A COMPLETE GUIDE TO RULES 110 – 127 OF THE PHILIPPINE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (as amended up to A.M. No. 20‑06‑14‑SC, 2020, and related administrative circulars)
1. Orientation
The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (RRCP), which took effect on December 1, 2000 (A.M. No. 00‑5‑03‑SC) and has since been refined by a series of Supreme Court (SC) administrative matters and circulars, provide the procedural backbone of every Philippine criminal case. Rules 110 to 127 govern the entire life‑cycle of a prosecution—from the filing of the information to post‑judgment provisional remedies. Mastery of these rules is indispensable for prosecutors, defense counsel, judges, law‑enforcement agents, and even private complainants because a single procedural misstep can acquit the guilty or jail the innocent.
2. Rule‑by‑Rule Exposition
Below is a distilled yet comprehensive walk‑through of each rule, highlighting statutory text, seminal jurisprudence, and practical nuances that practitioners routinely grapple with.
| Rule | Core Theme | Snapshot of Key Sections | Flagship Cases / Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 110 – Prosecution of Offenses | How and where criminal actions begin | §3 institution; §5 who may file; §6 sufficiency of information; §10 venue; §14 amendment | Leviste v. Hon. Alameda (G.R. 182677, 2010) on venue; People v. Dizon (G.R. 219508, 2019) on defective informations |
| 111 – Prosecution of Civil Action | Civil liability’s fate inside criminal litigation | §1 implied institution; §3 reservation/waiver; §4 effect of acquittal; §5 pre‑judgment attachment | Heirs of Malolos v. Ombudsman (G.R. 195431, 2012) on independent civil actions |
| 112 – Preliminary Investigation | Filtering mechanism before full‑blown trial | §1 definition; §3 complaint‑affidavits; §4 adverse party’s right to counter‑affidavit; §6 probable cause resolution; §7 DOJ review; §8 record transmission | Ang Tibay analogy on due process; People v. Castillo (G.R. 226538, 2021) on PI as statutory, not constitutional, right |
| 113 – Arrest | Deprivation of liberty before conviction | §5 warrantless arrest modes (“in flagrante,” “hot pursuit,” escapee); §7 announcement & authority; §9 breaking doors; §15 extraterritorial service | People v. Doria (G.R. 125299, 1999) on buy‑bust validity; Alih v. Castillo (G.R. 47001, 1985) on hot pursuit |
| 114 – Bail | Interim liberty pendente lite | §3 right to bail except when evidence of guilt is strong; §5 forms (corporate surety, property, cash, recognizance); §7 capital offenses; §13 guidelines; §20 bail after conviction | Lavides v. CA (G.R. 129670, 2000) on bail grant as a matter of discretion post‑conviction; Fortun v. Ledesma (A.C. 6694, 2005) on bail bondsmenship |
| 115 – Rights of Accused | Bill of Rights implementation | §1(a) to counsel; (b) informed of nature and cause; (c) speedy, impartial, public trial; (d) confront witnesses; (e) compulsory process; (f) against self‑incrimination | People v. Yadao (G.R. 104885, 1994) on waiver of counsel; Cagang v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. 206438, 2018) on speedy disposition |
| 116 – Arraignment & Plea | Joining issue | §1 when and how; §3 plea of guilty to capital offense—conduct of searching questions; §4 conditional plea; §5 plea to lesser offense (plea bargaining) | Estipona v. Judge Ramos (A.M. RTJ‑17‑2494, 2017) lifted SC ban on plea bargaining in drugs; People v. Murillo (G.R. 180747, 2011) on belated plea change |
