Criminal Procedure an information, the allegations of which must be Alonte v. Savellano.

Requirements of Due Process in

proven by the government beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal Proceedings:
Chapter I: Preliminary Considerations  The government and the accused present their
evidence before the court which shall decide either (a) That the court or tribunal trying the case is properly
on acquittal or conviction of the accused clothed with judicial power to hear and determine
I. Basic Concepts
 In its decision-making process, that court shall the matter before it;
consider no evidence which has not been formally (b) That jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over the
1. Criminal procedure – treats of (a) the series of
offered person of the accused;
processes by which the criminal laws are enforced
 The court in the system therefore, has a passive role (c) That the accused is given opportunity to heard;
and (b) by which the State prosecutes persons who
and relies largely on the evidence presented both (d) That judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing
violates the penal laws.
sides to the action in order to reach a verdict
People v. Lacson. Criminal procedure “regulates the steps A. Requisites for the Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction
2. Inquisitorial system – The court plays a very active
by which one who committed a crime is to be punished
role and is not limited to the evidence presented Cruz v. CA. Requisites before a court can acquire
before it jurisdiction over criminal cases:
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure
Defines crimes and Lays down the processes by
 The court may utilize evidence gathered outside the (a) Jurisdiction over the subject matter
prescribe penalties for such which an offender is made
court and a judge or a group of judges under this (b) Jurisdiction over the territory
crimes to answer for the violation
system actively participates in the gathering of facts (c) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
of criminal laws
and evidence instead of mere passively receiving
information or evidence from the parties. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter vs. Jurisdiction over
2. Black’s Law Dictionary. Criminal procedure is “a
 The judge steers the course of the proceedings by the Person of the Accused
generic term to describe the network of laws and
directing and supervising the gathering of the
rules which governs the procedural administration of
evidence and the questioning of the witnesses of the 1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter – refers to the
justice”
case. authority of the court to hear and determine a
 Counsels have less active role than in the adversarial particular criminal case. The offense is one which the
 Starts with the initial contact of the alleged
system. court is by law authorized to take cognizance.
lawbreaker with the justice machinery including the
2. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused – refers
investigation of the crime
Liberal Interpretation of the Rules to the authority of the court, not over the subject
 Concludes either with a judgment exonerating the
matter of the criminal litigation, but over the person
accused or the final imposition of a penalty against
Rule 1, Sec. 6. Construction – These Rules shall be liberally charged.
him.
construed in order to promote their objective of securing a
just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action Antiporda v. Garchitorena. This kind of jurisdiction
3. In the prosecution for the violation of the penal laws,
and proceeding. requires that “the person charged with the offense must
criminal procedure has the imposing task of
have been brought in to its forum for trial, (1) forcibly by
balancing clashing societal interests primarily
1. Cariaga v. People, (2010). Since the appeal involved a warrant of arrest or (2) upon his voluntary submission to
between those of the government and those of the
criminal case and the possibility of a person being the court”
individual.
deprived of liberty due to a procedural lapse is great,
a relaxation of the Rules was warranted. Jurisdiction over the Territory; Venue in Criminal Cases
The Adversarial and Accusatorial System

Due Process; Mandatory 1. Antiporda v. Garchitorena. This element requires

1. Queto v. Catolico. Adversarial or accusatorial system
that the offense must have been committed within
– contemplates two contending parties before the
Albert v. University Publishing House, (1965). Due process the court’s territorial jurisdiction.
court which hears them impartially and renders
judgment only after trial (system of procedure in the in criminal proceedings is mandatory and indispensable
and cannot be met without the proverbial “law which Fullero v. People. This fact is to be determined by the facts
Philippines)
hears before it condemns and proceeds upon inquiry and alleged in the complaint or information as regards the
renders judgment only after trial” place where the offense charged was committed.
 In this system, the accusation starts with a formal
indictment called in our jurisdiction as a complaint or
Barrameda v. CA. In all criminal prosecutions, the action
shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality
or territory (1) wherein the offense was committed or (2)
where anyone of the essential ingredients took place.
2. Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of
jurisdiction.
Rule 110, Sec. 15(a). Subject to existing laws, the criminal
action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the
municipality or territory where the offense was committed
or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.
3. Campanano v. Datuin, (2007). It is doctrinal that in
criminal cases, venue is an essential element of
jurisdiction, and that the jurisdiction of a court over a
criminal case is determined by the allegations in the
complaint or information.
Purpose: Not to compel the defendant to move to, and
appear in, a different court from that of the province
where the crime was committed as it would cause him
great inconvenience in looking for his witnesses and other
evidence in another place.
4. Macasaet v. People. Territorial jurisdiction in
criminal cases is the territory where the court has
jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense
allegedly committed therein by the accused.
The court cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged
with an offense allegedly committed outside of that
limited territory and if the evidence adduced during the
trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere
else, the court should dismiss the action for want of
jurisdiction.
5. Isip v. People. The concept of venue in actions in
criminal cases, unlike in civil cases is jurisdictional –
for jurisdiction to be acquired in criminal cases, the
offense should have been committed or any of its
essential elements should have taken place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court
Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Supergreen, Inc.
The RTC of Manila has no authority to issue a search
warrant for offenses committed in Cavite.
When a Court has Jurisdiction to Try Offenses Not
Committed within its Territorial Jurisdiction
GR: The offense must be prosecuted and tried in the place
where the same was committed.
XPN:
1. Rule 110, Sec. 15(d). Crimes committed outside the
Philippines but punishable under Article 2 of the
Revised Penal Code shall be cognizable by the court
where the criminal action is first filed.
RPC, Art. 2. Application of its provisions - Except as
provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced
not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but
also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship
or airship
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note
of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities
issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into these islands of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should
commit an offense in the exercise of their functions;
or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national
security and the law of nations, defined in Title One
of Book Two of this Code.
Crimes against National Security
1. Treason
2. Conspiracy or proposal to commit treason
3. Misprision of treason
4. Espionage
5. Inciting to war and giving motive of reprisals
6. Violation of neutrality
7. Correspondence with Hostile Country
8. Flight to Enemy’s Country
Crimes against the Law of Nations
1. Piracy
2. Mutiny
3. Qualified Piracy
2. 1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5(4). The SC orders a
change of venue or place of trial to avoid miscarriage
of justice
3. Rule 110, Sec. 15(b). Where an offense is committed
in a train, aircraft, or other public or private vehicle
while in the course of its trip, the criminal action shall
be instituted and tried in the (1) court of any
municipality or territory where such train, aircraft or
other vehicle passed during such its trip, (2) including
the place of its departure and arrival.
4. Rule 110, Sec. 15(c). Where an offense is committed
on board a vessel in the course of its voyage, the
criminal action shall be instituted and tried (1) in the
court of the first port of entry or (2) of any
municipality or territory where the vessel passed
during such voyage, subject to the generally accepted
principles of international law.
5. Subido v. Sandiganbayan. Where the case is
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, the jurisdiction of
which depends upon the nature of the offense and
the position of the accused, the offense need not be
tried in the place where the act was committed but
where the courts actually sits in Quezon City.
R.A. 8249, Sec. 2. Official Station; Place of Holding
Sessions - The Sandiganbayan shall have its principal office
in the Metro Manila area and shall hold sessions thereat
for the trial and determination of cases filed with it:
Provided, however, That cases originating from the
principal geographical regions of the country, that is, from
Luzon, Visayas or Mindanao, shall be heard in their
respective regions of origin except only when the greater
convenience of the accused and of the witnesses, or other
compelling considerations require the contrary, in which
instance a case originating from one geographical region
may be heard in another geographical region: Provided,
further, That for this purpose the presiding justice shall
authorize any divisions of the court to hold sessions at
any time and place outside Metro Manila and, where the
interest of justice so requires, outside the territorial
boundaries of the Philippines. The Sandiganbayan may
require the services of the personnel and the use of
facilities of the courts or other government offices where
any of the divisions is holding sessions and the personnel
of such courts or offices shall be subject to the orders of
the Sandiganbayan.
