2023 PRE-

BAR
LECTURE IN CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE

JUDGE GENER M. GITO, LL.M.,

D.C.L. Presiding Judge, RTC-206, Muntinlupa City
 Professor 1, Philippine Judicial Academy
Bar Reviewer
Law Professor

Basic Precepts
⚫Criminal procedure is the law that
“provides and regulates the steps by
which one who committed a crime is to
be punished” (People vs. Lacson, 400
SCRA 267, 306).
⚫It is the adjudication process of criminal
law.

Criminal
Procedure
⚫ It is concerned with the procedural steps through
which a criminal case passes, commencing with the
initial investigation of a crime and concluding with
the unconditional release of the offender. It is a
generic term used to prescribed the network of
laws and rules which government the procedural
administration of criminal justice (Black’s Law
Dictionary).

Basic Precepts
⚫ Adversarial system – the government, after
accusing the defendant must prove its allegations by
an adversary process. An adversary process is one
in which each side (the prosecution and the
defense) presents its most persuasive arguments to
the judge.
⚫Inquisitorial – a legal system in which the court,
or a part of the court, is actively involved in
investigating the facts of the case.

Criminal litigation Process

Crime which
requires
preliminary
investigation

Crime which does

 Commission of
the Crime
not require Crime committed
preliminary in flagrante
investigation delicto

Crime
which
requires preliminary
investigation
Investigation Issuance of
Filing of
Preliminary warrant Arrest
Information
 Judgment Trial Pre-Trial Arraignment

Appeal Service of
Sentence

Crime
which does not require preliminary
investigation (Chartered City)
of
Issuance of
complaint with Filing of
Filing warrant if not
Prosecutor’s Office information
covered by RRSP
Arrest

Arraignment Pre-Trial Trial Judgment

Appeal Service of
Sentence

Crime
which does not require preliminary
investigation (Provinces)
Complaint

filed in Court Issue warrant Arrest

Trial Pre-Trial Arraignment

Judgment Appeal Service of

Sentence
 Crime committed

in flagrante delicto
Inquest proceedings Information
Arrest Filing Commitment Order

Arraignment Pre-Trial Trial Judgment

Appeal Service of
Sentence

Requisites for the

Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction over the subject matter

 Jurisdiction over the territory

Jurisdiction over the person of the

accused

Subject
Matter Jurisdiction
⚫ It is conferred by law. Thus, it cannot be subject to
waiver, acquiescence, agreement or consent of the
parties (Conjuangco, Jr., vs. Republic, 686 SCRA
472).

⚫Conferment of jurisdiction cannot be presumed. Thus,

in order to ascertain whether a court has jurisdiction or
not, the provision of law shall be inquired (Soller vs.
Sandiganbayan, 357 SCRA 677, 683).

Subject
Matter Jurisdiction
 ⚫ Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
determined by the allegation in the information.
⚫ It is not determined by the evidence presented
during trial (Lacson vs. ES, 301 SCRA 298).
⚫ It is determined by the penalty imposable not
the penalty imposed (People vs. Buissan, 105
SCRA 547).

Subject
 Matter Jurisdiction
⚫ It is determined by the law at the commencement of the criminal
action not the law in effect at the time of the commission of the
offence (People vs. Lagon, 185 SCRA 442; Asistio vs.
People, April 20, 2015).
⚫ Except those case falling under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan because it is determined at the time of the
commission of the offense.
⚫ Because jurisdiction is determined by the position of the
accused at the time of the commission of the crime
(Subido vs. Sandiganbayan, January 20, 1997; Sec. 4, RA
8249, amending PD 1606)
 Is
jurisdiction by
estoppel applicable in criminal cases?
⚫ It was only after appellants had filed their brief that
appellee, in its brief,raised the issue of the belated appeal
and, inferentially, the lack of appellate jurisdiction of this
Court in this case. However, the principle of estoppel by
laches to bar attacks on jurisdiction has been adopted
and repeatedly applied by this Court, notably in Tijam, et
al. vs. Sibonghanoy, et al., and in several cases which
followed thereafter, including criminal cases (People vs.
Regalario, GR No. 101451, March 23, 1993).
A. Jurisdiction over
the Person Acquired
through:

