Transcript for:
Criminal and Civil Procedure Lecture Notes

in every time that i do lecture in procedure for example in civil procedure or in criminal procedure i would first start with a case flow of the action because i believe that is important you must be able to know where would the action starts or begins and where would it end the common foley or mistake of those who are studying religion law is that they are actually studying the rules of earth in isolation okay if you are going to study the rules of court in isolation then you will get lost in the process because you must first be able to know the case flow for example arraignment where are you going to situate arraignment in the case flow in criminal case arraignment will happen after preliminary investigation is conducted in so far as those cases which requires preliminary investigation so you must be able to situate a particular topic in the rules of court in the case flow in a criminal case or in a prosecution of action whether it is civil case or criminal case if you already know how to situate a particular rule in the case flow of an action then you will have a clear understanding of remedial you will have a clear understanding of procedure that's why i will first start my discussion in discussing with you the case flow in a criminal case okay please take note that the starting point of criminal procedure or the application of the rules on criminal procedure is the commission of a crime if no crime is committed then the rules on criminal procedure will find no application so that is the starting point of criminal procedure the commission of a crime okay there are crime which requires preliminary investigation there are crimes which does not require preliminary investigation and there are crimes which are committed in flag granted i categorize this in as much as you have a different case flow in so far as crime which requires preliminary investigation or crimes which does not require preliminary investigation or which crimes which are committed infla granted okay let us discuss for cases which requires preliminary investigation what is the case flow of course it will start from the commission of the crime and then there will be preliminary investigation so what do you do in preliminary investigation what should we find out should be found out in preliminary investigation whether there is probable cause for the purpose of filing an information so that is basically the purpose of preliminary investigation so if the fiscal found probable cause it will result to the filing of an information input okay so when an information is filed in court what should the judge or the court do okay the court should do what the court should do is to determine whether there is probable cost for what purpose for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest okay and if the court or the judge finds no probable cause what will the court do it will dismiss the case and that will be the end of it in so far as that stage is concerned otherwise when the court finds probable cost what would the court do it will issue warrant of arrest why is issuance of word of rest necessary in order to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused please take note that jurisdiction over the person of the accused is one of the essential element before the court can acquire jurisdiction over a criminal case and when the accused is arrested then the port will acquire jurisdiction over the person of the abuse what follows then is arrangement but of course there are some procedural incidents that may happen before arraignment because the accused can file a motion for bill of particular the accused can file a motion to wash procedural incidents that would happen before arraignment okay then you have arrangement what is the purpose of arrangement in order to inform the accused of the nature and cost of the accusation against him in order to comply with the constitutional requirement that the accused should be informed of the nature and cost of the accusation against him then after arraignment you have pre-trial after pre-trial you have trial where in the parties respective parties would present their respective evidence and after trial you have judgment and after judgment if it is unfavorable to the accused then the accused would interpose an appeal and when the judgment becomes final and executory then there will be service of sentence this is the case flow okay when a crime which is committed requires preliminary investigation as i have said there is a different case flow when a crime does not require preliminary investigation okay but when a crime is committed in the chartered city there is a different case flow than when it is committed in the province okay when the crime is committed in a chartered city and the crime does not require preliminary investigation the the case flow would be like this okay you would find a complaint before the prosecutor's office but please take note despite the fact that you filed the complaint before the prosecutor's office the prosecutor's office would not conduct predimini investigation in fact if you are going to read the rules of court when a complaint when a crime does not require preliminary investigation and such crime is committed in a chartered city the rules required that the complaint should be filed before the prosecutor's office but as i have said the prosecutor's office would not conduct preliminar investigation it would not issue subpoena to the respondent for the responding to valid counter affidavit because the prosecutor will risk told whether there is probable cause or not on the basis of the complaint and the evidence submitted by the complainant and then when there is probable cause an information will be filed then each one support of arrest and so on and so forth up to the service of sentence now when a crime does not require preliminary investigation and they are committed in a province not in a chartered city then you have a different case law because if that is the case you can directly file the complaint or information in court directly in order then when the court determines that there is probable cost it would issue warrant and so on and so forth until the judgment became final in an executory and that the accused will serve the sentence if the judgment is judgment of conviction so at least by knowing the case flow you would be able to situate where preliminary investigation is in the case flow where arrangement would be situated in the case flow in which case you would have a clear understanding of the procedure in criminal cases or in the prosecution of criminal cases all right how about when crime is committed infla granted as i have said there is a different case law why because it will start with the arrest and please take note the arrest here is without warrant because the accused was arrested while in the actual commission of the crime okay what comes next after arrest is not arraignment because there is yet no case filed in court okay but after arrest there will be an inquest proceedings to be conducted by the inquest prosecutor of course your rules would tell you that during inquest proceedings the respondent or the person arrested can actually ask for preliminary investigation but of course he would be required to execute a waiver of article one two five of the revised pinnacle so supposing that the respondent the one who was arrested did not ask for preliminary investigation then the inquest prosecutor will determine whether there is probable cause for the purpose of filing an information and suppose the inquest prosecutor finds probable cause what will he do he will file an information okay when an information is filed what is the function of the judge or what is the function of the court to determine whether there is probable cause but now the purpose is not actually to issue warrant of arrest because the accused is already under detention because he was arrested in flagrant but the purpose of determining probable cause is for the issuance of a commitment or death then after the issuance of the commitment order arraignment will be scheduled then pre-trial trial judgment appeal and if the judgment of conviction is already finally an executory then the accused will serve his sentence so basically this is the case flow in a criminal case by knowing as i have said by knowing the case flow in every prosecution of an action whether it is civil action or criminal action you would have a clear understanding of religion law because religious is purely procedure it's actually a case flow okay so let's go to our second topic requisites for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction as i have said there are three requisites for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction first jurisdiction over the subject matter second jurisdiction over the territory that is where the crime is committed and thirdly jurisdiction over the person of the accused and let me discuss each requisite for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction all right jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case just like in a simple case jurisdiction over the subject matter is something which is conferred by law it is conferred by law since it is conferred by law it cannot be subject to waiver acquisitions agreement or consent of parties okay why because jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be agreed upon by the parties especially if the agreement is contrary to the law on jurisdiction why is that so because your rules on contract provides that what is freedom of contract the parties can actually agree of whatever stipulations they want so long as their stipulations or agreement is not contrary to law if the parties agree that their case should be tried by a court without jurisdiction that agreement cannot be valid because that agreement is contrary to law and what else that you have to remember in so far as subject matter jurisdiction confirmment of jurisdiction cannot be presumed thus in order to assert whether a court has jurisdiction or not the provision of law shall be inquired for you to be able to know whether the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter what is that that you have to consult the first thing that you have to consult is not a book on religion the first thing that you have to book is the law on jurisdiction and in so far as criminal case is concerned the law that you have to consult primarily in determining whether the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter is pp129 as amended by republic act 7691 all right so jurisdiction of the subject matter is determined by the allegation in the information okay please take note of that just like in a civil case what determines jurisdiction over the subject matter is the allegation in the information not the result of the evidence presented during trial but principally it will be governed subject matter jurisdiction will always be governed by the allegation in the information for example what is alleged in the information is attempted murder attempted murder is within the jurisdiction of the rtc because the imposable penalty is beyond six years what if during trial what uh the crime that was determined by the court based on evidence presented by the parties is not attempted murder but it's like physical injuries what should the court do will the court dismiss the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction considering that impossible penalty of a slight physical injury is below six years the answer is no because of the principle that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegation in the information and based on the decision of the supreme court in the case of luxon versus executive secretary it is not determined by the evidence presented during trial it is determined by the penalty impossible not the penalty actually imposed okay next item it is determined by the law at the commencement of the criminal action not the law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense please take note of that when will you determine the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter at the time of the institution or commencement of the criminal action not at the time of the commission of the offence for example you all know that the revised penal code has already been amended principally because no specifically for example in a crime of death because prior to amendment if the value of the subject matter of that for example is 30 000 pesos based on the impossible penalty prior to amendment it will be within the jurisdiction of the rpc but supposing the crime is committed prior to the amendment of the revised penal code but the criminal action is commenced after after the revised final code was amended okay such that there is lowering of the impossible penalty the former uh let us say for example uh seven years above is now four years okay which court has jurisdiction okay the mtc because