Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Criminal Procedure Syllabus (Parts I-VII) with Case Digests - Coggle…
Criminal Procedure Syllabus (Parts I-VII) with Case Digests
I. Introduction
Layout/overview of the criminal litigation process
From institution of complaint to final judgment
Concept and purpose of the rules of criminal procedure
To balance State's duty to prosecute and accused's rights
Liberal interpretation of the rules
Promote just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition
Substantive vs. procedural law
Substantive: Creates, defines, and regulates rights
Procedural: Prescribes method of enforcing rights
Right of the accused vis-à-vis the right of the State to prosecute persons accused of committing crimes
Due Process (Notice and Hearing)
Key Cases
Aguirre vs. People, G.R. No. 144142
Digest: The right to present evidence may be waived; a trial court declaring such waiver due to the accused's unjustified delays does not violate due process.
People v. Verra, G.R. No. 134732
Digest: The State is equally entitled to due process in criminal prosecutions and must be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to present its evidence.
Castañeda vs. People, G.R. No. 241729
Digest: A premature dismissal by the trial court denying the prosecution the chance to present evidence violates the State's due process; reversing this does not constitute double jeopardy.
II. Jurisdiction
Subject matter jurisdiction
Conferred by law (B.P. 129, Secs. 9, 20, 22, 23, and 32)
Territorial jurisdiction and venue
Where the crime or any of its essential ingredients occurred
R.A. 1125, Sec. 7, as amended; CONST., Art. VIII, Sec. 5
Jurisdiction over the person
Acquired via valid arrest or voluntary surrender
Jurisdiction of the different courts over criminal cases
MTC, RTC, Sandiganbayan (P.D. 1606, as amended)
The Rule on Summary Procedure
Expedited process for minor offenses
Office of the Ombudsman
RA 6770, as amended; Sec. 408, R.A. 7160
Office of the Special Prosecutor
Sec. 1-B (Criminal Cases), Rule I, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC
Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction
Once jurisdiction attaches, it continues until final case termination
Key Cases
Tan vs. People, G.R. No. 234694
Digest: In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional; the action must be instituted and tried in the municipality or province where the offense was committed.
Serana v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162059
Digest: The Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive jurisdiction over UP student regents, as they are considered public officers under the law.
Alejandro v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 173121
Digest: The Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction with the DOJ to conduct preliminary investigations over offenses committed by public officers.
III. Commission of the Crime and Initiation of the Criminal Process
Persons criminally liable
Principals, Accomplices, Accessories (Revised Penal Code, Arts. 16-19, 90-91)
Complaint; distinguished from an information
Complaint: Sworn written statement by offended party/officer
Information: Accusation in writing by public prosecutor
Rule 110, Secs. 1-6, 15-16; Act No. 3326; Α.Μ. No. 02-2-07-SC
Who may file a complaint
Offended party, peace officer, public officer
Private and public crimes
Private (e.g., adultery, seduction) require complaint by specific persons
Who must prosecute criminal actions
Public prosecutor has direction and control
Where to institute the criminal action
Proper court or prosecutor's office depending on the penalty
Prescription and its interruption
Interrupted by filing of complaint/information
Key Cases
Isturis-Rebuelta v. Rebuelta, G.R. No. 222105
Digest: Private crimes cannot be prosecuted de oficio; they strictly require a valid complaint initiated by the offended party for the court to acquire jurisdiction.
Crespo v. Mogul, G.R. No. L-53373
Digest: Once an Information is filed in court, any disposition of the case (dismissal, conviction, or acquittal) rests entirely within the sound discretion of the court.
People v. Beriales, G.R. No. L-39962
Digest: All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or Information must be prosecuted under the direct control and supervision of the public prosecutor.
People v. Consebido, G.R. No. 258563
Digest: The filing of a criminal complaint before the DOJ or prosecutor's office effectively tolls the prescriptive period, even for offenses covered by the Rules on Expedited Procedures.
