CRIMINAL PROCEDURESyllabus ● GENERAL PRINCIPLES ◌ Criminal jurisdiction, defined ▪ Pp v. Mariano, 71 SCRA 660 ▪ Lumpay v. Moscoso, 105 Phil. 568 ◌ Law that governs the application of jurisdiction over the offense or subject matter ▪ Buaya v. Polo, 169 SCRA 471 ◌ Other factors that determine the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter ▪ Republic v. Asuncion, 231 SCRA 211 ▪ Llorente v. Sandiganbayan, January 19, 2000 ◌ Sandiganbayan: salary grade as basis of determining jurisdiction ▪ Lllorente v. Sandiganbayan, January 19, 2000 ◌ Jurisdiction over the person of the accused; concept of ▪ Santiago v. Ombudsman, 217 SCRA 633 ▪ Palma v. CA, 232 SCRA 714 ◌ Filing of bail/motion for bail not considered waiver of jurisdiction over the person of the accused ▪ Go v. CA, GR no. 101837, February 11, 1992 ● CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PROPER Prosecution of Offenses, Rule 110 ◌ In case of conflict between designation of offense and allegations ▪ Pp v. Banihit, August 25, 2000 ▪ Pp v. Reanzares, June 29, 2000 ◌ Reason for the rule in requiring that all elements comprising the offense be incorporated in the information or complaint ▪ Pp. v. Taño, GR no. 133872, May 5, 2000 ▪ Pp. v. Barrientos, 285 SCRA 221, 244-25 (1998) ◌ Scope of the act/omission subject of the complaint or information ▪ Pp. v. Torrecampo, GR no. 139297, February 23, 2004 ◌ Reason for the incorporation of qualifying or aggravating circumstances in the complaint/information ▪ Pp. v. Espejon, February 20, 2002 ▪ Pp. v. Lavador, February 20, 2002 ◌ Qualifying and aggravating circumstances, how alleged ▪ Pp. v. Gario Alba, January 29, 2002 ▪ Pp. v. Mauricio, February 8, 2001 ▪ Pp. v. Juan, GR no. 152289, January 14, 2004 ◌ Exact date of the commission of a crime when not necess ary for validity of information ▪ Pp. v. Rolly Espejon, February 20, 2002 ▪ Pp. v. Castillo, July 5, 2000 ▪ Pp. v. Santos, GR no. L-131103, June 29, 2009 ◌ Exact date of the commission of the offense, when essential ▪ Pp. v. Alvero, GR no. 134536, April 5, 2000 Guingona. Mogul. v. August 3. 2002 ◌ Delito continuado (continuing offenses. when barred from intervening in the prosecution of the criminal action . 169 SCRA 797 ◌ Effect of death of offended spouse after filing of the complaint ▪ Teves v. 1993 ◌ Test whether an amendment is formal or not ▪ Gabionza v. meaning of) ▪ Santiago v. March 25. GR no. requirements ▪ Dimatulac v. 192 SCRA 183 ▪ Sangalang v. 2006 ◌ Limitation on the prosecutor’s power of direction and co ntrol ▪ Crespo v. Garchitorena. v. 2004 ▪ Velasquez v. Honra. December 14. 1988 ◌ Locus standi or legal capacity to sue. Odilao. Vamenta. 1987 ◌ Instances when an injunctive writ may be issued as exception to the rule –Neither an injunction. preliminary or final nor a writ of prohibition may be issued to restrain a criminal prosecution ▪ Hernandez v. 134 SCRA 438 ▪ Samson v. February 20. Ladrillo. v. when sufficient ▪ Pp. June 30. 