of the principle that subject matter jurisdiction is determined at the commencement of the action not in the law at the time of the commission of the events but please take note there is only one exception okay exception in the sense that the jurisdiction over the subject matter is not determined at the commencement of the action rather it is determined at the time of the commission of the offense so what is the exception those cases falling under the jurisdiction of the san diego because it is determined at the time of the commission of the offense those cases falling under the jurisdiction of this undecombine is determined at the time of the commission of the offence i'll give you an example the crime of grace is committed by the governor at the time when the governor was still in office but it was filed the case is filed when he is not any more governor because he lost in the election question will the sun didn't buy and have jurisdiction the answer is yes because in so far as jurisdiction of the san diego bayern is concerned it is determined at the time of the commission of the offense it is not determined at the time of the institution of the criminal action okay let's uh discuss jurisdiction over the person okay jurisdiction over the person is acquired in the following manner there are two ways by which the court may be able to acquire jurisdiction over the person or the accused first upon arrest of the accused by virtue of warrant by virtue of warrant issued by the court okay number two voluntary submission to court's jurisdiction okay so just like in a civil case there are two ways by which the court would be able to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant one valid service of summons the other one is voluntary appearance okay just like in a criminal case all right so what is the difference between custody of law versus jurisdiction over the person because there might be an instance that the court has already acquired jurisdiction over the person but such person is not yet under the custody of law will that be possible the answer is yes that is the doctrine that is enunciated in the case of david versus let's give a problem a criminal complaint was filed against accused before the prosecutor's office the investigating prosecutor after finding probable cause filed an information in court the accused found a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of probable cause the court denied the motion on the ground that the court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused because he was not yet arrested is the court correct answer the court is not correct why because when the accused filed a motion to dismiss he already submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court thus the court can validate rule on his motion the court should have determined the difference between the custody of law and the jurisdiction over the person that's why i said earlier that it is possible that the accused is already under the jurisdiction or the court has already jurisdiction over the person of the accused yet that same accused is not yet in the custody of law this is a perfect example of that and that is what happened in the case of david versus abide because when you ask an affirmative relief from the court you thereby voluntarily submitted yourself to the jurisdiction of the court okay so you just read miranda versus julia for you to be able to know the difference between the custody of law versus jurisdiction over the person of the accused but what i am telling you right now that the court may acquire jurisdiction already over the person of the accused even before the accused is under the custody of law already okay example and it is also possible that the accused is already under the custody of law yet the court does not have jurisdiction over the person of the actors i'll give an example those who are arrested while in the act of committing a crime arrest infla granted illegal that accused is already under the custody of the law but the court does not have yet jurisdiction over his person principally because there is yet no case filed against such person arrested so that is the difference between the custody of a law and jurisdiction over the person of the app okay now let me go back again a little bit no to jurisdiction over the subject matter okay what are the things that you must remember for you to be able to know whether the the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter okay of course you have to consult the law bp129 as amended by republic of 7691 okay know what are those criminal cases because such law will give you those criminal cases which are falling within the jurisdiction of the met mezi mtcc mtc mctc this is what we call the first level port okay that law will also give you those cases which are falling within the jurisdiction of the rpc and the law creating san diego will also tell you those cases which are within the jurisdiction of the san diego bayern and the law creating cta will also tell you the cases which are falling under the jurisdiction of the cpa okay now these are you just consult i will not anymore enumerate it to you because i have already told you what are those law that you have to consult for you to be able to know those cases falling under the jurisdiction of various courts but in so far as bp 129 as amended by republic of 7691 impossible penalty is above six years okay the general rule is that it is within the jurisdiction of the rtc six years below it is within the jurisdiction of the mtc as i have said as i have said that is the general rule because there are criminal cases whose impossible penalty is below six years yet by specific provision of the law okay by specific provision of the law the rpc has jurisdiction then you follow that specific provision okay there are cases i have said those where penalty prescribed by law exceed six years of imprisonment a respectable fine is within the jurisdiction of the rtc but as i have said regardless of the penalty like violations certain violations of republica 9165 valuation of intellectual property law libel for example validation of 9262 anti-money laundering violation of cyber crime and those criminal cases falling under the appellate jurisdiction okay take note for example defamation under article 360 of the revised speed of code what is the impossible penalty i am not actually uh sure of the exact impossible penalty but what i am sure of is that the impossible penalty in so far as defamation under article 360 is concerned is below six years below six years and by specific provision of the revised penal code by specific provision of the revised penal code and my jurisdiction rtc unanswered and general rule six years about above six years rpc but there are law which provides that this forecast jurisdiction and then we follow that law not the impossible penalty for the purpose of determining which court has jurisdiction all right now jurisdiction of san diego and as i have observed for five consecutive years in the bar examination they always ask problem regarding jurisdiction of san diego okay so the first question that you have to ask is what is the offense committee okay that is the first question that you have to ask yourself what is the offense completed because there are a specific offense which are under the jurisdiction of this antiquing fight so that is the first question you must be able to know the offense which are under the jurisdiction of this antiguan bayer the second question is who committed the offense okay if you know the answer to these two questions then you are you already know those cases falling under the jurisdiction of this antique empire first question what is the offense committed second question who committed the offense and let us amplify those two questions okay what are those cases we are now we are answering the first question what offense is committed okay there are types of cases which are under the jurisdiction of this antigen buyer and you must be able to know them you must be able to memorize them okay because that is essential for you to be able to know the jurisdiction of the san diego no how on how to memorize it that is something i cannot anymore teach you you force yourself to memorize it but what i am giving you what is there to memorize okay this is the things the cases that you have to memorize okay number one valuation of republican 319 that crime is under the jurisdiction of this antiquate what else republica 1379 for features what else chapter 2 section 2 title 7 book 2 of the revised inaudible and the catch all crimes other offenses or felonies whether simple or complex with other crimes committed by public officials or employees committed in relation to the office so these are the crimes that must be committed before san diego would have jurisdiction so we already answered the first question what crime is committed and these are the crimes that you must memorize okay what are those crimes falling under chapter two section two title seven book two of the revised penal code okay very direct bribery indirect bribery qualified bribery and corruption of public officials so if this crime is committed you already answered the first question as to what crime is okay now next question who committed the offense so we have only we have already answered the first first question what crime is committed the next question is who committed the offense who are the offender for us to be able to know the jurisdiction of the san diego again i am providing you of those people no i cannot force i cannot i can not anymore teach you to memorize no but i am already providing you what are those to memorize who are those offenders that you have to memorize before you would be able to know whether the sun digging by and has a jurisdiction for that okay and there you are you can see that in the street officials of the executive branch occupying the position of regional director or hire otherwise classified as grade 27 or higher because for us working in the government we have classification but for purposes of determining whether it's antiquing binary jurisdiction those who are occupied a position whose salary grade is 27 above falls within the jurisdiction of the san diego okay who else provincial governors vice governors members of sangguni and pandado provincial treasurers assessors engineers and other provincial department heads they are under the jurisdiction of the santiago bank the city mayors vice mayors sanguini and pandu saud members and the department heads of the city are under the jurisdiction of the siddigan buyer you might ask because the law says if you are city treasurer if you are department head of a city regardless of your salary grade you fall under the jurisdiction of the san diego officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul or hire philippine army or air force cornell naval captain and all officers hire of rap officers of pnp while occupying a position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent penalty police you are occupying the position of provincial director at the same time you are police colonel then as jurisdiction city and provincial prosecutors and their assistants officials and prosecutors in the office of the ombudsman and special prosecutor please take note that an entry level is a prosecutor's office a prosecutor one another written prosecutor one sg 26 but by specific provision of the law creating some gigan buyer despite the fact that prosecutor is occupying a sudden rate of sg-26 but by specific provision of the law it is within the jurisdiction of the strategic environment okay what else presidents directors trustees or managers of government-owned and controlled corporations state universities educational institutions or foundations members of congress and officials thereof classified as grade 27 members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provision of the constitution chairman and members of the constitutional commission without prejudice to the provision of the constitution and all other national and local officials classified as grade 27 okay you have there is nothing that i can do about this what i'm telling you is you must know them all for you to be able to answer the second question who committed the crime because if you do not know these people who are subject to the jurisdiction of the san diego bayern it would be very hard for you to determine whether something combined has jurisdiction for them okay so you already know what are those crimes which are subject to the jurisdiction of the san diego and you already know who are those persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of this antigen buyer okay if the answer if you know the answer to both questions then boom i'm saying i my jurisdiction okay let us discuss some important cases and so for us jurisdiction of the san diegoan by this concern in geduspan vs people petitioner and who is the petitioner is the manager of the