Capítulo III: El papel de la comunicación en la Primavera Árabe. Análisis
3.3 Las herramientas digitales y su presencia en las primaveras árabes
4. Exception to the rule that sustaining the
motion is not a bar to another prosecution 5. Double Jeopardy
6. Provisional Dismissal
1. Grounds [Rule 117, Sec. 3] (1998 Bar)
The ff. grounds for MTQ are EXCLUSIVE:
1. Facts charged do not constitute an offense 2. Court trying the case has no jurisdiction over
the offense charged.
3. Court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
4. Officer who filed the information had no authority to do so.
5. The information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form.
6. More than one offense is charged
Exception: When a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law
7. Criminal action or liability has been extinguished.
8. Averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification.
9. 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 Rule)
Note:
1. Non-inclusion of an accused is not a valid ground for MTQ.
2. An affidavit of desistance or pardon is not a ground for the dismissal of an action, once it has been instituted in court. [People v. Salazar (2010)]
3. The absence of a preliminary investigation or inability to participate in the preliminary investigation on the ground of the accused not having been served with a subpoena is not a proper ground for a motion to quash but a petition for reinvestigation [Rodis v. Sandiganbayan (1988)]
4. The absence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is not a ground for the quashal of the information but is a ground for the dismissal of the case [People v. Sandiganbayan (439 SCRA 390)]
5. Facts that constitute the defense of the petitioners against the charge under the information must be proved by them during trial. Such facts or circumstances do not constitute proper grounds for a motion to quash the information on the ground that the material averments do not constitute the offense [Soriano v. People (2009)]
Although the rule is that grounds not asserted in the motion to quash are waived, the following objections are not subject to waiver:
1. Facts charged do not constitute an offense 2. Court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
offense charged
3. Criminal action or liability has been extinguished 4. Double jeopardy
1) Facts Charged do not Constitute an Offense
In all criminal cases, the accused should be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him.
40
An information which does not charge an offense or does not allege essential elements of a crime is void.
TEST: WON the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would meet the essential elements of the offense, as defined by law [People vs Abad (1997)].
That a) the missing element may be proved during the trial or that b) the prosecution has presented evidence to establish the same cannot have the effect of validating the void information or of proving an offense which does not exist [People vs Asuncion (1988)].
Instead of dismissing, the court should give the prosecution an opportunity to amend the information [Rule 117, Sec. 4].
a. Should the prosecutor fail to make the amendment or should the information suffer from the same defect despite amendment, the MTQ shall be granted [Rule 117, Sec. 4].
b. When the prosecutor dismisses the case, the prosecutor should file a valid information, not a petition for review for certiorari.
The defect is not cured by a failure to move to quash or by a plea of guilty. The failure does not imply a waiver of the defects that go to the jurisdiction of the offense or to lack in some of the essential elements of the offense charged [Suy Sui v. People (1953)].
General Rule: In a MTQ, facts other than those alleged in the complaint/information may NOT be considered by the court.
Exceptions:
a. Facts already admitted by the prosecution [People vs Navarro].
b. Undisputed facts apparent from the records of the PI and not denied by the prosecutor [Salonga v. Pano (1985)].
c. Undisputed or undeniable facts that destroy the prima facie truth accorded to allegations of the information [People v. de la Rosa (1988)].
d. ROC expressly permits the investigation of facts alleged [People v. Alagao (1966)] [Rule 117, Sec. 2(f)(h), 4 & 5].
Rationale: It would be pure technicality for the court to close its eyes to said facts, refuse to quash the information, and require trial.
2) Court has No Jurisdiction over the Offense Charged
Jurisdiction over the subject matter: The power to adjudge concerning the general question involved.
Note:
In a criminal prosecution, the place where the offense was committed not only determines venue, but is an essential element of jurisdiction [Rule 110, Sec. 15; Lopez v. City Judge (1966)].
The court cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed outside its
territory. If the evidence adduced show that offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction [Uy vs CA (1997)].
In private crimes, the complaint of the offended party is necessary to confer authority to the court.
If the case was tried and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred from assailing such jurisdiction on appeal.
The court had jurisdiction over the case since, for as long as he continues to evade the service of his sentence, he is deemed to continue committing the crime, and may be arrested without warrant at any place where he may be found [Parulan vs Director of Prisons (1968)].
3) Court has no Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused
How jurisdiction is acquired
a. By arrest of the accused or his voluntary appearance in court.
b. By allowing himself to be arraigned without questioning the legality of his arrest
It is waivable expressly or by implication, unlike jurisdiction over the territory and the subject matter.
