SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW
Diego Silang Bldg., A. Bonifacio St., Baguio City 2600, Philippines
Tel No. +63 74 444 8246 to 48 local 203

SYLLABUS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Department Remedial Law

Course Name/Number Criminal Procedure
Course Number Law 213
Semester Offered First Semester, SY 2018-2019
Year Level Offered Second Year
Credit Units 3
Pre-requisites Criminal Law I and II, Political Law I and
II
Course Description A study of the procedural rules governing
the trial and disposition of criminal cases
in court including jurisdiction of courts
in criminal cases.
It is designed to equip the students with
the necessary knowledge about the
interplay of substantive laws and
procedural laws;
As a whole, the course envisions to
provide the students a broad/holistic
understanding of the different legal
steps/procedure to be followed in every
stage of the criminal prosecution of an
accused, starting from his arrest until his
conviction including his post-conviction
remedies.

COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES

By the end of the semester, the students should be able to:

1. State the rights of the accused and the remedies available in case of violation of
said rights;
2. Explain the flow of the criminal litigation process;
3. Identify the cases falling within the jurisdiction of the different courts;
4. Discuss the concepts of custodial investigation, arrest and search and seizure
vis-à-vis the rights of the accused;
5. Discuss the procedure and remedies available to the accused before the
prosecutors office;
6. Examine the validity of a search warrant;
7. Compare the rights of the accused available to the accused while under custody
of law, during his arrest, after arrest, during trial and after conviction;
 8. Differentiate the remedies available to the accused while under custody of law,
during his arrest, after arrest, during trial and after conviction;
9. Choose and apply the appropriate procedural steps to be undertaken before and
after the filing of a criminal complaint or information in court for the speedy,
efficient and effective administration of justice;
10. Demonstrate critical thinking including the ability to argue, objectively assess and
harmonize government’s function of maintaining peace and order and its
corresponding duty to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens.
11. Evaluate the strengths and flaws of the different institutions involved in our
criminal justice system

COURSE REQUIREMENTS & GRADING PLAN

Course Requirements Description Grade Breakdown

I. Class 50% of grade

standing

a. Quizzes Cover areas which will be announced before the quiz ( at 50% of CS
least 3 quizzes per term)

b. Class Participation Individual participation during class recitation and/or group 50% of CS
reporting ( at least 2 to 3 recitations per term)

c. Group exercises The class will be divided in 5 groups and each will be Equivalent to 1 quiz
assigned a topic to research on and report

II. Examinations Midterm- covers the subject matter taken during midterm; 50% of grade

Finals – covers everything taken during the entire semester

III. Others:

Court Observation

Case Digest Compilation of digested cases assigned for the entire

semester

Total 100%

THE GRADES WILL BE COMPUTED AS FOLLOWS:

Class standing 50% Includes quizzes, recitations, class

exercises
Major examination 50% Written Exam (Midterm and Final Exam)
TOTAL 100% Grade per term
FINAL GRADE ( Midterm Grade+ Tentative Final
Grade)/2
COURSE REFERENCES:

1. 1987 Philippine Constitution

2. BP Blg. 129 as amended or The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980
3. A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC or the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, as
amended ( Rules 110-127)
4. Rules of Court in general
5. The Revised Penal Code ( Arts 2, 100 and 125)
6. RA No. 7691 or an Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, amending for
the purpose PB Blg 129
7. RA No. 8249 or an Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan
8. A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC or the Revised Guidelines for the Continuous Trial of
Criminal Cases and other Supreme Court Circulars and issuances
9. RA 6770 otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989
10. Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
11. R.A. 7438, An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under
Custodial Investigation;
12. The provisions of the Civil Code ( Arts 32, 33, 34 and 2176)
13. R.A. 6981 or the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act of 1991
14. R.A. 8349, the Speedy Trial Act of 1998
15. RA 7160, Local Government Code of 1990 particulary sections 399-422 on
referral of case to the barangay for conciliation
16. Criminal procedure by Willard B. Riano
17. Remedial Law by Oscar M. Herrera
18. Criminal Procedure by Ferdinand A. Tan
19. Compendium on AArrest, Search and Seizure by Atty. Clarence Paul Oaminal
20. Appellate Remedies by Justice Magdangal M. De Leon
21. Manual For Prosecutors and DOJ Circulars
22. Pertinent Supreme Court Decisions
23. Others

