Crim Pro Quick Guide.pdf

CASE

PRINCIPLE

SALAZAR vs. PEOPLE

RULE 110 section 1

institution of criminal action; who may file.

Any person may initiate a preliminary investigation through the fiscal for him to determine probable cause Direct filing of a criminal complaint requires that the proper offended party initiates the action. RULE 112 section 8(b) A preliminary investigation is not a part of a trial or judicial action. The record of the preliminary investigation, whether conducted by a judge or a fiscal, shall not form part of the record of the case. However, the court, on its own initiative or on motion of any party, may order the production of the record or any its part when necessary in the resolution of the case or any incident therein, or when it is to be introduced as an evidence in the case by the requesting party.

In sum: In order to initiate a criminal action, either the proper offended party or the prosecutor must institute the action throught a complaint and a preliminary investigation respectively.

CASE

PRINCIPLE

PEOPLE vs. ALAMEDA
 preliminary investigation, reinvestigation, amendments to form of information.

There is no substantial distinction between a preliminary investigation and a reinvestigation since both are conducted in the same manner and for the same objective of determining whether there exists sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. RULE 112 section 9 A judge may, however, require the submission of additional evidence, within ten (10) days from notice, to determine further the existence of probable cause.

In sum: amendments to the information filed by the prosecutor must be in form and not in substance as not to violate due process. Check if the original defense of accused may still stand even after the amendment of the information, if yes, then there is no violation of due process. 
 
 PEOPLE vs. DUCAY
 The court held that the maxim “Falcus et uno, abandonment of the principle of falcus et uno, falcus falcus et omnibus” -a witness who testifies et omnibus. falsely about one matter is not credible to testify

about any matter” is not a mandatory rule of evidence.

In sum: The court abandoned the principle of (falcus et uno, falcus et omnibus). The testimony of a witness may be believed with respect to some facts and disbelieved with respect to other facts.

PEOPLE vs. COSTALES

The straightforward and consistent narration of facts by prosecution witnesses immensely fortifies their case. In addition, no impure motive on their part further bolsters their credibility.

CASE

PRINCIPLE

PEOPLE vs. VILLAR AMENDMENT TO INFORMATION, FORM AND SUBSTANCE.

The fundamental rule is that upon him who alleges rests the burden of proof. He cannot simply rely on the lack of evidence showing the contrary.
 
 Circumstances must be alleged in the complaint and proved in court, otherwise, considering such circumstances would be a violation and denial of the rights of the accused to due process and to be informed of the charges against him. In sum: the complaint against the accused rapist was incomplete in its substance, unlike in the previous case where the information may be amended if it is merely incomplete in form. If the prosecution was allowed to amend the information substantially, it would then aggravate and qualify the accused to be meted with the penalty of death, a notion which would violate the rights to due process of the accused.

PADILLA vs. CA


Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction of the penal action proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil action might arise did not exist. In other cases, the person entitled to the civil action may institute it in the jurisdiction and in the manner provided by law against the person who may be liable for restitution of the thing and reparation or indemnity for the damage suffered.


 CIVIL LIABILITY SUSTAINED FROM ACQUITTAL

Civil action may arise from a criminal act or a quasidelict. However, one may not claim restitution from both sources of the civil action. In sum: This case stated the rules on acquittal from civil liabilities. 
 
 The accused may be acquitted 
 1.)based on reasonable doubt ( the prosecution failed to prove his guilt)
 2.)based on the merits (the accused was able to prove he did not commit the crime)
 
 
 Civil Liabilities may be derived from
 1.) when the civil liability arose from the criminal act but there was acquittal of the criminal act based on reasonable doubt.
 2.) When the court personally declares that the liability is only civil in nature.
 3.) When the civil liability is not derived from the criminal act itself (independent civil action).


CASE

PRINCIPLE

Land Bank of the Philippines vs Jacinto

A prejudicial question generally exists in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the former an issue that must be preemptively resolved before the latter may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.


prejudicial question, rules and elements of prejudicial question.


 Juris et de jure - conclusive presumptions of law which cannot be rebutted by evidence. RULE 111 section 7. Elements of a prejudicial question (i) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and 
 (ii) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. In sum: When there is a civil action pending and a subsequent criminal action is also filed. The presence of a prejudicial question may suspend the proceedings of the criminal action until the prejudicial question is resolved in the civil action. VILLAFLOR vs. VIVAR Failure to conduct a preliminary investigation

The absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective. Neither does it affect the jurisdiction of the court or constitute a ground for quashing the information.The trial court, instead of dismissing the information, should hold in abeyance the proceedings and order the public prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation. In sum: if there is failure on the part of the prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation, the judge may order the former to conduct an investigation nonetheless. The criminal action may also not be quashed by mere reason of failure to conduct a preliminary investigation for nowhere it is expressed in the rule 117 of the rules of criminal procedure which provides the grounds for a motion to quash that the absence of a preliminary investigation may provide for its dismissal.