field health okay my jurisdiction ban san diego yes because it falls within paragraph one g of the san diego okay is only grade 27 but by specific provision of the law okay it is within the jurisdiction of the san diego because a member of sanggunian is specifically mentioned as among those persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of this article the accused here is the student region in up how do we become a student region in ut if you are elected as president of the student council then by up charter you will be considered as the student regen a student region does not actually receive compensation so a criminal case was filed against a student region the jurisdiction of the san diego there are two issues here whether a student region is a public officer but that is the function of a political law law and public officers but let me tell you this for the purpose of determining whether a person is a public officer okay the fact that he is not receiving salary is not an essential element to become a public officer because that is the argument of zirana by being a student i became only a student agent by because of my position as the president of the student council and in fact i am not receiving salary from up if i am not receiving salary from up i am not taking anything from the government then i am not a public officer but the supreme court said that that is not the criteria for one to be classified as a public officer salary is not a criteria for one to be classified as a public officer as long as you are discharging a governmental function then you can be considered as a public officer now the next issue is he is a public officer but is he among those public officers which are under the jurisdiction of the san diego bayern examine the supreme court a student region is can be likened to a director of a government-owned and controlled corporation and a director or trustees of a government-owned and controlled corporation is subject to the jurisdiction of the san diego that's why the digging bind has jurisdiction over student region over student region cirana so where is sirana now okay so there is a catch-all place here diva ah these are the type of cases i have said no other offenses or felonies whether simple or complex with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees committed in relation to the office so what we have here even if you commit a crime which is not mentioned among those crimes and there doesn't dig in buy it but you committed that crime in relation to the office you are a public official you committed the crime in relation to the office then san diego has jurisdiction example rape israel a public run what i mean is is it connected with the performance of one's office it's not a rape committed by a governor okay if you are given a problem as simple as this is the governor committed a crime of rape which court has jurisdiction please take note a governor is among those public officials which under the law are subject to the jurisdiction of the san diego but what about the offense committed rape is not one of those okay but if rape is committed in relation to the office then the san diego may have jurisdiction okay let us amplify that offenses committed in relation to the office question when is an offense committed in relation to the office okay first an offense is said to be committed in relation to the office if office is a constituent element of a crime a public office is one of the essential elements of a crime then such offense is committed in relation to the office can you think of a crime or an offense whose one of the elements is being a public officer a judge for example rendering an unjust judgment that is a criminal offense okay one of the elements in that case in that offense is being a judge public office so if i committed an unjust judgment and i was prosecuted for the commission of such crime okay you would answer two questions already what crime is to me who committed the crime i am a member of judiciary i am a judge by specific provision of the san diego buy-in law i am falling within the jurisdiction of the san diego fire what crime is to meet them rendering and unjust judgment it is an offense committed in relation to the office because one of the constituent elements of the crime is my being a public officer specifically my being a child okay so what is the rule if the public office now this take nota if one of the elements of a crime is being a public officer automatically automatically it is committed in relation to the office article 204 to 245 of the revised final quote if you see those felonies one of the essential elements is being a public officer so if one of the elements is leaning upon the officer then automatically the crime is committed in relation to the office now what a public office is not one of the elements of the crime okay what if the public office okay okay what if the public office is not an element of iran can there still be a situation where in the offense is committed in relation to the office if a public office is not an element of a crime may an offense be still classified as offense committed in relation to the office so as to confer jurisdiction to san diego the answer is yes if there is an intimate connection between the offense the office and the offense or that the office was used in the commission of the crime okay so long as you would be able to connect the office of the accused with a crime he committed then there is a possibility is related is committed in relation to the office okay take note of this case it's seven versus an even buyer okay the accused here was charged of acts of lascibiousness acts of lassie business on the basis of the complaint filed by actual employee assigned to his office the supreme court ruled that san diego's jurisdiction why because the information alleged that the crime could not have been committed had the accused used had the accused not used his position or office because the complainant here is applying the supreme court said mayor falling under the jurisdiction of the san diego but crime is committed absolutely business but he could not have committed the crime had he not been a mayor so it was alleging the information okay so the supreme court said listen didn't buy it as jurisdiction because the information alleged that the crime could not have been committed had the accused not used his position or office okay but please take note the ruling of the supreme court in the case of luxon versus executive secretary okay the intimate relation between the offense charts and the discharge of official duties must be alleged in the information i repeat the intimate relation between the offense charts and the discharge of official duties must be alleged in the information the information must not simply allege that the crime is committed in relation to the office rather the information must allege facts why the offense was committed in relation to the office because the phrase in relation to the office is not an allegation of facts rather it is a conclusion so the supreme court what the supreme court is telling us in la son versus executive secretary it is not enough to just allege that the crime is committed in relation to the office but the intimate relation between the offense charts and the discharge of the official duties must be alleged in the information if those constitutive facts are not alleged then san diego will not have to description okay this is an interesting case and uh attorney rodney is very familiar the case of de lima versus guerrero okay i have uh presented here that is your mother i will not anymore release no but if you can read this by your by yourself this is the essential allegation of the information that is filed against senator dilema okay taking advantage of their public office conspiring confederating with the use of their power position authority demand solicit extort money from high profile inmates of new believe in prison to support the senatorial bid of senator dilema in may 2016. okay so the accused filed a motion to question number one on the ground that can be gone by that the rpc has no jurisdiction on the ground that the rpc has no jurisdiction why according to the petitioner the crime committed is actually bribery bribery okay and if the crime committee come he demon bribery it was committed in relation to the office please take note senator de lima is one of those members of congress one of those officers which are subject to the jurisdiction of the court according to petitioner assuming for the sake of argument assuming for the sake of argument that the allegation is true because when you find a motion to dismiss you hypothetically admit the allegations okay something combines jurisdiction number one the crime committee number two if not bribery at nine one six five percent but the crime is committed in relation to the office if that is the case the lima is among those persons which are subject to the jurisdiction of san diego and he committed an offense in relation to the office so therefore rtc does not have jurisdiction san diego the pertinent special law governing drug related cases is republica six 9165 okay a plain reading of ra9165 will reveal that jurisdiction over drug cases is exclusively vested with the rtc and no other the designation of the rtc as the court with the exclusive jurisdiction over drug related cases is apparent in the following provisions the supreme court emphasized articles 20 61 62 and 90 of republic of 9165 and the supreme court said all those articles of republica 9165 speaks of rpc it did not mention of any court so the interpretation of the supreme court is that there is no other port where you can try violation of republic of 9165 except the rpc okay except the rpc regardless of who committed the offense or regardless of how the offense is committed meaning to say even if republican 9165 is committed by a governor using his public office in the commission thereof is still by specific provision by the by monday of republic of 9165 the rtc has jurisdiction so let us simplify it essentially that is what the supreme court is telling us in jurisdiction over the person i think we have discussed this already is presidential degree number 1606. it was amended by republic of 8249 amendment republic of 10660. shall have exclusive jurisdiction where the information does not allege any damage to the government or bribery or alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related transactions or apps in the amount not exceeding one million pesos okay and the booking mix ability let me first ask falling under the jurisdiction jurisdiction rpc it would depend on the imposable penalty okay you get that now under the new amendment you know officials whose salary or public officials who are within the jurisdiction of the san diego but the information does not allege bribery or damage to government or the damage to government does not exceed one million pesos and my jurisdiction a rtc i'll give you an example governor of paso who committed the crime governor that is under the jurisdiction of the senate grafton corruption 1319 for example or damage to the government is 900 000 despite the fact that the one who committed is a governor and the crime charge against him is 1319 he's still while offering jurisdiction on san diego because the information does not allege that the damage to the government is more than one million yes you must take note of that no so on general rule who committed the crime what crime is committed this is the exception because even if pasok but the information does not allege damage to the government not more than one million pesos is still uh that the san diego would not have jurisdiction the jurisdiction won't fall under the regional trial okay now who has athletic jurisdiction over the decision of the rtc okay the decision of the rpc committed by a public officer who is not within the jurisdiction of the san diego but committed the crime for example of graf example vice mayor municipality are you under the jurisdiction of the san diego no you committed a crime of uh graft and corruption which is within the jurisdiction or among those crimes which are within the jurisdiction of the san diego the amount of damage to government is five million which court has jurisdiction a npc brtc sees and digging buyer answer rtc the rtc has jurisdiction market who committed the crime vice mayor is he one of those persons who are under the jurisdiction of the san diego buyer the answer is no who has jurisdiction the impossible penalty is above six years so rpc so the question is what if rtc decides the case convicting the accused convicting vice mayor okay where are you going to appeal the case ca or san diego answer santigan because of republica 10660 amending pd 1606 and ra8042 in cases where none of accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade 27 or higher okay exclusive jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court