REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART V-VII Injunction and/or TRO assailing the creation of the Second Panel. On March 12,
Case Digests 2012, the Second Panel issued the Resolution finding probable cause and
recommending the filing of informations on all accused, including Reyes. The RTC
of Palawan subsequently issued warrants of arrest. However, the warrants against
V. RULE 112 (PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION) Reyes and his brother were ineffective since the two allegedly left the country days
before the warrants could be served. On March 29, 2012, Reyes filed before the
1. De Lima v. Reyes Secretary of Justice a Petition for Review Ad Cautelam assailing the Second Panel's
Facts: Resolution dated March 12, 2012. Reyes argued that the RTC could not enforce the
Dr. Ortega was a veterinarian and anchor of several radio shows in Palawan. On Second Panel's Resolution and proceed with the prosecution of his case since this
January 24, 2011, he was shot dead inside the Baguio Wagwagan Ukay-ukay in Resolution was void. On March 19, 2013, the CA rendered the Decision declaring
Puerto Princesa City. Recamata was arrested and on the same day, he made an Department Order No. 710 null and void and reinstating the First Panel's Resolutions
extrajudicial confession admitting that he shot Dr. Ortega. He also implicated Edrad, dated June 8, 2011 and September 2, 2011. According to the CA, the Secretary of
Aranas, and Noel. Edrad executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay where he alleged that it Justice committed grave abuse of discretion when she issued Department Order No.
was former Palawan Governor Reyes who ordered the killing of Dr. Ortega. 710 and created the Second Panel. The CA found that she should have modified or
Secretary of Justice De Lima issued Department Order No. 091 creating a special reversed the Resolutions of the First Panel pursuant to the 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal
panel of prosecutors (First Panel) to conduct preliminary investigation. Dr. instead of issuing Department Order No. 710 and creating the Second Panel. The
Inocencio-Ortega, Dr. Ortega's wife, filed a Supplemental Affidavit-Complaint Secretary of Justice, the Second Panel, and Dr. Inocencio-Ortega filed a Motion for
implicating Reyes as the mastermind of her husband's murder. On June 8, 2011, the Reconsideration of the Decision dated March 19, 2013. The Motion, however, was
First Panel concluded its preliminary investigation and issued the Resolution denied by the CA. In its Resolution, the CA stated that the Secretary of Justice had
dismissing the Affidavit-Complaint. On June 28, 2011, Dr. Inocencio-Ortega filed a not shown the alleged miscarriage of justice sought to be prevented by the creation of
Motion to Re-Open Preliminary Investigation, which sought the admission of mobile the Second Panel since both parties were given full opportunity to present their
phone communications between Reyes and Edrad. While the Motion to Re-Open evidence before the First Panel. Aggrieved, the Secretary of Justice and the Second
was still pending, Dr. Inocencio-Ortega filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration Panel filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision dated
Ad Cautelam of the Resolution dated June 8, 2011. Both Motions were denied by the March 19, 2013 and Resolution dated September 27, 2013 of the CA.
First Panel in the Resolution dated September 2, 2011. On September 7, 2011, the
Secretary of Justice issued Department Order No. 710 creating a new panel of Issue/s:
investigators (Second Panel) to conduct a reinvestigation of the case. Department Whether or not the Petition for Certiorari has already been rendered moot by the
Order No. 710 ordered the reinvestigation of the case "in the interest of service and filing of the information in court, pursuant to Crespo v. Mogul. – YES.
due process" to address the offer of additional evidence denied by the First Panel.
Pursuant to Department Order No. 710, the Second Panel issued a Subpoena Decision of the Court:
requiring Reyes to appear before them and to submit his counter-affidavit and The Secretary of Justice has the discretion, upon motion or motu proprio, to act on
supporting evidence. any matter that may cause a probable miscarriage of justice in the conduct of a
preliminary investigation. This action may include, but is not limited to, the conduct
On September 29, 2011, Dr. Inocencio-Ortega filed before the Secretary of Justice a of a reinvestigation. Furthermore, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 questioning
Petition for Review (Ad Cautelam) assailing the First Panel's Resolution dated the regularity of preliminary investigation becomes moot after the trial court
September 2, 2011. On October 3, 2011, Reyes filed before the Court of Appeals a completes its determination of probable cause and issues a warrant of arrest. It would
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary be ill-advised for the Secretary of Justice to proceed with resolving Reyes’ Petition
1
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

for Review pending before her. It would be more prudent to refrain from entertaining
the Petition considering that the trial court already issued a warrant of arrest against
respondent. The issuance of the warrant signifies that the trial court has made an
independent determination of the existence of probable cause. Here, the trial court
has already determined, independently of any finding or recommendation by the First
Panel or the Second Panel, that probable cause exists for the issuance of the warrant
of arrest against respondent. Probable cause has been judicially determined.
Jurisdiction over the case, therefore, has transferred to the trial court. A petition for
certiorari questioning the validity of the preliminary investigation in any other venue
has been rendered moot by the issuance of the warrant of arrest and the conduct of
arraignment.
The CA should have dismissed the Petition for Certiorari filed before them when the
trial court issued its warrant of arrest. Since the trial court has already acquired
jurisdiction over the case and the existence of probable cause has been judicially
determined, a petition for certiorari questioning the conduct of the preliminary
investigation ceases to be the "plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy" provided by law. Since this Petition for Review is an appeal from
a moot Petition for Certiorari, it must also be rendered moot. The prudent course of
action at this stage would be to proceed to trial. Reyes, however, is not without
remedies. He may still file any appropriate action before the trial court or question
any alleged irregularity in the preliminary investigation during pre-trial.

2
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

2. Petron LPG Dealers Association v. Ang plant. Items specified in the search warrants were seized and duly inventoried and
receipted. Thereafter, a Consolidated Return of Search Warrants was filed.
Facts:
Petron LPG Dealers Association and Total Gaz LPG Dealers Association, together
Ang, et. al filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrants, arguing that the issuing court
with other LPG dealers' associations (collectively as the Association), filed a
did not comply with the requirements for issuance of a valid search warrant; that
letter-complaint before the NBI, requesting assistance in the surveillance,
there is no probable cause to issue the subject search warrants, as the certifications
investigation, apprehension and prosecution of Nena Ang, Alison Sy, Nelson Ang,
issued by the complainants — to the effect that Nation Gas was not an authorized
Renato Ang (Ang, et. al) and/or occupants of National Petroleum Corporation
refiller — was not authenticated; that De Jemil and Antonio have no personal
(Nation Gas) for alleged illegal trading of LPG products and/or underfilling,
knowledge of the charges, as well as the truthfulness and authenticity of said
possession and/or sale of underfilled LPG products in violation of Batas Pambansa
certifications; that as a result, the warrants issued were illegal general warrants.
Blg. (BP) 33, as amended. Ang, et. al were alleged to be refilling Shellane, Gasul,
Totalgaz, Starflame, and Superkalan Gaz LPG cylinders and selling, distributing RTC released an Order quashing the subject warrants. It held that De Jemil and
and transporting the same without the required written authorization from the Antonio had no personal knowledge that Nation Gas was not an authorized LPG
respective owners of these cylinders. refiller; that no member or representative of the complainants was presented as
witness; that there is no evidence of illegal refilling since De Jemil and Antonio did
Acting on the letter-complaint, the NBI-IRO—through its agent Marvin de Jemil
not witness the supposed refilling of Barba Gas's Starflame LPG cylinders; that the
(De Jemil) and an undercover NBI asset, Leonardo Antonio (Antonio)—conducted
certifications issued by the LPG companies were hearsay, since the testimonies of
surveillance and test- buy operations in the sales office of one of Nation Gas’
those who issued them were not taken and presented to the issuing court; that
alleged customer, Barba Gas Marketing Center, located in Vigan City. The NBI
Caltex's certification does not at all state that Nation Gas was an unauthorized
then filed 2 Applications for Search Warrant to conduct a search of the Magsingal
refiller; and that the testimonies of those who tested the Starflame cylinder were
LPG refilling plant.
not taken and submitted to the court, thus hearsay. The RTC concluded that there is
no probable cause to issue the subject warrants. On appeal, the CA also denied it.
Judge Ferdinand Fe of RTC of Bauang, La Union propounded the required
Hence, the current petition.
searching questions to De Jemil and Antonio. De Jemil further submitted a sketch
and vicinity/location map of the place to be searched; a certification to apply for a
Issue:
search warrant; the receipt for the test-buy refilled Starflame LPG cylinder; written
Whether or not there is probable cause for the issuance of the search warrants.
certifications to the effect that Nation Gas is not an authorized LPG refiller;
corporate documents of Nation Gas obtained from SEC; and photographs of the Decision of the Court:
Barba Gas delivery truck involved in the refilling operation, unloading of the Yes, there is probable cause for the issuance of the search warrants. Probable cause
refilled LPG cylinders from the delivery truck after coming from the Magsingal for a search warrant is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a
refilling plant, the refilled Starflame LPG cylinder purchased and obtained from the reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed
test-buy, and the blank seal covering the test-buy refilled Starflame LPG cylinder and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to
— supporting the allegation that the refilling was not authorized as the seal was not be searched. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing
a Caltex Starflame seal. The RTC then issued Search Warrant Nos. 2005-59 and that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed
2005-60, which were served the following day at the Magsingal LPG refilling by the accused.

To prove illegal trading and refilling, the Association presented written

certifications to the effect that Nation Gas was not an authorized LPG refiller. And
3
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

to prove underfilling, they presented photographs as well as the results of an sought to be arrested.” Thus, while Ty refers to preliminary investigation
examination of the refilled Starflame LPG cylinder obtained through De Jemil's proceedings, and the present case is concerned with applications for the issuance of
test-buy. The SC finds these evidences sufficient to prove probable cause. search warrants, both are resolved based on the same degree of proof; the
pronouncement in Ty may therefore apply to the present controversy.
In Ty v. NBI Supervising Agent De Jemil, the Court declared that what BP 33, as
amended prohibits is the refilling and underfilling of a branded LPG cylinder by a
refiller who has no written authority from the brand owner. Such illegal
refilling/underfilling may be proved by: 1) conduct of surveillance operations; 2)
the conduct of a test-buy; 3) written certifications from LPG companies —
detailing and listing the entities duly authorized to deal in or refill their respective
LPG cylinders, and excluding a particular LPG trader/refiller from the lists
contained in said certifications; and 4) the written report and findings on the test
and examination of the test-buy cylinder.

In this case, an examination of the Association’s evidence reveals that it is

practically identical to that presented in the Ty case. A complaint was filed with the
NBI, which conducted surveillance and test-buy operations; written certifications
were submitted to the effect that the respondent was not an authorized refiller of the
LPG companies’ branded cylinders; finally, an inspection of the test-buy cylinder
was conducted, and the results thereof embodied in a written document which was
submitted as evidence in the proceedings. Moreover, photographs taken indicate
that Barba Gas was not an exclusive dealer/distributor of Caltex Starflame
cylinders and LPG products, and that the cylinders involved — including the
test-buy cylinder — belonged to Caltex, the same being stamped with its Starflame
mark. Thus, applying Ty in its entirety to the present case, the SC finds that there
exists probable cause for the issuance of search warrants.

Probable cause for purposes of issuing a search warrant refers to “such facts and
circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe
that an offense has been committed and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s)
sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law
is in the place to be searched.” On the other hand, probable cause for purposes of
filing a criminal information refers to “such facts as are sufficient to engender a
well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondents are
probably guilty thereof. It is such set of facts and circumstances which would lead
a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense charged in the
Information, or any offense included therein, has been committed by the person
4
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

3. Sales v. Adapon the DOJ was guilty of grave abuse of discretion because the investigating
prosecutor was bound to personally examine the petitioner as the complainant and
Facts:
her witnesses, and the continuous absence of the complainant from the clarificatory
Sales and the Adapons are among eleven siblings of the late Sps. Pedro and
hearing had effectively prevented the investigating prosecutor from determining the
Severina Adapon. The Sps. Pedro and Severina left a parcel of land. Sales,
existence of probable cause.
represented by her son Adelfo, filed a complaint against the Adapons and siblings
for nullification of several TCTs and recovery of properties covered by these. In her Issue/s:
complaint, Sales alleged that during her absence and without her knowledge and Whether the CA erred in ordering the dismissal of the complaint. Decision of
consent, the property was subdivided several times and registered in the name of
the Adapons. She also alleged she never agreed to the division of the property in Court: Yes, the CA erred.
the manner made by the Adapons, and she is not aware of any extra-judicial
settlement of the estate of their parents. A motion to dismiss was filed by the The most important purpose of the preliminary investigation is to determine
Adapons attaching a Deed of Extra- judicial Settlement Among Heirs allegedly whether or not a crime has been committed, and whether or not the respondent is
executed in Makati, by and among the siblings, including Sales. probably guilty of the crime. The investigating prosecutor gravely erred in
dismissing the criminal complaint simply because of Sales’ non-appearance at the
Sales then executed an affidavit in New York before Consul Legaspi claiming that clarificatory hearing. Her personal presence was excusable due to advanced age
the deed, as she did not sign the deed. The signature was allegedly placed without and place of residence. The records already contained sufficient evidence upon
her knowledge and consent, and she was in the United States when the document which the investigating prosecutor could make a finding of probable cause.
was executed. Hence, the complaint for the crime of use of falsified documents Moreover, Sales was represented by her son-in-law who she constituted as her
under the RPC. The Adapons filed their Joint Counter-Affidavit with Motion to agent for the purposes of the proceedings. Moreover, had the investigating
Dismiss or to Suspend Preliminary Investigation alleging that in the execution of prosecutor sincerely considered her personal presence as absolutely necessary in
the deed, Sales was represented by her daughter Victoria. the determination of probable cause, he should have granted her request to have her
deposition taken instead. Finally, the prosecutor’s requiring the presence of Sales
Prosecutor Cuevas issued a Resolution dismissing the complaint on the ground that was unnecessary and superfluous in view of his failure to specify the matters that
it is impossible for him to proceed with the preliminary investigation without the still needed to be clarified. The documents submitted by both parties in the
appearance of Sales who will be subjected to some clarificatory questions. Sales’ proceedings were already sufficient for the determination of whether or not
motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. An appeal/petition for review was probable cause existed against the Adapons. Although it was concededly
filed before the Department of Justice which reversed Prosecutor Cuevas’ discretionary on the prosecutor’s part to call for the clarificatory hearing as the
Resolution and ordered the filing of the information against the Adapons. In Rules used the word may, the discretion was not unbounded because the rule
ordering the filing of the information against the respondents, thereby reversing the precisely stated that the clarificatory hearing was to be set only "if there are such
dismissal of the criminal complaint for falsification, the DOJ pointed out that the facts and issues to be clarified from a party or a witness."
dismissal on the sole basis of the non- attendance of the petitioner at the
clarificatory hearing was erroneous because: firstly, the investigating prosecutor did To add, it is a sound judicial policy for the courts to refrain from interfering in the
not state the matters that still needed to be clarified to justify the necessity for her conduct of the preliminary investigation, and to just leave to the DOJ the ample
to personally appear that her failure to do the same would cause the dismissal of the latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to
complaint; and, secondly, the totality of the evidence presented already established establish probable cause for the prosecution of offenders. The courts do not review
probable cause to indict the respondents for the violation of the RPC. The CA ruled and reverse the Secretary of Justice's findings and conclusions on probable cause
5
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