2012 Bar, Q. 16: A criminal case should be instituted and
tried in the place where the offense or any of the
essential elements took place, except in:
a. Estafa cases;
b. Complex crimes;
c. Cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan;
d. Court martial cases.
A: Territorial jurisdiction is immaterial in cases falling
under the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. All public officials
who committed an offense which is cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan shall be tried before it regardless of the
place of commission of the offense. In addition, the court
martial is not a criminal court.
6. Art. 360, RPC, as amended by, R.A. 1289 and R.A.
4363. Where the offense is written defamation, the
criminal action need not necessarily be filed with the
RTC of the province or city where the alleged libelous
article was printed and first published. It may be filed
in the province or city where the offended party held
office at the time of the commission of the offense if
he is a public officer, or in the province or city where
he actually resided at the time of the commission of
the offense in case the offended party is a private
individual.
7. Agbayani v. Sayo. Restated Art. 360 of the RPC
(written defamation) as follows.
(a) Whether the offended party is a public official or a
private person, the criminal action maybe filed in the
CFI (now RTC) of the province or city where the
libelous article is printed or first published
(b) If the offended party is a private individual, the
criminal action may also be filed in the CFI (now RTC)
of the province where he actually resided at the time
of the commission of the offense
(c) If the offended party is a public officer whose office
is in Manila at the time of the commission of the
offense, the action may be filed in the CFI (RTC) of
Manila
(d) If the offended officer is a public officer holding
office outside of Manila, the action may be filed in
the CFI (RTC) of the province or city where he held
office at the time of the commission of the offense.
 In circumstances mentioned in (a) above, the
information must allege with particularity where the
defamatory article was printed and first published, as
evidenced or supported by, for instance, the address
of their editorial or business offices in the case of
newspapers, magazines or serial publications. This
pre-condition becomes necessary in order to forestall
any inclination to harass.
Bonifacio et. al. v. RTC of Makati. In a case pertaining to
defamatory material appearing on a website on the
internet, the place where the material was first accessed
cannot be equated with “printing and first publication”
Foz Jr. v. People. Merely alleging that “the newspaper is a
daily publication with a considerable circulation in the City
of Iloilo and throughout the region” did not establish that
the said publication was first printed and first published in
Iloilo.
Merely alleging that the offended party is a physician and
medical practitioner in a particular place does not clearly
and positively indicate that said person is residing in such
place at the time of the commission of the crime. One who
transacts business in a place and spends a considerable
time thereat does not render such person a resident
therein.
B. Criminal Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
1. Gomez v. Montalban. Jurisdiction is the right to act
or the power or authority to hear and determine a
cause – it is a question of law
It imports the power and authority to hear and determine
issues of facts and of law, the power to inquire into the
facts, to apply the law and to pronounce judgment
Antiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena. Criminal jurisdiction is the
authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose
the punishment for it.
2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter – is the power to
hear and determine cases of the general class to
which the proceedings in question belong.
It is the power to deal with the general subject involved in
the action, and means not simply jurisdiction over the
particular case then occupying the attention of the court
but jurisdiction of the class of cases to which the particular
case belongs.
How Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter is Conferred
1. By law. It is the law that confers jurisdiction and not
the rules. In order to ascertain whether a court has
jurisdiction or not, the provisions of law shall be
inquired into.
De Jesus v. Garcia. When the law confers jurisdiction, that
conferment must be clear. It cannot be presumed. It must
clearly appear from the statute or will not be held to exist.
2. Tolentino v. Social Security Commission. Jurisdiction
cannot be fixed by the will of the parties nor can it be
acquired or diminished by any act of the parties.
3. Fukuzume v. People. Jurisdiction over the subject
matter in a criminal case cannot be conferred upon
the court by the accused, express waiver or
otherwise, since such jurisdiction is conferred by the
sovereign authority which organized the court, and is
given only by law in the manner and form prescribed
by law.
4. Cudia v. CA. Since it is conferred by law, it is not
conferred by mere administrative policy of any trial
court.
How Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter is Determined
1. Jurisdiction over criminal cases is determined by the
allegations in the complaint or information.
Mobilia Products v. Umezawa, (2005). In order to
determine jurisdiction in criminal cases, the complaint or
information must be examined for the purpose of
ascertaining (a) WON the facts set out therein and (b) the
punishment provided for by law for such acts falls within
the jurisdiction of the court in which the criminal action is
filed.
2. Pangilinan v. CA. It is the averments in the
information which characterizes the crime to be
prosecuted and the court before which it must be
tried.
3. Lacson v. Executive Secretary. Jurisdiction of the
court is determined by the allegations in the
 complaint or information, and not by the evidence
adduced during the trial.
Macasaet v. People. If the evidence adduced during the
trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere
else, the court should dismiss the action for want of
jurisdiction.
U.S. v. Jimenez. The court must examine the complaint for
the purpose of ascertaining whether or not (1) the fact set
out and (2) punishment provided by law for such act, fall
within the jurisdiction of the court.
4. Uy v. Sandiganbayan. In cases cognizable by
Sandiganbayan, both (1) the nature of the offense
and (2) the position occupied by the accused are
conditions sine qua non before the Sandiganbayan
can validly take cognizance of the case.
5. Cuyos v. Garcia. In complex crimes, jurisdiction is
with the court having jurisdiction to impose the
maximum and most serious penalty imposable on
the offense forming part of the complex crimes.
2003 Bar, Q. XIII: In complex crimes, how is the
jurisdiction of a court determined?
A: In a complex crime, jurisdiction over the whole complex
crime must be lodged with the trial court having
jurisdiction to impose the maximum and most serious
penalty imposable on an offense forming part of the
complex crime. (Cuyos v. Garcia, 1999)
Statute Applicable to Criminal Action
1. Palana v. People, (2007). Jurisdiction is determined
by law in force at the time of the institution of the
action and not during the arraignment of the accused
2. People v. Lagon. The statute in force at the time of
the institution of the action and not at the time of its
commission determines jurisdiction, even if the
penalty that may be imposed at the time of its
commission is less and does not fall under the court’s
jurisdiction.
3. People v. Sandiganbayan, (2009). The jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan to try a criminal case is to be
determined at the time of the institution of the action
(1999), not at the time of the commission of the
offense (2004).
Use of Imposable Penalty
1. People v. Purisima, (1982) In determining WON the
court has jurisdiction over an offense, we consider
the penalty which may be imposed and not the
actual penalty imposed after the trial.
2. People v. Buissan. Jurisdiction is determined by (1)
the extent of the penalty which the law imposes for
the offense, (2) on the basis of facts alleged in the
information or complaint
Principle of Adherence of Jurisdiction or Continuing
Jurisdiction
1. Continuing jurisdiction “once a court has acquired
jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the court
has done all that it can do in the exercise of that
jurisdiction.”
People v. Chupeco, (1964). Jurisdiction, once vested,
cannot be withdrawn or defeated by a subsequent valid
amendment of the information.
Rilloraza v. Arciaga, (1967). It cannot be lost by a new law
amending the rules of jurisdiction.
2. Flores v. Sumaljag. The court was held not to have
lost jurisdiction over the case involving a public
official by the mere fact that the said official ceased
to be in office during the pendency of the case.
3. People v. Cawaling. GR: Jurisdiction is not affected by
a subsequent legislation vesting jurisdiction over such
proceeding in another tribunal.
XPN:
(1) When the statute expressly so provides, or
(2) is construed to the effect that it is intended to
operate upon actions pending before its enactment.
Jalandoni v. Drilon. Once a complaint or information is
filed in court, any disposition of the case such as its
dismissal or continuance rests on the sound discretion of
the court
Pilapil v. Garchitorena. Even if the prosecution files a
motion to withdraw the information, the court may grant
or deny the same in the faithful exercise of its judicial
prerogative.
2005 Bar, Q. XII(a): Mariano was convicted by the RTC for
raping Victoria and meted the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. While serving sentence at the National
Penitentiary, Mariano and Victoria were married.