metropolitan trial court municipal trial or municipal circuit trial court as a case may be pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as provided in batasvan bansal bilan 129. let us simplify that let us simplify to have a clear understanding on this falling under the jurisdiction of the service despite the fact that he committed those crimes which are falling under the of san diego the proper court will try the case and what do you mean by the proper court depending on the impossible penalty if the impossible penalty is above six years rtc otherwise second level what is the appeal process if that is the case what is the appeal process if that is the case the appeal process is you don't appeal to ca you appeal to san diego up to the supreme court example mtc public officer committed a a crime of in relation to the office impossible penalty four years so which quartus jurisdiction mtc how are you going to appeal it you find a notice of appeal to rpc but if the rtc affirm the decision of the where will you file your petition for review under rule 42 ca or san diego by virtue of the provision of republica 10660 okay now the san exclusive jurisdiction over final judgment resolution or orders of the regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as her provider and even the filing of a petition for mandamus prohibition sanctuary or even habeas purpose in aid of appellate jurisdiction is within the jurisdiction of the san diego i'll give you an example nag filenam to pass the motion to class was denied assuming for the sake of argument that the rtc committed grave abuser discretion and you want to question the motion to quest at the most you want to question the legality and the propriety of the motion to class questions in the support of happiness okay so please take note of these concepts because i believe this concept is very magic okay let's go to the third no element of a crime element of jurisdiction in criminal cases venue in criminal cases please take note that in criminal cases venue yes jurisdictional okay in criminal cases venue is judicional venue must be established during trial otherwise the case will be dismissed if if it is not if venue is not established during trial then it will result to the dismissal of the case because that court has no jurisdiction because of the principle that venue in criminal cases is jurisdiction so please take note that the venue in criminal cases is the place where the crime is committed the place where the crime is committed that is the general rule of venue in criminal cases okay but there are exceptions okay but for purposes of determining venue i would like to call your attention to the provision of the rules of court section 15 of rule 110 because it will tell you what is the venue of a criminal option but please take note the general rule on venue is the place where it is committed or any of its essential elements where was committed okay now as i have said venue is where the crime is committed there are exceptions one of which is article two of the revised penal code okay what is the venue in piracy what is the essential element of piracy it is committed in high seas okay so that is one of the essential elements of a piracy okay [Music] because it is considered if you follow the general rule that then you should be instituted where the crime is committed the quran is committed in piracy is in isis i know are you are will you volunteer yourself as counsel for the accused if the crime will be litigated in isis very difficult no other exception section 15b of rule 110 where an offense is committed in a trained aircraft and other public or private vehicle in the course of its trip section 15c where the offense is committed on border vessel in the course of its voyage criminal cases cognizable by san diego it is always triable in question city where san diego bayern is situated no regardless of where the crime is committed libel you follow the venue as provided for in article 360 and republic of 8242 as amended what is this illegal recruitment involving overseas filipino workers there are two venues in so far as illegal recruitment is concerned number one where the crime is committed number two residence of the complainant at the option of the complaint so this is the exceptions to the general rule and venue that it is instituted where the crime is completed okay now how about when venue in bp 22 cases what is the venue okay please take note that as held in yadon vs people there are four places where you can file violation of baptism 22 so what are the venues the place where the cheque is drawn the place where the check was issued next the place where the check was delivered and lastly the check the place where the check was disponted these are the venues in bp22 how about where the check was deposited it is not the venue no the venue is where it is drawn issued delivered dishonored but in the case of yalum vs people it does not say the supreme court did not say that included in the venue is the place where the check was deposited all right prosecution of offenses how is criminal action instituted it would depend it would depend on what it would depend on whether the crime requires preliminary investigation or the crime does not require preliminary investigation if the crime would require preliminary investigation then how is criminal action instituted it is instituted by filing a complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting preliminary investigation that is how criminal action is instituted now what if the crime does not require preliminary investigation there are two ways by which criminal action may be instituted number one by finding it directly in port and when is it allowed it is allowed when the crime is committed in the provinces what if a crime is committed in chartered cities if it is committed in chartered cities criminal action is instituted by filing a complaint before the prosecutor's office okay that is how criminal action is instituted now what are those cases which do not require what are those cases which do not require preliminary investigation those cases whose imposable penalty is less than four to one so that is the numbers that you will remember four to one below four to one it would not require preliminary investigation above four to one it would require preliminary investigation all right now what is the effect of the institution of criminal action on prescriptive period so we have to know how is criminal action instituted because once a criminal action is instituted what is the significance of which the significance of which is that it will interrupt the running of the prescriptive period of the action so the institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running period of the prescription of the offense charge unless otherwise provided in special loss okay so once you institute a criminal option in the manner that we have discussed whether there is it does not it does require preliminary investigation or not once you have instituted it its effect is that it will told the running of the perspective what are the rules on prescription for violation there is a law there is a law at 33 26 which provides that the period of prescription shall be suspended when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person the supreme court in the case of salvia vs reyes interpreted the phrase when proceedings are instituted against a guilty person the supreme court interpretation in salvia is that proceedings as judicial proceedings the supreme court interpreted proceedings in saldivia versus reyes as judicial proceedings meaning to say insofar as especial laws are concerned in so far as special laws are concerned the running of its prescriptive period shall be interrupted at the time of the commencement of the criminal action in court meaning at the time of the filing of the information thus in the case of salvia vs reyes for violation of ordinances and special laws the filing of the case before the court interrupts the running of the prescriptive period so that is the doctrine that is initiated in sultivia versus reyes in so far as ordinances and special laws are concerned it is the filing of the information in court that would interrupt the running of the prescriptive people okay but please take note the ruling in seldivia versus radius is not any more controlling i repeat the ruling in saldivia versus reyes is not any more controlling white you have the case of people versus tangidina the supreme court said in that case there is no more distinction between cases under the revised penalty and those covered by specialists with respect to the interruption of the period of prescription the ruling in salvia versus reyes is not controlling in special laws so what do we have in people versus families what is the supreme court telling us in the case of people versus pangelina what the supreme court is telling us in the case of people versus angelina whether it is a crime covered by the rpc or a special law the period of prescription or the running of the prescriptive period will be told upon the filing of a complaint before the prosecutor's office it does not make any distinction between those cases covered with the rpc and those covered by the especially okay so young salvia case is not any more controlling in fact tangy linen is reiterated in the case of this universe and then by the prevailing rule therefore that is therefore that irrespective of whether the offense is punishable by the rpc or by special law it is the filing of the complaint or information in the office of the public prosecutor for purposes of preliminary investigation that interrupts the period of prescription okay the scenic versus san diego now question what if the court which the information or complaint was filed has no jurisdiction will it suspend the running of the prescriptive period in the case of periodica versus court of appeals the supreme court said yes okay and information for electric products resulting in damage to property with slight physical injuries was filed with the rtc even though the offense was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the mpc the poor even as it dismissed cases spending before the rpc for lack of jurisdiction disregarded the defense of prescription raised by the accused so even if you file the case in a court without jurisdiction still it would interrupt or suspend the running of that prescriptive period all right another aspect that i would like to discuss in prosecution of criminal action is the sufficiency of a complaint or information when do you say that a complaint or information is sufficient you have to refer to section 6 of rule 110 if there is the name of the accused there is designation of the offense given by the statue there is acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense name of the offended party is there the approximate commission of the offense is alleged and the place where the offense is committed then you would say that the complaint is sufficient informed or the information is sufficient so for purposes of determining the sufficiency of a complaint or information you always have to refer to section 6 rule 10 rule 110 because that section will give you what are those essential things that must be alleged in a complaint or information okay now please take note that if the information is not sufficient it does not substantially conform with section 6 of rule 110 or 110 you can even file a motion to watch like foreign it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form or the information profile that the officer will file the information does not have authority to file the same or you can even file if it is not alleged in the information the place where the crime is committed you can even file a motion to pass on the ground of lack of jurisdiction that's why if you are a prosecutor you must know section 16 rule 110 by heart because this will give you you have to allege all of those things for you to consider your information to be sufficient because if the allegation in the information would not conform substantially to section 6 of rule 1 0 like like for example you did not allege the place where the crime is committed it is the the information is susceptible to being dismissed okay for lack of jurisdiction if the act or omission complaint of as constituting the offense is not actually alleged in the information then it is susceptible to being washed on the ground that the act or omission that's the allegation in the information does not do not constitute okay what is this case very important versus people okay the issue is versus people is that what is the effect on the information if it is not signed and approved by the city prosecutor for those of you who have already seen an information i believe if you are already 40 or you are already third year especially when you are about to take the bar examination i must assume that you have already seen an information because