except in clear cases of grave abuse of discretion. The CA justified its nullification
of the DOJ’s reversal by holding that the prosecutor had not personally examined
Sales, which was a prerequisite to the finding of probable cause under Sec. 4 of
Rule 112 which states in part: “He shall certify under oath in the information that
he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has personally examined the
complainant and his witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to believe that a
crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof;” This is
restrictive. In criminal proceedings, the real party in interest is the State, here, Sales
is merely a witness. The crime is a public crime as opposed to a private crime
whose institution could be made only by particular individuals. This distinction
validated the non-indispensability of the personal presence of Sales as the
complainant in the proceedings to determine the existence of probable cause
against the Adapons.

6
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

Decision of the Court:

4. Cariaga v. Sapigao
1. No, the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Cariaga’s petition for review. The
Facts:
prevailing appeals process in the National Prosecution Service with regard to
Cariaga filed a complaint affidavit before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
complaints subject of preliminary investigation would depend on two factors,
(OPP) – Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, accusing respondents of the crimes of
namely: where the complaint was filed, i.e., whether in the National Capital Region
Falsification of Public Documents, False Certification, and Slander by Deed.
(NCR) or in the provinces; and which court has original jurisdiction over the case,
Cariaga alleged that respondents in their capacities as Barangay Chairman and
i.e., whether or not it is cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Barangay Secretary made two spurious entries in the barangay blotter – the first
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs). The rule shall
entry stated that someone was firing a gun inside Cariaga’s compound while the
be as follows:
second entry stated that Cariaga and his companions attended a funeral march with
firearms visibly tucked in their waists. The police authorities used these blotter a. If the complaint is filed outside the NCR and is cognizable by the
entries to obtain a search warrant. While this led to the confiscation of firearm and MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs, the ruling of the OPP may be appealable by way of
ammunitions, the criminal case for illegal possession of firearms was dismissed. petition for review before the ORSP, which ruling shall be with finality;
Claiming that the blotter entries were false, Cariaga filed said complaint. b. If the complaint is filed outside the NCR and is not cognizable by the
MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs, the ruling of the OPP may be appealable by way of
The OPP dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause. It found that
petition for review before SOJ, which ruling shall be with finality;
respondents made the entries in good faith. Cariaga moved for reconsideration,
c. If the complaint is filed within the NCR and is cognizable by the
which was denied. Aggrieved, Cariaga filed a petition for review before the Office
MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs, the ruling of the OCP may be appealable by way of
of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP) – Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. The ORSP
petition for review before the Prosecutor General, whose ruling shall be with
affirmed the OPP’s ruling. Cariaga moved for reconsideration but the same was
finality;
denied. Thereafter, Cariaga filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals
d. If the complaint is filed within the NCR and is not cognizable by the
(CA). The CA dismissed the petition for non-exhaustion of administrative
MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs, the ruling of the OCP may be appealable by way of
remedies. It held that ORSP is not the final authority in the hierarchy of the
petition for review before the SOJ, whose ruling shall be with finality;
National Prosecution Services, as one could still appeal an unfavorable ORSP
e. Provided, that in instances covered by (a) and (c), the SOJ may, pursuant
ruling to the Secretary of Justice (SOJ).
to his power of control and supervision over the entire National Prosecution
Service, review, modify, or reverse the ruling of the ORSP or the Prosecutor
Issues:
General, as the case may be.
1. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Cariaga’s petition for
review before it on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies In this case, Cariaga filed a complaint before the OPP in Pangasinan (i.e., outside
the NCR) accusing respondents of the crimes of Falsification of Public Documents,
2. Whether there is probable cause to indict respondents of the crimes of False Certification, and Slander by Deed. Only the last two crimes are cognizable
Slander by Deed and False Certification by the MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs while the first crime is cognizable by the Regional
Trial Court. Applying the rule above, the ruling of the ORSP as regards
Falsification of Public Documents may still be appealed to the SOJ before resort to
the courts may be availed of. On the other hand, the ruling of the ORSP pertaining
to False Certification and Slander by Deed should already be deemed final at least
7
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

insofar as the NPS is concerned— and thus, may already be elevated to the courts.
Therefore, only the ORSP ruling regarding the crime of Falsification of Public
Documents may be referred to the SOJ, while the ORSP ruling regarding the
crimes of False Certification and Slander by Deed may already be elevated before
the courts. The CA should have resolved Cariaga’s petition on the merits insofar as
the crimes of False Certification and Slander by Deed are concerned. However,
since there is already enough basis on which a proper evaluation on the merits may
be had, the Supreme Court decided to resolve the substantive issue of this case.

2. No, there is no probable cause indict respondents of the crimes of Slander

by Deed and False Certification. Courts may overturn the findings of the public
prosecutor in a preliminary investigation proceeding on the ground of grave abuse of
discretion. There is grave abuse of discretion if the prosecutor arbitrarily disregards
the jurisprudential parameters of probable cause. Such probable cause exists when
the facts are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof.

As aptly found by the ORSP, there was no improper motive on the part of
respondents in making the blotter entries as they were made in good faith, in the
performance of their official duties, and without any intention to malign, dishonor, or
defame Cariaga. Moreover, the statements in the blotter entries were confirmed by
disinterested parties who likewise witnessed the incidents.

8
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

receive the notice on the motion’s hearing date. The CA dismissed the petition,
5. Personal Collection vs. Carandang holding that the trial court made its own independent assessment. Further, the trial
Facts: court's determination of probable cause for purposes of preliminary investigation
was separate from the probable cause for the issuance of an arrest warrant. In
Carandang was charged with committing estafa with unfaithfulness and/or abuse of
issuing the warrant of arrest against Carandang, the trial court only evaluated the
confidence. Personal Collection was the private offended party. The information
evidence furnished by petitioner. In contrast, by the time the trial court was
stated that the accused who was then an employee of said private complainant
deciding whether to permit the withdrawal of the Information or not, Carandang
company received in trust, cash advances in the total amount of P161,902.80, as
had filed her counter-affidavit and subsequent pleadings. On the motion to release
company expenses for various projects under the obligation to liquidate the
cashbond, there was no deprivation of due process since, according to the rules, a
proceeds thereof or return the same if not used, but said accused once in possession
cashbond is automatically cancelled when the accused was acquitted, the case
of the said amount far from complying with her obligation as aforesaid, with intent
dismissed, or the judgment of conviction executed.
to defraud, unfaithfulness and grave abuse of confidence, failed and refused and
still fail and refuse to fulfill her obligation despite repeated demands made upon
Issue/s:
her to do so and instead misapplied, misappropriated and converted the same to her
own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended
1. Whether or not petition for certiorari was the proper remedy. - No.
party in the aforesaid amount. Carandang filed a motion for reinvestigation as she
Petitioner should have appealed.
did not receive a subpoena from the OCP, denying her of due process. In the 2. Whether or not the trial court correctly granted the motion to withdraw
petitioner’s opposition, it claimed that she was not deprived of due process as the information due to the lack of probable cause. - Yes.
RTC already found a prima facie case against her as there was already a warrant for 3. Whether or not petitioner was wrongly deprived of due process when it
her arrest. Carandang, however, countered that on the allegation that she failed to did not receive notice for the hearing on respondent’s motion to release
liquidate her cash advances, her failure was attributable to the fact that she was cash bond. - No.
suddenly terminated. She also stated that there was no demand on the part of the
petitioner to return the cash; hence an element of estafa was not established. The Decision of the Court:
OCP, upon reinvestigation, recommended for the dismissal of her case since 1. An order granting a motion to withdraw an information and dismissing a
demand was not established, and there was no case for estafa, but there was criminal case is final, and the remedy to question this final order is an
sufficient cause of action for recovery of sum of money. The prosecutor then filed a appeal. Despite the use of an improper remedy, the Court proceeded to
Motion to Withdraw Information, which the RTC granted, along with a Motion to decide the issues to pursue judicial economy.
Release Cash Bond. 2. As a general proposition, once the information is filed and a warrant is
issued after a judicial determination of probable cause, subsequent technical
Complainant then filed a Petition for Certiorari in the CA, questioning the order dismissals are inequitable and should generally be avoided. Thus, in
granting the Motion to Withdraw Information and to Release Cash Bond. It alleges granting or denying a motion to withdraw an information, the court must
that on the Motion to Withdraw, the trial court failed to make its own evaluation of conduct a cautious and independent evaluation of the evidence of the
the merits of the case and only relied on the prosecutor's recommendation that there prosecution and must be convinced that the merits of the case warrant either
was no probable cause to charge Carandang with estafa. Further, the trial court's the dismissal or continuation of the action. However, courts are not
determination of probable cause for purposes of preliminary investigation was absolutely barred from reversing a prior determination of probable cause
separate from the probable cause for the issuance of an arrest warrant. Meanwhile, upon the reassessment of evidence presented to it. There is no grave abuse
on the Motion to Release Cashbond, it was deprived of due process when it did not of discretion when an earlier finding of probable cause is overturned, if it

9
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

can be shown that the judge arrived at the later conclusion upon an
independent study of the available facts, allegations, and evidence on
record.
a. In this case, the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion
when it reversed its earlier finding of probable cause. The earlier
finding was about the issuance of the arrest warrant, in which the
trial court evaluated the prosecutor's Resolution and its attached
documents. Following this, respondent prayed for the
reinvestigation of the case as she was unable to attend the initial
preliminary investigation. It was during the reinvestigation before
the OCP that respondent was able to present her defense against
the allegations in the complaint.
b. The order granting the motion to withdraw sufficiently explained
how the elements of estafa were not met based on the additional
evidence presented by the accused at the reinvestigation before the
OCP. Clearly, the additional evidence adduced prompted the
prosecutor's reversal of its initial finding of probable cause and the
filing of the motion to withdraw information. It was also this
additional evidence that formed the basis of the trial court's
evaluation that there was now a lack of probable cause sufficient to
withdraw the information.
3. According to Rule 114, among the instances when bail is deemed
automatically cancelled is when the case is dismissed. Since cancellation of
bail is automatic upon the dismissal of the case, no notice or hearing is even
necessary. The release of the amount posted as bail is a separate matter.
When the cash bond is made to answer for any fines or costs, the automatic
cancellation is not succeeded by the immediate release of the cash bond.
a. In this case, the dismissal of the case due to the withdrawal of the
information resulted in the automatic cancellation of respondent's
bail. Further, the Order does not state that there is any need for the
deposit to be applied to any fines or costs. Hence, despite the lack
of hearing, the order was correctly issued.