Mariano filed a motion in said court for his release from
the penitentiary on his claim that under R.A. No. 8353,
his marriage to Victoria extinguished the criminal action
against him for rape, as well as the penalty imposed on
him. However, the court denied the motion on the
ground that it had lost jurisdiction over the case after its
decision had become final and executory.
Is the filing of the court correct? Explain.
A: No. The court can never lose jurisdiction so long as its
decision has not yet been fully implemented and satisfied.
Finality of a judgment cannot operate to divest a court of
its jurisdiction. The court retains an interest in seeing the
proper execution and implementation of its judgments,
and to that extent, may issue such orders necessary and
appropriate for these purposes. (Echegaray v. Secretary of
Justice, G.R. No. 13205, January 19, 1999. Besides, there is
a supervening event which renders execution unnecessary
(So v. CA, 2002)
1993 Bar, Q. XI: Judge Villamor was the Presiding Judge
of the RTC of QC (Branch 50), in the criminal case for
qualified theft against Ding. After trial. Judge Villamor
acquitted Ding of the charge.
Subsequently, Paterno, the complaining witness in the
aforesaid criminal case, filed a civil action for damages
against Judge Villamor for knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment when he acquitted Ding of the qualified theft.
The case was filed in the RTC of Pasay City (Branch 100)
presided over by Judge Villegas. Judge Villamor filed a
motion to dismiss the civil case for lack of authority on
the part of RTC of Pasay City (Branch 100) to review his
(Judge Villamor) decision.
How should the motion dismiss be resolved? Why?
A: The motion to dismiss should be granted. The RTC of
Pasay City has no authority to review the decision of Judge
Villamor acquitting Ding. To allow Judge Villegas to
proceed with the action for damages against Judge
Villamor, a co-equal judge of a co-equal court would in
effect permit a court to review and interfere with the
Judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no
appellate Jurisdiction or power to review. (Villamor vs.
Solas)
Alternative: The motion to dismiss should be denied. Since
the criminal case was terminated with the acquittal of
Ding, the civil action for damages against Judge Villamor
for knowingly rendering an unjust Judgment may properly
be filed with the RTC of Pasay City having jurisdiction
thereof.
Dismissal on Jurisdictional Grounds; Special Appearance
1. Fukuzume v. People. An objection based on the
ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the
subject matter may be raised or considered motu
proprio by the court at any stage of the proceedings
or on appeal.
2. Garcia v. Sandiganbayan. A special appearance
before the court to challenge the jurisdiction of the
court over the person is not tantamount to estoppels
or a waiver of the objection and is not voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
Raising the Issue of Jurisdiction for the First Time in the
SC
1. Fukuzume v. People. An accused is not precluded
from raising the issue of jurisdiction of the trial court
over the offense charged because the issue may be
raised or considered motu proprio by the court at any
stage of the proceedings or on appeal.
2. Antiporda v. Garchitorena. A party cannot invoke the
jurisdiction of the court to secure affirmative relief
against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to
obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same
jurisdiction.
People v. Munar. After voluntarily submitting a cause and
encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too
late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or power of
the court.
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. A party may be stopped for reasons
of public policy as when he initially invokes the jurisdiction
of the court and the later on repudiates that same
jurisdiction.
Pangilinan v. CA. Even on appeal, and even if the
reviewing parties did not raise the issue of jurisdiction, the
reviewing court is not precluded from ruling that the lower
court had no jurisdiction over the case.
Foz, Jr. v. People, (2009). For Tijam v. Sibanghanoy to be
applied to a criminal case, the factual circumstances which
justified the application of the bar by laches, must be
present in the case.
C. Criminal Jurisdiction Over the Person of the Accused
1. Valdepenas v. People. Jurisdiction over the person of
the accused is acquired upon (1) his arrest or
apprehension, with or without a warrant, or (2) his
voluntary appearance or submission to the
jurisdiction of the court.
Sapugay v. CA. GR: Seeking affirmative relief is deemed to
be a submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
Santiago v. Vasquez. The voluntary submission of the
accused to the jurisdiction of the court may be effected (1)
by filing a motion to quash, (2) appearing for arraignment,
(3) participating in the trial or (4) by giving bail.
2. Cojuangco v. Sandiganbayan. The assertion that the
court never acquired jurisdiction over the person of
the accused because the warrant of arrest issued is
null and void because no probable cause was found
by the court issuing it, cannot be sustained because
he posted bail. The giving or posting of bail by the
accused is tantamount to submission of his person
to the jurisdiction of the court. Even if it is conceded
that the warrant issued was void, the defendant
waived all his rights to object by appearing and giving
a bond.
People v. Rivera, (2009). By submitting oneself to the
jurisdiction of the court, as shown by entering into a
counsel-assisted plea, the active participation in the trial
and presenting evidence for the defense, the accused is
deemed to have waived his constitutional protection
against illegal arrest.
3. Miranda v. Tuliao, (2006). Not all acts seeking
affirmative relief would constitute a voluntary
appearance or submission to the jurisdiction of the
court.
Making a special appearance in court to question the
jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused is
not a voluntary appearance as when in a criminal case a
motion to quash is filed precisely on that ground.
There is no submission to the jurisdiction of the court
when the accused files a motion to quash the warrant of
arrest because it is the very legality of the court process
forcing the submission of the person of the accused that is
the very issues in a motion to quash a warrant of arrest.
4. Miranda v. Tuliao. Being in the custody of law is not
necessarily being under the jurisdiction of the court
such as when a person arrested by virtue of a warrant
files a motion before arraignment to quash the
warrant.
One can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court, and yet
to be in the custody of law, as when an accused escapes
custody after trial has commenced
Custody of the law is literally custody over the body of the
accused. It includes, but is not limited to, detention.
D. Injunction to Restrain Criminal Prosecution
GR: The Court will not issue writs of prohibition or
injunction preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain,
criminal prosecution. It will not lie when the case is still at
the stage of preliminary investigation or reinvestigation.
XPN: Camanag v. Guerrero.
(1) When the injunction is necessary to afford adequate
protection (AAP) to the constitutional rights of the
accused
(2) When it is necessary for the orderly administration of
justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of action;
(3) When there is a prejudicial question which is
subjudice (“under judgment; or under
consideration”);
(4) When the acts of the officer are without or in excess
of authority
(5) Where the prosecution is under an invalid law,
ordinance or regulation; (LOR)
(6) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
(7) Where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense
(8) Where it is a case of persecution rather than
prosecution
(9) Where the charges are manifestly false and
motivated by the lust for vengeance; and
(10) When there is clearly no prima facie case against the
accused and a motion to quash on that ground has
been denied.
1999 Bar, Q. XII(c): Will injunction lie to restrain the
commencement of a criminal action? Explain.
1989 Bar, Q. XII: May the prosecution of a criminal case
be enjoined? Explain.
E. Mandamus to Compel Prosecution
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Reynaldo and
Adrandea, (2010). Mandamus is a remedial measure for
parties aggrieved. It shall issue when "any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects
the performance of an act which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station."
The writ of mandamus is not available to control discretion
neither may it be issued to compel the exercise of
discretion. Truly, it is a matter of discretion on the part of
the prosecutor to determine which persons appear
responsible for the commission of a crime.
However, the moment he finds one to be so liable it
becomes his inescapable duty to charge him therewith
and to prosecute him for the same. In such a situation,
the rule loses its discretionary character and becomes
mandatory.
If despite the sufficiency of the evidence before the
prosecutor, he refuses to file the corresponding
information against the person responsible, he abuses his
discretion. His act is tantamount to a deliberate refusal to
perform a duty enjoined by law. The Secretary of Justice,
on the other hand, gravely abused his discretion when,
despite the existence of sufficient evidence for the crime
of estafa as acknowledged by the investigating prosecutor,
he completely ignored the latter’s finding and proceeded
with the questioned resolution anchored on purely
evidentiary matters in utter disregard of the concept of
probable cause as pointed out in Balangauan. To be sure,
findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to
review unless shown to have been made with grave abuse.
The present case calls for the application of the exception.
Generally, a public prosecutor is afforded wide latitude of
discretion in the conduct of a preliminary investigation.