IV. Katarungang Pambarangay
Cases covered
Generally, offenses with penalty max 1 yr imprisonment or Php 5,000 fine
R.A. 7160, Secs. 399-421
Procedure
The Lupong Tagapamayapa
Conciliation, mediation, and arbitration
Condition precedent to filing in court
Execution, repudiation
Issuance of a Certification to File Action
Required if conciliation fails
Key Case
Lansangan v. Caisip, G.R. No. 212987
Digest: Failure to undergo mandatory barangay conciliation is a failure to comply with a condition precedent, rendering the court complaint vulnerable to dismissal.
V. Preliminary Investigation and Summary Investigation
Scope and coverage
DOJ D.C. Nos. 15 and 28; A.M. No. 24-02-09-SC
Summary investigation and expedited preliminary investigation
Quantum of evidence
Probable cause: well-engendered belief that a crime was committed
Authority to conduct preliminary investigation and inquest proceedings
Prosecutors, not judges (under current rules)
Parties, process, and submissions
Complaint-affidavit, counter-affidavit, reply
Resolution; remedies
Motion for Reconsideration, Petition for Review (DOJ)
Key Cases
Navarro vs. Cornejo, G.R. No. 263329
Digest: The determination of probable cause is inherently an executive and prosecutorial prerogative; courts will not interfere absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.
Gomez vs. People, G.R. No. 216824
Digest: The absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the court's jurisdiction nor impair the validity of the Information; the proper remedy is to suspend the proceedings and hold the investigation.
De Lima vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 209330
Digest: While the Secretary of Justice may review prosecutorial resolutions, once the Information is filed, the trial court holds the ultimate authority to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant.
VI. Inquest Proceedings
Nature and purpose
Summary inquiry for warrantless arrests
DOJ DC No. 15, Rule V
When conducted
When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant
Procedure
Disposition and remedies
Detainee may ask for regular PI but must sign waiver of Art. 125 RPC
Key Case
Leviste v. Alameda, G.R. No. 182677
Digest: An accused who wishes to convert an inquest proceeding into a regular preliminary investigation must explicitly execute a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
VII. Arrest
Definition; how made
Taking a person into custody to answer for an offense (Rule 113)
Miranda doctrine
Right to remain silent, right to counsel (R.A. 7438; CONST., Art. III, Sec. 12)
Custodial investigation
Questioning initiated by law enforcement after a person is deprived of freedom
Warrant of arrest; issuance and enforcement
Executed within 10 days from receipt
Warrantless arrest
Sec. 5 exceptions: In flagrante delicto, Hot pursuit, Escaping prisoner
Probable cause
Judge's personal determination for warrant issuance
Questions pertaining to the legality of the arrest
Must be raised before entering a plea
Entrapment vs. instigation
Entrapment (valid method of apprehension) vs. Instigation (absolutory cause)
Key Cases
Gomez vs. People, G.R. No. 216824
Digest: Any objection involving the legality of a warrantless arrest must be raised prior to arraignment; otherwise, the accused is deemed to have waived the objection.
People vs. Cabanada, G.R. No. 221424
Digest: For an "in flagrante delicto" arrest to be valid, the accused must be executing an overt criminal act in the presence of the arresting officer.
People vs. Malado, G.R. No. 243022
Digest: In a "hot pursuit" arrest, there must be immediacy between the crime and the arrest, and the officer must have personal knowledge of facts indicating the accused committed it.
Agravante vs. People, G.R. No. 257450
Digest: A search incidental to a lawful arrest is strictly dependent upon the legality of the arrest itself; if the warrantless arrest is invalid, any evidence seized is inadmissible.
People vs. Mendez, G.R. No. 264039
Digest: Entrapment is a valid and legal way to catch a criminal in the act, whereas instigation involves law enforcers inducing an innocent person to commit a crime, serving as an absolutory cause.
People vs. Pangcatan, G.R. No. 245921
Digest: Entering a plea and actively participating in the trial completely cures any defect in the legality of the arrest and the court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the accused.