COURSE OUTLINE

PART I – INTRODUCTION

A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1. OVERVIEW OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES

a. 5 Pillars of the Criminal Justice System
b. Philosophies underlying the criminal law system

2. CONCEPT OF REMEDIAL LAW

a. Public law vs Private law
b. Substantive Law vs Remedial Law
c. Criminal law vs criminal procedure

3. WHAT IS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE?

 a. Importance
b. System of Criminal procedure

i. Inquisitorial
ii. Accusatorial . adversarial
iii. Mixed

4. SOURCES OF THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

5. IN WHAT COURTS APPLICABLE (sec. 2)
6. IN WHAT CASES NOT APPLICABLE (sec. 4)
7. DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL ACTION (sec. 3 (b))
8. CONSTRUCTION (sec 6)
9. RULE ON RETROACTIVITY

Queto vs Catolico, 31 SCRA 52

10. Concept of Judicial Power in the Philippines

A. Definition of Judicial Power ( Sec. 1, Art VIII, 1987 Phil Constitution)

B. Rule-making power of the Supreme Court
C. Limitations of the rule-making power of the Supreme Court
D. Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules.

 Salvador Estipona Jr. vs Hon. Frank Lobrigo, GR 226679, August 15, 2017
 De Guia v De Guia, GR 135384, April 14, 2001

11. NATURE OF PHILIPPINE COURTS

A. Meaning of court
B. Court vs judge
C. Classification of Philippine Courts

*PP vs Bienvenido Udang Sr., GR 210161, January 10, 2018

12. OTHER CONCEPTS

A. Principle of Judicial hierarchy

B. Doctrine of Non-interference or judicial stability
C. Principle of Judicial Supremacy/Power of judicial review vs Principle of
Constitutional Supremacy

13. DUE PROCESS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDING

A. Meaning
B. Purpose

PART II – JURISDICTION

A.JURISDICTION IN GENERAL vs CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

B.POWER OF CONGRESS TO DEFINE, PRESCRIBE AND APPORTION JURISDICTION OF

COURTS; LIMITATIONS (Art VIII, sec 2, 1987 Constitution)
C. KINDS OF JURISDICTION
1. As to cases tried:
a. General
b. Limited / Special
2. As to nature of cause:
a) Original
b) Appellate
3. As to extent of exercise:
a) Exclusive
b) Concurrent
4. As to situs:
a) Territorial
b) Extra-territorial

D. JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS

1. MTC, MTCC, MCTC, METROPOLITAN

2. RTC
3. CA
4. SANDIGANBAYAN
5. SC

E. REQUISITES FOR THE EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

A. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

1. Concept
2. How conferred
3. How determined
4. Error of jurisdiction vs Error of judgment
5. How jurisdiction is conferred and determined

 Llamas vs The Hon CA, GR 149588, 9-29-09

6. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

 Office of Ombudsman vs Heirs of Vda de Ventura, GR 151800, 11-5-09

7. Principle of adherence of jurisdiction / Doctrine of non-interference

8. Jurisdiction in complex crimes

 Dayap vs Sendiong, et al., GR 17960, 1-29-09

9. Objections to jurisdiction over subject matter

10. Effect of estoppels

 Tijams vs Sibonghanoy, GR No. 1-21450, 23 SCA 29, 4-15-68

 Figueroa va PP, GR No. 147406, 7-14-08
 Pangilinan vs CA, GR No. 117363, 12-17-1999
 Fabian vs Disierto, 9-16-98, GR 129742
 B. JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTY
1. How acquired
2. Custody of law vs jurisdiction over the person

C. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
1. Purpose

2. Place where action is to be instituted (sec 15)

* Unionbank of the Phils. Vs PP, GR 192565, 2-28-12
* Foz Jr., et al., vs PP, GR No. 167764, 10-9-09
* PP vs Taroy, Gr 192466, 9-7-11
3. Venue in transitory and continuing crimes
* Trenas vs PP, GR 195002, 1-25-12
* Isip vs PP, Gr 170298, 6-26-07
4. Venue for crimes committed outside of the Philippines punishable under Art. 2
of the RPC