10
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

6. In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus with Petition for Relief, IBP
and Senin v. DOJ (Lei) The issue is WON WON Senin’s waiver of the provisions of Art. 125, RPC vest
July 25, 2017 | Mendoza, J. | Rule 112 – Preliminary Investigation the DOJ, PNP and BJMP unbridled authority to detain Senin? NO

PETITIONER: INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES PANGASINAN The rule is that a person subject of a warrantless arrest must be delivered to the
LEGAL AID AND JAY-AR R. SENIN, proper judicial authorities within the periods provided in Article 125 of the RPC,
RESPONDENTS: EPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, PROVINCIAL otherwise, the public official or employee could be held liable for the failure to
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, BUREAU OF JAIL MANAGEMENT AND deliver except if grounded on reasonable and allowable delays. Article 125 of
PENOLOGY, AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE the RPC is intended to prevent any abuse resulting from confining a person
without informing him of his offense and without allowing him to post bail. It
SUMMARY: In a buy-bust operation, Jay-ar Senin was arrested by elements of punishes public officials or employees who shall detain any person for some
the PNP of San Fabian, Pangasinan. During inquest proceedings, he availed of legal ground but fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities
his right to preliminary investigation and executed a waiver of the provisions of within the periods prescribed by law. In case the detention is without legal
Article 125 of the RPC. After the preliminary investigation, the prosecutor ground, the person arrested can charge the arresting officer with arbitrary
dismissed the case against him. Pursuant to the then prevailing DOJ Circular, the detention under Article 124 of the RPC. This is without prejudice to the possible
case was forwarded to the DOJ for automatic review. In the meantime, pursuant filing of an action for damages under Article 32 of the New Civil Code of the
to such DOJ Circular, Senin remained detained in custody pending review by the Philippines.
DOJ of his case.
Article 125 of the RPC, however, can be waived if the detainee who was validly
The IBP filed the instant Petiton for issuance of Writ of Kalayaan claiming that arrested without a warrant opts for the conduct of preliminary investigation. The
the waiver of Article 125 of the RPC does not vest the DOJ, Provincial question to be addressed here, therefore, is whether such waiver gives the State
Prosecutor's Office (PPO), Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), the right to detain a person indefinitely.
and the PNP, the unbridled right to detain Senin indefinitely subject only to the
whims and caprices of the reviewing prosecutor of the DOJ, adding that Section The waiver of Article 125 of the RPC does not vest upon the DOJ, PPO, BJMP,
7, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that preliminary and PNP the unbridled right to indefinitely incarcerate an arrested person and
investigation must be terminated within 15 days from its inception if the person subject him to the whims and caprices of the reviewing prosecutor of the DOJ.
arrested had requested for a preliminary investigation and had signed a waiver of The waiver of Article 125 must coincide with the prescribed period for
the provisions of Article 125. preliminary investigation as mandated by Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of
Court. Detention beyond this period violates the accused's constitutional right to
It follows, therefore, IBP argued, that the waiver of Article 125 must coincide liberty.
with the 15-day period of preliminary investigation. The detention beyond this DOCTRINE: 4. Stated differently, the waiver of the effects of Article 125 of
period violates Senin's constitutional right to liberty. The review of the the RPC is not a license to detain a person ad infinitum. Waiver of a detainee's
investigating prosecutor's resolution has been pending with the DOJ for more right to be delivered to proper judicial authorities as prescribed by Article 125 of
than eight months. The IBP concludes that Senin must be released from the RPC does not trump his constitutional right in cases where probable cause
detention and be relieved from the effects of the unconstitutional issuances of the was initially found wanting by reason of the dismissal of the complaint filed
DOJ. before the prosecutor's office even if such dismissal is on appeal,

11
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

reconsideration, reinvestigation or on automatic review. Every person's basic set the case for hearing due to its urgency; and e) issue a writ of kalayaan
right to liberty is not to be construed as waived by mere operation of Section 7, directing the release of all detention prisoners in a similar plight.
Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The fundamental law provides limits and this 5. During the pendency of the Petition, the DOJ reversed the prosecutor's
must be all the more followed especially so that detention is proscribed absent finding of lack of probable cause and filed an Information in court for
probable cause. violation of RA No. 9165 against Senin. He was then committed to the
BJMP where he was detained to face trial. Moreover, DOJ Secretary
Vitaliano Aguirre II also revoked the department's circular that authorized
FACTS:
the detention of persons arrested and awaiting results of the automatic
1. In a buy-bust operation, Jay-ar Senin was arrested by elements of the PNP
review of their cases by the DOJ, and ordered their immediate released.
of San Fabian, Pangasinan. During inquest proceedings, he availed of his
6. The OSG argues that the Petition should be dismissed for having become
right to preliminary investigation and executed a waiver of the provisions of
moot with the filing of the Information in court and the DOJ's revocation of
Article 125 of the RPC. After the preliminary investigation, the prosecutor
its circular. On the other hand, respondent BJMP justifies its continued
dismissed the case against him. Pursuant to the then prevailing DOJ
custody of Senin until a court order is issued revoking the commitment
Circular, the case was forwarded to the DOJ for automatic review. In the
order or authorizing the release of Senin.
meantime, pursuant to such DOJ Circular, Senin remained detained in
custody pending review by the DOJ of his case.
ISSUES:
2. The IBP filed the instant Petiton for issuance of Writ of Kalayaan claiming
1. WON the Petition be dismissed for having become moot? NO.
that the waiver of Article 125 of the RPC does not vest the DOJ, Provincial
2. WON Senin’s waiver of the provisions of Art. 125, RPC vest the DOJ, PNP
Prosecutor's Office (PPO), Bureau of Jail Management and Penology
and BJMP unbridled authority to detain Senin? NO
(BJMP), and the PNP, the unbridled right to detain Senin indefinitely
3. WON the continued detention of Senin is lawful? NO.
subject only to the whims and caprices of the reviewing prosecutor of the
DOJ, adding that Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court explicitly
RATIO:
provides that preliminary investigation must be terminated within 15 days
from its inception if the person arrested had requested for a preliminary
1st Issue
investigation and had signed a waiver of the provisions of Article 125.
3. It follows, therefore, IBP argued, that the waiver of Article 125 must
1. Although the latest circular of Secretary Aguirre is laudable as it adheres to
coincide with the 15-day period of preliminary investigation. The detention
the constitutional provisions on the rights of pre-trial detainees, the Court
beyond this period violates Senin's constitutional right to liberty. The review
will not dismiss the case on the ground of mootness. As can be gleaned
of the investigating prosecutor's resolution has been pending with the DOJ
from the ever-changing DOJ circulars, there is a possibility that the latest
for more than eight months. The IBP concludes that Senin must be released
circular would again be amended by succeeding secretaries. It has been
from detention and be relieved from the effects of the unconstitutional
repeatedly held that "the Court will decide cases, otherwise moot, if: first,
issuances of the DOJ.
there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional
4. Thus, the petition prays that the Court: a) declare that pursuant to A.M. No.
character of the situation and the paramount public interest are involved;
08-11-7-SC, the petitioner is exempt from the payment of filing fees; b)
third, when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of
issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the release of Senin; c) declare the
controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and fourth,
aforementioned issuances of the DOJ as unconstitutional; d) immediately
the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.5 All four (4) requisites
are present in this case.
12
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

2. As the case is prone to being repeated as a result of constant changes, the RPC does not trump his constitutional right in cases where probable cause
Court, as the guardian and final arbiter of the Constitution6 and pursuant to was initially found wanting by reason of the dismissal of the complaint filed
its prerogative to promulgate rules concerning the protection and before the prosecutor's office even if such dismissal is on appeal,
enforcement of constitutional rights,7 takes this opportunity to lay down reconsideration, reinvestigation or on automatic review. Every person's
controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public on the basic right to liberty is not to be construed as waived by mere operation of
propriety of the continued detention of an arrested person whose case has Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The fundamental law provides
been dismissed on inquest, preliminary investigation, reinvestigation, or limits and this must be all the more followed especially so that detention is
appeal but pending automatic review by the SOJ. proscribed absent probable cause.

2nd Issue: 3rd Issue

1. The rule is that a person subject of a warrantless arrest must be delivered to 5. Accordingly, the Court rules that a detainee under such circumstances must
the proper judicial authorities within the periods provided in Article 125 of be promptly released to avoid violation of the constitutional right to liberty,
the RPC, otherwise, the public official or employee could be held liable for despite a waiver of Article 125, if the 15-day period (or the thirty 30- day
the failure to deliver except if grounded on reasonable and allowable delays. period in cases of violation of R.A. No. 91659 ) for the conduct of the
Article 125 of the RPC is intended to prevent any abuse resulting from preliminary investigation lapses. This rule also applies in cases where the
confining a person without informing him of his offense and without investigating prosecutor resolves to dismiss the case, even if such dismissal
allowing him to post bail. It punishes public officials or employees who was appealed to the DOJ or made the subject of a motion for
shall detain any person for some legal ground but fail to deliver such person reconsideration, reinvestigation or automatic review. The reason is that such
to the proper judicial authorities within the periods prescribed by law. In dismissal automatically results in a prima facie finding of lack of probable
case the detention is without legal ground, the person arrested can charge cause to file an information in court and to detain a person.
the arresting officer with arbitrary detention under Article 124 of the RPC. 6. The Court is aware that this decision may raise discomfort to some,
This is without prejudice to the possible filing of an action for damages especially at this time when the present administration aggressively wages
under Article 32 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines. its "indisputably popular war on illegal drugs." As Justice Diosdado Peralta
2. Article 125 of the RPC, however, can be waived if the detainee who was puts it, that the security of the public and the interest of the State would be
validly arrested without a warrant opts for the conduct of preliminary jeopardized is not a justification to trample upon the constitutional rights of
investigation. The question to be addressed here, therefore, is whether such the detainees against deprivation of liberty without due process of law, to be
waiver gives the State the right to detain a person indefinitely. presumed innocent until the contrary is proved and to a speedy disposition
3. The waiver of Article 125 of the RPC does not vest upon the DOJ, PPO, of the case.
BJMP, and PNP the unbridled right to indefinitely incarcerate an arrested
person and subject him to the whims and caprices of the reviewing DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, it is hereby declared, and ruled, that all
prosecutor of the DOJ. The waiver of Article 125 must coincide with the detainees whose pending cases have gone beyond the mandated periods for the
prescribed period for preliminary investigation as mandated by Section 7, conduct of preliminary investigation, or whose cases have already been
Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Detention beyond this period violates the dismissed on inquest or preliminary investigation, despite pending appeal,
accused's constitutional right to liberty. reconsideration, reinvestigation or automatic review by the Secretary of Justice,
4. Stated differently, the waiver of the effects of Article 125 of the RPC is not are entitled to be released pursuant to their constitutional right to liberty and
a license to detain a person ad infinitum. Waiver of a detainee's right to be their constitutional right against unreasonable seizures, unless detained for some
delivered to proper judicial authorities as prescribed by Article 125 of the other lawful cause.
13
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

VI. RULE 113 (ARREST) collect a debt. When they arrived in Leyte, they went to the house of C. Paspos.
While resting and conversing with one another, four policemen suddenly pounced
1. People v. Mahusay upon them and brought them to the police station where they were allegedly
Facts: maltreated and illegally detained for two months.
Samuel Mahusay and Cristituto Paspos (Mahusay and C. Paspos) along with 4
other individuals: Galo, Mendio, Velacsi & Egloba (who were at large), were The trial court found Mahusay, Paspos and Mendio guilty beyond reasonable doubt
charged with robbery with rape and physical injuries before the Regional Trial of Robbery with Rape while Galo was acquitted. It was only Mahusay and Paspos
Court of Naval, Subprovince of Biliran Leyte. who filed a notice of appeal. They contend that the trial court erred in ruling that
their apprehension was valid and that their guilt was proved beyond reasonable
The facts were found by the trial court as follows: On April 19, 1988, at around 6:45 doubt.
pm, 6 armed men barged into the Bughao residence and introduced themselves as
members of the New People's Army. After extinguishing the three oil lamps inside Issue/s:
the house, they tied the arms and feet of Troadio Bughao, his wife and househelper Whether the warrantless arrest was valid?
Esmarlita Paspos (E. Paspos), who is the sister of C. Paspos. The group split in two, Decision of the Court:
ransacked the cabinets, and cleaned out the premises of every valuable item they The Supreme Court held in the negative. The SC stated that under Rule 113, Sec. 5
could carry. (b) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure two conditions must concur for a
warrantless arrest to be valid: (a) the person to be arrested must have just
Bughao's daughter Maria Luisa (Marilou) was brought upstairs by three men who committed an offense, and (b) the arresting peace officer or private person must
successively ravished her. She recounted that when she was being violated, a have personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested is the one
flashlight was focused on her face, thus, giving her ample illumination and enabling who committed the offense. It has been ruled that "personal knowledge of facts" in
her to look intently at one of her assailants. She, however, failed to identify the other arrests without a warrant must be based upon probable cause, which means an
two because she fainted in the course of the ordeal she underwent. E. Paspos testified actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.
that she immediately recognized one of the men as her brother Cristituto, the only
malefactor wearing a mask, through his movements and physical features. She In this case, they were arrested on the sole basis of Bughao's verbal report. The
likewise identified Mahusay and Mendio as the persons who ordered her to serve arresting officers were led to suspect that, indeed, they had committed a crime.
food. Thus, the arrest was made in violation of their fundamental right against an
unjustified warrantless arrest. However, the Court has ruled on several occasions
The following day after the incident was reported to the police, a police team was that any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure in the acquisition
dispatched to Tabango Leyte to arrest the suspects. The police were able to recover by the court of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he
from them a wall clock, cash amounting to P1,445.00, a ring and two caliber .38 enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived.
paltik revolvers. Mahusay, Paspos and the others had invoked alibi as their defense.
It is now too late for Mahusay and Paspos to raise the question of their arrest.
Mahusay and Mendio, alleged that they went on a trip to Medellin, Cebu to visit When they were arrested and a case was filed against them, they pleaded not guilty
Mahusay’s uncle and 3 days later, they departed for Leyte to attend a fiesta. With upon arraignment, participated in the trial and presented their respective evidence
them on the pumpboat was Galo whom Mahusay came to know in a dance in his and are thus estopped from questioning the legality of their arrest. At the outset,
brief stay in Cebu. Galo was apparently instructed by his aunt to go to Leyte to they should have moved for the quashal of the information before the trial court on

14
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

this ground. Accordingly, any irregularity in their arrest was cured when they
voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the trial court.

Undoubtedly, the prosecution had credible witnesses to support Mahusay et al’s

conviction. Bughao's categorical, straightforward and spontaneous testimony
imputing to Mahusay et al, the crime charged is buttressed by the fact that they have
not shown any plausible reason why the offended parties would charge them with an
offense so grave and heinous as robbery with rape. E. Paspos' positive identification
of her brother Cristituto, Mahusay and Mendio as some of the malefactors certainly
deserves credence because, as the one who served them food, she had the
opportunity to observe at close range their faces.

