Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails by Enforcing the Rights of Accused Persons to Bail and to Speedy Trial

Section 1

A trial is a judicial examination of the claims at issue in a case which are presented by the prosecution and defense to enable the court to arrive at a judgment pronouncing either the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Sec 2

The object of a trial is to mete out justice, and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent. Thus, the trial should be a search for the truth and not a contest over technicalities and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent.

Sec 3

Expeditious prosecution of criminal cases filed with the courts. -The Trial Prosecutor shall always be prepared to conduct the prosecution with his witnesses who shall be subpoenaed well in advance of the scheduled trial dates. No postponement of the trial or other proceedings of a criminal case shall be initiated or caused by the Trial Prosecutor except in instances where the postponement is occasioned by the absence of material witnesses or for other causes beyond his control or not attributable to him.

Sec 4

Order of presentation of witnesses. The order in the presentation of witnesses will be left to the discretion of the Trial Prosecutor. However, the prosecutor should take into consideration the order of events as established by the evidence of the prosecution. Witnesses who will testify for the first time shall be afforded the opportunity to be advised to observe criminal proceedings in court to help them overcome their anxiety, excitement and tension.

Sec 5

The Trial Prosecutor shall safely keep his documentary and other physical evidence and prepare a list thereof in the order they have been marked as exhibits, identifying each by letter or number, describing it briefly, and stating its specific purpose or purposes.

Sec 6

Defense evidence. Before reception of evidence for the defense starts, the Trial Prosecutor shall ask from the adverse counsel the number of witnesses he intends to present. If the names of defense witnesses are disclosed the Trial Prosecutor shall elicit from reliable sources the whereabouts of these witnesses, their moral character, background, reasons for testifying and relationship with the accused, among other things, to enable him to have a clear view of the defense of the accused.

Sec 7

When two or more persons are jointly charged with the commission of any offense, upon motion of the prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses for the state provided the court, after hearing, is satisfied that: There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested. There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said accused,6 as when he alone has knowledge of the crime, and not when his testimony would simply corroborate or otherwise strengthen the evidence in the hands of the prosecution; The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points. This is an indispensable requirement because it is a notorious fact in human nature that a culprit, confessing to a crime, is likely to put the blame on others rather than himself. Thus, even though a court may get the statement of a discharged accused that other particular persons were engaged in the crime, it is unsafe to accept without corroborating evidence, his statements concerning the relative blame to be attached to different members of his gang; Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty.9 The mere fact that the witness sought to be discharged had pleaded guilty In the crime charged does not violate the rule that the discharged defendant must not "appear to be the most guilty”. And even if the witness should lack some of the qualifications enumerated by Sec. 9, Rule 119, his testimony will not, for that reason alone, be discarded or disregarded.10 The ground underlying the rule is not to let a crime that has been committed go unpunished; so an accused who is not the most guilty is allowed to testify against the most guilty, in order to achieve the greater purpose of securing the conviction of the more or most guilty and the greatest number among the accused permitted to be convicted for the offense they committed.' However, although an accused did not commit anv of the stabbing, it is a mistake to discharge him as a state \witness where he is bound in a conspiracy. All the perpetrators of the offense bound in conspiracy are equally guilty. Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude. Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. If the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.

Sec 8

An accused who is discharged from an information or criminal complaint in order that he may be a state witness as provided in the preceding section may, upon his petition, be admitted to the Witness Protection Program under R.A. No.6981, "The Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act" if he complies with the other requirements of said Act.

Sec 9

Other persons who may avail of the Witness Protection Program. -The following may also avail of the Witness Protection Program under R.A. No. 6981: Any person who has witnessed or has knowledge of or information on the commission of a crime and has testified or is testifying or is about to testify before any judicial or quasi-judicial body, or before any investigating authority, Provided, that: the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined under the Revised Penal Code or its equivalent under special laws; his testimony can be substantially corroborated on its material points; he or any member of his family within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity is subjected to threats to his life or bodily injury or there is a likelihood that he will be killed, forced, intimidated, harassed or corrupted to prevent him from testifying, or to testify falsely or evasively, because or on account of his testimony; and he is not a law enforcement officer, even if he would be testifying against other law enforcement officers. In such a case, only the immediate members of his family may avail themselves of the protection provided for under the Act. Any person who has participated in the commission of a crime and desires to be a witness for the State, whenever the following circumstances are present: the offense in which testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined under the Revised Penal Code or its equivalent under special laws; there is absolute necessity for his testimony; there is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed; his testimony can be substantially corroborated on its material points; he does not appear to be the most guilty; and he has not at any time been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude.