164664. 2004 ◌ Amendment downgrading the nature of the offense or excluding an accused. v.▪ Pp. exception ▪ Pp. June 30. v. December 26. Enrile. general rule. GR no. December 8. 1984 ◌ Duplicitous information valid ▪ Pp. Mogul. v. 1987 ◌ Motion for reinvestigation after filing of the information ▪ Pp. v. the rule on duplicity of offenses. 1984 ◌ Failure to sign the complaint/infoemation not a factor on the jurisdiction of the court to try the case ▪ Pp. December 2. Bugtong. September 26. 109 Phil. 1990 ◌ Restraint of criminal prosection. Tanabe. 166 SCRA 360 ▪ Pp. Vamenta. February 15. 297 SCRA 67 Prosecution of Civil Action. CA. GR no. L-136012. 2001 ▪ Poblete v. 1999 ◌ Rule giving control and supervision to the prosecutor ▪ Crespo v. 2000 ▪ Tirol v. Espejon. December 26. Sandoval. 192 SCRA 445 ◌ Mere filing of sworn statement. 2000 ◌ Effect of failure to move to quash before plea ▪ Pp. 1140 ▪ Salonga v. Camilon. Pp. 104 SCRA 607 ▪ Brocka v. Puno. March 30. meaning of ▪ Teves v. COA. 19 SCRA 95 ▪ Fortun v. Sunpangco. Sandiganbayan. Rule 111 ◌ Offended party.. v. Labang. Villon. GR no. 2000 ◌ When a writ of certiorari available in criminal actions ▪ Fuentes v. Tuqueo. July 20. April 16. 150610. Albano. 155451. June 30. 139655. April 14. general rule ▪ DMPI v. purpose ▪ Pp. July 27.▪ Dichavez v. 226 SCRA 234 ▪ Mansion Biscuits Corp. CA. January 16. 250 SCRA 195 ◌ Death of the accused after final judgment has been rendered. GR no. Pp. 2000. 152 SCRA 419 ▪ Doralla v. nature and concept ▪ Te v. 220 SCRA 389 (1993) ▪ Pp. November 18. nature of ▪ Villaflor v. 1991 ◌ Reservation to file a civil action. Meya. c.. GR no. Pp.. 2000 Preliminary Investigation. 2005 ◌ Award of civil liability in case of acquittal in the same proceeding ▪ Visconde v. 2000 ◌ Prejudicial question in a criminal case of bigamy ▪ Te v. 2000 ▪ First Holdings Producers. GR no. Rabbit Lines v. 145578. February 22. 1989 ◌ Prejudicial question. Inc. 2000 ▪ Franco v. v. 2002 ◌ Right to preliminary investigation. Sandiganbayan. when not necessary ▪ Phil. 1989 ▪ Go v. 1992 ◌ Waiver of the right to preliminary investigation ▪ Pp. IAC. v. Hubilo. CA. 1994 ▪ Cabahug v. 31 Phil. November 29. 2005 ▪ Tupaz v. Pp. April 27. June 20. October 18. Velez. November 29. CA.. June 27. v. CA. 47 ▪ Pp. 1991 ◌ Death of the accused pending review of the case extinguishes both civil and criminal liability ▪ Bayotas v. June 8. 2004 ◌ Consolidation of independent civil action with the criminal action. GR no. September 7. Rule 112 ◌ Preliminary investigation. Palijon. Pp.. Apalit. April 26. 2002 ◌ Duty of officials conducting preliminary investigation ▪ Cabahug v. 2000 ◌ An offense causes two (2) classes of injuries. enforcement of judgment ▪ Paredes v. Gozon. 126746. October 5. 2000 ◌ Condition precedent re: prejudicial question ▪ Beltran v. 2001 ◌ Effect of acquittal of the accused on the civil action ▪ Sanchez v. 2000 ◌ Civil action for declaration of documents and for damages do not constitute a prejudicial question ▪ Ching v. 155309. Sandiganbayan. Far East Bank. GR no. Reyes. Chavez. CA. IAC. CA. CA. GR no. L-123545 . 