Hence, the SC dismissed the appeal and the decision of the trial court finding
Mahusay and Paspos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with
rape was affirmed with modification that each of the appellants would suffer 3
terms of reclusion perpetua.

15
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

2. Umil v. Ramos reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with
good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest.
Facts:
Umil et. al. filed petitions for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, for relief Applying this standard to the case, the court found that the arrest was done after
from unlawful restraint and to determine the legality of their detention. Petitioner confidential information received was verified by military agents. They only
Dural was arrested without warrant while he was confined in St. Agnes Hospital. arrested Dural after verifying his true identity behind his fake name. With regard to
the second requirement of good faith, the court deemed this to be fulfilled because
Issue/s: it relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by the
Whether or not the warrantless arrests of petitioners were lawful? arresting peace officers.

Decision of the Court: In any case, a few days before the arrest of Dural a warrant was filed anyway
The court ruled that the warrantless arrest of Dural, one of the petitioners, when he charging double murder with assault against agents of persons in authority before
was in St. Agnes Hospital was valid because he was a member of the NPA (an the RTC of Caloocan (where the murder of the 2 policemen happened). Dural was
outlawed organization where membership is penalized) and for subversion (which placed under judicial custody and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and the
is a continuing offense). The court reasoned that in light of the NPA’s ideology of judgement of conviction at the time of the resolution of this petition for the
armed struggle to overthrow organized government, he did not cease to be any less issuance of the writ of habeaus corpus was pending before the CA.
subversive than he was prior to being confined in the hospital. In addition to this,
the day before his arrest, he had shot 2 policemen in their patrol car as part of his With regard to Roque, Buenaobra, Anoneuvo, Casiple, and Ocaya, the court ruled
mission as a sparrow. The court took note of these “preparatory steps”, and their warrantless arrests to likewilse be justified. They were searched pursuant to
concluded that if given another opportunity he would have continued to shoot other search warrants and unlicensed firearms, explosives and ammunition were found in
policemen in other places as agents or representatives of organized government. their possession. Thus, this warrantless arrest falls under the in flagrante delicto
Because of this possibility, subversion, like rebellion or insurrection, is perceived exception. In any case, informations were filed against them, placing them in
to be a continuing offense. Subversion and rebellion are anchored on an ideological judicial custody.
base which compels the repetition of the same lawless violent acts until the
ultimate objective of overthrowing the government is achieved. To conclude, the SC reiterated that mere suspicion of being a communist party
member or a subversive is absolutely not a ground for the warrantless arrest of a
Moreover, Dural’s warrantless arrest was grounded on the existence of probable suspect: the requirements of Rule 113 Sec. 5 of the Rules of Court must still be
cause. Section 5, paragraph (b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which requires two strictly complied with.
(2) conditions for a valid arrest without warrant: first, that the person to be arrested
has just committed an offense, and second, that the arresting peace officer or
private person has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested is the one who committed the offense. The grounds of suspicion are
reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the
suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the
offense, is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong
in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A

16
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

3. In the matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus with Petition for Relief, IBP person who has requested the conduct of a preliminary investigation can only be
and Senin vs. DOJ (John) detained for a maximum period of 15 days because the Rules require that the
July 25, 2017 | Mendoza | Main topic - SPECIFIC TOPIC preliminary investigation be terminated within such period despite waiver of
Article 125.
PETITIONER: IBP and Jay-ar Senin
RESPONDENT: DOJ Issue: WON a waiver of Article 125 gives the State the right to detain a person
indefinitely? No
SUMMARY:
Senin's rights were allegedly violated because he has been detained for at least The rule is that a person subject of a warrantless arrest must be delivered to the
eight months without any finding of probable cause or a case having been filed proper judicial authorities within the periods provided in Article 125 of the RPC,
in court. He was arrested while engaged in the sale of illegal drugs during a otherwise, the public official or employee could be held liable for the failure to
buy-bust operation. Thereafter, he executed a waiver of the provisions of Article deliver except if grounded on reasonable and allowable delays. Article 125 of the
125 of the RPC. After the preliminary investigation, the prosecutor resolved to RPC is intended to prevent any abuse resulting from confining a person without
dismiss the case. Pursuant to the then prevailing DOJ Circular, the case was informing him of his offense and without allowing him to post bail. It punishes
forwarded to the DOJ for automatic review. public officials or employees who shall detain any person for some legal ground
but fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the periods
Position of BJMP: According to the BJMP, Senin has been confined in its prescribed by law. In case the detention is without legal ground, the person
facility through a valid commitment order issued by the court and cannot be arrested can charge the arresting officer with arbitrary detention under Article
released without an order directing the same. It asserts that it has not disregarded 124 of the RPC. This is without prejudice to the possible filing of an action for
or violated any existing laws or policy at the expense of Senin's rights. The damages under Article 32 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.
BJMP cites Agbay v. Deputy Ombudsman and its 2007 Revised BJMP Manual,
wherein it is provided that court order is required before a prisoner can be The waiver of Article 125 of the RPC does not vest upon the DOJ, PPO, BJMP,
released. It insists that the continuous detention of Senin is legal considering that and PNP the unbridled right to indefinitely incarcerate an arrested person and
the RTC has already issued a commitment order, which has not been recalled or subject him to the whims and caprices of the reviewing prosecutor of the DOJ.
revoked. The waiver of Article 125 must coincide with the prescribed period for
Position of OSG:The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) posits that the preliminary investigation as mandated by Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of
remedy of habeas corpus availed of by the IBP and Senin is not appropriate Court. Detention beyond this period violates the accused's constitutional right to
considering that as of February 10, 2016, the SOJ has found the existence of liberty.
probable cause for the filing of information in court. Thus, the question of the
constitutionality of the issuances is moot. Accordingly, the Court rules that a detainee under such circumstances must be
Reply of IBP: The IBP seeks to nullify the DOJ issuances for the alleged promptly released to avoid violation of the constitutional right to liberty, despite
violation of the detainee's rights. It asserts that the DOJ issuances requiring the a waiver of Article 125, if the 15-day period (or the thirty 30- day period in cases
automatic review of dismissed cases involving drug-related cases for which the of violation of R.A. No. 9165) for the conduct of the preliminary investigation
maximum penalty is either reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, permit the lapses. This rule also applies in cases where the investigating prosecutor resolves
indefinite confinement of a pre-trial detainee who has waived Article 125 of the to dismiss the case, even if such dismissal was appealed to the DOJ or made the
RPC in order to undergo preliminary investigation. The IBP believes that a subject of a motion for reconsideration, reinvestigation or automatic review. The

17
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

reason is that such dismissal automatically results in a prima facie finding of c. D.C. No. 50, series of 2012, entitled Additional Guidelines on the
lack of probable cause to file an information in court and to detain a person. Application of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as Amended
(RPC)
DOCTRINE: The waiver of Article 125 must coincide with the prescribed 4. The IBP represents in this case its client, Jay-Ar Senin (Senin). Senin's
period for preliminary investigation as mandated by Section 7, Rule 112 of the rights were allegedly violated because he has been detained for at least eight
Rules of Court. Detention beyond this period violates the accused's constitutional months without any finding of probable cause or a case having been filed in
right to liberty. court.
5. Senin's case started when a complaint against him and other unidentified
persons was indorsed on by Police Chief Inspector Crisante Pagaduan
FACTS:
Sadino of the San Fabian Police Station, Pangasinan to the Provincial
1. This is a petition for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus with a petition
Prosecutor's Office. He was arrested while engaged in the sale of illegal
for declaratory relief filed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
drugs during a buy-bust operation. Thereafter, he executed a waiver of the
Pangasinan Chapter Legal Aid
provisions of Article 125 of the RPC. After the preliminary investigation,
2. The petition claims that as a result of jail visitations participated in by the
the prosecutor resolved to dismiss the case. Pursuant to the then prevailing
IBP Legal Aid Program, as well as a series of consultations with the
DOJ Circular, the case was forwarded to the DOJ for automatic review.
Philippine National Police (PNP) on the extant condition of detention
6. The IBP claims that the waiver of Article 125 of the RPC does not vest the
prisoners, it was discovered that several detention prisoners had been
DOJ, Provincial Prosecutor's Office (PPO), Bureau of Jail Management and
languishing in jail for years without a case being filed in court by the
Penology (BJMP), and the PNP, the unbridled right to detain Senin
prosecutor's office and without definite findings as to the existence or
indefinitely subject only to the whims and caprices of the reviewing
nonexistence of probable cause.
prosecutor of the DOJ. Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court explicitly
3. Petition considers such condition of several detention prisoners as an
provides that preliminary investigation must be terminated within 15 days
alarming situation brought about by several Department of Justice (DOJ)
from its inception if the person arrested had requested for a preliminary
issuances, namely:
investigation and had signed a waiver of the provisions of Article 125. It
a. DOJ Circular (D.C.) No. 12, series of 2012, which provided that
follows, therefore, that the waiver of Article 125 must coincide with the
the dismissal of all drug-related cases involving violations for
15-day period of preliminary investigation. The detention beyond this
which the maximum penalty is either reclusion perpetua or life
period violates Senin's constitutional right to liberty.
imprisonment is subject to automatic review by the Justice
7. Position of BJMP: According to the BJMP, Senin has been confined in its
Secretary whether such case has been dismissed on inquest,
facility through a valid commitment order issued by the court and cannot be
preliminary investigation or reinvestigation. It also stated that the
released without an order directing the same. It asserts that it has not
automatic review shall be summary in nature and shall, as far as
disregarded or violated any existing laws or policy at the expense of Senin's
practicable, be completed within 30 days from receipt of the case
rights. The BJMP cites Agbay v. Deputy Ombudsman and its 2007 Revised
records, without prejudice to the right of the respondent to be
BJMP Manual, wherein it is provided that court order is required before a
immediately released from detention pending automatic review,
prisoner can be released. It insists that the continuous detention of Senin is
unless the respondent is detained for other causes;
legal considering that the RTC has already issued a commitment order,
b. D.C. No. 22, series of 2013, entitled Guidelines on the Release of
which has not been recalled or revoked.
Respondents/ Accused Pending Automatic Review of Dismissed
8. Position of OSG:The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) posits that the
Cases Involving Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165;
remedy of habeas corpus availed of by the IBP and Senin is not appropriate
18
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

considering that as of February 10, 2016, the SOJ has found the existence of the RPC, otherwise, the public official or employee could be held liable for
probable cause for the filing of information in court. Thus, the question of the failure to deliver except if grounded on reasonable and allowable delays.
the constitutionality of the issuances is moot. Article 125 of the RPC is intended to prevent any abuse resulting from
9. Reply of IBP: The IBP seeks to nullify the DOJ issuances for the alleged confining a person without informing him of his offense and without
violation of the detainee's rights. It asserts that the DOJ issuances requiring allowing him to post bail. It punishes public officials or employees who
the automatic review of dismissed cases involving drug-related cases for shall detain any person for some legal ground but fail to deliver such person
which the maximum penalty is either reclusion perpetua or life to the proper judicial authorities within the periods prescribed by law. In
imprisonment, permit the indefinite confinement of a pre-trial detainee who case the detention is without legal ground, the person arrested can charge
has waived Article 125 of the RPC in order to undergo preliminary the arresting officer with arbitrary detention under Article 124 of the RPC.
investigation. The IBP believes that a person who has requested the conduct This is without prejudice to the possible filing of an action for damages
of a preliminary investigation can only be detained for a maximum period under Article 32 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.
of 15 days because the Rules require that the preliminary investigation be 4. The waiver of Article 125 of the RPC does not vest upon the DOJ, PPO,
terminated within such period despite waiver of Article 125. BJMP, and PNP the unbridled right to indefinitely incarcerate an arrested
person and subject him to the whims and caprices of the reviewing
prosecutor of the DOJ. The waiver of Article 125 must coincide with the
ISSUES: prescribed period for preliminary investigation as mandated by Section 7,
1. WON a waiver of Article 125 gives the State the right to detain a person Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Detention beyond this period violates the
indefinitely? no accused's constitutional right to liberty.
5. Stated differently, the waiver of the effects of Article 125 of the RPC is not
RATIO: a license to detain a person ad infinitum. Waiver of a detainee's right to be
delivered to proper judicial authorities as prescribed by Article 125 of the
1. The Court agrees with the OSG that this controversy has become moot and RPC does not trump his constitutional right in cases where probable cause
academic. First, the DOJ already issued D.C. No. 004, series of 2017, was initially found wanting by reason of the dismissal of the complaint filed
which recognizes the right of a detainee to be released even if the dismissal before the prosecutor's office even if such dismissal is on appeal,
of the case on preliminary investigation is the subject of automatic review reconsideration, reinvestigation or on automatic review. Every person's
by the SOJ. Second, records show that the order of dismissal was reversed; basic right to liberty is not to be construed as waived by mere operation of
that upon filing of the information with the court, there was judicial Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.
determination of probable cause against Senin; and that following such 6. Accordingly, the Court rules that a detainee under such circumstances must
judicial determination, the court issued a warrant of arrest and a be promptly released to avoid violation of the constitutional right to liberty,
commitment order. despite a waiver of Article 125, if the 15-day period (or the thirty 30- day
2. Although the latest circular of Secretary Aguirre is laudable as it adheres to period in cases of violation of R.A. No. 9165) for the conduct of the
the constitutional provisions on the rights of pre-trial detainees, the Court preliminary investigation lapses. This rule also applies in cases where the
will not dismiss the case on the ground of mootness. As can be gleaned investigating prosecutor resolves to dismiss the case, even if such dismissal
from the ever-changing DOJ circulars, there is a possibility that the latest was appealed to the DOJ or made the subject of a motion for
circular would again be amended by succeeding secretaries. reconsideration, reinvestigation or automatic review. The reason is that such
3. The rule is that a person subject of a warrantless arrest must be delivered to dismissal automatically results in a prima facie finding of lack of probable
the proper judicial authorities within the periods provided in Article 125 of cause to file an information in court and to detain a person.
19
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