4. Venue for Libel cases under Art. 360 of the RPC

iv. Administrative Order No. 104-96
* Agbayani vs Sayo, Gr No. L-47990, 4-30-79, 89 SCRA 699
* Allen Macasaet et al vs PP, GR No. 156747, 2-23-05
* Wonina M. Bonifacio et al vs RTC of Makati, Gr No. 184800, 5-5-10
5. Power of the Supreme Court to change venue (sec 5(4), Art VIII, 1987
Constitution)

PART III – POLICE INVESTIGATION

A. Agencies empowered to investigate
B. Six cardinal points of investigation
C. Limitations on State Criminal authority
1. Constitutional limitation
2. Statutory limitation
D. The Miranda Rights
E. REPUBLICT ACT NO. 7428 or An Act Defining Certain Rights of Persons Arrested,
detained or Under Custodial Investigation
1. Custodial Investigation
1.a. Definition
1.b. When commences
1.c. Rights of person under custodial investigation
1.d. When custodial rights become relevant
1.e. When the constitutional procedures on custodial investigation apply
1.f. When the constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not
apply

Cases:
1. PP vs Domingo Muleta, G.R. No. 130189, June 25, 1999
2. PP vs Pepino and Gomez, G.R. No. 174471, January 12, 2016
3. PP vs Adrian Guting, G.R. No. 205412, September 09, 2015
4. PP vs Lugnasin and Guerrero, G.R. No. 208404, February 24, 2016
5. PP vs Teves, G.R. No. 141767, April 2, 2001
 6. PP vs Hermie Paries & Ronel Fernandez, GR 218130, Feb. 14, 2018
7. PP vs PO1 Johnny Sullano, GR 228373, March 12, 2018

PART IV – ARREST (RULE 113)

I. Concept of Arrest
A. Definition
B. Constitutional Limitations
C. How made
D. Importance
E. General Classification of Arrest

II. Kinds of arrest

A. Whether by virtue of a warrant or without a warrant
1. Arrest without a warrant
i. When lawful – sec 5, Rule – 113
a. Caught in flagrante delicto
v. Requisites
b. Hot pursuit arrest
vi. Requisites
vii. Probable cause
c. Escaped prisoner
ii. Duties of arresting officer
viii.Miranda Doctrine
ix. Art. 125 RPC

B. Arrest with a warrant

1. What is a warrant of arrest
2. Who issue
= determination of probable cause
3. When issued
4. Where served
5. Time of making arrest
6. Duties of arresting officer
7. Procedure after WA is issued

C. WHETHER BY AN OFFICER OR A PRIVATE PERSON

i. By officer
a. With warrant (sec. 7)
b. Without warrant (sec 8)
ii. CITIZEN’s arrest

III. Illegal Arrest

a. How cured / how waived
b. Grounds for the quashal of a warrant of arrest
c. Habeas Corpus
d. Crimes committed if there is violation of rights of the accused
IV. Persons NOT SUBJECT OF ARREST
V. PROVISIONAL ARREST
VI. HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER
 VII. INSTIGATION vs ENTRAPMENT
VIII. CRIMES COMMITTED IF THERE IS VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF ACCUSED

Cases: 1. PP v Gabo, GR 161083, August 3, 2010

2. Rodel Luz v PP, GR 197788, Feb. 29, 2012
3. PP v Mojello, GR 145566, 3-9-04
4. PP v Acol, 232 SCRA 506
5. PP vs Tonog Jr, 205 SCRA 774
6. PP v Gerente, 219 SCRA 756
7. Villanueva v PP, 740 SCRA 456

V. SEARCH AND SEIZURE (Rule 126)

I. CONCEPT OF SEARCH WARRANT

A. Definition
B. Constitutional basis

II. RULES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SEARCH WARRANT

A. Nature of application
B. Nature of SW
C. Where the file application
x. A.M. 99-20-09-SC
D. Requisites for issuance
E. Personal Properties to be seized
F. CONCEPTS
i. General warrant
ii. Scatter-shot warrant
iii. One-specific offense rule
iv. John Doe warrant
v. Probable cause in SW
vi. Particularity of Place
vii. Particularity of things
G. Procedure to be adopted during implementation of SW
xi. Knock and Announce rule
xii. Witnesses
xiii.Time of search
H. Procedure to be adopted after the search
I. Grounds for Motion to Quash SW and/or Suppress evidence
J. Who may assail the issuance of SW
K. Lifetime of SW

