1. UPDATES/SALIENT POINTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

2. 1. A. Interruption of period of prescription of offense charged
(Last paragraph, Sec. 1, Rule 110; Zaldivia doctrine)
B. Under Sec. 11, RA 3019, prescription of offenses under said law is 15 years from date of commission or discovery according to Sec. 2 of Act 3326 (Republic vs. Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., et al., G.R. No , June 26, 2012).  

3. 2. Probable cause
A. Determination of the existence of probable cause is either an executive function or a judicial function.
The Trial Court is mandated to immediately dismiss the case upon finding that no probable cause exists to issue warrant of arrest and after having evaluated the resolution of the Fiscal and supporting information [(People vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No , September 29, 2004; Sec. 5, Rule 112, Dismissal without prejudice, in relation to Allado vs. Diokno, G.R. No , May 5, 1994)].

4. The implementation of a warrant of arrest cannot be deferred pending resolution of the Petition for Review before the DOJ or to the finding of probable cause (to indict) (Enrique V. Viudez II vs. CA, et al., G.R. No , June 5, 2009). B. Jurisdiction of the court over a case once or after Information is filed (Cerezo vs. People, June 1, 2011), reiterating Crespo ruling that once a case is filed with the Court, any disposition of it rests on the sound discretion of the Court.

5. 3. To be appreciated against the accused, the qualifying and aggravating circumstance must be both alleged in the Information and proved during the trial (People vs. Edgar L. Legaspi, G.R. Nos , April 20, 2001; People vs. Castanito S. Gano, G.R. No , February 28, 2001). Exception : People vs. Dalisay, G.R. No November 25, 2009.

6. 4. Warrantless Search incidental to a lawful warrantless arrest
The arrest must precede the search and generally, the process cannot be reversed (Margarita C. Ambre vs. People, G.R. No , August 15, 2012). Exception when the search can precede the arrest of the police have probable cause to arrest the accused at the outset of the search.
A reliable information or tip alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest. The rule requires, in addition, that the accused performs some overt act that would indicate that he has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense (People vs. Racho, August, 2010)

7. 5. Bail – Rule 114
A. Accused must be in custody B. The Court cannot impose as a condition for bail the arraignment of the accused (Lavides vs. CA, G.R. No , February 1, 2000). It would place accused in a position where he has to choose between : 1.) filing Motion to Quash and thus delay his release on bail because until his Motion to Quash can be resolved, his Arraignment cannot be had, and, 2.) foregoing the filing of a Motion to Quash so he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail.

8. C. Where filed?
1. With the Court where the case is pending or in the absence or unavailability of the Judge thereof, with any RTC, MeTC, or MTC, MCTC in the province, city or municipality.
2. If arrested in a place other than where the case is pending, the bail may also be filed with any RTC of said place, or if no Judge thereof is available, with any MeTC, MTC, or MCTC trial judge therein :
Therefore, not a question of whether or not the case falls within the jurisdiction of RTC or MTC.

9. D. Right to Bail after conviction by the Trial Court
After conviction by the Trial Court, the presumption of innocence terminates, and the constitutional right to bail ends. From then on, the grant of bail is subject to judicial discretion (Leviste vs. Court of Appeals, March 17, 2010).

10. 6. Speedy Trial A. Not to exceed 180 days from the 1st date of trial
B. Time limitation not applicable to :
* criminal cases covered by Rule on Summary Procedure
* RA No cases where the offended party is a person about to depart from the Philippines with no definite date of return.

11. * child abuse cases to take precedence over all other cases before the Court except election and habeas corpus cases. Trial to commence 3 days from date accused is arranged, and no postponement of initial hearing. * Violation of Dangerous drugs Law * Kidnapping, Robbery in Band, Robbery committed against a Banking Financial Institution, RA 9165, Carnapping and other Heinous Crimes under RA 7659 * Mandatory continuous trial for 60 days from commencement . Judgment rendered within 30 days from submission for decision.

12. C. Remedy against denial of the Right to Speedy Trial c. 1
C. Remedy against denial of the Right to Speedy Trial c. 1. Motion to Dismiss – the dismissal would be tantamount to an acquittal c. 2. Where the Fiscal, without good cause, secure postponement of trial beyond a reasonable period of time, over the objection of the accused. a). Mandamus to compel dismissal of the information (Lumarlaw vs. Peralta, Jr., February 13, 2006) b). If accused is restrained of liberty, remedy is Habeas Corpus (Vide Abadia vs. CA, 230 SCRA 676).

13. 7. Prosecution of Civil Action – Rule 111
A. Implied institution of civil action with the criminal action
B. Effect of death of accused on his civil liability
People vs. Binay, September 14, 2010 – the death of the accused likewise extinguishes the civil liability that was based exclusively on the crime for which the accused was convicted because no final judgment of conviction was yet rendered at the time of his death. Only civil liability predicated on a source of obligation other than the delict survived the death of accused which the offended party can recover in a separate civil action.

14. C. Prejudicial Question
Tenebro vs. CA, 423 SCRA 272 (2006) – Declaration of nullity of marriage on ground of psychological incapacity is not prejudicial to Bigamy

15. 8. Demurrer to Evidence
A. People vs. Tan, July 2010, citing People vs. Sandiganbayan : The general rule is that the grant of a Demurrer to Evidence operates as an acquittal, hence, final and unappealable. Double jeopardy will attach.
The only instance that double jeopardy will not attach is when the Trial Court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction like where the Prosecution was denied opportunity to present its case or where the Trial was a sham.

16. B. Motion for Leave to file Demurrer to Evidence (Elsa B. Reyes vs
B. Motion for Leave to file Demurrer to Evidence (Elsa B. Reyes vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No , September 5, 2012).

17. 9.Neypes Doctrine may be applied in criminal cases.
(Judith Yu vs. Hon. Rosa Samson-Tatad, Presiding Judge, RTC, Quezon City and the People of the Philippines, G.R. No , February 9, 2011)

18. 10. Motion to Quash- Double Jeopardy-
Jason Ivler y Aguilar vs. Hon. Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, et al., G.R. No November 17, 2010.

19. 11. Probation-
Arnel Colinares vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No , December 13, 2011

20. 12. Conditional Examination of Witnesses-
- Rule 119, Sec. 15 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure in relation to Deposition (Harry L. Go., et al. vs. people, et al., G.R. No , July 18, 2012).