Concept and Function
A criminal action is the procedural vehicle by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punished as an offense.
Institution of a criminal action identifies the filing that starts the prosecution process for purposes of criminal procedure, prescription, and subsequent court action.
Under Rule 110, institution depends on whether the offense requires preliminary investigation; the rule therefore separates offenses that must first pass through the investigating prosecutor or other authorized officer from offenses that may be filed directly in a first-level court.
The criminal action is always public in character because the offended party is not the real party in interest; the case is brought in the name of the People of the Philippines, even when the first paper is signed by the offended party.
The institution of the criminal action should not be confused with every prior complaint about the same event, because a police blotter, demand letter, administrative charge, or informal report does not itself institute a criminal action under Rule 110.
Modes of Institution
The controlling distinction is whether preliminary investigation is required under Rule 112, which generally covers offenses punishable by imprisonment of at least four years, two months, and one day, without regard to the fine.
| Kind of offense | How instituted | Immediate procedural effect |
|---|---|---|
| Offense requiring preliminary investigation | By filing the complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting preliminary investigation | The prosecutorial investigation begins, prescription is interrupted by the Rule 110 filing, and no trial court case exists until the proper complaint or information is filed in court |
| Offense not requiring preliminary investigation | By filing the complaint or information directly with the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, or by filing the complaint with the office of the prosecutor | The case may enter court immediately if directly filed, or may pass through the prosecutor if filed there first |
| Offense in Manila or another chartered city | By filing the complaint with the office of the prosecutor, unless the city charter provides otherwise | The prosecutor acts as the regular gateway even for offenses that otherwise may be directly filed in first-level courts |
The phrase proper officer means the officer legally authorized to conduct the required preliminary investigation, such as the city or provincial prosecutor, the Ombudsman for offenses within its jurisdiction, or another officer specially empowered by law.
Filing with an officer who has no legal authority to act on the offense does not serve the purpose of Rule 110 and exposes the proceeding to dismissal or corrective action.
For offenses not requiring preliminary investigation, direct filing in a first-level court is allowed only where the Rules or governing law permit it; in chartered cities, the prosecutor generally remains the required filing office.
Complaint and Information
The criminal action is prosecuted through either a complaint or an information, both of which must be in writing, in the name of the People of the Philippines, and against all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense.
A complaint is a sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, a peace officer, or another public officer charged with enforcement of the law violated.
An information is a written accusation charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court.
The complaint used to initiate preliminary investigation before the prosecutor is functionally different from the complaint filed directly in court, because the first begins the executive determination of probable cause while the second itself commences the judicial criminal case.
When an information is required, a court generally acts on the prosecutor-signed accusation rather than on the private complainant's affidavit, because criminal prosecution is under public authority.
The signature of the prosecutor on the information signifies that the prosecutor has found sufficient basis to charge the accused in court, although the judge must still make an independent judicial determination where a warrant or other judicial action is sought.
Preliminary Investigation Cases
When preliminary investigation is required, the criminal action is instituted by filing the complaint with the proper investigating officer, not by filing the information in court.
This rule matters because prescription is interrupted at the investigative filing stage, even though the trial court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the criminal case.
Preliminary investigation is a statutory right designed to protect a person from hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecution, but it is not itself a trial and does not determine guilt.
The absence of preliminary investigation, when timely invoked, calls for the conduct of the required investigation or reinvestigation; it does not automatically void the information, erase the court's jurisdiction, or entitle the accused to acquittal.
The right to preliminary investigation may be waived by failure to raise the objection before arraignment, because arraignment normally signals submission to the court's authority to proceed on the information.
If a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant and an inquest is conducted, the prosecutor may file the information based on inquest findings; if the detained person asks for preliminary investigation, procedural rules on waiver of the statutory delivery period and continued custody or bail become relevant.
A reinvestigation after the filing of an information does not transfer control of the case to the accused or to the offended party, because the prosecutor retains responsibility for determining whether the charge should be maintained, amended, downgraded, or withdrawn, subject to court approval after the case is in court.
Cases Not Requiring Preliminary Investigation
For offenses below the preliminary investigation threshold, the complainant may proceed by filing the complaint or information directly with the proper first-level court where direct filing is allowed.
Direct court filing is most relevant in municipalities where the Rules allow complaints for lesser offenses to be filed directly with the Municipal Trial Court or Municipal Circuit Trial Court.
Filing with the prosecutor remains an available route for offenses not requiring preliminary investigation, because the prosecutor may still evaluate the charge and prepare the information when warranted.
In Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint must be filed with the prosecutor unless the charter provides a different rule, so direct filing in court is not the ordinary mode.
Where the complaint is filed directly in court for an offense not requiring preliminary investigation, the court may act on the complaint if it is sufficient in form and substance and if the court has jurisdiction over the offense and the place where it was committed.
Prescription
The institution of the criminal action interrupts the running of the prescriptive period of the offense charged, unless a special law provides a different rule.
For offenses requiring preliminary investigation, the interruptive filing is the complaint filed with the proper investigating officer; for offenses directly filed in court, the interruptive filing is the complaint or information filed in the proper court.
The interruption relates to the offense fairly charged by the allegations, so the factual averments matter more than an erroneous label or caption.
If the later information is based on the same offense timely brought before the proper investigating officer, the prosecution is not defeated merely because the information is filed in court after the prescriptive period would otherwise have expired.
If the later charge is a distinct offense not included in, or necessarily described by, the timely filing, the original complaint may not save the new charge from prescription.
