility of deciding the case on its
should not be directed by the changing winds of the merits imposing the correct penalty of death or perpetua.
social weather.” That is that correct procedure under the new rules.

Meaning, our decision shall not be influenced by the Sec. 9

thinking of the people – social weather. And I think that is
a very nice explanation why you should not apply Rule Hearing and Disposition of Appeals
124.
1. What shall be given precedence in disposition
over other appeals:
Section 12. Power to receive evidence.- The Court of Appeals of accused under detention
Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct
hearings, receive evidence and perform all acts 2. Hearing and decision by the Court of Appeals:
necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling 1. shall be made at the earliest practicable time,
within it's original and appellate jurisdiction, including the
power to grant and conduct new trials or further 2. with due regard to the rights of the parties
proceedings. Trials or hearings in the Court of Appeals
must be continuous and must be completed within three 3. The accused need not be present in court during
months, unless extended by the Chief Justice. (as the hearing of the appeal
amended by A.M.No. 00-5-03-SC)

1. Period to decide appeals

Re: Problem of Delays . . .
370 SCRA 661 November 28, 2001
Facts:
And the last important portion here to master is the
second paragraph of Section 13: In the year 2000, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) passed a resolution urging the Supreme Court to
(a) Whenever the Court of Appeals find that the inquire into the reasons for the delay in the resolution of
penalty of death should be imposed, the court, shall cases before the Sandiganbayan. The report of the
render judgment but refrain from making an entry of Presiding Justice of said court showed that there were
judgment and forthwith certify the case and elevate 415 cases submitted for decision remaining undecided.
its entire record to the Supreme Court for review. Art. VIII, Sec. 15(1) of the Constitution provides that all
cases
or matters “must be decided or resolved within 24 overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or
months from the date of submission to the Supreme circumstances of weight or substance which can affect
Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, 12 the result of the case.
months for all lower collegiate courts, and 3 months for
all other lower courts.”
Issue: 2. Exceptions to the rule
Which period applies to the Sandiganbayan? People v. Gulion 349 SCRA 610 January 18, 2001
Held: Issue:
The Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special When may the CA reverse the findings of fact made by
court of the same level as the CA, with functions of a the trial court?
trial court. Sec. 6 of P.D. 1606 provides that the
“judgment shall be rendered within 3 months from the Held:
date the case was submitted for decision.” The same While factual findings of trial courts, as well as their
period is provided in the rules of the Sandiganbayan assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are entitled
which it promulgated. Thus, the 3-month period, not the great weight and respect more so when these are
12-month period applicable to the CA, applies to the affirmed by the CA, the following are the exceptions: (1)
Sandiganbayan, whether in the exercise of its original or when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
appellate jurisdiction. speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) the
inferences made are manifestly mistaken; (3) there is
grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on
Sec. 10 misapprehension of facts or premised on the absence of
evidence on record.
Requisites for Reversion or Modification of the
Judgment of the Lower Court
1. The CA must examine the record and the evidence 3. Increase of penalty
adduced by the parties
People v. Las Pinas 377 SCRA 377 February 20,
2. The CA is of the opinion that error was committed 2002
which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the
appellant Facts:
Accused was charged with rape of a 12-year old. After
trial, the RTC ruled that the prosecution failed to prove
Sec. 11 the element of force and intimidation in the rape charge
and convicted accused only of child abuse under R.A.
Scope of Judgment; How the Court of Appeals may 7610. The RTC sentenced him to 14 years, 8 months and
Decide 1 day to reclusion temporal. Accused appealed but the
1. It may reverse, affirm or modify the judgment of the CA found sufficient evidence for, and proceeded to
trial court convict him of, rape sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua.
2. It may increase or reduce the penalty imposed by the
trial court Issue:

3. It may remand the case to the RTC for: Considering that the RTC has virtually acquitted accused
of the charge of rape by finding him guilty of a lesser
1. new trial, or offense, may the CA convict him of the crime?
2. retrial; or Held:
4. It may dismiss the case Yes. When an accused appeals from the sentence of the
trial court, he waives his constitutional safeguard against
double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the
1. Findings on credibility of witnesses review. The CA is then called upon to render such
judgment as the law and justice dictate, whether
People v. Panabang 373 SCRA 560 January 16, favorable or unfavourable, and whether they are
2002 assigned as errors or not. Such an appeal confers upon
the CA full jurisdiction and renders it competent to
Issue: examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from,
On appeal, may the appellate court reverse the findings increase the penalty and cite the proper provision of the
of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses? penal law. Thus, there is no legal obstacle in meting out
a conviction for the crime of rape as originally charged in
Issue: the information.
No. Jurisprudence is too well settled that this particular
issue lies within the province of trial courts to resolve. It
is the trial court which is afforded the unique opportunity Sec. 12
to observe the witnesses on the stand. The manner
Receiving Evidence
witnesses testify – the hesitant pause, the nervous voice,
the undertone, the beffuddled look, the honest gaze, the 1. Power of the Court of Appeals:
modest blush, or the guilty blanch – is a significant
indicum in aptly assigning value to testimonial evidence. 1. To try cases and conduct hearings
The findings of a trial court on the credibility of witnesses 2. To receive evidence, and
can only be disturbed upon a clear showing that it has
3. To perform any and all acts necessary:
1. to resolve factual issues in cases falling within its original jurisdiction,
 2. including the power to grant and
2. Penalty is from reclusion temporal to reclusion
conduct new trials or further perpetua
proceedings
Mercado v. People 392 SCRA 678 November
2. Duration of trials and hearings
26, 2002
1. Trials or hearings in the CA must be
Issue:
continuous,
Is a penalty of 17 years and 4 months to 30 years
2. They must be completed within 3 months,
considered reclusion perpetua so that the CA should
unless extended by the Chief Justice.
refrain from entering judgment and certify the case to
the SC, pursuant to the last paragraph of Sec. 13, Rule
124, of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure?
Sec. 13
Held:
Certification or Appeal of Case to Supreme Court
No. Sec. 13, Rule 124 is applicable only when the penalty
1. Steps to be taken when CA finds that the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua or higher as a single
of death should be imposed: indivisible penalty, i.e., the penalty was at least reclusion
perpetua. Art. 27 of the Revised Penal Code states that
1. The CA shall render judgment,
the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from 20 years
2. It shall, however, refrain from making an entry and 1 day to 40 years. While the 30-year period falls
of judgment, and within that range, reclusion perpetua nevertheless is a
single indivisible penalty which cannot be divided into
3. It shall instead certify the case and elevate its different periods. The 30-year period for reclusion
entire record to the SC for review perpetua is only for purposes of successive service of
sentence under Art. 70 of the RPC.
2. What appeal shall be included in the case
certified for review to the SC: More importantly, the crime committed is one penalized
under RA 6538 or The Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 which
1. Where the judgment also imposes a lesser
is a special law and not under the RPC. Unless otherwise
penalty for offenses:
specified, if the special penal law imposes such penalty,
1. committed on the same occasion as it is error to designate it with terms provided for in the
the more severe offense for which the RPC since those terms apply only to the penalties
penalty is death, or imposed by the RPC, and not to the penalty in special
penal laws. Generally, special laws provide their own
2. Which arose out of the same specific penalties for the offenses they punish, which
occurrence that gave rise to the more penalties are not taken from nor refer to those in the
severe offense for which the penalty of RPC.
death is imposed, and
2. The accused appeals
Sec. 14
3. Effects where the CA imposes reclusion
perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty: Motion for New Trial