| 117 – Motion to Quash (MTQ) | Attacking the information before trial | §3 twelve grounds incl. jurisdiction, double jeopardy, facts don’t constitute offense; §5 effects; §11 waiver if not raised | People v. Hon. Blanco (G.R. 200161, 2013) on lack of authority to file info; People v. Asuncion (G.R. 206842, 2016) on venue defects |
| 118 – Pre‑Trial | Streamlining and settlement | §1 mandatory & personal participation; §1(g) plea bargaining; §2 pre‑trial order; Administrative Matter 18‑03‑16‑SC (2019 Continuous Trial Guidelines) overlay | People v. Malana (G.R. 233541, 2018) on suppression of unlawfully obtained evidence |
| 119 – Trial | Evidentiary presentation | §1 order of trial; §11 trial in absentia; §15 demurrer to evidence; §17 discharge of state witness; S.C. Administrative Circular 04‑2021 sets 180‑day trial cap | People v. Gozo (G.R. 185053, 2016) on demurrer mechanics |
| 120 – Judgment | Decision writing & promulgation | §1 judgment definition; §2 contents; §5 promulgation rules; §6 judgment on appeal; §7 recording & archiving | Samulde v. COA (G.R. 228746, 2021) on dispositive errors |
| 121 – New Trial or Reconsideration | Post‑verdict corrections | §1 grounds: errors of law/fact, new evidence; §2 time to file (15 days); §5 effects (voiding judgment); A.M. 20‑06‑14‑SC e‑filing allowances | People v. Armada (G.R. 194838, 2014) on newly discovered DNA evidence |
| 122 – Appeal | Review pathways | §1 modes: notice of appeal (to CA/RTC), petition for review (CA), appeal to SC by certiorari; §3 where filed; §10 transmittal | People v. Molina (G.R. 46572, 1980) on automatic review in capital cases |
| 123 – Procedure in MTCs | First‑level courts special rules | §1 in absentia promulgation; §3 appeals to RTC; summary procedure integration where penalty ≤ 6 years | Ang v. Judge Mondala (A.M. MTJ‑19‑1920, 2020) on small‑claims overlap |
| 124 – Procedure in the Court of Appeals | Intermediate appellate review | §3 briefs; §6 submission for decision; §13 CA can reverse or convict; §15 new trial power (extended to CTA by R.A. 11213) | People v. CA (Villanueva) (G.R. 141953, 2000) on CA’s re‑fact‑finding |
| 125 – Procedure in the Supreme Court | Ultima ratio | §3 petition for review on certiorari; §5 assignment of errors; §6 oral argument; §11 judgment | People v. Hon. Sandiganbayan (G.R. 96028, 1991) on SC fact review in exceptional cases |
| 126 – Search & Seizure | Warrants & admissibility of evidence | §2 probable cause and oath; §3 personal determination by judge; §5 issuance and validity (10 days); §7 breaking doors; §12 special rules on cyber warrants (via R.A. 10175) | Stonehill v. Diokno (G.R. L‑19550, 1967) on particularity; People v. Dengg (G.R. 170484, 2009) on buy‑bust search |
| 127 – Provisional Remedies | Securing civil interests in criminal suits | §2 attachment of property of the accused; §3 bond; §4 disposition of seized property; interplay with Rule 57 (civil) | Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Civil Forfeiture, G.R. 152154, 2012) links Rule 127 with R.A. 1379 |
3. Procedural Timeline at a Glance
- Complaint / information filed →
- Preliminary investigation (Rule 112) or inquest →
- Filing in trial court; raffle and docketing →
- Arrest/Bail (Rules 113‑114) →
- Arraignment and plea within 30 days (Rule 116) →
- MTQ (Rule 117) if any →
- Pre‑trial & plea bargaining (Rule 118) →
- Prosecution evidence → Defense evidence → Rebuttal (Rule 119) →
- Demurrer to evidence (optional) →
- Judgment & promulgation (Rule 120) →
- New trial / reconsideration (Rule 121) →
- Appeal (Rule 122) → CA/SC procedure (Rules 124‑125) →
- Execution and civil action enforcement →
- Provisional remedies (Rule 127) as needed.