The respondents shall remain in custody, pending automatic review of the dismissal
History of DOJ issuances (for reference) of their cases, in the following instances as provided for under the circular:

D. C. No. 46, dated June 26, 2003 1. When during inquest proceedings, respondent elects to avail of a
regular preliminary investigation and waives in writing the provisions
The process of automatic review of dismissed drug cases was first instituted in 2003 of Article 125 of the RPC;

Due to numerous complaints about illegal drug cases being whitewashed or 2. When an information is filed in court after inquest proceedings and
dismissed due to sloppy police work, former SOJ Simeon Datumanong issued D.C. the accused is placed in the custody of the law, but the court allows
No. 46, empowering the DOJ to automatically review dismissed cases filed in the accused to avail of a regular preliminary investigation, which
violation of R.A. No. 9165 and involving the maximum penalty of life imprisonment results in the dismissal of the case, the handling prosecutor shall insist
or death. that the accused shall remain in the custody of the law pending
automatic review by the SOJ, unless the court provides otherwise, or
The circular also applied to cases which had been dismissed prior to its issuance if until the dismissal is affirmed by the SOJ and the corresponding
such dismissal had not yet attained finality as of the date of the circular. motion to dismiss or withdraw information is granted by the court;

D.C. No. 12, dated February 13, 2012 3. When an information is filed in court after preliminary
investigation proceedings and the accused is placed in the custody of
D.C. No. 46 was followed by D.C. No. 12 in which former SOJ Leila M. De Lima,
the law, but the court allows the accused to avail of reinvestigation,
for the most part, reiterated the provisions of the first circular but added that
which results in the dismissal of the case, the accused shall remain in
automatic review of dismissed drug cases shall be without prejudice to the right of
custody of the law pending automatic review by the SOJ, unless the
the respondent to be immediately released from detention pending automatic review,
court provides otherwise, or until the dismissal is affirmed by the SOJ
unless respondent is detained for other causes.
and the corresponding motion to dismiss or withdraw information is
D.C. No. 22, dated February 12, 2013 granted by the court; and

A year after, SOJ De Lima revised the guidelines directing the continued detention of 4. When the case against respondent is dismissed after due
some respondents accused of violating R.A. No. 9165. She reasoned that cases, reinvestigation, if the case was commenced as an inquest case but was
where the maximum imposable penalty reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, are converted to a regular preliminary investigation after respondent
presumably high-priority drug cases whose alleged perpetrators should remain in elected the same and waived the provisions of Article 125 of the RPC.
custody.
D.C. No. 50, dated December 18, 2015
In this circular, the only respondents who may be released, pending automatic review
In order to address the problem of delay in the disposition of cases subject to
of their cases by the SOJ, are those whose cases were dismissed during inquest
automatic review and the prolonged detention of drug suspects without any case filed
proceedings on the ground that the arrest was not a valid warrantless arrest under
against them, then SOJ Caguioa issued D.C. No. 50, directing all heads of
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, or that no probable cause
prosecution offices to immediately issue corresponding release orders in favor of
exists to charge respondents in court.
respondents whose cases are still pending automatic review before the SOJ beyond

20
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

the 30-day period prescribed in the subject circular, unless respondents are detained
for some other causes.

D. C. No. 003, dated January 13, 2016

In view of the considerable number of petitions for habeas corpus filed against the
DOJ by accused languishing in jail for years while their cases were pending
automatic review by the DOJ, then SOJ Caguioa revoked D.C. No. 50 dated
December 18, 2015 and D.C. No. 22, dated February 12, 2013.

SOJ Caguioa then reinstated D.C. No. 12, dated February 13, 2012, mandating
immediate release of respondents pending automatic review, unless respondents are
detained for other causes.

D.C. No. 004, dated January 4, 2017

SOJ Vitaliano Aguirre, in this latest circular, reiterated the provisions of D.C. No. 3,
dated January 13, 2016, in so far as it orders the respondent/s to be immediately
released from detention, pending automatic review, unless detained for other causes.

21
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

4. People vs. Cristobal (Consolacion) traffic violation of the accused, the latter ran away but the other police
June 10, 2019 | Caguioa | Arrest officers in the vicinity were quick to apprehend him. He was brought back
to the checkpoint where he was searched by PO2 Ramos for any deadly
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines weapon but found nothing. PO2 Ramos noticed that the accused’s pocket
RESPONDENT: Marlon Cristobal y Ambrosio was bulging.

SUMMARY: Accused Cristobal, who was driving a motorcycle without a 3. PO2 Ramos ordered him to remove that object from his pocket and the
helmet, was flagged down at a checkpoint by police officers. When the police accused pulled out a small plastic bag therefrom. When PO2 Ramos opened
officers asked the accused for his OR and CR, the accused tried to flee but was the same, he found seven (7) plastic sachets containing white crystalline
quickly apprehended. The police searched the accused for deadly weapons but substance which he suspected as shabu. PO2 Ramos immediately arrested
found none. Nevertheless, a police officer noticed that the accused’s pocket was the accused and informed him of his constitutional rights.
bulging. After being ordered to empty his pockets, plastic bags of shabu were
seized from him and the officers proceeded to arrest the accused. The issue is 4. Accused’s Narration: Accused was riding his wife's motorcycle on his way
whether the confiscation of the shabu was a valid incidental search to a lawful to SM Hypermart in Pasig City. But before reaching his destination, he was
arrest. The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, the accused’s failure to wear a flagged down by PO2 Ramos at a police checkpoint. After giving his
helmet and produce the OR and CR is punishable only by a fine, therefore there driver's license, he was asked to produce the OR/CR of the motorcycle.
is no need for a warrant of arrest nor can there be a warrantless arrest. Since the When he was not able to produce the same, PO2 Ramos ordered him to
accused was unlawfully arrested, the consequent search upon his body is empty his pockets which he did. He brought out the contents of his pockets
likewise invalid. consisting of P18,000.00 sent to him by his mother for his wedding. PO2
Ramos left him momentarily and went to the police mobile car and then
DOCTRINE: Under the Rules of Court, a warrant of arrest need not be issued if returned to him and said "positive". PO2 Ramos frisked him on his waist
the information or charge was filed for an offense penalized by a fine only. It but found nothing else in his body. Accused told PO2 Ramos that he can
may be stated as a corollary that neither can a warrantless arrest be made for prove that he is the owner of the motorcycle if he will come with him to his
such an offense. house but PO2 Ramos only ignored him and ordered him to board the
mobile car. Accused-appellant was brought to the police precint where he
was shown the shabu which, as alleged by the police, belonged to him. He
FACTS:
was nonetheless charged with Possession of Dangerous Drugs despite his
1. An Information was filed against Cristobal for possession of dangerous
denial thereof.
drugs.
ISSUES:
2. Prosecution’s Narration: PO2 Ramos with other police officers were
1. WON the confiscation of the shabu was a consequence of a valid search
conducting "Oplan Sita" in a checkpoint. PO2 Ramos flagged down accused
incidental to a lawful arrest.
Cristobal who was driving a motorcycle without a helmet. He ordered the
accused to alight from his motorcycle then asked for the original receipt
(OR) and certificate of registration (CR) of the said motorcycle. Since the
accused failed to show either documents, PO2 Ramos asked for his driver's
license. While PO2 Ramos was preparing the traffic citation ticket for
RATIO:
22
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

1. No, there was no lawful arrest as basis for the incidental search. The seized
items were confiscated from Cristobal as he was being issued a traffic
violation ticket. His violations consisted of (1) not wearing a helmet while
driving a motorcycle, and (2) being unable to show the original receipt (OR)
and certificate of registration (CR) of the motorcycle he was riding.
Cristobal's first violation - failure to wear a helmet while riding a
motorcycle - is punishable by RA 10054, or the Motorcycle Helmet Act of
2009. It is clear from its provision that a violation of the law requiring the
use of helmets while driving a motorcycle is only punishable by fine.
Cristobal's second violation - failure to furnish the OR and CR of the
motorcycle - is likewise punishable only by fine.

2. Stated simply, the police officers involved in this case conducted an illegal
search when they frisked Cristobal on the basis of the foregoing violations.
It was not, as it could not have been, even believing the story of the police
officers, a search incidental to a lawful arrest as there was no, as there could
not have been any, lawful arrest to speak of

3. In the case of Luz vs. People, While the police officer was issuing him a
traffic violation ticket, the officer noticed that the man was uneasy and kept
touching something in his jacket. When the officer ordered the man to take
the thing out of his jacket, it was discovered that it was a small tin can
which contained sachets of shabu. When the man was prosecuted for illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, the Court acquitted the accused as the
confiscated drugs were discovered through an unlawful search. Further, it
was ruled that there was no valid arrest of petitioner. When he was flagged
down for committing a traffic violation, he was not, ipso facto and solely
for this reason, arrested. Under the Rules of Court, a warrant of arrest
need not be issued if the information or charge was filed for an offense
penalized by a fine only. It may be stated as a corollary that neither can
a warrantless arrest be made for such an offense.

23
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

5. PADUA v. PEOPLE jurisdiction of the court has no right to invoke the processes of that court. However,
applying also the same pronouncement in Tuliao, the Court also held therein that,
Facts:
"in adjudication of other reliefs sought by accused, it requires neither jurisdiction
In the case at bar is a petition for certiorari regarding a Criminal Case for Estafa.
over the person of the accused, nor custody of law over the body of the person."
The factual antecedents of which are the corporations Family Choice Grains
Thus, except in applications for bail, it is not necessary for the court to first acquire
Processing who engaged business with NVIRO Filipino Corporation. Because of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused to dismiss the case or grant other relief.
NVIRO’S failure to deliver and a complaint of faulty deliverables Family Choice,
filed as represented by Juanito Tio cases against the officers of NVIRO. Four years
In the instant case, there is no dispute that petitioners were at large when they filed,
after the defendants claimed that they realized that they were allowed to bail, and
through counsel, their Omnibus Motion Ex-Abundante Ad Cautelam wherein they
second that one of the defendants have already passed away, Petitioners Padua and
asked the court to quash the warrant of arrest and fix the amount of the bail bond
Pimentel filed an Omnibus Motion Ex-Abundante Ad Cautelam (to Quash Warrant
for their provisional release pending trial. However, albeit, at large, it must be
of Arrest and to Fix Bail)
clarified that petitioners' Omnibus Motion Ex-Abundante Ad Cautelam (to Quash
Warrant of Arrest and to Fix Bail) is not an application for bail. This is where the
The trial court however denied their motion. And then filed a motion for
instant case begs to differ because what petitioners filed was an Omnibus Motion
reconsideration which was also denied, up to the Court of appeals. The courts
Ex-Abundante Ad Cautelam (to Quash Warrant of Arrest and to Fix Bail). They
claiming that the parties who remained at large did not have the right to bail. Thus
were neither applying for bail, nor were they posting bail.
the defendants filed an Appeal via petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

The subject Omnibus Motion Ex-Abundante Ad Cautelam (to Quash Warrant of

Petitioners maintain that being charged with estafa which is an offense punishable
Arrest and to Fix Bail) is distinct and separate from an application for bail where
by reclusion temporal, they should be granted bail as a matter of right. They also
custody of law is required. A motion to quash is a consequence of the fact that it is
asserted that they already submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court
the very legality of the court process forcing the submission of the person of the
when they filed their Omnibus Motion Ex- Abundante Ad Cautelam (to Quash
accused that it is the very issue. Its prayer is precisely for the avoidance of the
Warrant of Arrest and to Fix Bail) and, thus, there is no need to make personal
jurisdiction of the court which is also as an exception to the rule that filing
appearance.
pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary appearance, and the
consequent submission of one's person to the jurisdiction of the court.
Respondents, however, asserted that while petitioners were indeed charged with
estafa under par. 2(a), Art. 315 of the RPC which is bailable, bail cannot still be
In filing the subject Omnibus Motion Ex-Abundante Ad Cautelam (to Quash
granted to them who are at large. They claimed that under the law, accused must be
Warrant of Arrest and to Fix Bail), petitioners are questioning the court's
in the custody of the law regardless of whether bail is a matter of right or
jurisdiction with precaution and praying that the court fix the amount of bail
discretion.
because they believed that their right to bail is a matter of right, by operation of
law. They are not applying for bail, therefore, custody of the law, or personal
Issue/s:Whether the defendants in the case of Estafa is entitled to bail even if they
appearance is not required. To emphasize, custody of the law is required before the
remained at large?
court can act upon the application for bail but it is not required for the adjudication
of other reliefs sought by the accused, as in the instant omnibus motion to quash
Decision of the Court:
warrant of arrest and to fix bail.
YES, a person applying for admission to bail must be in the custody of the law or
otherwise deprived of his liberty. A person who has not submitted himself to the