1. The CA shall render judgment, 1. When appellant may move for a new trial:

2. It shall enter judgment imposing such penalty, 1. At any time after the appeal from the lower
and court has been perfected, and

3. Such judgment may be appealed to the SC by 2. Before the judgment of the CA convicting the
notice of appeal filed with the CA appellant becomes final
2. Ground for new trial:

1. Where penalty is reclusion perpetua Newly discovered evidence material to the

defense of the appellant
People v. Cruz 203 SCRA 682 November 18, 1991
Issue:
Sec. 15
What is the proper procedure to be followed when the
CA imposes a sentence of reclusion perpetua? What the CA may do when Motion for New Trial is
Granted
Held:
1. Conduct the hearing and receive evidence, or
The CA shall render judgment but shall order the Division
Clerk of Court to desist from entering judgment (Revised 2. Refer the trial to the court of origin
Internal Rules of the CA, Sec. 5, Rule 11) and after the
lapse of the period for filing a motion for reconsideration,
is ordered to elevate this case and its complete records Sec. 16
to the SC for review in accordance with Rule 124, Sec. 13
of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Motion for Reconsideration
1. Requisites:
1. A motion for reconsideration shall be filed
within 15 days from notice of the decision or
final order of the CA, and
2. Copies of the motion shall be served upon the support thereof
adverse party, setting forth the grounds in
2. Rules:
 1. The mittimus shall be stayed during the The judgment of conviction of the lower court
pendency of the motion for reconsideration shall be reversed and the accused shall be
2. No party shall be allowed a second motion for acquitted
reconsideration of a judgment or final order

1. Promulgation where appellant escapes

People v. Prades 293 SCRA 411 July 30, 1998
Rule 125 PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME COURT Question:
Where the person sentenced to death is a fugitive from
SECTION 1. Uniform Procedure. – Unless otherwise justice, and the Supreme Court affirms the death
provided by the Constitution or by law, the procedure in sentence, how may it promulgate the judgment?
the Supreme Court in original and in appealed cases shall Answer:
be the same as in the Court of Appeals. (1a)
The last paragraph of Sec. 6 of Rule 120 of the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure is a new provision which
SEC. 2. Review of decisions of the Court of Appeals. – provides for the promulgation of judgment in absentia
The procedure for the review by the Supreme Court of (Gupit, Jr., Rules of Criminal Procedure 362-363 [1986]).
decisions in criminal cases rendered by the Court of The amendment was intended to obviate the situation in
Appeals shall be the same as in civil cases. (2a) the past where the judicial process could be subverted by
the accused jumping bail to frustrate the promulgation of
judgment. If, for any reason, it should be claimed that
said provision is intended to be the procedure in the trial
Procedure in the Supreme Court
courts, the simple rejoinder is that there is no reason
1. Procedure in the SC why, on considerations of its rationale and procedural
expediency, the same should not apply to the same
1. General Rule factual situation in the appellate courts. In the Supreme
Court and the Court of Appeals, the judgment is
The procedure in the SC in original and in
promulgated by merely filing the signed copy thereof
appealed cases shall be the same as in the CA
with the Clerk of Court who causes true copies of the
2. Exceptions – unless otherwise provided same to be served upon the parties, hence the
by: appearance of the accused is not even required there as
his presence is necessary only in the promulgation of the
1. The Constitution, judgments of trial courts. Thereafter, when the judgment
of the appellate court becomes executor, the records of
2. Law
the case together with a certified copy of the appellate
2. Procedure for review of decisions of CA in court judgment are returned to the court a quo for
criminal cases: execution of the judgment.

It shall be the same as in civil cases

Q: When the penalty imposed by the RTC is perpetua for
example, and since the appeal is direct to the Supreme
SEC. 3. Decision if opinion is equally divided. – When the Court, then what procedure will the SC follow? Or when
Supreme Court en banc is equally divided in opinion or the case was decided by the CA and you appeal to the
the necessary majority cannot be had on whether to SC, what procedure will the SC follow?
acquit the appellant, the case shall again be deliberated
upon and if no decision is reached after re-deliberation, A: Under Section 1, “Unless otherwise provided by the
the judgment of conviction of lower court shall be Constitution or by law, the procedure in the Supreme
reversed and the accused acquitted. (3a) Court in original and in appealed cases shall be the same
as in the Court of Appeals.” So there is no problem, you
Procedure when Opinion is Equally Divided can apply the previous rule – filing of brief, how many
copies – the same.
1. Situation – whether or not to acquit the
appellant as when:
1. The SC en banc is equally divided in opinion, Now, let’s go to one interesting ISSUE: Can you file a
or motion for new trial of a criminal case before the SC on
the ground of newly discovered evidence?
2. The necessary majority cannot be had
In the past, there seems to be conflicting rulings on that
2. Solution: issue. Like for example, if you go to the 1965 case of
The case shall again be deliberated upon GODUCO VS. CA (14 SCRA 282), the SC ruled that the SC
is not authorized to entertain a motion for
3. If still no decision is reached after re- reconsideration and/or new trial on the ground of newly
deliberation: discovered evidence because of the doctrine that the SC
is not a trier of facts – only questions of law are
supposed to be raised before the SC.
However, the Goduco ruling seems to be relaxed in other
cases subsequently to the case of Goduco. In the case of
HELMUTH, JR. VS. PEOPLE (112 SCRA 573 [1982]), and
in PEOPLE VS. AMPARADO (156 SCRA 712 [1987]), the
SC
allowed the motion for new trial based on newly
discovered evidence.
In 1995, that issue came out again in the case of and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the
CUENCA vs. COURT OF APPEALS 250 SCRA 485 reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant
an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within
HELD: which to file the petition for review. No further
extension shall be granted except for the most
Although in “Goduco vs. CA” (14 SCRA 282 [1965]), this compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen
Court ruled that it is not authorized to entertain a motion (15) days. (n)
for reconsideration and/or new trial predicated on
allegedly newly discovered evidence, the rule now
appears to have been relaxed, if not abandoned, in
subsequent cases like “Helmuth, Jr. vs. People” and Under Section 1, a petition for review under Rule 42
“People vs. Amparado.” must be VERIFIED.