if you have not yet seen an information in a criminal case then that would be very dangerous but i assume that you have all seen an information what can you see from the information of course republic of the philippines regional trial court national capital judicial region branches people of the philippines very agreement information the underside of another the undersigned assistance ctp or prosecutor charges the following thought on about etc prosecutor but down the line you would see that there is approved by the city prosecutor okay every information must be approved by the chief prosecutor a provincial provincial prosecutor city city prosecutor now what is the effect if it appears from the information that it is not approved by the city prosecutor okay what is the effect if the information is not signed nor approved by the city prosecutor answer it is defective and what kind of defect it is a jurisdictional defect so if it is a jurisdictional defect what does it mean it can be attacked at any stage of the proceeding because such defect cannot be cured by silence can you question that for the first time on appeal the answer is yes because the supreme court said in kisai versus people is that it is not on the defect is not only a formal defect it is a jurisdictional infirmity which cannot be cured by silence if that is the case you can even question it even for the first time on that in essence is the ruling of the supreme court in kisai versus people okay very important case name of the accused okay we need not discuss this name of the accused designation of the offense section 8 of rule 110 and section 9 of rule 110 is very important okay so what is section 8 designation of the offense the complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by statute aware the acts or remission constituting the offense and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances if there is no designation of the offense reference shall be made to section number one two three four four [Music] four one two three four five female case number one two three four five four you know designation of the offense for murder for homicide four staffer you know designation now what does aside from it what the section 8 of rule 110 provides the aggravating circumstances and the qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information okay the same is true with the section nine okay section nine acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in the ordinary concise language section 8 and section 9 of rule 1 mandates i have i have used a very strong word mandate that the qualifying circumstance and aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the information okay you know of course you have a very deep working knowledge of criminal law and you know what are those qualifying circumstances a homicide simple killing can be qualified to murder if you allege qualified circumstances like treachery abuse of superior strength these are qualifying circumstances and this must be alleged in the information just like aggravating circumcised let us give an example the accused post charts of homicide there is no qualifying there is no allegation on the qualifying circumstance in the information okay during trial the prosecution is presenting evidence of treachery treachery the council for the accused who is not a graduate of san sebastian is not objecting despite the fact that treachery is not alleged in the information okay he's not objecting so despite the fact that treachery was not alleged young evidence of treachery can the court consider treachery in so deciding the case can the court consider treachery in so deciding the case it was proven during trial because the other party when the prosecution was presenting it did not object so it was entered into the record can the court appreciate it such that instead of convicting the accused of homicide instead of convicting the accused of homicide the court can convict the accused of a crime of martin because because there are already lots of decisions this is already settled no even if qualifying and aggravating circumstances are established during trial but they are not alleged in the information they can never be considered by the court the reason the reason is it will violate the constitutional right of the office and what constitutional right will be violated the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against it okay so even if they are established during trial but qualifying and aggravating circumstances are not alleged in the information they can never be appreciated by the court in so deciding the case because if the court appreciates it the court is violating the constitutional right of the acoustic of to be informed of the nature and force of the application against okay ground has to be insinuated objection on the ground first it is immaterial it is immaterial because the prosecution is trying to establish treachery but treachery is not alleging the information so therefore your honor it is immaterial secondly your honor it will violate the constitutional right of the accused of its right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against 500 [Music] are not alleging the information even if they are established during trial they cannot be appreciated and considered by the court because it will violate the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the adversation against him okay please take note of uh people versus valdes it's not enough that the information alleged of the crime is attend dead with treachery okay is that enough the answer is no because treachery is not an allegation of fact treachery is a conclusion of law and that's why the supreme court in people versus valdes ruled that facts constituting aggravating and qualifying circumstances must be alleged specified information the allegation that there is commission of a crime the allegation that the commission of the crime is attended with aggravating and qualifying circumstance is not enough there must be factual allegations of the qualifying circumstance because by just alleging the qualifying circumstance that is not enough because the qualifying circumstance is not actually an allegation of facts it is an allegation of conclusion but what must be alleged in the information is not conclusion of law but allegation of facts potential basis if the information does not allege aggravating and qualifying they cannot be considered by the court people versus mendoza huevos where in the rule is failure to state an aggravating circumstance even if proven during trial will not be appreciated okay when can we say that information charges an offense when can we say that information charges an offence whether an information validly charges an offense depends on whether the material facts allege therein shall establish the essential elements of the offense chart if not then the information does not charge an offense okay let us exemplify this in people versus the lacrosse this is the allegation in the information okay this is the allegation in the information the accused willfully and lawfully and feloniously commit sexual abuse on his daughter either by raping her or committing acts of the seriousness on her that is the allegation the supreme court said in people versus the lagos that is not a sufficient affirmance of facts constituting the offense for these are conclusions of law that the accused rape the victim or that the accused committed acts of the sea business these are not allegations of facts these are allegations of conclusion of law and the basic requirement in the allegation in the information is that what should be alleged is not a conclusion of law but what should be alleged is facts not conclusion okay let's go to amendment of the information okay okay rules on amendment amendment may be a matter of right giving us to form in substance and it is a matter of right before arraignment okay so the general rule is that prior to our amendment the prosecution can amend the information whether as to form or substance that is the general now can there be a situation where in despite the fact that there is yet no arraignment okay the prosecution cannot amend the information as a matter of fact but he has to file a motion to amend and he must notify the offended party okay is there such kind of situation the answer is yes if the purpose of the amendment is to downgrade the nature of the offense or to exclude any accused from the information then it has to be by leave of court and it is required that the prosecution must notify the private complaint let me give you an example let us say that a complaint for murder was filed against a b and c the victim is d the private complainant is the wife of d who is e so the private complaint is e the victim is d the accused is abc okay prior to the arraignment of abc the prosecution okay can the prosecution amend as a matter of right amend the information to downgrade offense from murder to homicide the answer is no if the prosecution wants to do that what he should do is to file a motion for him and he must notify the private offended party that is the exception to the general rule that amendment before arraignment is a matter of right exception when the purpose of the amendment is to downgrade the offense or to exclude one of the accused from the information then it has to be by leave of court and the private offended party must be notified okay after arraignment please take note that only formal amendment may be made and there has to be it has to be by name of course and please take note that one of the requirements also under the rules is that it must not prejudice the right of the accused okay after arraignment only formal amendment and there has to be motion for lead and the formal amendment must not prejudice the rights of the accused okay so meaning to say after arraignment formal amendment law substantial amendment indeed informal amendment limited even if it is a formal amendment but it will violate the substantial right of the accused then the motion for leave will not be granted okay so what is the difference between formal and substantial it does not change if it if the amendment does not change the nature of the crime alleged then it is just a formal amendment if it does not affect the essence of the offense if it does not cost surprise if it does not deprive the accused of the opportunity to meet new government then it is just a formal amendment otherwise it is a substantial amendment look at these cases comer versus people change in date change in the day the prosecution after arraignment move for leave to amend the information in order to change the date of the commission of the supreme court that is just a formal amendment it will not prejudice the right of the accused that is not substantial amendment change in the date of the commission of the kind but about versus from homicide to murder that is already substantial amendment it will predict the rights of the accused okay in people versus the gamut amendment to include victim amendment in order to include allegation that the victim became insane after the rape the supreme court said it is not substantial amendment if insanity occurred after the case is filed so if insanity occurred after the case is filed the supreme court said it is not substantial amendment what if insanity occurred even before the case is fine by parity of reasoning we could assume that that is already substantial amendment because it will prejudice the rights of the accused at all from the bhagavad's people for information for illegal recruitment were amended to one information before arraignment have been a supreme court for information were filed against the accused for illegal recruitment involving different victim or private complainants what if after arraignment of the accused in those four information the prosecution moved for leave to amend the complaint to subsume into one information all the victims of illegal criminal recruitment illegal recruitment would the amendment be considered formal or substantial that is already substantial no that is already substantial because it will prejudice the rights of the accused why even if you have four cases of illegal recruitment you can still post bail but if the prosecution would subsume all the victims in one information that will be illegal equipment by large scale an unbalable offense that will prejudice the right of the actions okay let's go to prosecution of civil action prosecution of civil action what is the general rule when a criminal action is instituted the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charge shall be deemed impliedly instituted i repeat when a criminal action is instituted the criminal action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offence charts shall be deemed impliedly in student but please take note that what is deemed instituted with a criminal action is only the action to recover civil liability arising from crime or x delete