24
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

6. Dominguez vs. People of the Philippines (Jay-em)

the court over the person of the accused but does not carry a waiver of the
March 13, 2019 | Caguio, J | Arrest
admissibility of evidence.
Petitioner: Marlon Dominguez
Summary: People of the Philippines
Dominguez was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs. According to Facts:
the prosecution, at around 2 am, SPO1 Parchaso was conducting monitoring and 1. Dominguez was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Upon
possible arrest of violators of RA 9165. From a meter away, he saw a man wearing arraignment, he pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Thereafter, trial
a red shirt and white shorts, holding with his left hand a small transparent plastic ensued.
sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. RTC 2. Version of prosecution:
convicted Dominguez of the crime charged. This was affirmed by CA. The CA a. At around 2 am, SPO1 Parchaso was conducting monitoring and
and the RTC concluded that Dominguez was caught in flagrante delicto when he possible arrest of violators of RA 9165. From a meter away, he saw
was caught holding a sachet of shabu. The CA also held that the plain view a man wearing a red shirt and white shorts, holding with his left
doctrine applies. Issue: Whether the RTC and the CA erred in convicting hand a small transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
Dominguez of the crime charged. Ratio: The general rule is that the accused is substance suspected to be shabu. This man was later identified as
estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move to quash the Dominguez.
information against him before his arraignment. Applying the foregoing, the SC 3. Version of defense:
agrees that Dominguez had already waived his objection to the validity of his a. Dominguez denied the accusations against him. He testified that at
arrest. However, it must be stressed that such waiver only affects the jurisdiction 11 pm, while he was at home watching television and eating inside
of the court over the person of the accused but does not carry a waiver of the his house, 2 men in civilian clothes entered therein and arrested
admissibility of evidence. The determination of validity of the warrantless arrest him. They immediately grabbed him by his shorts and nape and
would also determine the validity of the warrantless search that was incident to the told him not to resist.
arrest. Here, the requisites for in flagrante delicto were not complied with because 4. RTC convicted Dominguez of the crime charged. This was affirmed by CA.
SPO1 Parchaso would not have been able to identify with reasonable accuracy the a. RTC- the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements for
contents of the plastic sachet. Dominguez' acts of standing on the street and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and that the integrity of the
holding a plastic sachet in his hands, are not by themselves sufficient to incite shabu seized from Dominguez had been duly preserved.
suspicion of criminal activity or to create probable cause enough to justify a b. CA- Dominguez raised no objection to the irregularity of his arrest
warrantless arrest. The requisites for the plain view doctrine were not also before arraignment.Thus, considering such and his active
complied with because it was clearly not apparent that such plastic sachet is an participation in the trial of the case, he is deemed to have
evidence of a crime, a contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC, thereby curing any defect
in his arrest.
Doctrine: The general rule is that the accused is estopped from assailing the i. Note: The CA and the RTC concluded that Dominguez
legality of his arrest if he failed to move to quash the information against him was caught in flagrante delicto when he was caught
before his arraignment. Applying the foregoing, the SC agrees that holding a sachet of shabu. The CA also held that the plain
Dominguez had already waived his objection to the validity of his arrest. view doctrine applies.
However, it must be stressed that such waiver only affects the jurisdiction of
Issue: Whether the RTC and the CA erred in convicting Dominguez of the crime
charged.
25
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

Ratio: particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is
1. Dominguez focuses his appeal on the validity of his arrest and the search inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he
and seizure of the sachet of shabu and, consequently, the admissibility of observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to
the sachet. seizure.
2. The general rule is that the accused is estopped from assailing the legality of a. In the case at hand, while it can be said that the presence of the
his arrest if he failed to move to quash the information against him before police officers was legitimate as they were patrolling the area and
his arraignment. Applying the foregoing, the SC agrees that Dominguez had that discovery of the plastic sachet was inadvertent, it should be
already waived his objection to the validity of his arrest. However, it must emphasized that, as to the third requisite, it was clearly not
be stressed that such waiver only affects the jurisdiction of the court apparent that such plastic sachet is an evidence of a crime, a
over the person of the accused but does not carry a waiver of the contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. To recall, when SPO1
admissibility of evidence. The determination of validity of the Parchaso saw Dominguez, he only saw that Dominguez was
warrantless arrest would also determine the validity of the warrantless holding a very small plastic sachet. To the Court's mind, a very
search that was incident to the arrest. small plastic sachet is not readily apparent as evidence
3. Here, the CA and the RTC erroneously concluded that Dominguez was incriminating Dominguez, such that it can be seized without a
caught in flagrante delicto. For an arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto, warrant. A very small plastic sachet can contain just about
two elements must concur, namely: 1) The person to be arrested must anything. It could even be just that — a very small plastic sachet
execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually — and nothing more.
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and 2) Such overt act is 5. There being no warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest or seizure of
done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. evidence in plain view, the shabu purportedly seized from Dominguez is
a. The officer's personal knowledge of the fact of the commission of rendered inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the
an offense is absolutely required. The officer himself must witness poisonous tree. As the confiscated shabu is the very corpus delicti of the
the crime. Here, the circumstances do not give rise to a reasonable crime charged, Dominguez must be acquitted and exonerated from all
suspicion that Dominguez was in possession of shabu. From a criminal liability.
meter away, even with perfect vision, SPO1 Parchaso would not
have been able to identify with reasonable accuracy the contents of
the plastic sachet. Dominguez' acts of standing on the street and
holding a plastic sachet in his hands, are not by themselves
sufficient to incite suspicion of criminal activity or to create
probable cause enough to justify a warrantless arrest. In fact, SPO1
Parchaso's testimony reveals that before the arrest was made, he
only saw that Dominguez was holding a small plastic sachet. He
was unable to describe what said plastic sachet contained, if any.
4. As regards the ruling of the CA, wherein it noted that Dominguez was
caught with a sachet of shabu in plain view, the Court holds that the plain
view doctrine is inapplicable here. It applies when the following requisites
concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior
justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a
26
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

7. People v. Sapla (Rein)

DOCTRINE:
June 16, 2020 | Caguioa, J. | Rule 113 - Arrest
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines ● A mere informant’s tip is not sufficient to engender probable cause.
RESPONDENTS: Jerry Sapla ● As a rule, searches and seizures must be done with a court issued
warrant. There are exceptions such as search of a moving vehicle where a
SUMMARY: valid warrantless search and seizure may be effected. But this exception
An unnamed officer in Tabuk Kalonga received a text from an informant comes with strict parameters which are: a) if the vehicle is parked on
(concerned citizen) that an individual will be transporting marijuana from kalinga public fair grounds, the officer may only draw aside its curtain, b) the
to Isabela. This was relayed to PDEA. within the same day, a follow-up message officer may only look into the vehicle, c) the officer may only flash a
was received detailing what the man was wearing such as collared white shirt with light without opening the vehicle’s doors, d) the occupants of the vehicle
green stripes, red ball cap, and carrying a blue sack and that he will be boarding a are not subjected to physical/body search, e) limited to visual search, f) if
passenger jeepney bearing plate number AYA 270 bound for Roxas, Isabela. done as a routine check, must be conducted in a fixed area.

Based on this information, a checkpoint was organized by the PNP. At around

1:20 o’clock, the jeepney arrived. The police officers stopped the jeepney and
inside they saw the person described in the text message they received. They FACTS:
approached said person and asked him if the blue sack in front of him was his. The
person answered yes. The police officers then requested the person to open the
blue sack. The person was later identified as Jerry Sapla. He denied the allegations 1. In the morning of 10 January 2014, an unnamed officer at the Regional
and claimed in court that when he boarded the jeep,he did not have a sack with Public Safety Battalion (RPSB) in Tabuk, Kalinga received a text message
him. from an informant (concerned citizen) that an individual will be transporting
marijuana from Kalinga to Isabela. PO2 Jim Mabiasan (not the officer who
Issue: 1. Whether or not the police officers may justify the search as a search of a received the text message) then relayed the information to the deputy
moving vehicle. commander who coordinated with the PDEA.
2. Whether or not the police officers may justify the search as consented search 2. About 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day, a follow up
information via text message was received by the RPSB this time detailing
the description of the drug courier, to wit: male, wearing collared white shirt
1. This case does not fall under search of a moving vehicle because the with green stripes, red ball cap, and carrying a blue sack; he will be
target of the search was not the jeepney boarded by Sapla but rather the boarding a passenger jeepney bearing plate number AYA 270 bound for
target was the person of Sapla. Based on the testimony of the police Roxas, Isabela.
officers, their actual target was the person fitting the description provided 3. Based on this information, a checkpoint was organized by the PNP. At
by the tip which corresponded to Sapla and not the vehicle. SEE LIST IN around 1:20 o’clock, the jeepney arrived. The police officers stopped the
THE RATIO jeepney and inside they saw the person described in the text message they
2. No. Based on the testimony of the police officers, Sapla hesitated when received. They approached said person and asked him if the blue sack in
he was requested to open the blue sack. This only means that he did not front of him was his. The person answered yes. The police officers then
give his consent and that his compliance was vitiated by the presence of requested the person to open the blue sack. The person hesitated but he
the police. eventually complied. The content of the blue sack was four bricks of
marijuana. The person was later identified as Jerry Sapla.
4. In court, Sapla denied the allegations as he claimed that when he boarded
the jeep, he did not have any sack with him; that the blue sack was only
attributed as belonging to him by the police. Sapla was convicted by the
27
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

trial court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and ruled that the HELD:
informant’s tip was sufficient to engender probable cause upon the minds of
the police officers; that it was sufficient to conduct a warrantless search and
seizure. 1. No. As a rule, searches and seizures must be done with a court issued
warrant. There are exceptions such as search of a moving vehicle where a
ISSUE: Whether or not an informant’s tip is sufficient to engender probable cause? valid warrantless search and seizure may be effected. But this exception
comes with strict parameters which are: a) if the vehicle is parked on public
fair grounds, the officer may only draw aside its curtain, b) the officer may
HELD:
only look into the vehicle, c) the officer may only flash a light without
opening the vehicle’s doors, d) the occupants of the vehicle are not
1. No. In a long line of cases (Pp. vs Aminnudin, Pp. vs Cuizon, Pp. vs subjected to physical/body search, e) limited to visual search, f) if done as a
Encinada, Pp. vs Aruta, Pp. vs Cogaed, Veridiano vs Pp., Pp. vs Comprado, routine check, must be conducted in a fixed area.
Pp. vs Yanson, and Pp. vs Gardon-Mentoy), the Supreme Court has always 2. This case does not fall under search of a moving vehicle because the target
said that a mere informant’s tip is not sufficient to engender probable cause. of the search was not the jeepney boarded by Sapla but rather the target was
The police officer receiving the informant’s tip must rely on his senses. The the person of Sapla. Based on the testimony of the police officers, their
police officer must not adopt the suspicion initiated by another person. The actual target was the person fitting the description provided by the tip which
police officer, with his/her personal knowledge, must observe the facts corresponded to Sapla and not the vehicle.
leading to the suspicion of an illicit act and not merely rely on the
information passed on to him/her.
2. Law enforcers cannot act solely on the basis of a tip. A tip is still hearsay no ISSUE 3: Whether or not the police officers may justify the search as consented
matter how reliable it may be. It is not sufficient to constitute probable search.
cause in the absence of any other circumstance that will arouse
suspicion.The Supreme Court noted that there were two previous decisions
(Pp. vs Maspiland Pp. vs Bagista) which ruled that a confidential tip was HELD:
sufficient to engender probable cause, however, the Supreme Court in this
case declared that these two cases are now being abandoned to settle the
1. No. Based on the testimony of the police officers, Sapla hesitated when he
issue once and for all.
was requested to open the blue sack. This only means that he did not give
3. The Supreme Court also found the text message to be double hearsay: (1)
his consent and that his compliance was vitiated by the presence of the
the person who actually received the text message was not presented, and
police.
(2) the person who received the text message merely relayed it to the
2. With all the foregoing, the search and seizure conducted was invalid and
officers who conducted the warrantless search and seizure without the latter
any evidence obtained therefrom is inadmissible. Sapla was acquitted. The
actually seeing/reading the actual text message. Further, the text message
Supreme Court likewise emphasized the need to adhere to strict standards
was not preserved. It also appeared that the phone which received the text
set by the Constitution otherwise “A battle waged against illegal drugs that
message was not a government issued one – this belies the claim of the
tramples on the rights of the people is not a war on drugs; it is a war
officers that the message was received by their hotline.
against the people.”

ISSUE 2: Whether or not the police officers may justify the search as a search of a
moving vehicle.

