* The preview only shows a few pages of manuals at random. You can get the complete content by filling out the form below.
Description
An arrest with a warrant presupposes that an affidavit-complaint was filed against the suspect (respondent) with the Office of the Prosecutor (or in certain exceptional cases with the Department of Justice), and it finds probable cause to charge him in court. The court separately finds probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against him. On the other hand, a warrantless arrest takes place when a person to be arrested is caught committing, about to commit or has just committed a crime. III. WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS THAT THE ACCUSED MAY INVOKE TO QUASH A COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION? 1. That the facts charged don’t constitute an offense 2. That the court trying the case doesn’t have jurisdiction over the offense 3. That the court trying the case doesn’t have jurisdiction over the accused 4. That the officer who filed the information didn’t have authority to do so 5. That it doesn’t conform substantially to the form subscribed 6. That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law 7. That criminal liability or action has been extinguished 8. That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification 9. That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him has been dismissed or otherwise terminated without the consent of the accused IV. WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF A VALID TRIAL IN ABSENTIA? 1. The accused has been already arraigned 2. He has been duly notified of the trial 3. He fails to appear at the trial but his non-appearance at the trial is unjustifiable
1. X FILED A SWORN COMPLAINT FOR ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS BEFORE THE PROSECUTOR. BEFORE THE PROSECUTOR COULD FILE CASE IN COURT, X DIED. CAN THE PROSECUTOR STILL FILE THE INFORMATION IN COURT? > Yes, the desire of X to file the case is evident in her filing of complaint before the prosecutor
2. yes, the case should be dismissed because of insufficient grounds and that there is no complaint filed by the offended party. 3. IS THERE AN EXCEPTION TO THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION? > The right cannot be invoked when the State has the rights to inspect documents under its police power, such as documents of corporations. 4. 5. WITHIN WHAT PERIOD MUST A WARRANT OF ARREST BE SERVED? > There is no limitation of period > A warrant of arrest is valid until the arrest is effected or the warrant lifted > The head of the office to whom the warrant was delivered must cause it to be executed within 10 days from its receipt, and the officer to whom it is assigned must make a report to the judge who issued the warrant within 10 days from the expiration of the period. If he fails to execute it, he should state the reasons therefore. 6. WHEN IS A JOHN DOE WARRANT VALID? ARE THEY VALID? > A John Doe warrant is a warrant for the apprehension of a person whose true name is unknown > Generally, this kind of warrants are void because the violate the constitutional provision which requires that warrants of arrests should particularly describe the person or persons to be arrested > But if there is sufficient description to identify the person to be arrested, the warrant is valid 7. WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF MARRIAGE OF THE OFFENDER WITH THE OFFENDED PARTY IN PRIVATE CRIMES? > It shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed—this implies to co-principals, accomplices, and accessories > However, where multiple rape is committed, marriage of the offended party with one defendant extinguishes the latter’s liability and that of his accessories or accomplices for a single crime of rape cannot extend to the other acts of rape 8. IF THE OFFENDED IN RAPE IS THE LEGAL HUSBAND OF THE OFFENDED PARTY, HOW CAN THE HUSBAND’S CRIMINAL LIABLITY BE EXTINGUISHED? > The subsequent forgiveness by the wife shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty > But the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio 9. CAN THE ACCUSED STILL RAISE PRESCRIPTION AS A DEFENSE EVEN AFTER CONVICTION? > The accused can still raise prescription as a defense even after conviction > The defense cannot be waived > This is because the criminal action is totally extinguished by the expiration of the prescriptive period > The state thereby loses or waives the right to prosecute and punish it 10. DISTINGUISH ACQUITTAL AND DISMISSAL > Acquittal is a discharge after a trial, or an attempt to have one, upon the merits. It is always on the merits. The accused is acquitted because the evidence doesn’t show his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. > On the other hand, dismissal is when the case is terminated otherwise upon the merits thereof, as when the dismissal is based on the allegation that the court has no jurisdiction, either upon the subject matter or the territory, or that the complaint or information is not valid or sufficient, or upon any ground that doesn’t decide the merits of the issue as to whether the accused is or isn’t guilty of the offense charged
11. IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO ARRESTS
A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense (Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 113, Sec. 5[a]). This kind of warrantless arrest is known as an in flagrante delicto arrest. The validity of this warrantless arrest requires compliance with the overt act test. Two elements must concur: 1. The person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he/she has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and 2. Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Failure to comply with the overt act test renders an inflagrante delicto arrest constitutionally infirm. “In flagrante” arrests require that the an overt act must be committed in the presence of the arresting officer. In the next valid warrantless arrest, law enforcers need not personally witness the commission of a crime.