that is what is deemed impliedly instituted this type of civil liability cannot proceed independently from criminal action however its institution and prosecution may be reserved okay what again i would like to repeat what is deemed impliedly instituted is the civil action arising x dilita what is the substantive basis of section 1 of rule 1 11 article 100 of the revised penal code which provides that every person which is criminally liable is also civilly liable okay what would you reserve when should you reserve the prosecution of civil action and then shall reservation be made okay the reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation and what are the consequences when the civil liability is instituted with the criminal action under the rules after the criminal action is commenced the civil action arising there from cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered in a criminal action if after criminal action is filed after said civil action has been instituted the latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the merits okay so let us simplify if the civil action is then implied the instituted in a criminal action this is the civil action that arises from crime and a criminal action is instituted and you made a reservation the reserve civil action cannot be prosecuted it will not proceed until after the final judgment is rendered in a criminal action now if the civil action arising from crime is filed ahead of the criminal action i repeat if the civil action arising from crime is filed ahead of the criminal action okay and the criminal action is there after file the civil action will be suspended until the final action until the finality of the judgment in a criminal caption is ready okay now during dependency of the criminal action the running of the period of prescription of civil action which is deemed implied instituted in a criminal action shall be suspended the extinction of penal action does not carry with it the extinction of civil action however the civil action based on delic shall be extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in a criminal action that the after omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist let us have a question in a criminal option extinguish the civil liability arising from crime the answer is no because section 2 of rule 111 is very clear the extinction of the panel action does not carry with it the extinction of civil action now are there instances where acquittal in criminal cases does not result in the extinguishment of civil liability yes what are those where acquittal is based on reasonable doubt it cannot be considered as having civil liability ex-director as extinguished okay number two where the court expressed leading layers that the liability of the accused is not criminal but civil and number three where the liability is not derived from or based on the criminal act of which the accused subjected if this is the basis of the decision of acquittal then you can still recover uh civilian bill despite the acquittal of the accused how about counter claim or prostate is it allowed in criminal cases the answer is no that is very clear in section 1 of 111 now section 3 of rule 111 provides for what we call independent civil action it is considered as independent civil action because they can proceed independently from the criminal case because a criminal app can produce two liabilities criminal liability and c bill liability just like but this civil action whose basis are articles 32 33 34 2176 are considered independent civil action because they may be brought by the offending party independently and separately from the criminal case it will only require preponderance of evidence what is article 32 yeah of the civil code any public officer employee directly obstruct defeats and violates the constitutional rights of the accused cetera and in case of defamation from physical injuries independent civil action may be instituted and 2176 this is what we call quasi-10 so 32 33 54 2176 in dependency deduction but please take note of article 33 okay defamation that's why enliven the civil action arising from defamation can be filed separately from the criminal action staffer for example you can file sybil case you can also fight criminal case and both cases can proceed independently of each other physical injuries for example you can file an option for physical injury you can also find an action for damages on account of physical injury but please take note that physical injuries here is not the crime of physical injury any form of physical injury is included like murder homicide anything that involves physical injury that can be considered as independent civil action now please take note that the right to bring those independent actions based on the civil code need not be reserved in the criminal prosecution since they are not deemed included they're in okay do you have to reserve it the answer is no anobion c build action that has to be reserved those civil actions that are deemed impliedly instituted in a criminal action and what are those what is those civil actions those evil actions which arise from crime but those evil action which does not arise from crime not ex they like though but based on article 32 33 34 2176 they are not deemed impliedly instituted so if they are not deemed implied the instituted they need not be preserved okay another thing the institution or waiver of a right to file separate civil action arising from the crime charge does not extinguish the right to bring such action and the only limitation is that the offended party cannot recover more than once for the same patch or commission i'll give you an example criminal negligence vehicular mishap there are two actions that may be filed one is criminal action for negligence the other one is damages okay since it involves physical injuries it may be considered as independent civil action when you fight a criminal case humble damages arising from the negligence or team imply the institute the answer is no because it is not a civil action ex-director but it may be considered as an independent civil action under article 2176 of the secret code all right now the accused could validly institute a separate civil action for quasi delhi against a private complainant for the same act or omission he is accused of in a criminal case that was the example that i have just given you because this is allowed the paragraph 6 section 1 of rule 1 1 11 which states that uh a counter claim may of the accused may be litigated in a separate civil action okay how about bp 22 cases this is actually a new rule no a new rule bp 22 cases the general rule class is that preservation is not of civil action it's not allowed in the prosecution of bp 22 cases you cannot reserve it no the criminal action for violation of vp22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding simple action that's why when you file a case for bp 22 in court deemed impliedly instituted are the corresponding civil action of the civil case side of bp22 like the amount of check for example that is the implied institute that they're in can you reserve can you reserve the institution of a separate civil action arising from bb-22 the answer is no the answer is there is no reservation in bp 22 the simple aspect of bb-22 is deemed impliedly instituted in the criminal action of bp22 now however a separate proceeding for recovery of civil liability in cases of violation of bb-22 is allowed when civil case is filed ahead of the criminal case okay if you want to prosecute the civil aspect of bp 22 separate from the criminal card separate from the criminal case of bp22 what should you do you file ahead a criminal case as you find i had a civil case arising from pp22 that is the only way by which the civil aspect of bp22 and the criminal aspect for bipedal can proceed independently from each other but if the filing of the criminal aspect of bp22 were done first then the filing of the civil aspect for bp 22 then it cannot be reserved it is deemed impliedly instituted the effect of death of the abusers okay speck of death of the abuse okay look at section 4 of fool 111 the death of the accused after arraignment and during dependency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from delhi okay what civil liability extinguished when the accused died after arraignment or during dependency of the criminal action only the civil liability arising from crime that is the only thing which is extinguished however the independency been action instituted under section 3 of this rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce civil liability arising from the sources of obligation may be continued against the estate or legal representative will be accused after proper substitution or against said state as a case may be the supreme court in people versus biotas explain this what are the rules on the effect of death of the accused before final judgment sabinen supreme courts of people versus biotas death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes criminal liability as well as civil liability based solely thereof okay extinguished criminal liability by virtue of article 90 of the revised spinal cord now how about his sibling liability extinguished in ba extinguish then okay extinguishing only but the simple liability that is arising from right now the claim for civil liability survives not withstanding the death of the accused if the same may also be predated on some source of obligation other than delhi okay now where civil liability survives and action for recovery may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action subject to section 1 of rule 111 the separate civil action may be enforced against the executor administrator of the estate of the accused depending on the source of obligation question what is the effect if the accused dies before arraignment what is the effect if the accused dies before arraignment the rule says if the accused dies before arraignment the case shall be dismissed without prejudice to civil action to any civil action the offending party may file against the estate of the disease okay prejudicial question okay as i observe for every bar examination in remedial law there is always question on prejudicial question that's why every time i delivered a last minute lecture in remigelo i will always see to him that i would be discussing prejudicial questions it has always been the potential source of bar examination question and also prejudicial question is a very interesting topic in criminal procedure please take note that under the rules prejudicial question is one of those causes one of those grounds wherein you can move for the suspension of the arena if there is prejudicial question you can move for the suspension of arraignment there are only three grounds by which you can move for the suspension of arraignment among which is prejudicial question or dependency of a petition for review before the secretary of justice and lastly when the accused is insane at the time of arraignment you can move for the suspension of the arena okay now what is a prejudicial question please take note of the elements of prejudicial question which is provided in section 7 of rule 1 what is the first element the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in a subsequent criminal action and secondly the resolution of such issue determines whether or not criminal action may proceed okay please take note that a civil action cannot be used as a prejudicial question if this civil action is filed after the criminal action is instituted or filed i repeat a civil action cannot be used as a prejudicial question if this civil action is filed after the creep rule 111 provides the prejudicial question is a previously instituted civil action okay so for it for a civil action to be used as a prejudicial question the civil action must first be filed ahead it must be filed ahead of the criminal action and the issue in a civil case is determinative of whether or not the accused is guilty in a criminal case that makes that civil case a prejudicial question okay let us give an example this case of pimentel versus private respondent filed an option for frustrated parasite against petitioner several months after petitioner filed a declaration of nullity of marriage the petitioner filed a motion to suspend on the ground of prejudicial question since the relationship between the private respondent and the petitioner is a key element of parasite okay from the problem it can be depicted that the civil action formality was fired after the criminal action on that ground alone would you grant the motion to suspend on the ground prejudicial question the answer is no because one of the elements of a prejudicial question is previously instituted civil action but in the given problem the civil case was filed after the criminal case is filed the answer is no because prejudicial question contemplates a situation where civil case is first