28
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

8. People of the Philippines v. Gilbert Sebilleno y Casabar (FAJARDO) b. An elected public official
January 13, 2020 | Leones, J. | CrimProp - Rule 113 (Arrest) c. A representative of the National Prosecution Service (if none
available, a media representative)
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines
RESPONDENT: Gilbert Sebilleno An irregularity in the official act of law enforcers will not give rise to the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty.
SUMMARY: Sebilleno was caught allegedly selling Shabu during a buy-bust
operation. A sachet containing white crystalline substance was confiscated from FACTS:
him while another sachet was seized from Kyle Enrique, an alleged buyer. 1. Gilbert Sebilleno and Kyle Enrique were charged separately for the illegal
sale of dangerous drugs. Sebilleno was charged with selling meth while
The prosecution presented only the testimony of the arresting officers to prove Enrique was charged with possessing the same.
the chain of custody over the confiscated sachets. The police officers testified 2. During arraignment, Sebilleno and Enrique pleaded not guilty. During
that at the time that they made the arrest, they labelled the sachets GSC and KE pre-trial, they admitted that the Court has jurisdiction over them.
(the initials of the individuals from whom the sachets were taken). They did not 3. According to the prosecution, several police officers and a confidential
take photographs and inventory, as required under the law, until they reached the important conducted a buy-bust operation at 9AM on June 4, 2008 wherein
police station. The photographs and inventory were taken in the presence only of they caught Sebilleno selling a small plastic sachet containing a white
a local government employee. crystalline powder, Sebilleno allegedly identified the substance as shabu
during the transaction and mentioned that Enrique also bought shabu from
ISSUE: Whether the police officers adequately complied with the him earlier.
procedural requirements for confiscating and processing illicit drugs - NO 4. The police officers arrested Sebillano and Enrique, apprised them of their
rights, and confiscated the sachets of white powder. One officer, PO1
DOCTRINE: The requirements under Sec. 21(1) of the Comprehensive Julaton labelled one GSC for Sebilleno and KE for Enriquez. Sebillano and
Dangerous Drugs Act for confiscating and processing illicit drugs is as as Enrique were then brought to the police station and booked.
follows -- 5. PO1 Julaton kept the sachet bought from Sebilleno while his partner, PO1
Ocampo, kept the sachet confiscated from Enrique. He allegedly conducted
1. Photographing and conducting inventory of the confiscated drugs must inventory and took photographs, as witnessed by Raquel Dilao, a local
be done immediately after seizure and confiscation. government employee. PO1 Julaton prepared a Request for Laboratory
2. If the arrest was made with a warrant, photos and inventory must be Examination and submitted the sachets to the PNP Crime Lab.
taken at the exact same place where the warrant was served. 6. The crime lab returned a positive test for shabu for the confiscated
3. If the arrest was made without a warrant, photos and inventory must be substances. Sebillano tested positive for shabu while Enriquez tested
taken at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the negative.
apprehending officer. 7. In his defense, Sebillano testified to a different story and denied the charge.
4. Three parties must be present at the time photos and inventory are to be He claimed that at around 7AM to 8AM on June 4, 2008, the police officers
taken: went to his house and forced him to admit that he was “Boy Trolly”. When
a. The accused/person from whom the illicit substances were he refused, the police officers hit him in the stomach with the gun. They did
confiscated (or representative/counsel)

29
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

not inform him of the crime with which they were charging him until they the accused-appellant was 0.16 gram of suspected shabu. 64 Thus we
got to the police station and placed him in jail. employ the heightened scrutiny which Mallillin espoused in evaluating
8. The RTC found Sebilleno guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court evidence.
sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500K. Enriques was
acquitted for insufficient evidence. On whether the police officers complied with the requirements for confiscating
9. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. Sebilleno filed a notice of appeal. The and inventory of illicit drugs
CA gave due course to it and elevated the records to the Supreme Court. 1. Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as originally
worded, provides the requirements for the custody and disposition of
confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia:
ISSUES:
1. Whether the testimony of police officers regarding the chain of custody for “(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs
an illicit substance being offered as evidence is sufficient to prove that the shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
drugs confiscated were the same drugs offered in court - NO photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
2. Whether the police officers adequately complied with the procedural whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative
requirements for confiscating and processing illicit drugs - NO or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
3. Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of the law (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the
enforcers’ official duty is sufficient to cure defects in compliance with the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.”
requirements of the law - NO.
2. Lescano v. People summarized the requisites under Section 21 (1), as
RATIO: amended by Republic Act No. 10640:
On the testimony of police officers to prove chain of custody
1. The police officers' testimonies are not enough to prove that the confiscated “As regards the items seized and subjected to marking, Section 21(1) of the
item from the accused was the same drug presented in court. Mallillin v. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, requires the
People explained: performance of two (2) actions: physical inventory and photographing.
Section 21(1) is specific as to when and where these actions must be done.
“A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily As to when, it must be "immediately after seizure and confiscation." As
identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine to where, it depends on whether the seizure was supported by a search
their composition and nature. . . . Hence, in authenticating the same, a warrant. If a search warrant was served, the physical inventory and
standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which Photographing must be done at the exact same place that the search
are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that warrant is served. In case of warrantless seizure, these actions must be
entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only done "at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable."
with another or been contaminated or tampered with.”
3. Moreover, Section 21(1) requires at least three (3) persons to be present
2. The nature of narcotic substances necessarily entails heightened scrutiny. during the physical inventory and photographing. These persons are: first,
Further, "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an the accused or the person/s from whom the items were seized; second, an
exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small." Here, allegedly seized from elected public official; and third, a representative of the National
30
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

Prosecution Service. There are, however, alternatives to the first and the 9. The Solicitor General averred that inventory was conducted in the police
third. As to the first (i.e., the accused or the person/s from whom items were station, because "the apprehending team would be putting their lives in peril
seized), there are two (2) alternatives: first, his or her representative; and considering that the area where the buy-bust operation was conducted is a
second, his or her counsel. As to the representative of the National notorious Muslim community."
Prosecution Service, a representative of the media may be present in his or
her place. 10. Third, the prosecution failed to present as witness PCI Rodis, the police
officer who received the specimen for laboratory examination.
4. Considering that the constitutional presumption of innocence mandates
proof beyond reasonable doubt, "conviction cannot be sustained if 11. This Court acquitted the accused-appellant in People v. Sagana when it
there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug." Acquittal thus, found that the persons who handled the seized items were not presented as
ensues. witnesses, without ample explanation

5. Here, the prosecution failed to show the apprehending officers' strict On the presumption of regularity
compliance with Section 21. First, Racquel L. Dilao, a local government 1. [The Court] clarified in People v. Kamad that: The presumption applies
employee, witnessed the inventory and taking of photographs of the when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from
seized items. Second, none of the three (3) people required by Section the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official
21 (1), as originally worded, was present. act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise.

6. The prosecution has "the positive duty to establish that earnest efforts were 2. There were persistent doubts in the origins of the drugs supposedly seized
employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under Section 21 (1) from accused-appellant. The absence of the required witnesses during
of [Republic Act No.] 9165, or that there was a justifiable ground for failing seizure, marking, inventory, and taking of photographs, along with the
to do so." The prosecution failed to prove that earnest efforts were police officers' failure to conduct these at the place of arrest, and their
employed in securing the presence of the other two (2) witnesses from nonpresentation of material witnesses who handled the items; and, lastly,
the media and the Department of Justice. No justification was proffered their utter failure to justify these blatant lapses, reveal a seriously
to excuse the law enforcers' deviation from the law's simple compromised chain of custody. Taken together, these instances raise doubt
requirements. on the integrity of the confiscated items and, ultimately, on the commission
of the crime.
7. Second, Section 21 directs the conduct of inventory and taking of
photographs "immediately after seizure and confiscation." People v. Que 3. This Court is, thus, constrained to acquit accused-appellant.
explained that these must be done at the place of arrest.
SEPARATE OPINIONS: N/A
8. The Implementing Rules allow the conduct of inventory of the seized items CONCURRING: N/A
and taking of photographs "at the nearest police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable."
Deviations from the law may be excused, but the prosecution must plead
and prove a justifiable ground. 80

31
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

VII. RULE 114 (BAIL) strong. With life imprisonment as one of the penalties prescribed for the
offense charged against Millares, he cannot be admitted to bail when
1. Jorda v. Judge Bitas evidence of guilt is strong, in accordance with Section 7, Rule 114 of the
Facts: Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. In this case, not only did Judge Bitas
The complaint stemmed from three criminal cases for Qualified Trafficking deviate from the requirement of a hearing, but he also granted bail to
and Violation of Articles VI, Section 10 of RA 7610, which were filed Miralles without neither conducting a hearing, nor a motion for application
against Miralles, et al before the RTC, Branch 7 of Tacloban City where for bail. Judge Bitas’ justification for granting bail due to his finding that
respondent Judge Bitas presides. In the first complaint, the complainant the evidence of the prosecution is weak cannot be sustained because records
alleged that accused Miralles, through counsel, filed a Motion for Judicial show that no such hearing for that purpose transpired. What the records
Determination of Probable Cause with Motion to Hold in Abeyance the show is a hearing to determine the existence of probable cause, not a
Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest. On the same day, Judge Bitas issued an order hearing for a petition for bail. The hearing for bail is different from the
taking cognizance of the same, directing Prosecutor Macalalag to file a determination of probable cause. The latter takes place prior to all
comment. The prosecution then filed its comment/opposition and moved for proceedings, so that if a court is not satisfied with the existence of probable
the issuance of the required warrant of arrest. However, no warrant of arrest cause, it may either dismiss the case or deny the issuance of the warrant of
was issued against Miralles, but the latter posted bail. Complainant alleged arrest or conduct a hearing to satisfy itself of the existence of probable
that respondent judge disregarded his duties and violated mandatory cause.
provisions when he did not issue a warrant of arrest against Miralles who was
charged with two non-bailable criminal offenses. Moreover, Judge Bitas
reduced Miralles’ bail from 120,000 to 40,000 even without any petition for Note: A motion for a judicial determination of probable cause is now
the fixing of bail. Complainant also alleged that even after Judge Bitas found a prohibited motion under the Revised Guidelines for Continuous
probable cause to hold Miralles for trial, he did not order the arrest of the Trial of Criminal Cases.
latter. In his Answer, Judge Bitas said that it was wrong to arrest Miralles
because the court was still in the process of determining the sufficiency of
evidence to hold him for trial. In addition, Judge Bitas claimed that there was
no more need for a petition for bail because in the judicial determination of
probable cause, the court found that the evidence against the accused was
weak.

Issue/s:
Whether or not the grant of bail is proper in this case.

Decision of the Court: No, the grant of bail is improper. The hearing of the
application for bail in capital offenses is absolutely indispensable before a
judge can properly determine whether the prosecution’s evidence is weak or

32
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

2. Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely. His personal disposition from the
onset on his indictment for plunder, formal or otherwise, has demonstrated his utter
Facts: respect for the legal processes of this country. We also do not ignore that at an earlier
The Office of the Ombudsman charged Enrile and several others with plunder in time many years ago when he had been charged with rebellion, murder and multiple
the Sandiganbayan on the basis of their purported involvement in the diversion and frustrated murder, he already evinced a similar personal disposition of respect for the
misuse of appropriations under the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). legal processes, and was granted bail during the pendency of his trial because he was
Enrile respectively filed his Omnibus Motion and Supplemental Opposition, not seen as a flight risk. With his social reputation in both his public and private
praying, among others, that he be allowed to post bail should probable cause be lives, his long years of public service and history’s judgment of him being at stake,
found against him. The motions were heard and the Sandiganbayan issued its he should be granted bail.
resolution denying Enrile’s motion, particularly on the matter of bail, on the ground
of its prematurity considering that Enrile had not yet then voluntarily surrendered The current fragile state of Enrile’s health presents another compelling justification
or been placed under the custody of the law. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan for his admission to bail, but which the Sandiganbayan did not recognize. In his
ordered the arrest of Enrile. On the same day that the warrant of arrest was issued, testimony in the Sandiganbayan, the Director of PGH classified Enrile as a geriatric
Enrile voluntarily surrendered to CIDG in Camp Crame, Quezon City and was later patient who was found to be suffering from several conditions. There is no question
on confined at the PNP General Hospital following his medical examination. at all that Enrile’s advanced age and ill health required special medical attention. His
Thereafter, Enrile filed his Motion for Detention at the PNP General Hospital and confinement at PNP General Hospital was not even recommended by the OIC and
his Motion to Fix Bail. He argued that he should be allowed to post bail because: the internist doctor of that medical facility because of the limitations in the medical
(a) the prosecution had not yet established that the evidence of his guilt was strong; support at that hospital.
(b) although he was charged with plunder, the penalty as to him would only be
reclusion temporal, not reclusion perpertua; and (c) he was not a flight risk, and his Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of the crime charged,
age and physical condition must further be seriously considered. The should be allowed independently of the merits of the charge, provided his continued
Sandiganbayan issued its first assailed resolution denying the Motion to Fix Bail, incarceration is clearly shown to be injurious to his health or to endanger his life.
and second assailed resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration. Indeed, denying him bail despite imperiling his health and life would not serve the
true objective of preventive incarceration during trial.
Issue/s:
Whether or not Enrile should be granted bail? It is relevant to observe that granting provisional liberty to Enrile will then enable
him to have his medical condition be properly addressed and better attended to by
competent physicians in the hospitals of his choice. This will not only aid his
Decision of the Court:
adequate preparation of his defense but, more importantly, will guarantee his
YES. The Court is guided by the principal purpose of bail, which is to guarantee
appearance in court for the trial.
the appearance of the accused at the trial or whenever so required by the court. The
Court is further mindful of the Philippines’ responsibility in the international
community arising from the national commitment under the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the
worth and dignity of every person. This has authorized the grant of bail not only to
those charged in criminal proceedings but also to extradites upon a clear and
convincing showing: (1) that the detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger to the
community; and (2) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling
circumstances.

In our view, his social and political standing and his having immediately surrendered
to the authorities upon his being charged in court indicate that the risk of his flight or
33
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

3. Napoles v. Sandiganbayan thoroughness in the examination and cross-examination, and reducing to a

reasonable minimum the amount of corroboration. The trial court may deny the bail
Facts:
application on the basis of evidence less than that necessary to establish the guilt of
The Office of the Ombudsman received a report from the NBI, which
an accused beyond reasonable doubt. The inquiry in a bail hearing is limited to the
recommended to prosecute Janet Lim Napoles (Napoles), among others, for the
determination on whether there is evident proof that the accused is guilty of the
crime of Plunder. Soon after, the Office of the Ombudsman received a Complaint,
offense charged. This standard of proof is entirely different from that applied in a
criminally charging Napoles, and later on it found probable cause to indict Napoles.
demurrer to evidence, which requires moral certainty or proof beyond reasonable
Napoles filed her Petition for Bail, arguing that the evidence of the prosecution is
doubt to convict the accused.
insufficient to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Sandiganbayan
conducted bail hearings and later on issued a Resolution denying the bail
application for lack or merit. Subsequently, Napoles filed a petition alleging grave
Given the distinction between the required standards of proof, it precludes
abuse of discretion, however the Supreme Court dismissed the petition contending the application of Macapagal-Arroyo to the present case. The issue that the
that there was no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of Court resolved was whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion
jurisdiction on the part of the Sandiganbayan when it denied the bail application. in denying Napoles’ application for bail, and this only involved a preliminary
determination of her eligibility to provisional liberty. The resolution of this
In the present case, Napoles now invokes the ruling of Macapagal-Arroyo v. issue does not involve the determination of whether there was proof beyond
People, wherein the Court reversed the Sandiganbayan’s denial of the demurrer to reasonable doubt that Napoles, or her co-accused as the case may be, was the
evidence in the plunder case against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
main plunderer for whose benefit the ill-gotten wealth was amassed or
based on the prosecution’s failure to specify the identity of the main plunderer, for
whose benefit the ill-gotten wealth was amassed, accumulated, and acquired.
accumulated. These are matters of defense best left to the discretion of the
According to Napoles, the ruling in this case should have been applied to her case. Sandiganbayan in the resolution of the criminal case. It was sufficient that the
denial of her bail application was based on evidence establishing a great
Issue/s: presumption of guilt on the part of Napoles.
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying Napoles'
application for bail in light of the decision under Macapagal-Arroyo v. People?