Voluntary
submission to
Arrest of the court’s
accused by virtue jurisdiction
of warrant
 What are
considered
to be act of
voluntary appearance?
⚫ Asking affirmative relief from the court.
⚫ Filing motion to quash or any other motion from the Court,
except when the ground is lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the accused (Miranda vs. Tuliao, March 31,
2006).
⚫ Appearance of counsel during arraignment (Jimenez vs.
Nazareno, GR No. L-37933,April 15, 1988). ⚫ Entry of
 appearance of counsel for the accused (Layosa vs.
Rodriguez, GR No. L-46080, November 10, 1978). ⚫
Act of posting bail without qualification (People vs. Go, GR
No. 168539, March 25, 2014).

Jurisdiction over the Person Custody of the

law vs. jurisdiction
 over the person
David vs.
Agbay, March
18, 2015
Pease read:

Problem
⚫ A criminal complaint was filed against the accused
 before the prosecutor’s office. The investigating
prosecutor, after finding probable cause, filed the
information in court. The accused filed a Motion to
Dismiss the complaint for lack of probable cause. The
Court denied the Motion on the ground that the court
has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
accused because he was not yet arrested.
⚫ Is the court correct?

Answer
⚫ The Court is not correct?
⚫ When the accused filed the Motion to Dismiss, he
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
Thus, the court can validly rule on his motion. The
court should have determined the difference
between the “custody of the law” and “jurisdiction
over the person” (David vs. Agbay, March 18,
2015).
“Custody of the law”
vs. “Jurisdiction over
the person”
⚫ “Custody of the law” is required before the court can act
upon the application for bail, but is not required for the
adjudication of other reliefs sought by the defendant where
the mere application therefor constitutes a waiver of the
defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
accused. “Custody of the law” is accomplished either by
arrest or voluntary surrender, while “jurisdiction over the
person” of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or
voluntary appearance. One can be under the custody of the
law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over
his person, such as when a person arrested by virtue of a
warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the
warrant (Miranda v.Tuliao, 520 Phil. 907, 919 (2006).
 Custody of the law vs.
Jurisdiction over the
person
⚫ On the other hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction
of the court over his person, and yet not be in the custody
of the law, such as when an accused escapes custody after
his trial has commenced.

⚫ Being in the custody of the law signifies restraint on the

person, who is thereby deprived of his own will and liberty,
binding him to become obedient to the will of the law.
Custody of the law is literally custody over the body of the
 accused. It includes, but is not limited to, detention
(Miranda v.Tuliao, 520 Phil. 907, 919, 2006).

Jurisdiction of
Courts
⚫ Know the criminal cases falling within the jurisdiction of
MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC.
⚫ Know the criminal cases falling within the jurisdiction of
RTC
⚫ Know the criminal case falling within the jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan.
⚫ Know the criminal case falling within the jurisdiction of
CTA

Jurisdiction
of First Level Courts
⚫ (1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city
or municipal ordinances committed within their respective
territorial jurisdiction;
⚫ (2) Over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine,
and regardless of other imposable accessory or other
penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses
 or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or
amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses
involving damage to property through criminal
negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
thereof.

Jurisdiction
of the RTC
⚫ Those where the penalty provided by law exceeds six (6)
years imprisonment irrespective of the fine;
⚫ Violations of RA 9165
⚫ Violation of IPL
⚫ Defamation under Art. 360
⚫ Violation of 9262
⚫ Anti-money laundering
⚫ Violation of Cyber-Crime Law
⚫ Those criminal cases falling under the appellate jurisdiction
of Sandiganbayan
⚫ Violation of Election Laws

What if the imposable penalty under the law

is
 only
fine, what would determine jurisdiction?
Section 32, (4), BP 129, as
amended fine:
The amount of
If the fine is
ABOVE four
thousand
If the fine is four (Php4,000) –
thousand (Php4,000) Regional Trial Courts
and below – First
Level Courts
 PD 1606, as
amended by
RA 8249 and
Jurisdiction of as further
Sandiganbayan
amended by
Please refer toRA 10660
Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan
Elements of
Jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan:

Know the
crime
committed
 Who
committed
the offense

Jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan

Type of
 cases:
• Violations of RA 3019 – Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act • RA 1379 – Forfeiture
• Chapter II, Section 2,TitleVII, Book 2 of RPC
• Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with
other crimes committed by the public officials and employees
committed in relation to the office.
• Plunder

Chapter II,
Section 2, Title
 VII
Book 2 of RPC

Direct Bribery (Art. 210)

Indirect Bribery (Art. 211)

Qualified Bribery (Art. 211-A)

Corruption of public official (Art.