129282. November 29. November 18. effect on employer ▪ Meralco v. GR no. v. February 5. 61 SCRA 527 ◌ Criminal action against an employee. Luis Co. 149 SCRA 226 ▪ Ligon v. when allowed ▪ Cojuangco v. November 15.. April 3. 2001 ▪ Yusop v. February 11. Pp. CFI. Cruz. 2001 ▪ Doromal v. February 5. 147703. v. CA. 2001 ◌ Is the accused entitled to another P. duty of the court ▪ Sanchez v. Felix. 2000 ▪ Uy v. Sandiganbayan. 1998 ◌ Multifactor-balancing test ▪ Pilapil v. nature and concept of ▪ Pp. GR no. 1991 ◌ Reversal of resolution by the SOJ. Mogul. 162 SCRA 467 ▪ Pp.I. nature of ▪ Pp. 126005. GR no. 230 SCRA 33 ◌ When no preliminary investigation was conducted. March 20. April 7. 2000 ▪ Pp. effect of ▪ Tatad v. v. 1999 . Search and Seizure. Villanueva. June 17. v. v. September 25. 82870. March 21. GR no. v. 1999 ▪ Allado v.. Sandiganbayan. March 6. November 15. CA. v. Madayag. Sandiganbayan. Dayrit. Sandiganbayan. Madraga. Malmsted. 1993 ▪ Paredez v. CFI. 1990 ◌ Arrest in flagranre delito. 1993 ◌ Determination of probable cause. L-129299. November 8. in case the original information is amended? ▪ Teehankee v. Sandiganbayan. 117 SCRA 72 ▪ Pp. Pp. December 14. 1991 ▪ Enrile v. August 30. June 30. May 19. 198 SCRA 40 ◌ Determination of probable cause ▪ Paper Industries Inc. February 19. August 24. Diocno. Sandiganbayan. Chualto San. and corresponding complaint or information. 1988 ▪ Gonzales v. Sandiganbayan. Sandiganbayan. L-128045.I. 1987 ◌ After P. effect of ▪ Crespo v. Deang. April 7. 1999 ▪ Pp. 232 SCRA 192 ▪ Quintero v. Rules 113 and 126 ◌ Probable cause. Demetriou. 1993 ▪ Romualdez v. Villanueva. 1995 ◌ Absence of preliminary investigation. 1995 ▪ Pp. GR no. 167 SCRA 393 ◌ Sufficiency test ▪ Prudente v. February 26. lifetime ▪ Mamangon v. 186 SCRA 217 ◌ In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause ▪ Odilao v. January 21. Gomez..I. 1991 ◌ Delay in the conduct of P. Salazar. 155451. CA. NBI. May 16. July 6. Estrada. Makasiar. v. Sandiganbayan. 1989 ◌ Warrant of arrest. v. issuing of warrant of arrest ▪ Lim v. 126 SCRA 463 ▪ Soliven v. April 14. 1992 ▪ Cruz v.▪ Toralba v. v. GR no. effect on the information filed. v. nature and concept ▪ Pp. 110 SCRA 465 ▪ Placer v. Asuncion. July 5. 193 SCRA 464 ◌ Preliminary investigation. when may be conducted ex parte ▪ Mercado v. 2004 Arrest. remedy ▪ Pilapil v. effect of ▪ Pp. Mamsted. 355 SCRA 402 ▪ Pp. when may be issued ▪ Nolasco v. January 21. CA. Cabiles. v. 264 SCRA 199 ▪ Pp. June 29. Mengote. L-123545 ◌ Search warrant. 1990 ▪ Columbia Pictures v. Copio. v. GR no. January 20. March 3. Lising. v. 1993 ▪ Corro v. Amminudin Anih. v. Bravo. Galvez. scope ▪ Valmonte v. 184 SCRA 22 ▪ Posadas v. lifetime of ▪ Mustang Lumber v. 1999 ◌ Stop and frisk doctrine. v. Valdez. 