When proceedings terminate without conviction or acquittal and without a bar by double jeopardy, prescription may begin to run again according to the governing penal law or special statute.
Special laws may alter the reckoning, interruption, or resumption of prescription; the Rule 110 statement on interruption therefore yields where the special law expressly or necessarily provides a different method.
Barangay conciliation is not institution of a criminal action under Rule 110, although the Katarungang Pambarangay law may separately suspend prescriptive periods for a limited time when the dispute is properly brought before the barangay.
Jurisdictional Effects
Institution before the prosecutor for preliminary investigation does not vest jurisdiction in the trial court, because the court receives the criminal case only when the proper complaint or information is filed with it.
Jurisdiction over the offense depends on the law conferring subject matter jurisdiction on the court and on the filing of a sufficient accusatory pleading in that court.
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired by arrest or voluntary appearance, and it is distinct from the institution of the criminal action itself.
Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional in substance because the criminal action must be filed where the offense was committed or where an essential ingredient occurred, subject to special rules for continuing, transitory, or specially regulated offenses.
A criminal action filed in a court without jurisdiction over the offense or the place of commission is vulnerable to dismissal without an adjudication on the merits.
Complaint Required by Law
Some offenses cannot be prosecuted unless the complaint is filed by the person specifically authorized by law or by the Rules.
For these offenses, the required complaint is not a mere evidentiary affidavit; it is a condition for the State's authority to begin prosecution.
Adultery and concubinage require the complaint of the offended spouse, and the charge must include both guilty parties if both are alive and can be prosecuted.
For offenses such as seduction, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness where the Rules require the initiative of the offended party or specified relatives, the absence of the required complaint prevents valid prosecution unless the law allows the State to proceed because the offended party is unavailable, incapacitated, or otherwise within the statutory exception.
Once the required complaint has validly initiated the prosecution, the case becomes a public action under the control of the prosecutor, and the offended party's later desistance does not automatically compel dismissal.
Barangay Conciliation as Prior Requirement
Where the Katarungang Pambarangay law applies, prior barangay conciliation is a condition precedent to the filing of the criminal action.
The requirement generally concerns disputes between individuals who reside in the same city or municipality, or in adjoining barangays where the law so allows, and where the offense is punishable by imprisonment not exceeding one year or by a fine not exceeding the statutory amount.
The criminal action may proceed in court only after the proper certificate to file action is issued, the parties validly repudiate the settlement, or the case falls within an exception such as offenses punishable beyond the covered penalty, offenses involving the government, or situations requiring urgent legal action.
Failure to comply with mandatory barangay conciliation does not ordinarily destroy the court's subject matter jurisdiction, but it makes the action premature and subject to dismissal or suspension until the condition is satisfied.
Control After Institution
After a criminal action is instituted, the prosecutor controls the prosecution in court, because the power to prosecute belongs to the State and not to the offended party.
The offended party may participate through a private prosecutor only with the authority and under the supervision of the public prosecutor, and only so far as the participation is consistent with the public nature of the criminal action.
Once the information has been filed in court, dismissal, withdrawal, downgrading, or substantial amendment is no longer a purely executive act because the court must approve any disposition that affects the pending case.
The court is not bound to accept the prosecutor's recommendation mechanically, since the court must protect the orderly administration of criminal justice and the rights of both the accused and the People.
Before arraignment, an information may generally be amended in form or substance without leave of court if the amendment does not prejudice rights already attached under the Rules; after arraignment, substantial amendments are restricted because the accused has already pleaded to a definite charge.
Relation to the Civil Action
The institution of the criminal action generally carries with it the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense.
The civil action is not deemed included when the offended party has waived it, reserved the right to file it separately where reservation is allowed, or filed it ahead of the criminal action.
This implied institution concerns only civil liability arising from the offense charged, and it does not convert every related contractual, property, or administrative claim into part of the criminal case.
The prosecutor's control of the criminal action does not eliminate the offended party's interest in civil liability, but civil recovery remains dependent on the procedural rules governing implied institution, reservation, independent civil actions, and the evidence received in the criminal case.
Defects in Institution
A defect in the mode of institution must be matched with the correct procedural consequence, because not every defect produces dismissal with prejudice.
| Defect | Ordinary consequence |
|---|---|
| No preliminary investigation despite a charge requiring it | Proceedings may be suspended and preliminary investigation or reinvestigation ordered if the right is timely invoked |
| Complaint filed with an unauthorized officer | The filing may fail to produce the intended procedural effects and may require refiling before the proper officer |
| Information not signed by the prosecutor | The accusatory pleading is defective because an information derives its authority from the prosecutor's subscription |
| Direct court filing in a chartered city where prosecutor filing is required | The filing may be treated as procedurally improper and routed through the prosecutor unless the charter or applicable law allows direct filing |
| Absence of required offended-party complaint for an offense that needs one | The prosecution cannot validly proceed until the required complaint exists or a legal exception applies |
| Failure to undergo mandatory barangay conciliation | The action is premature and may be dismissed or suspended without resolving guilt or innocence |
A dismissal based on a curable defect in institution is generally not an adjudication of guilt or innocence and does not by itself bar a new prosecution, unless the dismissal occurs under circumstances that satisfy the requisites of double jeopardy.
The accused should timely object to defects that the Rules treat as waivable, because silence until after arraignment may allow the case to proceed despite an earlier irregularity.
The prosecution should file in the proper office, against the proper persons, and through the proper accusatory pleading, because institution fixes the procedural starting point from which prescription, court action, amendment, and the accused's procedural rights are measured.