 212)

Jurisdiction
of
Sandiganbayan
(Offender)
⚫ (1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions
of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade
’27’ and higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758),specifically
including:
⚫ (a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the
sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors,
engineers, and other provincial department heads:
⚫ (b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang
panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other
city department heads;
⚫ (c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position
of consul and higher;

Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan
⚫ (d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all
 officers of higher rank;
⚫ (e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the
position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior
superintendent and higher;
⚫ (f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials
and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special
prosecutor;
⚫ (g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government
owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational
institutions or foundations.

Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan
⚫ (2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as
Grade ’27’ and higher under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989;
⚫ (3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions
of the Constitution;
⚫ (4) Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions,
without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and ⚫ (5)
All other national and local officials classified as Grade ’27’ and
higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of
1989.

Does SB have jurisdiction over one who is

a private individual at the time of the
 commission of the offense?

⚫ YES.
⚫ In case private individuals are charged as co-principals,
accomplices or accessories with the public officers or
employees, including those employed in govemment
owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried
jointly with said public officers and employees in the
proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction
over them (Section 4, PD 1606, as amended).
 “Jurisdiction over private persons”
⚫ The controlling doctrine is that private person may be
charged in conspiracy with public officers. Hence, it is a
settled rule that private persons, when acting in
conspiracy with public officers, may be indicted and, if
found guilty, held liable for violation RA 3019 (Uyboco
vs. People, December 10, 2014).
⚫ Even if the public officer prior the filing of an
information died, the Graft Court will not be divested of
 its jurisdiction.

Illustrative
Cases
⚫ Geduspan vs. People, 451 SCRA 187 –
Petitioner is a manager of Philhealth. Sandiganbayan
has jurisdiction. It fall within Par. 1(g).
⚫ People vs. Sandiganbayan, 630 SCRA 489 –
although member of Sangguniang Panglunsod has
salary grade of 26, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.
⚫ Serana vs. Sandiganbayan, 542 SCRA 224 –
student regent is within the jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan.
“Offenses
committed
in relation to
the office”
⚫When is an offense committed in relation
to the office?
⚫ Office must be a constituent element of the
crime. ⚫ Example: Chapters 2 to 6, Title VII of the
RPC – from Art. 204 to 245
⚫ In these offenses public office or being a
public officer is an element of the crime.
If the
public
office is
not an
element of the
crime, may an offense be still “classified as offense
committed in relation to the office” so as to confer
 jurisdiction to Sandiganbayan?

⚫YES, if there is an intimate connection

between the office and the offense or that the
office was used in the commission of the
crime (Sanchez vs. Demetriuo, 227
SCRA 627, 645).

Esteban vs. Sandiganbayan, 453 SCRA 236

⚫The accused here was charged with acts of
lasciviousness on the basis of the complaint filed
by a casual employee assigned to his office.
⚫The SC ruled that the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction because the information alleged that
the crime could not have been committed had
the accused not used his position or office.

Please take NOTE:

⚫ This intimate relation between the offense charged
 and the discharge of official duties "must be alleged in
the information.”
⚫ “We believe that the mere allegation in the amended
information that the offense was committed by the accused
public officer "in relation to his office" is not sufficient. That
phrase is merely a conclusion of law, not a factual averment
that would show the close intimacy between the offense
charged and the discharge of the accused's official duties.”
(Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298).