307 SCRA 1 ▪ Pp. where filed ▪ Malaloan v. CA. September 29. 198 SCRA 401 ▪ Pp. Domantay. November 29. November 9. 1999 ▪ Sanchez v. effect of. when to raise ▪ Pp. CA. CA. CA. August 2. Lo Ho Wing. November 16.◌ Warrantless arrest: when valid. 163 SCRA 402 ◌ Lapse of considerable time between alleged commission of the offense and the time of the arrest. v. April 27. Villaluz. L-133925. 83988. Palijon. grave abuse of discretion ▪ Almoda v. 193 SCRA 57 Bail. April 14. 1999 ▪ Pp. v. L-129299 ▪ Pp. v. 237 SCRA 424 ◌ Warrantless search in checkpoints. 130805. 2004 ◌ Invalidity of an arrest. GR no. Rule 114 ◌ Requiring cash bond only. v. Demetriou. 1991 ▪ Pp. v. Aruta. Naag. 66 SCRA 38 . Martil Jr. v. GR no. v. v. v. 2000 ◌ When constitutional procedure on custodial interrogation do not apply ▪ Dela Torre v. 1990 ▪ Pp. August 20. Madraga. 288 SCRA 626 ▪ Pp. August 2. nature and concept of ▪ Kenneth v. Taypin. GR no. 257 SCRA 430 ◌ Warrantless search and seizure ▪ Pp. October 8. 1990 ▪ Pp. v. nature and concept of ▪ Manalili v. 2000 ▪ Pp. v. 1985 ▪ Peudon v. 1993 ▪ Pp. Tangliben. 280 SCRA 400 ▪ Pp. invalid ▪ Pp. De Villa. CA. v. 137 SRA 54 ◌ Search warrant. GR no. Comelec. 1989 ◌ Miranda warning ▪ Pp. v. 1990 ▪ Aniag Jr. November 22. Puno. Del Rosario. Marti. Kimura. Cayago. v. 232 SCRA 249 ◌ Search warrant. v. 294 SCRA 196 ▪ Pp. 331 SCRA 697 ◌ Application for search warrant. 312 SCRA 623 ▪ Pp. CA.. v. v. Dapitan. Gako. Que Ping. 483 SCRA 290 ◌ Burden of proof in bail applications ▪ Pp. v. July 3. Segarino. effect on the liability of the bondsman ▪ Pp. 1961 ◌ Cancellation of bail. 1991 ◌ Burden of proof in criminal cases ▪ Pp. Lantion. Lucero. GR no. 1995 ▪ Manalo v. 1991 ▪ Pp. Sandiganbayan. v. 2000 ◌ Remedy of the prosecution when bail is granted without hearing ▪ Alvarado v. August 1. Pecson. October 27. 483 SCRA 290 ▪ US v. 1988 ◌ Failure of the surety to the accused. 193 SCRA 471 ▪ Pp. Enage. 12 SCRA 395 ▪ Pp. v. v. 226 SCRA 206 ◌ Fixing bail ▪ De La Camara v. contents of ▪ Basco v. February 26. 52 Phil. 2002 ◌ Determination on the strength of evidence on guilt. 17 ◌ Death of the accused. November 2002 ◌ When extraditee has been allowed bail. Caparas. 114 ◌ Person in custody. Cordero. Laquindin. April 19. 1964 ◌ Other causes of cancellation of bond ▪ Phoenix v. Sandiganbayan. effect of ▪ Pp. Presiding Judge. July 26. 61 Phil. L-32951-2 September 7. v. 40 Phil. Narisma. 9 SCRA 691 ◌ Effect of posting a fake bail bond ▪ Pp. v. 325 SCRA 603 (2000) Rights of the Accused. v. meaning of . Duruganan. 149 SCRA 317 (1987) ◌ Person facing extradition proceedings not entitled to bail ▪ Rodriguez v. Jovellanos. 170 SCRA 480 ▪ Pp. 1971 ◌ Liability of a cash deposit. 322 SCRA 160 ▪ Rodriguez v. RTC Manila. judge not at liberty ▪ Aurillo v. 404 ▪ Pp. April 19. 1987 ▪ US v. anchored upon the principle of due process ▪ Pp. Rule 115 ◌ Right to be presumed innocent. cause ▪ Pp. Tuising. v. Rapatalo. December 15. Del Rosario. 197 SCRA 717 ◌ Proof beyond reasonable doubt. 