“In both cases, the Court, opting to brush aside Q: Where will you file your petition for review?
technicalities and despite the opposition of the Solicitor A: You file it directly with the CA. Do not file it with
General, granted new trial to the convicted accused the trial court.
concerned on the basis of proposed testimonies or
affidavits of persons which the Court considered as newly
discovered and probably sufficient evidence to reverse
the judgment of conviction.” In Rule 41, where the appeal is deemed perfected by
simply filing a notice of appeal, you file your notice of
So we follow the later ruling – relaxed. And I think that is appeal with the RTC. Do not file it with the CA. But in
fair enough for the accused. All the doubts should be Rule 42, where the appeal is by petition for review, you
resolved in favor of the accused. file your petition directly with the CA. Do not file it with
the RTC.
Not only that. Of course, you have to pay the docket and
Rule 42 PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE lawful fees plus P500 for costs. And you must furnish the
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS TO THE COURT OF RTC and the adverse party with a copy of the petition.
APPEALS That is a new requirement.
Q: What are the modes of appeal from RTC to the
CA?
Q: What is the period to file a petition for review ?
A: It’s either ORDINARY APPEAL (Rule 41) or
PETITION FOR REVIEW (Rule 42). A: The period to file a petition for review is 15 days from
receipt of the RTC judgment or from the order denying
the motion for reconsideration.
Rule 41 refers to an ordinary appeal from the RTC to the Q: What is the difference in period to file between Rule
CA – yung notice of appeal. Here, the RTC rendered a 41 and Rule 42 ?
decision pursuant to its ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
A: In Rule 41, if your motion for reconsideration is
Rule 42 (Petition for review) is the mode of appeal from denied, you can still appeal within the remaining balance
the RTC to the CA in cases decided by the RTC pursuant of the 15-day period. In Rule 42, the 15-day period starts
to its APPELLATE JURISDICTION. So, the case here actually all over again because the law says “or of the denial.” So,
originated in the MTC, then it was appealed to the RTC another fresh 15 days. This because it is more difficult to
under Rule 40. And now, from the RTC, you want to go to prepare a petition for review. This is more time-
the CA. Hence, the mode of appeal is not (Rule 41) Notice consuming than a simple notice of appeal. We’ll go to
of Appeal but RULE 42 – Petition for Review. examples:

For the first time, there is now a rule governing petitions PROBLEM: Let’s go back to RULE 41: You receive a copy
for review from the RTC to the CA. Prior to July 1, 1997, of the RTC decision on March 31. You file your motion for
there was none. Although there were guidelines then – reconsideration on April 10 – the 10th day. After two
in jurisprudence, decided cases and SC circulars. weeks, you received order of the court denying the MFR.
Section 1. How appeal taken; time for filing. A party Q: How many more days are left for you to file a notice
desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional of appeal?
Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with A: Six (6) days. Ang binilang mo, 1-9 days lang. The
the Court of Appeals, paying at the same time to the 10th day is interrupted na. That’s true.
clerk of said court the corresponding docket and
other lawful fees, depositing the amount of P500.00
for costs, and furnishing the Regional Trial Court and PROBLEM: We will go to the same problem (applying
the adverse party with a copy of the petition. The Rule 42): The case was decided by the MTC, appealed to
petition shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) the RTC. And then in the RTC, you lost again. You receive
days from notice of the decision sought to be a copy of the decision on March 31. On April 10, you file
reviewed or of the denial of petitioner’s motion for a motion for reconsideration. And then on April 20, you
new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after receive the order denying the MFR.
judgment. Upon proper motion and the payment of
the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees Q: How many days more are left for you to file your
petition for review?
A: Kung sabihin mo 6 days from April 20 or April 26,
that’s FALSE! The answer is 15 days all over again. Look
at the law: “The petition shall be filed and served within
fifteen
(15) days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the denial of petitioner’s motion for new trial or
reconsideration.” Meaning, you count another 15 days petitioner, and shall (a) state the full names of the
from the denial. Umpisa na naman! parties to the case, without impleading the lower
courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or
respondents; (b) indicate the specific material dates
So the filing a motion for new trial or reconsideration in showing that it was filed on time; (c) set forth
Rule 42 does not only interrupt the running of the period concisely a statement of the matters involved, the
but it commences to run all over again. Unlike in Rule 41, issues raised, the specification of errors of fact or
in ordinary appeal, where the filing of the motion for law, or both, allegedly committed by the Regional
reconsideration or new trial merely interrupts the running Trial Court, and the reasons or arguments relied
of the period to appeal. And it commences to run again upon for the allowance of the appeal; (d) be
from the time you are notified that your motion is accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or
denied. See the difference? true copies of the judgments or final orders of both
lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of
Actually, if you are not serious in your study of appeal,
the Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of
you will not see these distinctions. You will just assume
plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other
that the principles under Rule 41 and Rule 42 are the
material portions of the record as would support the
same.
allegations of the petition.
The petitioner shall also submit together with the
Q: Under Section 1, is the 15-day period to file petition petition a certification under oath that he has not
for review extendible? theretofore commenced any other action involving
the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of
A: Under Rule 41, the 15-day period to file notice Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other
of appeal is not extendible – no exceptions. But in Rule tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or
42, the 15-day period to file petition for review is proceeding, he must state the status of the same;
EXTENDIBLE according to the last sentence of Section 1, and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action
provided you pay your docket and other lawful fees, the or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the
CA will grant additional 15 days within which to file a Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different
petition for review. divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he
undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts
Q: Where will you file your motion for extension of
and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5)
time to file petition for review?
days therefrom. (n)
A: You file your motion for extension to the CA.
The CA itself will grant the extension.
Take note of Section 2. Do not implead the lower court or
Q: How many more days can the CA grant?
the judge because nasanay na tayo na pati ‘yung judge
A: The CA may grant another 15 days and no naging defendant or respondent na. We only do that in
further extension can be granted except for the most Certiorari under Rule 65 in Special Civil Actions, but not
compelling reasons. So, original extension is 15 days, on appeal. This is the influence of Justice Feria because
and a possible extension of 15 days = total 30 days. he has penned many cases which has included the judge
as defendant or respondent. So, he said that in the case
of MWSS vs. CA [Aug. 25, 1986], hence we can see his
influence, siningit talaga niya iyan sa kaso na yon.
These are technical points. And how many appealed
cases have been dismissed simply because these finer Now, as to the form [last paragraph], there has to be a
provisions were not been observed by lawyers? I would Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, failure to comply
say 60% of all appeals are dismissed. Even in Davao, with such would mean the dismissal of the case.
majority of petitions are dismissed because nakulangan
ng piso sa docket fee, karami. I presume throughout the
country, the pattern is the same because the rules on
ORTIZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS 299 SCRA 708
appeal are very technical and very strict. That’s why
[1998]
there are lawyers in Manila, even in Davao, who do not
want to handle appealed cases. They only handle cases in FACTS:
the trial court. Pag-akyat na, nasa CA na, petition for
certiorari, pasa na sa iba. The certification was not signed by the Ortizes but by
their lawyer who has personal knowledge of the fact and
But there are also who have mastered the rules on contended that it should be accepted as substantial
appeal. For the purpose of specialization, trial phase and compliance with the rules.
appeal phase. For purposes of the bar, you have to know
all the fields in laws. Once you pass the bar, diyan na HELD:
kayo mag-isip kung ano ang pipiliin ninyo—civil, criminal, The certification was not proper. Strict observance of the
labor, etc. But for purposes of the bar, you cannot say
rule is required. In this case, no explanation was given.
dito lang ako mag-aral sa Labor, wag na sa Civil Law.
Pwede ba yan? You cannot do that. Kaya nga sabi nila, “Regrettably, We find that substantial compliance will not
the people who know more about the law are those who suffice in a matter involving strict compliance. The
have just taken the bar. attestation contained in the certification on non-forum
shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who
executed the same. To merit the Court’s consideration,
Sec. 2. Form and contents. The petition shall be filed Ortizes here must show reasonable cause for failure to
in seven (7) legible copies, with the original copy personally sign the certification. The Ortizes must
intended for the court being indicated as such by the convince the court that the outright dismissal of the
petition would defeat the administration of justice.
However, the Ortizes did not give any explanation to
warrant their exemption from the strict application of the
rule. Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be construction.”
rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal
 Q: When you file a petition for review from the RTC to
Q: Under paragraph [c], what issues can you raise the CA, is the CA obliged to entertain the petition?
in the petition for review?
A: No, this is discretionary under Section 6. The CA may
A: Errors of fact, errors of law, or both – mixed or may not give due course to the petition unlike in
errors of fact or law. ordinary appeal. Yan ang kaibahan ng ordinary appeal
and petition for review.

