Stage What Happens?
Remedy/Action of the Complainant Remedy/Action of the Accused
Commission of the
Crime
Preliminary Investigation It is an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose of If arrested through a valid warrantless arrest/Inquest:
determining whether there is sufficient ground to May ask for PI but waive Art. 125, RPC
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed and the respondent is probably
guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. (Sec 1,
Rule 112)
A preliminary investigation is essentially a judicial
inquiry since there is an opportunity to be heard,
the production and weighing of evidence, and a
decision rendered on the basis of such evidence.
The investigating officer acts as a quasi-judicial
officer. (Cruz v. People 1994, Sales v.
Sandiganbayan 2001)
Filing of ● Criminal action is instituted. The institution ● If the offense requires PI: file a Complaint
Complaint/Information of criminal action shall interrupt the Note: No direct filing of complaint or information with
period of prescription of the offense RTC
charged unless otherwise provided in
special laws (S1,R110,ROC). ● If PI is not required:
a) File a Complaint or Information directly with
● The prevailing rule is . . . that irrespective of MTC
whether the offense charged is punishable b) By filing the complaint with the office of the
by the RPC or by a special law, it is the prosecutor (S1, R110, ROC)
filing of the complaint or information in Note: this refers to offenses for which the penalty
the office of the public prosecutor for prescribed by law is LESS THAN 4 years, 2 months,
purposes of preliminary investigation that and 1 day
interrupts the period of prescription”
(Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. ● Intervene in the criminal case by filing an
169823-24, September 11, 2013). independent civil action on the right of the
offended party. This refers to cases where the
● The running of the period of prescription is criminal action also gives rise to an
interrupted with the filing of the action even independent civil action as in crimes involving
if the court in which the action was first filed physical injuries, fraud or defamation or when
is without jurisdiction. the act constituting a crime also constitutes a
quasi-delict.
Note: The civil liability arising from a
quasi-delict is “entirely separate and distinct
from the civil liability arising from negligence
under the Penal Code” [Art. 2177, CC]. In the
case of independent civil actions, they “shall
proceed independently of the criminal action”
[S3,R111,ROC]
Bail The security given for the release of a person in
custody of the law, furnished by him or by a
bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before
any court.
Arraignment If the Motion to Quash was denied based on an Before entering his plea:
alleged defect (if can be cured) in the complaint or 1. Bill of Particulars
information: Amendment of the Information (see De 2. Suspension of the Arraignment
Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017) 3. Motion to Quash the
Complaint/Information, except under
If the prosecution fails to make the amendment or Summary Procedure
despite the amendment, the complaint or information
still suffers from the same defect, the court shall grant Motion to Quash
the motion to quash (Sec. 4, Rule 117).
Form and Content (Sec 2, Rule 117):
Should the court order the quashal of the information, ● In writing
the prosecution is not precluded from filing ● Signed by the accused or his counsel; and
another information(see De Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. ● The motion shall distinctly specify the factual
No. 229781, October 10, 2017). This means that when and legal grounds thereof
an information is ordered quashed, the court may
order that another complaint or information be filed. Grounds (Sec. 3, Rule 117):
● That the facts charged do not constitute an
However, another complaint or information cannot be offense (whether the facts, if hypothetically
filed when the ground relied upon for sustaining the admitted, would establish the essential
motion is either (a) extinction of criminal liability, or (b) elements of the offense [Lazarte v.
double jeopardy (see People v. Odtuhan). Sandiganbayan]);
● That the court trying the case has no
jurisdiction over the offense charged;
● That the court trying the case has no
jurisdiction over the person of the accused;
● That the officer who filed the information had
no authority to do so;
● That it does not conform substantially to the
prescribed form:
● That more than one offense is charged
except when a single punishment for various
offenses is prescribed by law;
● That the criminal action or liability has been
extinguished;
● That it contains averments which, if true,
would constitute a legal excuse or
justification;
● That the accused has been previously
convicted or acquitted of the offense charged,
or the case against him was dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express
consent (double jeopardy).
Note:
● An order denying a motion to quash is
interlocutory and therefore, not appealable,
nor it can be subject of a petition for
certiorari.
The proper remedy against the court action is to
proceed to trial, not to file a petition for certiorari.
A denial of a motion to quash filed by the accused
results in the continuation of the trial and the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused
(De Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781, October 10,
2017).
A party may, however, question the denial of the
motion to quash in a petition for certiorari if a party
can establish that the denial was tainted with grave
abuse of discretion (Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
Nos. 206438 and 206458, July 31, 2018).