By way of exception, however, judicial review is allowed
where respondent has clearly established that the
prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion that is,
when he has exercised his discretion "in an arbitrary,
capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of
passion or personal hostility, patent and gross enough as
to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law."
1999 Bar, Q. XII(b): A filed with the Office of the Fiscal a
Complaint for estafa against B. After the preliminary
investigation, the Fiscal dismissed the Complaint for lack
of merit. May the Fiscal be compelled by mandamus to
file the case in court? Explain.
A: No. The public prosecutor may not be compelled by
mandamus to file the case in court because the
determination of probable cause is within the discretion of
the prosecutor. The remedy is an appeal to the Secretary
of Justice (Rule 112, Sec. 4)
1991 Bar, Q. XI(b): After reviewing the record of a
preliminary investigation of a homicide case, the
Secretary of Justice reversed the resolution of the
Provincial Prosecutor and directed the latter to move for
the dismissal of the Information which had been filed in
the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. The Provincial
Prosecutor thus filed such motion.
If the judge refuses to grant the Provincial Prosecutor's
motion to dismiss, may a special civil action for
mandamus lie to compel the Judge to grant the motion?
A: No, mandamus will not lie because the court has
discretion whether to grant or deny the motion.
2015 Bar, Q. XI(b): The Ombudsman found probable
cause to charge with plunder the provincial governor,
vice governor, treasurer, budget officer, and accountant.
An Information for plunder was filed with the
Sandiganbayan against the provincial officials except for
the treasurer who was granted immunity when he agreed
to cooperate with the Ombudsman in the prosecution of
the case. Immediately, the governor filed with the
Sandiganbayan a petition for certiorari against the
Ombudsman claiming there was grave abuse of
discretion in excluding the treasurer from the
Information.
Will the writ of mandamus lie to compel the Ombudsman
to include the treasurer in the Information?
A: No. Mandamus will not lie to compel the Ombudsman
to include the treasurer in the Information. In matter
involving the exercise of judgment and discretion,
mandamus may only be resorted to in order to compel
respondent tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
to take action, but it cannot be used to direct the manner
or the particular way discretion is to be exercised, or to
compel the retraction or reversal of an action already
taken in the exercise of judgment or discretion (Ampatuan,
Jr. v. Sec. De Lima, G.R. No. 197291, April 3, 2013)
Evidently, the Ombudsman’s act of granting the treasurer
immunity from prosecution under such terms and
conditions as it may determine (R.A. 6770, Sec. 17) is a
discretionary duty that may not be compelled by the
extraordinary writ of mandamus.
2007 Bar, Q. IX: L was charged with illegal possession of
shabu before the RTC. Although bail was allowable under
his indictment, he could not afford to post bail, and so he
remained in detention at the City Jail. For various reasons
ranging from the promotion of the Presiding Judge, to the
absence of the trial prosecutor, and to the lack of the
notice to the City Jail Warden, the arraignment of L was
postponed nineteen times over a period of two years.
Twice during that period, L's counsel filed motions to
dismiss, invoking the right of the accused to a speedy
trial. Both motions were denied by the RTC. Can L file a
petition for mandamus? Reason briefly.
A: Yes, L can file a petition for mandamus to enforce his
constitutional right to a speedy trial which was capriciously
denied to him.
There is absolutely no justification for postponing an
arraignment of the accused 19 times and a period of 2
years. The numerous, unreasonable postponements of the
arraignment demonstrate an abusive exercise of discretion
(Lumanlaw v. Peralta, 2006). Arraignment of an accused
would not take 30 minutes of the precious time of the
court, as against the preventive imprisonment and
deprivation of liberty of the accused just because he does
not have the means to post bail although the crime
charged is bailable.
The right to speedy trial is guaranteed by the Constitution
to every citizen accused of a crime, more so when he is
under preventive imprisonment. L, in the given case, was
merely invoking his constitutional right when a motion to
dismiss the case was twice filed by his counsel. The RTC is
virtually enjoined by the fundamental law to respect such
right; hence a duty. Having refused or neglected to
discharge the duty enjoined by law whereas there is no
appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, the remedy of mandamus may be
availed of.
II. Criminal Jurisdiction of Courts
A. Criminal Jurisdiction of the MTC, MCTC, and MeTC
Except in cases falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the RTC and of the Sandiganbayan, the MTC
shall exercise the following criminal jurisdiction:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of
city or municipal ordinances committed within their
respective territorial jurisdiction (B.P. 129, Sec. 32(1);
R.A. 7691)
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6)
years irrespective of the amount of fine, and
regardless of other imposable or accessory
penalties, including the civil liability arising from
such offenses irrespective of kind, nature, value or
amount (B.P. 129, Sec. 32(2); R.A. 7691)
Note: No. 2 applies when the offense is punishable by
imprisonment or fine or both but not when the offense is
punishable by fine only
Note: The exception “Except in cases falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC and of the
Sandiganbayan” indicates that the MTC does not at all
time have jurisdiction over offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years if jurisdiction is
vested by law either in the RTC or Sandiganbyan.
GR: Based on Art. 27 of RPC, MTC has jurisdiction over
offenses punishable by up to the maximum of prision
correctional which shall not exceed six years.
XPN:
(1) Offenses which even if punishable by prision
correccional are not cognizable by the MTC because
of express provision of law (e.g. Art. 355, RPC on
Libel, in this case the RTC has jurisdiction)
(2) Some forms of bribery (Art. 210, RPC) which are
punishable by prision correccional, are within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan pursuant to Sec.
4(a) of PD 1606 as amended
(3) Indirect bribery (Art. 211, RPC), under Sandiganbayan
pursuant to PD 1606, as amended.
3. Where the only penalty provided for by law is a fine,
the amount thereof shall determine the jurisdiction of
the court under the original provisions of BP 129 (Sec.
32(2)) which provided that the MTC shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses
punishable with a fine of not more than P 4,000.
4. Exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses involving
damage to property through criminal negligence
(B.P. 129, Sec. 32(2); R.A. 7691)
5. Violations of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)
6. Summary Procedure in the following cases (1991 Rule
on Summary Procedure):
a. Violations of (1) traffic laws, rules and regulations, (2)
violations of the rental law; (3) violations of municipal
or city ordinances;
b. All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed
by law for the offense charged is imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) months, or a fine not exceeding
one thousand pesos (P1,000), or both, irrespective of
other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or
of the civil liability arising therefrom;
c. Offenses involving damage to property through
criminal negligence where the imposable fine does
not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000)
7. Special jurisdiction to decide on applications for bail
in criminal cases in the absence of all RTC judges in a
province or city (BP 129, Sec. 35)
2012 Bar, Q. 75: The MTC, acting as an Environmental
Court, has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the
following, except:
a. criminal offenses punishable under the Chain Saw
Act (R.A. 9175)
b. violation of the NIPAS Law (R.A. 7586)
c. violation of the Mining Laws
d. violation of Anti-Pollution Laws
A: (a). The MeTC exercises exclusive original jurisdiction
over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding 6 years irrespective of the amount of fine (B.P.
129, Sec. 32). Relative thereto, R.A. 9175 (Chain Saw Act of
2002), penalizes any person who is found to be in
possession of a chain saw and uses the same to cut trees
and timber in forest land or elsewhere except as
authorized by the Department with imprisonment of 6
years and 1 day to 8 years or a fine of not less than
P30,000 but not more than P50,000 or both at the
discretion of the court. Clearly, the court which has
jurisdiction over violations of the Chain Saw Act is the RTC,
and not the MeTC, acting as an Environmental Court.
B. Criminal Jurisdiction of Regional Trial Court (RTC)
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not
within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal or body, except those now falling under the
exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. (BP 129, Sec. 20)
2011 Bar, Q. (79): The information charges PNP Chief Luis
Santos, (Salary Grade 28), with "taking advantage of his
public position as PNP Head by feloniously shooting JOSE
ONA, inflicting on the latter mortal wounds which caused
his death." Based solely on this allegation, which court
has jurisdiction over the case?
(a) Sandiganbayan only
(b) Sandiganbayan or Regional Trial Court
(c) Sandiganbayan or Court Martial
(d) Regional Trial Court only
2. Appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the
MTC within its territorial jurisdiction (BP 129, Sec.