Sec 10

Motions for postponement that are initiated by the accused should be vigorously opposed by the Trial Prosecutor and he should make of record his objections thereto, leaving to the court's discretion the disposition of the subject motions.

Sec 11

During the presentation of the prosecution's evidence, the Trial Prosecutor shall not cause or allow the discontinuance of the proceedings except for other similarly compelling reasons not attributable to him.

Sec 12

Each party is bound to complete the presentation of his evidence within the trial dates assigned to him. After the lapse of said dates, the party is deemed to have completed his evidence presentation. However, upon verified motion based on serious reasons, the judge may allow the party additional trial dates in the afternoon; provided that said extension will not go beyond the three-month limit computed from the first trial date. Where a Trial Prosecutor, without good cause, secures postponements of the trial over the objections of a defendant beyond a reasonable period of time, the accused is entitled to relief by a proceeding in mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information, or if he be restrained of his liberty, by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom.

Sec 13

Upon receipt of the notice of trial, the prosecutor shall review the record of the case for trial and complete his preparation therefore bearing in mind that trial, once commenced, may continue from day to day until terminated, and that trial shall proceed in the following order pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 119 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure: The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge and, in the proper case, the civil liability. The accused may present evidence to prove his defense, and damages, if any, arising from the issuance of any provisional remedy in the case. The parties may then respectively present rebutting evidence only, unless the court, in furtherance of justice, permits them to present additional evidence bearing upon the main issue. Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision unless the court directs the parties to argue orally or to submit memoranda. However, when the accused admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or information but interposes a lawful defense, the order of trial may be modified accordingly.

Sec 14

The order in the presentation of witnesses shall, as far as practicable, conform to the logical sequence of events obtaining in the case on trial in order to present a clear, organized and coherent picture to the court of the prosecution's evidence. For example, in the case of prosecution under the Dangerous Drugs Law, the Trial Prosecutor should present the forensic chemist who examined the dangerous drug ahead of the other witnesses in order that the court may at once have a view of the real evidence (either the prohibited or regulated drug subject of the case) and so that such evidence may immediately identified by the other witnesses thus avoiding the recall of witnesses later on. The rule of logical sequencing notwithstanding, a witness whose testimony is vital to the case and whose life is in danger or who may be sick/injured arid may possibly die, should be made to testify as early as practicable.

Sec 15

Examination of witnesses for the prosecution.-Where it shall satisfactorily appear that the witness for the prosecution is too sick or infirm to appear at the trial as directed by order of the court, or has to leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning thereto, he may forthwith be conditionally examined before the judge or the court where the case is pending. Such examination in the presence of the accused, or after reasonable notice to attend the examination has been served on him, will be conducted in the same manner as an examination at the trial. Failure or refusal on the part of the accused to attend the examination after notice herein before provided, shall be considered a waiver. The statement thus taken may be admitted on behalf of or against the accused.

Sec 16

Cross-Examination of defense witnesses. The prosecutor shall endeavor to secure well in advance all available information about a defense witness in order to prepare for an effective cross-examination. Where the testimony of a defense witness bears no effect on the evidence of the prosecution, a cross-examination need not be conducted.