Cases:
1. Worldwide Web Corpn and Yu vs PP & PLDT, GR 161106, 1-13-14
2. Retired SP04 Laud vs PP, 11-19-14, GR 199032
3. PP vs CA, 11-27-92, GR 94396
4. PP vs Amador Pastrana and Rufina Abad, GR 196045, Feb. 21, 2018
5. Jorge Dabon v PP, GR 208775, January 22, 2018

L. WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE

1. Search incidental to a lawful arrest
 i. Purpose
ii. Parameters / allowable scope

Cases: PP vs Calantiao, 6-6-14, GR 203984

Espano vs CA, 288 SCRA 558
PP vs Lua, 256 SCRA 539

2. Plain View Doctrine

a. Requisites
i. Immediately apparent element
ii. Inadvertence element

Cases: Abelita III vs Doria, 596 SCRA 220

PP vs Nuevas, 516 SCRA 574
United Laboratories vs Isip, 461 SCRA 574

b. STOP and Frisk search

i. Terry Doctrine
ii. Two parts
iii. When used

Cases: PP vs Cogaed, 7-30-14, GR 200334

Rizaldy Sanchez vs PP, 11-19-14, GR 204589
Manalili vs CA & PP, 345 SCRA PHIL 811
Comeriantes vs PP, 7-22-15, GR 205926

6. Search of a moving vehicle

a. Carroll Doctrine or Car Search doctrine
b. parameter
c. when extensive search allowed
d. checkpoints
Cases:
PP vs Libnao, 395 SCRA 407
PP vs Breis, 8-17-15, GR 205823
PP vs Tuazon, 532 SCRA 152
Luz vs PP, 2-29-12, GR 197788

7.Consented warrantless search

i. Requisites
ii.When valid and effective

Case: Valdez vs PP, 538 SCRA 611

8. Customs search
9. In times of war within the area of military operation
10. Exigent and emergency circumstances
11. When incident to lawful inspection
12. Search of vessels and aircrafts

Marcelo Saluday v PP, GR 215305, April 3, 2018

K. Exclusionary Doctrine / Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
L. Crimes committed if there is illegal search

PART VI – PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION (RULE 112)

A. CONCEPT
1. Definition
2. Purposes
3. When required
4. Nature of RIGHT to a PI
5. Nature of PI
6. Quantum of evidence required

B. Officers authorized to conduct PI

iii. Ombudsman
iv. COMELEC
v. PCGG
C. PROBABLE CAUSE
vi. Executive level vs judicial level
D. Procedure adopted during PI
vii. Prohibited pleadings
viii. Clarificatory hearing
ix. Possible outcome
E. Period to resolve
F. Records of PI
G. Remedies of aggrieved party
x. Motion for Reconsideration
xi. Petition for review a) Regional Prosecutor b) Secretary of Justice
c) President
xii. Motion for Reinvestigation (court)
xiii. Motion for suspension of Proceedings and/or issuance of WA (court)
xiv. Verified Motion to re-open PI
H. Cases not requiring PI
i. If filed with Prosec
ii. If filed with MTC/MCTC
I. Summary investigation vs summaryprocedure
J. Cases falling under Katarungang Pambarangay law
K. INQUEST
a. Definition
b. Purpose
c. Coverage
d. Officers who conduct Inquest
e. When commenced
f. Duties of inquest Prosecutor
g. Factors considered in determining whether Art. 125 RPC has been violated
h. Rights of Detained person
i. Waiver of Art. 125
j. Instances when presence of detained person dispensed with
k. Inquest proceedings vs PI
 l. Remedies available to the arrested person
i. Before filing info in court
ii. After info. Filed in court
Cases:
1. Ladlad vs Velasco, 6-1-07, Gr 172070-72
2. Mendoza vs PP, 4-21-14, GR 197293
3. Aguilar vs DOJ, 9-11-13, GR 197522
4. Go vs CA, 2-11-92, GR 101837
5. Brocka vs Enrile, 192 SCRA 783
6. Soriano vs Marcelo, 7-13-09, GR 160772
7. PP vs CA and Cerbo, 1-21-99, GR 126005
8. Kalao vs Office of the Ombudsman, 4-23-10, GR 158189