22)
3. Special jurisdiction to handle exclusively criminal
cases as designated by the SC (BP 129, Sec. 23)
4. Jurisdiction over criminal cases under specific laws
such as:
a. Written defamation (Art. 360, RPC)
b. Jurisdiction of designated courts over cases in
violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002 (R.A. 9165) as provided under Sec. 90
thereof.
c. Violations of IP rights
d. Jurisdiction of designated courts over criminal cases
under R.A. 8369
2012 Bar, Q. 72: Cesar, age 16, a habitual offender, was
caught in possession of .001 grams of marijuana. He was
charged for violation of Sec. 16 of R.A. 9165, The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Law. The court which
has jurisdiction is:
a. the MTC;
b. the RTC;
c. Special Drugs Court;
d. Family Court.
A: (d). The State is mandated to safeguard the well-being
of its citizenry, particularly children from harmful effects of
dangerous drugs on their physical and mental well-being
and to defend them against acts or omissions detrimental
to their development and preservation. Pursuant to this
policy and the mandate of R.A. 8369, also known as the
Family Courts Act of 1997, the Family Courts are vested
with exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases against
minors charged with drug-related offenses (A.M. No. 07-8-
2-SC, Sec. 2). The objective is to ensure that the rights of
children charged with violation of any of the offenses
under R.A. 8369 are well protected, and that their
interests and those of their family and the community are
adequately balanced (A.M. No. 07-8-2-SC, Sec. 2)
Cabral v. Jacinto Uy, (2010). The public prosecutor has the
authority to file a criminal information for violation of P.D.
957 and the RTC has the power to hear and adjudicate the
action, the penalty being a P20,000 fine and imprisonment
of not exceeding 10 years or both such fine and
imprisonment.
5. Jurisdiction in Money Laundering Cases
C. Criminal Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
1. Serana v. Sandiganbayan, (2008). The jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan is set by P.D. 1606 as amended
and not by R.A. 3019.
2. R.A. 7975
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction - The Sandiganbayan shall exercise
original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
(a) Violations of R.A. 3019, as amended, otherwise
known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
R.A. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the
Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the
principal accused are officials occupying the following
positions in the government, whether in permanent,
acting or interim capacity, at the time of the
commission of the offense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the
positions of regional director and higher, otherwise
classified as grade 27 and higher, of the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989
(Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:
a. Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the
sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers,
assessors, engineers, and other provincial
department heads;
b. City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the
sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors,
engineers, and other city department heads;
c. Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the
position of consul and higher;
d. Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains,
and all officers of higher rank;
e. PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of higher
rank;
f. City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants,
and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the
Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
g. Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
government-owned or controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions or
foundations;
(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified
as Grade "27" and up under the Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989;
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional
Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of
the Constitution; and
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade
"27" and higher under the Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989;
(b) Other offenses or felonies committed by the public
officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a)
of this section in relation to their office.
(c) Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in
connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-
A.
In cases where none of the principal accused are
occupying positions corresponding to salary grade "27" or
higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or
PNP officers occupying the rank of superintendent or
higher, or their equivalent, exclusive jurisdiction thereof
shall be vested in the proper Regional Trial Court,
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, as the case may be, pursuant
to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129.
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate
jurisdiction on appeals from the final judgments,
resolutions or orders of regular courts where all the
accused are occupying positions lower than salary grade
"27", or not otherwise covered by the preceding
enumeration.
The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
injunction, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction: Provided, That the jurisdiction
over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme
Court.
The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as
well as the implementing rules that the Supreme Court has
promulgated and may hereafter promulgate, relative to
appeals/petitions for review to the Court of Appeals shall
apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the
Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan
and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the
office of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor,
shall represent the people of the Philippines except in
cases filed pursuant to Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2, 14 and
14-A.
In case private individuals are charged as co-principals,
accomplices or accessories with the public officers or
employees, including those employed in government-
owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried
jointly with said public officers and employees in the
proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction
over them.
3. Prior to R.A. 8249, the law which governed the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan was R.A. 7975
amending P.D. 1606.
 A significant amendment introduced by R.A. 8249 was
the removal of the word principal before the word
accused thus transforming the phrase to read:
“where one or more of the accused”
 It is sufficient that at least one of them be an official
occupying any of the positions enumerated.
Offenses Subject to the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
1. The following offenses are subject to the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan:
a. Violation of R.A. 3019, as amended (Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act)
b. Violations of R.A. 1379 (Act Declaring Forfeiture in
Favor of the State of Any Property Found to have
Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public Officer or
Employee)
c. Violations of Chap. II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II of the
RPC which includes bribery, indirect bribery and
corruption of public officers.
d. Other offenses or felonies, whether simple or
complexed with other crimes, committed by public
officials mentioned in letter “a” of Sec. 4 in relation to
their office.
Serena v. Sandiganbayan. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
over felonies committed by public officials in relation to
their office.
e. Civil and criminal offenses filed pursuant to and in
connection with E.O. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A issued in 1986
Officials and Employees with a Salary Grade of “27” or
Higher
1. Q: Should one or more of the officials charged have
a salary grade of “27” or higher for the
Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over the case?
A: Negative. The law mentions salary grade “27” only in
relation to the following officials:
(a) Officials of the executive branch, occupying the
position of regional director or higher
(b) Members of Congress or officials thereof
(c) All other national and local officials. These officials
are those who are enumerated in letters.
The salary grade of “27” has no reference for example to
(1) provincial governors, (2) vice governors or (3) members
of the sanggunian panlalawigan, panglunsod, (4) directors
or managers of GOCCs, (5) city mayors, (6) vice mayors, (7)
city treasurers, (8) assessors, (9) engineers, (10) trustees of
state of universities, and other officials enumerated in Sec.
4(a)(1) from letters “a” to “g” of PD 1606 as amended.
They are under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
regardless of the salary grade.
2. Inding v. Sandiganbayan. The Congress intended
these officials regardless of their salary grade, to be
specifically included within the Sandiganbayan’s
original jurisdiction, for had it been otherwise, then
there would have been no need for such
enumeration.
Officers Falling Below Salary Grade 27
1. Geduspan v. People. The SC found that the petitioner
held the position of Department Director A of
Philhealth at the time of the commission of the
offense and that position is among those enumerated
in par. 1(g), Sec. 4a of R.A. 8249 over which the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction and which provision
includes “Presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of GOCCs, state universities or educational
institutions or foundations.
2. People v. Sandiganbayan (2010). The Sandiganbayan
has jurisdiction over a member of the Sangguniang
Panglungsod whose salary grade is below 27 for
violation of the Auditing Code of the Philippines
pursuant to R.A. 8249.
Salary Grade Alone Does not Determine Jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan
Geduspan v. People. While the first part of Sec. 4(a) of the
law covers only officials with SG 27 and higher, its second
part specifically includes other executive officials whose
positions may not be with SG27 or higher but who are by
express provision of the law placed under the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan.
A Student Regent of State University is a Public Officer
Serana v. Sandiganbayan. The provision of Sec. 4(a)(1)(g)
of PD 1606 as amended, explicitly vested the
Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents, directors
or trustees, or managers of GOCCs, state universities or
educational institutions or foundations. The petitioner, as
a student regent falls under this category.
The Board of Regents of UP performs functions similar to
those of a board of trustees of a non-stock corporation.
Offenses Committed in Relation to the Office
1. GR: To make an offense one committed in relation to
the office, “the relation has to be such that, in the
legal sense, the offense cannot exist without the
office” (e.g. Offenses in Chap II-VI, Title VII, RPC)
2. Cunanan v. Arceo. Public office is not an element of
the crime of murder, since murder may be committed
by any person whether a public officer or private
citizen.