When the accused files a MTQ based on this ground, he must do so only on this ground. If he raises other grounds, he is deemed to have submitted his person to the jurisdiction of the court [Sanchez v. Demetriou (1993)].
If the accused believes his arrest to be illegal, he should move to quash the information on such ground. However, illegality of the arrest is waivable as it affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused [People vs Meris (2000)].
When the objection is raised, the court should resolve it before conducting trial to avoid unnecessary expenditure of time and money [Mead vs Argel (1982)].
4) Officer who Filed Information had no Authority to Do So
Authority to file and prosecute criminal cases is vested in:
a. Provincial fiscals and their assistants.
b. City fiscals and their assistants.
c. Chief State Prosecutor and his deputies.
Note:
A lawyer appointed by the DOJ Secretary may also file an information.
The prosecutor who signed the information must have territorial jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation of the offense [Cudia vs CA (1998)]. Otherwise, the information filed by him would be invalid and can be quashed on that ground.
An Information filed in the Sandiganbayan must be signed by a graft investigating officer with prior approval of the Ombudsman. Authority to sign may be challenged if the prosecutor files
41
the information without the approval of the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman cannot sign when the information is filed in the regular courts [Uy vs Sandiganbayan (1999)].
Election Offenses: Must be signed by the duly deputized prosecutors and legal officers of the COMELEC.
Lack of authority of the officer to is not cured by silence, acquiescence, express consent or even by amendment.
5) Complaint/Information does not Conform Substantially to the Prescribed Form
The formal and substantial requirements are provided for in Rule 110, Sec. 6-12.
General Rule: Lack of substantial compliance renders the accusatory pleading nugatory.
Exception: Mere defects in matter of form may be cured by amendment.
- Objections not raised are deemed waived, and the accused cannot seek affirmative relief on such ground nor raise it for the first time on appeal [People v. Garcia (1997)].
Vague or broad allegations are generally not grounds for a MTQ. The correct remedy is to file for a bill of particulars [Rule 116, Sec. 9].
6) More than One Offense is Charged
General Rule: The complaint or information must charge only one offense [Rule 110, Sec. 13].
Exception: Those cases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various offenses.
a. Complex and compound crimes, except where one offense was committed to conceal another.
b. An offense incidental to the gravamen of the offense charged.
c. A specific crime set forth in various counts, each of which may constitute a distinct offense. The narration of the specific of the specific acts is considered a bill of particular of facts upon which the inference of guilt of the accused may be based [People vs Yap (1968)]
Note:
Waivable. The accused may be convicted of all the offenses alleged and proved if he goes to trial without objecting to the inclusion of 2 or more separate offenses in the same information [People vs Villamor (1998)].
It is not tantamount to duplicity of offenses. An offense is committed in different modes and is alleged to have been committed in the 2 or more modes specified [Ku Bo Lin vs CA (1992)].
If the criminal acts are committed on different occasions, each constitutes a separate offense.
7) Criminal Action or Liability has been Extinguished
How criminal liability is extinguished
a. Death of the accused - Liability for pecuniary penalties is extinguished only if death occurs before final judgment.
b. Service of Sentence - Execution must be by virtue of a final judgment and in the form prescribed by law.
c. Amnesty d. Absolute pardon
e. Prescription of the crime f. Prescription of the penalty g. Pardon in private offenses Note:
Enjoyment of an accrued right cannot forever be left on a precarious balance [People vs Reyes (1989)].
Protection from prosecution under a statute of limitation is a substantive right [People vs Sandiganbayan (1992)].
ABSOLUTE PARDON CONDITIONAL PARDON Complete upon its
delivery
Only upon the
acceptance since accused may view liability less onerous than the terms
PARDON AMNESTY
Grant of the executive Grant by the President with concurrence of majority of Congress Private, though official,
act Public act
Must be pleaded and proved
Court must take judicial notice [People v. Vera (1990)]
Granted after conviction
Usually for those subject to trial but have not yet been convicted, but can also be available even after institution of the criminal action and sometimes after conviction
Looks forward – releases from consequences of conviction
Looks backward – abolishes offense itself;
completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects [People v. Vera (1990)]
Extended to pardoned defendant alone and to no other
Granted to all persons guilty of a crime (generally, political cases like rebellion, sedition, treason), and often conditioned upon
42
their return to obedience and duty within a prescribed time Prescription of the Crime
Definition: It is the loss or waiver by the state of its right to prosecute a crime [People vs Castor (1954)].
Computation of Period [Art 9, RPC]
1. Commencement: From the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents.
2. Interruption: Upon the filing of the complaint or information
General Rule: Includes complaint filed with the proper officer for PI.