Somebody asked this QUESTION: hindi ba kapag error of In ordinary appeal under Rule 41, when you file notice of
law dapat sa SC yan? Hindi na dadaan sa CA? How do appeal and you pay your docket fee, your appeal is
you reconcile this with the Constitution? Actually, when automatically entertained. At least it will be heard by the
the law says decisions of the RTC appealable directly to CA. But in Rule 42, it is not the same. When you go
the SC, it was decided pursuant to its original there, whether your petition for review will be given due
jurisdiction. But if it is decided pursuant to its appellate course or not even if you have paid the docket fee.
jurisdiction, the appeal should be to the CA even on pure Normally, the CA will required you to comment and then
questions of law without prejudice of going to the SC chances are after another month and after reading your
later on. petition and your comment, the CA will refuse to give
due course to your petition, “Your petition is hereby
dismissed!” So, you must convince the CA na may merit
baah!
Sec. 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements.
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of Q: What happens when the petition for review is given
the foregoing requirements regarding the payment due course?
of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for
costs, proof of service of the petition, and the A: The parties will be required to submit their respective
contents of and the documents which should memoranda.
accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for Take note that the RTC is also given the power to issue
the dismissal thereof. orders for the protection of the parties – the same as in
Section 8, paragraph [b].

Section 3. If you fail to comply with the requirements,

tapos ang petition mo, dismiss! Sec. 7. Elevation of record. Whenever the Court of
Appeals deems it necessary, it may order the clerk of
court of the Regional Trial Court to elevate the
Sec. 4. Action on the petition. The Court of Appeals original record of the case including the oral and
may require the respondent to file a comment on documentary evidence within fifteen (15) days from
the petition, not a motion to dismiss, within ten (10) notice. (n)
days from notice, or dismiss the petition if it finds
the same to be patently without merit, prosecuted
manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised Q: Now, when is an appeal by petition for review
therein are too unsubstantial to require deemed perfected?
consideration. (n)
A: Section 8 [a]. Similar to Rule 41. The same principle:

Sec. 5. Contents of comment. The comment of the

respondent shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies, Sec. 8. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. (a) Upon
accompanied by certified true copies of such the timely filing of a petition for review and the
material portions of the record referred to therein payment of the corresponding docket and other
together with other supporting papers and shall (a) lawful fees, the appeal is deemed perfected as to
state whether or not he accepts the statement of the petitioner.
matters involved in the petition; (b) point out such
The Regional Trial Court loses jurisdiction over the
insufficiencies or inaccuracies as he believes exist in
petitioner’s statement of matters involved but case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due
without repetition; and (c) state the reasons why the time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the
petition should not be given due course. A copy other parties.
thereof shall be served on the petitioner. (n) However, before the Court of Appeals gives due
course to the petition, the Regional Trial Court may
issue orders for the protection and preservation of
Sec. 6. Due course. If upon the filing of the the rights of the parties which do not involve any
comment or such other pleadings as the court may matter litigated by the appeal, approve
allow or require, or after the expiration of the period compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants,
for the filing thereof without such comment or order execution pending appeal in accordance with
pleading having been submitted, the Court of section 2 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the
Appeals finds prima facie that the lower court has appeal. (9a, R41)
committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a
(b) Except in civil cases decided under the Rule on
reversal or modification of the appealed decision, it
Summary Procedure, the appeal shall stay the
may accordingly give due course to the petition. (n)
judgment or final order unless the Court of Appeals,
the law, or these Rules shall provide otherwise. (n)