PART V. – PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES

A. Purpose of Criminal Action

B. How Criminal actions are instituted
C. Effect of Institution of Criminal action on prescriptive period
D. Who Must prosecute Criminal Actions
xv. Exceptions
xvi. Private crimes
E. Desistance of Offended Party
F. COMPLAINT vs INFORMATION
1. Test of sufficiency
a. Name of accused
b. Designation of Offense
c. Cause of accusation
xvii. Ultimate facts vs conclusion of law
xviii. Allegation of special qualifying and aggravating circumstances
xix. How nature of offense determined
xx. Variance between allegations over designation of offense
xxi. Variance between allegations and evidence
xxii. Effects fatally defective info

d. Place where offense was committed

xxiii. Crimes where place is essential
xxiv. Venue
e. Date of commission of offense

2. DUPLICITY OF OFFENSE
xxv. Exceptions
G. Remedies before arraignment
H. Can Criminal action be restrained by injunction
I. Amendment of Information
a. Before plea
b. After plea
c. When amendment formal
d. When amendment substantial
e. Amendment as a result of supervening fact
J. SUBSTITUTION
 a. Amendment vs substitution
b. Identity of 2 offenses
Cases:
1. PP vs Delfin, 7-9-14, GR 201572
2. PP vs Valdez, 1-18-12, GR 175602, GR 175602
3. PP and AAA vs CA, 2-15-15, GR 183652
4. Soriano and Ilagan vs PP, 6-30-09, GR 159517-18
5. SEC vs Interport Resources Corporation, 10-6-08, Gr 135808

PART VII – THE CIVIL ASPECT OF CRIMES (Rule 111)

I. Sources of obligations
II. Art 100 RPC
III. Implied institution of civil action in the criminal action
a. Exceptions
IV. Independent civil actions
V. Rule son filing fees
VI. Effect of judgment of acquittal on the civil liability
VII. Effect of death of accused
VIII.
IX. Consolidation of civil and criminal action – when allowed/not allowed
X. Employer’s subsidiary liability
XI. Prohibited pleadings
XII. BP 22 cases
XIII. No Double recovery (ICA and civil action arising from crime)
XIV. Role of Private Prosecutor
XV. Prejudicial questions

IV. Prejudicial questions (In rel. with Art. 36 of the Civil Code of the Philippines)

 Dreamwork Construction v. Janiola, G.R. No. 184861, June 30, 2009

 Pimentel v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 172060, September 13, 2010.
 Ty-De Zuzuarregui v. Hon. Villarosa, G.R. No. 183788, April 5, 2010
 Magestrado v. People, G.R. No. 148072, July 10, 2007

PART IX – BAIL
(Rule 114)

I. Concept

A. Definition S1

B. Constitutional basis S13, Art. III, 1987 Phil. Constitution

 People vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 158754, August 10, 2007

C. Forms SS10 to 15

1. Bail bond
 1.1. Corporate
1.2. Property
1.3. Cash
1.4. Recognizance

D. Conditions of the bail (S2)

 Lavides v. CA, G.R. No. 129670, February 1, 2000

E. Who can avail (S3)

1. Constructive custody
 Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRa 633
2. Custody of the Law
 Miranda v Tullao

F. Who can grant, where filed (SS17, 20)

1. Increase or reduction

G. When bail not required, reduced bail (S16)

H. Release on bail (S19)

I. Forfeiture of bail (S21)

J. When bail is deemed cancelled (S22)

1. Admin. Circular No. 2-92, January 20, 1992

K. Arrest of accused out on bail (S23)

L. No bail after final judgment (S24)

M. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest and lack of preliminary investigation
(S26)
 Okabe v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 150185, May 27, 2004
N. Bail v. hold departure order

II. Bail as a matter of right (S4); Bail as a matter of discretion (S5), bail not as a matter
of right and not as a matter of discretion; Bail when not required

 Leviste v. CA, G.R. No. 189122, March 17, 2010

 Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 148468, 148769, & 149116, January
28, 2003
 People v. Antona, G.R. No. 137681, January 31, 2002

A. In the Municipal Trial Court

B. In the Regional Trial Court

 1. In capital offenses (SS 6 & 7)

1.1. Rep. Act NO. 7659 or The Death Penalty Law

1.2. Rep. Act No. 8177 or An Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection

1.3. Rep. Act No. 9346 or An Act Prohibiting the Death Penalty
a. Act No. 4103 or the Indeterminate Service Sentence Law
2. In other non-bailable offenses (S7)