filed before the criminal case second the issue in a civil case is the not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the abuse in a criminal case is the issue of nullity of marriage determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accusing the criminal case the answer is no because even if the marriage is allowed it will not determine the guilt of the accused in a criminal case yes for sure he may not be convicted for parasite but he can be convicted for murder or homicide as a case may be so it is not the civil case in this case nullity of marriage is not determinative of the guilt of or innocence of the abuse in a criminal case all right this case is very it's a very good case it will actually uh tell you the proper application of a prejudicial question okay so what happened in this case is that the petitioner is the general manager of the corporation and the petitioner was the one who filed the case of estafa against the private respondent because apparently the corporation gave private respondent to vehicle for the private respondents use okay then the president of the corporation demanded its return the return of the two vehicles the private respondent did not accept to the demand of the petitioner the president of the corporation meaning he didn't want to return the two vehicle so the petitioner for in behalf of the corporation five four in behalf of the corporation [Music] that is something that we cannot do away with these are some technological uh glitches that we have to confront with in in online lectures anyway so let me continue this case is very important for you to be able to have a clear understanding of what prejudicial question is okay as what i have said what happened in this case is that the petitioner filed the petitioner is the supposed president of the corporation he filed a staffer case against the private respondent petitioner alleged that the corporation entrusted two vehicles to private respondents but when asked to return through a demand letter private respondent refused to turn over the vehicles but before the filing of the place for staffer private respondent filed before the securities commission a complaint questioning the election of petitioner as general manager then private respondent filed a motion to suspend on the ground of prejudicial question so the question the issue before the supreme court issued the motion be granted okay the supreme court said yes okay why the case in the securities and exchange commission will determine the guilt or innocence of the private respondent if it is established that sec that the security association mission the petitioner's election as general manager is invalid the validity of the demand letter by petitioner in behalf of the corporation will put in question it is as if no demand was made yet by the corporation thus if there is no demand there is yet no through misappropriation okay because in this particular case okay the there was a validly there was a previously instituted civil case filed before the securities and exchange commission questioning the election of the petitioner in this case as president the supreme court said that the accused is the case that was filed against the accused is is stop us through misappropriation and in estafa through misappropriation one of the indispensable requirement is that there must be a demand if it is eventually found out that the election of the petitioner is invalid then he cannot demand for and and behalf of the complaint if he cannot demand for and in behalf of the container then the demand that he made against the private responder is invalid that's why the resolution in a previously financial case is determinative of the guilt or incense of the accused in a criminal case now what is the meaning of previously filed or instituted civil case can you use the administrative case that is fought in addition body as prejudicial question in a criminal case previously instituted civil case a administrative case predicting ongoing prejudicial question and previously filed administrative case the answer is yes and that is the ruling of the supreme court in san miguel properties versus perez previously filed or instituted administrative case maybe may cause the suspension of the criminal case and may be used as a prejudicial question because the case that is filed here is the civil case or the uninsured case that is filed before the hl urb it was used as a pre-judicial question in a case filed before the prosecutors okay all right beltran versus people an action for declaration of nality is not a prejudicial question to a concubinage okay let's go to preliminary investigation so what is the purpose of preliminary investigation the purpose of preliminary investigation is to determine whether there is probable cause for what purpose for the purpose of filing an information import okay for the purpose of filing an information in court now what are those crimes for which preliminary investigation is required those crimes whose impossible penalty is above four to one or four years two months and one day okay what is the nature of preliminary investigation it is an executive function please take note that preliminary investigation is an executive function since it is an executive function it is something which cannot be encroached upon by the court the determination of probable cause under our criminal justice system is an executive function and that courts cannot interfere with in the absence of grave abuse of discretion that's why you cannot appeal the finding of probable costs of the prosecutor the proper ability procedure is you appeal it before the secretary of justice and please take note that the finding of secretary of justice is final and executory it is something which cannot be encroached upon by the court it is something which cannot be interfered upon by the court unless of course there is grave abuse of discretion okay now is the holding of preliminary investigation required by the constitution the answer is no can the law obliterate preliminary investigation from the rules of court without violating the constitutional right of the accused due process the answer is no because preliminary investigation is not a constitutional right preliminary investigation is just a statutory right but since we have a right to preliminary condition the denial of which is can't amount to denial of due process because it's there already if it is deprived of you then there is violation of due process all right now uh please take note that a preliminary investigation and purpose to find probable cause whether the respondent is probably guilty it is not actually a trial in itself okay such that the threshold of evidence in determining probable cause is that law no that law probably guilted the wrong okay in fact in one case decided by the supreme court this case of estradiol versus woodsman the supreme court even uh recognized that for purposes of determining whether there is probable cause against the respondent even hearsay evidence may be admitted as evidence hearsay evidence may be considered by the prosecutor in determining whether there is probable cause in filing an information or not against the respondent okay because preliminary investigation is a mere inquiry or proceeding it's not a trial its purpose is not to declare the respondent guilty be unreasonable doubt its purpose is actually to determine whether the respondent is probably probably guilty of the crime uh for which he was hailed before the prosecutors okay is it believable the answer is yes okay now uh i'll give you i'll present you a case this case of uh hasikawa versus you know i appreciate you you wanna were taken at gunpoint by two men and forcibly boarded on the vehicle and they were detained for 24 hours it's actually a crime of kidnapping you know what the investigating prosecutor did he dismissed the case why on the basis of the allegation of the accused in their counter affidavit according to the investigating prosecutor the story of the complainant is unbelievable because it is replete of many inconsistencies such that it should not be believed by the investigating prosecutor the supreme court said no that should not be the case because the supreme court said the investigating prosecutor in that case has set the parameters of probable costs too high her findings dealt mostly with what respondent had done or failed to do after the alleged crime was committed she delved into evidentiary matters that could only be passed upon in a full-blown trial where testimonies and documents would be fairly evaluated in accordance with the rules on evidence the issue upon which the charges are built pertain to factual matters that cannot be threshed out conclusively during the preliminary stage of the case a preliminary investigation is responding probably guilty of the crime the threshold of evidence is very low for the purpose of determining whether there is probable cause that's why if you would notice the tendency of the prosecution is to file the case not to dismiss the case no because the threshold of evidence in establishing probable cause is very low it is even lower than preponderance of evidence because in a privileged preliminary investigation the prosecution the investigator investigation investigating prosecutor is not actually required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt probable result from the nbi from an nba expert telling that the signature is a forgery peron public prosecutor young signature appearing on the document presented by the private container and the signature appearing on the document presented by the respondents to dismiss some cases in arriving at this conclusion the city prosecutor delved into the merits of the respondents defense this is contrary to the well settled rule that the validity and merits of parties defense and accusation as well as the admissibility of testimonies and evidence are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level okay is he say evidence sufficient to stop this probable cause as what i have told you earlier in the case of estrada versus the supreme court said yes because what is only required in determining whether or not the information should be filed is only probable okay can the court review the findings of the prosecutor general ruled no except when there is grave abuse of discretion okay who are officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigation the provincial proceeding prosecutor and their assistant national regional state prosecutors and other officers as may be authorized by i would like to discuss in so far as this topic is concerned the power of the ombudsman to contact investigation okay the power of the ombudsman to conduct preliminary investigation has the power to conduct preliminary investigation the answer is yes if the crime involves public officer the ombudsman has the power to contact preliminary investigation now is the power of don gutzman to conduct preliminary investigation is it shared with other uh agency of the government like for example doj the answer is yes meaning to say the ombudsman at the doj can also conduct preliminary investigation involving a public officer the same is true with umbutsuma the ombudsman has the power to conduct preliminary investigation involving public officer or employees and that is not exclusive to ombudsman that is very clear in honestly versus doj panda the power of the ombudsman to investigate offenses involving public officers and employees is not exclusive but is concurrent with other similarly authorized agencies of the government such as provincial city and state prosecutors has long been settled in several decisions of the court okay in other words the respondent doj panel is not precluded from conducting any investigation of cases against public officers involving violations of penal laws so the jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation of the doj and ombudsman are concurrent they are concurrent meaning the doj and the ombudsman can both conduct preliminary investigation but but okay if cases fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of this and vegan value i repeat if the cases fall under the jurisdiction of the san diego bayern then respondent ombudsman may exercise its primary jurisdiction and he can take over at any stage of the proceedings the preliminary investigation being conducted by the department of justice i'll give an example supposing a secretary a senator okay okay let us suppose that a case for graft and corruption is fired against a senator it is filed before doj department of justice the senator filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the department of justice has no jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation against a senator such that it is within the jurisdiction of the ombudsman the doj dismissed the case ruling that it has no jurisdiction over a senator is the ruling of the doj correct the answer is no the doj