Q: Does the RTC have the power to act despite the fact
that the petition for review is already before the CA?
Suppose I lost in the MTC, and I also lost on appeal in the
RTC. I file a petition for review. What happens to the decision? Can the decision be enforced?
A: NO, it cannot be enforced yet because it is not yet
4. All other criminal cases:
final. We still have to wait for the appeal to be dismissed
or to be entertained and denied later. Under paragraph  Where the penalty prescribed by law for the
[b], the appeal shall stay the judgment or final order offense charged, does not exceed:
UNLESS the CA, the law or these rules should provide
otherwise. 1. 6 months imprisonment, or
2. a fine of P1,000.00, or

Also, based on the opening clause of paragraph [b], 3. both;

except in civil cases provided in the Rules on Summary
Procedure, any part thereafter appealed to the CA will  Irrespective of:
not stop the implementation of the RTC decision. 1. other imposable penalties, accessory
Under Section 21 of the Summary Rules, when a case is or otherwise, or
started in the MTC under the Summary Procedure, and 2. the civil liability arising therefrom
appealed to the RTC and decided by the RTC, the
decision becomes immediately executory. Even if we file 5. Offenses involving DAMAGE to PROPERTY through
a petition for review, it is executory. The only way to stop CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE where the imposable fine
the RTC from enforcing that judgment is to get a TRO or does not exceed P10,000.00
a writ of preliminary injunction from the CA. That is the
rule.
Criminal Cases NOT Covered by the Summary Rule

Sec. 9. Submission for decision. If the petition is 1. Offenses involving DAMAGE to PROPERTY through
given due course, the Court of Appeals may set the CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE where the imposable fine
case for oral argument or require the parties to exceeds P10,000.00
submit memoranda within a period of fifteen (15) 2. Criminal cases where the offense charged is
days from notice. The case shall be deemed necessarily related to another criminal case subject
submitted for decision upon the filing of the last to the ordinary procedure
pleading or memorandum required by these Rules or
by the court itself. (n)
1. Cases covered by the Rule
Combate v. San Jose, Jr., 135 SCRA 693 April 15,
1985
Facts:
PROCEDURE IN THE FIRST LEVEL COURTS AND After accused was arraigned for theft of a fighting cock
THE RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE worth P200, the judge issued an order stating that the
case is deemed submitted for decision. Thereafter, based
on affidavits and counter-affidavits submitted by the
Rule 123 PROCEDURE IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS complainant, accused and their witnesses, the court
convicted accused of theft and sentenced him to 6
months imprisonment.
SECTION 1. Uniform Procedure. Issue:
Procedure in the MTC Is the procedure proper?
1. General Rule: Held:
The procedure to be observed in the MTC shall be No. Summary Rule applies only to criminal cases where
the same as in the RTC the penalty prescribed for the offense charged does not
2. Exceptions – the procedure shall be different: exceed 6 months imprisonment or a fine of P1,000, or
both. Theft is penalized with arresto mayor in its
1. where a particular provision applies only to either medium period to prision correccional in its minimum
of said courts, period, or, from 2 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4
months. Clearly, the Summary Rule is inapplicable. But
2. in criminal cases governed by the Summary Rule
even if applicable, the procedure adopted is irregular.
Under Sec. 13, upon a plea of not guilty, trial shall
proceed. The affidavits submitted by the parties shall
PERTINENT PROVISIONS TAKEN FROM THE REVISED constitute the direct testimonies of the witnesses who
RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE executed the same, but they are subject to cross-
examination.
I
APPLICABILITY
III
Sec. 1
CRIMINAL CASES
Criminal Cases Covered by the Summary Rule
Sec. 11
1. Violations of TRAFFIC laws, rules and regulations;
How Criminal Cases are Commenced under the
2. Violations of the RENTAL law; Summary Rule
3. Violations of municipal or city ORDINANCES; 1. How commenced:
1. General Rule: Either by complaint or information
 2. Exception – It can only be commenced by 1. shall be accompanied with copies of
information in: the affidavits and other evidence
submitted by the prosecution, and
2. shall require the accused:
1. Metro Manila, and  to submit his counter-affidavit
and the affidavits of his
2. Chartered cities
witnesses as well as any
3. Exception to exception: evidence in his behalf, and

If the crime CANNOT be prosecuted de oficio,  to serve copies thereof on the

the information has to be signed by the offended party complainant or prosecutor not
later than 10 days from receipt
2. What accompanies the complaint or information of said order.
– affidavits of the complainant and of his
witnesses: 2. The prosecution may file reply affidavits
within 10 days after receipt of the counter-affidavits of
1. Number of copies required: the defense.
1. As many as the number of accused,
and
1. Order to submit counter-affidavit
2. 2 copies for the court’s files
Paredes v. Manalo 244 SCRA 64 May 10,
2. Effect of failure to comply with the 1995
requirement within 5 days from filing:
Issue:
The case may be dismissed
May a judge be held administratively liable for not
ordering accused to submit a counter affidavit and for
issuing, instead, a warrant of arrest in a case falling
1. Affidavit as ground for demurrer
under the Summary Procedure?
Paulin v. Gimenez 217 SCRA 386 January 21,
Held:
1993
Yes. Sec. 12 (b) of the Rule on Summary Procedure
Issue:
provides that in all other cases where the accused is not
May an accused file a demurrer to evidence based on the in custody, the court shall issue an order, accompanied
argument that the affidavits submitted by the by copies of all the affidavits submitted by the
prosecution under Sec. 11 of Summary Rule do not prove complainant, directing the defendants to appear and
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt? submit their counter-affidavits and those of their
witnesses at a specified date. Such mandate is clear,
Held: hence, judges have no other option but to obey.
No.Demurrer to evidence, which is not a prohibited
pleading under the Summary Rule, presupposes that the
prosecution had already rested its case (Sec. 15, Rule 2. Period to file counter-affidavit
119, Rules of Court). Hence, the motion is premature if
Cariaga v. Anasario 396 SCRA 599 February 3,
interposed at a time when the prosecution is still in the
2003
process of presenting evidence. Submission of affidavits
to the court does not warrant the inference that the Issue:
prosecution had already finished presenting its evidence
because the affiants are still required to testify and affirm May a judge be held administratively liable for admitting
the contents thereof; otherwise, these affidavits cannot counter-affidavits and affidavits of witnesses filed by
serve as competent evidence for the prosecution. accused 130 days after he received the order for him to
submit his counter-affidavit within 10 days?
Held:
Sec. 12
Yes. The Summary Rule was promulgated specifically to
Duty of the Court achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of
cases. In allowing the submission of the counter-
1. If the case is commenced by complaint – the
affidavits 130 days from notice, the judge violated Rule.
court may:
Sec. 12(b) which provides that the court shall issue an
1. Dismiss the case outright: order “which shall require the accused to submit his
counter-affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses” x x
1. for being patently without basis or x “not later than
merit, 10 days from receipt of said order.” Sec. 19(e) also
2. on the basis of the complaint and provides that a motion for extension to file affidavits is
the affidavits and other evidence prohibited.
accompanying the same; and
2. If the case is commenced by information or not Sec. 13
dismissed pursuant to the above:
Arraignment and Trial
1. The court shall issue an order which:
1. Upon consideration of the complaint or  Order the dismissal of the case – if it finds no cause or
information and the affidavits submitted by both ground to hold the accused for trial, or
parties, the court may either:
  Set the case for arraignment and trial to the court and served on the adverse
2. Effect if the court sets the case for arraignment party not later than 3 days after the
and trial: termination of the preliminary conference;