Decision of the Court:

No. The Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying Napoles’
application for bail. In a demurrer to evidence, the accused imposes a challenge on
the sufficiency of the prosecution's entire evidence; and this involves a
determination of whether the evidence presented by the prosecution has established
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Should the trial court find the
prosecution's evidence insufficient, the grant of the demurrer to evidence is
equivalent to the acquittal of the accused. The stage at which the accused may
move for demurrer to evidence is after the prosecution has rested its case. This
should be distinguished from a hearing in a petition for bail, where the trial court
does not determine and hear the merits of the main case. Neither does it speculate
in the ultimate outcome of the criminal charge. In a bail hearing, the court will only
be conducting a summary hearing, the purposes of which is to determine the weight
of evidence for purposes of bail. As such, it may confine itself to receiving
evidence as has reference to substantial matters, avoiding the unnecessary
34
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

4. Padua v. People imposable penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period, which is still
bailable.
.Facts:
Juanito A. Tio (Tio), in his capacity as representative of Family Choice Grains
In the instant case, there is no dispute that petitioners were at large when they filed,
Processing Center of Cabatuan, Isabela filed a complaint for estafa against the
through counsel, their Omnibus Motion Ex-Abundante Ad Cautelam wherein they
petitioners Allen Padua (Padua), Emelita Pimentel (Pimentel) and Dante Frialde
asked the court to quash the warrant of arrest and fix the amount of the bail bond
(Frialde), as officials of Nviro Filipino Corporation (Nviro).
for their provisional release pending trial. However, albeit, at large, it must be
clarified that petitioners' Omnibus Motion Ex-Abundante Ad Cautelam (to Quash
Petitioners Padua and Pimentel filed an Omnibus Motion Ex-Abundante Ad
Warrant of Arrest and to Fix Bail) is not an application for bail. This is where the
Cautelam (to Quash Warrant of Arrest and to Fix Bail). Petitioners maintain that
instant case begs to differ because what petitioners filed was an Omnibus Motion
being charged with estafa which is an offense punishable by reclusion temporal,
Ex-Abundante Ad Cautelam (to Quash Warrant of Arrest and to Fix Bail). They
they should be granted bail as a matter of right. They also asserted that they already
submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court when they filed their Omnibus were neither applying for bail, nor were they posting bail.
Motion Ex-Abundante Ad Cautelam (to Quash Warrant of Arrest and to Fix Bail)
Thus, in filing the subject Omnibus Motion Ex-Abundante Ad Cautelam (to Quash
and, thus, there is no need to make personal appearance.
Warrant of Arrest and to Fix Bail), petitioners are questioning the court's
jurisdiction with precaution and praying that the court fix the amount of bail
Respondents, however, asserted that while petitioners were indeed charged with
because they believed that their right to bail is a matter of right, by operation of
estafa under par. 2(a), Art. 315 of the RPC which is bailable, bail cannot still be
law. They are not applying for bail, therefore, custody of the law, or personal
granted to them since they are at large. They claimed that under the law, accused
appearance is not required. To emphasize, custody of the law is required before the
must be in the custody of the law regardless of whether bail is a matter of right or
court can act upon the application for bail but it is not required for the adjudication
discretion.
of other reliefs sought by the accused, as in the instant omnibus motion to quash
warrant of arrest and to fix bail.
Issue/s:
Here, considering that estafa is a bailable offense, petitioners no longer need to apply
Whether or not petitioners are entitled to bail as a matter of right for being charged for bail as they are entitled to bail, by operation of law. Where bail is a matter of
with bailable offenses, despite being at large – YES. right, it is ministerial on the part of the trial judge to fix bail when no bail is
recommended.
Decision of the Court:
Bail may be a matter of right or judicial discretion. The accused has the right to bail However, it must be further clarified that after the amount of bail has been fixed,
if the offense charged is "not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life petitioners, when posting the required bail, must be in the custody of the law. They
must make their personal appearance in the posting of bail. It must be emphasized
imprisonment" before conviction. However, if the accused is charged with an offense
that bail, whether a matter of right or of discretion, cannot be posted before custody
and the penalty of which is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment — of the accused has been acquired by the judicial authorities either by his arrest or
"regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution" — and when evidence of one's voluntary surrender, or personal appearance. This is so because if the court will
guilt is not strong, then the accused's prayer for bail is subject to the discretion of the allow the granting of bail to persons not in the custody of the law, it is foreseeable
that many persons who can afford the bail will remain at large, and could elude
trial court.
being held to answer for the commission of the offense if ever he is proven guilty.
Furthermore, the continued absence of the accused can be taken against him since
Clearly, in the instant case, petitioners are entitled to bail as a matter of right as flight is indicative of guilt.
they have not been charged with a capital offense. Estafa, under Art. 315 of the
RPC as amended by R.A. 10951, which petitioners have been charged with, has an
35
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

5. White v. Bugtas (Vi) Recognizance of Mr. Manuel Bagaporo, Jr., a convict of frustrated murder
November 17, 2005|Austria-Martinez, J. | Rule 114 - Bail before terminating service of the minimum penalty, and pending the
approval of the prisoner's application for parole.
PETITIONER: ATTY. JULIANA ADALIM-WHITE
2. Bugtas filed a comment admitting that he issued an order allowing
RESPONDENTS: HON. JUDGE ARNULFO O. BUGTAS
Bagaporo to be released on recognizance. Bugtas averred that Bagaporo
SUMMARY: Bagaporo was convicted of frustrated murder and
was convicted of frustrated murder and meted the penalty of imprisonment
sentenced to prison for four years and two months to eight years and one
ranging from four years and two months to eight years and one day;
day. He filed an application for release on recognizance. Judge Bugtas
Bagaporo served sentence; he filed an application for release on
granted this and ordered the Release on Recognizance. Judge Bugtas
recognizance; in support of his application, Provincial Jail Warden Apelado
claims that the convict had already been in custody for a period equal to
issued a certification to the effect that Bagaporo has been confined at the
the minimum imprisonment meted out by the trial court. There were also
Provincial Jail since February 9, 1996 and is already entitled to parole;
certifications submitted by the Provincial Jail Warden, Supervising
another certification was issued by Supervising Probation and Parole
Probation Officer, and Parole Officer. Bugtas granted Bagaporo's
Officer showing that Bagaporo had applied for parole in line with the
application for bail upon recognizance of Apelado on the basis of these
Department of Justice's "Maagang Paglaya Program.
certifications and on the rule that bail being discretionary upon
3. Bugtas claimed that on the basis of these certifications and on the rule that
conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
bail being discretionary upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not
perpetua or life imprisonment. Bugtas cited Sec. 16, Rule 114, Rules of
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the court
Criminal Procedure (see bold provision in facts). Atty. White then filed a
granted Bagaporo's application for bail upon recognizance of Apelado.
letter complaint against Judge Bugtas for ignorance of the law. Issue:
4. The Investigating Justice for this incident submitted a report concluding that
Whether Bagaporo should be allowed to be released – NO. Bagaporo
Judge Bugtas was guilty of gross ignorance of the law and gross neglect of
was not yet able to serve the minimum of his penalty. Section 24, Rule
duty for ordering the release of Bagaporo. Due to the penalty imposed,
114 of the Rules of Court is plain and clear in prohibiting the grant of bail
Bagaporo should have been committed to prison. Judge Bugtas was also not
after conviction by final judgment and after the convict has started to
in good faith because he knew that Bagaporo was serving a final sentence
serve sentence. The only exception to the provision of the Rules of Court
with an indeterminate penalty and when Bugtas ordered the release,
is when the convict has applied for probation before he commences to
Bagaporo has not yet served the minimum of his penalty. Even if he was
serve sentence, provided the penalty and the offense are within the
informed of Bagaporo, Jr.'s pending application for parole, Judge Bugtas
purview of the Probation Law. Moreover, Judge Bugtas should know that
had no legal basis to anticipate the approval of the application and to cause
the provisions of Sections 5 and 16, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court apply
the convict's premature release. He was thus fully aware that Bagaporo, Jr.
only to an accused undergoing preventive imprisonment during trial or on
could not be released even upon the recognizance of the Provincial Jail
appeal. They do not apply to a person convicted by final judgment and
Warden.
already serving sentence.
5. The Investigating Justice explained in the report that Judge Bugtas' act of
DOCTRINE: Section 24, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court is plain and
prematurely releasing the convict in effect altered the final sentence of
clear in prohibiting the grant of bail after conviction by final judgment
Bagaporo, Jr. Bugtas violated Art. 86 of the RPC that penalties “shall be
and after the convict has started to serve sentence.
executed and served in the places and penal establishments provided by the
Sections 5 and 16, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court apply only to
Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by law in the
an accused undergoing preventive imprisonment during trial or on
future.”
appeal. They do not apply to a person convicted by final judgment and
6. Judge Bugtas contends that his order of release on recognizance was correct
already serving sentence.
considering that the convict had already been in custody for a period equal
FACTS: to the minimum imprisonment meted out by the trial court. To support his
1. Atty. White (White) filed a verified letter complaint against Judge Bugtas contention, he cites Sec. 16, Rule 114, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure:
(Bugtas) for ignorance of the law when he ordered the Release on
36
REMREV CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | JUDGE BOOM RODOLFO

Sec. 16. Bail, when not required; reduced bail or recognizance. was filed or the accused is incapable of filing one, the court may
— No bail shall be required when the law or these Rules so allow his release on recognizance to the custody of a responsible
provide. When a person has been in custody for a period equal member of the community. In no case shall bail be allowed after
to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment the accused has commenced to serve sentence.
prescribed for the offense charged, he shall be released 4. The only exception to the above-cited provision of the Rules of Court is
immediately, without prejudice to the continuation of the trial when the convict has applied for probation before he commences to serve
or the proceedings on appeal. If the maximum penalty to which sentence, provided the penalty and the offense are within the purview of the
the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released Probation Law.
after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment. A person in 5. In this case, there is no showing that Bagaporo applied for probation. In
custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the fact, at the time of his application for release on recognizance, he was
principal penalty prescribed for the offense charged, without already serving sentence. When he was about to complete service of the
application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any minimum of his sentence, he filed an application for parole. However, there
modifying circumstance, shall be released on a reduced bail or is no evidence to show that the Board of Pardons and Parole approved his
on his own recognizance, at the discretion of the court. application.
ISSUE: 6. The SC agreed with the Investigating Justice in holding that a convict's
1. Whether Bagaporo should be allowed to be released – NO release from prison before he serves the full term of his sentence is either
RATIO: due to good conduct allowances, or through the approval of the convict's
1. Bugtas is being charged with ignorance of the law for having ordered the application for parole. A good conduct allowance under Act No. 1533 and
release of Bagaporo pending approval of the latter's application for parole Article 97 of the Revised Penal Code may be granted by the Director of
and before his completion of the minimum period of the sentence imposed Prisons (now Director of the Bureau of Corrections), while the approval of
upon him. Bugtas contends that his order allowing the release on an application for parole is sanctioned by the Board of Pardons and Parole.
recognizance of Bagaporo is in consonance with the provisions of Section In addition, a convict may be released from prison in cases where he is
16, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. The SC disagreed with Bugtas. granted pardon by the President pursuant to the latter's pardoning power
2. Bagaporo was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from under Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution.
four years and two months to eight years and one day. It is not disputed that 7. In the present case, aside from the fact that there is no evidence to prove
he began to serve sentence on February 9, 1996. Counting four years and that Bagaporo's application for parole was approved by the Board of
two months from said date the minimum period of Bagaporo's sentence Pardons and Parole, there is neither any showing that he was extended good
should have been completed on April 9, 2000. Hence, it is wrong for Bugtas conduct allowances by the Director of Prisons, nor was he granted pardon
to claim that Bagaporo had already served the minimum of his sentence at by the President. Hence, there is no basis for respondent in allowing
the time that he was granted bail on recognizance, that is, on February 16, Bagaporo to be released on recognizance.
2000. Furthermore, it is patently erroneous for respondent to release a 8. Moreover, Bugtas should know that the provisions of Sections 5 and 16,
convict on recognizance. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court apply only to an accused undergoing
3. Section 24, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court is plain and clear in prohibiting preventive imprisonment during trial or on appeal. They do not apply to a
the grant of bail after conviction by final judgment and after the convict has person convicted by final judgment and already serving sentence
started to serve sentence. It provides:
SEC. 24. No bail after final judgment; exception. — An accused
shall not be allowed bail after the judgment has become final,
unless he has applied for probation before commencing to serve
sentence, the penalty and the offense being within the purview of
the Probation Law. In case the accused has applied for probation,
he may be allowed temporary liberty under his bail, but if no bail
37