De
Lima vs.
Guerrero, GR No.
 229781, October 10, 2017
⚫What is the crime for which De Lima
was indicted of?
◦ For violation of Section 5, in relation to Section
3 (jj), Section 26 (b) and Section 28, Republic Act
No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
De
Lima vs.
Guerrero, GR No.
 229781, October 10, 2017
⚫ x x x x accused Leila M. De Lima, being then the Secretary of the Department of
Justice, and accused Rafael Marcos Z. Ragos, being then the Officer-in-Charge of the
Bureau of Corrections, by taking advantage of their public office, conspiring and
confederating with accused Ronnie P. Dayan, being then an employee of the
Department of Justice detailed to De Lima, all of them having moral ascendancy or
influence over inmates in the New Bilibid Prison, did then and there commit illegal
drug trading, in the following manner: De Lima and Ragos, with the use of their
power, position, and authority, demand, solicit and extort money from the high
profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison to support the senatorial bid of De Lima in
the May 2016 election; by reason of which, the inmates, not being lawfully authorized
by law and through the use of mobile phones and other electronic devices, did then
and there willfully and unlawfully trade and traffic dangerous drugs, and thereafter
give and deliver to De Lima, through Ragos and Dayan, the proceeds of illegal drug
trading amounting to Five Million (P5,000,000.00) Pesos x x x x.

De Lima
 vs. Guerrero, GR No. 229781,
October 10, 2017
⚫The pertinent special law governing drug-related cases is
RA 9165, which updated the rules provided in RA 6425,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. A
plain reading of RA 9165, as of RA 6425, will reveal that
jurisdiction over drug-related cases is exclusively vested
with the Regional Trial Court and no other. The
designation of the RTC as the court with the exclusive
jurisdiction over drug-related cases is apparent in the
following provisions:Articles 20, 61, 62, 90.
 De Lima
vs.
Guerrero, GR No.
229781, October 10, 2017
⚫Certainly, jurisdiction over offenses and felonies
committed by public officers is not determined
solely by the pay scale or by the fact that they
were committed "in relation to their office." In
determining the forum vested with the jurisdiction
to try and decide criminal actions, the laws
 governing the subject matter of the criminal
prosecution must likewise be considered.
De Lima
vs.
Guerrero, GR No.
229781, October 10, 2017
⚫In this case, RA 9165 specifies the RTC as the court
with the jurisdiction to "exclusively try and hear cases
involving violations of [RA 9165]." This is an exception,
couched in the special law on dangerous drugs, to the
general rule under Section 4 (b) of PD 1606, as
amended by RA 10660. It is a canon of statutory
construction that a special law prevails over a general
law and the latter is to be considered as an exception to
the general.

Please take note:

⚫ Provided, That the Regional Trial Court shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction where the information:
(a) does not allege any damage to the government
or any bribery; or (b) alleges damage to the
government or bribery arising from the same or
closely related transactions or acts in an amount not
exceeding One million pesos P1,000,000.00. (RA
10660, amending PD 1606 and RA 8249).

Appellate
Jurisdiction
⚫In cases where none of the accused are occupying
positions corresponding to Salary Grade ’27’ or higher,
as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or
military and PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive
original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper
regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal
trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case
may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as
provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended (RA
10660, amending PD 1606 and RA 8249).

Appellate
Jurisdiction
⚫ The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive
appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,
resolutions or orders of regional trial courts
 whether in the exercise of their own original
jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as
herein provided.(RA 10660, amending PD
1606 and RA 8249).

Appellate
Jurisdiction
⚫ The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other
ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including
quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or
which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and
14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over
these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court
(RA 10660, amending PD 1606 and RA 8249).
 Rule 110

Prosecution of
Offenses

How is criminal action instituted?

 preliminary
investigation.

• Filing with the proper officer

for the purpose of conducting
Requires preliminary preliminary investigation
investigation
Section 1, Rule 110

Does not • By filing it in Court

require • Or prosecutor’s office in
case of chartered cities
 What
are those
cases which do not require
preliminary investigation?
Those case whose imposable
penalty is less than four (4)
years, two (2) months and one
(1) day (Section 1, Rule 112).

What is the effect of the institution of

criminal action on prescriptive period?

⚫The institution of the criminal action shall

 interrupt the running period of prescription
of the offense charged unless otherwise
provided in special laws (Section 1, Rule
110).