is not correct in dismissing the complaint filed against the senator even if the senator is uh a public officer and under the jurisdiction of the san diego buyer but what who nasa and vs doj is telling us is that they are concurrent okay but uh even if it is filed before doj and that is within the jurisdiction uh and the senior has primary jurisdiction over here the ombudsman can take over from the doj the conduct of preliminary investigation at any time at any time at any time because the case falls under the jurisdiction of the san diego i repeat if the cases fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the san diego bayern then the ombudsman may exercise its primary jurisdiction and take over the preliminary investigation at any stage of so this is the procedure of preliminary investigation filing the campaign and prosecutor can dismiss it if there is no probable cause but then the respondent will be required to file counter affidavit if there is no counter affinity it shall resolve the case hearing is optional okay then it will be submitted to resolution within 10 days on whether or not there is probable cause for the purpose of filing an information or not okay now appeal to secretary of justice if you are not amenable with the resolution of the city prosecutor what is the ability process you can appeal the same to the secretary of justice and what leading are you going to file you file a petition for review okay before the secretary of justice okay now how are you going to assail the determination of probable cause or the resolution of the secretary of justice okay how are you going to say for example you file a case for murder before the provincial prosecutor's office of bataan then there is a finding of probable cause you appeal the same to the secretary of justice the secretary is a film the resolution of the prosecutor's office you want still to question it where will you go and what are you going to find okay in so far as the resolution of the secretary of justice is concerned you file a petition for sanctuary and where are you going to file it you find it before the court of appeals now how about the determination of probable costs of the umbudsman okay how are you going to assail it and where are you going to assail same petition for sanctuary the ground of grave abuse of discretion where are you going to file it you file it before the supreme court that is how to assail the resolution of either the secretary of justice or the ombudsman in a preliminary investigation okay now let us suppose that the investigating okay let us suppose that investigating prosecutor filed the information accord because he finds that there is probable cause so the information now is filed important what is now the obligation of the court what should the court court or the judge will personally evaluate the resolution of the investigating prosecutor and its supporting evidence and determine from the record whether there is probable cause okay is it required for a judge to summon the private complainant in the witnesses semi-produce and conduct searching question and answer the answer is that is not required that is only required for the issuance of search one but but for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest i repeat for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrests it is not required of the court to summon the complainant in its witnesses and conduct searching question and answer what is required is that the judge should examine personally the records of the case the supporting evidence for the resolution and determine from them whether there is a probable cause now if there is no probable cause what may the judge do he can dismiss the case otherwise he shall issue a word of arrest or commitment for them he may order the prosecutor to present evidence to establish probable cause and resolve the same within 30 days from the filing of the information okay now what is this inquest positions and when do we conduct inquest proceedings in quest proceeding is the proceedings that is being conducted if the accused is caught in the commission of the crime in flagrante okay otherwise preliminary investigation while in the actual commission of the crime humana warrant proceedings will be conducted by the prosecutor if there is no inquest prosecutor the complaint may be filed directly reported the accused but he must execute a waiver of article 125 in the presence of his counsel the arrested person has the right to apply for being after the filing of the information and within five days from the knowledge they're off accused may ask for preliminary investigation now what should the prosecutor do during inquest proceedings and eating prosecutor is whether the accused is lawfully arrested or not if the prosecutor determined that the abuse was not lawfully arrested then he will release the accused for further investigation now so this is the duty of the inquest prosecutor determine whether the accused was lawfully arrested in accordance with the rule if the arrest is illegal he shall not proceed with the inquest and recommend the release of the arrested person which recommendation should be approved by the chief if the arrest is found legal he shall proceed with the inquest and if he finds probable cause and information will be filed he may ask the arrested person if he wants to avail of the right to preliminary investigation but in the presence of his council the arrested person will be asked to sign a waiver of the provision of article 125 okay can the accused appeal the resolution of the inquest prosecutors finding of probable cause to secretary of justice okay iba in quest the inquest prosecutor will determine whether there is probable cause if there is probable cause he will file an information resolution on his determination or probable cause is it appealable to the secretary of justice repetition for review the supreme court said in libviste versus almeida that that is not the proper remedy the supreme court held that the remedy of appeal to soj secretary of justice is not immediately available in cases subject of request the private party should first avail of preliminary investigation or reinvestigation if any before elevating the matter to the secretary of justice okay so arrest okay most important provision in arrest that is arrest without warrant okay there are three instances by which a peace officer or a private office a private person may arrest without first is infla granted arrest the second is hot pursuit arrest and the third one is arrest of unskippy okay what is the requisite of an inter-granted electoral arrest there are two requisites there are lots of cases that would deal with in granted elite arrests but there is this is the only thing that you have to remember first element the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed is actually committing or is attempting to commit a crime and number two such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer okay please take note that what is important here is that there is an overt act indicating that the accused is actually committing its attempting or is about to commit as committed is actually committing or is attempting to commit a crime and such overtake is done in the presence within the view of the arrest officer let us say let us imagine that we are all in a classroom let us say that i am an mbi agent and somebody tipped off me that one of you is possessing a marijuana inside your pocket and the [Music] the tipster okay pointed one of you to me and i approach you and i arrested you after i have arrested you i required you to pull out your pocket and then when you pulled it out i saw the marijuana it's the arrest body was where you arrested the actual commission again what are the elements the person to be arrested must execute an overt app indicating that he has just committed is actually committed or attempting to commit an offense when you were arrested was there an offer that you were committing a crime there was not because you are just sitting there okay hearing the lecture of your professor when you were arrested there is no overt up indicating that you has just committed is actually committing or attempting to commit a crime and such overt up is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer that's why in the case of people basis accused was arrested while merely talking to the confidential asset and talking to a confidential asset is not actually a crime so the arrest according to the supreme court is illegal in antique people accused were arrested when police officers picked up a slightly open door just like in this case they picked at the slightly open door and then when they allegedly saw they accused doing a path session they entered into the house and arrested the accused the supreme court said there was an illegal entry okay they should have secured search warrant the arrest of the accused is illegal okay people versus villarreal running is not synonymous with guilt because what happened in this case is that when they accused the police officer they ran away they were chased by the police officer and when they were catch they they were arrested after the arrest they found something illegal in their pocket okay supreme court arrest is illegal because running is not a crime in ammunition people vs ammuniti the accused when you arrested was just walking in a gun plant what is gun flank that is an in damien that is a uh that is how would i explain it there is a ship in the jung param platform that is connected with the ship and the pier that is gangplank okay he was walking down the gangplank when he was arrested if the supreme court said in a gun plan it's not a crime okay so indicating that the accused has just committed actually committing or attempting to commit an offense and such over attack is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer if there is no overt cut indicating that accused is actually committing about the committee or just committed a crime then the arrest is illegal okay how about what are the requisites an offense has just been committed and the person making the offense has personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it please take note that the arresting officer here was not present at the time that the crime is committed because if he was present then the arrest would be infla granted a little rest in in in had pursued arrest the offense was already committed but the person making the arrest has personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the person sought to be arrested has committed it there is a probable boss on the part of the arresting officer that the person who were arrested committed the offense i'll give you an example a report that a stopping incident happened reached the police station and the police officers responded when they arrived at the crime scene they saw a body of the victim lying on the pavement of the street and they also saw a uh a knife a bloody knife beside the lying body of the victim okay and they saw a person running away from the scene of the crime and somebody hit the police officer that the one running away whose blood whose shirt was blooded was actually the one who stumped the victim so what the police officers did is that they chased uh this person running away from the scene of the crime and they were able to catch him is the arrest valid the answer is yes because the offense has just been committed and because of what they saw the body of the victim lying on the pavement the the knife that is beside the body of the victim and the individual running away from the scene of the crime whose shirt is blooded and the information that they gathered from the bystanders these are circumstances coming from the personal knowledge of the arresting officers that would make them believe that the person who was arrested committed offense but please take note of the first requirement the offense has just been committed there is an element of immediacy meaning to say the look at the of the commission of the offense and the time of the arrest of the accused it should not be that long because based on the first element there must be first requisite there must be an element of immediacy if for example the arrest was made after 10 days three days four days from the time the crime is committed then it will not fall under the exception of hot porsche arrest okay just like in this case of posadas the killing of denis venturina happened in december 8 1994 it was only in december 11 1994 that chancellor posadas requested nba assistance on the basis of the supposed identification of two witnesses the nbi attempted to arrest francis three days after the commission of the grant the supreme court said the arrest is illegal because there is no element of immediacy because for it to fall under the exception an offense has just been committed there must be an element of immediacy from the time of the commission the crime and the arrest of the accused