Sec 17

The presentation and nature of rebuttal evidence will depend on the effect which the defense evidence may have caused on the prosecution's evidence-in-chief. The recall of a witness who already testified during the evidence-in-chief presentation merely to refute what a defense witness may have stated during his defense testimony is not generally a rebuttal evidence. \Where there is nothing to refute, rebuttal evidence is unnecessary. [1] Sec. 3 (b), Rule 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. [2] Sec. 3, Rule 110, Rules on Criminal Procedure; Example of public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated: Bureau of Customs officials for violation of the customs law; Bureau of Forest Development officials for violation of forestry laws; chief of police of a municipality for violation of a municipal ordinance which constitutes a criminal offense. The sworn complaint referred to usually refers to a complaint filed in court and not in the prosecutor's office. It is not necessary to file a sworn complaint with the prosecutor before the latter can conduct a preliminary investigation. A mere unsworn letter suffices to start an investigation, except if the offense charged is one which cannot be prosecuted de oficio or is private in nature i.e., where the law requires that it be started by a complaint sworn to by the offended party. In a case involving a private offense, the phrase "complaint filed by the offended party" as used in Section 5, Rule 110 should be given a liberal or loose interpretation, meaning a "charge, allegation, grievance or accusation" rather than a strict construction for often than not the offended party who files it is unschooled in law The purpose of the complaint in Section 5, Rule 110, is merely to initiate or commence the prosecution of the accused. Thus, the "Sinumpaang Salaysay" of the victim of a private offense is already deemed a complaint" required in the aforesaid Sec. 5. (People vs. Sangil, 208 SCRA 696 [1992]). [3] Sec. 12, par. 1, Rules on Criminal Procedure [4] Sec. 4, Rule 112, ibid. [5] Sec. 6, Rule 110, ibid. [6] Sec. 8, ibid. [7] Sec. 9, ibid. [8] Sec. 10, ibid. [9] 9. Sec. 11, ibid. Sec. 2, ibid. [10] Sec. 2, ibid. [11] Sec. 13, ibid; " Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period". (An. 48, Revised Penal Code). [12] "when mistake has teen made in charging the proper offense. - When it becomes manifest at any time before judgment, that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, and the accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, the accused shall not be discharged, if there appears to be good cause to detain him. In such case, the court shall commit the accused to answer for the proper offense and dismiss the original case upon the filing of the proper information." [13] Sec. 14, Rule 110, ibid. [14] 42 C.J.S.,Sec. 240 at pp.1249-1250. [15] Sec. 1, par. 2, Rule 110, Rules on Criminal Procedure. [16] Llenes vs. Dicdican, 260 SCRA 207 (1996). [17] Ibid. [18] Ibid. [19] An. 91 Revised Penal Code. [20] Sec. 2, Act No.3326, as amended. [21] Sec. 40 par.,Local Govt. Code. [22] Art. 91, par. 2, Revised Penal Code. [23] Department of Justice Circular No.61 dated 21 December 1993. [24] 12 Hours for light offenses; 18 hours for less grave offenses; and 36 hours for grave offenses. [25] NPS Form No.1. [26] NPS Form No.2. [27] Go vs. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 138 [1992]; Umil, et.al. vs. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251 [1991] and companion cases People vs. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401 and People vs. Aminudin, 163 SCRA 402 [1988]. [28] See NPS Form No.2. [29] See NPS Form No.3. [30] Such responsible person may be a parent, elder brother or sister, spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest/minister of the gospel as chosen by him (Sec. 2 (d) RA 7438, An Act Defining Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or under Custodial Investigation) [31] NPS Form No.2. [32]NPS Form No.4. [33] See NPS Form No.5. [34] See NPS Form No.6. [35] Section 1, Rule 112, Rules on Criminal Procedure. [36] Cruz, Jr. vs. People, 233 SCRA 439 [1994]. [37] People vs. Poculan, 167 SCRA 176 [1988]; Rodis, Sr. vs. Sandiganbayan, Second Division, 166 SCRA 618 [19881; Salonga vs. Pano, 134 SCRA 438 [1985]; Trocio vs. Manta, 118 SCRA 241 [1982]; Sausi vs. Querubin, 62 SCRA 155 [1975]; and Hashim vs. Boncan, 71 Phil. 216 [1941]. [38] Tandoc vs. Resultan, 175 SCRA 37 [1989]. [39] Par. 1, Sec. 2, Rule 112, supra. [40] The Special Prosecution Officers and Graft Investigation Officers in cases cognizable by the Office of the Ombudsman and the COMELEC officials in cases involving violations of the Election Code, PCGG Officers [41] Par. 2, Section 2, Rule 112, supra. [42]Ebarle vs. Sucaldito, 156 SCRA 803 [1987]. [43] Sections 3 & 5, Rule 34, COMELEC Rules of Procedure. [44] Sec. 3(a), Rule 112, Rules on Criminal Procedure. [45] See Appendix "0", List of Offenses cognizable by the Lupong Tagapamayapa (Crimes Covered by the Katarungang Pambarangay). [46] Sec. 412(b), R.A. No.7160. [47] Section 3(b), Rule 112, Rules of Criminal Procedure. [48] The resolution of dismissal should include a statement that the entire record of the case is being forwarded to the office having jurisdiction over the same. [49] Sec 3(d), Rule 112, Rules on Criminal Procedure; Department of Justice Memorandum Circular No.25 dated 2 October 1989. [50] Secs. 3(b) & (c), Rule 112, supra. [51] DOJ Resolution No.109, Series of 1990. (I. S. NO.89-243, "Bulacan Garden Corporation vs. Filomena", OPP, Bulacan). [52] Sec.6, Rule 111, ibid. [53] Ras vs. Rasul, 100 SCRA 125 [1980]; Quiambao vs. Osono, G. R. No.48157, March 16, 1988; and Appendix “P” [54] Donato vs. Luna, G.R. No.53642, April 15, 1988; Prado vs. People, 133 SCRA 602 [1984]; and Librodo vs. Coscolluela, Jr., 116 SCRA 303 [1982]. [55] Sec. 5, Rule 111, supra. [56] Cf. Ras vs. Rasul, supra; Quiambao vs. Osono, supra. [57] Sec. 3(e), Rule 112, supra. [58] Secs. 3 (d) & (f), Rule 112, ibid. [59] Sections 3(d) & (f), Rule 112, ibid. [60] Republic vs. Maximiano Asuncion, G.R. No. L-108208, March 1994. [61] Department of Justice Memorandum Circular No.7, s.1988. [62] Sec. 3(f), Rule 112, supra. [63] Note: A special appearance does not qualify. [64] Sec. 4, par.1,Rule 112, supra. [65] Section 4 (2) Rule 112, supra. [66] Lim V. Felix, G. R. No.94054-57, and Fernandez V. Felix, G.R. No.94266-57, 194 SCRA 292 [1991]; See also Allado V. Diokno, 232 SCRA 192 [1994]. [67] Torralba vs. Sandiganbayan, 230 SCRA 33 [1994]. [68] Department of Justice Circular No.24 dated 24 March 1995. [69] Department Order No.223 dated June 30,1993 as amended by DO No.359 dated October 17, 1995. [70] Like a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the City/Provincial Prosecutor, the right to a petition for review is a part of due process. Notwithstanding the ruling in Crespo vs. Mogul (151 SCRA 463 [1987]), the Court may not proceed with the criminal proceedings until after the resolution of the Regional Prosecutor or of the Secretary of Justice shall have become final, and the corresponding motion has been filed in Court by the trial prosecutor to withdraw or dismiss the information or to proceed with the trial as the case may be, per findings in the petition for review. (See Roberts; Jr. et al. vs. C.A. et al., 254 SCRA 307 [1996]). [71] Rule 114, Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No.12-94 dated August 16, 1994. [72] Department of Justice Circular No.36, Sept. 1, 1981. [73] Sec. 6, Rule 114, supra; Department of Justice Circular No.4, series of 1996, effective 1 February 1996. [74] See RA 6036 and Rules on Summary Procedure; Art. 29, Revised Penal Code; BP BIg 85 [1980]; Sec. 13, Rule 114, ibid. [75] Bemas, The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, a Commentary, Vol. I, First Ed., 1987, pp.86-87 cited in Department Circular No.24, dated March 24 1995. [76] Samulde vs. Salvani,Jr., 165 SCRA 724 [1988]. [77] Rule 118, Rules on Criminal Procedure. [78] Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. 1979, p.1037. [79] ibid, p.1037. [80] Department of Justice Circular No.55, dated 31 July 1990. [81] Amatan vs. Aujero 248 SCRA 511(1995).