Prescriptive
period crimes covered by Revised
Penal Code
⚫ Article 90. Prescription of crime. - Crimes punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty years.
⚫ Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years. ⚫
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the
exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years.
⚫ The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year. ⚫ The
crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months. ⚫ Light
offenses prescribe in two months.
⚫ When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be
made the basis of the application of the rules contained in the first, second and
third paragraphs of this article (RPC).

Prescriptive period
for Special Laws and Ordinance
⚫ Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise
provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules:
(a) after a year for offenses punished only by a fine or by
imprisonment for not more than one month, or both; (b) after four
years for those punished by imprisonment for more than one month,
but less than two years; (c) after eight years for those punished by
imprisonment for two years or more, but less than six years; and (d)
after twelve years for any other offense punished by imprisonment
for six years or more, except the crime of treason, which shall
prescribe after twenty years. Violations penalized by municipal
ordinances shall prescribe after two months (Sec. 1,Act 3326).

When
 is prescriptive period interrupted?
⚫ Crime covered by RPC, by the filing of the complaint or
information.
⚫ The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running
period of prescription of the offense charged unless otherwise
provided in special laws (Section 1, Rule 110).
⚫ For Special Laws and Ordinance
⚫ The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are
instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run
again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting
jeopardy (Section 2, Act No. 3326).

Rule on
 prescription for violations of municipal
ordinances and specials laws.
⚫ Act. 3326 provides that the period of prescription shall
be suspended “when proceedings are instituted against
the guilty person.
⚫ In Zaldivia vs. Reyes (211 SCRA 277, 283), the SC
interpreted “proceedings as judicial proceedings. ⚫ Thus,
for violations of ordinances and special laws, the filing of
the case before the court interrupts the running of the
prescriptive period.

Rule on
 prescription for violations of municipal
ordinances and specials laws.

⚫ NOTE:The ruling in Zaldivia vs. Reyes is not

anymore controlling:

⚫ People vs Pangilinan, 672 SCRA 105 – “There is

no more distinction between cases under the RPC and
those covered by special laws with respect to the
interruption of the period of prescription. The ruling in
Zaldivia vs. Reyes is not controlling in special laws.”
 Rule on
prescription for
violations of municipal ordinances and
specials laws.

⚫The prevailing rule is, therefore, that irrespective of

whether the offense charged is punishable by the
Revised Penal Code or by special law, it is the filing of
complaint or information in the office of the public
prosecutor for purposes of preliminary investigation
that interrupts the period of prescription (Disini vs.
 Sandiganbayan, GR Nos. 169823-24,
September 14, 2013).

Please TAKE
NOTE:
⚫With respect to ordinances,Act 3326,still applies.
⚫The prescription shall be interrupted when
proceedings are instituted against the guilty
person, and shall begin to run again if the
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not
constituting jeopardy (Section 2, Act No. 3326).

THUS:
⚫ Zaldivia vs. Reyes is still controlling in so far as
ordinances are concerned:
⚫ Jurisprudence exists showing that when the Complaint is filed
with the Office of the Prosecutor who then files the Information
in court, this already has the effect of tolling the prescription
period. The recent People v. Pangilinan categorically stated that
Zaldivia v. Reyes is not controlling as far as special laws are
concerned. Pangilinan referred to other cases that upheld this
principle as well. However, the doctrine of Pangilinan pertains to
violations of special laws but not to ordinances (Jadewell vs.
Lidua, G.R. No. 169588, October 7, 2013).

What if
the
court which
the information or complaint was filed has no
jurisdiction, will the it suspend the running of
prescriptive period?

⚫ YES.
⚫ More recently, in the case of Reodica vs. Court of
Appeals, 292 SCRA 91, an information for reckless
 imprudence resulting in damage to property with slight
physical injuries was filed with the Regional Trial Court even
though the offense was within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the municipal trial court. The Court, even as it dismissed the
cases pending before the Regional Trial Court for lack of
jurisdiction, disregarded the defense of prescription raised by
the accused.