Sanchez v. Demetriou. There is no direct relation between
the commission of the crime of rape with homicide and
the office as municipal mayor because public office is not
an essential element of the crime charged. The offense can
stand
3. Sanchez v. Demetriou. However, even if the position
is not an essential ingredient of the offense charged,
if the information avers the intimate connection
between the office and the offense, this would bring
the offense within the definition of an offense
“committed in relation to the public office”
4. Esteban v. Sandiganbayan. An offense maybe said to
have been committed in relation to the office if the
offense is “intimately connected” with the office of
the offender and perpetrated while he was in the
performance of his official functions even if public
office is not an element of the offense charged.
It is important however, that the information must allege
the intimate relation between the offense charged and the
discharge of official duties because the factor that
characterizes the charge is the actual recital of the facts in
the complaint or information.
5. Esteban v. Sandiganbayan. The SC sustained the
Sandiganbayan because the information alleged with
clarity that the accused used his official position to
commit the acts charged.
As alleged in the information, the victim was constrained
to approach the accused because it was the latter whose
recommendation was necessary for her appointment as a
casual employee but the accused imposed the condition
that she has to become his girlfriend first and report to his
office daily for a kiss.
6. People v. Montejo. The information clearly alleged
that the murder was a consequence of his act as a
mayor; that he organized armed patrols and civilian
commandos and provided them with arms.
7. Lacson v. Executive Secretary. While the amended
information for murder against the several accused
was alleged to have been committed “in relation to
their official duties as police officers”, it contained no
specific allegations of facts that the shooting of the
victim was intimately related to the discharge of the
official functions of the accused.
When the Actual Specific Allegations of the Intimacy
Between the Offense and the Official Duties of the
Accused Need Not Appear in the Information
1. If public office is a constituent element of the crime
charged as provided for by statute, there is no need
for the information to state the specific factual
allegations of the intimacy between the office and the
crime charged, or that the accused committee the
crime in the performance of his duties.
Ex. Malversation of Public Funds (Art. 217)
Ex. Illegal Use of Public Funds or Property
2. Barriga v. Sandiganbayan, (2005). The requirement is
not complied with if the information merely alleges
that the accused committed the crime charged in
relation to his office because such allegation is merely
a conclusion of law
3. Alarilla v. Sandiganbayan. An offense is deemed to
be committed in relation to the public office of the
accused when (a) such office is an element of the
crime charged; (b) when the offense charged is
intimately connected with the discharge of the official
functions of the accused.
Anti-Money Laundering Cases
R.A. 9160, Sec. 5. Those money laundering cases
committed by public officers and private persons who are
in conspiracy with such public officers shall be under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Forfeiture Cases
Garcia v. Sandiganbayan. A forfeiture case under R.A.
1379 arises out of a cause of action separate and different
from a plunder case, this negating the notion that the
crime of plunder absorbs the forfeiture case.
All that the court needs to determine, by preponderance
of evidence, under R.A. 1379 is the disproportion of
respondent’s properties to his legitimate income, it being
unnecessary to prove how he acquired such properties.
Summary Procedure in Criminal Cases
1. Sec. 1. Scope — This rule shall govern the summary
procedure in the MeTC, the MTCC, the MTC, and the
MCTC in the following cases falling within their
jurisdiction
2. The following cases are subject to summary
procedure:
a. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
b. Violations of the rental law;
c. Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
d. All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed
by law for the offense charged is imprisonment not
exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding
(P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of other imposable
penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil
liability arising therefrom: Provided, however, that in
offenses involving damage to property through
criminal negligence, this Rule shall govern where the
imposable fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00).
3. Sec. 11. How commenced — The filing of criminal
cases falling within the scope of this Rule shall be
either by complaint or by information: Provided,
however, that in Metropolitan Manila and in
Chartered Cities. such cases shall be commenced only
by information, except when the offense cannot be
prosecuted de oficio.
The complaint or information shall be accompanied by the
affidavits of the compliant and of his witnesses in such
number of copies as there are accused plus two (2) copies
for the court's files. If this requirement is not complied
with within five (5) days from date of filing, the care may
be dismissed.
4. Sec. 13. Arraignment and trial — Should the court,
upon a consideration of the complaint or information
and the affidavits submitted by both parties, find no
cause or ground to hold the accused for trial, it shall
order the dismissal of the case; otherwise, the court
shall set the case for arraignment and trial.
If the accused is in custody for the crime charged, he shall
be immediately arraigned and if he enters a plea of guilty,
he shall forthwith be sentenced.
5. Sec. 14, par. 1. Preliminary conference — Before
conducting the trial, the court shall call the parties to
a preliminary conference during which (a) a
stipulation of facts may be entered into, or (b) the
propriety of allowing the accused to enter a plea of
guilty to a lesser offense may be considered, or (c)
such other matters may be taken up to clarify the
issues and to ensure a speedy disposition of the case.
6. Sec. 14, par. 2. However, no admission by the
accused shall be used against him unless reduced to
 writing and signed by the accused and his counsel. A
refusal or failure to stipulate shall not prejudice the
accused.
7. Sec. 15. Procedure of trial — At the trial, the
affidavits submitted by the parties shall constitute the
direct testimonies of the witnesses who executed the
same. Witnesses who testified may be subjected to
cross-examination, redirect or re-cross examination.
Should the affiant fail to testify, his affidavit shall not
be considered as competent evidence for the party
presenting the affidavit, but the adverse party may
utilize the same for any admissible purpose.
Except in rebuttal or surrebuttal, no witness shall be
allowed to testify unless his affidavit was previously
submitted to the court in accordance with Section 12
hereof.
However, should a party desire to present additional
affidavits or counter-affidavits as part of his direct
evidence, he shall so manifest during the preliminary
conference, stating the purpose thereof. If allowed by the
court, the additional affidavits of the prosecution or the
counter-affidavits of the defense shall be submitted to the
court and served on the adverse party not later than three
(3) days after the termination of the preliminary
conference. If the additional affidavits are presented by
the prosecution, the accused may file his counter-
affidavits and serve the same on the prosecution within
three (3) days from such service.
8. Sec. 16. Arrest of accused — The court shall not
order the arrest of the accused except for failure to
appear whenever required. Release of the person
arrested shall either be on bail or on recognizance by
a responsible citizen acceptable to the court.
9. Sec. 17. Judgment. — Where a trial has been
conducted, the court shall promulgate the judgment
not later than thirty (30) days after the termination of
trial.
Prohibited Pleadings, Motions and Petitions in Summary
Procedure; Civil and Criminal Cases
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions — The
following pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be
allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:
a. Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the
complaint or information except on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure
to comply with the preceding section;
b. Motion for a bill of particulars;
c. Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a
judgment, or for opening of trial;
d. Petition for relief from judgment;
e. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
affidavits or any other paper;
f. Memoranda;
g. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition
against any interlocutory order issued by the court;
h. Motion to declare the defendant in default;
i. Dilatory motions for postponement;
j. Reply;
k. Third party complaints;
l. Interventions.
2012 Bar, Q. 34: In a criminal case for violation of a city
ordinance, the court may issue a warrant of arrest:
a. for failure of the accused to submit his counter-
affidavit.
b. after finding probable cause against the accused.
c. for failure of the accused to post bail.
d. for non-appearance in court whenever required.
A: (d). The criminal case for violation of a city ordinance is
governed by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
Under the said Rule, the court shall not order the arrest of
the accused except for failure to appear whenever
required (Sec. 16, 1991 Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure). Accordingly, the court may issue a warrant of
arrest for non-appearance of the accused whenever
required in a criminal case for infraction of a city
ordinance.
2004 Bar, Q. II(B): Charged with the offense of slight
physical injuries under an information duly filed with the
MeTC in Manila which in the meantime had duly issued
an order declaring that the case shall be governed by the
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, the accused filed
with said court a motion to quash on the sole ground that
the officer who filed the information had no authority to
do so. The MeTC denied the motion on the ground that it
is a prohibited motion under the said Rule.
The accused thereupon filed with the RTC in Manila a
petition for certiorari in sum assailing and seeking the
nullification of the MeTC's denial of his motion to quash.
The RTC in due time issued an order denying due course
to the certiorari petition on the ground that it is not
allowed by the said Rule. The accused forthwith filed
with said RTC a motion for reconsideration of its said
order. The RTC in time denied said motion for
reconsideration on the ground that the same is also a
prohibited motion under the said Rule.