III. Bail application (SS8 & 18)

A. Nature of Bail Hearing
B. Is notice of hearing required
C. Where filed
D. Can bail be increased by Court
E. Duration of Bail

IV. Guidelines in determining amount of bail (S9)

 Yap, Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. 141529, June 6, 2001

V. Bail in extradition proceedings

 Government of the United States of America v. Hon. Purganan, G.R. No.
1485571, September 14, 2002, 389 SCRA 623
 Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Hon. Olalia, G.R.
No. 153675, April 19, 2007

VI. Bail in deportation proceedings

 The Board of Commissioners of the BID v. Jeung Keun Park, G.R. No.
159835, January 21, 2010
 Kiani v. BID, G.R. No. 160922, February 27, 2006

VII. Bail for Juvenile in Conflict with the Law under Rep. Act 9344 or the Juvenile and
Justice Act of 2006
VIII. R.A. No. 10389 or the Recognizance Act of 2012

PART X – QUASAR
(Rule 117)

I. Motions in general
A. Definition (S 1, Rule 15)
B. Kinds
1. Litigated
2. Ex-parte
3. Motion of course
4. Motion not of course

II. Motion to Quash

 A. Time to move (S1)
B. Form and contents (S2)
C. Grounds (S3)
D. Effects of failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor (S9)
E. Effects on sustaining the motion to quash (SS 5 & 6)
F. Procedure
1. Filing
2. Hearing
3. Resolution

III. Provisional Dismissal and Time-bar Rule (S8)

CASES FOR STUDY

1. Antone v. Beronilla, G.R. No. 183824, December 8, 2010

2. Galzote v. Briones, G.R. No. 164682, September 14, 2011
3. Dimayacyac v. CA, G.R. No. 136264, May 28, 2004
4. Gareia v. CA, G.R. No. 119063, January 27, 1997
5. Gonzales v. Salvador, G.R. No. 168340, December 5, 2006
6. Villaflor v. Vivar, G.R. No. 134744, January 16, 2001
7. Cerezo v. People, G.R. No. 185230, June 1, 2011
8. Tiu v. CA, G.R. No. 162370, April 21, 2009
9. Summerville General Merchandising & Co., Inc. v. Eugenio, Jr., G.R. No. 163741,
August 7, 2007
10. Bangayan, Jr. v. Bangayan, G.R. Nos. 172777 & 172972, October 16, 2011
11. Apolinario v. Flores, G.R. No. 152780, January 22, 2007
12. Baños v. Pedro, G.R. No. 173588, April 22, 2009.
13. People vs. Lacson, G.R. No. 149453, April 1, 2003

PART XI – ARROGANCE AND PLEA

(Rule 116)

I. How made, where and when (S1 of Rule 116, Cir. 1-89, S2 of Rule 116 in rel. to Cir.
38-98)
II. Prohibited pleadings

III. Plea of guilty

A. To a lesser offense (S2)

 Daan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 163972-77, March 28, 2008
 Pp. v. Villarama, G.R. No. 99287, June 23, 1992
1. Elements (S4 of Rule 116, Cir. 38-98)

B. To a capital offense; reception of evidence (S3)

 Pp. v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 133984, January 30, 2002
 Pp. v. Flores, G.R. No. 137491, November 23, 2000
 Pp. v. Mira, G.R. No. 175324, October 10, 2007
 Pp. v. Ventura, G.R. No. 125925, January 28, 1999
 C. To non-capital offense; reception of evidence, discretionary (S4)
D. Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty (S5)

IV. Duties of the Court

V. Suspension of arraignment under the following instances (S11)

PART XII – PRC-TRIAL

(Rule 118)

I. Mandatory nature of pre-trial in criminal cases (S1)

II. Matters to consider during pre-trial (S1)

III. Pre-trial agreement (S2)

IV. Pre-trial order (S4)

V. Significance / Importance of Pre-Trial

VI. Plea Bargaining Agreement

PART XIII – TRIAL

(Rule 119)

I. Time to prepare for trial (S1 & s5)

II. Continuous trial until terminated; postponements (S2)

 A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC / Guidelines for Continuous Trial