2000 ◌ Forfeiture of bail. 1999 ◌ Scope of “discretion” in bail applications ▪ Jinggoy Estrada v. v. cause ▪ Pp. Celestino. cancellation thereof requires due process ▪ Secretary v. 1996 ◌ Order in bail applications.◌ Theory of bail ▪ Phoenix v. where to file bail ▪ Santiago v. Francisco. December 23. v. January 31. Jimenez. v. May 23. Bongolan. March 9. v. Sandiganbayan. Maglalang. extent of ▪ Esler v. Ledesma. April 29. 2000 ▪ Gaspar v. Bartolay. October 18. Templo. DOJ. 2000 ◌ Failure to comply with the requirements on plea of guilty. March 6. Beltran. v. Madraga. 163 SCRA 680 ◌ In case of conflict between presumption of innocence and regularity in the performance of official functions. 182 SCRA 313 ▪ Barbacio v. Licayan. v. Legaspi. Hermoso. nature of ▪ Pp. v. 95 Phil. its concept ▪ Marcos v. April 5. Samontanes. v. Garcia.▪ Pp. L-14422. 37 SCRA 445 ▪ Teehankee v. GR no. 2002 ◌ Denial of right to counsel. 87 ◌ Refusal of accused to plead or makes a conditional plea. v. v.. 55 SCRA 589 ◌ Arraignment after the prosecution rested its case ▪ Pp. 215 SCRA 364 ◌ Accusation. how done ▪ Pp. 64 SCRA 233 ◌ Right to present and defend in person or by counsel. Capilitan. Estomaca. effect of ▪ Pp. 197 SCRA 79 Arraignment and Plea. v. Culala. 1999 ▪ Telan v. v. effect of ▪ Pp. nature of ▪ Carredo v. the former prevails ▪ Pp. 192 SCRA 621 ◌ Absence of a record of arraignment. Lacson. 2000 ▪ Pp. Magat. CA. v. Madera. February 28. Ruiz. v. effect of ▪ Pp. effect of ▪ Pp. Madayag. November 15. Paulino. 256 SCRA 421 ▪ Pp. April 27. 2000 ▪ Pp. 1990 ◌ Escape of accused from custody. v. Pp. L-117802. Timtiman. 238 SCRA 5 ▪ Pp. Mapalao. Concepcion. v. Durango. v. 185 SCRA 140 ▪ Cabacungan v. 1992 ◌ Several charges or informations filed against an accused. Sandiganbayan. Salas. v. 61 SCRA 256 ▪ Pp. 1975 ▪ Pp. GR no. v. March 19.. 349 SCRA 837 . Rule 116 ◌ Arraignment. proper compliance with the rules ▪ Leonides v. effect of ▪ Pp. Gari. effect of ▪ Binabay v. v. 202 SCRA 534 ◌ Right to appeal. L-83466. December 1. Cabale. 2000 ▪ Pp. May 31. effect of ▪ Pp. Pp. GR no. 143 SCRA 163 ▪ Pp. 212 SRA 177 ◌ Importance of arraignment ▪ Pp. v. Malunsing. 144 SCRA 415 ◌ Amendment of the information on the previous arraignment and plea. v. October 13. 54 SCRA 190 ▪ Pp. v. v. 324 SCRA 490 ◌ Searching inquiry. 2000 ▪ Pp. v. v. 2000 ▪ Pp. need for conformity of the offended party and the prosecutor ▪ Pp. October 13. nature of ▪ Raro v. Salonga. 1967 ▪ Pp. Villaluz. v. 2000 ◌ Improvident plea. March 15. 210 SCRA 246 ◌ Unconditional plea of guilty. v. 1994 – nolle prosequi ◌ Double jeopardy. 2000 ◌ Double jeopardy. when attached ▪ Pp. October 13. 91 Phil. Estrada.◌ Effect when accused who pleads guilty presents exculpatory evidence instead of mitigating circumstances ▪ Pp. v. v. July 14. June 22. 