Were the RTC's orders denying due course to the petition
as well as denying the motion for reconsideration
correct? Reason
A: The RTC's orders denying due course to the petition for
certiorari as well as denying the motion for
reconsideration are both not correct. The petition for
certiorari is a prohibited pleading under Section 19(g) of
the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure and the motion
for reconsideration, while it is not prohibited motion
(Lucas v. Fabros, AM No. MTJ-99-1226, January 31, 2000,
citing Joven v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 700, 707-708
(1992), should be denied because the petition for
certiorari is a prohibited pleading.
2004 Bar, Q. VII(B): SPO1 CNC filed with the MTC in
Quezon City (MeTC-QC) a sworn written statement duly
subscribed by him, charging RGR (an actual resident of
Cebu City) with the offense of slight physical injuries
allegedly inflicted on SPS (an actual resident of Quezon
City). The Judge of the branch to which the case was
raffled thereupon issued an order declaring that the case
shall be governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure in
criminal cases. Soon thereafter, the Judge ordered the
dismissal of the case for the reason that it was not
commenced by information, as required by said Rule.
Sometime later, based on the same facts giving rise to
the slight physical injuries case, the City Prosecutor filed
with the same MeTC-QC an information for attempted
homicide against the same RGR. In due time, before
arraignment, RGR moved to quash the information on
the ground of double jeopardy and after due hearing, the
Judge granted his motion.
Was the dismissal of the complaint for slight physical
injuries proper? Was the grant of the motion to quash
the attempted homicide information correct? Reason
A: Yes, the dismissal of the complaint for slight physical
injuries is proper because in Metropolitan Manila and in
chartered cities, the case has to be commenced only by
information. (Sec. 11, Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure).
No, the grant of the motion to quash the attempted
homicide information on the ground of double jeopardy
was not correct, because there was no valid prosecution
for slight physical injuries.
1989 Bar, Q. XVI(1): Edison was charged with the crime of
less serious physical injuries in the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Manila. Under the Revised Penal Code, the
penalty prescribed for this offense is arresto mayor,
Aside from the recital of the facts constituting the
offense, the information alleged that the offended party
suffered actual damages in the amount of P25,000.
Instead of submitting his counter-affidavits as required
by the court, Edison filed a “motion to quash” contending
that the court had no jurisdiction over the case since the
amount claimed as damages exceeds the jurisdic-tional
limit of trial courts in civil cases. If you were the judge
trying the case, what would you do with the-motion
filed? How would you dispose of the question of
jurisdiction raised in the said motion? Explain.
A: I would deny the motion to quash inasmuch as such a
motion is not allowed in Summary Procedure. The criminal
case where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense
charged does not exceed six months of imprisonment is
governed by Summary procedure.
On the question of jurisdiction, Summary Procedure
applies irrespective of the civil liability arising from the
offense. Hence the fact that the civil liability exceeds
P2Q,000 does not deprive the Metropolitan Trial Court of
jurisdiction. (Sec. B-4)
1989 Bar, Q. XVI(2): An information for slight physical
injuries was filed against Diego in the Municipal Trial
Court of Cainta, after which the judge directed him to
appear and submit counter- affidavits and those of his
witnesses on September 12, 1989. Diego failed to appear
on the said date. Thereafter, the judge rendered
judgment convicting Diego of the offense charged based
on the affidavits submitted by the complainant. Diego
contends that this judgment is a nullity. Decide.
A: Diego’s contention is correct. Under Summary
Procedure rules, the failure of Diego to appear and submit
counter-affidavits on the date specified may be a ground
for the judge to issue a warrant for his arrest upon a
finding of probable cause. However, the judge may not
render a judg-ment of conviction of the offense charged
based on the affidavits submitted by the complainant. He
should set the case for arraignment and trial if Diego
pleads not guilty. Only after trial may the judge render a
judgment of conviction. (Secs. 10 and 11)
1988 Bar, Q. XIV(b): In what criminal cases is the
Summary Procedure before Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
applicable?
A: It is applicable in the following criminal cases:
1. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
2. Violations of the rental law;
3. Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
4. All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed
by law for the offense charged does not exceed six
months of imprisonment, or a fine of one thousand
pesos (PI,000.00), or both, irrespective of other
imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the
civil liability arising therefrom: Provided, however,
that in offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence, this Rule shall govern
where the imposable fine does not exceed ten
thousand pesos (P10,600 00). (Sec. 1-B)
5. Through criminal negligence, this Rule shall govern
where the imposable fine does not exceed ten
thousand pesos (P10,600 00). (Sec. 1-B)
Ana Lou Navaja v. Hon. De Castro
G.R. No. 182926, June 22, 2015
Doctrine: The venue if criminal actions for falsification of
public document is the place where the document was
falsified to the prejudice of or with the intent to prejudice
a third person, regardless whether or not the falsified
document is put to the improper or illegal use for which it
was intended.
Facts:
1. A complaint-affidavit was filed by private respondent
DKT Phil. Inc. against Navaja charging her of
falsification of private document.
2. Navaja filed a Motion to Quash on the ground that
none of the essential elements of the crime of
falsification of private document occurred in Jagna,
Bohol, hence, the MCTC had no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the case due to improper venue. This
was denied by the MCTC. MR was denied
3. On petition for certiorari, the RTC denied the petition
of lack of merit
4. On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the decision of the
RTC. MR was denied
5. Hence, this petition
Issue: WON the venue for falsification of private
document was improperly laid
Held:
1. Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of
jurisdiction. This principle was explained by the Court
in Foz, Jr. v. People, thus:
It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be
acquired by courts in criminal cases the offense should
have been committed or any one of its essential
ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of
the court. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the
territory where the court has jurisdiction to take
cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed
therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction
over a person charged with an offense allegedly
committed outside of that limited territory. Furthermore,
the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is
determined by the allegations in the complaint or
information. And once it is so shown, the court may validly
take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence
adduced during the trial show that the offense was
committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the
action for want of jurisdiction.
2. In determining the venue where the criminal action is
to be instituted and the court which has jurisdiction
 over it, Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried in the court or municipality or territory
where the offense was committed or where any of its
essential ingredients occurred.
3. Section 10, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure pertinently states:
Place of commission of the offense. – The complaint or
information is sufficient if it can be understood from its
allegations that the offense was committed or some of its
essential ingredients occurred at some place within the
jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place where
it was committed constitutes an essential element of the
offense charged or is necessary for its identification.
4. In Union Bank of the Philippines v. People, the Court
said that both provisions categorically place the
venue and jurisdiction over criminal cases not only in
the court where the offense was committed, but also
where any of its essential ingredients took place. In
other words, the venues of action and of jurisdiction
are deemed sufficiently alleged where the
Information states that the offense was committed
or some of its essential ingredients occurred at a
place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
5. In cases of falsification of private documents, the
venue is the place where the document is actually
falsified, to the prejudice of or with the intent to
prejudice a third person, regardless whether or not
the falsified document is put to the improper or
illegal use for which it was intended.
6. Contrary to Navaja's argument that the MCTC of
Jagna, Bohol, has no jurisdiction over the case
because not one of the essential elements of
falsification of private document was committed
within its jurisdiction, the allegations in the
Information and the complaint-affidavit make out a
prima facie case that such crime was committed in
Jagna, Bohol. In particular, the Information clearly
alleged that she committed such crime thereat
7. Likewise, the Complaint-Affidavit dated February 18,
2004 alleged that the she committed the said crime
in Jagna, Bohol
8. Guided by the settled rule that the jurisdiction of the
court is determined by the allegations of the
complaint or information and not by the result of
proof, the Court holds that Navaja's case for
falsification of private document falls within the
territorial jurisdiction of the MCTC of Jagna, Bohol.
9. Meanwhile, Navaja's defense that it was impossible
for her to have committed the crime in Jagna, Bohol,
cannot be sustained at this point where the
prosecution has yet to present evidence to prove the
material allegations of the charge against her, which
include the place where the subject receipt was
falsified.