Prosecution of Criminal Action

⚫SECTION 5. Who Must Prosecute
Criminal Actions. — All criminal
actions commenced by a complaint or
information shall be prosecuted under
the direction and control of the
prosecutor. (Rule 110)
Control before the filing of the Information
⚫ The prosecutor cannot be compelled to file a particular
criminal information (People vs Pineda, 20 SCRA 748). ⚫
Has the prerogative to determine existence of probable
cause.
⚫ The prerogative on what crime is to be charged ⚫ The
prerogative against whom the crime shall be charged. ⚫ The
Court cannot compel the fiscal to prosecute of file
information within a certain period (Asst. Provincial
Fiscal of Bataan vs. Dollete, 103 Phil. 914).

Control
in the
prosecution
after the Information is filed
⚫ One cannot object if hearings are reset at the request of
the public prosecutor due to his or her unavailability
(Crisostomo vs. Singh,July 4, 2005).
⚫ Promulgation of judgment should be reset in case of
absence of the prosecutor (Crisostomo vs. Singh, July
4, 2005).
⚫ Defense should not be allowed to present evidence in the
absence of the prosecutor (Pinote vs. Ayco,
December 13, 2005).
 Pinote vs. Ayco, 477

SCRA 409

⚫ Violation of criminal laws

is an affront to the People of the Philippines as a whole
and not merely to the person directly prejudiced, he
being merely the complaining witness. It is on this
account that the presence of a public
prosecutor in the trial of criminal cases is
necessary to protect vital state interests,
foremost of which is its interest to vindicate the rule of
law, the bedrock of peace of the people.

Pinote vs. Ayco, 477 SCRA

409 ⚫
Respondent's act of allowing the presentation of the
 defense witnesses in the absence of the public
prosecutor or a private prosecutor designated for
the purpose is thus a clear transgression of the
Rules which could not be rectified by subsequently
giving the prosecution a chance to cross-examine
the witnesses.

People vs.
Tan, 549 SCRA 489
⚫The prosecutor in this case was not allowed
 to ask additional questions after the private
prosecutor terminated his direct examination
on the witness.
⚫The Supreme Court reminded the trial court
that the prosecution of criminal action is under
the direct control and supervision of public
prosecutor.

Valderrama vs.
People, GR No.220054, March 27,
 2017
⚫ The prosecution’s right to present further evidence was
declared by the Court to have been waived. Private
complainant, through the private prosecutor, filed a
motion for reconsideration. The MR bears no conformity
of the public prosecutor. The MR was granted by the
Court. The accused questioned the Court’s granting the
MR on the ground the MR does not bear the written
conformity of the public prosecutor.
⚫ Is the Court correct in granting the MR?
 Valderrama vs.
People, GR No.220054, March 27,
2017
⚫ The Court is not correct.
⚫ In Laude v. Ginez-Jabalde, 775 SCRA 408, this Court
ruled that the required conformity of the public prosecutor
was not a mere superfluity and was necessary to pursue a
criminal action. A private party does not have the legal
personality to prosecute the criminal aspect of a case, as it is
the People of the Philippines who are the real party in interest
The criminal case must be under the direction and control of
the public prosecutor. Thus, when the public prosecutor does
not give his or her conformity to the pleading of a party, the
party does not have the required legal personality to pursue
the case.

May a
private
prosecutor prosecute a case even in the absence
of the public prosecutor?

⚫ In case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor or

in the event of lack of public prosecutors, the private
 prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief
of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State
Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the
approval of the court. Once so authorized to prosecute
the criminal action, the private prosecutor shall continue to
prosecute the case up to end of the trial even in the absence
of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or
otherwise withdrawn (Section 5, Rule 110).

Role
of OSG in appeal in criminal case
⚫ Rule: In case of dismissal of the case or acquittal of the
 accused, only the OSG may file an appeal or Petition for
Certiorari to question the dismissal or acquittal.
⚫ However, the private offended party may file an appeal
without the intervention of the OSG insofar as the civil
liability of the accused is concerned (People vs. Piccio,
G.R. 193681, August 6, 2014; Jimenez vs. Sorongon,
687 SCRA 151; People vs. Go, GR 201644,
September 24, 2014).
Rules should be observed with respect to the legal standing
of private complainants in assailing judgments or orders in
criminal proceedings before the SC and the CA

⚫ 1) The private complainant has the legal personality to appeal the civil liability of the
 accused or file a petition for certiorari to preserve his or her interest in the civil aspect of
the criminal case. The appeal or petition for certiorari must allege the specific pecuniary
interest of the private offended party. The failure to comply with this requirement may
result in the denial or dismissal of the remedy.
⚫ The reviewing court shall require the. OSG to file comment within a non-extendible period
of thirty (30) days from notice if it appears that the resolution of the private complainant's
appeal or petition for certiorari will necessarily affect the criminal aspect of the case or the
right to prosecute.
⚫ The comment of the OSG must state whether it conforms or concurs with the remedy of
the private offended party. The judgment or order of the reviewing court granting the
private complainant's relief may be set aside if rendered without affording the People,
through the OSG, the opportunity to file a comment.