III. Exclusion in computing the time within which trial must commence (S3)

IV. Factors for granting continuance (S4)

V. Remedies where accused in not brought to trial within the time limit (S9)

VI. Law on speedy trial (Rep. Act No. 8493) in rel. with S16 of Rule 119 and Section 16,
Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution

 Mari v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 187728, September 12, 2011

 Olbes v. Hon. Buemio, G.R. No. 173319, December 4, 2009
 Binay v. Sandiganbayan and DILG; Magsaysay, Et.al. v. Sandiganbayan, et.al.,
G.R. Nos. 120681-83 and 128136, October 1, 1999

VII. Order of trial (S11)

VIII. Application for examination of witness for accused before trial (S12)
IX. Examination of defense witness (S13)

X. Bail to secure appearance of a material witness (S14)

XI. Examination of witness for the prosecution (S15)

XII. Trial of several accused (S16), joint trial

XIII. Discharge of accused to be state witness (S17) and (RA 6981 or the Witness
Protection, Security and Benefit Act of 1991)

 You v. Hon. Presiding Judge RTC Tagaytay City, G.R. No. 142848, June 30, 2006
 Soberano, et.al. v. Pp., G.R. No. 154629, October 5, 2005
 PP vs Dominguez, GR 229420, Feb. 19, 2018

XIV. When mistake has been made in charging the proper offense (S19)

XV. Exclusion of the public (S21)

XVI.Consolidation of trials of related offenses (S22)

XVII. Demurrer to evidence (S23)

A. Time to file
B. Who files
C. Kinds
1. With leave
2. Without leave
D. Procedure
E. Effects of grant or denial
1. If with leave
2. If without leave
 Galman v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 72670, September 12, 1986
 Dayap v. Sendiong, et.al., G.R. No. 177960, January 29, 2009

F. Vs. demurrer in civil cases (Rule 33)

XVIII. Rights of accused at the trial (Rule 115)

XIX. Provisional Remedies in Criminal Cases (Rule 127 in rel. to Rules 57 to 61)

A. Definitions
B. Grounds
C. Purposes
D. Court/s which an grant
E. Bonds & counterbonds
F. When a available
G. How granted
H. Effectivity
I. How dissolved / discharged
For the exclusive use of Sec. 2C, Ist Semester, AY 2014-2015
Reproduction of this course program must be with the consent of Mr. Jerico G. Gay-ya
PART XIV – JUDGMENT
(Rule 120)

I. Judgment in general

A. Concept
1. Judgment vis-à-vis decision
2. Certain concepts
2.1. Sin perjuicio judgment
2.2. Nunc pro tunc amendment
2.3. Obiter dictum
2.4. Per curiam
2.5. Mutatis mutandi
2.6. Notatu dignum
2.7. Ratio decidendi

B. Types
1. On the merits
2. By default
3. Summary judgment (Rule 35)
4. Judgment on the pleadings (Rule 34)
5. Compromise agreement

C. Judgment, definition and form (SS1, R 120, compare with S1, Rule 36)

D. Contents (S2, R120)

1. In judgments of conviction
2. In judgments of acquittal

II. Judgment for 2 or more offense (S3, R120)

III. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof (S4, R120 in rel. with
S14 (3) R 110 and S19, Rule 119
 Pangilinan v. CA, G.R. No. 117363, December 17, 1999

IV. Promulgation of Judgment (S6)

A. Promulgation in absentia

V. Modification of judgment

VI. Entry of judgment (S2, Rule 36)

PART XV – REMEDIES AFTER JUDGMENT

I. Judgment of Conviction
A. Motion for Reconsideration
1. Time to file (S1, Rule 121)
2. Who files (S1, Rule 121)
3. Grounds (S2, Rule 121)
4. Form of motion (S4, Rule 121, in rel. to 2 to 6, Rule 15)
5. Hearing on the motion
6. Effect of grant or denial
7. Vs. in civil cases (Rule 37)

B. Motion for New Trial

1. Time to file (S1, Rule 121)
2. Who files (S1, Rule 121)
3. Grounds (S3, Rule 121)
3.1. Errors of law or irregularities
3.2. Newly discovered evidence “Berry rule”
a. Elements
 Berry v. State of Georgia
 De Villa v. The Dir. Of New Bilibid Prison, 442 SCRA 706, 2004
 Chua v PP, GR 196853, 7-13-15
 Dinglasan v CA, GR 145420, 9-19-06
 Tadeja et al v PP, GR 145336, 2-20-13
 Cabarles v PP, GR 161330, 2-20-07
4. Form of motion (S4, Rule 121 in rel. ot 2 to 6, Rule 15)
5. Hearing on the motion
6. Effect of grant or denial
7. Vs. in civil cases (Rule 37)