219 SCRA 61 ▪ Galvez v. Rule 117 ◌ Motion to quash. v. v. 98 SCRA 191 ▪ Cruz v. Sandiganbayan. Gutierrez. when may be invoked in a motion to quash ▪ Pp. Yorac. v. 1995 ◌ Time to file a motion to quash ▪ Raro v. CA. February 28. CA. 2000 ▪ Joseph v. June 19. Pamaran. effect of ▪ Pp. CA. GR. Bandojo. Fakat. 254 SCRA 307 ◌ Suspension of arraignment. July 14. 89 SCRA 324 ◌ Denied motion to quash. remedy ▪ Ramos v. within the sound discretion of the court ▪ Pp. v. 129670. 1986 ◌ Plea of guilt to a lesser offense ▪ Pp. 194 SCRA 145 ◌ “Omnibus motion rule” on motions to quash. Sandiganbayan. 1992 ◌ Order denying a motion to quash. November 23. September 5. exceptions ▪ Fongao v. 60 SCRA 327 ▪ Marcelo v. Pademal. 876 ◌ Suspension of arraignment ▪ Roberts v. 152 SCRA 113 ▪ Lopez v. GR no. Arizapa. 1993 ◌ Matters considered in a motion to quash ▪ Pp. v. De Luna. Pineda. Villarama. Nitafan. Sandiganbayan. 208 SCRA 231 ◌ Doctrine of supervening fact ▪ Pp. October 22. 42 SCRA 230 . 30 SCRA 866 ▪ Pp. effect of. when may be done motu proprio ▪ Pp v. July 6. February 1. 75954. Dela Rosa. CA. July 5. No. Flores. CA. Sandiganbayan. effect of ▪ Pp. 2000 Motion to Quash. 2000 ◌ Failure to file a timely motion for bill of particulars. effect of ▪ Marcos v. Gaballo. v. when made. 2000 ◌ Quashal of information. v. Asuncion. v. v. nature and concept of ▪ Milo v. 1989 ◌ Plea to a lesser offense by the accused. October 24. 2000 ▪ Lavides v. February 4. 1996 ▪ Pp. entitled to separate trial ▪ Joseph v. De Leon.” meaning of ▪ Pp. v. how construed ▪ Chua v. Velasco. consent needed ▪ Pp. left to the discretion of the court ▪ Pp. v. qualified to be discharged ▪ Mangubat v. 2000 ◌ Effect of sustaining the demurrer to evidence ▪ Pp. 57 Phil. CA. v. 213 SCRA 63 ◌ Discharge of an accused. 89 SRA 324 (1979) ◌ Several accused with different degrees of participation in the commission of the crime. v. Sandiganbayan. v. 1995 ◌ Accused sought to be discharged. 1989 ◌ Time to move for separate trial ▪ Pp. Rule 119 ◌ Absence of accused or counsel during the deposition taking. 140904. 124171. August 28. v. September 5. 1997 ◌ Accused previously convicted but appealed. 1996 Trial. July 30. 142 SCRA 593 ◌ Admissions/stipulations made during pre-trial conference. Pp. 64 SCRA 84 ▪ Sacay v. Tabayoyong. October 16. GR no. Sandiganbayan. 162 SCRA 448 ▪ Pp. 148 ◌ Accused having conflicting defenses. Agbulos. February 4. v. v. effect of ▪ Pp. Valeriano. 1989 ◌ Discharge of an accused (particeps criminis) ▪ Webb v.Pre-Trial. CA. August 29. GR no.. July 16. May 29. Besaña. entitled to separate trial ▪ Vino v. 2002 ◌ Oral order of the dismissal of a criminal action. 2002 Judgment. 223 SCRA 479 ◌ What the prosecution must satisfactorily show at the hearing ▪ Pp. Sandiganbayan. 79 SCRA 694 ◌ “Accused does not appear to be the most guilty. Peralta. v. Beberino. CA. 121971. Velasco. 1986 ◌ Mistake in the discharge of an accused. v. GR no. 1981 ◌ Rule on discharge of an accused to be sate witness. October 19. GR no. 2000 ▪ Merciales v. GR no. effect of ▪ Pp. 121234. October 9. 