 If the accused is in custody for the crime 2. If the additional affidavits are
charged – he shall be arraigned immediately, presented by the prosecution – the
accused may file his counter-affidavits and
and
serve the same on the prosecution within 3
 Upon arraignment, if the accused enters a plea days from such service
of guilty – he shall forthwith be sentenced
2. Cross-examination, redirect, and re-cross
examination

Sec. 14 1. A witness who executed an affidavit may be

subjected to oral cross-
Preliminary Conference
examination, redirect or re-cross examination,
1. Before conducting the trial, the court shall call
the parties to a preliminary conference; 2. Effect when affiant fails to testify:

2. What may occur during the preliminary 1. His affidavit shall not be considered
conference: as evidence for the party presenting the affidavit, but

 A stipulation of facts may be entered into, or 2. The adverse party may utilize his
affidavit for any admissible purpose
 The propriety of allowing the accused to enter a
3. Effect when a witness fails to previously
plea of guilty to a lesser offense may be
submit his affidavit as required by Sec. 12:
considered, or
1. General Rule – he shall not be
 Such other matters may be taken up to clarify allowed to testify
the issues and to ensure a speedy disposition of
the case. 2. Exception – he shall be allowed to
testify in rebuttal or sur-rebuttal
3. Effect of admission made by the accused:
1. General Rule – It shall not be used against
him 1. Exception to the requirement of affidavit
2. Exception – When admission may be used Balayon, Jr. v. Ocampo 218 SCRA 13 January 29,
against the accused: 1993
1. When it is reduced to writing, and Facts:
2. When it is signed by the accused and Sec. 15 of the Rule on Summary Procedure expressly
his counsel prohibits any witness from testifying during trial without
previously submitting his affidavit. Despite the
4. Effect of refusal or failure to stipulate during the prohibition, the trial court allowed the Register of Deeds
preliminary conference: who had no affidavit to testify in a case falling under the
It shall not prejudice the accused said Rule.
Issue:

Sec. 15 Are there exceptions to the rule?

Procedure of Held:

Trial Yes. Even if a witness has not previously submitted

his/her affidavit, he may be called to testify in connection
1. Direct examination with specific factual matter relevant to the issue. Thus, a
medical doctor whose medical certificate is among the
 There is no oral direct examination, evidence on record may be called to testify. This also
applies to the Register of Deeds or Provincial Assessor in
 The affidavits submitted by the parties shall
connection with official documents issued by his office.
constitute the direct testimonies of the
witnesses who executed them, and
 If a party wishes to present additional affidavits Sec. 16
or counter-affidavits as part of his direct
evidence, he shall so manifest during the Arrest of Accused under the Summary Rule
preliminary conference, stating the purpose 1. General Rule:
thereof:
The court shall not order the arrest of the
1. If allowed by the court – the additional accused
affidavits of the prosecution or the counter-
affidavits of the defense shall be submitted 2. Exception:
The court shall order the arrest of the accused
for failure to appear whenever required
3. When person arrested under the exception may 2. If he is released on recognizance by a responsible citizen
be released: acceptable to the court
1. If he posts bail, or
 May a judge be held administratively liable for deciding a
1. Issuance of arrest warrant case for malicious mischief 1 year and 7 months after it
Carpio v. De Guzman 262 SCRA 615 October 2, was submitted for decision?
1996 Held:
Yes. Under Sec. 17 of the Summary Rule, judgment in
the criminal cases should have been promulgated not
later than 30 days after the termination of the trial.
Clearly, this delay is attributable to the judge for which
he should accordingly be held liable. Failure to decide a
case within the required period is not excusable and
constitutes gross inefficiency.
Facts:
On the day that a complaint for malicious mischief was
filed against accused, the judge issued a warrant of
arrest fixing bail at P1,200. Later, he revoked the order VI
and allowed accused to be placed on recognizance.
COMMON PROVISIONS
Issue:
Should the judge be held administratively liable?
Sec. 18
Held:
1. Re-filing of dismissed case
Yes. Malicious mischief is covered by the Summary Rule.
The judge erred in immediately issuing a warrant of Banares v. Balising 328 SCRA 36 March 13, 2000
arrest on the same day the complaint for malicious Facts:
mischief was filed, thereby completely disregarding Sec.
12 (b) and Sec. 16. In not making a determination of The MTC dismissed 16 cases of estafa without prejudice
whether or not the case is governed by the Summary for failure of complainant to refer them for conciliation to
Rule he clearly violated Sec. 2 thereof. In disregarding the Lupong Tagapamayapa. Complainant referred the
the rules and settled jurisprudence, the judge showed cases to the Lupon and when no settlement was
gross ignorance, albeit without any malice or corrupt achieved, he sought to have them reactivated.
motive. The lack of malicious intent however can not Meanwhile, the 15-day period to move for
completely free him from liability. reconsideration or to appeal the order of dismissal has
lapsed.
Issue:
Sec. 17
Can a case provisionally dismissed under Sec. 18 of the
1. Nature of the rule Summary Rule be reactivated by a mere motion to
Cruz v. Pascual 244 SCA 111 May 12, 1995 revive?