Exception: Period for offenses penalized by special laws and ordinances is interrupted only by filing in court.
Commences to run again: When proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him
Note: Prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippines.
Manner of computing time:
1 yr = 365 days
1 month = 30 days, unless specified
1 day = 24 hours
Nights = sunrise to sunset
First day shall be excluded, while last day included
Note: The rule that if the last day falls on a Sunday or a holiday, the act can still be done the following day does NOT apply to the computation of the period of prescription of a crime. Information concerning said felony cannot be filed anymore on the next working day as the offense has by then already prescribed.
Prescription of a continuing crime: It is counted from the latest or last act constituting the series of acts continuing the single crime [People vs Castaneda (1990)].
Prescription Periods: [Art 90, RPC]
20 yrs – Death and Reclusion Perpetua
15 yrs – Other afflictive penalties
10 yrs. – Correctional penalties; except Arresto Mayor, which prescribes in 5 yrs.
1 yr. – Libel and similar offenses;
6 mos. – Oral defamation and slander by deed
2 mos. – Light offenses
When the penalty fixed is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of letters a-c
Prescription of the Penalty
Definition: It is the loss or waiver by the State of its right to demand service of the penalty imposed.
When and penalties prescribe: [Art 92, RPC]
20 yrs – Death and Reclusion Perpetua
15 yrs – Other afflictive penalties
10 yrs – Correctional penalties, except Arresto Mayor which prescribes in 5 yrs
1 yr – light penalties
Act No. 3326 governs period of prescription for violation of special laws.
Where the accused is found to have committed a lesser offense included in the offense charged, he cannot be convicted of the lesser offense if it has already prescribed [Magat vs People (1991)].
Computation of period: [Art 91, RPC]
1. Commencement: From the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence.
2. Interruption: If the defendant should give himself up, be captured, should go to some foreign country with which this Government has no extradition treaty, or should commit another crime before the expiration of the period.
Pardon In Private Offenses (seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, rape)
It extinguishes the criminal action or remits the penalty already imposed.
General Rule: Pardon should be given before the filing of the information
Exception: Marriage between the offended woman and the offender [Art 344, RPC; People vs Lualhati (1989)].
Applicable to co-principals, accomplices and accessories.
- If the victim is a minor: Pardon of offended party and of both parents is required [People vs de la Cruz (1993)].
8) Contains Averments Which, if True, Would Constitute a Legal Excuse or Justification Justifying Circumstances [Art 11, RPC]
a) Acts in defense of his person or rights Requisites:
Unlawful aggression;
Reasonable necessity of means employed;
Lack of sufficient provocation.
b) Acts in defense of the person or rights of his
Spouse;
Ascendants;
Descendants;
Legitimate/natural/adopted brothers or sisters;
Relatives by affinity in the same degrees;
Relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree.
- Requisites:
o unlawful aggression
o reasonable necessity of means employed
o In case provocation was given by the person attacked, the one
43
making the defense had no part therein.
c) Acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger:
Requisites:
unlawful aggression
reasonable necessity of means employed
the person defending should not be induced by revenge or resentment or other evil motive.
d) Act which causes damage to avoid evil or injury
Requisites:
Evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Injury feared greater than that done to avoid;
No other practical and less harmful means.
e) Fulfillment of a duty or lawful exercise of a right or office
f) Obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose
Exempting Circumstances [Art 12, RPC]
a) Imbecile or Insane
Exception: Insane acting during a lucid interval b) Person under 9 yrs old
c) Person over 9 yrs and under 15 yrs Exception: If he acted with discernment
d) Causes injury by mere accident, without fault or intention, while performing a lawful act with due care
e) Under compulsion of irresistible force
f) Under impulse of uncontrollable fear or greater injury
g) Fails to perform an act required by law when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause
2. Distinguish from demurrer to evidence
MTQ DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE Filed before entering
plea Filed after the
prosecution has rested its case
Does not go into the merits of the case
Based upon the
inadequacy of the evidence adduced by the prosecution
Grounds are stated in Rule 117
Ground is ―insufficiency of evidence‖
Does not require a prior leave of court
May be filed either with leave or without leave of court
Granting does not necessarily follow a dismissal (Court may
Granting is deemed an acquittal and would preclude the filing of
MTQ DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE order the filing of a new
complaint or
information)
another information or appeal by the prosecution
If the court, in denying the motion to quash acts with grave abuse of discretion, then
certiorari or
prohibition lies
The order denying the motion for leave to file a demurrer ―shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment‖ [Sec. 23, Rule 119]