Rules should be observed with respect to the legal standing

of private complainants in assailing judgments or orders in
criminal proceedings before the SC and the CA

⚫ 2) The private complainant has no legal personality to appeal or file a

petition for certiorari to question the judgments or orders involving the
 criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute, unless made with the
OSG's conformity.
⚫ The private complainant must request the OSG's conformity within the
reglementary period to appeal or file or file a petition for certiorari. The
private complainant must attach the original copy of the OSG' s conformity
as proof in case the request is granted within the reglementary period.
Otherwise, the private complainant must allege in the appeal or petition for
certiorari the fact of pendency of the request. If the OSG denied the
request for conformity, the Court shall dismiss the appeal or petition for
certiorari for lack of legal personality of the private complainant.
Rules should be observed with respect to the legal standing
of private complainants in assailing judgments or orders in
criminal proceedings before the SC and the CA

⚫ 2) The private complainant has no legal personality to appeal or file a

petition for certiorari to question the judgments or orders involving the
 criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute, unless made with the
OSG's conformity.
⚫ The private complainant must request the OSG's conformity within the
reglementary period to appeal or file or file a petition for certiorari. The
private complainant must attach the original copy of the OSG' s conformity
as proof in case the request is granted within the reglementary period.
Otherwise, the private complainant must allege in the appeal or petition for
certiorari the fact of pendency of the request. If the OSG denied the
request for conformity, the Court shall dismiss the appeal or petition for
certiorari for lack of legal personality of the private complainant.
Rules should be observed with respect to the legal standing
of private complainants in assailing judgments or orders in
criminal proceedings before the SC and the CA

⚫ 3) The reviewing court shall require the OSG to file

 comment within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days
from notice on the private complainant's petition for certiorari
questioning the acquittal of the accused, the dismissal of the
criminal case, and the interlocutory orders in criminal
proceedings on the ground of grave abuse of discretion or
denial of due process.
⚫ Austria vs.AAA, G.R. No. 205275, January 28, 2022

Prosecution of Private Crimes ⚫ The 1)

crimes of adultery and 2) concubinage shall not
be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the
offended spouse. The offended party cannot
institute criminal prosecution without including the
guilty parties, if both are alive, nor, in any case, if the
offended party has consented to the offense or
pardoned the offenders (Section 5, Rule 110).

Prosecution of Private Crimes

⚫ The offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of
lasciviousness shall not be prosecuted except upon a
 complaint filed by the offended party or her parents,
grandparents or guardian, nor, in any case, if the
offender has been expressly pardoned by any of them. If
the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated
before she can file the complaint, and she has no known
parents, grandparents or guardian, the State shall
initiate the criminal action in her behalf (Section 5,
Rule 110).

Prosecution of Private Crimes

⚫ The offended party, even if a minor, has the right to initiate
the prosecution of the offenses of seduction, abduction and
acts of lasciviousness independently of her parents,
grandparents, or guardian, unless she is incompetent or
incapable of doing so. Where the offended party, who is a
minor, fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents,
or guardian may file the same. The right to file the action
granted to parents, grandparents, or guardian shall be
exclusive of all other persons and shall be exercised
successively in the order herein provided, except as stated in
the preceding paragraph (Section 5, Rule 110).

Prosecution of Private Crimes

⚫No criminal action for defamation which
consists in the imputation of any of the
offenses mentioned above shall be brought
except at the instance of and upon complaint
filed by the offended party (Section 5, Rule
110).

What
are considered private crimes?
Adultery
Concubinage
Seduction,
Abduction
Acts of lasciviousness