Facts: Held:

In a case falling under the Rule on Summary Procedure, No. It should be re-filed. After the lapse of the 15-day
the judge reset the promulgation of the decision to allow period, an order becomes final and executory and is
accused to submit a Guide-Note containing citations and beyond the power or jurisdiction of the court which
ruling related to the case. Consequently, the judge failed rendered it to further amend or revoke. A final judgment
to promulgate the decision within 30 days after trial. or order cannot be modified in any respect, even if the
modification sought is for the purpose of correcting an
Issue: erroneous conclusion by the court which rendered the
same. After the order of dismissal of a case without
Is the 30-day period for deciding mandatory? prejudice has become final, and therefore becomes
Held: outside the court’s power to amend and modify, a party
wishes to reinstate the case has no other remedy but to
No. The Summary Rule was precisely enacted to achieve file a new complaint. Even assuming the dismissal to be
an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases. without prejudice, the case could no longer be reinstated
Hence, Sec. 17 requires that judgment in the case must or revived by mere motion in the original docketed
be rendered within 30 days from termination of the trial. action.
While the procedural requirement is directory it subjects
the defaulting judge to administratively sanction for his
failure to observe the rule. But the decision rendered Sec. 19
beyond the period is valid.
Prohibited Documents, Motions, or Pleadings under
the Summary Rule
2. Administrative liability for delay 1. Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the
Asinas, Jr. v. Trinidad 242 SCRA 710 March 27, complaint or information except on the ground of:
1995 1. lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or
Issue: 2. failure to refer to the Lupon for conciliation
when required
2. Motion for a bill of particulars;
3. Motion for:
 1. new trial, or exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00). So, if
2. reconsideration of a judgment, or it is above P10,000 it is still MTC but you follow
the regular rules.
3. reopening of trial;
4. Petition for relief from judgment;
Q: What happens if there are 2 cases which are
5. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, interrelated or the charges are interrelated for they arose
affidavits or any other paper; from the same incident? Like for example: One case is
penalized by fine and another is penalized by 4 years
6. Memoranda; imprisonment. Once crime is covered by Summary Rules,
7. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or the other is covered by the regular rule. Can they be
prohibition against any interlocutory order issued mixed?
by the court; A: Where there is a joint trial of two criminal cases, one
8. Motion to declare defendant in default; under the summary rules and the other one is under the
regular rules, we follow the regular rules. Under the last
9. Dilatory motions for postponement; paragraph of Section of the Summary Rules, “These rules
shall not apply to a criminal case where the offense
10. Reply; charged is necessarily related to another criminal case
11. Third-party complaints; subject to another procedure.”

12. Interventions
One of the important principles to remember here is the
case of Zaldivia and Reodica on when is the running of
Rule 123 simply says that the procedure to be observed period of prescription for a crime deemed interrupted.
in the MTC, MTCC and MCTC shall be the same as in the The ruling in ZALDIVIA vs. REYES (211 SCRA 277)
RTC. So, all the rules that we took up applies to both created the impression that as a general rule, the filing
courts EXCEPT: of the case in the prosecutor’s office is sufficient to
interrupt the running of the prescriptive period except
1.) where a particular provision applies only to when the case is covered by the Rules on Summary
either of said courts; and Procedure. If it is any crime, you file it in the fiscal’s
2.) in criminal cases governed by the Revised Rules office, the running of the prescriptive period is
on Summary Procedure. interrupted. But if it is covered by the Summary Rules,
the period continues. It must be the filing of the case in
court which will interrupt. That is the ruling in Zaldivia.
In the first exception, there are certain provisions that That impression in Zaldivia was clarified in the 1998 case
are applicable only to the RTC. Example is the provision of REODICA vs. CA (292 SCRA 87) where the SC said
on bail – how to apply for bail. If you are denied bail, that even if the case is covered by the Summary Rules
and you are charged with a capital offense, there will be for as long as it is a felony under the RPC, the filing in
a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt is the fiscal’s office is sufficient to interrupt the running of
strong or not. Hindi man yan mag-apply sa MTC ba the prescriptive period.
because the crime carries the penalty of death which is
exclusive only for the RTC. But according to Zaldivia, if it is covered by the Summary
rules, the filing in the fiscal’s office will not interrupt. But
according to the SC in the case of Reodica, NO! because
Zaldivia involves a violation of municipal or city
The second exception is, you do not apply the regular ordinance. Therefore, if it is a violation of an ordinance,
rules if the case is governed by the Revised Rules on the filing in the fiscal’s office does not interrupt the
Summary Procedure. And that is what we are going to running of the prescriptive period because the law on
review now. prescription for crimes punishable by a special law is
governed not by the RPC, but by Act 3326 which is very
clear that it is the filing in court which will interrupt the
Q: What criminal cases should be tried based on the prescriptive period for crimes punishable by special laws.
Revised Rules on Summary Rules? Pero kapag felony, we will still apply the general rule that
the filing in the fiscal’s office is sufficient to interrupt
A: The following: even if such felony is covered by the Summary Rules.
1.) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
2.) Violations of the rental law; Now, let’s go to the provisions of the Summary Rules
3.) Violations of municipal or city ordinances; and concerning criminal cases.

4.) All other criminal cases where the penalty SEC. 11. How commenced. – The filing of criminal
prescribed by law for the offense charged does cases falling within the scope of this Rule shall be
not exceed six (6) months imprisonment or a either by complaint or information. Provided,
fine of one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) or both, however, that in Metropolitan Manila and in
irrespective of other imposable penalties, chartered cities, such cases shall be commenced
accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability only by information, except when the offense cannot
arising therefrom; be prosecuted de oficio.

5.) however, that in offenses involving damage to The complaint or information shall be accompanied
property through criminal negligence, said Rule by the affidavits of the complainant and of his
shall govern where the imposable fine does not witnesses in such number of copies as there are
accused plus two (2) copies for the court’s files. If
this requirement is not complied with within five (5)
days from date of filing, the cases may be dismissed.
Q: How is a case covered by the Summary Rules Section 16 is also important. As a rule, there is no
commenced? warrant of arrest if you are tried under the Summary
A: Affidavit is included, affidavit of complainant, his Rules. You are just notified about the case. However, if
witnesses shall be included and then the court may you are notified about the case and you will not appear,
dismiss the case outright under Section 12 [a] and [b], that is the time when you will be arrested because of
otherwise if there is a case, the accused will be sent a “except for failure to appear whenever required” in which
copy of the affidavit and then he is given 10 days to case you must post bail if you are under arrest or on
submit also his own affidavit. recognizance by a responsible citizen acceptable to the
court. This is one of the cases where recognizance is
allowed. But for as long as you appear in court, there is
no warrant to be issued.
Then there will be an arraignment under Section 13;
Preliminary conference under Section 14. And Section 15
is important – during the trial, there is NO DIRECT
EXAMINATION. The affidavit already serves as your Q: Now, what are the PROHIBITED documents, motions,
direct testimony. So puro cross-examination na lang. or pleadings under the Summary Rules?
Diretso! So, it is shortened ‘no? Rather than asking the A: The following (Under Section 19):
witness one by one to tell the story in the affidavit, yang
affidavit na mismo. That will serve as the direct 1.) Motion to quash except when your ground is
testimony. Iko- cross-examine na lang.
a.) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
But there is an important rule here – a witness who has or
not submitted any affidavit cannot testify. So in order to
qualify as a witness, you must have submitted an b.) failure to comply with the Barangay
affidavit beforehand. The EXCEPTION is the 2nd Conciliation;
paragraph of Section 15 – except when the witness is a 2.) Motion for bill of particulars;
rebuttal witness or a surrebuttal witness. This is because
how can you submit a rebuttal affidavit ahead? You do 3.) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a
not even know what to rebut. ANOTHER EXCEPTION is judgment, or for reopening of trial; your remedy
cited by the SC in the case of here is appeal;
BALAYON, JR. vs. OCAMPO 218 SCRA 13 4.) Petition for relief from judgement;
NOTE: Normally, in physical injuries cases, the medical 5.) Motion for extension of time to file an affidavit;
doctor is required to testify.
6.) Memoranda;
FACTS:
7.) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition
In this case, the doctor was subpoenaed to testify and against any interlocutory orders issued by the
the defense objected because they said that the doctor court;
has no affidavit and under the rules, no person may
testify without submitting an affidavit. 8.) Motion to declare the defendant in default;