4. Cross‑Cutting Themes & Practical Tips
| Theme | Practice Pointer |
|---|---|
| Speedy Trial (Const. Art. III §14(2); R.A. 8493) | Always tally calendar‑day delays. Dismissal is with prejudice unless prosecution shows “valid causes.” Continuous Trial Guidelines (2017, 2019) set concrete deadlines. |
| Plea Bargaining | Now broadly allowed, even in drug cases (Estipona doctrine) subject to DOJ/SolGen concurrence and victim’s consent. Bring a sentencing matrix to pre‑trial. |
| Electronic Filings | A.M. 20‑06‑14‑SC permits e‑mailed informations, bail and pleadings during “extraordinary circumstances” (pandemics, natural disasters). Verify local administrative orders of the RTC. |
| DNA, Digital & Cyber Evidence | Governed by A.M. 06‑11‑5‑SC (DNA) and Rule 9 of A.M. 17‑11‑03‑SC (cybercrime warrants). Ensure integrity chain documentation; attack hash values early. |
| Forfeiture & Asset Preservation | Rule 127 attachment can run parallel with Anti‑Money Laundering Act (AMLA) freeze orders or civil forfeiture under R.A. 1379/RA 9160. Coordinate with AMLC to avoid conflicting writs. |
5. Significant 21st‑Century Amendments
| Year & Issuance | Salient Change |
|---|---|
| A.M. 05‑8‑26‑SC (2005) | Clarified non‑bailable offenses; introduced recognizance for indigents. |
| A.M. 12‑11‑2‑SC (2013) | Integrated mandatory plea bargaining conference into Rule 116. |
| A.M. 15‑06‑10‑SC (Continuous Trial, 2017) | Imposed “one‑day examination of witness” rule; 180‑day trial ceiling. |
| A.M. 18‑03‑16‑SC (2019) | Realigned pre‑trial forms, required detailed Pre‑Trial Order with timelines. |
| A.M. 20‑06‑14‑SC (2020) | Institutionalized e‑filing, video conferencing, and promulgation via Zoom during public emergencies. |
6. Frequently Litigated Flashpoints
Validity of Warrantless Arrests Over‑reliance on “hot pursuit” often fails; officers must personally witness overt acts indicating a crime or have personal knowledge of facts (Rule 113 §5(b)).
Amendments to Information After Plea Only as to form; substantive changes (e.g., upgrading homicide to murder) are barred post‑arraignment absent re‑arraignment, lest double jeopardy attach (Rule 110 §14).
Demurrer Without Leave Filing a demurrer to evidence without prior leave is a high‑stakes gamble—denial waives the right to present evidence (Rule 119 §23).
Judgment Promulgation in Absentia If the accused jumps bail, judgment is still promulgated via posting at last address; appeal periods run from actual notice (Rule 120 §6).
Reservation of Civil Action Reservation must be made before arraignment (Rule 111 §1); many complainants overlook this and later find their civil claim dismissed for res judicata.
7. Concluding Insights
Rules 110 to 127 form a seamless code of fair play, efficient adjudication, and balanced protection of both society and individual rights. Recent digital innovations—e‑raffle, video arraignments, electronic warrants—show the SC’s resolve to keep procedure abreast of technology while anchoring reforms on due process. Nonetheless, the Rules remain text‑driven; success in criminal litigation still demands meticulous calendaring, timely objections, and deep familiarity with enabling jurisprudence.
Suggested Reading & Case Citator (non‑exhaustive)
- Francisco, Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Vols. II‑III (2021 ed.)
- Justice Regalado, Criminal Procedure (11th Ed.)
- People v. Doria, G.R. 125299 (1999); Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 206438 (2018); Estipona v. Ramos, A.M. RTJ‑17‑2494 (2017); Stonehill v. Diokno, L‑19550 (1967)
- DOJ Circular No. 49 (2020) – Revised Manual for Prosecutors
This article aims to serve as a ready reference; always consult the latest SC administrative issuances and local court circulars for procedural fine‑tuning.