HOT PURSUIT ARRESTS A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it (Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 113, Sec. 5[b]). This provision covers “hot pursuit” arrests, which require the presence of two elements to be valid:
1. An offense has just been committed; and
2. The arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.
That a crime was in fact committed does not automatically bring the case under “hot pursuit” arrests”. There must be “probable cause” and there must be “immediacy” in the time frame from the commission of the crime. The existence of “probable cause” is the “objectifier” or the determinant on how the arresting officer shall proceed on the facts and circumstances, within his personal knowledge, for purposes of determining whether the person to be arrested has committed the crime. The “probable cause” for arresting officers is distinct from the “probable cause” for public prosecutors and judges. In resolving a complaint during preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor must make a determination of probable case, which is the existence of facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. In resolving an application for a warrant of arrest, the judge must also make a determination of probable cause, which is the existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. The arresting officer should base his determination of probable cause on his personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person sought to be arrested has committed the crime; the public prosecutor and the judge must base their determination on the evidence submitted by the parties. In other words, the arresting officer operates on the basis of more limited facts, evidence or available information that he must personally gather within a limited time frame. The clincher in the element of ”personal knowledge of facts or circumstances” is the required element of immediacy within which these facts or circumstances should be gathered. This required time acts as a safeguard to ensure that the police officers have gathered the facts or perceived the circumstances within a very limited time frame. Lastly, is important to note that even in valid warrantless arrests, the person arrested is entitled to his/her “Miranda Rights“. 12. Q: X was arrested, in flagrante, for robbing a bank. After an investigation, he was brought before the office of the prosecutor for inquest, but unfortunately no inquest prosecutor was available. May the bank directly file the complaint with the proper court? If in the affirmative, what document should be filed? (2012 Bar) A: Yes, the bank may directly file the complaint with the proper court. In the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person (Sec.6, Rule 12). 13. The phrase “personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested committed it” means that matters in relation to the supposed commission of the crime were within the actual perception, personal evaluation or observation of the police officer at the scene of the crime. Thus, even though the police officer has not seen someone actually, fleeing, he could still make a warrantless arrest if, based on his personal evaluation of the circumstances at the scene of the crime, he could determine the existence of probable cause that the person sought to be arrested has committed the crime; however, the determination of probable cause and the gathering of facts or circumstances should be made immediately after the commission of the crime in order to comply with the element of immediacy The arresting officer’s determination of probable cause under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is based on his personal knowledge of the facts or circumstances that the person sought to be arrested has committed the crime. These facts or circumstances pertain to actual facts or raw evidence, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt on the person to be arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making
the arrest. The probable cause to justify warrantless arrest ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged, or an actual belief or reasonable ground of suspicion, based on actual facts. (Joey M. Pestilos v. Moreno Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014) 14. Q: A was charged with a non-bailable offense. At the time when the warrant of arrest was issued, he was confined in the hospital and could not obtain a valid clearance to leave the hospital. He filed a petition for bail saying therein that he be considered as having placed himself under the jurisdiction of the court. May the court entertain his petition? Why or why not? (2012 Bar) A: Yes, a person is deemed to be under the custody of the law either when he has been arrested or has surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the court. The accused who is confined in a hospital may be deemed to be in the custody of the law if he clearly communicates his submission to the court while he is confined in a hospital (Paderanga v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115407, August 28, 1995) 15. 3) Angie was convicted of false testimony and served sentence. Five years later, she was convicted of homicide. On appeal, she applied for bail. May the Court of Appeals deny her application for bail on ground of habitual delinquency? No, the felonies fall under different titles in the Revised Penal Code. https://lawphil.net/courts/bm/barQ/2011/remedialQ.html 16. Q: X was arrested for the alleged murder of a 6-year old lad. He was read his Miranda rights immediately upon being apprehended. In the course of his detention, X was subjected to three hours of non-stop interrogation. He remained quiet until, on the 3rd hour, he answered "yes" to the question of whether "he prayed for forgiveness for shooting down the boy." The trial court, interpreting X’s answer as an admission of guilt, convicted him. On appeal, X’s counsel faulted the trial court in its interpretation of his client’s answer, arguing that X invoked his Miranda rights when he remained quiet for the first two hours of questioning. Rule on the assignment of error. (2002, 2010 Bar) A: The assignment of error invoked by X’s counsel is impressed with merit since there has been no express waiver of X’s Miranda rights. In order to have a valid waiver of the Miranda rights, the same must be in writing and made in the presence of his counsel. The uncounselled extrajudicial confession of X being without a valid waiver of his Miranda rights, is inadmissible, as well as any information derived therefrom. 