HELD: 9.) Dilatory motions postponements;

When the doctor is called upon to testify based on the 10.) Reply;
medical certificate, the rule as to the prior submission of 11.) Third-party complaints;
affidavit does not apply. This also applies to the Register
of Deeds or the Provincial Assessors in connection with 12.) Intervention
official documents issued by their office.

C. Common procedures in First and Second Level

Now, if you have a surprise witness and you want to Courts Checklist I
introduce him because his testimony is very important,
the remedy is to file a motion to present additional Things to Do at the Arraignment of the Accused
evidence. The last paragraph of Section 15 gives you the 1. The accused must be arraigned before the court
authority to manifest during the preliminary conference where the Complaint or Information was filed or
that you are presenting other witnesses, and you are assigned for trial. The arraignment shall be made in
now submitting their affidavits in order that you will not open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the
be barred from presenting them. accused with a copy of the Complaint or
Information, reading the same in the language or
dialect known to him, and asking him whether he
SEC. 16. Arrest of accused. The court shall not order pleads guilty or not guilty. The prosecution may call
the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear at the trial witnesses other than those named in the
whenever required. Release of the person arrested Complaint or Information.
shall either be on bail or on recognizance by
responsible citizen acceptable to the court. 2. The accused must be present at the arraignment
and must personally enter his/her plea. Both
arraignment and plea shall be made of record, but
failure to do so shall not affect the validity of the
proceedings.
3. Before the reading of the Information, where the
accused is not assisted by counsel de oficio, inform
him/her of his/her right to counsel and inquire from
him/her if he/she desires to engage his/her own
counsel. Unless the accused is allowed to defend counsel de oficio, appoint a competent and responsible counsel de
himself in person, and the accused is amenable to a oficio for him.
4. Whenever a counsel de oficio is appointed by the 14. In other cases, unless a shorter period is
court to assist the accused at the arraignment, give provided by special law or Supreme Court circular,
a reasonable time for him to consult with the conduct the arraignment within thirty (30) days from
accused as to his/her plea before proceeding with the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the
the arraignment. person of the accused. In computing the said period,
5. When the accused refuses to plead or makes a exclude the time of the pendency of a motion to
conditional plea, enter a plea of not guilty for quash or for a bill of particulars or other causes
him/her. justifying suspension of the arraignment.

6. When the accused pleads guilty but presents 15. Upon motion of the accused, suspend his/her
exculpatory evidence, consider his/her plea arraignment on any of the following grounds:
withdrawn and enter a plea of not guilty for him/her. 15.1. The accused appears to be suffering from
7. Require the private offended party to appear at an unsound mental condition which effectively
the arraignment for purposes of plea-bargaining, renders him unable to fully understand the
determination of civil liability, and other matters charge against him and to plead intelligently
requiring his/her presence. In case of failure of the thereto. In such case, order his/her mental
offended party to appear despite due notice, the examination and, if necessary, his/her
court may allow the accused to enter a plea of guilty confinement for such purpose.
to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in 15.2. There exists a prejudicial question.
the offense charged with the conformity of the trial
prosecutor alone.150 Unless the civil action has been 15.3. A petition for review of the resolution of
reserved, waived or otherwise instituted ahead, the prosecutor is pending at either the
reset the case for the reception of evidence to Department of Justice, or the Office of the
determine the civil liability and the imposable President; provided, that the period of
penalty. suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days
counted from the filing of the petition with the
8. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense reviewing office.
At arraignment, allow the accused, with the consent Note: In People v. Alicando, the Supreme Court held that
of the offended party and the prosecutor, to plead a conviction in capital offenses cannot rest alone on a
guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily plea of guilt.
included in the offense charged. After arraignment
but before trial, the accused to withdraw plea of not The trial court must require the prosecution to prove the
guilty and substitute to a guilty plea for said lesser guilt of the appellant and the precise degree of his/her
offense. culpability beyond reasonable doubt.
9. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
evidence
When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense,
conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness Note that there are two aspects in a criminal case, the
and full comprehension of the consequences of criminal aspect and civil aspect. So, one thing to
his/her plea and (b) require the prosecution to prove determine first is which aspect of the judgment has
his/her guilt and the precise degree of culpability. become final and executor.
Allow the accused to present evidence on his/her Note that as far as the criminal aspect is concerned, the
behalf. judgment can be one of acquittal, dismissal on the
10. Plea of guilty to non-capital offense; reception of merits, dismissal based on a technicality or conviction.
evidence, discretionary The first two are immediately final and executory, while
When the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital the other two are not. Hence for a judgment of dismissal
offense, allow the parties to adduce evidence to not based on the merits or conviction to be come final,
determine the penalty to be imposed. there should be failure to appeal from the original
judgment. In case there was an appeal, there should be
11. Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty failure to further appeal.
At any time before the judgment of conviction As regards the civil aspect, Rule 39 on Execution of
becomes final, permit an improvident plea of guilty Judgment under the Rules of Civil Procedure applies.
be withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not
guilty.
12. If a ―Not Guilty‖ plea is entered, schedule the
pre-trial of the case with due notice to the offended
party/arresting officer.
13. If the accused is under preventive detention, the
pre-trial conference of the case within ten (10) days
after arraignment.