Pre-trial (30 days) Court issues a mandatory Pre-trial Conference
Trial A pre-trial is a proceeding conducted before the Demurrer to Evidence with/without Leave of Court
trial of the case for the purpose of considering the
following:
a. Plea bargaining;
b. Stipulation of facts;
c. Marking for identification of evidence of the
parties;
d. Waiver of objections to admissibility of
evidence;
e. Modification of the order of trial if the
accused admits the charge but interposes a
lawful defense; and
f. Such matters as will promote a fair and
expeditious trial of the criminal and civil
aspects of the case (Sec. 1, Rule 118)
Note: Under existing rules, no evidence shall be
allowed to be presented and offered during the trial
other than those identified and marked during the
pre-trial except when allowed by the court for good
cause shown (I-B[2], A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, July 13,
2004, effective August 16, 2004)
Like pre-trial in a civil case which is mandatory, a
pre-trial in a criminal case is also mandatory(Sec.
1, Rule 118).
Pre-trial is mandatory in all criminal cases
cognizable by the following courts:
a) Sandiganbayan,
b) Regional Trial Court
c) Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial
Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court,
Municipal Circuit Trial Court (Sec. 1, Rule
118)
Judgment If accused fails to appear during judgment without (Failed to appear during promulgation) Surrender
justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies against within 15 days from promulgation of judgment and file
the judgment a motion for leave to avail of the remedies.
Post-judgment If convicted:
Remedies
1. Appeal (15 days)
After the lapse of the period to appeal: motion for the
modification of the judgment or for setting aside of the
same. The judge may, motu proprio or upon motion,
with hearing in either case, reopen the proceedings to
avoid miscarriage of justice.
2. New Trial
- Errors of law
- Newly discovered evidence
3. Reconsideration
If MR/NT is denied, file an appeal with 15 days (Fresh
Period/Neypes Rule)
JURISDICTION
MTC RTC SANDIGANBAYAN
(Sec. 4, PD 1606, as amended by RA 7975 and RA 8249)
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases 1. Original Jurisdiction in all cases involving:
not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal or body, except those now falling under the a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as
exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
Sandiganbayan which shall be exclusively taken and Corrupt Practices Act, and RA No.
cognizance of the latter. (Sec. 20, BP129, as 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII,
amended by RA 7691) Book II of the RPC, where one or more of the
accused are officials occupying the following
2. Original jurisdiction in issuance of writs of certiorari, positions in the government, whether in a
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas permanent acting or interim capacity, at the
corpus and injunction enforceable in any part of time of the commission of the offense:
their respective regions (Sec. 21[1], BP 129, as
amended by RA 7691). These writs may in certain i. Officials of the executive branch
cases be availed of in criminal cases. occupying the positions of regional
director and higher, otherwise
3. Appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the classified as “Grade 27” and higher,
MTC within its territorial jurisdiction (Sec. 22, BP 129, specifically including:
as amended by RA 7691)
1. Provincial governors,
4. Special jurisdiction of certain branches to handle vice-governors, members of
exclusively criminal cases as may be determined by the sangguniang
the Supreme Court (Sec. 23, BP 129, as amended panlalawigan, and provincial
by RA 7691) treasurers, assessors,
engineers, and other
5. Jurisdiction over criminal cases under specific laws provincial department heads;
such as: 2. City mayors, vice-mayors,
a. Jurisdiction over criminal and civil aspects of members of the sangguniang
written defamation (Art. 360, RPC) panlungsod, city treasurer,
b. Jurisdiction of designated special courts over assessors, engineers, and
cases in violation of the Comprehensive other city department heads;
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165) as 3. Officials of the diplomatic
provided under Sec. 90 thereof; service occupying of the
c. Jurisdiction of designated RTC branches for position of consul and higher;
violations of intellectual property rights (AM 4. Philippine Army and Air Force
No. 03-03-03-SC, effective July 1, 2003 Colonels, Naval Captains,
implementing the Intellectual Property Code of and all officers of higher rank;
the Philippines [RA 8293]); 5. Officers of the PNP while
d. Jurisdiction to try all cases on money occupying the position of
laundering. However, those committed by provincial director and those
public officers and private persons, who are in holding the rank of senior
conspiracy with such public officers, shall be superintendent or higher;
under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan 6. City and Provincial
(Sec. 5, RA 9160, Anti-Money Laundering Act Prosecutors and their
of 2001) assistants, and officials and
prosecutors in the Office of
the Ombudsman and special
prosecutor;
7. Presidents, directors, or
trustees, or managers of
government-owned or
controlled corporations, state
universities or educational
institutions or foundations
ii. Members of Congress and officials
thereof classified as “Grade 27” and
up
iii. Members of the judiciary without
prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution
iv. Chairmen and members of
Constitutional Commissions; without
prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution; and
v. All other national and local officials
classified as “Grade 27” and higher
2. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
complexed with other crimes committed by the public
officials and employees mentioned in subsection “a” of
this section in relation to their office.
3. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in
connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 3, 14 and
14-A, issued in 1986. Note: The Sandiganbayan also
exercises civil jurisdiction (Antiporda v. Garchotirena,
321 SCRA 551, 558).
