8/12/2019 Salient Changes in the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure

1/2

Salient changes in the Revised Rules on Criminal ProcedureRule 11 Prosecution of Offenses1. The institution of all criminal actions, including cases governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure, shall now

be the same.

1. Preliminary investigation is now required for an offense punishable by imprisonment of at least 4 years,2 months and 1 day.

Except lawful warrantless arrests provided for under Section 7.

Thus, preliminary investigation is required for all offenses cognizable by the RTC and for some cases cognizable by

the MTC.

3. The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running of the prescriptive period of the offense exceptfor

offenses punishable by special laws.

This is in accordance with the ruling in Zaldivia vs. Reyes, which stated that the Rules of Court cannot amend

special laws, and under Act no. 3326**,the prescriptive period for violation of special laws and municipal ordinances

was interrupted only upon the filing of the complaint or information in court.

1. Qualifying and aggravating circumstances is now required to be alleged in the complaint or information. The failure to specifically allege either circumstance, even if proved, cannot be taken into account.

1. Rape is removed from the list of private offenses since it is now classified as a crime against persons under R.A.8353.

2. Any amendment before plea, which1. Downgrades the nature of the offense charged in the complaint or information OR2. Excludes any accused from the complaint or information

can only be made upon motion by the prosecutor, with

1. Notice to the offended party ANDii. With leave of court

The court shall state its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of its order shall be furnished all parties,

especially the offended party.

This amendment is intended to prevent the prosecution from abusing the process of amendment before plea by

dropping any of the accused from the information or reducing the offense charged, whether the accused had been

arraigned or not and whether it was due to a reinvestigation of the fiscal or a review by the Secretary of Justice ( Crespo

vs. Mogul).Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Action1. Only the civil liability arising from the offense charged is deemed instituted (not merely impliedly) with the

criminal unless the offended party:

1. Waives the civil action2. Reserves his right to institute it separately OR3. Institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

2. The independent civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 are no longer deemed or impliedly institutedwith the criminal action or considered as waived

Evenif there is no reservation.

They may proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.

3. The reservation applies only to the civil liability arising from the offense charged.

The employer may not longer be held civilly liable for quasi-delict in the criminal action as ruled in Maniago vs.

Court of Appealssince quasi-delict is not deemed instituted with the criminal.

http://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/tag/criminal-procedure-memoyy-aid-annex-a/#_ftn2http://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/tag/criminal-procedure-memoyy-aid-annex-a/#_ftn2

8/12/2019 Salient Changes in the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure

2/2

If at all, the only civil liability of the employer in the criminal action would be his subsidiary liability under the

Revised Penal Code.

4. The present rule has also done away with third-party complaints and counterclaims in criminal actions. These

claims must have to be ventilated in a separate civil action.

Thus, even if a counterclaim or cross-claim of the accused arises out of or is connected with the transaction or

occurrence which is the subject matter of the offended partys claim, it is NOT compulsory.

5. The extinction of the civil liability refers exclusively to civil liability arising from crime;

Whereas, the civil liability for the same act considered as quasi-delictonly and not as a crime is not extinguished

even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed

by the accused.

Both actions may proceed separately, the only limitation is the prohibition to recover damages twice based on

the same act or omission.

6. Except for civil actions provided for in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, the civil action which has

been reserved cannot be instituted until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action.

The action contemplated herein is a civil action arising from a crime ifreserved or filed separately and if a

criminal case is filed, it has to be suspended.

During the pendency of the criminal action, the period of prescription of the civil action which cannot be

instituted separately or whose proceeding has been suspended shall not run.

7. The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil

liability arising from the delict.

This rule would only apply if any of the civil actions under section 3 is consolidated with the criminal action,

otherwise, since the actions under section 3 are purely civil actions, the effects of death of a party are to be governed by

the Rules on Civil Procedure.

8. A prejudicial question is limited to a previously instituted civil action in order to minimize possible abuses bythe

subsequent filing of a civil action as an after thought for the purpose of suspending the criminal action.