PEOPLE vs. AMINNUDIN

Vessels and aircraft are subject to warrantless searches and seizures for violation of the customs law because these vehicles may be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction

CASE

PRINCIPLE customs law because these vehicles may be

quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction before the warrant can be secured.
 
 In sum: in this case, there was ample time to procure a warrant, the discretion in ascertaining the grounds for the issuance of a warrant rest on the discretion of the judge. The Philippine constabulary may not put it upon themselves the determination of a necessity of a warrant. 1.    A warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest       a.    Arrest must be lawful       b.    It must be contemporaneous with the arrest in both time and place       c.     Within  the  vicinity  of  the  person  arrested,  immediate control, which is the evidence of the offense or weapon  
 2.    Search of evidence in plain view (plain view doctrine, Robin Padilla v Court of Appeals)
 3.    Search of a moving vehicle       a.    Must be cursory       b.    Cant make a thorough search; just have to take a look; not to open trunks  (id)
 4.    Consented warrantless searches       a.    The right exists       b.    Person making the consent knows that he has the right       c.     In spite of the knowledge of the right, he voluntarily and intelligently gives his consent  
 5.    Customs searches 
 6.    Stop and frisk (Terry vs. Ohio)
 7.    Exigent and emergency circumstances 
 8.    Checkpoints  9.    Republic Act requiring inspections or body checks in airports  10.  Emergency  11.  In times of war and within military operations 

PEOPLE vs. TANGLIBEN

Search and Seizure in flagrante delicto.
 In sum: the accused was caught with prohibited drugs upon a tip from an informant.
 
 In sum: The police may search and seize such prohibited items without warrant . such seizure is allowed when it is not practicable to secure a warrant.

UMIL vs. RAMOS

Crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion,

conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and other crimes and offenses committed in the furtherance, on the occasion thereof, or

CASE

PRINCIPLE

incident thereto, or in connection therewith under Presidential Proclamation No. 2045, are all in the nature of continuing offenses which set them apart from the common offenses, aside from their essentially involving a massive conspiracy of nationwide magnitude. In sum: Crimes involving rebellion does not require the prior procurement of a warrant for a valid arrest of the accused. They may be arrested without warrant not for the purpose of prosecution but for the preservation of the state. PEOPLE vs. RACHO search and seizure.
 doctrine fruit of the poisonous tree.
 exclusionary rule.

A valid arrest must come first before a valid warrantless search and seizure. In this case, a warrantless search was done first by mere information provided by an informant and after finding out that there is indeed possession of drugs, a subsequent warrantless arrest followed. Such is not allowed by law.
 
 In sum: For a warrantless search and seizure to be valid, it must be preceded by a valid arrest. 
 
 Assuming that the arrest preceded the search, still there was no reason to arrest the accused. The long standing rule in this jurisdiction is that reliable information alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest. The rule requires, in addition, that the accused perform some overt act that would indicate that he has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
 
 
 In this case, the accused was impulsively searched when he was not doing any crime in the presence of the Police officers.
 
 Furthermore, the information relied on upon by the police is not based on personal knowledge. 
 





And lastly, the accused was not acting in strange way as to engender a reasonable ground for the police officers to suspect the accused. 


CASE

PRINCIPLE

PEOPLE vs. MARIACOS
 MALA PROHIBITA

Lack of criminal intent and good faith are not valid defenses when the crime charged is mala prohibita. The mere possession of a prohibited drug is penalized in itself pursuant to the dangerous drugs act of 2002.

TERRY vs OHIO
 also illuminated in the case of PEOPLE vs. CHUA

STOP AND FRISK.
 Officers may conduct a search limited for weapons when they observe unusual conduct leading them to reasonably suspect criminal activity is afoot and the individual(s) involved is/are armed.
 
 Important: It must be PERSONAL INFORMATION which aroused suspicion to engender a well-grounded belief that a person is committing a crime.


ESQUILLO vs. PEOPLE

The alibi of a “Frame-up” is a worn-out defense which is easily concocted and must be proven by the defense with clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity conferred to police officers.

POSADAS vs.COURT OF APPEALS

There was a probable cause that he was

concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same. UNILAB vs. ISIP
 plain view doctrine, requisites

(a) the executing law enforcement officer has a prior justification for an initial intrusion or otherwise properly in a position from which he can view a particular order; (b) the officer must discover incriminating evidence inadvertently; and (c) it must be immediately apparent to the police that the items they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure
 
 In sum: The burden of proof in proving that the seized items were under the plain view doctrine rest on the authority claiming such. In this case, there was a seizure of items which were not enumerated in the search warrant. The NBI is then obliged to prove that the seized items are done under the doctrine.

CASE

PRINCIPLE

VALMONTE vs. DE VILLA
 Military check points and seizure

It is not violative of the constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure as provided under article 3 section 2 of the constitution. 
 
 The manning of checkpoints by the military is susceptible of abuse by the men in uniform, in the same manner that all governmental power is susceptible of abuse. But, at the cost of occasional inconvenience, discomfort and even irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints during these abnormal times, when conducted within reasonable limits, are part of the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community.