C. Motion for Reopening (S24, Rule 119)

1. Time to move
2. Grounds
3. By whom
4. Procedure
5. Vs. in civil case

D. Appeal
1. By whom (S1, Rule 122)
2. Period to Appeal (S6, Rule 122)
3. Where to appeal (S2, Rule 122)
4. How appeal taken (S3, Rule 122, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC Re:
Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to Govern Death
Penalty Cases Resolution effective October 15, 2004)
5. Notice (SS4 & 5, Rule 122)
6. Effect of perfection of appeal, Effect of appeal by any of several accused
(S11, Rule 122)
7. Withdrawal of appeal (S12, Rule 122)
8. Administrative aspects (SS7, 8, 9, 10, & 12, Rule 122)
9. Vs. in Civil Cases (Rules 40 to 45)
10. Appeal in the Sandiganbayan
 11. Differences among the three (3) modes of appeal; i.e., ordinary appeal,
petition for review, and appeal by certiorari
11.1. How appeal is initiated
11.2. Where to appeal
11.3. Nature of appeal
11.4. To whom appellate docket and other lawful fees should be paid
11.5. Payment of appellate docket and other lawful as a requirement of
perfection of appeal
11.6. Name of parties
11.7. Requirement of record on appeal
11.8. Basic document to be filled in the appellate court
11.9. Perfection of appeal as to appellant
11.10. When court whose decision is being appealed loses jurisdiction
11.11. As to questions which may be raised
11.12. How parties are referred to

CASES FOR STUDY

1. Pp. v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, 07 July 2004

2. Pp. v. Neypes, G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005
3. Yu v. Samson-Tatad, G.R. No. 170979, February 9, 2011
4. First Aqua Sugar Traders v. Bank of the Philippines Islands, G.R. No. 154034,
February 5, 2007

II. Judgment of Acquittal

A. Doctrine of finality of acquittal

B. Petition for Certiorari (R65)
1. Time to file
2. Requisites
3. Terminology
3.1. Without jurisdiction
3.2. Excess of jurisdiction
3.3. Grave abuse of discretion
4. Peculiar characteristics
4.1. Not a remedy for lost appeal, exceptions
4.2. Motion for reconsideration is sine qua non, exceptions
5. Requirements regarding the extrinsic sufficiency of the Petition
6. Vs. Prohibition and Mandamus
6.1. Purpose of the writ
6.2. Act sought to be controlled
6.3. Respondent
6.4. Nature of the remedy

PART XVI – POST-CONDUCTOR REDUCE

CASES FOR STUDY

 1. Galman, et.al. v. Sandiganbayan, et.al., G.R. No. 72670, September 12, 1986,
144 SCRA 43 (1986).
2. Santiago v. Alikpala, G.R. No. 25133, September 28, 1968, 25 SCRA 356 (1968)
3. Galvez v. CA, G.R. No. 114046, October 24, 1994, 237 SCRA 685
4. Velasco v. CA, G.R. No. 118644, July 7, 1995, 245 SCRA 677
5. People v. Reynaldo de Villa, G.R. No. 124639, February 1, 2001 in rel. with In
Re: The Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo de Villa, G.R. No. 158802.
November 17, 2004
6. Barredo v. Hon. Vinarao, G.R. No. 168728, August 2, 2007
7. Go and the Pp. v. Dimagiba, G.R. No. 151876, June 21, 2005
8. Pp. v. Hon. Velasco, G.R. No. 127444, September 13, 2000

PART XVII – PROCEDURE IN THE 1ST LEVEL COURTS

(Rule 123)

I. Concept of Uniform Procedure (S1)

II. The 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure

III. Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC as amended by A.M.
No. 09-6-8-SC)

PART XVIII – PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

(Rule 124)

PART XIX – PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME COURT

(Rule 125)

PART XX – THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE

(A.M. NO. 12-8-8-SC, ITS APPLICABILITY IN CRIMINAL CASES)