17. Policemen brought Lorenzo to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) and requested one of its surgeons to immediately perform surgery on him to retrieve a packet of 10 grams of shabu which they alleged was swallowed by Lorenzo. Suppose the PGH agreed to, and did perform the surgery, is the package of shabu admissible in evidence? Explain. ANSWER No, the package of shabu extracted from the body of Lorenzo is not admissible in evidence because it was obtained through surgery which connotes forcible invasion into the body of Lorenzo without his consent and absent due process. The act of the policemen and the PGH surgeon in involved, violate the fundamental rights of Lorenzo, the suspect. 18. What are the requirements in order that an admission of guilt of an accused during a custodial investigation be admitted in evidence? - The Court has consistently held that an extrajudicial confession, to be admissible, must satisfy the following requirements: "(1) the confession must be voluntary; (2) it must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel, preferably of the confessant's choice; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must be in writing."19 19. 'hindi ko sinasadya' was only the mitigating circumstance of "no intention to commit so grave a wrong" recited in paragraph 3, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, and claims that in truth and in fact his plea was that of guilt of the lesser offense of Homicide, not Murder. The essence of a plea of guilty is that the accused admits his guilt, freely, voluntarily, and with a full knowledge of the consequences and meaning of his act and with a clear understanding of the precise nature of the crime charged in the complaint or information. 5 While it is true that a plea of guilty admits all the allegations in the information including the aggravating and qualifying circumstances, 6 the repeated and emphatic qualification stated by the defendant- appellant as regards his plea of guilty should have drawn the attention of the trial court that the plea was made without a full knowledge of its consequences. Apparently, counsel failed to advise him as to the meaning and effect of the technical language used in the information qualifying the acts constituting the offense. In order to be valid, the plea must be an unconditional admission of guilt. It must be of such nature as to foreclose the defendant's right to defend himself from said charge, thus leaving the court no alternative but to impose the penalty fixed by law. 7 Under the circumstances of this case, the appellant's qualified plea of guilty is not a valid plea of guilty. 20. Q: A criminal information is filed in court charging Anselmo with homicide. Anselmo files a motion to quash the information on the ground that no preliminary investigation was conducted. Will the motion be granted? Why or why not? (2009 Bar) A: No, the motion to quash will not be granted. The lack of preliminary investigation is not a ground for a motion to quash. Preliminary investigation is only a statutory right and can be waived. The accused should instead file a motion for reinvestigation within five (5) days after he learn of the filing in Court of the case against him (Sec. 6, Rule 112, as amended). 21. Q: When a criminal case is dismissed on nolle prosequi, can it later be refilled? (2003 Bar) A: As a general rule, when a criminal case is dismissed on nolle prosequi before the accused is placed on trial and before he is called on to plead, this is not equivalent to an acquittal and does not bar a subsequent prosecution for the same offense (Galvez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114046, October 24, 1994).
22. Q: After the prosecution had rested and made its formal offer of evidence, with the court admitting all of the prosecution evidence, the accused filed a demurrer to evidence with leave of court. The prosecution was allowed to comment thereon. Thereafter, the court granted the demurrer, finding that the accused could not have committed the offense charged. If the prosecution files a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the court order granting the demurrer was not in accord with the law and jurisprudence, will the motion prosper? Explain your answer. (2009 Bar)
23. The prosecution should file a motion to discharge the accused as state witness with his consent. The court will require the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement of the proposed state witness. If the court is satisfied, it will discharge the state witness. But if the court denies the motion for discharge, the State can file a petition for certiorari. A: No, the motion will not prosper. With the granting of the demurrer, the case shall be dismissed and the legal effect is the acquittal of the accused. A judgment of acquittal is immediately executory and no appeal can be made therefrom. Otherwise, the Constitutional protection against double jeopardy would be violated.
24. No. because when the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution. 25. Q: AX was charged before the YY RTC with theft of jewelry valued at P20,000.00, punishable with imprisonment of up to 10 years of prison mayor under the Revised Penal Code. After trial, he was convicted of the offense charged, notwithstanding that the material facts duly established during the trial showed that the offense committed was estafa, punishable by imprisonment of up to eight years of prison mayor under the said Code. No appeal having been taken therefrom, said judgment of conviction became final. Is the judgment of conviction valid? Is the said judgment reviewable thru a special civil action for certiorari? Reason. (2004 Bar) A: Yes, the judgment of conviction for theft upon Information for theft is valid because the court had jurisdiction to render judgment. However, the judgment was grossly and blatantly erroneous. The variance between the evidence and the judgment of conviction is substantial since the evidence is one for estafa while the judgment is one for theft. The elements of the two crimes are not the same (Lauro Santos v. People, G.R. No. 77429 January 29, 1990). One offense does not necessarily include or is included in the other (Sec. 5, Rule 120). The judgment of conviction is reviewable by certiorari even if no appeal had been taken, because the judge committed a grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of his jurisdiction in convicting the accused of theft and in violating due process and his right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him, which make the judgment void. With the mistake in charging the proper offense, the judge should have directed the filing of the proper information and thereafter dismissed the original information (Sec. 19, Rule 119).