10. However, given that the defense of lack of jurisdiction
due to improper venue may be raised at any stage of
the proceeding, the Court stresses that if the
evidence adduced during the trial would show that
the crime was indeed committed outside its territorial
jurisdiction, the MCTC should dismiss the case based
on such ground.
11. Wherefore, the petition is DENIED.
Dazon v. Yap and People
G.R. No. 157095, January 15, 2010
Facts:
1. Respondent Yap was the President of Primetown
Property Group, Inc. (PPGI).
2. In November 1996, petitioner Dazon entered into
contract with PPGI for the purchase of a
Condominium unit. Dazon made downpayment and
installments. Unfortunately for her, the condominium
was not completed by PPGI
3. This prompted Dazon to demand refund of what she
has paid pursuant to P.D. 957, Sec. 23 but PPGI failed
to pay
4. Petitioner filed a criminal complaint with the OCP of
Lapu-Lapu City against respondent as President of
PPGI for violation of P.D. 957. Subsequently an
Information was filed against him.
5. Respondent filed a Petition for Review with the DOJ.
The DOJ ordered the withdrawal of the Information.
Hence, the Prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw,
which was eventually granted. MR was denied
6. Hence, this petition.
Issue: WON the RTC has jurisdiction over a criminal
action for violation of P.D. 957
Held:
1. The primordial function of the HLURB is the
regulation of the real estate trade and business.
Though the agency's jurisdiction has been expanded
by law, it has not grown to the extent of
encompassing the conviction and punishment of
criminals.
2. The petition is impressed with merit.
3. A perusal of the allegations in the complaint-affidavit
would show complainant's grievance against
respondent was the failure of the latter's firm to
refund the payments she made for one of the units in
the aborted Mactan condominium project in the total
amount of P1,114,274.30.
4. As early as in the case of Solid Homes, Inc. vs.
Payawal, the SC had ruled that the HLURB has
exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving real estate
business and practices under P.D. 957.
5. Of significant relevance is the following
pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Raet vs. CA,
as follows:
The contention has merit. The decision in the ejectment
suit is conclusive only on the question of possession of the
subject premises. It does not settle the principal question
involved in the present case, namely, whether there was
perfected contract of sale between petitioners and
private respondent PVDHC involving the units in
question. Under 8(100) of E.O. No. 648 dated February 7,
1981, as amended by E.O. No. 90 dated December 17,
1986 this question is for the HLURB to decide. The said
provision of law gives that agency the power to:
(a) Hear and decide cases of unsound real estate
business practices;
(b) Claims involving refund filed against project owners,
developers, dealers, brokers, or salesmen; and
(c) Cases of specific performance.
This jurisdiction of the HLURB is exclusive. It has been
held to extend to the determination of the question
whether there is a perfected contract of sale between
condominium buyers and [the] developer
In fine, the Rule of Law dictates that we should yield to
this judicial declaration upholding the jurisdiction of the
HLURB over cases of this nature.
Hence, there is a need for the Court to make a definite
ruling on a question of law - the matter of jurisdiction over
the criminal aspect of PD 957.
Jurisdiction over criminal actions arising from violations
of PD 957 is vested in the regular courts.
6. Jurisdiction is" conferred by law and determined by
the material averments in the complaint as well as
the character of the relief sought.
7. The scope and limitation of the jurisdiction of the
HLURB are well-defined. Its precursor, the National
Housing Authority (NHA), was vested under P.D. 957
with exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real estate
trade and business, specifically the registration of
subdivision or condominium projects and dealers,
brokers and salesmen of subdivision lots or
condominium units, issuance and suspension of
license to sell; and revocation of registration
certificate and license to sell. Its jurisdiction was later
expanded under PD 1344 (1978) to include
adjudication of certain cases, to wit:
Sec. 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real
estate trade and business and in addition to its powers
provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National
Housing Authority shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to
hear and decide cases of the following nature:
(a) Unsound real estate business practices;
(b) Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by
subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the
project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman;
and
(c) Cases involving specific performance of contractual
and statutory obligations filed by buyers of
subdivision lot or condominium unit against the
owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman
8. It is a settled rule of statutory construction that the
express mention of one thing in the law means the
exclusion of others not expressly mentioned. This
rule is expressed in the familiar maxim expressio
unius est exclusio alterius.
9. Where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to
certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or
construction, be extended to others. The rule
proceeds from the premise that the legislature would
not have made specified enumerations in a statute
had the intention been not to restrict its meaning and
to confine its terms to statute had the intention been
not to restrict its meaning and to confine its terms to
those expressly mentioned.
10. Noticeably, cases that are criminal in nature are not
mentioned in the enumeration quoted above. The
primordial function of the HLURB, after all, is the
regulation of the real estate trade and business and
not the conviction and punishment of criminals.
11. "It may be conceded that the legislature may confer
on administrative boards or bodies quasi-judicial
powers involving the exercise of judgment and
discretion, as incident to the performance of
administrative functions. But in so doing, the
legislature must state its intention in express terms
that would leave no doubt, as even such quasi-
judicial prerogatives must be limited, if they are to
be valid, only to those incidental to or in connection
with the performance of administrative duties,
which do not amount to conferment of jurisdiction
over a matter exclusively vested in the courts".
12. Administrative agencies being tribunals of limited
jurisdiction can only wield such powers as are
specifically granted to them by their enabling
statutes. P.D. 957 makes the following specific grant
of powers to the NHA (now HLURB) for the imposition
of administrative fines, and it also mentions penalties
for criminal cases, to wit:
Sec. 38. Administrative Fine – The Authority may prescribe
and impose fines not exceeding ten thousand pesos
(P10,000) for violations of the provisions of this Decree or
any rule or regulation thereunder. Fines shall be payable
to the Authority and enforceable through writs of
execution in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of
Court.
Sec. 39. Penalties – Any person who shall violate any of the
provisions of this Decree and/or any rule or regulation that
may be issued pursuant to this Decree shall, upon
conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than twenty
thousand (P20,000.00) pesos and/or imprisonment of not
more than ten years: Provided, That in the case of
corporations, partnership, cooperatives, or associations,
the President, Manager or Administrator or the person
who has charge of the administration of the business shall
be criminally responsible for any violation of this/Decree
and/or the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant
thereto,
13. Having limited, under Section 38 of P.D. 957, the
grant of power to the former NHA, now HLURB, over
the imposition of fines to those which do not exceed
ten thousand pesos, it is clear that the power in
relation to criminal liability mentioned in the
immediately succeeding provision, to impose, upon
conviction, fines above ten thousand pesos and/or
imprisonment, was not conferred on it. Section 39,
unlike Section 38, conspicuously does not state that it
is the MIA that may impose the punishment specified
therein.
14. Not having been specifically conferred with power
to hear and decide cases which are criminal in
nature, as well as to impose penalties therefor, we
find that the HLURB has no jurisdiction over criminal
actions arising from violations of PD 957.
15. On the other hand, B.P. 129 states:
Sec. 20. Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases – Regional Trial
Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all
criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
court, tribunal or body, except those now falling under the
exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by
the latter.
16. Based on the above-quoted provision, it is the RTC
that has jurisdiction over criminal cases arising from
violations of PD 957.
17. In the present case, the affidavit-complaint alleges
the violation of Section 23 of PD 957 and asks for the
institution of a criminal action against respondent
Yap, as President of Primetown.
18. The OCP found probable cause for the filing of an
Information for the subject offense. The DOJ made
no reversal of such finding of probable cause.
19. Instead, it directed the withdrawal of the
information on the erroneous premise that it is the
HLURB which has jurisdiction over the case.
20. However, as above-discussed, and contrary to the
resolution of the Secretary of Justice, it is not the
HLURB but the RTC that has jurisdiction to hear the
said criminal action.
21. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
Miscellaneous
1990 Bar, Q. XVII:
(a) Does a court martial have jurisdiction to try and
convict a soldier, a policeman and a civilian for
alleged conspiracy in the crime of murder? Explain
your answer.
(b) May a member of the military, who committed
certain violations of the Articles of War, be tried by a
court martial even after his discharge from the
military service? Discuss with reasons