2002 ▪ Ong v. Romualdez. Delos Reyes. March 18. Rule 118 ◌ Modification of trial when accused interposes a lawful defense ▪ Pp. v. CA. August 23. Sandiganbayan. effect of ▪ Cinco v. effect of . Rule 120 ◌ Judgment. GR no. 140633.. Hernandez. 140633. Pp. v. 226 SCRA 694 ◌ Refusal or failure of the discharged accused to testify. 222 SCRA 196 ▪ Pp. V. Villaluz. effect of ▪ Fule v. reason of the constitutional requirement ▪ Pp. Firme. CA. specified ▪ US v.. 119 ◌ Conviction in case of variance between the offense charged and that proved by evidence. December 19. August 30. Pp. 111610. L-45674. GR no. Meneses. L-24162. GR no. 140243. Yatco. 120787. 128073. v. GR no. 28 Phil. 1974 New Trial or Reconsideration. v. L-30158. v. May 30. August 20. Abellera. 96602. Opemia. v. v. December 14. GR no. exception ▪ Pp. 1992 ▪ Tan Ang Bun v. v. 69 SCRA 623 ▪ Pp. 80 Phil. v. effect on appeal ▪ Pp. November 19. reprimand or censure ▪ Pp. 225 SCRA 457 ◌ Judgment of conviction. 992 ◌ Errors of counsel. v. 1988 ▪ Pp. Donesa. 1996 ◌ Effect of filing a fake bail bond on appeal ▪ Pp. Sta. 2000 ◌ Lack of notice of appeal to the adverse party. March 7. January 28. GR no. 220 SCRA 100 ▪ Nazareno v. exception ▪ Pp. Villanueva. Rule 122 ◌ Appeal by the offended party on the civil aspect ▪ Rillorta v. Toling. 107297. v. effect of ▪ Pp. effect of ▪ Francisco v. 1966 ◌ Effect of appeal by any of the several accused . v. Lascuna. August 13. effect of ▪ Pp. CA. 1990 ▪ Abay v. GR no. appeal from final conviction ▪ Pp. GR no. v. January 17. Avillar. 74 Phil. GR no. October 13. Almario et al. 407 ▪ Pp. CA. 131 ◌ Judgment of acquittal. January 31. Maria. 1988 ◌ Accused who jumps bail. v. CA. 1988 ◌ Promulgation of judgment in absentia ▪ Pascua v. Labao. 98 Phil. Villanueva. March 31. GR no. Mamalias. 1996 ▪ Pp. 2002 ▪ Pp. requisite ▪ Pp. 2000 ▪ Abrajano v. Dy. v. Del Rosario. February 27. Mangulabnan. v. 2000 ◌ Recantation of prosecution witness not a ground for new trial. 219 SCRA 85 ◌ Offense proved that is included in the offense charged has prescribed at the time of the criminal action. 74517.▪ Rivera v. May 27. 99 Phil. GR no. June 27. February 15. 2000 ◌ Escape of the accused. Esparas. CA. 2000 ◌ Judgment rendered and promulgated not during the incumbency of the judge who signed it. when said to include or be included in another offense ▪ Pp. 698 ◌ Offense. Garcia. 1988 ▪ Arroyo v. Rule 121 ◌ Newly discovered evidence as a ground for new trial. GR no. 135330. 1990 Appeal. 47747. 1973 ▪ Valentin v. v. ground for new trial/reconsideration ▪ Pp. CA. v. GR no. February 23. Rule 123 ◌ Preliminary conference ▪ Fule v. June 16. CA. Rule 127 ◌ Writ of preliminary attachment in a criminal action to over moral and exemplary damages. 2000 Procedure in the Municipal Trial Courts. November 20. CA. De Lencquesaing. prohibited ▪ Mialhe v. Pacaña. 162 SCRA 446 Provisional Remedies in Criminal Actions. 2000 ▪ Salvatierra v. 142 SRA 694 Total number: 381 cases .▪ Pp. v.